Is the Universe Larger and Denser Than We Imagine?

[russ_watters]

I'm an engineer, not a scientist, but my perspective on the scientific method is that when the evidence truly is thin (ie, when GR was just a baby), speculation is fine. When, say, the evidence only gives you 20% confidence in a new theory (allowing, in that 80%, room for other theories), then it is speculative and there isn't anything wrong with that if understand and accept the tentative nature of a theory. (examples: string theory, black holes 20 years ago) But if you discover more things that allow you to gain, say, 90% confidence in a theory (allowing only 10% room for other theories), then it becomes less acceptable to speculate on something that requires something that only exists in that 10%.

I think it is fair to say that most scientists have more than 90% confidence in the basic idea of the BBT.

 

[ray b]

if you go here
http://www.voanews.com/english/2006-03-17-voa16.cfm
about the wmap data

there is a picture called "Time line of the Universe"

now that's a space time picture BUT
if it is real and is a slice thru the shaped like a ball universe
then SOMETHING is near an edge and something else in near the center
a one observer near the edge would see a blank space if they looked out ward [in to what I call the "NOT YET" beyond our current space]
while the observer in the near center would see a equal veiw to ours
there for we should be nearer the center then the edge
even if we can't see or get to that edge to there by find the center
that should be equidistant to all the edges
or there are a lot of smoke and mirrors
because everywhere can't be the center
and somewhere must be near an edge

 

[ray b]

and back to the thread point
in addition to the one atom
there should be 5 units of dark matter
and 14 of dark energy what ever they are

 

[Chronos]

Quite serious. rtharbaugh1 asked for an explanation of the model with a center and consistancy of expansion. I posted it. It works in accordance with observation and that's that. If you don't understand it ... Perhaps my words weren't chosen all that carefully, and the fault is entirely mine, or you haven't given it the time of day and that would be your fault, and without saying to much - quite possibly your loss.

And why would continuous creation be harder to buy than the creation of all there is in one feld swoop.

In the post big bang universe, the laws of thermodynamics are the supreme court of physics. Article I of the thermodynamics constitution states 'Matter cannot be created or destroyed, only transformed.' In other words matter can be converted to energy and vice-versa, but no loss or profit in this transaction is possible. There is not a shred of evidence suggesting this rule has ever been violated. The laws of thermodynamics cannot, however, be applied to the big bang itself. They, like the other laws of nature [e.g., gravity] were emergent - which is to say they came into being as a consequence of the big bang. To illustrate this point, we even have a very good idea regarding the order in which the laws of the universe emerged.

I could sit in a chair and wait for something to come along on a silver platter, but choose get up on my feet and look around. What else you going to do? Mull over what's been hashed over for decades on end? I could be completely wrong by which I would still be walking around looking for something else. Can't look under a rock if it's 50 feet from my chair now can I?

You could, but that is not how physics works. We routinely look under 'rocks' that are billions of light years away from our 'chairs'. Not like we see all that is possible to be seen, but enough to make very solid predictions about what is and is not likely to be seen.

The Big Bang model is falling apart slowly but surely. Unexpected observations crop up on a regular basis. The farther we pierce into space the worse it gets. Five or ten years from now it's going to start to look like a bad dream. Twenty years from now it's going to get canned, and yes this is another assumption.

Your agenda is showing here - BB bashing. The BB model has greatly strengthened over the years, not diminished. The 'rogue' observations that are occasionally reported are overwhelmed by the sheer number, and superior quality, of corroborating observations. For a recent example see:

Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Three Year Results: Implications for Cosmology
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/%200603449

 

[Castlegate]

In the post big bang universe, the laws of thermodynamics are the supreme court of physics. Article I of the thermodynamics constitution states 'Matter cannot be created or destroyed, only transformed.' In other words matter can be converted to energy and vice-versa, but no loss or profit in this transaction is possible. There is not a shred of evidence suggesting this rule has ever been violated. The laws of thermodynamics cannot, however, be applied to the big bang itself. They, like the other laws of nature [e.g., gravity] were emergent - which is to say they came into being as a consequence of the big bang. To illustrate this point, we even have a very good idea regarding the order in which the laws of the universe emerged.

I agree that this law will not be broken, however continuous creation in the model I was discribing... this law is an ( emergent), which is to say it came into being as a consequence of the continuous creation.

Your agenda is showing here - BB bashing.

Ya think?