Challenging the Big Bang Theory: Moderation Abuse and the Validity of Cosmology

[valjok]

My previous experience made me to think that the "mentors" abuse when their incompetence is exposed. Now, I think that some are just inadequate.

Is there a way to revise the case or I must look for another forum? Particularly, I have mentioned a couple of difficulties in the "Big Bang" theory that dominates in the Cosmology:

1) The Hubble law, V(D) = HD implies exponential expansion D(t) = D₀exp(Ht), which denies that a finite space D can grow from a singularity D₀=0 in a finite time t.

2) It is commonly believed that the Universe gravity may reverse its expansion back to singularity. Nevertheless, the gravity can collapse only the matter (into a black hole) whereas it is space that is expanding in the standard model. The gravity cannot reverse the expansion therefore. The result is a singe black hole in the empty Universe. Moreover, the black hole cannot exist alone without the https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=270158".

I will not object if you move this question into a sandbox.

I bring it as a whole for everybody to see that it is not based on the facts besides the explanation of standard cosmology to general public. Nevertheless, user https://www.physicsforums.com/member.php?u=110252" urged to remove the topic labeling it a personal theory. He ignores all private appeal to him to explain what the personal theory is he talking about?

You may think that a "personal theory" is

1. any personal study of or
2. a remark on any difficulty in

a well-known theory. Whether a problem exists only in student's head or in the theory itself, the forums are devices to look for their resolutions. Please agree that there is no reason to run a forum to set forth the trivial theoretic facts that are well known and cause no trouble.

 

[Danger]

theoretic facts

Hmmm... there is no such thing...

 

[valjok]

Hmmm... there is no such thing...

These are the facts claimed by theory.

 

[ZapperZ]

My previous experience made me to think that the "mentors" abuse when their incompetence is exposed. Now, I think that some are just inadequate.

Is there a way to revise the case or I must look for another forum? Particularly, I have mentioned a couple of difficulties in the "Big Bang" theory that dominates in the Cosmology:



I bring it as a whole for everybody to see that it is not based on the facts besides the explanation of standard cosmology to general public. Nevertheless, user https://www.physicsforums.com/member.php?u=110252" urged to remove the topic labeling it a personal theory. He ignores all private appeal to him to explain what the personal theory is he talking about?

You may think that a "personal theory" is

1. any personal study of or
2. a remark on any difficulty in

a well-known theory. Whether a problem exists only in student's head or in the theory itself, the forums are devices to look for their resolutions. Please agree that there is no reason to run a form to set forth the trivial theoretic facts that are well known and cause no trouble.

Has what you are proposing been published in peer-reviewed journals? In other words, have you published such a thing, or is the web the only place where such a thing exists?

This forum is not a free-for-all. You have agreed to abide by the rules we set. If we require that you post only when the moon is full and while sucking on a popsicle, and you agreed to it, then that's what it is. In this particular cases, our https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=414380" are very clear on what we mean by personal theory:

Overly Speculative Posts:
One of the main goals of PF is to help students learn the current status of physics as practiced by the scientific community; accordingly, Physicsforums.com strives to maintain high standards of academic integrity. There are many open questions in physics, and we welcome discussion on those subjects provided the discussion remains intellectually sound. It is against our Posting Guidelines to discuss, in most of the PF forums or in blogs, new or non-mainstream theories or ideas that have not been published in professional peer-reviewed journals or are not part of current professional mainstream scientific discussion. Personal theories/Independent Research may be submitted to our Independent Research Forum, provided they meet our Independent Research Guidelines; Personal theories posted elsewhere will be deleted. Poorly formulated personal theories, unfounded challenges of mainstream science, and overt crackpottery will not be tolerated anywhere on the site. Linking to obviously "crank" or "crackpot" sites is prohibited.

Zz.

 

[Fredrik]

Valjok, your arguments about the big bang are based on misunderstandings. None of the big bang theories say anything about "growing from size 0". And there are solutions of Einstein's equation with both an initial singularity and a a final singularity. In those solutions, space reaches a maximum size and then starts contracting.

I think you would find it easier to discuss these things if you stop calling them "problems in the big bang theory". That's not what they are.

I also recommend that you read some of the many other threads about similar topics. There are lots of crazy claims in those threads, but the posts made by science advisors and mentors are usually good. I linked to some of my own posts here. They might be a good place to start.

Please agree that there is no reason to run a forum to set forth the trivial theoretic facts that are well known and cause no trouble.

Most people come here to learn what theories (that are well known by others) are actually saying. It's frustrating to have to deal with people who claim that the theories are inconsistent or wrong because they say <insert nonsense here>. If the moderators would allow people to make these claims, we would have to spend so much time refuting nonsense that we would have a lot less time to teach actual physics to people who are actually trying to learn something. I think they also don't want people who search the forum for answers to find lots of incorrect claims. I know I don't.

 

[Danger]

These are the facts claimed by theory.

Only a theory can be claimed by theory. A fact has to be proven.

 

[valjok]

Valjok, your arguments about the big bang are based on misunderstandings. None of the big bang theories say anything about "growing from size 0". And there are solutions of Einstein's equation with both an initial singularity and a a final singularity. In those solutions, space reaches a maximum size and then starts contracting.

Thanks. My misunderstanding is the Hubble law, as you see. This way the Big Bang is taught in a University course for non-physicists.

I think you would find it easier to discuss these things if you stop calling them "problems in the big bang theory". That's not what they are.

I also recommend that you read some of the many other threads about similar topics. There are lots of crazy claims in those threads, but the posts made by science advisors and mentors are usually good.

I have the same idea. But, since the theory is exposed this simplified way in official academic institutions and Wikipedia, and it has the flaws, I think I have a full right to address them as "flaws in Big Bang theory". Anyway, you see the second moderator that thoughtlessly copies the forum rules without analyzing the issue.

 

[Doc Al]

But, since the theory is exposed this simplified way in official academic institutions and Wikipedia, and it has the flaws, I think I have a full right to address them as "flaws in Big Bang theory".

We are hardly responsible for misconceptions you've picked up from Wiki or elsewhere.

Note that if you had simply asked a question about how the Big Bang could be consistent you would have gotten useful responses. However, you chose to title your thread "The "Big Bang" model is inconsistent!", just like countless cranks before you.

 

[Danger]

you chose to title your thread "The "Big Bang" model is inconsistent!", just like countless cranks before you.

I must admit that I deliberately avoided reading that thread because of its title.

 

[Borg]

I must admit that I deliberately avoided reading that thread because of its title.

And I avoided reading this thread because of the title as well. I just wanted to see what Danger had posted.

But, seriously valjok, try to rethink your approach on thread titles for starters. The mentors are very knowledgeable people and have been here a very long time. They have probably seen more posts like yours than they care to remember. Shouting out that "The "Big Bang" model is inconsistent!" and then posting about how the mentors are incompetent because someone didn't agree with your ideas is not going to help you.

And even if you disagree with what someone says or does, put yourself into their shoes. Ask yourself how you would feel if someone wrote about you in that manner. For example, would you really want to see someone write about you using the form above? I.E., valjok "rants" when his incompetence is exposed. Now, I think that he is just inadequate. Doesn't sound very nice, does it?

 

[valjok]

Only a theory can be claimed by theory. A fact has to be proven.

I am not so paranoid to demand the experimental proof of every piece of theory every time. Might be the Big Bang is still to "green", but, once proven by extensive observations, it becomes a scientific theory that is regarded as a fact rather than a hypothesis. Take a look at http://books.google.com/books?id=Jc...ge&q="Evolution: a theory or a fact"&f=false", a discussion by great scientist. By denying "personal theories", the rules make all the recognized theories pretty solid to refer their theorems as "facts".

We are hardly responsible for misconceptions you've picked up from Wiki or elsewhere.

Yes, I know. The PH exists to set the trivial facts forth. It is prohibited to debunk the widely taught misconceptions.

Note that if you had simply asked a question about how the Big Bang could be consistent you would have gotten useful responses. However, you chose to title your thread "The "Big Bang" model is inconsistent!", just like countless cranks before you.

