Could Dark Matter Possibly Be . . .

[Sputnick]

... why through a Big Bang?

Science favors simple explanations. You say nature favors simple mechanisms. Theories involving a "Big Bang", according to you and according to science, have simplicity on their side because they require only a single event. I'm sorry, what was I thinking? Everyone knows I can't answer "why".

Apodman - Simplicity? What is simple about packing the known universe into a singularity? Much simpler to use Pascual Jordan's method of small quantum disturbance in nothing to create everything .. a star (and everything else?) could be made out of nothing because 'At the point of zero volume its negative gravitational energy would precislely cancel out is positive mass energy.' Jordan is a VERY VERY interesting person .. easily found by a web search.

... the Big Bang never happened.

Whatever you want to call it, it's still happening; the universe is just at a later stage of expansion than when it was small and hot.

[astrolabe]

Hello All,

I have stated in an earlier post that I had, and still have, problems with the BBT even though rigorous testing in all aspects of cosmology support that theory over other models. My problem was also WRT the singularity issue. But there is the idea the BB occured everywhere at once which, IMHO, makes more sense.

[Sputnick]

Hello All,

I have stated in an earlier post that I had, and still have, problems with the BBT even though rigorous testing in all aspects of cosmology support that theory over other models. My problem was also WRT the singularity issue. But there is the idea the BB occured everywhere at once which, IMHO, makes more sense.

Like I said - Pascual Jordan (look him up - very impressive credentials) suggested a quantum fluctuation in nothing could create everything. Anything divided by infinity equals nothing - so nothing multiplied by infinity equals everything .. or so it seems.

[Chris Peterson]

Like I said - Pascual Jordan (look him up - very impressive credentials) suggested a quantum fluctuation in nothing could create everything. Anything divided by infinity equals nothing - so nothing multiplied by infinity equals everything .. or so it seems.

He was a quantum physicist, not a cosmologist. And the observation you quoted (I don't know the exact context, so it's hard to know his intent) is without basis. A speculation, maybe not even that. There's not a shred of actual evidence that stars are, or can be, created from nothing. On the other hand, we now observe thousands of stars in all stages of development, and those observations fully support modern theories of stellar formation- theories that don't depend on esoteric quantum mechanics.

Again, this comes down to a simple question: what is more likely, that stars form by converting gravitational energy to heat, or that stars form out of "quantum fluctuations"? The former is very probable, the latter only remotely possible.

[astrolabe]

Hello Sputnick,

I can't imagine myself what kind of fluctuation at the quantum level would result in the universe that is perceived by us at so many wavelengths of visible and invisible spectrums but I will say this: I am of the firm opinion that to each and every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. We've all heard this countless times and so while BBT, Static Universe Theory, and PC are the talk of the town, so to speak, I like to think along the lines that the universe came to be as a reaction to.........what.

We may differ on the current issues of the "hows" of the beginning and workings of things but the "whys" would be much worse. So for me, the BBT, SUT, PC and the like is purely an exercise in the best collection of the best science.

[Sputnick]

Like I said - Pascual Jordan (look him up - very impressive credentials) suggested a quantum fluctuation in nothing could create everything. Anything divided by infinity equals nothing - so nothing multiplied by infinity equals everything .. or so it seems.

[quote=Chris He was a quantum physicist, not a cosmologist. And the observation you quoted (I don't know the exact context, so it's hard to know his intent) is without basis. A speculation, maybe not even that. There's not a shred of actual evidence that stars are, or can be, created from nothing. On the other hand, we now observe thousands of stars in all stages of development, and those observations fully support modern theories of stellar formation- theories that don't depend on esoteric quantum mechanics.

Again, this comes down to a simple question: what is more likely, that stars form by converting gravitational energy to heat, or that stars form out of "quantum fluctuations"? The former is very probable, the latter only remotely possible.

So you're going to ignore one of the founders of Quantum Physics who would have been a Nobel winner if he were not a member of the Nazi party just because he was a quantum physicist and not a cosmologist. You are certainly selective in whom you learn from.

Chris - Anything divided by infinity is 0: Therefore 0 multiplied by infinity is everything. Very simple math. Even I can understand it.

[bystander]

Anything divided by infinity is 0: Therefore 0 multiplied by infinity is everything. Very simple math. Even I can understand it.

Your understanding is flawed. Zero times Infinity is an indeterminate form. That is to say, not defined.

