Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Peter Wilson
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ken G
There are two problems with Peter Wilson's idea:
1) it contains no new physics, so should not reach any conclusions that the current standard model is not already reaching, unless it can show that an error is being made in the standard analysis...
|
That is my point exactly! You do not need "new physics" to explain the expansion! The "standard model" presupposes an explosion, |
"expansion" would be a much more suitable term
Quote:
|
then uses GR to track how the explosion evolves.
|
One of the many, common misunderstandings about the BB (see
here for an attempt to set the public record straight)
Quote:
|
And the results look nothing like what we see! Hence, the flatness problem, the horizon problem, the singularity problem, the missing magnetic monopole problem, the ancient galaxy problem, the acceleration problem...
|
Before you get too carried away with these, don't you think it might be sensible idea to check them out? Maybe they're not the kind of 'problems' you seem to be claiming (e.g. 'singularity problem' - without a theory that unifies quantum theory and GR, this cannot go away)
Quote:
|
The Big Bang model is a completely wrong on 6 of its 8 predictions.
|
And which 6 (8) would they be?
Quote:
|
But instead of re-examining the initial hypothesis, one ad-hoc conjecture after another has been "piled on:" Inflation, dark energy, colliding branes in extra dimensions... None of these "theories" have a shred of observational evidence, except that they "save" the Big Bang theory!
|
Oh my goodness, another collection of misunderstandings, errors, and plain nonsense. Please do read the webpage for which I provided a link earlier in this post.
Quote:
|
This is not science. (www.cosmologystatement.org/) If a theory yields 6 completely wrong predictions (and the microwave background is only half-right...but that is another subject), then it is time to try another hypothesis.
|
Oh dear,
Peter Wilson, to what extent have you checked out the claims on that website? Would you be prepared to defend them, here in the ATM section of BAUT (under the BAUT rules)?
If you aren't prepared to defend the claims made there, why do you feel it is appropriate to repeat them here, in BAUT (a science-based discussion forum)? I'm serious; the number of BAUT members who post here with cases that amount to little more than "
the concordance model MUST BE WRONG! {insert your favourite non-science/nonsense internet website here} said so!! I read what's on those sites AND THEY MUST, MUST BE RIGHT in what they write!!" is depressing (or perhaps it's the number who are utterly unable to defend such claims, when challenged to do so).
Quote:
|
The Big Bang model has tried to explain the present expansion in terms of a singular event in the past.
|
Really? Please provide a link to a much-cited, peer-reviewed paper which makes such claims (not an internet popularisation).
Quote:
|
This approach has completely failed. What I am saying is, look for an explanation in the present.
|
Oh good, you are making a clear assertion - so now we can attack your claim with glee and fervour (per the BAUT rules), and you will defend your claim?
Quote:
Presently, the moon’s orbit is expanding, because presently, the earth is spinning. Presently, the sun is expanding, because presently, nuclear reactions are taking place in its core. Presently, the Atlantic Ocean is expanding, because presently, geologic forces are at work beneath it. And presently, the universe is expanding, because presently, something is causing it to expand.
And that "something" could be any number of things, but radiant energy is one obvious source. I have estimated the quantity of radiant energy (two posts up). It is such a crude estimate, it could easily be off by 2 orders of magnitude (OOMs), either way. Do you agree that my number for the radiant energy is "in the ball park" (within 2 OOMs)? If not, what is it? If visible matter is not radiating energy at about 1 joule/kg/yr, then what is the rate?
I will quickly concede that the theory is inadequate...if the numbers are wrong. But before we can agree or disagree whether the numbers are right, we have to agree on what the numbers are.
|
And if you would like to take the time to read up on GR, you will see that the 'expansive' capability of radiation is already included in the equations, when GR is applied to the universe as a whole.
Further, you will learn that there was once a 'radiation dominated era', but now it's a 'matter dominated era' (in modern cosmology, these terms are precisely defined, tested, and match good observational and experimental results very well).
If you'd like to continue with your idea, I'll happily continue to question you about it; in particular, about your estimates, how you derived them, how you think they apply, etc. Yes? No? Maybe (need more time to consider)?