ACG52

Religious adherents often try to set science and religion on the same footing. The don't understand science and so try to relegate it to the status of religion, i.e. unsupported belief.

This is a duplicate of your post in the thread you started titled Big Bang. Here's the duplicate of my answer: Let's assume that the quantum fluctuation produced the energy equivalent of about 26 grams of mass, in a volume about equal to a proton. This energy was in the form of a gauge field called the inflaton field, which has the unusual property of having an energy density when the field is at it's vacuum value. This energy field, as it dropped from it's zero point, which is where the energy level is highest, generated a negative vacuum pressure, which drove the universe to expand by 80 orders of magnitude. (A negative vacuum pressure has the property that the more vacuum there is, the more pressure is generated, which generates more vacuum, which generates... you get the picture) When the field dropped to it's vaccum level, the energy tied up in the field was released and created all the mass and energy in the universe. This all took place in about 10 -35 seconds. Up until about 7 billion years ago, the expansion was slowing down as the original impetus died down, but then the gravitational density of the universe dropped to the point where another expansion driving force, which we call Dark Energy (having nothing at all to do with Dark matter, other the word dark), began to accelerate the expansion. I like those assumptions better than 'blackbox'. To question 1. It could have. But instead it happened 13.7 billion years ago (+ or - about .7 billion years). Answer to question 2. Because the universe is no longer of quantum dimensions, and the inflaton field is at it's vacuum level. Energy densities are many orders of magnitude less than they were and symmetries among the fundamental forces in the universe have been broken. (Although a variation on Inflation theory, called Eternal Inflation argues that once inflation begins, it is continuous, spawning other universes disconnected from ours. Our universe has passed through the inflation stage) Question 3. See answer to question 2. Question 4. Doesn't mean anything. Question 5. You will be. I don't know where wiki is getting it's information from, but proton decay is hypothetical. There have been some very large, very sensitive detectors set up in deep mines in the earth, looking for proton decay. It has never been found. The Super-Kamioka Neutrino Detection Experiment is a tank of 50,000 gal of ultra pure water, surrounded by detectors. If my memory is correct, this tank contains 1059 protons. Even with a half-life of 1040 years, there would be proton decay given this many protons. It's never been detected.

Let's assume that the quantum fluctuation produced the energy equivalent of about 26 grams of mass, in a volume about equal to a proton. This energy was in the form of a gauge field called the inflaton field, which has the unusual property of having an energy density when the field is at it's vacuum value. This energy field, as it dropped from it's zero point, which is where the energy level is highest, generated a negative vacuum pressure, which drove the universe to expand by 80 orders of magnitude. (A negative vacuum pressure has the property that the more vacuum there is, the more pressure is generated, which generates more vacuum, which generates... you get the picture) When the field dropped to it's vaccum level, the energy tied up in the field was released and created all the mass and energy in the universe. This all took place in about 10 -35 seconds. Up until about 7 billion years ago, the expansion was slowing down as the original impetus died down, but then the gravitational density of the universe dropped to the point where another expansion driving force, which we call Dark Energy (having nothing at all to do with Dark matter, other the word dark), began to accelerate the expansion. I like those assumptions better than 'blackbox'. To question 1. It could have. But instead it happened 13.7 billion years ago (+ or - about .7 billion years). Answer to question 2. Because the universe is no longer of quantum dimensions, and the inflaton field is at it's vacuum level. Energy densities are many orders of magnitude less than they were and symmetries among the fundamental forces in the universe have been broken. (Although a variation on Inflation theory, called Eternal Inflation argues that once inflation begins, it is continuous, spawning other universes disconnected from ours. Our universe has passed through the inflation stage) Question 3. See answer to question 2. Question 4. Doesn't mean anything. Question 5. You will be.

I don't think they were invented for deluding people, so much as the were invented BY deluded people.

Again, your conclusion that there are an infinite number of elements (a totally incorrect conclusion) does not seem to follow from your preceeding statements.

As long as the net energy of the universe is zero, and it may well be, there is nothing which prevents the universe from starting as a quantum fluctuation. Twenty-four hundred years ago, a Greek philosopher said 'ex nihilo nihil fit'. There's been considerable progress in the interim. This appears to be the crux of your posting.

It's fairly obvious from all your posts that you have little to no actual knowledge of what the BB theory actually says, or of the observational evidence which supports it, or of the confirmed predictions made by the theory. It's also obvious that trying in any way to educate you is as futile as pounding sand. Why don't you confine yourself to the religious threads, where any kind of nonsense goes?

You've been told before to research Inflation theory. But hey, don't let any science get in the way of a good religious rant.

What does one thing have to do with the other?

Nope, you're wrong, Swansont is correct, although he is only considering relative velocity, and not gravitational time dilation.

This is a religious discussion, and certainly does not belong in Astronomy and Cosmology.

It has. I had to take Imodium.

No, they don't. I tried to parse the rest of your post, but it is word salad, and I couldn't seperate out the different veggies. Tasted a little stale though.

It's entirely possible. This idea was first published by a physicist named Edward Tryon, in 1973.

The universe is powered by magical pink unicorns. Please, If you cannot give any proof, evidence, idea, reasoning, argument, logic, think,..."This proposal may be true"

Sorry, but none of that made any sense.

I would imagine that the hydrogen positron would annihilate an electron, the antiproton would annihilate a proton, and the iron atom would disintergrate into it's remaining components.

Before Youtube people had to stand on street corners downtown waving signs and thrusting leaflets into everybodies hands.. Ain't technology grand?

At the time of Inflation, (about 10–36 seconds to 10–32 seconds) all the energy in the universe was tied up in the Inflaton field, and there was no gravity. The symmetry breaking which established gravity as a seperate force had not yet happened. When the Inflaton field dropped to it's vacuum level and the energy of the field coalesed into matter, the initial inflationary push was enough to keep the process going and slowing, until about 7 billion years ago, when it began to accelerate.

The energy needed to generate the observable universe is not infinite, and has in fact been calculated. There is nothing irrational about it. The energy generated by the decay of the inflaton field which drove inflation is more than enough to account for the matter in the observable universe. No, there was no mass before the BB, The energy had nothing to do with Nuclear reactions. See above. Gravitational attraction falls off as the square of the distance. So no matter how much mass you have in a BH, the effects drop off dramatically with distance. Furthermore, the expansion of the universe is not matter being moved through space, it is space itself expanding. Nothing is escaping from the universe, so the whole question of 'universe escape velocity' is moot. Mass does not travel at a speed higher than light. It has nothing to do with how much energy was applied. The universe can expand at a speed higher than light, but there is nothing which moves in the universe at a faster speed. Expansion is not matter being propelled, as in an explosion. Expansion is more space being created between things. That stated, there are indeed galaxies who's light, due to the expansion of space, will never reach earth. The steady state theory also predicts that the proton will decay. There have been many highly accurate experiments designed to detect that decay, but they never have. The CMBR is not explained by the steady state theory, yet it is EXACTLY predicted by the BH. Also SS fails in predicting the relative amounts of the primodial elements, hydrogen, helium, deuterium and lithium. Even Hoyle admitted that the SS theory doesn't work.

Liberal arts I assume? Never mind, make sure you take Physics 101, and then get back to us.

Why don't you get an education in physics, and then tell us what you see.

Well, first of all, it's not a book. It's a website. There is a difference. Any intro which opens with the standard crank litany of how it's dangerous to have another opinion, careers... blah bla grants,....yadda yadda thousands of people built carreers, does not bode well.

The Theory of Relativity is not the words you use to describe it. It is the equations. You can't say 'this equation is valid and this one is not' because they all tie together. If you are going to come up with a criticism of relativity, it has to be something more than 'I refuse to believe it' and 'that's not common sense'.

My kid is an electrician and knows how to bypass the meter. Does that qualify as 'free energy'?