The title must be short. If I see the flaws in a theory, I put that on the title. I admit that it is not very informative since all questions stem from something is felt wrong by people, yet,

1. the provocative titles are not prohibited.
2. using it does not mean that I propose "a private theory"
3. in this topic, a moderator accuses me in "a private theory" even after I have removed the title.

Therefore, the problem is not in the title. Rather, somebody has the idea that power is given to replace

Only a theory can be claimed by theory. A fact has to be proven.

I am not so paranoid to demand the experimental proof of every piece of theory every time. Might be the Big Bang is still to "green", but, once proven by extensive observations, it becomes a scientific theory that is regarded as a fact rather than a hypothesis. Take a look at http://books.google.com/books?id=Jc...ge&q="Evolution: a theory or a fact"&f=false", a discussion by great scientist. By denying "personal theories", the rules make all the recognized theories pretty solid to refer their theorems as "facts".

We are hardly responsible for misconceptions you've picked up from Wiki or elsewhere.

Yes, I know. The PH exists to set the trivial facts forth. It is prohibited to debunk the widely taught misconceptions.

Note that if you had simply asked a question about how the Big Bang could be consistent you would have gotten useful responses. However, you chose to title your thread "The "Big Bang" model is inconsistent!", just like countless cranks before you.

The title must be short. If I see the flaws in a theory, I put that on the title. I admit that it is not very informative since all questions stem from something is felt wrong by people, yet,

1. the provocative titles are not prohibited.
2. using it does not mean that I propose "a private theory"
3. in this topic, a moderator accuses me in "a private theory" even after I have removed the title.

Therefore, the problem is not in the title. Rather, somebody has the idea that power is given to replace sympathy.

 

[dlgoff]

I must admit that I deliberately avoided reading that thread because of its title.

Yea. And when I saw the title of this thread I was worried for the mentors.

 

[valjok]

are incompetent because someone didn't agree with your ideas is not going to help you.

And even if you disagree with what someone says or does, put yourself into their shoes. Ask yourself how you would feel if someone wrote about you in that manner. For example, would you really want to see someone write about you using the form above? I.E., valjok "rants" when his incompetence is exposed. Now, I think that he is just inadequate. Doesn't sound very nice, does it?

Do you think that a person who removes a topic under a wrong assumption and unable to see it or clarify exactly "what is wrong" when asked several times is adequate? The incompetence is when my mentor, who is proud of his mechanical design experience and decides to teach me the basics of Newton theory, turns out unaware of important difference between dx and dx/dt: https://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-277816.html

 

[Danger]

I am not so paranoid to demand the experimental proof of every piece of theory every time.

That is entirely irrelevant to the fact that the term "fact" applies specifically to something that has been proven beyond any shadow of doubt. A theory, no matter how well established (such as evolution or either version of relativity), is still a theory. It is a theory that if I hit my thumb with a hammer, it will hurt. Once you discount the possibility that I might be dead, unconscious, medicated, or have a prosthetic arm, it becomes closer to a fact. Then you'd have to check for neurological abnormalities. As a general rule, one would think that it is a fact that hitting your thumb with a hammer will result in pain. Clearly, that is not so.
On the other hand, it is an indisputable fact (to me but nobody else), that I just typed this on my computer and posted it. (Anyone else has no proof that I am the one who did it.)

 

[valjok]

That is entirely irrelevant to the fact that the term "fact" applies specifically to something that has been proven beyond any shadow of doubt.)

How can any statement that contradicts to yours be relevant? Of course, it is irrelevant! It matters nothing if the meaning is given by a leading scientist and is adopted by scientist community. What those prominent scientists may know about true science and meaning of the words?

 

[Danger]

Have you tried a dictionary?

Might I humbly suggest to whichever Mentor is on duty that this thread also be shut down? It's becoming contentious.

 

[ZapperZ]

We are now discussing what a "theory" is and debating what should and should not be allowed. It is clear on what shouldn't be allowed, per the agreement we all made. So this discussion is done.

Zz.