Re: Bjoern BBT flops yet again.


Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
> Schoenfeld wrote:
> > Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
> >
> >>>Anything said about planckian universe is entirely speculative.
> >>
> >>Well, good then that my BB FAQ is not about the "Planckian universe".
> >>Thanks for showing that you either did not bother to look at it, or
> >>were too dumb to understand it?
> >
> >
> > You got me there - I didn't bother reading your FAQ but if it talks
> > about the Big Bang without addressing the failure to describe the
> > universe within planck time age (which is unavoidable) then it isn't
> > much of a FAQ.
>
> It addresses this problem (not a "failure") and says that ideas about
> the solution to this problem are so far still speculative. Just as you
> said above.
>
>
> >>>How can one describe the universe so small
> >>
> >>"so small"? Are you also one of the *many* people who think that the
> >>BB theory says that initially the universe was very small?
> >>
> >>Thanks for showing that you, too, don't know what you are talking about.
> >
> >
> > Well if you mean to say that Big Bang theory does not require a
> > universe having age less than planck time (what I mean by small)
>
> "small" refers to *size* usually, not to time. You specifically said
> that the universe was small, not that its age was small. Problems with
> the English language? Or did you recognize your blunder and are now
> trying to wiggle out of it?

And yet another basic mistake made by Bjoern, this time in his own
field of research.

hint: a small universe is a young universe.

hint2: in the context of big bang theory, space and time are an
inseparable entity.

>
> [snip]
>
>
> >>>without an understanding of Quantum
> >>>Gravity? I don't know how people manage to funding for that.
> >>
> >>Err, hint: people who try to model these early times are essentially
> >>doing research on Quantum Gravity.
> >
> >
> > Perhaps you can fill me in on how Big Bang - an inference from a
> > gravitational theory its observations - can be modelled or even
> > proposed without understanding that the true nature of that gravity?
>
> This does not even make sense grammatically.
>
> And why do you think that we don't have a proper understanding of
> gravity? What do you think is General Relativity about?

The point I made was that you cannot use General Relativity to describe
the initial moments of the universe and these moments are the most
crucial. Since that is the case, the whole big bang theory is
speculative. Until Quantum Gravity is known or at least partially
known, then one cannot really speak about Big Bang other than in a
purely speculative context. It is rather strange to use Big Bang as a
canvas to study Quantum Gravity, since there is no assurances that
Quantum Gravity allows a Big Bang to begin with.

Not only that, but there is the whole missign mass problem with general
relativity and the failure to detect inferred matter (a.k.a dark matter
and other non-baryonic matters).



>
> >>Thanks one again for showing that you don't know what you are talking
> >>about.
> >
> >
> > On the contrary.
>
> You showed it once again in this post.

On the contrary.

>
>
> Bye,
> Bjoern

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Science Disproves Evolution
    ... D, 3He, and 4He and 7Li provide strong evidence for Big Bang ... al., "The Extragalactic Universe: ... Cosmology has progressed somewhat rapidly in the last several years, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Did the big bang really happen? [New Scientist July 02]
    ... WHAT if the big bang never happened? ... Take the way galaxies are scattered across the ... There they argued that cosmologists' most cherished ... theory of the universe fails to explain certain crucial observations. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • The Top 30 Problems with the Big Bang
    ... Here's a list of 30 problems with the Big Bang theory. ... Static universe models fit observational data better than expanding ... The expression ?the temperature of space? ... the microwave radiation, including its blackbody-shaped spectrum. ...
    (soc.culture.malaysia)
  • Re: OT Welcome to the New Middle Ages
    ... What was happening 10 seconds before the Big Bang (or whatever you ... It's hard to believe that the billions of stars in the universe ... possibility of religion exists. ... fallacious" are atheists like yourself. ...
    (alt.sports.basketball.nba.la-lakers)
  • Refuting the Big Bang Theory
    ... the big bang of some 17.6 billion years ago started it ... drawing together by increasing gravity and ignited to become stars. ... resulting layout of the universe has to be completely accidental as well. ... galaxy to solar system to planet were perfectly fine-tuned. ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading