Date: 28 Sep 2006 14:40:11
From: George Dishman
Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang?
|
"Max Keon" <maxkeon@optusnet.com.au > wrote in message
news:4518ee5a$0$11970$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
>
> "George Dishman" <george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:ef69n0$9iv$1@news.freedom2surf.net...
>> "Max Keon" <maxkeon@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
>> news:4516868f$0$9241$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
>>>
>>> George Dishman wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Max Keon wrote:
> ------
> ------
>>> That era was
>>> still just as far removed from the origin as it is today. The
>>> big bang theory does NOT describe a universe at all, it merely
>>> describes an observation.
>
>> That is all science ever does Max, it describes
>> observations in a mathematical manner that allows
>> quantitative predictions. Your anisotropy is a
>> theory IMO since you have the equations to calculate
>> the predicted value. You discussion of the origins
>> on the other hand is merely philosophical since you
>> cannot derive it from the anisotropy equations.
>
> But the gravity anisotropy is a consequence of the origin.
Prove it. Show the maths that derives anisotropy
from the postulate.
> If the
> anisotropy exists, it confirms the origin to some degree. The
> origin becomes increasingly valid as more of its predicions are
> confirmed, mathematically if need be. i.e. The CMBR.
The CMBR doesn't indicate anisotropy of gravity.
> But how does one confirm an origin that doesn't predict anything?
One cannot therefore it would be speculation.
>>>> I find it somewhat hypocritical that you should say
>>>> that when your previous criticism was "Your model
>>>> doesn't say anything, it postulates it."
>>>
>>> That wasn't being hypocritical George. The only postulate required
>>> in the zero origin universe is the infinitesimally minute origin.
>
>> Exactly. To be any better than that, you have to
>> derive the claim from your equations, and those
>> equation have to be derived from actaul observation.
>
>>> Even if your model doesn't make any direct prediction, it does
>>> predict that the origin contained the entire matter of the universe
>>> in some indeterminate "state" of non existence.
>
>> Nope, it does nothing of the kind.
>
> Then you don't have a theory of a universe.
Of course we do Max, it is a model that covers
the whole universe with a bound just after the
beginning and spatial bounds inside the event
horizon of black holes. The cosmological
principle can be used to extend it beyond the
limits of what we can see though that could
reasonably be called speculative.
>>> That prediction
>>> postulates that matter can somehow be "housed" in such a manner.
>>> An origin of absolutely nothing is by **far** the more logical.
>
>> It is totally illogical since there is then no manner
>> in which matter can be created yet we see it everywhere
>> today. We are made of the stuff!
>
> The relationship between the very first infinitesimally minor
> signs of existence that opened up time and dimension should never
> have come to be because nothing existed prior to that event.
OK, so there's another logical flaw.
<snip philosophy >
> The process of pair creation (e- e+) is predicted to increase at
> a squaring rate per time.
>
> That is the prediction George.
Then is is shown to be false Max - where are
all the positrons? There should be an equal
amount of anti-matter in our galaxy by that
prediction.
> Try doing that with your universe.
Sorry, my model doesn't go back to baryogenesis.
Real scientific theories have limits Max, what
you are doing is philosophy, not science.
<restoring the context: >
>>>>> The predicted chemical abundance that you mention above is only
>>>>> in agreement with the observed values so long as the universe is
>>>>> actually expanding. But what if it's not? What if you're seeing
>>>>> a universe that's evolving from an origin of absolutely nothing?
>>>>
>>>> If it isn't expanding there was never a time when the
>>>> temperature was high enough to create matter so
>>>> there should still be 'absolutely nothing', no matter
>>>> whatsoever. If it started with sub-atomic particles,
>>>> the lone neutrons would have decayed (half-life about
>>>> 13 minutes) into protons and electrons so there would
>>>> be nothing but hydrogen and material produced by stellar
>>>> processes. Instead, we see a quarter of all matter is helium.
> ------
> ------
>
>>> Neutrons are not involved in the initial part of any stellar
>>> process, as you are well aware, but they most certainly have had
>>> time and reason to form.
>
>> But neutrons don't just form Max, in isolation they
>> simply break up and you are left with hydrogen.
>
> Why would they be in isolation within a forming star?
The stars would be formed from pure hydrogen and
could produce helium but other elements would be
formed too. I am talking about Pop I stars which
have 75% hydrogen and 25% helium but with
negligible amounts of anything else. These should
not exist in your universe.
> ------
> ------
>
>>>>> I'm trying hard to understand where the big bang theory is going
>>>>> to lead us.
>>>>
>>>> It tells us how the universe evolved from what you called
>>>> an intermediate state
>>>
>>> That word was "indeterminate", not intermediate.
>
>> Sorry, I misread it. The state was fairly well known
>> just before nucleogenesis as an equilibrium mix of
>> sub-atomic particles.
>
> Has that been observed, ...
It is a prediction of conditions in the early
universe based on the measured characteristic
of particles from high energy physics
experiments where the conditions are similar.
> .. or is it a prediction that points backward
> toward the origin?
> Which is a back to front way of doing things.
No, it is the right way to do things, science
extrapolates from what can be measured.
> The zero origin concept predicts from the origin out.
That is a more philosophical approach but if
you can turn that into a postulate from which
numerical predictions can be made then you can
in theory confirm the postulate.
>>> And all the math in the world will not make your personal guess
>>> anywhere near as good. I have no idea why you have such confidence
>>> in it.
>
>> I have no confidence in personal guesses whatsoever
>> and that includes your. The only thing I have
>> confidence in is maths that has been proven to
>> accurately represent what we measure. GR falls
>> into that category.
>
> Maths only confirms what it's designed to confirm. It can be
> nothing more than a facade when applied with bias.
Wrong, 2+2=4 no matter how biased you are.
>>> On the subject of math, the manner in which you worded a reply to
>>> another poster "Chris L Peterson", regarding my proposed gravity
>>> anisotropy, strongly suggests that I was wrong. If you do have
>>> anything to add to that thread, feel free to do so.
>
>> I'll reply separately to that. This thread
>> is getting bogged down and going nowhere so
>> perhaps we should cull it.
>
> It was never going anywhere anyway because you cannot accept my
> viewpoint anymore than I can accept yours. This debate has never
> been about us. But it's your call of course.
This is not going anywhere because your words
are all philosophical. If it continues that
way I'll probably drop it as I have too much
else on at the moment.
George
|
