Origin of the Universe,,,,Bang or no Bang

[modest]

for example: blackbody CMB (is only theorical and never show), Deuterium from Three Minutes (is only a theory), inflationary, ...

 

"only a theory" indicates a misunderstanding of scientific theory.

 

~modest

[lbiar]

"only a theory" indicates a misunderstanding of scientific theory.

 

~modest

 

Probably you have reason, but that theory is without proofs.

 

And more, deuterium there is many quantity and supposse that this is a evidence from big-bang, but also blackbody need to be in many quantity but it's unknow and only theoretical.

 

Thanks.

[modest]

Probably you have reason, but that theory is without proofs.

 

There is no such thing as an unconfirmed theory in science, because something cannot be called a theory in science without first being confirmed by evidence. The link I gave will explain.

 

~modest

[lbiar]

There is no such thing as an unconfirmed theory in science, because something cannot be called a theory in science without first being confirmed by evidence. The link I gave will explain.

 

~modest

 

Same at how the evidences of big-bang - i write over this evidences of big-bang in Information for scientists « The universe is infinite - I write against this evidences of bib-bang

 

A evidence form a theory is not a evidence.

 

I have alternative solution to blackbody, blackbody is only theoretical, never show, where can to be a evidence over the real existence of the blackbody? Where is a proof over this blackbody?

 

Black body - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - say "In physics, a black body is an idealized object that absorbs all electromagnetic radiation falling on it."

 

I don't see any evidence or proof.

 

Please give me evidence of blackbody and also of the First Three Minutes of big-bang to create deuterium.

 

Sorry if I disturb, I don't like disturb but speak over this.

 

Thanks another time.

[modest]

A evidence form a theory is not a evidence.

 

I don't understand that sentence, but saying "evidence is not evidence" is a logical contradiction.

 

I have alternative solution to blackbody, blackbody is only theoretical, never show

 

That makes no sense. A blackbody curve is the shape of a curve of radiation when intensity is plotted against wavelength. The CMBR is blackbody. This is an observed fact which was predicted by standard cosmology and subsequently observed. If you also predicted this fact before it was observed then please provide the published source.

 

where can to be a evidence over the real existence of the blackbody? Where is a proof over this blackbody?

 

Again, the shape of the CMBR being blackbody is a confirmed prediction. Confirmed predictions strengthen theories.

 

Black body - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - say "In physics, a black body is an idealized object that absorbs all electromagnetic radiation falling on it."

 

That is correct.

 

I don't see any evidence or proof.

 

According to Karl Popper, no theory can ever be proved, only disproved. Right now, standard cosmology is the best, and most confirmed theory that best fits observation. In other words, there is a lot of evidence for standard cosmology and no evidence that disproves it.

 

Please give me evidence of blackbody

 

Firstly, the existence of the CMB is one of the pillars of the hot big bang model of cosmology. Secondly, the black body spectrum of the CMB, the most perfect black body ever measured in nature, confirms the cosmological origin of the CMB and puts extraordinarily strong constraints on early energy injection in the universe

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/9903/9903232v1.pdf

 

and also of the First Three Minutes of big-bang to create deuterium.

 

The free neutron decay rate is a half life of 615 seconds. If the universe were too hot for too long all of the neutrons would have decayed into protons and the universe would have no deuterium (deuterium requires a neutron). Using similar logic the relative abundance of light elements can be predicted using the theoretical foundations of a young expanding universe and known aspects of particle physics.

 

The relative abundance is a confirmed prediction of standard cosmology,

 

 

If you have a theory that also predicts the relative abundance of light elements without big bang nucleosynthesis then please demonstrate.

 

Sorry if I disturb

 

Science is all about disturbing the current paradigm, but it looks like you are handwaving, which is not scientific.

 

~modest

[lbiar]

There is no such thing as an unconfirmed theory in science, because something cannot be called a theory in science without first being confirmed by evidence. The link I gave will explain.

 

~modest

 

Then, why occurs that "blackbody CMB" is a theory and "black body is an idealized object that absorbs all electromagnetic radiation falling on it." - Black body - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

In this case the blackbody is a theory and also a evidence for big-bang and at same time is a idealized object:

 

“- Existence of the blackbody CMB. This shows that the Universe has evolved from a dense, isothermal state.” - from http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#BBevidence

 

I believe that science admit evidences that would don't admit.

[modest]

I don't understand your post.

