Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 61 to 86 of 86

Thread: Big BANG or Big BLOAT ???

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    59
    Quote Originally Posted by Noisy Rhysling View Post
    Sorry, wasn't my idea so I didn't know it wasn't mainstream. Apologies to the forum.
    That's what I'm discovering.
    Who knows what is "main-stream" when learning about matters which are mostly just theories -- & end in phrases like: "We just don't know"?

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    34,902
    Quote Originally Posted by intro View Post
    That's what I'm discovering.
    Who knows what is "main-stream" when learning about matters which are mostly just theories -- & end in phrases like: "We just don't know"?
    Science is all "just" theories!
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    12,329
    Quote Originally Posted by intro View Post
    That's what I'm discovering.
    Who knows what is "main-stream" when learning about matters which are mostly just theories -- & end in phrases like: "We just don't know"?
    That's like throwing away the cake just because the ice cream is starting to melt. Engineers do fantastic work based on simple Newtonian physics like F=ma. Newton introduced the first universal equations with his inverse square law for gravity, and NASA uses these over Einstein's equations for near Earth activity. Yet Newton admitted he really didn't know what gravity really is. You won't see reasonable people, however, jumping off cliffs just because full understanding of gravity is in the "We just don't know" category.

    I listed all the BB evidence to demonstrate all the remarkable lines of objective evidence discovered that take us far beyond the "We just don't know" level even though there are deeper levels still to be explored. We know a lot about the ocean even though we have not been to all of its bottom. This doesn't mean that science will ever have full sway with things like philosophy and religion which are realms beyond that which objective evidence (assuming scarcity of it) can effectively serve. Does that help?
    Last edited by George; 2017-Sep-07 at 05:49 PM.
    We know time flies, we just can't see its wings.

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    1,628
    Quote Originally Posted by Amber Robot View Post
    Physics and astronomy have all kinds of nomenclature problems. We need to not get obsessed about it and focus on the actual science.
    Even if we're dealing with red herrings.

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    47,724
    Quote Originally Posted by intro View Post
    That's what I'm discovering.
    Who knows what is "main-stream" when learning about matters which are mostly just theories -- & end in phrases like: "We just don't know"?
    intro,

    When you write "just theories", I suspect you mean it in the popular sense. In everyday language, "a theory" is just some idea that someone has, that may or may not be true; essentially an opinion, with little or no proof (as opposed to "a fact").

    But that is not how we are using "theory" around here. In scientific language, "a theory" is an idea that is well demonstrated, and has repeatedly been tested and shown to be the best explanation for something.

    And yes, sometimes the mainstream answer is "we don't know". For example, if you ask, what existed before the Universe, the mainstream answer is "we don't know". Sometimes the mainstream answer is "we don't know exactly, or in all the details, but we have a pretty good idea it went like this". For example, if you ask, how did life develop on Earth, we have a pretty good idea of what at least some (many) of the essential ingredients and steps were, but we do not yet have it all worked out.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    1,628
    Quote Originally Posted by intro View Post
    That's what I'm discovering.
    Who knows what is "main-stream" when learning about matters which are mostly just theories -- & end in phrases like: "We just don't know"?
    I'm a liberal arts major, so I'll accumulate points due to that kind of thing as time goes by.

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    16,510
    Quote Originally Posted by intro View Post
    That's what I'm discovering.
    Who knows what is "main-stream" when learning about matters which are mostly just theories -- & end in phrases like: "We just don't know"?
    Expertise consists largely of coming to know where the boundaries of knowledge are. Never trust an "expert" who professes to know the answer to everything.

    Grant Hutchison
    Blog

    Note:
    During life, we all develop attitudes and strategies to make our interactions with others more pleasant and useful. If I mention mine here, those comments can apply only to myself, my experiences and my situation. Such remarks cannot and should not be construed as dismissing, denigrating, devaluing or criticizing any different attitudes and strategies that other people have evolved as a result of their different situation and different experiences.

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    2,982
    Quote Originally Posted by Swift View Post
    When you write "just theories", I suspect you mean it in the popular sense. In everyday language, "a theory" is just some idea that someone has, that may or may not be true; essentially an opinion, with little or no proof (as opposed to "a fact").

