Physics Forum Greg Bernhardt owner This physics site does not support the current accepted mainstream model for the Big Bang Internet

                                                 STAY AWAY FROM PHYSICS FORUM!

                                                       www.physicsforums.com

I was kicked off the PhysicsForum website by a so called “Mentor” named Peter Donis for “stubbornly promoting content that is false or misguided.” What was I defending, THE STANDARD MODEL OF THE BIG BANG THEORY! The one that appears in all the text books and everywhere on line. It states the universe appeared as a singularity about 13.8 billion years ago and then went through a period of expansion.

He stated that “the standard model for the BB did not include a singularity and the inflationary epoch happened before the events covered by the standard hot big bang theory.” You have no idea how wrong this is according to mainstream science.

I am Quantum321.

Peter

“Here in a private conversation I don't have to mince words. This is bullshit. You have given no acceptable references whatever; all your links were to pop science articles. Not one of them even gave a reference to a textbook or a peer-reviewed paper. You simply do not know what the actual mainstream science is.” All of my references are well known (see below) such as NASA.

I asked him to refer me to a site that met his criteria...he DECLINED!

The only way for him not to look completely ignorant over this is to destroyed all the evidence. So he deleted all my posts. Then he posted 'Now that the poster who gave incorrect references about the "standard Big Bang model" is gone, in case anyone else is interested, the actual "standard model" of Big Bang cosmology is described here...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda-CDM_model

...and in the references given there.

Now it gets really bizarre! Wikipedia is not a peer-reviewed paper! It is a free encyclopedia. From the Wikipedia reference he sited “The model includes a single originating event, the "Big Bang" or initial singularity, which was not an explosion but the abrupt appearance of expanding space-time containing radiation at temperatures of around 10¹⁵ K. This was immediately (within 10⁻²⁹ seconds) followed by an exponential expansion of space by a scale multiplier of 10²⁷ or more, known as cosmic inflation. First the initial singularity then expansion. Exactly contrary to his assertions!.

So his accepted reference site does not follow his own guide lines and does not support his position!! IT SUPPORTS MY POSITION!

I do not recommend that anyone post anything intelligent on the PhysicsForum owned by Greg Bernhardt. As you can see any discussion regarding mainstream physics will be subject to removal and expulsion from the site. This site is not to be considered a good place to either learn physics or cosmology. They have adopted a narrow minded view and reject mainstream sciences accepted models.

What follows is a detailed account of the argument.

Peter

Here in a private conversation I don't have to mince words. This is bullshit. You have given no acceptable references whatever; all your links were to pop science articles. Not one of them even gave a reference to a textbook or a peer-reviewed paper. You simply do not know what the actual mainstream science is.

Quantum321

NASA is pop science? big-bang-theory.com is pop science? (The #1site on the internet) All notable links he considered pop science. Outrageous! I then asked him to tell me the mainstream science model for the BB. He DECLINED.

Quantum321

According to the standard theory, our universe sprang into existence as "singularity" around 13.7 billion years ago. What is a "singularity" and where does it come from? Well, to be honest, we don't know for sure. Singularities are zones which defy our current understanding of physics.

After its initial appearance, it apparently inflated (the "Big Bang"), expanded and cooled, going from very, very small and very, very hot, to the size and temperature of our current universe

He reject all these well known reference sites:

science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-is-dark-energy/

science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-powered-the-big-bang/

physicsanduniverse.com/standard-model-of-the-big-bang-theory/

big-bang-theory.com/ This is the number one site on the internet for the model of the BB

space.com/25126-big-bang-theory.html

Quantum321

This is bulls*. You reject every searchable reference to the standard model of the BB on the internet. Then when you are asked which BB model you would accept you cop out and avoid the question.

Search google for all accepted models for the BB. They all agree with me. Or give a reference in mainstream science that supports your position.

I then asked him to give me the link to an acceptable mainstream model for the BB. He REFUSED.

Quantum321

“What a cop out! Of course you know mainstream sciences model for the BB. You don't want to say where it is because to goes against your thinking regarding the BB. Please give me a reference supported by mainstream science the supports your position that there was no singularity and that inflation did not follow the BB. If you can't then please refrain from using it in any arguments on this forum.

All the references I made including these

The accepted model for the BB has already undergone peer review and is published in many books and magazines. Until the current accepted BB model is revised it is considered sciences accepted position.

PeterDonis

Hi Quantum321,

physicsforums.com/

In regards to your thread/post: Is the Universe finite?

While reviewing your post we've found you are stubbornly promoting content that is false or misguided.

Please view our forum rules guidelines for more information.

Thanks for your understanding and participation at Physics Forums!

PeterDonis

Every searchable reference to the model for the BB is false or misguided?

After our exchange I pretty much left him with his d**k in his hand. Anyone reading our comments would agree with this. He said that the accepted mainstream model for the BB did not include a singularity and inflation preceded the BB. He reject EVERY one of my reference links. In fact he rejected every single searchable site I listed including NASA,Physicsanduniverse, Big-bang-theory (the number one listed site in any google search. His position can not be defended! . “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely” I would not give Peter a job as a dishwasher! He would contend the plate came before the water.

Quantum321
quartz854@safe-mail.net