Big Bang PROVEN!

The non amateur stuff. Hawking, black holes, that sort of thing

Moderators: joe, Brian, Guy Fennimore

RL Astro
Posts: 749
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 6:09 pm
Location: Plymouth
Contact:

Post by RL Astro »

I was always under the impression that they're still theories because no-one has managed to "prove" them. The theories may be strong and they may be able to predict what will happen because of them but there's no rock solid evidence of them.
davep
Posts: 2814
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 11:07 am
Location: South Lincolnshire
Contact:

Post by davep »

That's the thing though, you don't ever really "prove" a theory, you just find more and more evidence to back it up. The more evidence there is, the better the theory is supported, the more unassailable it becomes.

Until, that is, some evidence to the contrary comes along and you have to modify the theory or think again.
spodzone
Posts: 56
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2005 1:42 pm
Location: Perth, Scotland
Contact:

Post by spodzone »

davep wrote:That's the thing though, you don't ever really "prove" a theory, you just find more and more evidence to back it up.
Mathematicians prove theories by making a statement isomorphic to an exhaustive consideration of all statements in its domain (or disprove by finding one counter-example). The terminology is pretty much `proved' or `disproved'.

Physicists (and astrophysicists by extension) have to settle for striving to increase the probability of a theory's truth. Hence the terminology should be more `supports', `reinforces' and `backs-up' until a rigorous proof is available (if ever). Otherwise you're just waiting for the next revolutionary idea to come along.
~Tim
davep
Posts: 2814
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 11:07 am
Location: South Lincolnshire
Contact:

Post by davep »

Exactly, and it's cosmology/astrophysics we're talking about here.
cigarshaped
Posts: 24
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 9:57 pm
Location: Bracknell, UK
Contact:

Big Bang PROVEN!

Post by cigarshaped »

Seems that we are not all convinced anything is PROVEN.
Aspicio Astrum:In science however, a theory is a model that is very much verified by evidence, and which can be used to predict occurrences.
Ideally yes, but the problem comes when new observations are not predicted and instead of questioning the original hypothesis, the theory is modified. This often seems to require the invention of invisible forces or matter that we can never disprove!
spodzone
Posts: 56
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2005 1:42 pm
Location: Perth, Scotland
Contact:

Re: Big Bang PROVEN!

Post by spodzone »

cigarshaped wrote:Ideally yes, but the problem comes when new observations are not predicted and instead of questioning the original hypothesis, the theory is modified.
Why is this a problem?
~Tim
cigarshaped
Posts: 24
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 9:57 pm
Location: Bracknell, UK
Contact:

Big Bang PROVEN!

Post by cigarshaped »

cigarshaped wrote:
Ideally yes, but the problem comes when new observations are not predicted and instead of questioning the original hypothesis, the theory is modified.
spodzone wrote:

Why is this a problem?
It may not be a problem once or twice but this has been going on for decades . It is beginning to sound like a mutating religion. "We will believe and trust in this idea but we just need to keep shifting the heavenly goal posts!" The 'bibles' are written and re-written while the idea is sacred and cannot be questioned.

I'm sorry if your world collapses if the expanding universe - isn't. I am excited by the new generation of researchers, outside of academia trying to push the boundaries. The IEEE engineers and scientists moving their plasma lab-testing into the space arena - using the word ELECTRICITY to answer astrophysics questions. How dare they - we prefer mechanical?
spodzone
Posts: 56
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2005 1:42 pm
Location: Perth, Scotland
Contact:

Re: Big Bang PROVEN!

Post by spodzone »

cigarshaped wrote:
cigarshaped wrote:
Ideally yes, but the problem comes when new observations are not predicted and instead of questioning the original hypothesis, the theory is modified.
spodzone wrote:

Why is this a problem?
It may not be a problem once or twice but this has been going on for decades . It is beginning to sound like a mutating religion. "We will believe and trust in this idea but we just need to keep shifting the heavenly goal posts!" The 'bibles' are written and re-written while the idea is sacred and cannot be questioned.
Why is this a problem? Do you have a specific idea in mind? Why do you assume I think all theories must be fixed? Is that not the point of a theory, that it is the best we know of at the moment, on which we will operate until a counter-example forces a change of theory or a bigger view supersedes it?
I'm sorry if your world collapses if the expanding universe - isn't. I am excited by the new generation of researchers, outside of academia trying to push the boundaries.


