What happened before the Big Bang?

What Happened Before the Big Bang?
An artist's illustration showing the patterns of signals generated by primordial standard clocks in different theories of the primordial universe. Top: Big Bounce. Bottom: Inflation. Credit: CfA/Zhong-Zhi Xianyu, Xingang Chen, Avi Loeb

A team of scientists has proposed a powerful new test for inflation, the theory that the universe dramatically expanded in size in a fleeting fraction of a second right after the Big Bang. Their goal is to give insight into a long-standing question: what was the universe like before the Big Bang?

Although is well known for resolving some important mysteries about the structure and evolution of the universe, other very different theories can also explain these mysteries. In some of these theories, the state of the universe preceding the Big Bang – the so-called – was contracting instead of expanding, and the Big Bang was thus a part of a Big Bounce.

To help decide between inflation and these other ideas, the issue of falsifiability – that is, whether a theory can be tested to potentially show it is false – has inevitably arisen. Some researchers, including Avi Loeb of the Center for Astrophysics | Harvard & Smithsonian (CfA) in Cambridge, Mass., have raised concerns about inflation, suggesting that its seemingly endless adaptability makes it all but impossible to properly test.

"Falsifiability should be a hallmark of any scientific theory. The current situation for inflation is that it's such a flexible idea, it cannot be falsified experimentally," Loeb said. "No matter what value people measure for some observable attribute, there are always some models of inflation that can explain it."

Now, a team of scientists led by the CfA's Xingang Chen, along with Loeb, and Zhong-Zhi Xianyu of the Physics Department of Harvard University, have applied an idea they call a "primordial standard clock" to the non-inflationary theories, and laid out a method that may be used to falsify inflation experimentally. The study will appear in Physical Review Letters as an Editors' Suggestion.

In an effort to find some characteristic that can separate inflation from other theories, the team began by identifying the defining property of the various theories – the evolution of the size of the primordial universe.

"For example, during , the size of the universe grows exponentially," Xianyu said. "In some alternative theories, the size of the universe contracts. Some do it very slowly, while others do it very fast.

"The attributes people have proposed so far to measure usually have trouble distinguishing between the different theories because they are not directly related to the evolution of the size of the primordial universe," he continued. "So, we wanted to find what the observable attributes are that can be directly linked to that defining property."

The signals generated by the primordial standard clock can serve such a purpose. That clock is any type of heavy elementary particle in the primordial universe. Such particles should exist in any theory and their positions should oscillate at some regular frequency, much like the ticking of a clock's pendulum.

The primordial universe was not entirely uniform. There were tiny irregularities in density on minuscule scales that became the seeds of the large-scale structure observed in today's universe. This is the primary source of information physicists rely on to learn about what happened before the Big Bang. The ticks of the standard clock generated signals that were imprinted into the structure of those irregularities. Standard clocks in different theories of the primordial universe predict different patterns of signals, because the evolutionary histories of the universe are different.

"If we imagine all of the information we learned so far about what happened before the Big Bang is in a roll of film frames, then the standard clock tells us how these frames should be played," Chen explained. "Without any clock information, we don't know if the film should be played forward or backward, fast or slow, just like we are not sure if the primordial universe was inflating or contracting, and how fast it did so. This is where the problem lies. The standard clock put time stamps on each of these frames when the film was shot before the Big Bang, and tells us how to play the film."

The team calculated how these standard clock signals should look in non-inflationary theories, and suggested how they should be searched for in astrophysical observations. "If a pattern of signals representing a contracting were found, it would falsify the entire inflationary ," Xianyu said.

The success of this idea lies with experimentation. "These signals will be very subtle to detect," Chen said, "and so we may have to search in many different places. The is one such place, and the distribution of galaxies is another. We have already started to search for these signals and there are some interesting candidates already, but we need more data."

Many future galaxy surveys, such as US-lead LSST, European's Euclid and the newly approved project by NASA, SphereX, are expected to provide high quality data that can be used toward the goal.

The preprint of this paper is available in: arxiv.org/abs/1809.02603 . A related previous work can be found in: arxiv.org/abs/1509.03930 .


Explore further

Theorists propose a new method to probe the beginning of the universe

More information: Unique Fingerprints of Alternatives to Inflation in the Primordial Power Spectrum, arXiv:1809.02603 [astro-ph.CO] arxiv.org/abs/1809.02603

Xingang Chen et al. Unique Fingerprints of Alternatives to Inflation in the Primordial Power Spectrum, Physical Review Letters (2019). DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.121301 , journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/ … ysRevLett.122.121301

Journal information: Physical Review Letters

Citation: What happened before the Big Bang? (2019, March 26) retrieved 25 August 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2019-03-big.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
1869 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Mar 26, 2019
I'm not sure how this addresses the before-BB state of things, which would precede even the fractionation of the 4 forces/fields, and any heavy particles whatsover, or even high-energy/baryonic photons. The very notion of 'frequency' and clocks is Einstein-dependent on the existence of matter/gravity/energy relationship(s), without which there can be no consideration of space and time and dimensionality; the latter depend on the former.

tl:dr You can only falsify theories in this test back to the point of the emergent particles/fields in any BB or inflationary model.

Mar 26, 2019
What was the universe like before the Big Bang? It was just God thinking for a very long time...

Mar 26, 2019
The Big Foreplay.

Mar 26, 2019
I appreciate the interest in the area.

Never could get my head all the way around inflation. Too much time dilation.

Mar 26, 2019
Whaddya mean "Before"? I thought we were still waiting for it.........No?

Mar 26, 2019
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Mar 26, 2019
Oh, go ahead Doctir-Z, Get your math published to peer reviewed journals.

Fame & Fortune, await you!

After all, how many remember the names of the mathematicians who peer reviewed & confirmed Albert Einstein's math?

Mar 26, 2019
The big bang created time. There can therefor be no "before" the big bang. It's an oxymoron.

Mar 26, 2019
Was there life before the Big Bang? I believe that we have many misconceptions of space and time. First, we believe that time has a beginning, and time will have an end. Second, we firmly believe that we are the only universe in existence. Did this universe spring from nothing? Matter can neither be created nor destroyed. With that said, the matter that is made of this universe has always and will always exist. The life cycle of this universe maybe several hundred billion years, and throughout the time span of a trillion years has gone through many life cycles of birth, maturity and "death". Death in the means of all the matter in the universe compacting into one large gartantum-nova the size of several galaxies, and shrinking even further to the point of instability (explosion/birth) time has no beginning; time has no end. Space has no beginning; space has no end. Matter is limitless, but the sum of matter in the universe is finite.

Mar 26, 2019
What occurred before the Huge BANG Fantasy?? Merger maniacs really want to know! => The Huge Bang Dream...

Mar 26, 2019
If the current inflationary LCDM theory is correct, then there was no matter or energy in the universe until it had already inflated. This happened when the inflaton underwent vacuum decay and dumped all its energy into the newly inflated space.

I don't think they're going to find anything, much less falsify inflation, but hey, it's a free world.

Mar 26, 2019
The big bang created time. There can therefor be no "before" the big bang. .
charlimopps

According to some theories the big bang created time and according to other theories it didn't. Each theory has its own pros and cons and its too early to say which is correct (and so far I have no personal opinion on which is correct; insufficient knowledge and data). Perhaps it will always too early to say!? perhaps some truths are unknowable?

Mar 26, 2019
"Falsifiability should be a hallmark of any scientific theory."

I would suggest there are (will be) an infinite amount of theories which do not and will never meet this criteria but still studied by many as to the all and everything, which they may or may not be. Lack of proof is no proof at all. It might simply mean you are not looking at it correctly.

The notion of "falsifiability" suggest some "proofs" be required as "a hallmark of any scientific theory". If this were true, we would all be debating some pretty mundane stuff. Much of this cosmic stuff is, for the more reasonable notions, the best we can get out of deductive reasonig. That don't make it right. Just more than likely.

Nevertheless, it seems rather arrogant to think you could be certain what happened before the Bang (if anything), to say nothing of events directly following it. I see Hawkings weighed in on this subject, saying he knew what happened before the Bang. Sure.....

Mar 26, 2019
To become a theory, any hypothesis must not only be falsifiable, but must specify how to falsify itself. Otherwise it remains a hypothesis.

Mar 26, 2019
Off topic to DS:

Can you tell me how the LIGO data yielded distance, direction, masses of the merging black holes and predicted mass loss? I cannot find how this was derived anywhere.

Mar 26, 2019
You haven't read the papers, @dfj. You won't find it in popular science articles, and you'll have to learn the math.

Simply explained, the direction was determined by the difference in signal between three different stations, analogous to the way radio direction finders determine it; the masses were determined using relativity; and the predicted mass loss was determined by examining the GWs over time; they decay and the length of the decay over time gives the final mass, whereas the beginning of the event gives the initial mass.

But without the math, you'll never understand why.

Mar 26, 2019
To become a theory, any hypothesis must not only be falsifiable, but must specify how to falsify itself. Otherwise it remains a hypothesis.
......like black holes without singularities schneibo?

Mar 26, 2019
Singularities indicate that a theory is incomplete.

Since we don't have quantum gravity, we already know relativity is incomplete. That doesn't mean it's wrong; it's as right as TUG was when Newton discovered it in the 18th century.

TUG is still used today. Relativistic corrections are not needed for navigation in the Solar System at the speeds our spacecraft can attain; they are swamped by the three-body problem corrections.

I wouldn't expect you to know what "swamped" means since you are innumerate and can't do math.

There aren't any singularities in nature. Every time we start examining them we find new theories.

Mar 26, 2019
Singularities indicate that a theory is incomplete.
Then so much for the Bigo Bango because clowns like you don't have anything better to offer while at the same time imagining...........

Mar 26, 2019
"what was the universe like before the Big Bang?"

-I know- everything was inside out.

Prove me wrong.

Mar 26, 2019
You're lying again, @Benni. There is no singularity in the LCDM theory.

Mar 26, 2019
@Bigo Benno

Singularities indicate that a theory is incomplete.
Then so much for the Bigo Bango because clowns like you don't have anything better to offer while at the same time imagining...........


There happens to be one hell of a lot of evidence for the Bigo Bango. That's why there's "so much for the Bigo Bango."

Look it up for yourself and examine it -- it's there. It's also all around you.

Mar 26, 2019
Here are summarized the general provisions of the new paradigm, which is dominated by the consideration of the evolution of space as the main driving force of the universe. In this concept the introduction of the definition of materiality is essential. It is shown that the materiality has the main feature of the physical world. But this does not exhaust the concept of reality. Thus, reality is a more common feature of our world than the materiality. For physics, this is a new paradigm which follows from numerous observations of cosmic phenomena.
https://www.acade...al_Space

Mar 26, 2019
Thanks DS. that gives me a good starting point. There are a lot of things which can be described strictly by words alone. Newton and many others would agree with this, but BH mergers are in another league. You have told me a lot more than I knew before.

I figured the directional aspect was from the array. So I suspect the distance also is based on relativity and the amplitude or other aspect of the GW. I don't read popular science rags. Mostly Nature and Science.

Mar 26, 2019
okay, now I understand.
benni is another of the looneyticks communicating with us via a ouiija board,

Cause benni wouldn't possibly be one of those antiBB/GR/SR/QM/NG
hypocrites using technology based on all those sciences he rejects?

That would be dishonest
& dishonorable & shameless fakiry.

oh wait, we're talking about benni

hhmm...

never mind...

Mar 26, 2019
Since history repeats itself it will happen again. Next time we can record it!

Mar 26, 2019
"what was the universe like before the Big Bang?"

-I know- everything was inside out.

Prove me wrong.

Then consider "outside in"?

Mar 26, 2019
Since history repeats itself it will happen again. Next time we can record it!
.......how long do we wait?

Mar 26, 2019
oh wait, we're talking about benni
.........almost everybody here talks about Benni.

Just imagine the amount of rent money so many of you could make if you could charge me rent for living inside your heads.

Mar 26, 2019
Whata question to asketh

What was it like before the big bang
is it not obvious
exactly
the same as after the big bang
in other words
one and all
exactly as we perceive this starry galactic vacuum
at this precise moment
because
space is vacuum, occupied by electrons protons gravity and photons as electromagnetic energy
this vacuous vacuum of space is vacuum
it cannot be destroyed
as
matter and energy also cannot be destroyed
which proves the answer
to
the question
what was before the big bang
Exactly the same after the big bang

Mar 26, 2019
What was the universe like before the Big Bang? It was just God thinking for a very long time...
But what was a "time?"

Mar 27, 2019
Just imagine the amount of rent money so many of you could make if you could charge me rent for living inside your heads.


If any of you needed more evidence that he's just a troll and would be better off being ignored...

Mar 27, 2019
The Big Foreplay.

Other than bananas this is whats going on in Monkey Goracle's head.. well i guess that lil pea has been squashed beyond extremes so many times when he tries to think about the "big" science words, what more could be expected ;)


Mar 27, 2019
oh wait, we're talking about benni
.........almost everybody here talks about Benni.

Just imagine the amount of rent money so many of you could make if you could charge me rent for living inside your heads.

Naaa we have a worldwide crowd here not paying a cent seeing you stupify yourself on a daily basis...Priceless.... ;)

Mar 27, 2019
There was time before the BB, but not tick-tocking incremental time, it was duration from one universe to the next in infinite occurances. The fun part of infinite time or infinite space is Poincare Recurrance.

Essential to falsifiability is avoidance of ad-hockery, ad hoc shoring up of weak assertions.

Mar 27, 2019
oh wait, we're talking about benni
.........almost everybody here talks about Benni.

Just imagine the amount of rent money so many of you could make if you could charge me rent for living inside your heads.

Naaa we have a worldwide crowd here not paying a cent seeing you stupify yourself on a daily basis...Priceless.... ;)


Hear, hear !!!


Mar 27, 2019
The Big Bang is the greatest faux pas in the history of science. Galaxies are accelerating away from us. There is only one known force of nature which causes acceleration - gravity.

Both Newton and Einstein said that the universe ought to collapse into a great body due to gravity. In this process, many supermassive Great Bodies would form, which would attract galaxies towards them.

This explains the cosmological redshift. Galaxies closer to such a Great Body than the observer would be moving towards it more quickly, and therefore be redshifted. Galaxies further away from the Great Body than the observer would also appear redshifted as the observer's galaxy moved away from them.

Cosmologists claim that galactic redshifts are isotropic, ie that the same value is seen for galaxies at the same distance in all directions. However, redshift surveys are not conducted in all directions. There have been surveys which found different redshift values depending on the direction.

Mar 27, 2019
almost everybody here talks about Benni. Just imagine the amount of rent money so many of you could make if you could charge me rent for living inside your heads.


I think if everyone puts this useless pile on ignore, it will gradually fade away. I'll start the process.

Mar 27, 2019
almost everybody here talks about Benni. Just imagine the amount of rent money so many of you could make if you could charge me rent for living inside your heads.


I think if everyone puts this useless pile on ignore, it will gradually fade away. I'll start the process.


Way ahead of you.

Mar 27, 2019
almost everybody here talks about Benni. Just imagine the amount of rent money so many of you could make if you could charge me rent for living inside your heads.


I think if everyone puts this useless pile on ignore, it will gradually fade away. I'll start the process.

AWWW....poor Da Schitts. Is that what your boyfriend did to your rectum; put it on ignore. Now you are reduced to trolling the forum, searching for man "meat" and talking to your sock puppets.

Mar 27, 2019
It is amusing some people have notions about events before the BB when they lack certainty on what actually happened during it. The CERN web page on this is interesting. It notes that matter and antimatter are "always produced as a pair", and therefore the universe should "contain nothing but leftover energy."

Since this is NOT what occurred. CERN claims one particle per billion (ppb) survived, yet no one has any realistic idea of why this happened. Symmetry was supposed to rule. I am going to guess for some of the theorists out there that one ppb is close enough without further concern. The folks at CERN do not agree. (Are they lying liars?!)

They are noting a "subtle difference" in behavior of matter and antimatter in proton collisions at the LHC.

Happily we have hard data from CERN. Where do we get the pre-BB data? Perhaps the "subtle difference" came from the pre-BB era. One viable notion - no one will ever know.

Mar 27, 2019
It's unfortunate for these folks that a) they don't seem to understand the LCDM theory well enough to understand what it says, in short, that there were no particles before the Big Bang and inflation happened first, and b) asymmetry in the decay of the first 2/3 charge quark- the charm- has just been announced in the last week.

In addition, we're just taking our first little baby steps in the potential asymmetry in the neutrino sector, as @Torbjorn pointed out in the thread on the first detection of charm quark asymmetry.

I am highly skeptical. Especially since their methodology seems flawed; there weren't any hadrons during inflation, at least if LCDM is correct.

Mar 27, 2019
sure dfj, the obvious answer is my Theory of Stupid Design.

As to why we wound up stuck like bugs dissolving in a pitcher plant?

Drunken deities bungled the BB of creation event.
Leaving behind this stochastic cosmic mess.
That our little monkey brains are attempting (badly). to decipher & understand,

Oh! Did you see that curtain move? I'll bet Trickster Coyote Goddess is behind there!

Yes! I hear Her contralto chuckling at mischievously causing so much of our bafflement.

A perfectly logical, reasonable & rational as all the gibbering claims of the other punitively knowledgeable commentators.

All 'n all, the only "proof" that matters? Can you build a working device based on your version of science?
That fulfills the requirements for filing at the US Patent Office?

& if your woopooty cannot blow up a city? Why would I believe ANY of your fantasy claims?

Mar 27, 2019
Georges Lemaitre's Cosmic Egg

As to, what happened before this big bang
This vacuous vacuum of space is vacuum, cannot be destroyed
as
matter and energy also cannot be destroyed
because
Georges Lemaitre, did not elaborate
as to what happened
leading up to his cosmic egg
he did not elaborate
as vacuum, matter, energy, cannot be destroyed
by Georges Lemaitre
not
elaborating as to the fact
all this matter Georges Lemaitre postulated that existed in his cosmic egg
already existed in this vacuum
before this cosmic egg
so
we have heard it first
on phys.org
Georges Lemaitre, had this art of Obfuscation, down to a fine art

Mar 27, 2019
Georges Lemaitre's Cosmic Egg

As to, what happened before this big bang
This vacuous vacuum of space is vacuum, cannot be destroyed
as
matter and energy also cannot be destroyed
because
Georges Lemaitre, did not elaborate
as to what happened
leading up to his cosmic egg
he did not elaborate
as vacuum, matter, energy, cannot be destroyed
by Georges Lemaitre
not
elaborating as to the fact
all this matter Georges Lemaitre postulated that existed in his cosmic egg
already existed in this vacuum
before this cosmic egg
so
we have heard it first
on phys.org
Georges Lemaitre, had this art of Obfuscation, down to a fine art


Georges Lemaitre was a scientist and Jesuit priest, tasked by the Pope to explain cosmology in a way consistent with Christian beliefs. Thus, the Big Bang creation event was born.

Mar 27, 2019
Georges Lemaitre's Cosmic Egg

As to, what happened before this big bang
This vacuous vacuum of space is vacuum, cannot be destroyed
as
matter and energy also cannot be destroyed
because
Georges Lemaitre, did not elaborate
as to what happened
leading up to his cosmic egg
he did not elaborate
as vacuum, matter, energy, cannot be destroyed
by Georges Lemaitre
not
elaborating as to the fact
all this matter Georges Lemaitre postulated that existed in his cosmic egg
already existed in this vacuum
before this cosmic egg
so
we have heard it first
on phys.org
Georges Lemaitre, had this art of Obfuscation, down to a fine art


Georges Lemaitre was a scientist and Jesuit priest, tasked by the Pope to explain cosmology in a way consistent with Christian beliefs. Thus, the Big Bang creation event was born.
says KenFine & granville

Precisely. Thank you both.
:)

Mar 27, 2019
What's amusing is that there are people posting on here who can't comprehend that there isn't any special jebus math. Math is math and it works or it don't.

Mar 27, 2019
As night follows day
Da Schneib> What's amusing is that there are people posting on here who can't comprehend that there isn't any special jebus math. Math is math and it works or it don't.

First, Da Schneib
you work out your idea
your theory
then
you postulate a little
then
if your original idea shows promise
you then, Da Schneib
back it up with rigorous mathematica
which
is why Da Schneib
this Cosmic Egg
appears to have a thorough background mathematically speaking
to this birth of this universe
from this Egg
of all the possibilities to be born into this universe, Da Schneib
we
are born
Out of an Egg, mathematically speaking
I ask you Da Schneib, an Egg.

Mar 27, 2019
What happened before the Big Bang?

Given the fact the BB is nothing more than a creationist faerie tale, probably more faerie tales.

Mar 27, 2019
What happened before the Big Bang?

Given the fact the BB is nothing more than a creationist faerie tale, probably more faerie tales.


And why would someone who believes Earth used to orbit Saturn, provide the board with the ultimate in irony? Lol.

Mar 27, 2019
And why would someone who believes Earth used to orbit Saturn,

Maybe you can point out where I ever said that.

Mar 27, 2019
And why would someone who believes Earth used to orbit Saturn,

Maybe you can point out where I ever said that.


That is what your cult leaders believe. Are you saying that they are clueless loons? Not that I'd disagree.

Mar 27, 2019
@Bigo Benno

Singularities indicate that a theory is incomplete.
Then so much for the Bigo Bango because clowns like you don't have anything better to offer while at the same time imagining...........


There happens to be one hell of a lot of evidence for the Bigo Bango. That's why there's "so much for the Bigo Bango."

Look it up for yourself and examine it -- it's there. It's also all around you.
says observatory

You DO know that the Big Bang was a Planned Design/Blueprint for the new Universe that was put into motion by the Great Intelligent Designer Himself, yes?
The creation of Matter/Energy was the realisation of the Big Bang when the outward bound (in all directions) of Mass/Energy resulted in the expansion of Space exponentially; at first to accommodate all of the closely compacted Matter/Energy, and then the expansion of Space grew as the Matter/Energy broke apart and separated.
Whether you believe in the Creator or not, this happened.

Mar 27, 2019
And why would someone who believes Earth used to orbit Saturn,

Maybe you can point out where I ever said that.


That is what your cult leaders believe. Are you saying that they are clueless loons? Not that I'd disagree.
says Castrato aka jonesy

Try to get this through your thick skull, jonesy. There was only ONE person in the EU club who claimed that Earth "used to orbit Saturn" and it was not Cantdrive85. I forget the man's name but I''m almost certain that he regrets ever saying it.
But YOU and a few others keep harping on this "Earth orbiting Saturn" fallacy as though it matters. You are being disingenuous and proving to one and all that you are an old fishwife/slattern who has nothing better to do than return to the same BS. It is tiring to read of it, and YOU should be tired of saying it. Droning on and on ad nauseum. I believe that CD85 has gotten your message regarding it.

Mar 27, 2019
Try to get this through your thick skull, jonesy. There was only ONE person in the EU club who claimed that Earth "used to orbit Saturn" and it was not Cantdrive85. I forget the man's name but I''m almost certain that he regrets ever saying it.


Wrong, liar. It is one of their core beliefs, and is shared by their idiotic high priests, Thornhill & Talbott. Here is their chief pillock back in the day;

https://web.archi...rse.html

He also believes that Venus came hurtling out of Jupiter, and various other unscientific crap as proposed by the idiot Velikovsky. EU is nothing to do with science.

Mar 27, 2019
@cantdrive85,

What happened before the Big Bang?

Given the fact the BB is nothing more than a creationist faerie tale, probably more faerie tales.


Look around you. It happened. All the evidence for it is there to be seen. Try looking through a telescope. That's how it was initially discovered.

No one knows what made it happen, but happen, it did. No one knows how long the universe existed prior to the Big Bang, and if so, in what form, or if the universe existed at all, but the Big Bang happened.

'Tis an observed fact, just like evolution, gravity, and lots of other fun and interesting things.

Mar 27, 2019
Darwin's "theory" of evolution has so many proofs that it clearly deserves the higher status of "law", but always seems to be a theory. And it has vast quantities of supportive hard data like no other "theory".

Surely all of science is based on logic and deductive reasoning. Does anyone really believe one could determine events before the Big Bang (BB) without a trace of viable data to support such concept(s)? And it is inconceivable that even a hint of such data could be deduced from our permanent perspective.

At its core, logic dictates that one cannot accomplish more than pure speculation as to the nature of pre-BB physics. All the math in the world will not change this.

DS, glad to see that asymmetry in the quark data. More of such observations should provide a good reason for BB residue other than radiation. Pile it on.

Mar 27, 2019
That is what your cult leaders believe

Well I guess you believe in alchemy and wife and child abuse because Newton believed in alchemy and Einstein was a child abusing philanderer.

Mar 27, 2019
@Castrogiovanni.

From above article:
What happened before the Big Bang?
From @cantdrive85:
Given the fact the BB is nothing more than a creationist faerie tale, probably more faerie tales.
From @Castrogiovanni to @cantdrive:
And why would someone who believes Earth used to orbit Saturn, provide the board with the ultimate in irony? Lol.
At the risk of being caught in the crossfire between you two, I nevertheless am impelled by scientific objectivity to point out that mainstream astrophysicists have considered that many possible protoplanetary/planetary gravitational interactions in the early solar system may have resulted in many relocations and even some cataclysmic spin-reorientations (eg, Uranus). So it's not inconceivable that some of the planets did not originally have their current locations/spins/atmospheres etc earlier on. If anyone has incontrovertible proof of the contrary, please post link. Else what you, @Castro, are ridiculing could be true?

Mar 27, 2019
Unless you believe in the bang-bang-bang theory of the universe, even the artist isn't necessarily proposing that anything existed before the "beginning" of the universe.

Rather, the researchers trying to falsify inflation theory. "If a pattern of signals representing a contracting universe were found, it would falsify the entire inflationary theory," Xianyu said.

Perhaps even cosmologists are getting sick of these "epicycle" like theories?

Mar 27, 2019
Unless you believe in the bang-bang-bang theory of the universe, even the artist isn't necessarily proposing that anything existed before the "beginning" of the universe.

Rather, the researchers trying to falsify inflation theory. "If a pattern of signals representing a contracting universe were found, it would falsify the entire inflationary theory," Xianyu said.

Perhaps even cosmologists are getting sick of these "epicycle" like theories?


According to inflation theory, when the universe was between 10 to the -35 and 10 to the -32 seconds old, it underwent a faster than light 10 to the power of 50 expansion - to the size of a grapefruit.

Color me amused.

Mar 27, 2019
Try to get this through your thick skull, jonesy. There was only ONE person in the EU club who claimed that Earth "used to orbit Saturn" and it was not Cantdrive85. I forget the man's name but I''m almost certain that he regrets ever saying it.


Wrong, liar. It is one of their core beliefs, and is shared by their idiotic high priests, Thornhill & Talbott. Here is their chief pillock back in the day;

https://web.archi...rse.html

He also believes that Venus came hurtling out of Jupiter, and various other unscientific crap as proposed by the idiot Velikovsky. EU is nothing to do with science.
says Castrato

I have no reason to lie. Why would you accuse me of lying? I am almost certain that it was Talbott that wrote of Earth orbiting Saturn, not Thornhill or Peratt. In any case, the link you provided has very little information in it to make even an educated opinion. So I'm back where I started. Nothing.

Mar 27, 2019
Well I guess you believe in alchemy and wife and child abuse because Newton believed in alchemy and Einstein was a child abusing philanderer.


While Newton may have "believed in alchemy" it was something that was practiced through experimentation. There is absolutely nothing wrong with having a wild idea, testing that idea, and then being wrong about it.

Also, while you have a fair point, I don't know that it is particularly strong given questions of ethics or morals don't have much standing when it comes to following what someone says from a scientific standpoint. That is not to say immoral behavior is excusable if someone makes scientific contributions, but rather, it seems to be a weak counterpoint to what Castro said.

Mar 27, 2019
I would also take issue with accusing Einstein of child abuse. And his affairs were not hidden; he was open and forthright with his wife at the time about them, and provided for her and the children at his own expense even after they were divorced, apparently without being coerced by a court.

Mar 27, 2019
Well, as far out theories go. What happened before the Big Bang, was the Big Bong and then....whoaaa....BOOM...

Mar 28, 2019

AWWW........bark...bark..boing.boing chest thumping. Is that what your boyfriend did and talking to your sock puppets.


Antigoracle's pea tells him his sockpuppets are real beings, but are unable to distinguish between the Scientists on here and the puppets he blows smoke into(all words mean bananas to him), not even realizing he is talking to his own puppets, as he scratches out another booger. he's had puppet dolls resembling those to remind him of the one's he has on this forum but he seems to have lost them 2 decades ago


Mar 28, 2019
Well, as far out theories go. What happened before the Big Bang, was the Big Bong and then....whoaaa....BOOM...

There's a boom going off inside your head every 10 seconds or so, your comments gave it away.. ;)

Mar 28, 2019
First test of 'Big Bang'. Can... or can-not matter escape a 'black hole' by the infernal thing exploding? A. No
And the big bang proceeded from a cosmic singularity, right? A. yup
And a black hole is a singularity, right? A. yep
So no matter can escape from the cosmic singularity either

Mar 28, 2019
All went Boom for antigoracle and his redpill socpuppet right here LOL:
https://phys.org/...upt.html

Mar 28, 2019
@cantdrive85,

What happened before the Big Bang?

Given the fact the BB is nothing more than a creationist faerie tale, probably more faerie tales.


Look around you. It happened. All the evidence for it is there to be seen. Try looking through a telescope. That's how it was initially discovered..

There is no observation that shows space expanding, therefore no big bang. Looking through a telescope does not show anywhere "space expanding".

Far off galaxies "moving away" from us is just an idea, a concept. No telescope nor similar device shows any galaxies moving away from us, only a red shift in their spectral lines.

Attaching a doppler effect to a shift in the spectral lines is just an idea, nothing more, it is not an observation.

Mar 28, 2019
@cantdrive85,

What happened before the Big Bang?

