Does it Matter? (Dec 08, 2010 TPOD)

[Nereid]

Does it Matter?

This TPOD contains the following:

proponents of the ‘Big Bang’ theory claim that the entire universe, including the concepts of matter and of time, sprang into existence at a single instant – prior to which ‘pure energy’ alone is thought to have existed in a greatly condensed form.

As I have written elsewhere in this Thunderbolts Forum, this is a mis-statement, or mis-characterisation.

I find it somewhat surprising to see it appear again, as I have found many comments here decrying mis-statements and mis-characterisations of EU theory and Plasma Cosmology.

There's no doubt that the popular press, including otherwise quite balanced science reporting, contains many examples of this misunderstanding, and the words of cosmologists and physicists who write on this topic all too often exaggerated, but as Thunderbolts Forum members would surely be among the first to say, just because lots of people say something doesn't mean it's correct.

If by 'Big Bang theory' one means the application of General Relativity and quantum mechanics to develop models of the evolution of the observable universe, then such a theory does not, and cannot, include anythng concerning the Planck regime (and so nothing about an origin).

Of course, there are plenty of examples of cosmological models developed using a theory (or theories) which overcomes the deep inconsistency between General Relativity and quantum mechanics (or so it is claimed), but none of those theories has yet been accepted, much less tested (as far as I know); in any case, in most of such models the 'prior existence' of the observable universe is not 'pure energy alone'.

[CTJG 1986]

It may in fact be a mis-characterization as you say Nereid but it is a statement that a large portion of the layman world is being indoctrinated with and with the EU having one of it's focuses on reaching those layman it is needed to be addressed.

That being said I suppose I should be honest and say I do hold my own philosophical but unscientifically verifiable views on the "creation" of the current physical form of our universe which could very well be referred to as "big bang" theory.

But my view differentiates between the physical universe and the plasma medium which the physical universe was created from and resides in. And prior to the current physical forms being created the universe was in a "pure plasma state" in which only the plasma medium and some "ambient" energy existed.

The "big bang" in my view would be the initial discharge caused by charge separation ultimately owing it's origins to the natural properties of the plasma medium occurring over a period of time.

This discharge gave birth to the initial Birkeland current(s) and circuit(s) which interacting with the local dusty plasma conditions created more Z-Pinches producing more plasmoid structures and currents/circuits giving rise to more smaller instabilities vis-a-vis Z-pinches producing stars, which in turn based on the local dusty plasma conditions "build up" matter until electrical stress causes ejections of core pieces that become planets and such.

So one could argue that there is the potential for an EU "Big Bang" theory such as that but the official EU view supports no such thing as it is a matter which can never be scientifically verified and thus does not belong in the EU work.

But even such an EU "Big Bang" theory would not be a case of creationism as the plasma medium would still exist prior to the physical universe(galaxies, stars, planets, etc.), thus we would only have transformation of the universe and not creation.

As you say Nereid I have seen more mis-characterizations of the Big Bang theory as you mentioned in the media through the "science reporters" who have little or no scientific background at all and that are more interested in sensationalizing the issue to sell the story than portraying an accurate, factual representation of the science which they deem would be boring for laymen.

But as long as people are being taught such nonsense by those in the media the EU has a need to address it, whether or not you think it hypocritical of them.

Jonny

[JaJa]

Hi Nereid

I have to say that at school here in the UK, at least up until a couple of years ago when I left, these scientific truths that you say are misreprestations were being taught by my physics teacher. It changed ever so slightly from when my older brother and sister were taught (they are older than me by up to 8 yrs), they also were also taught that the entire universe, including the concepts of matter and of time, sprang into existence at a single instant but without a pre-cursor of energy existing...

Can you explain to me without misrepresentations... a layman studying law (interested in physics part time) btw what irrefutable empirical evidence confirms the the Big Bang. What in simple terms, according to the standard model, happened, because with the greatest respect all this argument going back and forth is like watching paint dry?

Thanx

JJ

[CTJG 1986]

I can't really speak on the matter of academic literature that espouses the "mis-characterized" viewpoint as I attended Christian schools that only taught Creationism and as such I didn't have access to the standard science text books and such that the public education system does.

Ultimately however in my view the problem comes down to the nature of the beast in regards to those who publish scientific materials of any kind for casual readers or general education purposes - what I define as the "mainstream (media) community" - rarely are those individuals actually involved in the scientific process themselves, they usually have PHD's in a certain field and use them as credentials to give their views about other people's actual scientific research/discovery that they truly don't understand themselves.

It is natural for people in such positions to seek out works that compliment their existing knowledge base, dismiss or ignore that which contradicts their established knowledge and of course frequently sensationalize things that support their views.

Few people who get into positions that involve telling other people how things work are likely to be open to information that implies that what they know and tell everyone else about matter-of-factly is not actually correct.

In my experience the actual individuals doing the research seem far more open minded to alternative ideas than those who are tasked with relaying that information to the general public and as such alternative information rarely does reach the public. That goes for educational works as much so as mainstream media sources.

I myself am guilty of such actions as well, often I do it subconsciously without immediately realizing it, but I don't task myself with relaying such information from a position of implied authority that I do not really possess either.

Such actions should not occur at all or at least be far more greatly limited within the media/press than what they currently are.

One particular such person from my local newspaper who will remain unnamed was very blunt in dismissing the notion of electric currents in space or planetary/stellar atmosphere's as little as 2 years ago, yet today he fully admits that such electric currents exist. But now he's hooked on "electric dynamo's" and "magnetic reconnection events" as being the source of those currents, silly chap.

He has repeatedly answered my questions as to why he is so firmly opposed to and aggressive towards non-conventional views by stating "because it goes against what I was taught and know".

I don't think he has ever answered my repeated follow-up questions asking how him not being taught about it makes it automatically not true.

Anyways, the problem is quite widespread and the EU needs to address it. The conventional scientific community should be addressing it as well.

Jonny

[davesmith_au]

With all due respect, to say the theories start at the fraction of a second after the bang is a cop-out of the highest order. We (folk of my generation) were taught that everything started out as a single point-mass and expanded from there. Now we're told that we really don't know what happened in the first fraction of a second... Semantics.

Logic holds that if the universe is expanding, then it started out as a single point. Logic holds that that's likely to be impossible, so now we say we don't know what it expanded from. How convenient...

Cheers, Dave.

[Jarvamundo]

Can you explain to me without misrepresentations... a layman studying law (interested in physics part time) btw what irrefutable empirical evidence confirms the the Big Bang. What in simple terms, according to the standard model, happened, because with the greatest respect all this argument going back and forth is like watching paint dry?

Hows about it? Seems JaJa & Jarva are hanging out with Albert's barmaid ready and waiting for something meaningful.

[JaJa]

Hows about it? Seems JaJa & Jarva are hanging out with Albert's barmaid ready and waiting for something meaningful.

Can I have a wine spritzer plz...

JJ