Harry Costas:

Despite the widespread acceptance of the big bang theory as a working model for interpreting new findings, not a single important prediction of the theory has yet been confirmed ...

OK, right, and the Nobel Prize committees who have awarded at least two Nobel Prizes for (a) discovery and (b) confirmation (and improvement of resolution in measuring) of the CMB are a bunch of uninformed idiots, right?

 The CMB may be leftover, cooled radiation from the BB -or- it may simply be the current temp of the universe. If we determine later that the universe is too old for the CMB to be leftover (without raising the initial temps to compensate) then we will have to find out what the CMB really means.

Nobel prizes have to be awarded for something and the CMB was picked. Whether it has been correctly evaluated remains to be seen. 

The current model has many such areas including inflationary epoch (previously discussed) that allow the modern inquisition to change numbers in the equations to keep the BB theory alive. 2 + 2 = 4 today but later when it equals 5 we will simply change one of the 2's to a 3  so we are correct.

Bottom line here...

WE STILL DO NOT KNOW A THING ABOUT THE ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE !

Cheers,

BQ 

Hello Chipp

You will need to do your own research on that.

No they are not idiots. 

They gave the prize on what they thought was evidence.

Now that it has been disproved and in dispute, they have egg on their faces.

But!!!!!! do not take my word for it, research it 

Harry Costas:

Now that it has been disproved and in dispute, they have egg on their faces.

It has not been disproved.  Nor is it really in dispute.

Something can be questioned yet not disproved. You or others may have alternative explanations. If those stand the tests as well as the current model, then something needs fixing (one, or the other). I can certainly agree that as new date becomes available, the conclusions reached on prior evidence may need changing, but that hardly invalidates the prior observations. I am not aware of any current research -- including the links you have posted -- that seriously questions the validity of the CMB data. Conclusions based on that data, sure, but not the data itself.

brooksquest:

WE STILL DO NOT KNOW A THING ABOUT THE ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE !

While I respect your right to your opinion, I respectfully suggest that the above shout is just that: an opinion.

A lot depends on how you define "know", but cosmologists today have many tools to employ in research the origins of the universe. Using those tools over the past few decades, they have confirmed many parts of what we call the standard model: the Big Bang Theory. Using those same tools, they have found other parts of the theory to question.

That is not the same as saying we know "not a thing."

My "shout" was not an opinion. It is a clear truth about what we "know" about the "origin" of the universe. Observations can only take us back so far. The current model takes us back to a cosmic egg of some sort which cannot be explained at all, can't be defined clearly and can't be located even if reverse expansion could give it a location. The BBT gives us a possible explanation for everything after the origin. The origin itself is still a mystery. This is what I shouted and whether we want to admit it or not, it is true.

Cheers,

BQ 

Hello Brooksquest

You said

 The BBT gives us a possible explanation for everything after the origin. The origin itself is still a mystery. This is what I shouted and whether we want to admit it or not, it is true.

========================================================= 

What is TRUTH?

I repeat:

Something can be questioned yet not disproved. You or others may have alternative explanations. If those stand the tests as well as the current model, then something needs fixing (one, or the other). I can certainly agree that as new date becomes available, the conclusions reached on prior evidence may need changing, but that hardly invalidates the prior observations. I am not aware of any current research -- including the links you have posted -- that seriously questions the validity of the CMB data. Conclusions based on that data, sure, but not the data itself.

The conclusions have been questioned, not disproved.

The evidence itself stands, awaiting additional research.

Time will tell, one way or the other.

Part of the "standard model" is the cosmological principle which assumes that the universe cannot have an edge. Jeff, what are your thoughts? I know you do not believe in universal infinity but the current standard model assumes it even though the BBT would imply some limit.

Why would the CMB have to be red-shifted gamma rays? Why couldn't microwaves be there "as is". This would help aliens with popcorn, huh?

Also, you stated below that "as new date becomes available" ...

I do not see what social bonding has to do with this thread unless you meant "data". I mention this "in fun" because, well, you know...

Cheers,

BQ 

brooksquest:

Part of the "standard model" is the cosmological principle which assumes that the universe cannot have an edge. Jeff, what are your thoughts? I know you do not believe in universal infinity but the current standard model assumes it even though the BBT would imply some limit.

I remember discussing that here somewhere/somewhen once before, but do not remember the thread precisely. Anyway, there is very strong evidence at cosmic scales that the cosmological principle applies. It certainly does not apply at smaller scales (even at galaxy supercluster scales). I'm speaking here of the statement of the principle that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic when averaged over cosmic scales. The simplest form of this statement is that there is no preferred location or direction in the Universe. I can live with that quite happily!

Invoking such principles often help focus our thinking in working through other issues. They're often later proved incorrect, in whole or in part ...

Why would the CMB have to be red-shifted gamma rays? Why couldn't microwaves be there "as is". This would help aliens with popcorn, huh?

Yep, well the problem with having a diffuse background that appears everywhere (in every direction) we look, and that is generally the same everywhere we look, is explaining where it came from. If it is not red-shifted from earlier eras, then how long has it been here and/or how is it sustained if it is continually renewed (if it's not red-shifted, then it's naturally the frequency we observe, so what mechanism is involved?) ... ??

