Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

To: magellan
Why then, does God try to deceive us?

Sadly, the only one trying to deceive here is you.

You make a number of assumptions that if any were wrong, would throw your hold accusation in to doubt.

But don't think that the Big Bang doesn't have its own miracles at work. If cosmologists generally agree to a 14 billion YO universe, you have your own light travel-time "horizon problem" because of uniform temperatures and not enough time between points A and B.

41 posted on 06/16/2010 9:48:07 PM PDT by The Theophilus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies ]

To: The Theophilus
The "Horizon Problem" was one of 4 fundamental flaws with the original Big Bang theory. These flaws led to Inflation Theory.


1. The Horizon Problem
2. The Flatness Problem
3. The Galaxy Formation Problem
4. The Antimatter Problem

Here is an excellent source which explains in layman terms what these problems are:

And here are some things I found some time ago on inflation theory...

Alan Guth [inventor of Inflation theory]: "Those 'little creatures'[cosmic microwave background photons], however, would have to communicate at roughly 100 times the speed of light if they are to achieve their goal of creating a uniform temperature across the visible Universe by 300,000 years after the Big Bang."

As Albrecht, now at the University of California at Davis, puts it, inflation is not yet a theory: "It is more of a nice idea at this point."...

"The model in Guth's original paper, published in Physical Review D in 1980, admittedly did not work. Michael Turner of the University of Chicago, who took part in Bardeen's calculation of the density perturbations, says Guth had been brave. "One of the striking things about [Guth's] paper," Turner says, "was that he said: 'Look, guys, the model I am putting forward does not work. I can prove it doesn't work. But I think the basic idea is really important.' "

In fact, Guth's "old" inflation ended too soon, and too messily. A "graceful exit" was needed to make the universe look remotely similar to ours. In 1982 Paul Steinhardt, another co-author of Bardeen's calculation, solved the graceful exit problem together with Andreas Albrecht; Linde also found a solution independently. Their "new" inflation worked by adjusting the shape of the potential function, a sort of mathematical roller-coaster that defines the properties of the inflation.

Most of the mechanisms proposed ever since rely on carefully adjusting the shape of the hypothetical potential function. None, it seems, has been too convincing. "All these models seem so awkward, and so finely tuned," says Mark Wise, a cosmologist at the California Institute of Technology.

Physicists would like a theory that avoids such gimmicks, one that shows how things ought to be from first principles—or at least with the smallest possible number of assumptions. "Fine tuning" is the opposite.

It was two fine-tuning problems, two such implausible balancing acts, that inflation was supposed to have solved. "You're trying to explain away certain features of the universe that seem fine-tuned—like its homogeneity, or its flatness," says Steinhardt, now at Princeton University, "but you do it by a mechanism that itself requires fine tuning. And that concern, which was there from the beginning, remains now." As Albrecht, now at the University of California at Davis, puts it, inflation is not yet a theory: "It is more of a nice idea at this point." "

44 posted on 06/16/2010 10:01:53 PM PDT by ETL (ALL (most?) of the Obama-commie connections at my FR Home page:
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson