Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Ethics & Morality
O That the Atheist....
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Hans Blaster" data-source="post: 77621940" data-attributes="member: 396028"><p>let's look at them one by one...</p><p></p><p>The Big Bang satisfies the laws of thermodynamics in an expanding space time. No violations.</p><p></p><p>Is not an anomaly at all. Finite age + finite speed of light = finite horizon.</p><p></p><p>Don't know what you think these are. I'm not aware of any.</p><p></p><p>These are both predicted by BB nucleosynthesis and observed in stars, galaxies, and nebulae. (Also BB is not an explosion in the Universe, it is the *expansion OF the Universe*.)</p><p></p><p></p><p>The Big Bang "prediction" (or rather fit to the data) shows that the "matter" in the Universe is only a few percent of total mass-energy needed to make the Universe "flat", but that is not billions of times. (Where are you getting these?)</p><p></p><p></p><p>The speed limit *inside* space time is the speed of light, but there is no limit on the growth rate in distance between points of spacetime from expansion.</p><p></p><p>Not really. These are minor issues related to the galaxy and structure formation models.</p><p></p><p>And that's how we know the early expansion was very rapid.</p><p></p><p>Dark matter was not proposed to solve any problem with the Big Bang. Inflation actually arose from fundamental particle physics.</p><p></p><p>I'm sorry the Universe isn't as simple as you'd like. (But the Universe isn't sorry.)</p><p></p><p></p><p>That's not what a "theory of everything" is in physics. It is a theory that combines all of the forces into a single fundamental theory. Such theories are only usable at certain levels (for example the equivalent, usable theory of fields called the Standard Model is impossible to use in full for large objects like molecules. Approximations are made at all levels, dependent on the levels below.)</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Hans Blaster, post: 77621940, member: 396028"] let's look at them one by one... The Big Bang satisfies the laws of thermodynamics in an expanding space time. No violations. Is not an anomaly at all. Finite age + finite speed of light = finite horizon. Don't know what you think these are. I'm not aware of any. These are both predicted by BB nucleosynthesis and observed in stars, galaxies, and nebulae. (Also BB is not an explosion in the Universe, it is the *expansion OF the Universe*.) The Big Bang "prediction" (or rather fit to the data) shows that the "matter" in the Universe is only a few percent of total mass-energy needed to make the Universe "flat", but that is not billions of times. (Where are you getting these?) The speed limit *inside* space time is the speed of light, but there is no limit on the growth rate in distance between points of spacetime from expansion. Not really. These are minor issues related to the galaxy and structure formation models. And that's how we know the early expansion was very rapid. Dark matter was not proposed to solve any problem with the Big Bang. Inflation actually arose from fundamental particle physics. I'm sorry the Universe isn't as simple as you'd like. (But the Universe isn't sorry.) That's not what a "theory of everything" is in physics. It is a theory that combines all of the forces into a single fundamental theory. Such theories are only usable at certain levels (for example the equivalent, usable theory of fields called the Standard Model is impossible to use in full for large objects like molecules. Approximations are made at all levels, dependent on the levels below.) [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Ethics & Morality
O That the Atheist....
Top
Bottom