Re: NO BIGBANG


Posted by Pasti on Mar 29, 2004 at 10:01
(64.7.138.66)

Re: NO BIGBANG (Johan)

"The posted message on "NO BB" is not meant to validate any other solution than the BB, rather to comment the possibility of other explanations. It's people like you Pasti who block the possibility to explore the universe freely. Get that!"

My friend,I am not blocking the free exploration of the universe.But, when it comes to explanations,I am going with the one best supported by experimetal data.And for the time being, these are the cosmological solutions.How the coupling to matter is done, and to what type of matter,that is another story.

"A small extract of some of the "proof" as to why the BB theory is wrong: Supporters of the BB theory predicted not many years ago through mathematics that the cosmological background radiaton should have a energyfactor of 50K. This would fit in the image of a universe created from BB. The energy was just after proven and accepted to be only aproxx 3K. This is a pretty large error, and the scientists had no way to explain this. Yet other assumptions was needed to make the equations correct."

This is not exactly what I would call a proof, it is more like a light argument.OK, let's analyze it.

To my knowledge,the predicted value for the CMBR was 5K, not 50K, but even if I am wrong and it was indeed 50K, think about this:is there (or better do you have) a better model that predicts the CMBR accurately, and is also in agreement with the observational data to date?If you do, I am more than willing to discuss it in detail, calculations and predictions included.

And by a better model I mean not something you heard of somewhere, but something you have worked through carefully, and you can present and argue about its benefits compared to the model that you don't like.

I realize that a difference of 47K seems like a very large error,but then,I guess you are not very familiar with astrophysics.Otherwise you would have known that for example the Hubble "constant" is known with an error of about 100%.And these huge errors are due mainly to experimental difficulties in measuring distances,intensities,and so on and so forth.In which case,you would have appreciated more the fact that the CMBR was in fact predicted by the theory, and not focus on the prediction error.
It is very easy to criticize certain aspects when you lack the details.

"Again, I am neither discarding or supporting the theory of the Big Bang, only trying to stir a mind or two."

I am not in favor of the BB either,and I agree that it is a cumbersome model,in more ways than one.
But you know Johan,years of experience have taught me that before you "stir someone else's mind",as you call it,it is worth stirring yours first.Which means to come with a better alternative, if you consider this one flawed.
In this respect,Hoyle's example (of course, the more tempered version)should teach you something.



Follow Ups:



Post a Followup

Name:
E-Mail:

Subject:
Comments:


[ Forum ] [ New Message ]