 

A black body is an idealized object and a blackbody curve is the intensity of the spectrum of light predicted to be radiated by that body by Plank's law and confirmed by bench top experiments in optics and thermodynamics. The CMBR has a blackbody spectrum (as measured by COBE). Such a spectrum was predicted by big bang cosmology and later confirmed. As such, the black body spectrum of the CMBR is a confirmed prediction of a theory (big bang cosmology).

 

Many things in nature have a blackbody curve.

 

~modest

[lbiar]

I don't understand that sentence, but saying "evidence is not evidence" is a logical contradiction.

 

I say that "A evidence form a theory is not a evidence", not " "evidence is not evidence"

 

What I say is that any theory without proof can't to be a evidence of nothing. In the same form a theory for example of how would be the martians would be the evidence of martians.

 

hat makes no sense. A blackbody curve is the shape of a curve of radiation when intensity is plotted against wavelength. The CMBR is blackbody. This is an observed fact which was predicted by standard cosmology and subsequently observed. If you also predicted this fact before it was observed then please provide the published source.

 

Is a theory, with prediction, maybe that later obtain what you like obtain, for example the anisotropy of 1 degree is really 1,100 degrees according to (Cosmic microwave background radiation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) and by that few anisotropy is that differences of 1,100 degrees.

 

"Since decoupling, the temperature of the background radiation has dropped by a factor of roughly 1,100[60] due to the expansion of the Universe."

 

and “Finally, the angular power spectrum of the CMB anisotropy that does exist at the several parts per million level is consistent with a dark matter dominated Big Bang model that went through the inflationary scenario.” - from http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#BBevidence

 

If we speak over 1 degree seem anisotropy and blackbody all correct, but if we speak over the relation of 1,100 degree fault to anisotropy and probably the blackbody anisotropy.

 

If you have a theory that also predicts the relative abundance of light elements without big bang nucleosynthesis then please demonstrate.

 

And what is the theory of that blackbody is not abundance (not show, not known) and need to be many abundance in CMBR?

[modest]

Is a theory, with prediction, maybe that later obtain what you like obtain, for example the anisotropy of 1 degree is really 1,100 degrees according to (Cosmic microwave background radiation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) and by that few anisotropy is that differences of 1,100 degrees.

 

The anisotropy measurement of 1 degree is an angular measurement, like you would measure with a protractor. The factor 1,100 of degrees that the CMB has dropped since decoupling is a temperature measurement, like you would measure with a thermometer.

 

I mean no disrespect, and I don't mean to offend, but I would recommend that you study some introductory physical science material before trying to debunk the big bang. This could only help you in your arguments.

 

You just cannot expect your arguments to be sound without an understanding of the fundamentals.

 

~modest

[lbiar]

The anisotropy measurement of 1 degree is an angular measurement, like you would measure with a protractor. The factor 1,100 of degrees that the CMB has dropped since decoupling is a temperature measurement, like you would measure with a thermometer.

 

I mean no disrespect, and I don't mean to offend, but I would recommend that you study some introductory physical science material before trying to debunk the big bang. This could only help you in your arguments.

 

You just cannot expect your arguments to be sound without an understanding of the fundamentals.

 

~modest

 

Thanks.

 

I prefer don't continue here and concentrate only in the ask I made.

[modest]

You mean a different thread?

 

~modest

[lbiar]

I'm more than happy to continue discussing the science of the big bang with you, I'm just recommending what I think would be your best approach to getting a firm grip on the topic. It's hard to understand blackbody curves and anisotropy measurements without first understanding some of the basics of radiation and measurement.

 

But, everyone is welcome here and you are certainly most welcome to discuss the topic :shrug:

 

~modest

 

Thanks another time.

 

I give you an explanation of my decision.

 

How you see I have errors and unknown (I'm not astronomer). I begin with this thread, but I have problems with understand and more with other members.

 

Well, today I have see that probably the most effective form for me maybe use 1 or more of my arguments (god o bad) in the form how the thread I have open : http://hypography.com/forums/astronomy-and-cosmology/23360-cosmic-joke-hubbles-law.html#tb

 

In that thread that you know I can work in the form I can and with many errors.

 

Also is better concentrate in only 1 thing, or in point how that thread where is more easy to me don't take errors. (I have near other 20 arguments with probably theirs adecuated questions).

 

Thanks by your help.

[modest]

I see. That makes sense :shrug:

 

~modest