Please explain with examples. And you don't have to be sorry for me.
The IEEE engineers and scientists moving their plasma lab-testing into the space arena - using the word ELECTRICITY to answer astrophysics questions. How dare they - we prefer mechanical?
Could you give a reference for this?
~Tim
cigarshaped
Posts: 24
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 9:57 pm
Location: Bracknell, UK
Contact:

Post by cigarshaped »

Yes Spozone,

I am convinced that the Electric model of the Universe not only answers the questions but is predicting the observations. This is the growing counter-example
a counter-example forces a change of theory or a bigger view supersedes it
A small dedicated group of scientists and engineers are posting their findings on several websites that I will list at the end.
Please explain with examples.
Fundamentally the conventional assumption has been that if 99.9% of the universe is plasma, ie ionised and conductive gas (H), then it must be electrically neutral. On Earth we saw flames, sparks and lightning before arc welding, neon lights and plasma TVs came along. But our experience of outer space was somewhat limited. (Check out 19Jan07_TPOD on lightning)
http://www.thunderbolts.info/home.htm

It only needs a tiny difference in charge between +ions and -ve electrons to create a potential difference. These charges can be separated by thousands of miles and still affect each other. If you remember from school days that is what we need to move charge ie create electric current.

In the gas discharge lab potentials of 1000's of volts re-create conditions in space and show the peculiar behaviour of ionised gas. Not only does it separate into distinct zones of light and dark, but it also forms filaments. Such filaments were shown by Kristian Birkeland in his aurora experiments
http://www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/Education/whaur1.html
and we see them in novelty plasma balls. Notice how they twist together in pairs. Because they carry electric current they generate their own magnetic fields and this is one easy way to detect plasma current even when it is invisible to the eye.
http://www.holoscience.com/synopsis.php?page=2
Another feature of this magnetic field is that it will 'pinch' the filament under certain conditions, a bit like an electromagnetic focus, but extremely powerful. Examples of this are the conditions involved in nuclear explosions. Experiments at Los Alamos National Physics Labs and at our own Atomic Weapons Establishment reproduce these massive discharge phenomena across millimetres, for nanoseconds.

Slowed down by very expensive X-ray high speed cameras the Dense Plasma Focus gun shows remarkable transformations. These images can be seen scaled up to planetary nebula, galaxies and funnily enough carved on rocks by megalithic humans.
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/ ... a-rock.htm

I could go on with many other subjects but we come back to how does a galaxy work if it is not simply a gravitational phenomenon, but has a serious electrical component. Does it need a Black Hole to explain its characteristics?Is its energy source a gigantic network of current carrying filaments strung throughout the super cluster? Is the red-shift phenomena linked with the energy resonance of these constantly re-birthing sources of life and matter?

Does this not blow away most present theories and say let's start from scratch there is a 10^37 more powerful force than gravity that we have known about for 200 years but failed to include in our equations??? Maybe when we can say how things work now, THEN we can re-evaluate the evidence for a Big Bang?
If you want it in print then The Electric Sky is a good belated New Year present:http://members.cox.net/dascott3/index.htm
List of some other links here:
http://www.holoscience.com/links.php
spodzone
Posts: 56
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2005 1:42 pm
Location: Perth, Scotland
Contact:

Post by spodzone »

cigarshaped wrote:[...]
Does this not blow away most present theories and say let's start from scratch there is a 10^37 more powerful force than gravity that we have known about for 200 years but failed to include in our equations??? Maybe when we can say how things work now, THEN we can re-evaluate the evidence for a Big Bang?
If you want it in print then The Electric Sky is a good belated New Year present:http://members.cox.net/dascott3/index.htm
List of some other links here:
http://www.holoscience.com/links.php
No. You forgot a slightly important ± sign in the only number you quoted.

And the rest does not tell me anything substantial.
~Tim
cigarshaped
Posts: 24
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 9:57 pm
Location: Bracknell, UK
Contact:

Big Bang PROVEN!

Post by cigarshaped »

You forgot a slightly important ± sign in the only number you quoted.
Sorry? What?
Post Reply