The Big Bang is NOT Scientific

But it seems to me there's a huge difference between directions we've assigned to our planet and laws of physics being observed in our galactic region of the cosmos. The analogy appears to be insufficient. ....And here I thought we were getting along pretty well. My apologies if I came across that way. I meant it is a natural tendency to look at things in a way favorable to one's position rather than a deliberate lie. I'll try to avoid anything that might be taken as a personal insult with you hereafter.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 Z Y BUZ SAW

We may have a lot of apples and oranges problems here then, my friend. You're talking to a old 70 yr old unconverted Newtonian fart here. LOL!

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 Z Y BUZ SAW

Well then, what about the high school textbooks? What say they in answer to my question? Surely they say something for the kids about this. I assume they tell them about what I've been reading on the web. No?

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 Z Y BUZ SAW

I haven't looked at recent physics books. However, I can't imagine that it is much different from what I described.I took a peek at the wikipedia entry for entropy. You will note that it defines only the change in entropy (in an equation for "dS"). Then we find That pretty much rules out finding a global (i.e. cosmos wide) value of entropy.

Well, Wheeler is 94 (legend of GR, named black holes, wrote the heaviest GR book).Penrose is 74 (legend of GR, quantum gravity, and popular books on the mind)And Hawking is only six years younger than you...*** SO WHAT IS YOUR EXCUSE??? ***

Thanks nwr. I'll take a break and have a look around the web.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 Z Y BUZ SAW

Don't forget, the analogy is for teaching, not proving. No problem. I just wanted to get that off my chest. The trouble is that you can't sensibly pick holes in something that is only being presented in the most simplified manner. Back to the old thread where Percy was talking about arguing the analogy.I'm not being rude but the truth is you have no clue what the Big Bang is really about. Very very few people do. Many here have good to excellent layman knowledge (I'm sure you included), but that at its best is still so far from any real understanding.You can have taken GR and Cosmology on a physics degree from Ivy League or Cambridge or where-ever and you will have effectively no clue about the Big Bang, certainly not an inkling of how thermodynamics pertains to the situation. I said before: this is deep stuff. Ok, my position is to find out the truth about the physical universe. Simple as that. I don't even believe in the Big Bang as most would understand it; there is nothing to defend other than my integrity as a (former) research scientist. The role of thermodynamics in the universe is something I know about... it is mysterious in the extreme. But what I mean by thermodynamics in this context is way beyond just about anything you will either find on the web or in any book. To say that BB is incompatible with TD is like saying that man will never get to Mars because steam engines can't generate sufficient speed. The concepts are hopelessly mismatched.

Not necessarily, according to what I'm finding.Below first, Bruce Miller, high school biology teacher answers a creationist, Bruce in support of his teaching on evolution: Then this:

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 Z Y BUZ SAW

Since we don't talk proving in scientific theory I wasn't talking proving. I'm not understanding how directional references pertaining to earth becomes analogous to teaching about things pertaining to scientific laws of physics. In all due respect, "no clue" is a tad shy of "good to excellent." Can't you allow learnable laymen a little leeway? I'm sure you're not going to like this, but it seems to me the deeper modern science gets, the less logically objective and the more relatively quantum it gets. I suspect that the more problems that arise with the popular theories, the deeper science is forced to go into mysterious relativity and quantum to keep the BB #1 in science.A young chap wrote a thesis up which he submitted to the Nobel Prize committee in a contest which spells out a lot of the problems science is encountering with the BB quite nicely. I will see if I can get it up and link it in edit. Cool but please, don't get so deeply quanticized that you become totally illogical. Even Feyman admits that some of what he believes doesn't make sense to him in an on line lecture I listened to a few years ago.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 Z Y BUZ SAW

The creation and development of the universeThe Big-bang model accompanied by inflation is able to account for the ... But we can't be certain on this; thermodynamics is pretty old and it has been ...
http://www.physlib.com/nobel_essay.html

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 Z Y BUZ SAW

If you look just past that, he says:You can't really quantify entropy for the universe as a whole. Relativity tells us that we can only quantify in local coordinate systems.I can't say much about your second quote, since I can't find the context. It gives the appearance of confusing entropy from thermodynamics with entropy from information theory. But maybe the context would clarify that.

What he's saying in your additional info, as I understand it applies only to an open system like the earth being a model for an open system receiving energy from outside of it. What I quoted he is applying to the closed entire universe system being a closed but allegedly a finite system to which increased entropy is suppose to apply emphatically until it's demise by gravity. Is that correct?My apologies on the 2nd link. I'll see if I can find it.Abe: The link within the 2nd quote takes you to the original site with context.This message has been edited by buzsaw, 03-26-2006 11:44 PM

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 Z Y BUZ SAW

That was not my reading.As I see it, the statement you quoted (about the universe as a whole) was a vague general statement that is impossible to pin down. And it wasn't Miller's original statement, but an acknowledgement of something that came up in a discussion. Miller then quickly jumped to a more precise statement, which is where he started talking about closed local systems. I looked there. I didn't find the original text you were quoting.

the big bang theory cannot be judged without holding some credentials in the given area of aeronaughtic or NASA equivalent engineering, but if you view fourier series in relation to a morphic thermal matrix equation (or for example parabolic partial differential equation) or even a thermal density matrix (http://militzer.gl.ciw.edu/diss/node13.html) you can see that a parabolic universe is not quite possible (with our knowledge of maths). Yet a quantitive approach, if not extremely large and complex, can yield a more accurate result through partial differentiation of heat through the friction of electrons and quasars, the result is that an initial atom, could in fact have manifested an exponential increase in energy when held in a vaccum of no other external forces, but the nuclear forces from the atom itself.

Thanks for the link Buzz. I've just read his opening paragraph

quote:

---

How did the universe arise?
The dominating view today is that it arose through what is called the big-bang. This view is most common because it predicts:
A) It predicts that the universe is expanding, which it does. This leads to that if we think backward in time the universe would be contracting. This would lead to that once everything has been gathered on one place, and therefore has arisen through a primordial-explosion; big-bang.
B) It predicts that the universe should be made of 25% helium, which is correct.
C) It predicts the background radiation. When the universe had just been created it was very hot which means that there where a lot of radiation. As the universe then cooled a lot of the radiation disappeared but some still exist and this is the background radiation.
Furthermore it is considered to be the theory that requires the least amount of unconfirmed assumptions to make these predictions. In other words it is the easiest way to explain them.

---

This alone is sufficient for me to know he has no clue. His knowledge is layman based because of the most important reason we look to the Big Bang model and he has missed it out, because most layman accounts seem to miss it too. Also, his explanation of C) is attrocious (and wrong)Reading further it just gets much much worse I would hope that most interested parties at EvC could do 100 times better...Seriously, there's not much point singling anything out becasue it really is that bad. The guy is just repeating stuff he has read in layman's accounts... badly!I'm not being harsh... you should see the letters I write when I'm rejecting real papers submitted to real journals