Also, you stated below that "as new date becomes available" ...

I do not see what social bonding has to do with this thread unless you meant "data". I mention this "in fun" because, well, you know...

G'day

It seems that the standard model cannot be questioned.

and yet

The standard model has no conrete evidence, but! for some to claim evidence for it.

At the end of the day the working parts of the universe hold the key to the ongoing reycling process.

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzz

This maybe of interest to some.

The temperature of space proponents have their own problems that are much more difficult to deal with than the BB problems.  THe anistrophy is tiny,  hardly measurable, yet the distribution of matter in the  universe is much lumpier.  so where did the cmb photons come from?  they had to have been emitted from matter (space does not emit photons) in an epoch when the matter distribution was much more uniform than today.   When was this?  what did the universe look like then?  a milky white dust epoch?  where were the stars that heated the dust /?  how could they form when matter was so uniform? 

The predictions of deep space temperatures based onstar glow did not predict the cmb.  it only predicted the temperature of blackbodies in deep space.  since deep space matter has random motion the map of predicted radiation would have the local motion of the deep space dust showing up as red and blue shifts in the map.  Again...more anistrophy!  A space temperature based cmb map prediction would be far more in error from the measured reality than the BB predictive errors. 

 These questions have to be asked .  Throwing the baby out with the bath though seems a little extreme.  THere seems to be more cherry picking the data going on with BB bashers than with BB proponents IMHO.

Cheers

PH

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzz

Some prefer to think of an ORIGIN and thats ok.

In my opinion, an origin is not required. A cyclic process does the trick. That means the universe is endless in time, space and matter, reycling from one form to another. This we can observe in star formation phases and the evolution of galaxy form that is dependent on the size and activity of the Nucleon that some call black holes.

But! Man being Man, we need some form of origin or God to create everything.  

Harry Costas:

In my opinion, an origin is not required. A cyclic process does the trick. That means the universe is endless in time, space and matter, reycling from one form to another. This we can observe in star formation phases and the evolution of galaxy form that is dependent on the size and activity of the Nucleon that some call black holes.

But! Man being Man, we need some form of origin or God to create everything.  

Hi Harry,

A cyclic universe is still possible with the BB.  Unlike your vision The BB  just has the frustrating effect of wiping the slate clean every cycle!  What to call the Beginning is quite elusive if there have been many BBs.  Time is after all part of the geometry of space so time is all compressed into the singularity with everything else. 

 Because we are part of the universe and observe temporaly we are as you say obsessed with "a beginning".  I suspect as the nature of time is unraveled in the future (in the context of GR) we will find that time as we are speaking of it in this thread is really just a characteristic of the way humans observe things.  THat is... forward and backward in time in the fundamental reality, not encumbered with our biology and the way we interact with our instuments will be found to be no different than back and forth in any of the other dimensions.  If this is the case then pointing your finger in a random direction and asking where that dimension begins may be essentially the same question as "when did everything start?".  In this I think we agree.

 In the 1940s and 50s, Einsteins friend Goedel used the  GR equations to show that in some physically possible systems time could go backwards.  His philosophical take (He was primarily a logician and philosopher rather than a physicist) was that this was evidence that time does not actually exist but is instead a human invention.  Because Goedel's paper was a cross dicipline paper it carried less weight than  it might have but it still had significant repercussions in the physics community (and provoked some late night discussions between Einstein and his friend!).  I don't think that Goedel space has ever been proven impossible although Einstein thought it abstract enough that it would not produce an observed paradox.

PH

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzzzz

 Time is a measure of motion. It defines the 4th dimension. Other than that, we cannot change it, control it, go into the past or the future.

We can measure time by varies means and if these means are affected in any way than the relative time is affected and not the actual time.

Eg: Going close to a compacted object that has extreme gravitational and electromagnetic fields would alter the speed of EMR and in extreme cases such as the theoretical black holes would prevent the EMR from escaping and therefore affect the communication via EMR(light).

Origins or the ongoings of the universe can only be explained by observations of the workings of stars and galaxies.

I am not as knowledgeable as you all when it comes to the books you have read and the research you have done. It seems perrty simple to me that light has always filled the great void of darkness and the universe is both expanding and contracting. I believe the universe go's on forever, there was no beginning and there is no end. Our Planet came about form a big bang along with the solar system and our Sun, which came from a super nova or collapsed BH that started, a new formation of young stars, one being our Sun and all the dust, gas, and matter around the Sun formed Our Solar System. Or a collapsed BH which brought forth a hole new galaxy or maybe two or three. As one of you all said the "recycling process".  That which was, is what we see now, what we see now will always be. It will come maybe with a different name, form, look etc. The Universe is infinite, we might change but it will remain the same, always here, just like it has always been. My theory and thoughts on the subject, my two cents.

G'day from the land of ozzz

Keep reading, giving opinions is OK, but you need info to back it up. 

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzzz

Scientific information needs to be read.

brooksquest: is correct, we can't know anything about the Origins of the Universe because there was never a beginning and it did never ever originate. It is infinite and has always been in existence. If this was not the case you would have to ask where did it come from and it cannot have come from anywhere otherwise you would have to ask where did that come from and so on. The question is a nonsequitur.

Best wishes

DM