I don't understand any of this

[a completely inoffensive name]

I think the ratio of neutrons to protons gives a fairly good observation much earlier then 380k years after the Big Bang.

Ooooooh, had not heard about this. You just gave me something new to learn about.

Just to clarify to people, I like to read a lot about astrophysics, but I don't study it.

[Papewaio]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_B...thesis#/search

[Ironside]

No.

You are right about the prize, but wrong about its implications to what I said.

Easily put: Expansion SHOULD be more rapid from a dark matter point of view.

Don't ask me to explain why, it blows my mind going anywhere near these questions.

Nah. Gravity always pull things together. Dark matter is a crutch to explain why galaxes can keep together. Dark energy is the crutch to explain why the red shift is accelerating (that means that the universe is expanding faster and faster). That's why it's so vague and will probably be another aether.

Atm the estimations shows that about 5% is visual matter, 27% dark matter and 68% is dark energy. That's a lot of "we have no idea".

[InsaneApache]

You guys haven't been paying attention.

Before the Big Bang there was the Q continuum. Any fule knos that.

Oh and 42.

[Sigurd]

Nah. Gravity always pull things together...

A faulty assumption that is also the basis of the Hawking-Penrose theorem. OP is about finding evidence for the inflation period which is THE explanation of the uniform red shift and the explanation of the flatness/horizon problems with the general BB theory. Inflation needs gravitational force which is not attractive in nature (repulsive). Until one has developed such a theorem (Quantum theory of gravity), it's all hypothetical.

[Ironside]

A faulty assumption that is also the basis of the Hawking-Penrose theorem. OP is about finding evidence for the inflation period which is THE explanation of the uniform red shift and the explanation of the flatness/horizon problems with the general BB theory. Inflation needs gravitational force which is not attractive in nature (repulsive). Until one has developed such a theorem (Quantum theory of gravity), it's all hypothetical.

Fair enough. Outside quantum levels, gravity always act as an attractive force. There's a reason why quantum physics and normal physics haven't been combined yet.

[Kadagar_AV]

Nah. Gravity always pull things together. Dark matter is a crutch to explain why galaxes can keep together. Dark energy is the crutch to explain why the red shift is accelerating (that means that the universe is expanding faster and faster). That's why it's so vague and will probably be another aether.

Atm the estimations shows that about 5% is visual matter, 27% dark matter and 68% is dark energy. That's a lot of "we have no idea".

Oh well, as I have read it dark matter is the reason things can move out and then retract.

But let's face it, your guess is as good as mine. And if a fish farts in an aquarium, that is also something we both have to consider as a legit input to the discussion.

[HoreTore]

Oh well, as I have read it dark matter is the reason things can move out and then retract.

No. There are observations that things move out and retract. We can't explain why this is happening, and so we fill in the blanks of our knowledge with "dark matter did it".

[rvg]

No. There are observations that things move out and retract. We can't explain why this is happening, and so we fill in the blanks of our knowledge with "dark matter did it".

So The Dark Matter said: "Let there be light!" and there was light. And The Dark Matter saw that that was good.

[Myth]

So The Dark Matter said: "Let there be light!" and there was light. And The Dark Matter saw that that was good.

You cannot see dark matter if there is no light.

[Ironside]

Oh well, as I have read it dark matter is the reason things can move out and then retract.

But let's face it, your guess is as good as mine. And if a fish farts in an aquarium, that is also something we both have to consider as a legit input to the discussion.

Not really. See they name the unknown based on what it's supposed to do. Dark matter is whatever that's the answer on why the galaxies doesn't win the star throw awards in the olympics. It would affect the retraction, but not the expansion directly.
Dark energy influences the expansion directly, but it's something entirely different. It's whatever causing increasing red shift aka accelerating expansion of the universe.
I think you've mixed them together. It's quite easy to do. The one coming up with dark energy were really not thinking about the risk of name mixup, only theme names.

Basically, it goes something like this. The formula used work fine on small scale and large scale, but are completly wrong on gigantic scale. So either the formula is incomplete or you fudge the numbers and acknowledge that you did that and tell everyone that you describe something real that haven't been discovered yet. Sometimes, the rest agrees with you on that. Sometimes, it's even correct.

Campare to "what caused the Big Bang?" There's certainly no seriously taken formulas to calculate that.

[Myth]

it might turn out that the whole idea of a big bang is making us biased and thus leading us into a dead end. We lack the tools and knowledge to look deep down enough, far back enough and so on.

[Sarmatian]

"dark matter did it".

Bollox, the butler did it.

[Papewaio]

it might turn out that the whole idea of a big bang is making us biased and thus leading us into a dead end. We lack the tools and knowledge to look deep down enough, far back enough and so on.

Other theories have been looked at ie static universe or infinite one.

Big Bang theory explains to a high degree the universe we are in and is the current best fit model. Once a better model comes along the physicists will be all over that just like Lenoardo Dicaprio does with his ones.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I can agree on it maybe being a god. Question would be which one

Its is all the same one.

[Beskar]

Its is all the same one.

Time to add the god of fertility next to your crucifix then, with its characteristic enlarged size.

Some believe in animal spirits and others do not even have a 'god' as such. Jesus could be a rewriting of Zeus though, but I don't think he was known on cheating on his wife, who may or may not exist due to some.

Long story short, that is a silly statement which lacks understanding of the great diversity of religion. Only one which 'share' are the Christians, Muslims and Jews. Even then, sects of those have difference ideas and views on the makeup of 'god'. Is some one who is doubting the divinity of christ actually believing in the same god as some one who believes Jesus is the embodiment of god?

What defines a 'god' anyway? What if the big bang was an Alien Ships reactor-drive malfunction in a different universe, thus creating a pocket-universe of us. Does that make them 'god' ? or is the creator of the universe who created things which happened outside of their control in turn created us from said aliens given free-will.

The mind boggles on the amount of mental hoops which are completely ignored.

I am sure if there was an afterlife with an omnipotent being, they would be fully understanding of any lack of faith and enlighten us. So no need to worry about your eternal soul.

[Myth]

Time to add the god of fertility next to your crucifix then, with its characteristic enlarged size.

Some believe in animal spirits and others do not even have a 'god' as such. Jesus could be a rewriting of Zeus though, but I don't think he was known on cheating on his wife, who may or may not exist due to some.

Long story short, that is a silly statement which lacks understanding of the great diversity of religion. Only one which 'share' are the Christians, Muslims and Jews. Even then, sects of those have difference ideas and views on the makeup of 'god'. Is some one who is doubting the divinity of christ actually believing in the same god as some one who believes Jesus is the embodiment of god?

What defines a 'god' anyway? What if the big bang was an Alien Ships reactor-drive malfunction in a different universe, thus creating a pocket-universe of us. Does that make them 'god' ? or is the creator of the universe who created things which happened outside of their control in turn created us from said aliens given free-will.

The mind boggles on the amount of mental hoops which are completely ignored.

I am sure if there was an afterlife with an omnipotent being, they would be fully understanding of any lack of faith and enlighten us. So no need to worry about your eternal soul.

Religion and mythology blend in the times of antiquity. They used to serve a different purpose in those ancient societies. The plethora of ancients gods, spirits, heroes of old, great foes and so on are archetypes of human behaviour. They tell stories which concern the fundamental characteristics of humans. Religion often intertwined with the cultural rituals which marked the coming of age of young adults - a paramount point in one's life. Ancient religions are multifaceted, because there existed no such phenomenon as globalization back then. Each region, each tribe, each distinct peoples adde their own colour and taste to fundamentally the most basic and eternal of human stories. Love, war, betrayal, coming of age, death, motherhood, cunning etc.

The organized semitic religions tell us the same stories in a new way, but the rituals no longer serve to bring people closer to earth or to serve as a threshold. Instead, they mainly serve to cement that person within the confines of his/her religion. Compare a ritual "hunt for the great snake" where a boy turns to a man with the baptism of an infant.

But such theological debates are not the purpose of this thread, though I do appreciate them greatly. Also, Zeus was a notorious adulterer - he fathered half the pantheon and Greek heroes, nymphs and very pretty girls. If that's not an excuse for men of power to shag anything that moves, I don't know what is. "Look, Zeus did it. I can't presume I'm better than the Lord of Olympus."