[bystander]

Anything divided by infinity is 0: Therefore 0 multiplied by infinity is everything. Very simple math. Even I can understand it.

Your understanding is flawed. Zero times Infinity is an indeterminate form. That is to say, not defined.

[Chris Peterson]

So you're going to ignore one of the founders of Quantum Physics who would have been a Nobel winner if he were not a member of the Nazi party just because he was a quantum physicist and not a cosmologist. You are certainly selective in whom you learn from.

Of course I'm selective in who I learn from! I think one of your biggest problems is that you're not. Indeed, I am not going to place much value in this one comment by somebody who died before much of what we have now observed was even known.

Chris - Anything divided by infinity is 0: Therefore 0 multiplied by infinity is everything. Very simple math. Even I can understand it.

And it is 100% wrong.

[Sputnick]

Anything divided by infinity is 0: Therefore 0 multiplied by infinity is everything. Very simple math. Even I can understand it.

Your understanding is flawed. Zero times Infinity is an indeterminate form. That is to say, not defined.

the best I can do is to say if it's not defined my statement is possible.

[Sputnick]

So you're going to ignore one of the founders of Quantum Physics who would have been a Nobel winner if he were not a member of the Nazi party just because he was a quantum physicist and not a cosmologist. You are certainly selective in whom you learn from.

=Chris Of course I'm selective in who I learn from! I think one of your biggest problems is that you're not. Indeed, I am not going to place much value in this one comment by somebody who died before much of what we have now observed was even known.

Well, you've already said there's nothing more Einstein can teach you.

[Chris Peterson]

Well, you've already said there's nothing more Einstein can teach you.

Please do not put words in my mouth, or invent things I never said. If you persist in doing so, I would ask that a moderator remove your postings.

[bystander]

the best I can do is to say if it's not defined my statement is possible.

From the wiki article on indeterminate forms: "In the context of measure theory, it is usual to take 0×∞ to be 0."

[Sputnick]

Well, you've already said there's nothing more Einstein can teach you.

Please do not put words in my mouth, or invent things I never said. If you persist in doing so, I would ask that a moderator remove your postings.

You said it and you know it. And if a moderator hasn't spoken to you about some of your obnoxious posts by now it means they aren't doing their jobs properly .. and I've already suggested as much to one or two of them. You know Chris, I really don't care what you say about anything anymore. You're an amaterur astronomer, not a professiional. You may have learned some basic physics somewhere but you haven't advanced. You have a totally unprofessional attitude .. and as far as the forum itself goes, I realize I can learn so little here that it's better for me to leave before my mind gets corrupted. I'm already angry about what's going on, the way I'm accused of being a shit disturber, and I don't like anger. Knowledge on this forum? Even the most knowledgeable, Neufer, a man I respect tremendously for his knowledge, ability and willingness to communicate in an intelligent way, said he hadn't heard of Pascual Jordan. With a data base like that, what could someone who really wants to explore space and physics learn here except how to mix baking powder and vinegar. There is no point in me reading nay of your posts, and I may not look in here for some time anyway. So I hope you spend some time reading some books and learning things you weren't aware of. Best Wishes.

[astrolabe]

Hello Sputnick,

I almost couldn't believe my own eyes when your post mentioned baking soda and vinegar in your post! That was exactly the analogy I was going to use for a visual in trying to describe the expansion within the universe resulting from the concept of Dark Energy. While I can't begin to understand the physics or quantum mechanics involved, I think the space expands because it has to..........as a reaction to a catalyst of some sort. Of course with no science or testing along those lines I can only state it as an opinion- not even as an assumption (thin ice!). To some, or even most cosmologists the idea of a universe coming into existence as a reaction to an action could not be empirically proven AFAIK do would probably be a futile exercise; but I believe it none the less. so DE may not be one thing operating but the result of two or more things occuring that end up as one thing observed as happening.

Just a muse or two. Acid and base- you know?

[makc]

Please do not put words in my mouth, or invent things I never said. If you persist in doing so, I would ask that a moderator remove your postings.

I highly doubt that there is a valid reason to remove this kind of postings. If he had put a text inside [quote="Chris Peterson"]..[/quote], then it could indeed be edited out.

...if a moderator hasn't spoken to you about some of your obnoxious posts by now it means they aren't doing their jobs properly ..

We may not do the job properly by allowing these threads to grow for this large. Let me use this opportunity to fix this by locking it. I will contact Nereid about other threads as well.