Given the fact the BB is nothing more than a creationist faerie tale, probably more faerie tales.


Look around you. It happened. All the evidence for it is there to be seen. Try looking through a telescope. That's how it was initially discovered..

There is no observation that shows space expanding, therefore no big bang. Looking through a telescope does not show anywhere "space expanding".

Far off galaxies "moving away" from us is just an idea, a concept. No telescope nor similar device shows any galaxies moving away from us, only a red shift in their spectral lines.

Attaching a doppler effect to a shift in the spectral lines is just an idea, nothing more, it is not an observation.


Yes it is.

Mar 28, 2019
To my mind I consider it a very compact area in which an antimatter struck causes a big explosion giving sound and light which turned into heat and temperature.

Mar 28, 2019
Attaching a doppler effect to a shift in the spectral lines is just an idea, nothing more, it is not an observation.


Yes it is.

Amusing how those who claim the scientific high road don't understand the difference between observation and interpretation.

Mar 28, 2019
Attaching a doppler effect to a shift in the spectral lines is just an idea, nothing more, it is not an observation.


Yes it is.

Amusing how those who claim the scientific high road don't understand the difference between observation and interpretation.


There is no alternative explanation. Not a valid one, anyways.

Mar 28, 2019
There is no alternative explanation. Not a valid one, anyways.

There is no question an alternative explanation will be acknowledged by you due to your extreme case of myopia, however for those who can actually think alternatives are in fact available to consider.

Mar 28, 2019
There is no alternative explanation. Not a valid one, anyways.

There is no question an alternative explanation will be acknowledged by you due to your extreme case of myopia, however for those who can actually think alternatives are in fact available to consider.


No they are not. Where are they?

Mar 28, 2019
There is no alternative explanation. Not a valid one, anyways.

There is no question an alternative explanation will be acknowledged by you due to your extreme case of myopia, however for those who can actually think alternatives are in fact available to consider.

Oooh Can'tdrive just drove right into another tree.. Again... This Antigoracle sockpuppet just can't get that pea to focus on 2 things at a time.

Mar 28, 2019
Attaching a doppler effect to a shift in the spectral lines is just an idea, nothing more, it is not an observation.


Yes it is.

Amusing how those who claim the scientific high road don't understand the difference between observation and interpretation.


There is no alternative explanation. Not a valid one, anyways.


I don't believe in the Big Bang/expanding universe, but I do believe that the redshift of galaxies is a doppler effect. However, I also believe that the redshift of quasars is due to the extreme gravity of their massive black holes, meaning that they are not at the distances derived from their redshifts.

Mar 28, 2019
I don't believe in the Big Bang/expanding universe, but I do believe that the redshift of galaxies is a doppler effect. However, I also believe that the redshift of quasars is due to the extreme gravity of their massive black holes, meaning that they are not at the distances derived from their redshifts.


And where is this explanation written up?

Mar 28, 2019
I don't believe in the Big Bang/expanding universe, but I do believe that the redshift of galaxies is a doppler effect. However, I also believe that the redshift of quasars is due to the extreme gravity of their massive black holes, meaning that they are not at the distances derived from their redshifts.


And where is this explanation written up?

Ken, LaViolette has had this view with his SQK theory for about 40 years. It includes tired light explaining the doppler effect, but also the Pioneer Anomaly at the same time. Red shift from both empty intergalactic transmission and gravity wells, while slight blue shift within concentrated matter regions such as nearby around us.

Thus, all quasars are not necessarily extremely distant, but only appear so due to faulty red shift interpretations. Isn't this a much simpler explanation??

Mar 28, 2019
Thus, all quasars are not necessarily extremely distant, but only appear so due to faulty red shift interpretations. Isn't this a much simpler explanation??


Nope, it is a crap explanation, and LaV is a complete fruitloop.

Mar 28, 2019
Based on the clear evidence (the visible universe at least), the "mystery" of matter is not a mystery..The "mystery" seems that some assumption(s) of early BB physics are mistaken. It is a misunderstanding of things for which we do not yet have empirical evidence.

Sorry if this is obvious to you all, but the most likely scenario (there cannot be many) was an asymmetry at some "early" point of BB physics. Since most of the theory is well entrenched from clear and obvious data, one should look for the unexpected.

"Subtle differences in the behavior of matter and antimatter particles created in high-energy proton collisions at the Large Haydron Collider" * is a clear starting point. They do suggest a one in a billion "survival rate" for matter during BB, and with the recent posts of a charm quark issue, more data may end any asymmetry "problem", and call it what it is - observable data.

https://home.cern...-problem

Mar 28, 2019
@Castrogiovanni.
There is no alternative explanation.
I have reminded often about Scientific Method NOT REQUIRING an alternative explanation when falsifying a hypothesis. Observation of contrary evidence to that claim suffices to falsify said claim. Whether or not an alternative explanation/hypothesis is available is NOT part of the falsification requirements. Ok? Moreover, there's a difference between observation/data ITSELF and any 'interpretation' of said observation/data. Also, HYPOTHESIS-dependent 'interpretations' are NOT 'supporting evidence' for that hypothesis since that is invalid 'circuitous reasoning'. Seriously, mate, you need to calm down when 'defending' your own 'beliefs' in old dogmas/fantasies; as it leads you to make invalid demands and/or reasonings which diminish your own opinions. Just cool it with the insults; just argue your case based on facts not 'interpretations' from 'models' which themselves stem from 'iffy' assumptions/interpretations. :)

Mar 28, 2019
@dfj, the point is, if there's matter/antimatter asymmetry in the quarks, then this can account for the matter dominance of the universe and the comparative absence of antimatter. Not all of it, at least not right now; but the charm quark asymmetry raises the possibility of an asymmetry in the top quarks. If there's enough asymmetry overall, then this would explain the M/AM asymmetry of the universe in terms of particle physics that happened right after the BB.

And as @torbjorn points out regularly, in the neutrino sector, there is a good probability of further asymmetry. Since neutrinos are leptons, this in turn raises the possibility of asymmetries that affect electrons, muons, and tauons, which are also leptons along with the neutrinos. And this might be enough, combined with the quark asymmetries, to account for the M/AM asymmetry. We'll have to keep looking, both at the top quarks and the neutrinos, to find out.

Mar 28, 2019
dfj your neighbors would appreciate it if you would stop mixing that nitro with that glycerine.
Yes, It is called Nitroglycerine,
so "logically" you are compelled to mix them... vigorously!

"Surely all of science is based on logic and deductive reasoning"

The history & herstory of the Arts & Sciences are based on a series of fortuitous accidents, & missed-applications
Some if them survivable
.
Art & Science ain't a freakin' religion handed down, chiseled in stone!

Why Arts & Sciences? Cause until about 1914 there was no real difference between arts & sciences. Artists weren't ashamed to be inventive. Scientists weren't ashamed to be creative,

Until the Modern Orwellian Age of Perpetual Global War.
When the reactionaries through domination of conscripting education & industry have shattered the ancient marriage.

Today? An artistic scientist would be listed as a security risk.
Both by government as well as the corporate world.
Can't trust Free Thinkers.

Mar 28, 2019
Easy @rr. @dfj is an honest querent. Actually learns stuff and thinks about it. Trolls don't do that.

Mar 28, 2019
@cantdrive85,


Amusing how those who claim the scientific high road don't understand the difference between observation and interpretation.


It's amusing when belief without education is considered sufficient reason to deny evidence.

Mar 28, 2019
@observicist.
@cantdrive85,


Amusing how those who claim the scientific high road don't understand the difference between observation and interpretation.


It's amusing when belief without education is considered sufficient reason to deny evidence.
Mate, what 'value' your own contribution to erroneous thinking? You just countered @cantdrive's point (re error by those he was responding to) by making your own point (re error by him); but you did not actually deny the point @cantdrive made! Hence you tacitly admitted his point and made your own....resulting in a 'tie'...ie, both parties are in error! Next time, mate, address his point and THEN make your own; else it will be seen as tacit admission/evasion, and trying to distract from his interlocutors' flawed method of understanding, by directing attention to his flawed method of understanding without justifying theirs (his interlocutors). :)

Mar 28, 2019
@cantdrive85
Attaching a doppler effect to a shift in the spectral lines is just an idea, nothing more, it is not an observation.


Yes it is.

Amusing how those who claim the scientific high road don't understand the difference between observation and interpretation.

Exactly. I could not have said that better.

It is as though some a willing to lie to themselves by pretending to not understand the difference between an observation and an interpretation.

Mar 28, 2019
It's amusing when belief without education is considered sufficient reason to deny evidence.

Here is a guy who is claiming a man who received his bachelor at Harvard and doctorate at Caltech, both cum laude, as being uneducated. A man who worked directly with Edwin Hubble and is uniquely knowledgeable of the red-shift debate. A man who found irrefutable evidence that red-shift is also an intrinsic property of matter. Halton Arp has shown numerous examples of discordant red-shift, the standard guesswork is dead.
What's ultimately amusing is how some folks think their "education" somehow equates to knowledge or wisdom.

Mar 28, 2019
It's amusing when belief without education is considered sufficient reason to deny evidence.

Here is a guy who is claiming a man who received his bachelor at Harvard and doctorate at Caltech, both cum laude, as being uneducated. A man who worked directly with Edwin Hubble and is uniquely knowledgeable of the red-shift debate. A man who found irrefutable evidence that red-shift is also an intrinsic property of matter. Halton Arp has shown numerous examples of discordant red-shift, the standard guesswork is dead.
What's ultimately amusing is how some folks think their "education" somehow equates to knowledge or wisdom.

Your point is?

Mar 29, 2019
observicist
cants point is fuming with jealousy at those competent to earn major degrees are using that education to accomplish scientific progress.

while all cant has to show for years taking & retaking & again failing the GED tests?
No inventions. No Awards. No Creativity.
No acknowledgement of cant's existence in peer-reviewed publications.

Not a single iota of progress for all his plagiarizing & redacting & rewriting real scientist's work.

Mar 29, 2019
It's amusing when belief without education is considered sufficient reason to deny evidence.

