Big Bang: Indian physicist says he’s vindicated

[TimeToScoot]

I stick to the majority of scientists and trust their understanding on that matter. Thats how popular science works.

Have you lost your mind seriously?

 

[MarkusS]

Have you lost your mind seriously?

No have you? I´m not an astro scientist but interested in the topic. As someone who is not deep into this matter i must trust the common understanding of the problem. If it is wrong and another scientist proves it wrong while the majority supports this, then opinion will shift to that new theory.

Maybe its done different in india. That could be a reason for your gargantuan poverty levels then. I guess you didn´t even realize or know what "popular science" means.

 

[OrionHunter]

The Big Bang Theory is utter rubbish! Period!

Secondly, according to this theory, the universe expanded in just one direction from the massive explosion. How come? When something explodes in an unrestricted environment, especially in a vacuum, the resultant explosion must be in ALL directions, right? How can an explosion be unidirectional?

If that be the case the farthest star should be at least 30 billion light years from Earth and not 15 billion light years which is the suggested distance from here to the point of the so called Big bang!

Thirdly, if the universe is flat, and dominated by ordinary or dark matter, the age of the universe as inferred from the Hubble constant would be about 9 billion years. But then, the age of the universe would be lesser than the age of oldest stars! This contradiction implies that either 1) our measurement of the Hubble constant is incorrect, or 2) the Big Bang theory is incorrect.

Fourthly, is the Solar System and the Earth within, the farthest from the Big bang and nothing beyond us? Because it's from here they've calculated the beginning of the Universe or the Big Bang to be 15 billion years old or in other words the distance to the Big Bang 15 billion light years from Earth. So does that mean we are on the extreme edge of the Universe and nothing beyond us? Are there no galaxies beyond? If there are, then the age of the Universe could be billions of years older!

Do they suggest that the trillions upon trillions of galaxies were condensed into a single point in space - a singularity?

Bottom line: The Big Bang is just a theory. And the age of the universe is just guesswork. A typical case of adjusting the symbols, expressions and variables to fit smugly into their mathematical equations!

 

[Parul]

@isro2222 Mate, your kind views on this!

 

[MarkusS]

The Big Bang Theory is utter rubbish! Period!

Secondly, according to this theory, the universe expanded in just one direction from the massive explosion. How come? When something explodes in an unrestricted environment, especially in a vacuum, the resultant explosion must be in ALL directions, right? How can an explosion be unidirectional?

If that be the case the farthest star should be at least 30 billion light years from Earth and not 15 billion light years which is the suggested distance from here to the point of the so called Big bang!

Thirdly, if the universe is flat, and dominated by ordinary or dark matter, the age of the universe as inferred from the Hubble constant would be about 9 billion years. But then, the age of the universe would be lesser than the age of oldest stars! This contradiction implies that either 1) our measurement of the Hubble constant is incorrect, or 2) the Big Bang theory is incorrect.

Fourthly, is the Solar System and the Earth within, the farthest from the Big bang and nothing beyond us? Because it's from here they've calculated the beginning of the Universe or the Big Bang to be 15 billion years old or in other words the distance to the Big Bang 15 billion light years from Earth. So does that mean we are on the extreme edge of the Universe and nothing beyond us? Are there no galaxies beyond? If there are, then the age of the Universe could be billions of years older!

Bottom line: The Big Bang is just a theory. And the age of the universe is just guesswork. A typical case of adjusting the symbols, expressions and variables to fit smugly into their mathematical equations!

Nope, Bottom line is that you don´t understand the theory. The universe is like a baloon. It inflates and the universe with all its galaxies are the surface of the balloon. Because of this it expands. And because of this it doesn´t matter if the solar system is on the edge or whereever, because the size of the balloon is known. The thinking error is that you assume a 3 dimensial expansion, while it is a 4th dimensional thing.

 

[amitkriit]

Nope, Bottom line is that you don´t understand the theory. The universe is like a baloon. It inflates and the universe with all its galaxies are the surface of the balloon. Because of this it expands. And because of this it doesn´t matter if the solar system is on the edge or whereever, because the size of the balloon is known. The thinking error is that you assume a 3 dimensial expansion, while it is a 4th dimensional thing.

Not even the best scientists can explain the behaviour Universe with such conviction. Different versions of the String Theory predict different dimensions (some say there are more than 10 dimensions). Truth is that our current understanding of the universe is completely flawed.

