VIBE wrote: »

Bambi's mother was killed hunters. He's simply misunderstood.

Gold_Certificate wrote: »

bambu wrote: »

Gold_Certificate wrote: »

bambu wrote: »

Gold_Certificate wrote: »

bambu wrote: »

Gold_Certificate wrote: »

bambu wrote: »

ohhhla wrote: »

The expansion of the Universe has been examined.

And its flaws exposed.........

bambu wrote: »

The flatness problem (also known as the oldness problem) is a cosmological fine-tuning problem within the Big Bang model of the universe. Such problems arise from the observation that some of the initial conditions of the universe appear to be fine-tuned to very 'special' values, and that a small deviation from these values would have had massive effects on the nature of the universe at the current time.

In the case of the flatness problem, the parameter which appears fine-tuned is the density of matter and energy in the universe. This value affects the curvature of space-time, with a very specific critical value being required for a flat universe. The current density of the universe is observed to be very close to this critical value. Since the total density departs rapidly from the critical value over cosmic time,[1] the early universe must have had a density even closer to the critical density, departing from it by one part in 1062 or less. This leads cosmologists to question how the initial density came to be so closely fine-tuned to this 'special' value.



LOL....

@ questioning "special values"..............

*You fail the Gods*

This says nothing to refute the Universe's observable expansion.

It does however, illustrate the "special value" that must be accepted along with the observation of this so-called "expansion"............

No it doesn't.

Yes it does.........

This tiny value is the crux of the flatness problem. If the initial density of the universe could take any value, it would seem extremely surprising to find it so 'finely tuned' to the critical value \rho_c. Indeed, a very small departure of Ω from 1 in the early universe would have been magnified during billions of years of expansion to create a current density very far from critical. In the case of an overdensity (\rho > \rho_c) this would lead to a universe so dense it would cease expanding and collapse into a Big Crunch (an opposite to the Big Bang in which all matter and energy falls back into an incredibly dense state) in a few years or less; in the case of an underdensity (\rho < \rho_c) it would expand so quickly and become so sparse it would soon seem essentially empty, and gravity would not be strong enough by comparison to cause matter to collapse and form galaxies. In either case the universe would contain no complex structures such as galaxies, stars, planets and people.[8]

http://www.das.uchile.cl/~mhamuy/courses/AS42B/Introduction_To_Cosmology.pdf

"The flatness problem" questions how the Universe can be flat today, despite not being perfectly flat initially at singularity; therefore, it only applies to the "Big Bang" theory.

It doesn't apply to the "Big Crunch", the "Big Bounce", or the "Inflation" theories.

Without the model of the Universe according to the "Big Bang" theory, the Universe's expansion is still observable.

It does......

As the "Big Crunch", "Big Bounce" theories are based on the "Big Bang" & attempts to describe the ultimate fate of the universe..........

And "Inflation" speaks to the rate of rapid exponential expansion of the early universe by a factor of at least 1078 in volume, driven by a negative-pressure vacuum energy density.........

All of these "theories" use the "Big Bang" in one way or another & depend on it in order to exist.............

Again......

The expansion of the universe is observable...........

Understanding that it was "fine-tuned to very 'special' values".......

The below equation describes the "flatness problem":


The speed of light, the curvature parameter, and the gravitational constant are all constants. However, due to the use of the proposed "inflationary field"--which basically causes density to remain constant--density multiplied with the square of the scale factor grows exponentially with time (instead of decreasing as density decreases). So for the equation to remain valid, the inverse of the critical value minus one must decrease initially to counter the exponential growth; removing the influence of any initially large value. This is the opposite of what happens in the equation without the inflationary field; and thus, mathematically solves the "flatness problem".

For the "Big Crunch" or the "Big Bounce" to occur, the density must be much larger than the critical density so that the Universe can collapse back on itself; this does not conflict with the "flatness problem"--which only takes issue with the density being the critical density or being close to it--so there is nothing to solve here.

Since one solves the "flatness problem" and the other two do not conflict with the "flatness problem"; the "flatness problem" does not apply to either of them.

Horizon problem

The horizon problem results from the premise that information cannot travel faster than light. In a Universe of finite age this sets a limit—the particle horizon—on the separation of any two regions of space that are in causal contact.[89] The observed isotropy of the CMB is problematic in this regard: if the Universe had been dominated by radiation or matter at all times up to the epoch of last scattering, the particle horizon at that time would correspond to about 2 degrees on the sky. There would then be no mechanism to cause wider regions to have the same temperature.

If inflation occurred, exponential expansion would push large regions of space well beyond our observable horizon.