View Single Post
Greylorn
#31
Jul1-10, 04:25 PM
PF Gold
P: 48
Quote Quote by russ_watters View Post
No. The explosion analogy is not appropriate precisely because the Big Bang was not an explosion. That's a pop-media misconception.
Russ,
Thank you for your reply. I confess to having active subscriptions to pop-sci magazines, and nonetheless hope that you will readdress this issue,

Between 1965 and 1979 I did pioneering work in applying computer to technology, beginning with instrumentation and pointing control for the first space telescope and first ground based totally computer controlled instrument. My degree is simply a B.S. in physics, but I do have a minor paper on variable stars, co-authored of course. I read, learn, and argue, and during this time was seriously interested in the then-unresolved conflict between Hoyle's and LeMaitre's theories. (I have a yellowed paperback copy of Gamow's Creation of the Universe, deep in storage because I regarded most of it as unsupportable, illogical bunk.)

I never found either the steady-state or big-bang theory sufficiently logical to adopt, and never felt that it was necessary to choose between two opposing fallacies. I've kept track of the evolution of Big Bang theory as it rose to ascendancy. Until around the turn of the century, its precursor was regarded as very tiny "particle" containing all the mass/energy of the current universe.

That was an absurd and unprovable notion from the outset, and I angered many a righteous astronomer explaining why. But sure enough, eventually cosmologists figured out the same thing, and solved the problem by renaming their cosmic micro-pea (which, back then, had acccording to theory, blown up), a physical singularity.

Now since I've written pointing code for telescopes, I know what a mathematical singularity is. But a physical singularity is, in my not very humble opinion, invented nonsense. Its parallel in human thought is the omnipotent infinite God concept.

Of course you are correct, that the Big Bang could not have been an explosion, because a "physical singularity" cannot do anything, much less explode.

But, if the "singularity" did not explode, what have you renamed what it actually did? Inflated? Really?

Best I can tell, the expansion velocities of post-bang matter are sufficient to make a thermonuclear bomb analogous, by comparison, to the result of a drunken college student igniting his fart.

Most of us would call a really awesome explosion, at the very least, a "Big Explosion." Few would dub it inflation. I've inflated rubber boats, kiddie pools, and truck tires. I've set off firecrackers and tickled some dry nitrogen tri-iodide. I know the difference. When did Orwellian linguistics creep into astrophysics? More importantly, why?

Can we have a real discussion about this? Can anyone out there consider the possibility that current Big Bang theory is on a level with religious dogma, and that there must be a better explanation?