 

[TimeToScoot]

No have you? I´m not an astro scientist but interested in the topic. As someone who is not deep into this matter i must trust the common understanding of the problem. If it is wrong and another scientist proves it wrong while the majority supports this, then opinion will shift to that new theory.

Science is not established on the basis of opinion. As for theories, x supporting it and 10*x disregarding it does not imply that the theory is disregarded in popular science. It is not considered science until (x+10*x) support it and until this happens anyone is free is to contest a theory based on it's merits and demerits.

Maybe its done different in india. That could be a reason for your gargantuan poverty levels then. I guess you didn´t even realize or know what "popular science" means.

What exactly was the need for this snide remark? Those poverty levels are not 'my poverty levels'. They're 'our poverty levels' unless you were given an option to chose the geographical location of your birth. About time you started contemplating on 'Who am I' instead of mocking the world's downtrodden and poor.

 

[MarkusS]

Science is not established on the basis of opinion. As for theories, x supporting it and 10*x disregarding it does not imply that the theory is disregarded in popular science. It is not considered science until (x+10*x) support it and until this happens anyone is free is to contest a theory based on it's merits and demerits.



What exactly was the need for this snide remark? Those poverty levels are not 'my poverty levels'. They're 'our poverty levels' unless you were given an option to chose the geographical location of your birth. About time you started contemplating on 'Who am I' instead of mocking the world's downtrodden and poor.

You still don´t get the word "popular science". Do you? I´m not talking about research and work of the experts but whats consensus in the interested public opinion.

Not even the best scientists can explain the behaviour Universe with such conviction. Different versions of the String Theory predict different dimensions (some say there are more than 10 dimensions). Truth is that our current understanding of the universe is completely flawed.

Well i don´t expect that a better theory would come from india...

 

[JonAsad]

This Indian physicist disproved black holes 13 years before Hawking : Technology, News - India Today

you sure its just 13 years? and not 13 centuries?- usually thats how much long your other claims are-

 

[TimeToScoot]

You still don´t get the word "popular science". Do you? I´m not talking about research and work of the experts but whats consensus in the interested public opinion.

Consensus is not science. The latter is based on hard testable evidence. Just because 5*x number of people support a particular theory and x disregard it does not imply that the theory is closer to science. Such a claim would at best be laughable. 'Us vs Them' is not science.

Well i don´t expect that a better theory would come from india...

Actually there is. Heard of non duality yet? The likes of Sir Roger Penrose, Stuart Hameroff, Rupert Sheldrake, Meenas Kafatos, Hans Peter Duerr, Rudy Tanzi and many others support it.

 

[amitkriit]

Well i don´t expect that a better theory would come from india...

The Number System you use came from India. So did the Wireless Network. Scientists are searching for the so-called god's particle "Boson" at CERN named after an Indian physicist.

 

[Skull and Bones]

OK Since you are the expert here, can you please use your scientific brain to define:
A. Time
B. Straight Line
C. Mass and Force (F=ma rule given by Newton establishes circular dependency between mass and force)

Please give it a try.

Time is the measurement of the irreversible process of decrease in entropy of a non-isolated system.

The Number System you use came from India. So did the Wireless Network. Scientists are searching for the so-called god's particle "Boson" at CERN named after an Indian physicist.

The wireless network has 3 different origin at around the same point of time, without one knowing the development of other's. Marconi, Tesla and Bose.

 

[amitkriit]

Time is the measurement of the irreversible process of decrease in entropy of a non-isolated system.



The wireless network has 3 different origin at around the same point of time, without one knowing the development of other's. Marconi, Tesla and Bose.

Nopes, not an exact definition. You need to use Time itself to detect an "irreversible process". Same is true for concepts like "Straight Line" and "Force-Mass". Because to define those concepts you need to use them in the definition.

It is called Circular dependency.

 

[MarkusS]

The Number System you use came from India. So did the Wireless Network. Scientists are searching for the so-called god's particle "Boson" at CERN named after an Indian physicist.

The Higgs Boson is named after british comologist Higgs...And they don´t search. They found it last year.

Consensus is not science. The latter is based on hard testable evidence. Just because 5*x number of people support a particular theory and x disregard it does not imply that the theory is closer to science. Such a claim would at best be laughable. 'Us vs Them' is not science.



Actually there is. Heard of non duality yet? The likes of Sir Roger Penrose, Stuart Hameroff, Rupert Sheldrake, Meenas Kafatos, Hans Peter Duerr, Rudy Tanzi and many others support it.

peace ok?

 

[TimeToScoot]

peace ok?

That's what the 5*x would say to the x when challenged