So, also my view, Big Bang not required. My primarily objection concerning BB is the math involved. The mathematics for calculating Big Bang are dealing with elements, to my opinion, that are at the borders of good and fair math. I’ve heard that a mathematician can prove an apple for a pear or vice versa. Maybe the case is so here for BB.

Regards
/admin

Good luck here. Do not let off subject posts drown out your interest in Physics.

Love and regards
Drift

Thus this post holds a link with physics thoughts I’ve added it to the Discussion section.
http://theoryofeverything.se/?p=298&cpage=1#comment-413

Regards
/admin

I’ve copied your Guest book post also to the Discussion section due to the link you provided. Having some comments on the “stuff” at the linked site:

Labelwench says:
I would share with your viewers a link that was posted by Melanie, of another forum, as I found it both interesting and very comprehensible for a wide audience.
http://centeredlibrarian.blogspot.com/2011/05/dark-matter-matters.html
End of quote.

The Blogspot site has an animation presenting space matter exploration versus particle science and how these two fields of physics begin to share mutual knowledge.

There is, in the beginning of the animation, a brief explanation of the 4 ways that matter (things) interact: The description is not all correct but the animation tries to explain how “matter” interact but is an allegory of the physical explanation of the 4 fundamental forces in nature or universe. And the telling of the 4 forces of nature has a slight different version.

Also the short part just before, telling about what matter is made of in space is also not quite in line with standard explanation. The 75%, which in the animation is told that we don’t know anything about is normally in these physics accounts said to be dark energy. Else this short part is in line with standard physical descriptions of distribution of matter.

Further the film is telling how the physic fields of space exploration and particle science begin to deal with mutual knowledge. And especially how the before so grave particle scientists more seriously begin to join, for example, space matter seminars and such meetings.

It’s a hasty animated movie of about 6 minutes that obviously is made by younger and enquiring students. More than a standard physical description of matter and particles.

You can take this post for a brief review of the animation.
I’ll give it 3.5 stars of five.

Regards
/admin

http://centeredlibrarian.blogspot.com/2011/05/dark-matter-matters.html

Greetings from a fellow seeker from the land of the midnight sun.

TOE must basically describe the small compared to the big – Microcosms to Macrocosms and all the “way” between.

One can say that any thinking starting from Microcosms is a inductive reasoning. And the symmetrically thinking starting from Macrocosms is based on deductive reasoning.

This inductive and deductive manners of thinking are noticed because there seem to be some problem at scientists to fully handle the deductive form of viewing on any matter or problem.

So, basically when now Hawking and Mlodinow recently has stated that a TOE never will be written or found, I do more recognize inability in reasoning in the deductive form at scientists or any other person viewing any problem whatsoever.

I do not state that Hawking or Mlodinow are disabled in deductive thinking – but the disability is noticed by me in general. This is a bigger problem than we can imagine at first glance. I do incorporate the global environmental problems in this handicap of man.

So, therefore a TOE is not only difficult by its physics – but probably also is hard to find due to disabilities in the finders of TOE. Man is often good in inductive thinking, but rather often is handicapped in the deductive form. We apparently has problems in the Macrocosms way of thinking.

During the last about 15 years when I’ve been writing in physics sites I’ve almost every time when mentioned Big Bang been struck by the dim or unclear manner all sorts of physic people has written or mentioned this Macrocosms view of physics. People are, in my humble manner of expressing, not so good in arguing about Big Bang physics. They can’t really convince me about BB. OK, Big Bang mathematics IS hard. Nevertheless my notion of general problems in deductive form of thinking stands. And therefore my general BB critics also stands.

Although, I am aware about that BB is a part of the standard model.

Regards
/admin

Welcome to TOE.se
Feel free to sign our Guest book.

April 20, 2011
/admin