    But that is not how we are using "theory" around here. In scientific language, "a theory" is an idea that is well demonstrated, and has repeatedly been tested and shown to be the best explanation for something.
    i once saw a T-shirt that read: When you say "It's just a theory", I hear "I don't understand how science works".

    Sums it up well.

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Peters Creek, Alaska
    Posts
    12,189
    Quote Originally Posted by AGN Fuel View Post
    i once saw a T-shirt that read: When you say "It's just a theory", I hear "I don't understand how science works".

    Sums it up well.
    Quoting only because it's the latest post in a digression that's gone far enough afield. Back to the topic, please.
    Forum Rules►  ◄FAQ►  ◄ATM Forum Advice►  ◄Conspiracy Advice
    Click http://cosmoquest.org/forum/images/buttons/report-40b.png to report a post (even this one) to the moderation team.


    Man is a tool-using animal. Nowhere do you find him without tools; without tools he is nothing, with tools he is all. ó Thomas Carlyle (1795-1881)

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    2,221
    Quote Originally Posted by AGN Fuel View Post
    i once saw a T-shirt that read: When you say "It's just a theory", I hear "I don't understand how science works".

    Sums it up well.
    Nice.

  11. #71
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    3,827
    Quote Originally Posted by intro View Post
    Who knows what is "main-stream" when learning about matters which are mostly just theories -- & end in phrases like: "We just don't know"?
    Knowing what is mainstream science is easy: Mainstream science is the science in textbooks.
    Mainstream science is not "just theories". Mainstream science is an enormous amount of physical evidence collected over centuries and tested many, many times which is explained by scientific theories.
    Nothing you have brought up in this thread is "We just don't know". The Big Bang is close to "We know too much"! (IMO it would be nice to have some wiggle room for vey new theories). Abiogenesis is "Which credible mechanism(s) created life".

  12. #72
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    1,628
    Quote Originally Posted by intro View Post
    That's what I'm discovering.
    Who knows what is "main-stream" when learning about matters which are mostly just theories -- & end in phrases like: "We just don't know"?
    "just theories" means you don't know what "theory" means to scientifically literal people.

  13. #73
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Peters Creek, Alaska
    Posts
    12,189
    Because once evidently wasn't enough (emphasis added):

    Quote Originally Posted by PetersCreek View Post
    Quoting only because it's the latest post in a digression that's gone far enough afield. Back to the topic, please.
    Forum Rules►  ◄FAQ►  ◄ATM Forum Advice►  ◄Conspiracy Advice
    Click http://cosmoquest.org/forum/images/buttons/report-40b.png to report a post (even this one) to the moderation team.


    Man is a tool-using animal. Nowhere do you find him without tools; without tools he is nothing, with tools he is all. ó Thomas Carlyle (1795-1881)

  14. #74
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    59
    Quote Originally Posted by Noisy Rhysling View Post
    Sorry, wasn't my idea so I didn't know it wasn't mainstream. Apologies to the forum.
    Quote Originally Posted by Noisy Rhysling View Post
    "just theories" means you don't know what "theory" means to scientifically literal people.
    Interesting what a liberal arts major knows about the workings of the universe & other people's understanding.
    Someone who is scientifically ignorant, can change that in a hurry.
    Someone who is gratuitously ignorant, literally takes majorly longer.
    Someone who is literally illiterate, is in another category when dissing people, especially scientifically-LITERAL-people.
    Last edited by intro; 2017-Sep-08 at 12:28 PM.

  15. #75
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    1,628
    I didn't major in the sciences, but I am well read. I wish more people were.

  16. #76
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    59
    Quote Originally Posted by Noisy Rhysling View Post
    I didn't major in the sciences, but I am well read. I wish more people were.
    Quote Originally Posted by Noisy Rhysling View Post
    Sorry, wasn't my idea so I didn't know it wasn't mainstream.
    More reading req'd. Less dissing recommended -- unless a major ego needs major (& liberal) boosting
    Last edited by intro; 2017-Sep-08 at 12:51 PM.

