Customer Discussions > Science forum

Infinite Universe theory VS Big Bang theory


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-16 of 16 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Jan 15, 2013 3:44:55 AM PST
[Deleted by the author on Mar 28, 2013 2:34:38 PM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 15, 2013 4:14:01 AM PST
tom kriske says:
Fuzzy foolishness. If you really want a new take on cosmology, read Penrose's 'Conformal Cyclic Cosmology'.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 15, 2013 4:42:00 AM PST
G. Heron says:
Drifter

" light bending near massive bodies is refraction due to a dense etherosphere"

This is utter rubbish.

Posted on Jan 15, 2013 5:07:38 AM PST
[Deleted by the author on Mar 28, 2013 2:34:44 PM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 15, 2013 6:16:52 AM PST
G. Heron says:
Drifter

" there is an ether;"

Then why has it never been found.

"light is wave motion"

So explain the photo-electric effect.

Posted on Jan 15, 2013 8:44:40 AM PST
A. Caplan says:
If you look at the Progressive Science Institute page which Dr. Borchardt associates himself and his is the email address on the site, you will see that it starts with assumptions with no indication how those assumptions were reached. Very unscientific. It's philosophy, not physics.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 15, 2013 10:49:33 AM PST
Here's something from Penrose on the topic that you don't have to buy, in case you don't already have a subscription to AIP.

http://accelconf.web.cern.ch/accelconf/e06/PAPERS/THESPA01.PDF

If you have a little money, and not too much feel for equations & stuff, he also wrote a book for the general public:
Cycles of Time: An Extraordinary New View of the Universe

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 15, 2013 2:02:42 PM PST
models are not reality

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 15, 2013 2:07:23 PM PST
Penrose is actually conversant with physics, mathematics, and cosmology--having contributed important ideas to all three fields, several times over. Mr. Puetz possesses no such pedigree. As far as I can tell, he comes to his bizarre cosmology from a serious over-generalization of 'numerology' that often shows up in the financial trades.

It seems to me that this 'theory' (UCT) is so out there that WIKI hasn't even bothered to comment on it!

In fact, Puetz's name doesn't even show up. Instead, WIKI asks, "Did you mean: Stephen J. Putz"?

Perhaps I did!

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 15, 2013 3:48:01 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 15, 2013 3:49:14 PM PST
A. Caplan says:
Randall R Young says: If you have a little money, and not too much feel for equations & stuff, he also wrote a book for the general public:
Cycles of Time: An Extraordinary New View of the Universe
>There is also The Road to Reality: A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe. Not an easy read, but if you read it for the concepts rather than the math it is very interesting. I'm reading it for the second time and getting more involved with the math and the science.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 15, 2013 3:59:18 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 15, 2013 4:00:33 PM PST
And "The Emperor's New Mind". In all these efforts, Penrose challenges us in various ways. Even when I believe him to be in error, he has carefully thought-out reasons behind his positions, and has answers to all the obvious follow-up questions at the ready. Arguing with him is not going to be a piece of cake, no matter how you slice it.

If and when he is wrong, he is wrong in very interesting ways.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 15, 2013 4:08:48 PM PST
Gee --- this reminds me of the stuff I used to lap up uncritically as a teenager. Hasn't term started yet?

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 16, 2013 10:51:35 AM PST
Re OP: The quote is complete garbage. Some specific errors:
"The inevitable rejection of the Big Bang Theory..." The theory is now conclusively demonstrated [1]. It may well be altered; it will not be rejected.
"there is an ether" No, there isn't. This was conclusively demonstrated by the Michelson-Morley experiment, and explained by special relativity.
"the galactic redshift is due primarily to absorption;" No, it isn't. The spectral lines identify the elements involved, and it is these lines that are shifted. Absorption would not move them.
"gravity involves a push, not a pull" This, too, has been known to be wrong for four centuries.
"light bending near massive bodies is refraction due to a dense etherosphere" Wrong: light is bent by any massive body, whether it has an atmosphere or not.
"galactic ages will not correlate with distance from Earth" It is already known that they DO so correlate.
I will not bother dealing with the remaining errors in this tripe; enough is enough.

1. "Search Customer Discussions" for "saundersx" in "Belief in the Christian god is absurd" for details.

Posted on Jan 16, 2013 12:58:43 PM PST
MikeBWCA says:
Anyone familiar with the theory of inflation? Fascinating! Basically, a "Big Bang" event resulted in matter appearing everywhere at almost the same instant cascading thru the universe at incomprehensible speed. Since time and space did not exist before the event, matter and physics as we know it did not apply.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 16, 2013 1:06:14 PM PST
<<Anyone familiar with the theory of inflation?>>

A little.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 16, 2013 6:17:38 PM PST
tom kriske says:
Actually, the inflationary phase predates anything we might call matter. Moreover, it can be argued that time, space, matter, physics did exist prior to the big bang, but were 'reprocessed' through it.
‹ Previous 1 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Science forum
Participants:  9
Total posts:  16
Initial post:  Jan 15, 2013
Latest post:  Jan 16, 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 1 customer

Search Customer Discussions