Confirmed: The Last Great Prediction Of The Big Bang • Hacker News Board

Re: Confirmed: The Last Great Prediction Of The Big Bang

#31

Post by Gladdyu » Thu, Sep 03, 2015, 8:01 PM UTC

jacinda wrote: post #30

"Each one of these predictions, like a uniformly expanding Universe whose expansion rate was faster in the past..." I thought that the universe's expansion was accelerating. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerating_universe

The 'greater rate in the past' would correspond with the supposed inflationary model of the universe (a very fast expansion just after the big bang), only the wording here is a bit confusing.

For more info: http://www.ctc.cam.ac.uk/outreach/origins/inflation_zero.php

Re: Confirmed: The Last Great Prediction Of The Big Bang

#32

Post by michaelsbradley » Thu, Sep 03, 2015, 8:16 PM UTC

hga wrote: post #20

ante_annum wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I frequently find this used by people who don't want to discuss that the Big Bang was originally theorized by a priest. It doesn't fit their narrative.

Per Wikpedia, he " was a Belgian priest, astronomer and professor of physics at the Catholic University of Leuven. He proposed the theory of the expansion of the universe, widely misattributed to Edwin Hubble. He was the first to derive what is now known as Hubble's law and made the first estimation of what is now called the Hubble constant, which he published in 1927, two years before Hubble's article. Lemaître also…

Of interesting historical note: Fr. Lemaître's studies of Einstein's theories were prompted by the encouragement of another churchman, Cardinal Mercier of Belgium.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%C3%A9sir%C3%A9-Joseph_Mercie...

Here is an English translation of the Cardinal's most important book, published in 1897:

The origins of contemporary psychology

https://archive.org/details/originsofcontemp00merciala

And the abstract for a review of the book, written in 1970:

http://www.researchgate.net/publication/232491640_Review_of_...

Re: Confirmed: The Last Great Prediction Of The Big Bang

#33

Post by poelzi » Thu, Sep 03, 2015, 8:18 PM UTC

skiffydiffy56 wrote: post #25

poelzi wrote: post #24

WTF. I can only suggest this summery: http://www.cosmology.info/newsletter/2014.05.pdf If your model is correct, it must explain everything, not just some or most of it. Money Quote: Each of these sets of problems could be, and in fact often are, dismissed as mere “anomalies” in an otherwise well-supported theory. But taken collectively they contradict all the predictions of the theory, leaving no support at all. The…

http://preposterousuniverse.blogspot.com/2005/05/alternative...

He does not go into detail to the referenced articles. Those are peer reviewed observations that do NOT fit. For example the huge Quasar cluster found in the 90s where many astronomers clearly state: this thing is old, very old, 50 to 100 billion years old. How does this fit 13 billion years timeframe ? The Brightness Surface does not match the distance: pleas explain that. The Li concentration does not fit the age of the stars,... The list goes on. He does not explain any of the phenomena, just attacking unsubstantial. If the Redshift is a comsological phenomena, and the Background temperature a signature of the Zero Point Energy (exists an QM as well), absolutely nothing speaks for the Big Bang Theory anymore.

I found BSM-SG the most logical model I have seen so far, so, I stumbled about nothing that does not fit into this model. We have a 2 major errors in our physical model that made the whole standard theory so utterly complex, non logical understandable (mathematical logic != classical logic) (common view under Theoretical physicists) and hardly explaining edge cases. From my experience nearly nobody sees it, because they work in a very narrow field...