CarlosFandangos wrote:

Should a theory of the initial conditions one day gain lots of observational support and make testable predictions, we will have a few more shades of colour painted onto our incomplete picture of the Universe helping to fill some gaps in our understanding. apologies for the overuse of the word 'model'

Carlos... No problem with your explanation of how a theory can be changed, as new evidence becomes available. But... we are talking about radical new ideas...and ideas that are totally different. Evidence is proving that the traditional BBT is not possible and that is why more scientists are saying "It was certainly not the big bang. That is impossible." (see topic)

Its not a new phenomenom,... more and more scientists are saying "bye bye Big Bang" (traditional theory) I hope Dolorosa likes the slight change I made.

PhysOrg wrote:

According to the standard Big Bang theory, the universe began in a hot dense fireball about 13 billion years ago and has been expanding ever since. But despite plenty of evidence to support the theory, not everyone is convinced

http://phys.org/news4999.html

Longloadr wrote:

CarlosFandangos wrote: Should a theory of the initial conditions one day gain lots of observational support and make testable predictions, we will have a few more shades of colour painted onto our incomplete picture of the Universe helping to fill some gaps in our understanding. apologies for the overuse of the word 'model' Carlos... No problem with your explanation of how a theory can be changed, as new evidence becomes available. But... we are talking about radical new ideas...and ideas that are totally different. Evidence is proving that the traditional BBT is not possible and that is why more scientists are saying "It was certainly not the big bang. That is impossible." (see topic) Its not a new phenomenom,... more and more scientists are saying "bye bye Big Bang" (traditional theory) I hope Dolorosa likes the slight change I made. PhysOrg wrote: According to the standard Big Bang theory, the universe began in a hot dense fireball about 13 billion years ago and has been expanding ever since. But despite plenty of evidence to support the theory, not everyone is convinced http://phys.org/news4999.html

There are certainly some radical ideas, but we don't know what happened in that initial moment and their is no data that can tell/show us so there can/will be some amazing ideas that completely clash with eachother. Clearly you can't seem to grasp that this doesn't affect what we do know about what we can observe.


I completely disagree with you over the big bang being in crisis. Firstly you quote online sources 4+ years old so that's not good for a start. Secondly, they are just opinions and opinions do not theories make/break. Data does.

If some people don't like that we have to invoke dark matter (for which there is now compelling observational evidence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullet_Cluster) to explain things that doesn't change anything does it?

For instance, Einstein Podolsky and Rosen 'disliked' the idea of quantum systems not containing hidden variables, they didn't like an entirely probabilistic description of everything. This didn't change the fact though (experimentally verified) that they are wrong in their opinion and the Universe acts in ways they didn't particularly want it to. Too bad

Now if these theorists can devise experiments that will test their ideas and support their theory and not the big bang theory then we will have something to talk about. Right now as I mentioned before, the big bang theory is supported by a wealth of observational evidence and also some that no other theory can explain.

Longloadr wrote:

Evidence is proving that the traditional BBT is not possible

Please back up your statements, show me this evidence

aww was hoping for more of a debate than that


Anyway to those interested in the subject, a recent paper pre-print became available that is pretty interesting and relevant to the discussion. The authors conducted a huge survey and attempted to model observations with both dark matter models, and two non-dark matter requiring frameworks/theories (TeVeS - Tensor Vector Scalar Gravity which is a relativistic extension of MOND - Modified Newtonian Dynamics).

http://arxiv.org/abs/1205.4880


The results rule strongly in favour of the existence of dark matter, with some of the results requiring dark matter in the non-dark matter frameworks in order to describe them accurately.

Of course this isn't the end of non-dark matter theories, there are plenty more theories of gravity out there that attempt to explain nature without dark matter. For now though the evidence is certainly supporting dark matter's existence more than some people would have you think

So Longloadr,
please tell me in your own words, what you think is the difference between the "traditional" Big Bang Theory and "new" versions of it.
Saying "bye bye big bang" is more than exaggerating.

Sunny-Smile wrote:

So Longloadr, please tell me in your own words, what you think is the difference between the "traditional" Big Bang Theory and "new" versions of it. Saying "bye bye big bang" is more than exaggerating.

Saying BYE BYE certainly got under a few peoples skin didn't it? haha Yes, perhaps exaggerating, but just a wee bit. As to your question about "traditional"..... Scientific American will answer you.
Was the big bang really the beginning of time? Or did the universe exist before then? Such a question seemed almost blasphemous only a decade ago. Most cosmologists insisted that it simply made no sense--that to contemplate a time before the big bang was like asking for directions to a place north of the North Pole. But developments in theoretical physics, especially the rise of string theory, have changed their perspective. The pre-bang universe has become the latest frontier of cosmology. The new willingness to consider what might have happened before the bang is the latest swing of an intellectual pendulum that has rocked back and forth for millennia

Longloadr wrote:

Sunny-Smile wrote: So Longloadr, please tell me in your own words, what you think is the difference between the "traditional" Big Bang Theory and "new" versions of it. Saying "bye bye big bang" is more than exaggerating. Saying BYE BYE certainly got under a few peoples skin didn't it? haha Yes, perhaps exaggerating, but just a wee bit. As to your question about "traditional"..... Scientific American will answer you. Was the big bang really the beginning of time? Or did the universe exist before then? Such a question seemed almost blasphemous only a decade ago. Most cosmologists insisted that it simply made no sense--that to contemplate a time before the big bang was like asking for directions to a place north of the North Pole. But developments in theoretical physics, especially the rise of string theory, have changed their perspective. The pre-bang universe has become the latest frontier of cosmology. The new willingness to consider what might have happened before the bang is the latest swing of an intellectual pendulum that has rocked back and forth for millennia

Nah, not exaggeration, just a lot of bovine faecal matter

Just because someone uses 'big bang' in a sentence doesn't mean they are questioning the validity of the Big Bang Theory. Otherwise, cosmologists would be considering cars backfiring as a cause of big bang.

CarlosFandangos wrote:

Longloadr wrote: Evidence is proving that the traditional BBT is not possible Please back up your statements, show me this evidence ....... aww was hoping for more of a debate than that

haha... You missed me!!

I think it was Ari (not positive... it may even have been you?) who helped me out with this once, and he listed several problems with BBT. I forget what all the points were... I think you are likely well aware of them such as missing monopoles (Perhaps the universe never was super hot at the beginning?), Then there is missing anti-matter. Carlos, you understand this better than I, but with BBT, doesn't there have to be equal amounts of antimatter out there somewhere? I forget the list of problems, but i think the person (Ari?) listed 6 or so. We can have more fun with this topic if you wish... but don't be too disappointed when I disappear for a week or so at a time.

Dolorosa wrote:

Just because someone uses 'big bang' in a sentence doesn't mean they are questioning the validity of the Big Bang Theory. Otherwise, cosmologists would be considering cars backfiring as a cause of big bang.

So if they use those exact words of yours "questioning the valididity of Big Bang Theory"... then does that mean they are questioning it?

Eric Lerner, cosmologist and president of Lawrenceville Plasma Physics wrote:

Big bang theory relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities—things that we have never observed. Inflation, dark matter, and dark energy are the most prominent. Without them, there would be fatal contradictions between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory. But the big bang theory can’t survive without these fudge factors

Lerner went on to say "Our ideas about the history of the universe are dominated by big bang theory. But its dominance rests more on funding decisions than on the scientific method"
Bucking the Big Bang New Scientist

Longloadr wrote:

Dolorosa wrote: Just because someone uses 'big bang' in a sentence doesn't mean they are questioning the validity of the Big Bang Theory. Otherwise, cosmologists would be considering cars backfiring as a cause of big bang. So if they use those exact words of yours "questioning the valididity of Big Bang Theory"... then does that mean they are questioning it? Eric Lerner, cosmologist and president of Lawrenceville Plasma Physics wrote: Big bang theory relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities—things that we have never observed. Inflation, dark matter, and dark energy are the most prominent. Without them, there would be fatal contradictions between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory. But the big bang theory can’t survive without these fudge factors Lerner went on to say "Our ideas about the history of the universe are dominated by big bang theory. But its dominance rests more on funding decisions than on the scientific method" Bucking the Big Bang New Scientist

If you scroll through the posts before, Carlos posted a very good link that would answer the above But yes, to put it bluntly, when you are making such ridiculous claims it helps to support these with evidence. Saying that people disagree on the origins of the Universe and this somehow undermines the BBT is rather pathetic, since as you are perfectly aware that the origin of the Universe is not crucial to the BBT. You know it, I know, pretty much everyone here who reads the Science threads knows it, yet you choose to misrepresent the facts continuously in your trolling attempts as if someone might actually fall for it.

The bottom line is, all your scientific 'dilemmas' are about as much use as a chocolate fireguard, since there isn't a single piece of contradictory to Bible evidence that you would be willing to accept. So what's your point, besides trolling? Why can't you just be honest about your intentions here?