Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 86

Thread: Big BANG or Big BLOAT ???

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    59

    Big BANG or Big BLOAT ???

    Was it a sudden explosion, or sudden expansion?
    Last edited by intro; 2017-Aug-22 at 02:23 PM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    10,993
    Well, explosion is definitely misleading. It suggests stuff being blasted from a point into empty space. That is not what the Big Bang model describes.

    In the Big Bang model, space is and always has been completely (and homogeneously) full of matter. Space is expanding and cooling.

    But I doubt you will persuade anyone to change the nickname, even if it were more accurate.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    59
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    In the Big Bang model, space is and always has been completely (and homogeneously) full of matter.
    Always??? Even before the Big Bloat?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    10,993
    Quote Originally Posted by intro View Post
    Always??? Even before the Big Bloat?
    Always in the sense "as far as our models can take us". I can't see any reason why it wouldn't always be true though, but we can't say anything before the first fraction of a second.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    59
    That isn't reasonable -- but whatever floats your bloat :-)

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    59
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    space is and always has been completely (and homogeneously) full of matter.
    This is an oxymoron :-)

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    10,993
    Quote Originally Posted by intro View Post
    That isn't reasonable
    It is science.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    10,993
    Quote Originally Posted by intro View Post
    This is an oxymoron :-)
    I don't see why.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    59
    Please link me to the science. Txs
    Last edited by intro; 2017-Aug-22 at 12:47 PM.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    59
    There's vast space in space -- can't be full -- homogeneously or any other way.
    Last edited by intro; 2017-Aug-22 at 12:47 PM. Reason: space

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    10,993
    Quote Originally Posted by intro View Post
    Please link me to the science. Txs
    You could start with wikipedia, follow some of the references and then ask questions about things you don't understand.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_principle
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda-CDM_model

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    10,993
    Quote Originally Posted by intro View Post
    There's vast space in space -- can't be full -- homogeneously or any other way.
    Today, it is not homogeneous on small scales. For example the solar system is very "lumpy". But if you look at the universe on a large scale it is increasingly homogeneous and isotropic. And the early universe would have been even more so, apart from quantum-level fluctuations.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    59
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    space is and always has been completely (and homogeneously) full of matter.
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    You could start with wikipedia, follow some of the references and then ask questions about things you don't understand.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_principle
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda-CDM_model
    Thanks but the articles do not say "space is full of matter" -- not "completely" -- not "homogeneously" -- not in any way, "full".

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    10,993
    First paragraph of the first link:
    In modern physical cosmology, the cosmological principle is the notion that the spatial distribution of matter in the universe is homogeneous and isotropic when viewed on a large enough scale, since the forces are expected to act uniformly throughout the universe, and should, therefore, produce no observable irregularities in the large-scale structuring over the course of evolution of the matter field that was initially laid down by the Big Bang.
    And, expanding on that:
    The two testable structural consequences of the cosmological principle are homogeneity and isotropy. Homogeneity means that the same observational evidence is available to observers at different locations in the universe ("the part of the universe which we can see is a fair sample"). Isotropy means that the same observational evidence is available by looking in any direction in the universe ("the same physical laws apply throughout"[dubiousdiscuss]). The principles are distinct but closely related, because a universe that appears isotropic from any two (for a spherical geometry, three) locations must also be homogeneous.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    59
    "Space is and always has been completely ...full of matter" is not an accurate statement.
    Asteroids are full of questions.
    Humanoids are full of . . . theories.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    10,993
    Perhaps my wording could have been better. I meant that the universe is (and always has been) full of matter.

    There are now volumes of space that are (nearly) empty but, overall, the universe is homogeneously full of matter (on large enough scales).

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    9,500
    Quote Originally Posted by intro View Post
    "Space is and always has been completely ...full of matter" is not an accurate statement.
    Asteroids are full of questions.
    Humanoids are full of . . . theories.

    intro, it is fine to ask questions, even though the OP shows that you don't know the history of the name "big bang".
    However, do not start to debate against mainstream science as presented to you here.
    If you want to debate against it, take it to ATM.
    All comments made in red are moderator comments. Please, read the rules of the forum here, the special rules for the ATM section here and conspiracy theories. If you think a post is inappropriate, don't comment on it in thread but report it using the /!\ button in the lower left corner of each message. But most of all, have fun!

    Catch me on twitter: @tusenfem
    Catch Rosetta Plasma Consortium on twitter: @Rosetta_RPC

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    59
    Thanks for the caution.
    I am not debating AGAINST mainstream science.
    I am asking: "Is Big BLOAT a more accurate description of mainstream science?"

    “Sir Fred Hoyle FRS (24 June 1915 – 20 August 2001)[1] was an English astronomer who formulated the theory of stellar nucleosynthesis. He also held controversial stances on other scientific matters—in particular his rejection of the "Big Bang" theory, a term coined by him on BBC radio....” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle)

    And if words mean anything "space is completely full of matter" cannot be true (or mainstream science).

