Talk:Big Bang/Archive 1

message: I removed the following text between "dominant" and "theory".  All current physical theories are incomplete, no? 
  , though incomplete, 
:The problem with that is the Big Bang is portrayed almost universally as the final word in cosmology.  Some people that dont see the word incomplete might never think twice about it, and never realize that it is indeed incomplete. -Ionized 16:39, Feb 15, 2004 (UTC)
::Right. Even more dangerous that the wikipedia is (also) meant for people who aren't too familiar with subtlieties of science, and may blindly believe what they read as "scientific information". So it should  be rather described as "..., though incomplete as all current physical theories, ..." Jim  08:27, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  "incomplete" 

message: I removed the word "scientific" from the front of "theory" in the second paragraph of Preamble.
The pont is that a theory in physics to be scientific has to be either consistent with the rest of physics or openly explain why it postulates new physics ("new physics" is physics without conservation of energy). The BB theory wouldn't work if energy couldn't be created from nothing since then photons would have distance dependent redshift even in a stationary space. According to Einsteinian gravitation this redshift would be within observational error of what is observed. But it doesn't seem good enough reason for postulating physics without conservation of energy.
Many people don't even know that Einsteinian gravitation with conservation of energy (unlike "general relativity", which is Einsteinian gravitation with conservation of energy removed for mathematical reasons) predicts parameters of accelerating expansion (apparent in this case) as they are measured in the real universe. Since those facts contradict the BB theory and not addressing facts that contradict one's theory is a basic sin against science (as explained by Feynman) the word "scientific" should be removed. 
IMHO we should face the fact that we don't have a scientific cosmological theory yet, and we better start treating the Einsteinian gravitation seriously, istead of switching back to the Newtonian gravitation with its "attractive" and now even "repulsive forces". Maybe after almost a century we should finally acknowlede the fact that "gravitational attraction" (or "repulsion") is gone from physics forever? Just a thought. Jim  11:02, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Your opinion is interesting, but non-notable. The Big Bang is a scientific theory in that it is consistent with physics. Conservation of coordinate energy is not demanded in GR -- conservation of energy is a local law that is due to a time symmetry (which doesn't exist in GR). 128.138.96.220 02:08, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "Scientific"

message: The black hole entry had a pre-existing weaknesses and criticisms section when I started editing it. I simply expanded the section to include some very common criticisms of big bang. If none of these valid criticisms belong in the entry then I would suggest moving all criticism of big bang to its own page rather than have all my relevant editions reversioned again. - Plautus satire 03:15, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is Criticism Appropriate? 

message: Some critics of big bang assert that only in a geocentric universe would isotropy be predicted by big bang hypotheses.
::: Again.  Just name a name.  Who makes this argument.  Arp doesn't.  Alfven doesn't.  Lerner doesn't.  Hoyle doesn't. Roadrunner 06:29, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Alfven is dead, while he was alive he was not a big bang believer. - Plautus satire 18:03, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Isotropy of observable universe 

message: Some critics of big bang argue that big bang hypotheses state alternately that big bang was an explosion and was not. For purposes of determining what is known as cosmic background radiation, big bang is assumed to have been an explosion, from which we should be able somehow, while being inside it, to see its lingering radiation. For purposes of evaluating observed violations of faster than light motion, big bang is assumed not to be an explosion but an explosive, true genesis of the universe at a tremendous rate.
::: Who makes this argument?  Alfven?  No.  Arp?  No.  Hoyle?  No. It's also a mistatement of the theory.  The cosmic microwave background is the point at which the universe becomes opaque.  Roadrunner 06:29, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: And this opacity has never been observed to exist. So cosmic microwave background radiation falsifies big bang if anything. - Plautus satire 18:04, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cosmic background radiation (blast radiation) 

message: Some critics of big bang point to the claim that there is an abundance of primordial elements in the universe as further circular logic behind big bang. It is assumed by big bang proponents that only big bang could produce deuterium, so any deuterium in a big bang universe must be a result of the big bang, and since deuterium is believed to be rapidly consumed by stars, the age of a big bang universe therefore is finite. Since the interpretation of the evidence relies on the foregone assumption that big bang did occur, this is a logical fallacy. Critics note that if big bang did not occur, then there is another way for deuterium to be created. Critics also remark that no evidence has yet surfaced that suggests the universe is being depleted of deuterium. Assumed abundance of deuterium neither verifies nor falsifies big bang hypotheses.
::: Who argues that the deuterium argument is circular?  Again.  All you have to do is  to name a name.  Does Arp think this?  Does Hoyle?  Does Alfven?  Does anyone?   Roadrunner 06:30, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It's circular on its face. You don't need to appeal to authority to use logic. Examine the claims and you will find they are circular. Very simple. Sorry if you got confused here, I'll try to be more succinct if I explain it to you again. - Plautus satire 18:05, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abundance of primordial elements 

message: By analyzing the light from distant galaxies, one notices that the shape of the light's spectrum is very similar, but the whole spectrum is shifted towards longer wavelengths for more distant galaxies. This suggests that the galaxies are moving away from us, resulting in an effect akin to the Doppler effect called redshift.
:This interpretation of "more distant galaxies" being more "redshifted" is based on the premise that redshift equals distance. It is still a circular argument and it is still utter crap. Redshift is assumed to equal distance, and is then used to calculate distance, the result of which is then used to "prove" that "distant" objects are all highly-redshifted. - Plautus satire 17:29, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  The redshift of galaxies 

message: The utility of Olber's paradox in verifying or falsifying big bang hypotheses is in dispute. Some critics contend that Olber's paradox is a philosophical conundrum and constitutes and unwarranted precept.
The problem is that Olber's paradox is not particularly strong evidence for the big bang.  The big bang offers one way out of Olber's paradox, but there are many others.
-----
I said I wouldn't touch this article, but I had to in order to correct some misleading wording, and to reinsert the quite valid sentence concerning quasar light curve. -Ionized 18:54, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)
----
I added a pretty strong statement about nucleosynthetic predictions, but I'll retract it if someone points me to an alternate theory that even tries to make nucleosynthetic predictions.  Roadrunner 14:43, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: These comments bear little resemblance to observable reality. Who said this? - Plautus satire 15:50, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Olber's paradox