Talk:Big Bang/Archive 7

message: The Universe is over 99.99% plasma by volume, and over 99% of the visible Universe is plasma. Yet the Big Bang article makes little mention of it. Is this an ommission, or is the current volume of plasma not predicted by the Big Bang? --Iantresman 11:50, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's really not a part of the Big Bang, per se, though it is associated with standard cosmology. See the article on Epoch of reionization for more details. The detailed radiative transfer/ charge separation processes after the time of last scattering are reserved for other places. This article is long enough. Joshuaschroeder 15:56, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If the current 99% volume of plasma in the Universe plays little part in Big Bang cosmology, then that's fine. As for the article being long enough, that would be a poor excuse for relevancy. --Iantresman 16:07, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It does play little part in cosmology as defined by the Friedman Equations, for example. It is studied in the context of cosmology, but not in the context of the Big Bang (except vis-a-vis the CMB). Joshuaschroeder 16:16, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's good enough to me. --Iantresman 16:53, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plasma abundance 

message: exactly how would this  theory be the beginning of the universe anyways? If matter can neither be created nor destroyed, where the hell did the matter come from to begin with? and secondly
you cant just say that matter came from nothingness, thats an act of god which is UNSCIENTIFIC to say the least
Just because the big bang is wrong doesnt mean all you atheist have to believe in creationism, come up with somthing better than some "scietific myth"
the second law of thermodynamics, which i might add is VERY scientific and is one of the most highly regarded scientific laws ever...states that everything over time goes to chaos...
so how do you propose that chaos from the beginning goes into more chaos? that makes no sense, and if a theory doesnt line up with the laws of themordynamics, im sorry, but its just plain wrong. The big bang (and evolution) are the EXACT opposite of the laws of thermodynamics stating that over time chaos turns to order WHICH is exactly the opposite as stated in the laws of thermodynamics
I might also add that the reason string theory was even created in the first place, was because the equations for the big bang didnt work... but oh yeah they forgot to tell you that didnt they???
this is the most foolish scientific theory ive heard, right next to evolution, hahahhaha
notice that they are THEORIES and that already stated scientific fact and law dispute the evidence of these theories, but these facts are ignored...
ignroance is bliss people...ignornace is bliss....but that doesnt mean it should be tolerated..
::::make a better theory and come back to me. --Chimaster 16:52, 4 November 2005
:Debating you might be a mistake, but briefly, the people here have thought thru this stuff and have answers that are probably beyond you. You might debate us more effectively if you learned more about what we believe. You could start by studying what entropy means in the Second Law of Thermodynamics. It's a calculation, not a subjective perception of disorder. Art LaPella 02:40, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  this article is highly unscientific 

message: I would strongly disagree with the article's claim that dark matter is a widely accepted view.  For me, 'widely accepted' means about 90% or greater belief.  Unless someone can provide a link or prove otherwise, I think this should be rephrased.the1physicist 22:34, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Virtually any link that is about physical cosmology and isn't connected to non-standard cosmologies will let you know. For example, . The question really needs to be thrown back at you, why do you doubt that it is 90% or greater "belief"? Joshuaschroeder 23:24, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: One of the reasons I think dark matter isn't widely accepted is that physics (and science in general for that ..um.. matter) is much bigger than cosmology.  That is, dark matter isn't really necessary to explain things in any other discipline.  (Personally, I think dark matter is a hack, but then again who am I?)  At the moment, I don't have any hard evidence to back up my claim.  However, I am confident that if I did some research, I could support it, but I'm busy enough as it is (hence the slow reply).  Plus, one little line in a wikipedia article isn't *that* big of a deal.  Perhaps we could change it to say it is widely accepted among cosmologists?the1physicist 15:44, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Oh, and I chose the word "belief" randomly.  It meant nothing.the1physicist 15:48, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have yet to meet a physicist at a major research institution who was critical of dark matter while being familiar with the many forms of evidence for it. Joshuaschroeder 16:38, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dark Matter "Widely Accepted"