Big bang, schmig bang: everything's just shrinking

[Nereid]

How about gravity? It's an observable & BB theory doesn't account for it.

If recession is accelerating, is it constant, increasing, or decreasing? How does this answer impact the age of the universe? Or CMBR?

Because there are some serious open questions related to BBT, I'm hesitant to say that such a thing actuall happened.

If it were the only drinking hole in town. That's where you'd find me. I'm a little pickier with my science.

All observations? How about the relative masses of the elementary particles?

DrChinese addressed your points well, I feel. However, I'd like to expand on one point: the scope, or domain, of a scientific theory.

In economics, there's a thing called the theory of comparative advantage, and it's pretty good in its domain of applicability (industries which countries engaged in free trade should concentrate on in order to maximise the economic benefits to each country). However, it's useless for accounting for the photosynthetic pathways in plants, or the spectrum of hydrogen. And biologists, physicists and economists are quite relaxed about this.

Similarly, in physics there's a thing called general relativity (GR), and it's pretty good in its domain. ... you get the picture I'm sure.

So, wrt the Big Bang theories (there's more than one), its domain of applicability is the large-scale structure (and some small scale structure) and evolution of the universe, at least from the time of radiation-(ordinary) matter decoupling if not from ~Planck time.

Then there's how 'fundamental' a theory is. Crudely, ecology is 'just' biology, which in turn is 'just' chemistry, ... until you get to GR and the QM/QFT/SM (Quantum Mechanics, Quantum Field Theory, the Standard Model); these two are the most fundamental theories we have. And, as has been noted many times in PF, there are regimes in which predictions of each are in serious conflict. The BBT is 'just' a theory built on GR and the SM, it does not supercede either, nor does it set out to. Some of its predictions may turn out to be very good tests of either GR or the SM ... let's see. Some of its components have strange new things - dark energy for example - but they are not things which 'overthrow' GR or the SM.

Your question about 'recession' is a good one; I'll address it in another post.

 

[russ_watters]

I'm a little pickier with my science.

So what do you pick as an alternative?

 

[jcsd]

How does big bang theory not account for gravity? it comes from what could be seen as a theory of gravity (GR) and gravity plays key roles in nearly all of it's equations.

 

[Jack Martinelli]

So what do you pick as an alternative?

Nothing yet.

Until someone derives the 26(http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/constants.html) fundamental constants from a fundamental idea, I won't accept anything.

The fundamentally correct idea, I think is: For every change there is an equal but opposite change.

 

[Nereid]

The fundamentally correct idea, I think is: For every change there is an equal but opposite change.

Why a binary world? Why not "for every change there are 10¹⁰⁰ equal and opposite changes"?

 

[Jack Martinelli]

Why a binary world? Why not "for every change there are 10¹⁰⁰ equal and opposite changes"?

Its not symetric. I don't know that the universe is actually symetric, but I think its a pretty good guess.

 

[DrChinese]

How does big bang theory not account for gravity? it comes from what could be seen as a theory of gravity (GR) and gravity plays key roles in nearly all of it's equations.

Well, the obvious answer to that is that GR essentially preceded the modern theory of the Big Bang. It is not dependent on it any way. Rather, the BB leads to predicted evolution of the universe according to GR. GR could be valid and the BB not be, because of the independence of the two.

Yet they both fit neatly with observations.

 

[Quantum-lept]

The type of red**** that cosmologists observe affects every star/galaxy outside our own...every one.

I just realized I said red**** instead of redshift...oh **** I did it again.

Okay, am i looking for redshift or redgarbage?!..Cosmology is so confusing!

 

[Vanadium 50]

This is a six year old thread.