2. I think many of the Arp-style objections to current theory are correct
7. I think current BB theory is extraordinarily unstable in its solutions
8. I think dark energy is one of the largest theory hacks of modern cosmology
12. I think that the universe is likely to be flat and thus infinite; universe curvature being measured as at most 1+10-20 with faster-than-light expansion in inflationary theory seems oddly desperate to avoid such a universe
19. I think that it will take cosmology a long, long time to forget its ego and converge on something closer to the real story
By this, I mean that their objections to Big Bang Theory, such as redshift measurements and associations of quasars, are correct.
By this, I mean that it is very easy to get the BB equations to have universes collapse almost immediately or expand so incredibly fast that nothing has a chance to form - the values required are taken to be "amazingly precise" and are used as "evidence" of strong anthropic hypotheses
By this, I mean that dark energy is just a term added to make equations balance, with nonsensical consequences - is there something that is so much more of a hack that dark energy is not even one of the largest? :)
By the explanation, I meant that inflationary theory needs curvature to be true - but that space had to expand faster than the speed of light enough to make the curvature look flat. Given that the estimate of flatness is, I believe, at most 10-20 away from perfectly flat, that seems "reaching".
You think it will take a short time?
Ari's: ... 8 - U
11 - N (depends what dark matter is taken to mean, though)
12 - N (Brian DuPraw had an interesting hypothesis in this regard, but he was too shy to post here :)
16 - A (though if Van Flandern somehow proves me wrong, so be it :)
Ok, but note my belief #18, which can also be said so that discordant redshift issues haven't really been objections to big bang theory. That is the disagreement I have with your belief; even if I think that many of DR-issues might be correct, I don't think they (necessarily) are objections to current theory.
In that case I have to update my take on this to N, I don't know enough about BB equations.
My disagreement is on "theoretical"...I guess I would rather call it philosophical hack.
But I think that the inflationary theory doesn't need curvature. In the BB (+inflation) universe with flat geometry, universe is exactly flat, not curved.
The Flatness Problem:
Imagine living on the surface of a soccer ball (a 2-dimensional world). It might be obvious to you that this surface was curved and that you were living in a closed universe. However, if that ball expanded to the size of the Earth, it would appear flat to you, even though it is still a sphere on larger scales. Now imagine increasing the size of that ball to astronomical scales. To you, it would appear to be flat as far as you could see, even though it might have been very curved to start with. Inflation stretches any initial curvature of the 3-dimensional universe to near flatness. (emphasis mine)
Well, actually no, but I think that cosmology doesn't have an ego. :)
It just means that universe is not made of discrete "blocks", and you can get things to be infinitely small in principle. Also, one implication here is that when an object moves, it does so smoothly, not by (very tiny) steps.
That's a shame, I hope that Brian reconsiders it. There's no need to be shy among us. :)
Well, Ritchie, after seeing your opinions of the beliefs of others, I guess we can start calling you "Sir Agreesalot". :P
It is true that some kind of big bang theory could certainly absorb things like discordant redshifts. I do think, however, that it would interfere greatly with the lambda-CDM/concordance model, which I would call "current" Big Bang Theory. Discordant redshifts interfere with age assumptions, distances, the presumed "age of quasars" before the age of galaxies (because quasars routinely have high z), with presumptions of acceleration, etc.
Has anyone proposed a Big Bang Theory that includes discordant redshifts?
...but it's the General Theory of Relativity, not the General Philosophy of Relativity ;)
That's incorrect. The whole point to inflation is to have the finite amount of spacetime and energy contact each other to erase any general differences, and then inflation expands space an amazing amount.
If cosmology were a person, I would say that it does ;)
At the very least, I cannot discount things like Penrose's spin networks, which have a minimum area of ~10-66 cm2.
He had quite a tidy way to determine what particles would form given a certain amount of energy. I wrote about it here,
Those who believe in the standard, or cosmological redshift, model may not realize that the DIR universe is in many ways quite similar. Since the intrinsic redshifts have been found to be superimposed on top of the Hubble flow (Bell and Comeau 2003c), there appears to be no need to abandon the Big Bang in this model.
I believe that the universe is one crazy place.
Powered by mwForum 2.15.0 © 1999-2008 Markus Wichitill