  17. #77
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Clear Lake City, TX
    Posts
    12,111
    And with that last rude remark, intro will be taking a break.
    Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity.
    Isaac Asimov

    You know, the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. They donít alter their views to fit the facts. They alter the facts to fit their views.
    Doctor Who

    Moderation will be in purple.
    Rules for Posting to This Board

  18. #78
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Falls Church, VA (near Washington, DC)
    Posts
    8,201
    Some more thoughts on the thread title and OP: Big Bloat could describe an expansion of any rate or intensity of temperature and density, to include Fred Hoyle's original steady state model. Big Bang more nearly describes the early stages of the current mainstream model. While I readily acknowledge that it has some fundamental flaws as have been extensively mentioned, I find it less faulty than jargon such as "early" and "late" spectral types, a holdover from a refuted theory; or the practice of saying "metals" for all elements heavier than helium, when the presence of hardy compounds such as titanium oxide in some stars means that the chemical properties of the elements are not completely immaterial. Those examples of jargon save some words and spare the users some cumbersome multi-word expressions, and are understood within the profession. They are easily explained to novices who may question them. Likewise with "Big Bang."

  19. #79
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    10,312
    Quote Originally Posted by Hornblower View Post
    Some more thoughts on the thread title and OP: Big Bloat could describe an expansion of any rate or intensity of temperature and density, to include Fred Hoyle's original steady state model.
    Well, his later quasi-steady state models, maybe.

  20. #80
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Falls Church, VA (near Washington, DC)
    Posts
    8,201
    Quote Originally Posted by Hornblower View Post
    Some more thoughts on the thread title and OP: Big Bloat could describe an expansion of any rate or intensity of temperature and density, to include Fred Hoyle's original steady state model. Big Bang more nearly describes the early stages of the current mainstream model. While I readily acknowledge that it has some fundamental flaws as have been extensively mentioned, I find it less faulty than jargon such as "early" and "late" spectral types, a holdover from a refuted theory; or the practice of saying "metals" for all elements heavier than helium, when the presence of hardy compounds such as titanium oxide in some stars means that the chemical properties of the elements are not completely immaterial. Those examples of jargon save some words and spare the users some cumbersome multi-word expressions, and are understood within the profession. They are easily explained to novices who may question them. Likewise with "Big Bang."
    Addendum:
    Quote Originally Posted by intro
    Was it a sudden explosion, or sudden expansion?
    Sudden expansion, meaning rapid onset of a rapid expansion from a previously static state, is a pretty good description of what we commonly call an explosion. I cannot tell whether by sudden explosion you mean an explosion that occurred sooner rather than later, or something about the physical characteristics of the explosion.

  21. #81
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    1,628
    Do we have a clear demarcation between an explosion and a very rapid expansion? (Serious question looking to see if there's a dividing line. If not the question would seem to be moot.)

  22. #82
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    12,232
    I believe explosions expand trans-sonic in the medium they're in Chief.
    Time wasted having fun is not time wasted - Lennon
    (John, not the other one.)

  23. #83
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    12,232
    Wait, that was the difference between shock waves and sound waves, my bad.
    Time wasted having fun is not time wasted - Lennon
    (John, not the other one.)

  24. #84
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    10,312
    Quote Originally Posted by Noisy Rhysling View Post
    Do we have a clear demarcation between an explosion and a very rapid expansion? (Serious question looking to see if there's a dividing line. If not the question would seem to be moot.)
    I think that in an explosion all the "stuff" would leave the central point at roughly the same speed. In a vacuum, they would continue at the same speed.

    In expansion everything moves away from everything else, and the speed is proportional to how far apart they are.

  25. #85
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    1,628
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    I think that in an explosion all the "stuff" would leave the central point at roughly the same speed. In a vacuum, they would continue at the same speed.

    In expansion everything moves away from everything else, and the speed is proportional to how far apart they are.
    Interesting. And the follow-on question would be "is there a enough difference between the two to make a differentiation important?" This in regard to our topic in this thread.

  26. #86
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    10,312
    Quote Originally Posted by Noisy Rhysling View Post
    Interesting. And the follow-on question would be "is there a enough difference between the two to make a differentiation important?" This in regard to our topic in this thread.
    I think so. An explosion (if I have understood the dynamics correctly) would not match what we observe, even if we were at the central point. And, if we weren't then it would match even less (the velocities would not all be receding from us the same amount in all directions).

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •