The Big Bang theory

Post here on the Big Bang theory and whether you agree with it or not. I don't believe in it. This site should explain a lot of reasons why I don't:~@Com~|~~BIG BANG THEORY UNDER FIRE~~

quote:

---

Originally posted by Conspirator:
Post here on the Big Bang theory and whether you agree with it or not. I don't believe in it. This site should explain a lot of reasons why I don't:

​

~@Com~|~~BIG BANG THEORY UNDER FIRE~~

---

And how much of this very long list of objections do you understand? Pick one of the many complaints and lets see.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

I just got done reading it yesterday.. Uh, I'll let you pick one... If I really had to pick one, I guess I'd pick #5.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Conspirator:
I just got done reading it yesterday.. Uh, I'll let you pick one... If I really had to pick one, I guess I'd pick #5.

---

#5....The missing mass problem. This one is easy. There isn't a missing mass problem, at least not as stated on the page cited.From the cite:

quote:

---

Actually, the density of the universe appears to be insufficient to support any BB universe case: closed, flat or somewhat open.

---

This is simply a miss-statement of the problem. Try looking it up on Google. Here's a hint-- type in 'missing mass problem big bang'The missing mass problem involves which of these three options is correct, not whether one of the three is correct. If the mass is too great, the universe is closed-- it recollapses. If the mass is too low, the universe expands forever. If the total mass is just right, the universe will slow expansion forever but never quite recollapse.It has nothing to do with whether the BB happened or not.Wanna pick another one and try again?And, by the way, you left a lot of us hanging on that first thread you started. Care to continue that discussion?------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com[This message has been edited by John, 09-08-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Conspirator:
I just got done reading it yesterday.. Uh, I'll let you pick one... If I really had to pick one, I guess I'd pick #5.

---

Ever hear of Dark Matter?

I'm not 100% sure, but I do believe that Hawkins, having many issues with the problems with the Big Bang, Time and the problem of Realativity and Singularities, is working on a new theory for the creation of the universe.I think the problem he has is that at the end of universal expansion and the beginning of universal contraction time should reverse or something... I am not 100% sure, if someone has any info please post it.

^ Simply remove the cosmological postulate and work on a finite continuum and you get some really interesting things happening with time. [This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 10-16-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by RedVento:
I'm not 100% sure, but I do believe that Hawkins, having many issues with the problems with the Big Bang, Time and the problem of Realativity and Singularities, is working on a new theory for the creation of the universe.

​

I think the problem he has is that at the end of universal expansion and the beginning of universal contraction time should reverse or something... I am not 100% sure, if someone has any info please post it.

---

i think hawkings does what a lot of great thinkers do, he asks 'what ifs' based on what he knows to be true and what he wants to prove to be true... one of the reasons for his 'imaginary numbers' thingy was to combat the fact that an actual infinite can't exist.. so using make believe numbers he's attempting to show how an actual infinite can exist while at the same time accounting for our being here and now... it's rooted in, as you say, his problems with the big bang and problems inherent in a first cause universe (from his view)... now i am *not* attempting to speak for him or anyone else, how pretensious that'd be, i'm just giving my opinion

quote:

---

Originally posted by forgiven:
i think hawkings does what a lot of great thinkers do, he asks 'what ifs' based on what he knows to be true and what he wants to prove to be true... one of the reasons for his 'imaginary numbers' thingy was to combat the fact that an actual infinite can't exist.. so using make believe numbers he's attempting to show how an actual infinite can exist while at the same time accounting for our being here and now... it's rooted in, as you say, his problems with the big bang and problems inherent in a first cause universe (from his view)... now i am *not* attempting to speak for him or anyone else, how pretensious that'd be, i'm just giving my opinion

​

---

It seem to me that you hit it right on the head. Hawking is working at the very edge of human knowledge and speculating about things that may not be testable for decades yet. But his work does give us something TO test, or try to test.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

^^^ oh he's a genius, no doubt of that... even he knows, tho, that imaginary numbers are totally satisfying

quote:

---

Originally posted by forgiven:
^^^ oh he's a genius, no doubt of that... even he knows, tho, that imaginary numbers are totally satisfying

---

Forgive me for a sec while I get up to speed but by imaginary numbers do you mean multiples of the square root of minus one?

quote:

---

Originally posted by joz:

quote:

---

Originally posted by forgiven:
^^^ oh he's a genius, no doubt of that... even he knows, tho, that imaginary numbers are totally satisfying

---

​

Forgive me for a sec while I get up to speed but by imaginary numbers do you mean multiples of the square root of minus one?

---

that would be an example, yes

quote:

---

Originally posted by forgiven:
that would be an example, yes

---

Lots of physics uses i (the square root of -1) bud are you saying that you think they are all in error because of that use?Does this bias of yours apply to any other set of nubers or is it just imaginary (and presumably complex) numbers that you object to?

quote:

---

Originally posted by joz:

Lots of physics uses i (the square root of -1) bud are you saying that you think they are all in error because of that use?

​

Does this bias of yours apply to any other set of nubers or is it just imaginary (and presumably complex) numbers that you object to?

​

---

forgiven said that imaginary numbers are 'totally satisfying' not 'unsatisfying' But I am a bit suspicious. It is an odd sentence structure and word choice, imho, if it is not a typo. So, forgiven, some clarification?------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by John:
forgiven said that imaginary numbers are 'totally satisfying' not 'unsatisfying' But I am a bit suspicious. It is an odd sentence structure and word choice, imho, if it is not a typo. So, forgiven, some clarification?

---

Thats the way I read it as well, I think that buddy boy just doesn`t understand the mathematical use of i, certainly his comment about make-believe numbers seems to imply that he regards them as some ad hoc construct rather than the established piece of mathmatics that they (and complex numbers are)....He certainly seems confused between the mathmatical use of the word imaginary and its colloquial use....