Here is a guy who is claiming a man who received his bachelor at Harvard and doctorate at Caltech, both cum laude, as being uneducated. A man who worked directly with Edwin Hubble and is uniquely knowledgeable of the red-shift debate. A man who found irrefutable evidence that red-shift is also an intrinsic property of matter. Halton Arp has shown numerous examples of discordant red-shift, the standard guesswork is dead.
What's ultimately amusing is how some folks think their "education" somehow equates to knowledge or wisdom.


And a guy that was shown to be wrong. Great astronomer, crap with statistics and data analysis.

Mar 29, 2019
It's amusing when belief without education is considered sufficient reason to deny evidence.

Here is a guy who is claiming a man who received his bachelor at Harvard and doctorate at Caltech, both cum laude, as being uneducated. Halton Arp has shown numerous examples of discordant red-shift.



Halton Arp showed that pairs of quasars that were connected by luminous filaments of matter, and therefore pairs, could have very different redshifts. Confirmation of this would have scuppered the interpretation of redshifts as a Doppler effect, so it was ignored, like so many other observations that don't support the expanding Universe model.

He wasn't allowed near the Palomar telescope again, and returned to Germany to pick up the pieces of his career. Everyone in cosmology knows that if they oppose Big Bang theory, they may end up driving a taxi for a living. It's that fear that keeps them in line.

I believe galactic redshifts are Doppler effects, and quasars gravitational.

Mar 29, 2019
Halton Arp showed that pairs of quasars that were connected by luminous filaments of matter, and therefore pairs, could have very different redshifts. Confirmation of this would have scuppered the interpretation of redshifts as a Doppler effect, so it was ignored, like so many other observations that don't support the expanding Universe model.

He wasn't allowed near the Palomar telescope again, and returned to Germany to pick up the pieces of his career. Everyone in cosmology knows that if they oppose Big Bang theory, they may end up driving a taxi for a living. It's that fear that keeps them in line.

I believe galactic redshifts are Doppler effects, and quasars gravitational.


Complete nonsense. Arp was just plain wrong.

http://galacticin...dshifts/

Mar 29, 2019
I believe galactic redshifts are Doppler effects


It is more likely that most galactic redshift is due to Compton Photon Scatter Effects, not altogether different from what is seen when the sky is blue in the middle of the day versus why it is red at sunset, not exactly the same but similar enough for making a comparison as to EFFECTS.

The longer the travel distance of an EM Wave Photon, the greater likelihood it will encounter ELASTIC & INELASTIC collision with galactic & intergalactic medium. There is probably not a single EM Wave Photon reaching Earth that has not been impeded by medium several times on it's journey to our eyeballs, thus ELASTIC & INELASTIC collisions with medium almost certainly outpaces Doppler redshifting.

Mar 29, 2019
@Benni
Compton scattering, discovered by Arthur Holly Compton, is the scattering of a photon by a charged particle, usually an electron.

How would this be confused with the Doppler shift?

Mar 29, 2019
I believe galactic redshifts are Doppler effects


It is more likely that most galactic redshift is due to Compton Photon Scatter Effects, not altogether different from what is seen when the sky is blue in the middle of the day versus why it is red at sunset, not exactly the same but similar enough for making a comparison as to EFFECTS.

The longer the travel distance of an EM Wave Photon, the greater likelihood it will encounter ELASTIC & INELASTIC collision with galactic & intergalactic medium. There is probably not a single EM Wave Photon reaching Earth that has not been impeded by medium several times on it's journey to our eyeballs, thus ELASTIC & INELASTIC collisions with medium almost certainly outpaces Doppler redshifting.


Utter nonsense.

Mar 29, 2019
@Benni
Compton scattering, discovered by Arthur Holly Compton, is the scattering of a photon by a charged particle, usually an electron.
.....and why didn't you just finish reading the rest of the definition of Compton Scattering effect? What's with you Pop-Cosmology aficionados, always trying to create these disconnections by leaving out 50% of the definition or descriptions of something, here: "Compton scattering, discovered by Arthur Holly Compton, is the scattering of a photon by a charged particle, usually an electron. It results in a decrease in energy (increase in wavelength) of the photon"......when there is a decrease in energy the photon is thusly described as redshifting, you probably never knew this did you?

[qHow would this be confused with the Doppler shift? Receding Doppler causes redshifting as well. Amazing how little you know for being in this chatroom for so long.

Mar 29, 2019
Receding Doppler causes redshifting as well. Amazing how little you know for being in this chatroom for so long.


Complete nonsense. And this is not a chatroom. It is a comments section. Can't you even get that right?
Compton scattering is not causing observed redshifts;

http://www.astro....ein.html

Mar 29, 2019
And a guy that was shown to be wrong. Great astronomer, crap with statistics and data analysis

Complete nonsense. Arp was just plain wrong.

Those plasma ignoramuses couldn't hold Arp's jock let alone "prove" him to be wrong. Several of Arp's example require nothing more than looking at a picture, no maths gymnastics needed. And your link looks to have been written by the same type of crankpot as you with their constant use of logical fallacies as you do. Another waste of electrons by wastes of space type rubes.

Mar 29, 2019
And a guy that was shown to be wrong. Great astronomer, crap with statistics and data analysis

Complete nonsense. Arp was just plain wrong.

Those plasma ignoramuses couldn't hold Arp's jock let alone "prove" him to be wrong. Several of Arp's example require nothing more than looking at a picture, no maths gymnastics needed. And your link looks to have been written by the same type of crankpot as you with their constant use of logical fallacies as you do. Another waste of electrons by wastes of space type rubes.


It is nothing to do with plasma physics, you liar. And he most definitely was shown to be wrong.

Mar 29, 2019
Several of Arp's example require nothing more than looking at a picture,...


Typical crank statement! How can you tell distances from looking at a picture? Ridiculous. No wonder you believe the rubbish that you do.

constant use of logical fallacies


As in linking to studies that show him to be wrong?

Mar 29, 2019
And your link looks to have been written by the same type of crankpot as you....


In case you haven't noticed, you are the crank who believes in unevidenced, impossible woo. Rob Knop is an astrophysicist;

Rob Knop obtained his BS in Physics from Harvey Mudd College in 1990. His PhD came from Caltech in 1997 with a thesis on infrared spectroscopic observations of Seyfert Galaxies. He went on to a post doc with the Supernova Cosmology Project from 1996 through 2001. There, he became a core member of Saul Perlmutter's team, and participated in the 1998 discovery that the expansion of our Universe is accelerating; this discovery would go on to win Perlmutter the Nobel Prize in 2011. The larger team (including Rob) were also co-recipients of the Gruber Prize in Cosmology in 2007 and the Breakthrough Prize in Fundamental Physics in 2015.

Mar 29, 2019
https://www.scien...ob-knop/

Link missed out for above.

Mar 29, 2019
Rob Knop is nothing more than a plasma ignoramus crankpot, who uses logical fallacies just as you, his opinion is worthless.

Mar 29, 2019
Rob Knop is nothing more than a plasma ignoramus crankpot, who uses logical fallacies just as you, his opinion is worthless.


What the hell has plasma got to do with redshift? Stop lying. And you and your cult are the ignoramuses. Your opinions of real scientists are worthless, as you don't understand the first thing about the subject. Stick to screwing up mythology.

Mar 29, 2019
What the hell has plasma got to do with redshift?

It is hugely significant as all of the matter involved is plasma, that you cannot grasp these facts shows just how jonesdumb you are.

Mar 29, 2019
What the hell has plasma got to do with redshift?

It is hugely significant as all of the matter involved is plasma, that you cannot grasp these facts shows just how jonesdumb you are.


Photons, you idiot. The wavelengths thereof. Get an education.

Mar 29, 2019
@cantthink doesn't seem to get the fact that radio, microwave, terahertz, infrared, visible light, ultraviolet, X-rays, and gamma rays are all the same thing: photons. Nor that plasmas that emit one of these don't emit all the others, indicating that they are intrinsically different. It is unsurprising that plasma physics is taking a long time; plasmas at different temperatures have different behavior, among many other differences.

The "ignoramuses" are finding out how plasmas of different compositions behave at different temperatures. It's taking a long time. Get over it.

Mar 29, 2019
@Castrogiovanni.
@Benni.
Compton scattering is not causing observed redshifts;
http://www.astro....ein.html
Beware relying on old/simplistic analyses/assumptions from ANY 'side' re scattering effects of/in deep space. We are now finding humongous amounts of cold/plasmic etc material in all directions. That alone should give you pause before summarily dismissing Benni's point re scattering over vast distances through myriad interactions of MANY types/angles etc with all sorts of atoms/ions/electrons and sub-atomic particles like pions/kaons/muons/quark-gluon plasma and ordinary plasmas etc. Energy loss in photons of any kind shows up as increased wavelength 'detected' (compared to what was expected).

Moreover, since Steinhardt/Penrose 'recanted' Big Bang/Inflation claims some years back, mainstream is revisiting old/simplistic analyses/assumptions re deep space materials/processes (previously dismissed/ignored due to strong BB/Inflation 'model' biases).

Mar 29, 2019
I'm noticing two trends that disturb me, and they are related (though they may not seem so).

They are the reliance on authority figures to support a position, and a reliance on the Galileo Fallacy to do the same.

Just because an authority figure supports an interpretation of evidence, that means absolutely nothing. An authority in science can just as easily be wrong as right.

Just because the "scientific establishment" is heavily against a new interpretation of evidence, that doesn't mean that new interpretation is correct. Just because Galileo was correct doesn't mean someone with a radical interpretation of evidence will be correct, as well.

One person can be right; many people can be right. All that matters is evidence. The scientific method sifts evidence through many brains, and eventually comes up with the right answer. Sometimes one will convince all; other times all will convince one. Most of the time, many convince many.

Authority in science means nothing.

Mar 29, 2019
Moreover, since Steinhardt/Penrose 'recanted' Big Bang/Inflation claims some years back, mainstream is revisiting old/simplistic analyses/assumptions re deep space materials/processes (previously dismissed/ignored due to strong BB/Inflation 'model' biases).


Just provide me with a link to any scientist proposing Compton scattering as a reason to doubt redshift measurements. I am not interestred in your worthless opinion. Just provide the links.

Mar 29, 2019
@observer, a whole bunch of us have been presenting evidence all along. It makes no difference to the trolls.

Mar 29, 2019
@Castrogiovanni.
@Benni.
...Energy loss in photons of any kind shows up as increased wavelength 'detected' (compared to what was expected).

Isn't this enough to get some to start thinking along different lines of thought, or a different direction of research. I realize that plodding along radically different ideas can be difficult. It does require some courage to go against the masses.

I foresee a time in the far future (the far, far future considering how things are going) when we'll think about the past and say "space expanding" was a silly idea. About as silly as the Earth being held up by large elephants sitting on top of a large turtle.

The historians will look back and wonder, how was it that so many were hung up on such silly ideas. Then again, history has plenty examples of such.

Mar 30, 2019
Da Schneib, I was talking to the trolls, not to you and other knowledgeable people. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

For some reason, I have to keep trying.

Mar 30, 2019
I don't see why anyone needs to pay any attention to any of the trolls ever again.

And I don't intend to unless I see something in a quote made by someone whose opinion I care about that contains yet another idiotic thing they said. And even then, only for play; these people cannot possibly be serious. We might as well be responding to flat earthers, YECs, or people who think they're mind-reading space aliens. Oh, wait...

Mar 30, 2019
@Castrogiovanni.
@Benni.
...Energy loss in photons of any kind shows up as increased wavelength 'detected' (compared to what was expected).

Isn't this enough to get some to start thinking along different lines of thought, or a different direction of research. I realize that plodding along radically different ideas can be difficult. It does require some courage to go against the masses.

I foresee a time in the far future (the far, far future considering how things are going) when we'll think about the past and say "space expanding" was a silly idea. About as silly as the Earth being held up by large elephants sitting on top of a large turtle.

The historians will look back and wonder, how was it that so many were hung up on such silly ideas. Then again, history has plenty examples of such.


Word salad. Any actual science to offer?

Mar 30, 2019
I don't see anything to think about except the fact (experimentally proven fact, that is) that gravity, like all forces, affects momentum. For matter particles, this means change in velocity; for energy particles, it means change in energy. Both of these are predicted by general relativity theory. A primer on GRT can be found here: http://www-histor...ity.html

Mar 30, 2019
The Field Equations of Gravitation, Einstein, 1915, in case anyone's wondering. Here's a link: https://einsteinp...rans/129

Mar 30, 2019
I don't see why anyone needs to pay any attention to any of the trolls ever again.


It's just the professor in me, and the hope that maybe some half-trolls may come to see the light. But you're probably a lot more right about this than I am.

In the classroom, they had to listen to me (Fate help the ones who tried to get into a sparring match with me in class); here, they don't.

Every year I insisted on teaching an intro course to freshmen. Every year, at least one student would speak up and state that what I said was not what God said. I told them that, in this particular course, they could learn, or they could regurgitate what I said in class; they could make an A either way. If, however, they decided to give God's answers on my tests, God was going to fail the course, and so would they. Every single one of those students failed the first test and regurgitated on the rest. So did God.

They and God learned just a little bit.

Mar 30, 2019
If they start shouting, it's time to kick them out of class.

And consider whether to inform campus security about them.

Mar 30, 2019
It's just the professor in me,

If you don't want the professor in you, tell him to get off your back.

Mar 30, 2019
In the classroom, they had to listen to me (Fate help the ones who tried to get into a sparring match with me in class); here, they don't.

Isn't that special, we see how "education" really works in academia.
I told them that, in this particular course, they could learn, or they could regurgitate what I said in class; they could make an A either way.

Is it any wonder how the edifice of pseudoscience and faerie tales pervades our society. This is an admitted example of how thinkers are weeded out of the academic community, only those who blindly follow and excel at rote memorization remain. And this individual who claims to be a professor is quite proud of his gatekeeping attitude. Pathetic!

Mar 30, 2019

Is it any wonder how the edifice of pseudoscience and faerie tales pervades our society. This is an admitted example of how thinkers are weeded out of the academic community, only those who blindly follow and excel at rote memorization remain. And this individual who claims to be a professor is quite proud of his gatekeeping attitude. Pathetic!


You are the one that believes in impossible woo. You wouldn't recognise science if it bit you on the backside. Same goes for your cult leaders.

Mar 30, 2019
@Da Schneib,

If they start shouting, it's time to kick them out of class.

And consider whether to inform campus security about them.


Oh, they never shouted -- they knew better. I was speaking of an intellectual sparring match. A few tried -- and failed.

The most I ever had to do to quell a student who looked like he or she was thinking about becoming agitated was look over my spectacles at said student. He or she would almost visibly shrink.

I never needed campus security. The word on campus was that I had two advanced-degree black belts. I always thought that was funny, because it was the professor in the next office who was an expert knife-thrower. He would practice in his office -- his target was a bunch of cardboard boxes, each inside the next. He had to change them out every few days. What's even funnier is he had served in the Peace Corps. He also collected guns.

I'm retired, now, anyway.

Mar 30, 2019
@cantdrive85,

In the classroom, they had to listen to me (Fate help the ones who tried to get into a sparring match with me in class); here, they don't.

Isn't that special, we see how "education" really works in academia.
I told them that, in this particular course, they could learn, or they could regurgitate what I said in class; they could make an A either way.

Is it any wonder how the edifice of pseudoscience and faerie tales pervades our society. This is an admitted example of how thinkers are weeded out of the academic community, only those who blindly follow and excel at rote memorization remain. And this individual who claims to be a professor is quite proud of his gatekeeping attitude. Pathetic!


I told my students about all the prevailing theories, whether I agreed with them or not. I also told them about the idiot theories, and explained why they were idiot theories by having them tell me why.

I was a true professor.

Mar 30, 2019
otto, have you considered the possibilty that a Klein Bottle may prove your speculation?

******
Come on cant!
You're the one channeling the super-natural spirits.
Provide a sample of protoplasma for analysis.

Mar 30, 2019
I was a true professor

The most I ever had to do to quell a student who looked like he or she was thinking about becoming agitated was look over my spectacles at said student. He or she would almost visibly shrink.

Nice, the use of authoritative power to limit discourse. The veiled threat of a failing grade will most certainly keep an undergraduate student in line. You sir, are a true professor of your beliefs.

Mar 30, 2019
Inflation cosmology is the consensus [Planck Legacy Archives] and we know it must have happened because other types of expansions would not explain the isotropy, homogeneity, flatness and initial low entropy seen. And over the last year or so one can read that individual scientists have stopped worrying about more tests aside from those it has passed.

On the considerations of the paper "falsifiablity" is a philosophic term for testing competitive theories, and worrying about inflation theory in particular being malleable is like worrying that other quantum field theories can explain every particle collision we see or will see. That said, a test that can plausibly distinguish between eternal inflation expansion and other solutions to general relativity cosmology is of course welcome.

On the considerations of this remade site, nice to have a thread that caught so many trolls to put in the "block" filter!

Mar 30, 2019
I'm not sure how this addresses the before-BB state of things, which would precede even the fractionation of the 4 forces/fields,


I haven't read the paper, but the clock imprint in background idea would be pretty open about testing "bounce" universes as long as they result in primordial background fluctuations.

Mar 30, 2019
First, we believe that time has a beginning, and time will have an end. Second, we firmly believe that we are the only universe in existence. Did this universe spring from nothing? Matter can neither be created nor destroyed. With that said, the matter that is made of this universe has always and will always exist.


"We" don't believe any of that. The last Planck data release and data series after that imply the local universe is most likely one among an infinite number of them in an eternal (in space and time) multiverse, making any other state mostly irrelevant. But we don't yet know.

What we do know is that the universe is perfectly flat. So energy wise matter and dark (vacuum) field energies are balanced by gravitational field terms. Specifically, current matter content was caused by the Hot Big Bang energy release of inflationary potential energy. The idea that matter would somehow say anything on the larger history of the universe is pretty much dead.

Mar 30, 2019
Typical crank statement! How can you tell distances from looking at a picture? Ridiculous. No wonder you believe the rubbish that you do.

Looking at pictures allows one to see the physical connections of the systems involved. Applying distances at these dimensions is purely hypothetical, see distances ascribed via red-shift assumptions.
God's sausage fingers pointed at Earth;
https://www.halto...universe

A pretty picture that does exactly what jonesdumb claims to be "ridiculous".
https://www.halto...edshifts

And a failed obfuscation by astrophysicists;
https://www.halto...ebuttals

Mar 30, 2019
I would suggest there are (will be) an infinite amount of theories which do not and will never meet this criteria ... it seems rather arrogant to think you could be certain what happened before the Bang (if anything)
.

Well, it is a philosophic term, but we do want our theories to be testable and hopefully unique (kill of nonviable competitors). But some concepts are hard to describe. Does life exist? Sure, but no one can agree on a testable definition. That does not bar biology from successfully studying life.

"Big Bang" can be defined in many ways. Since inflation cosmology puts a period before the Hot Big Bang creation of mass and explains why a simple expansion (or worse, "explosion") does not work, it is a matter of bowing to history to say that we now know what happened before the (Hot) Big Bang.

Mar 30, 2019
Looking at pictures allows one to see the physical connections of the systems involved. Applying distances at these dimensions is purely hypothetical, see distances ascribed via red-shift assumptions.
God's sausage fingers pointed at Earth;
https://www.halto...universe


Arp was a crank, who has been shown many times to be wrong. The fact that he kept up with his nonsense, just adds to his crankiness. Nobody takes him seriously. If you continually fail to apply the data properly, you will keep getting crap results. Quasars are demonstrably not ejected from galaxies. That was an idiotic idea. It has been known for some years that they are AGNs hosted ***within*** galaxies. The list of his failures is too long to list. Tom Bridgman does a pretty good job, though, with relevant links;

https://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.com/search?q=halton+arp

Mar 30, 2019
Arp was a crank, who has been shown many times to be wrong. The fact that he kept up with his nonsense, just adds to his crankiness. Nobody takes him seriously.

Real scientists took him seriously, the gatekeepers just ignore and censor him.
https://www.halto...ith_Fred

Mar 30, 2019
Arp was a crank, who has been shown many times to be wrong. The fact that he kept up with his nonsense, just adds to his crankiness. Nobody takes him seriously.

Real scientists took him seriously, the gatekeepers just ignore and censor him.
https://www.halto...ith_Fred


No, they did not. He became a laughing stock. Shame, because he tainted his own legacy with this nonsense. Like I said - quasars are ***within*** galaxies, and are not ejected by them. This has been know, even to the ex-Arp, for some time. And yet he carried on with his nonsense. That is crackpottery in action.


Mar 30, 2019
Arp was an iconoclast. It's not uncommon; I have worked with an astrophysicist who has made significant discoveries and won awards who was an iconoclast. They are a protected species in science.

Be careful, @Castro. Arp may have been wrong, but he made valuable contributions to science not only with his discoveries but his iconoclasm. A failed experiment can be as valuable as a successful one.

Mar 30, 2019
Arp was an iconoclast. It's not uncommon; I have worked with an astrophysicist who has made significant discoveries and won awards who was an iconoclast. They are a protected species in science.

Be careful, @Castro. Arp may have been wrong, but he made valuable contributions to science not only with his discoveries but his iconoclasm. A failed experiment can be as valuable as a successful one.


Oh, I'm not denying his huge contribution to astronomy. As I said, it was a shame that he tainted his legacy. However, to come up with what was a speculative, but reasonable idea, in the 60's, and to keep at it until his death, despite the evidence showing it to be wrong as time progressed, is where one steps into the realm of crankery, in my view. Maybe one could call it obsession. However, I think he also was in the Hoyle-Narilkar steady state camp, and this stuff was part of it. To admit he was wrong was obviously too much for him.

Mar 30, 2019
@observicist.
In the classroom, they had to listen to me (Fate help the ones who tried to get into a sparring match with me in class); here, they don't.....I told them that, in this particular course, they could learn, or they could regurgitate what I said in class; they could make an A either way.
Do you even realise how DAMAGING to the credibility/objectivity of education/science you have just been, mate? With your above self-indulgent and patently suckup ego-tripping/boasting to your preferred ego-tripping/boasting 'fellows' here; and obviously prejudicial attitude, you have set back the cause of EARNING RESPECT for education/science; instead of DERISION which your ill-advised foray into hubris and stupidity has re-energised anti-science types by 'justifying' scattergun accusations of bias and 'parroting' in education/science. Mate, please try harder to 'keep it in your pants' next time you get the urge to whip it out and compare it with your 'fellows' like that. :)

Mar 30, 2019
But, see, that's the whole point of science. One iconoclast cannot hurt it; in fact, the mere existence of iconoclasts sustains it. Even if they're wrong and stay wrong until they die.

They force the evidence out. And that's a Good Thing.

But there's a big difference between iconoclasts and trolls.

Mar 30, 2019
But, see, that's the whole point of science. One iconoclast cannot hurt it; in fact, the mere existence of iconoclasts sustains it. Even if they're wrong and stay wrong until they die.

They force the evidence out. And that's a Good Thing.

But there's a big difference between iconoclasts and trolls.


Indeed. My problem isn't so much with Arp - let's be honest, Einstein made his share of stuff ups! - no, it is with the pseudoscience types who push his stuff to try to bolster their own idiotic beliefs. In doing so, they don't realise that they are painting themselves into a corner. To wit; was Peratt's galaxy model correct according to cantdrive? If so, then Arp was wrong. And vice-versa. Both had different ideas of galaxy formation. Arp's 'ejected quasars' became galaxies, including spirals. Peratt required interacting Birkeland currents. Which turned out to be the radio lobes of the very same AGNs. I really don't think these people think this stuff through.

Mar 30, 2019
@Castrogiovanni.
However, to come up with what was a speculative, but reasonable idea, in the 60's, and to keep at it until his death, despite the evidence showing it to be wrong as time progressed, is where one steps into the realm of crankery, in my view. Maybe one could call it obsession. However, I think he also was in the Hoyle-Narilkar steady state camp, and this stuff was part of it. To admit he was wrong was obviously too much for him.
Isn't that a little 'double standards' of you there, mate? I earlier pointed out that SOME mainstreamers have NO problem admitting LONGSTANDING error. And what do YOU keep doing? You keep denying new evidence and sticking to longstanding dogma-from-old-erroneous-authority! You can't have it both ways, @Castro; either you take Steinhardt's/Penrose's admission of error and move on with new astro/cosmo discovery/review that show Big Bang/Inflation is UNTENABLE now; or you just keep doing what you just accused others of. Catch up. :)

Mar 30, 2019
That's OK-- part of the point is to gather the evidence and iconoclasts drive that as much as traditionalists. They all have their place.

But people who deny science don't have any place in science. And are not competent to discuss it. Blocking is a good option for these people on the science site. Let them go discuss it on their religious and political sites.

Mar 30, 2019
@RealityCheck
@Castrogiovanni.
...However, I think he also was in the Hoyle-Narilkar steady state camp, and this stuff was part of it. To admit he was wrong was obviously too much for him.
Isn't that a little 'double standards' of you there, mate? ... @Castro; either you take Steinhardt's/Penrose's admission of error and move on with new astro/cosmo discovery/review that show Big Bang/Inflation is UNTENABLE now; or you just keep doing what you just accused others of. Catch up. :)

I have noticed that if one finds a flaw in their logic, the typical response tends to be insults. It seems easier to show disrespect, or threaten expulsion from class, than it is to engage in constructive discourse. ... Then again, how does one keep poor ideas in science so entrenched. It may just be unavoidable that ego pervades, since this is all the work of humans.

Mar 30, 2019
I have noticed that if one finds a flaw in their logic, the typical response tends to be insults. It seems easier to show disrespect, or threaten expulsion from class, than it is to engage in constructive discourse. ... Then again, how does one keep poor ideas in science so entrenched. It may just be unavoidable that ego pervades, since this is all the work of humans.


Word salad. Just point me to the literature where you have found a flaw. And then to your solution. Less talk, more do. Yes?

Mar 30, 2019
Isn't that a little 'double standards' of you there, mate? ... @Castro; either you take Steinhardt's/Penrose's admission of error and move on with new astro/cosmo discovery/review that show Big Bang/Inflation is UNTENABLE now; or you just keep doing what you just accused others of. Catch up. :)


What the hell is that crap supposed to mean? Just stop capitalising. Speak in plain Englisn. Provide links to whatever you are wittering on about. I am not interested in your worthless interpretation. Keep it short. Make it plain. Stop talking in riddles. You are as bad as the idiot Granville.

Mar 30, 2019
@Castrogiovanni.
Isn't that a little 'double standards' of you there, mate? ... @Castro; either you take Steinhardt's/Penrose's admission of error and move on with new astro/cosmo discovery/review that show Big Bang/Inflation is UNTENABLE now; or you just keep doing what you just accused others of. Catch up. :)


What the hell is that crap supposed to mean? Just stop capitalising. Speak in plain Englisn. Provide links to whatever you are wittering on about. I am not interested in your worthless interpretation. Keep it short. Make it plain. Stop talking in riddles. You are as bad as the idiot Granville.
Are you seriously going to try all that again, mate? You and others were provided with the links long ago (you as @jonesdave). You have only been denying and insulting ever since. If you missed it all because of your ignoring/trolling/denying activity, it's your problem now, mate. I am not going to waste my time on more time wasting tactics from you/anyone. :)

Mar 30, 2019
@ Really-Skippy. How you are Cher? Still falsifying what other peoples stuffs, eh? I am doing pretty good me, except the pollen is heavy this year.

@Castro; either you take Steinhardt's/Penrose's admission of error


Is this like your "deconstructed/recycled" you made up and hoped nobody like me would read the article you made the link for that did not have anything in it about "deconstructed/recycled" or even a "constructed/cycled" in him?

My guess is you are going to come up with some silly way to tell us: "trust me they said it and I don't have to put up a link that doesn't have them really saying it". (If you ain't careful DaScneib-Skippy might put this down for another falsifying fib.)

How you like me now Cher?

Mar 31, 2019
@Cant, @Reality,

You have absolutely no idea what I was like in the classroom. When I wrote that I let my students debunk idiotic theories, I meant just that. They did it, not me. You know why? Because I would present said idiotic theories. I got my students to teach themselves by asking them questions, and having them ask me questions.

I also believe in iconoclasts, and I also know they're mostly wrong. I'm independent.

What I was working on before I retired was extremely out of the mainstream, and it now appears to be bearing fruit; I didn't expect evidence for it this soon.

My first contribution stood things on their ear; it displeased everyone for a while, until most finally agreed I was correct. Most still do.

My other rebellions against the mainstream didn't go as well. I did make some mainstream contributions.

I did not squelch my students' desire to learn and to think; I demanded it. Only those who thought -- really thought -- survived.

And thrived.

Mar 31, 2019
@Castrogiovanni
I have noticed that if one finds a flaw in their logic, the typical response tends to be insults. It seems easier to show disrespect, or threaten expulsion from class, than it is to engage in constructive discourse. ... Then again, how does one keep poor ideas in science so entrenched. It may just be unavoidable that ego pervades, since this is all the work of humans.


Word salad. Just point me to the literature where you have found a flaw. And then to your solution. Less talk, more do. Yes?

And why would I reply?

From the way your comments are phrased, you have no interest in any civil discourse, but rather in only being pompous and insulting. So, what incentive do I have in offering anything?

Mar 31, 2019
From the way your comments are phrased, you have no interest in any civil discourse, but rather in only being pompous and insulting. So, what incentive do I have in offering anything?


Translation: "I was making stuff up, and have nothing to offer."

In which case, stop making comments, unless you can back them up. Read the guidelines.

Mar 31, 2019
In which case, stop making comments, unless you can back them up. Read the guidelines.
.........and you should do what YOU expect of others.

Mar 31, 2019
In which case, stop making comments, unless you can back them up. Read the guidelines.
.........and you should do what YOU expect of others.


Do you mean like linking to real science that shows that posers like you are always wrong? Been there, done that. Liar.

Mar 31, 2019
Singularities indicate that a theory is incomplete. Since we don't have quantum gravity, we already know relativity is incomplete.


Yes, but the idea that you could put inflation in and need to keep a singularity before that - a sort of "preserving the original Big Bang singularity" despite the matter creating rationale is gone - would not work precisely because of that. Since the energies would go towards Planck, the theorems that suggest a singularity *also* breaks down.

That is the same kind of "keeping to your guns" hope that demands another quantum gravity theory than the one we already have so you could advance that way. Yes, we have one, we can quantize gravity to a particle field same as other fields. The theory is *more robust* than the others since it breaks down first at Planck scale.

The larger problem is that it does not account for all general relativity backreaction effects, I believe. It lives in flat space despite predicting local gravity.

Mar 31, 2019
There was time before the BB, but not tick-tocking incremental time, it was duration from one universe to the next in infinite occurances. The fun part of infinite time or infinite space is Poincare Recurrance.


We have the global expansion clock during inflation and local inflation particle clocks, so that is not a problem.

Rather it is the Poincaré Recurrence that breaks down since it applies only in finite systems [ https://en.wikipe..._theorem ]. The trick to using it would be to look at comoving patches, and then you run into trouble of the local universes (say) shrinking beyond Planck scale volumes. You need infinite rescaling to cover an eternal universe (which is the generic inflation universe).

Mar 31, 2019
You have absolutely no idea what I was like in the classroom.

You're right, all I have to work with is your responses. Which should we believe, your braggadocious claims directed to your cohorts or your backpedaling deflection?
When I wrote that I let my students debunk idiotic theories, I meant just that. They did it, not me. You know why? Because I would present said idiotic theories.

Most likely you would "project" said idiotic theories. Did you "teach" your students to approach the theories in the framework of said theory or did you approach them from the framework of the accepted theories? Most claim Plasma Cosmology has been debunked, only to have "debunked" it from the gravity only framework of the standard guesswork. To properly address any alternative paradigm one must strip away all of the previously held assumptions and conclusions and approach it from the relevant framework. From the attitude of your comments ou almost certainly do not.

Mar 31, 2019
Darwin's "theory" of evolution has so many proofs that it clearly deserves the higher status of "law", but always seems to be a theory.


Term usage is historical, "laws" were early popular, "theories" are later, both describes processes. However modern generic usage is that laws are the symmetries (or broken symmetries) that are preserved, see Noether's theorems. In that respect, matter over antimatter" is a law, while the Sasharov conditions is the (generic) process.

When biologists want to describe the science of the basic process in biology - evolution - they often denote it a fact (observed), a pathway (historical outcome of the Tree Of Life observations), and a theory (a well tested process description allowing for predictions).

Mar 31, 2019
Most claim Plasma Cosmology has been debunked, only to have "debunked" it from the gravity only framework of the standard guesswork.


It has been. Not a single piece of evidence in favour of it. Nobody bothers with it any more.

Mar 31, 2019
... if there's matter/antimatter asymmetry in the quarks, then this can account for the matter dominance of the universe and the comparative absence of antimatter. Not all of it ...

And as @torbjorn points out regularly, in the neutrino sector, there is a good probability of further asymmetry.


I make a stronger point: The "Standard sector" demonstrates very little CP asymmetry, while the "Neutrino sector" currently seems to demonstrate the necessary CP asymmetry for M/AM asymmetry. Apriori we would expect the latter to suffice, but we don't yet know (still not significant results).

- tbctd -

Mar 31, 2019
- ctd -

"The big problem is that, in the Standard Model, there aren't enough baryon-number-violating interactions — the third of the three Sakharov conditions — for the amount of C- and CP-violation that we have. ... We can produce a matter-antimatter asymmetry, but it's too small by a factor of many millions, at least." [ https://www.forbe...5a6a5826 ]

Note that I misspelled the Sakharov conditions in an earlier comment (annoying, I know how it is spelled, I am just out of coffee).

Mar 31, 2019
I make a stronger point: The "Standard sector" demonstrates very little CP asymmetry, while the "Neutrino sector" currently seems to demonstrate the necessary CP asymmetry for M/AM asymmetry. Apriori we would expect the latter to suffice, but we don't yet know (still not significant results).- tbctd -
.............pure unadulterated psycho-babble, you don't even know what you just said, therefore there'd be no way for an Anthropologist to understand it, right CastrOAted?

Mar 31, 2019
.............pure unadulterated psycho-babble, you don't even know what you just said, therefore there'd be no way for an Anthropologist to understand it, right CastrOAted?


Reported, you pathetic liar.

Mar 31, 2019
Oops, the editor cuts off after the first link, so my last comment was incomplete. I repost below.

Let me first note that blocking trolls without concern for general public damage is really nice.

- ctd -

"The big problem is that, in the Standard Model, there aren't enough baryon-number-violating interactions — the third of the three Sakharov conditions — for the amount of C- and CP-violation that we have. ... Wcan produce a matter-antimatter asymmetry, but it's too small by a factor of many millions, at least." [ https://www.forbe...5a6a5826 ]

" "If there is CP violation in the neutrino sector, then this could easily account for the matter-antimatter difference," said Adrian Bevan, a particle physicist at Queen Mary University of London."
[ https://www.quant...0171212/ ]

Mar 31, 2019
@observicist.
@Reality,

Because I would present said idiotic theories. I got my students to teach themselves by asking them questions, and having them ask me questions.
If you have ever studied 'designing' a SURVEY questionnaire then you would know that you can subtly (and in some cases not-so-subtly) influence/self-select the 'answers/questions' which when compiled will 'support' the PRE-conclusion YOU designed the questionnaire to 'give' you. Biases are in the 'subtle' details, mate! :)
I'm independent.
Are you sure? You seem to cowtow to 'the gang' here, even when you/they know I have posted/contributed valid/new ideas/science/logics. :)
What I was working on before I retired was extremely out of the mainstream, and it now appears to be bearing fruit; I didn't expect evidence for it this soon.
Can you tell us what that was so we can judge for ourselves, mate?
My other rebellions against the mainstream....
And also what those were? Thanks. :)

Mar 31, 2019
@Uncle Ira.
Still falsifying what other peoples stuffs, eh?
Yes, I'm still the one being confirmed correct by recent mainstream discoveries/reviews, Ira; while you are still being the trolling nincompoop. So, no change at either end, mate!
I am doing pretty good me, except the pollen is heavy this year.
You allergic to that pollen, Ira? I hope it'll get better soon. :)
Is this like your "deconstructed/recycled" you made up...?
No need, mate. The words/usages already existed in English/Science language/lexicon; I merely used same to convey the IMPLIED meaning of what the articles have been saying about matter 'processed' by high-energy phenomena/features like galactic and black-star feature etc Polar-Jet-and-Accretion-Disc systems. You know, Ira, those very things that article pointed out for those who can read (not you, apparently, Ira); ie: quantity of (deconstructed/recycled) matter being by same sent to deep space. :)
How you like me..?
Needy? :)

Mar 31, 2019
From the way your comments are phrased, you have no interest in any civil discourse, but rather in only being pompous and insulting. So, what incentive do I have in offering anything?


Translation: "I was making stuff up, and have nothing to offer."

In which case, stop making comments, unless you can back them up. Read the guidelines.

Its as if you are grammar engine, incapable of learning anything. And so, it pointless to reply to a hollow can.

Mar 31, 2019
Most claim Plasma Cosmology has been debunked, only to have "debunked" it from the gravity only framework of the standard guesswork.


It has been. Not a single piece of evidence in favour of it. Nobody bothers with it any more.

As usual, your statement is the opposite of the truth.

Mar 31, 2019
@Reality,

I will not tell you what my contributions were, nor what I was working on recently (@SEU would disagree with it, however), as that would tell you who I am. Nobody reveals who they are, here -- that's what makes it possible for me to remain retired (although they still ask the old man questions, and I get out my slide rule), for @Benni to be stupid, for @SEU to be psychotic, for @cant to be grossly misinformed, and for you to suffer from the Galileo Fallacy, and all of us still walk around without being applauded or laughed at, depending. I've had my failures; every good scientist has.

@cant,

I taught my students from the standpoint of data. How else should I teach them? I'm independent because I follow the data, like any scientist should.

I've never been in anyone's camp. If it seems so, that's only because most scientists, except for those topics beyond the cutting edge, tend to follow the correct path. Not always, but usually.

Mar 31, 2019
@observicist.
@Reality,

I will not tell you what my contributions were, nor what I was working on recently (@SEU would disagree with it, however), as that would tell you who I am. Nobody reveals who they are, here -- that's what makes it possible for me to remain retired (although they still ask the old man questions, and I get out my slide rule), for @Benni to be stupid, for @SEU to be psychotic, for @cant to be grossly misinformed, and for you to suffer from the Galileo Fallacy, and all of us still walk around without being applauded or laughed at, depending. I've had my failures; every good scientist has.
Your prerogative, mate. Understood. Good luck with your science/tech etc endeavours. Thanks anyway. :)

ps: I too work on facts; and objective analysis/conclusions therefrom. However, many do not adhere strictly to scientific/logical method (which requires objectivity/non-circuitous reasoning when 'interpreting' data/observations) as I do. True science is king. :)

Apr 01, 2019
the fleeting second is misleading. at / before big bang time flow was exceedingly fast and this time flow when reaching a certain threshold caused the big bang

Apr 01, 2019
It has been. Not a single piece of evidence in favour of it. Nobody bothers with it any more.

As usual, your statement is the opposite of the truth.


Wrong. Otherwise you'd link to its successes. There aren't any. And the rubbish you believe is laughed at by the few followers of PC. PC is not a mythology-based, Velikovskian cult.

Apr 01, 2019
savvys84,

the fleeting second is misleading. at / before big bang time flow was exceedingly fast and this time flow when reaching a certain threshold caused the big bang


What evidence do you have to back up that assertion? Time flow prior to the Big Bang was exceedingly fast relative to what? Time flow in various regions of the present Cosmos is faster or slower relative to other places in the Cosmos. Being faster of slower, globally, means nothing, as there's nothing to which to compare the rate of time flow.

Why would time reaching a particular threshold cause the Big Bang? What characteristics would this threshold have that would cause sudden expansion of the the Cosmos?

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more