Top and down.

Anything else is uncivilized.

:mike:

[QUOTE=CRGreathouse;366155]...
I saw nothing of value.
...[/QUOTE]

Nothing. Not even the new explanation of the strong nuclear
force? Or the fact that the fourth spatial dimension explains
the Red Shift, the Cosmological Microwave Background Radiation,
the Universal Neutrino Bombardment, and the Neutrino Flavor Changes?

Even the first "substantive" sentence, that the Universe contains
all that is, was challenged, which shows how poorly the basics
of cosmology are treated nowadays. That sentence is fundamental.

[QUOTE=davar55;366316][someone dared to ask questions about my monograph]... which shows how poorly the basics of cosmology are treated nowadays...[/QUOTE]
The deadpan-standup-comedian force is strong with you, man.

@Xyzzy
"Anything else [STRIKE]is[/STRIKE] would be uncivilized."
[...and Chuck Norris roundhouse kicks Mike for misquoting his patented Right Guard commercial]

[QUOTE=davar55;366316]Nothing. Not even the new explanation of the strong nuclear
force? Or the fact that the fourth spatial dimension explains
the Red Shift, the Cosmological Microwave Background Radiation,
the Universal Neutrino Bombardment, and the Neutrino Flavor Changes?

Even the first "substantive" sentence, that the Universe contains
all that is, was challenged, which shows how poorly the basics
of cosmology are treated nowadays. That sentence is fundamental.[/QUOTE]

I'm not sure that *any* of these examples had enough detail to be falsifiable at all, let alone displace the scientific consensus. So yes, I found none to have any value.

If you'd like to supply some details -- actual mathematics, not just pinhead-counting -- it would be much more interesting.

Just another detour:

[quote]
Originally Posted by [B]davar55[/B] [I][someone dared to ask questions about my monograph]... which shows how poorly the basics of cosmology are treated nowadays...[/I]
[/quote][QUOTE=Batalov;366319]The deadpan-standup-comedian force is strong with you, man.

@Xyzzy
"Anything else [STRIKE]is[/STRIKE] would be uncivilized."
[...and Chuck Norris roundhouse kicks Mike for misquoting his patented Right Guard commercial][/QUOTE]

Hey, I'm just trying to defend my work against a crowd I still
(in general) respect. Not that fella talking about toilet paper.

And I welcomed questions, even comments, from the start.

And I will get to the questions on size of the Universe and its
fourth spatial dimension, and on entropy - that was not my
fullest explanation, and was not part of the monograph.

Universal processes take time.

A bit from a backlog:

[QUOTE=ewmayer;364796]For readers unfamiliar with chalsall-speak, that is his standard lead-in meaning "I mistake your meaning or am way off-base myself, so now I shall make a typically inane trollish reply."

We forgive him, because his self-confessed fists of death[sup]tm[/sup] are so profoundly dangerous when unleashed, that any day we can keep him glued to his computer screens making troll-posts is a win for mankind. [Look for more such below.]

For our non-troll readership, what mean by "t=0" in the context of the BB is "the timepoint in the history of the finite-time-ago-created universe to which we assign the zero-time label."[/QUOTE]

That last paragraph had me laughing, because it's true. :smile:

So is there a T - 10 seconds (or years) in the BB theory?

[QUOTE=davar55;366869]So is there a T - 10 seconds (or years) in the BB theory?[/QUOTE]

Sure. T < 0 might be undefined from our frame of reference, but that doesn't necessarily mean it didn't exist.

[QUOTE=chalsall;366879]Sure. T < 0 might be undefined from our frame of reference, but that doesn't necessarily mean it didn't exist.[/QUOTE]

The poster was implying (humorously) that no such time < T==0 existed.

I laughed at the fact that the BBT tries to undefine time.
Any moment of time had temporal predecessors. That's
how one proves there was no start, no creation, no
universal big bang. Thar T < 0 did necessarily exist.

[QUOTE=davar55;366893]The poster was implying (humorously) that no such time < T==0 existed.[/QUOTE]

No, I don't think so. It's just causally unconnected as far as we can tell.

[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang]W.r.to t <= 0[/url]:

"The earliest instant of the Big Bang expansion is still an area of open investigation. The Big Bang theory does not provide any explanation for the initial conditions of the universe; rather, it describes and explains the general evolution of the universe going forward from that point on."

But I'm sure another couple hundred posts will help to hopelessly confuse the issue all over again.

Re:

[QUOTE=ewmayer;366987][URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang"]W.r.to t <= 0[/URL]:

"The earliest instant of the Big Bang expansion is still an area of open investigation. The Big Bang theory does not provide any explanation for the initial conditions of the universe; rather, it describes and explains the general evolution of the universe going forward from that point on."

But I'm sure another couple hundred posts will help to hopelessly confuse the issue all over again.[/QUOTE]

[I]I'm not trying to c[/I]onfuse. I'm just denying the concept of "initial
conditions" for the Universe as a whole. There was no "that point"
from which the Universe went on. "Initial" means "beginning", and
there was no beginning. That's a purely biblical idea.

And my cosmo monograph explains away the evidence purportedly
supporting the big bang. I don't have anything against little bangs,
i.e. supergalactic explosions that restarted parts of the Universe
throughout its vaster history.