    And I am asking: "Is mainstream science believing / espousing "sudden expansion" or "sudden explosion" theory?"
    Last edited by intro; 2017-Aug-22 at 02:22 PM.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    10,993
    Quote Originally Posted by intro View Post
    Thanks for the caution.
    I am not debating AGAINST mainstream science.
    I am asking: "Is Big BLOAT a more accurate description of mainstream science?"
    Not really. Neither are particularly accurate. "Bloat" suggests something like a balloon filled with gas.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    59
    BIG BLOATING BLOB is better then? ~ “...picture the universe as a gigantic blob of dough which is placed in an oven and begins to expand. Embedded throughout the dough are a bunch of raisins, each of which represents a galaxy (including one for our galaxy, the Milky Way). As the dough expands, the distances within it all stretch proportionally, and the raisins move away from each other IN ALL THREE DIRECTIONS.” (http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/abo...n-intermediate)
    Last edited by intro; 2017-Aug-22 at 02:42 PM.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    10,993
    If you think that is a good analogy, maybe.

    Personally, I think it is a terrible analogy. But others like it.

    "Expanding space" is a better two word summary (but even that analogy can mislead).

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    59
    Would DTE work?
    DTE (Donald Trump Ego) or would mainstream science classify that title as “fake news”?
    Last edited by intro; 2017-Aug-22 at 03:08 PM.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Peters Creek, Alaska
    Posts
    13,492
    Quote Originally Posted by intro View Post
    Would DTE work?
    DTE (Donald Trump Ego) or would mainstream science classify that title as “fake news”?
    intro,

    Outside of very limited bounds, our rules prohibit political comments such as yours. Please read those rules.
    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. — Thomas Carlyle (1795-1881)

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    3,631
    I think rapid inflation is the accepted term, along with Inflationary Epoch.

    Remember, "The Big Bang", was coined as a disparaging term of disbelief - essentially, deliberately sloppy to make its point.

    It just happens to have stuck.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    The Wild West
    Posts
    9,506
    Quote Originally Posted by intro View Post
    “Sir Fred Hoyle FRS (24 June 1915 – 20 August 2001)[1] was an English astronomer who formulated the theory of stellar nucleosynthesis. He also held controversial stances on other scientific matters—in particular his rejection of the "Big Bang" theory, a term coined by him on BBC radio....” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle)

    The collaboration with Fowler on nucleosynthesis even led Hoyle to dabble with the big bang universe for a while. Despite the great success of B2FH [Burbidge, Burbidge, Fowler, and Hoyle's paper on stellar nucleosynthesis], there remained a nagging doubt about the origin of the lightest elements, particularly lithium: It cannot be made in stars, so it must come from another source.... [Investigating] the nuclear reactions that might occur fleetingly in the primordial fireball... [t]hey discovered ways to make deuterium, helium-3, and lithium-7... Hoyle had found out how these would be made during an event he did not believe in. - Mitton

    [Regarding Hoyle's BBC programs] Lord Simon turned to Sydney Goldstein, then professor of applied mathematics at Manchester, for an expert opinion. Goldstein, who had been a fellow of St. John's College, responded by saying it all depended what programming the corporation wanted. "If they want entertainment, the lectures are fine. If they want science they are not fine. The best astronomers would not agree with many of his conclusions. Hoyle has not the humility of a good scientist. Id.
    Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,434
    Quote Originally Posted by intro View Post
    I am asking: "Is Big BLOAT a more accurate description of mainstream science?"
    No. A more accurate description would be the "expansion of spacetime" theory.

    Quote Originally Posted by intro View Post
    And I am asking: "Is mainstream science believing / espousing "sudden expansion" or "sudden explosion" theory?"
    The answer has already been given. There was an expansion of spacetime so the Big Bang is a "sudden expansion" theory. That is what the enormous physical evidence for an expanding universe has lead the vast majority of scientists to believe.
    Last edited by Reality Check; 2017-Aug-23 at 11:45 PM.

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    3,631
    The Big Bang being any kind of explosion is a view only taken by
    - laypeople that don't understand The Big Bang, and
    - physicists that are exploring their own fringe theories.
    Those are the only two categories.
    Last edited by DaveC426913; 2017-Aug-24 at 12:30 AM.

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    10,993
    Quote Originally Posted by DaveC426913 View Post
    The Big Bang being any kind of explosion is a view only taken by
    - laypeople that don't understand The Big Bang, and
    - physicists that are exploring their own fringe theories.
    Those are the only two categories.
    Don't forget journalists. (Even those who are scientists and should know better ...)

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    11,984
    The big bloat is inflation.

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    59
    Quote Originally Posted by publiusr View Post
    The big bloat is inflation.
    Exactly, my point -- in support of mainstream science.

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
  •