FBM wrote:Do you read (or watch) at all what you are publishing as reference on the thread.... abundant, verifiable and consistent evidence we have for the BBT
Have you heard that part in the video with Prof. Michio Kaku: the Standard Model of the Universe (your favorite Big Bang 'theory') explains 4% of the Universe (the percentages are provided by him, not by me - watch the video carefully to hear it personally), 23% Dark Matter "that we (the science) know nothing (absolute zero) about", 73 % Dark Energy - the knowledge about which is almost the same as in the case with the Dark Matter.
BTW 'dark' in astrophysics means absolutely unknown, undefined, unverifiable, without any feasible explanation - what 'abundant, verifiable and consistent evidence' you are talking about?
The abundant, verifiable and consistent evidence for the Standard Model has been presented to you in said abundance from the beginning of this thread, but your response has been consistently: 
FBM wrote:Undoubtedly ...I know the stronger argument when I see it. And you still got nothin'.
as you place the deeply justified presentations of Prof. Michio Kaku next to any crap you find by chance on the web, which is actually 'abundant, verifiable and consistent evidence' that you cannot distinguish the highly justified logical theories & models of the astrophysics from the unjustified mumbo-jumbo casual talk in cosmology.
Dark energy – An introduction
...
Dark energy – an example of fine-tuning
... Dark energy provides an energy density to make up for the missing matter density, but would necessitate an exceptionally high degree of fine-tuning.
How finely-tuned must this energy be in order to obtain a flat universe? The answer is one part in 10120. This is equivalent to one part in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.
Dark energy – Conclusion
The nature of the universe reveals that a purely materialistic cause for the observed universe is exceptionally improbable – and cannot be understood apart from intelligent agency.
When a model is proven to be inadequate, scientists must be willing to go with the model which best fits the facts. In this case, the proposition of intelligent design is far more consistent with the data than the naturalistic model.
Appealing to possible alternative ways that the universe might have evolved do not make fine tuning untenable. In fact, the vast majority of possible universes would contain no matter at all -- just energy! As Kleban Dyson writes:
"The vast majority of the space consists of states which are macroscopically "dead de Sitter;" that is, nearly empty de Sitter containing only some thermal radiation...Therefore, livable universes are almost always created by fluctuations into the "miraculous" states discussed above."
Disturbing Implications of a Cosmological Constant
L. Dyson, M. Kleban,
L. Susskind
Department of Physics
Stanford University
Stanford, CA 94305-4060
Center for Theoretical Physics
Department of Physics
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Cambridge, MA 02139
Abstract
In this paper we consider the implications of a cosmological constant for the evolution of the universe, under a set of assumptions motivated by the holographic and horizon complementarity principles. We discuss the “causal patch” description of spacetime required by this framework, and present some simple examples of cosmologies described this way. We argue that these assumptions inevitably lead to very deep paradoxes, which seem to require major revisions of our usual assumptions.
There is no such thing as 'pulled out of your ass' (whatever this might mean)
in the estimation theory. When you have no explicit justification about something, and the implicit justification is based on personal assumptions, experience, belief system, expert knowledge, etc. - this is called expert estimate.
quote] You also don't have any empirical support for your 4% explanation of the Universe - so what in particular is your problem?
You don't know what you are talking. 'Centuries of evidence' that explains not more than 4% of the visible & known Universe - how are you going to comment that?
Do you know what is your major problem - for we are not talking any more about any Big Bang &/or God, stochastics and/or ID - you cannot accept things (no matter what they are) without understanding & validating them in terms of your personal understanding and knowledge of the world. You cannot provide as reference to a discussion some articles & video without even reading (watching) them at first. A lot of the managers & governors are allowing the very same mistake - one cannot trust people, who have self-pronounced themselves as top-experts in any field, without trying to understand at first what their claim/theory actually is - the system simply does not work in that way. All the people having applied this method sooner or later come across a catastrophe - nothing personal.
The Standard Model
Introduction:
Human nature is to question. Just ask any pre-schooler what their favorite word is and you'll probably receive the response, "Why?" followed by "what", "how" and "when". Eventually these children move on from their post-toddler obsession with monosyllabic words and develop into adults, yet they always retain some of that curiosity that is so intrinsic to human nature. Physicists, on the other hand, can't stop asking those questions and are the people who never grew up. One puzzle that philosophers and physicists have pondered for centuries is the riddle, "What is matter?" The Greek philosopher Democritus was the first to propose that matter is comprised of tiny "indivisibles" which he called "atoms".
By convention there is color,
By convention sweetness,
By convention bitterness,
But in reality there are atoms and space"
-Democritus (circa 400 BCE)
Democritus was on the right path, and far ahead of his time. Today we know that atoms are not the smallest building blocks of matter; rather, there exists a whole world of particles more fundamental than atoms. Although less poetic than Democritus, we would say, "there are quarks, leptons, gluons and space". Physicists, through experimentation and theory, have created the Standard Model of particle physics, which outlines what they believe to be the most basic building blocks of matter.
History:
The history of physics is a long and involving tale, which will not be told here. This is simply a brief history of particle physics pertinent to the development of the standard model. For more information on the history of physics, please visit the American Physical Society's A Century of Physics timeline.
-Pre 1800 Up until 1800 not much work is done involving the theory of matter. The majority of the exploration falls under chemistry through the identification of elements
-1802 Dalton revives the study of matter with his Atomic theory, which states that atoms are the fundamental building blocks of nature and can only combine in whole number ratios
-1898 J. J. Thompson discovers that cathode rays are electrons, a fundamental particle
-1905 Einstein publishes his theory of the wave-particle duality of light. This forms a foundation for quantum mechanics
-1911 Rutherford discovers that the atom has a concentrated positive nucleus
-1913 Bohr furthers Rutherford's model of the atom to include electron orbits at discrete radii to account for distinct atomic spectra emission lines
-1919 The bending of starlight due to the curvature of space-time is observed, confirming Einstein's general relativity
-1923 Louis de Broglie proposes the wave-particle duality of matter
-1925 Heisenberg creates his uncertainty principle, which puts limits on the precision of experimentation
-1925-26 Schrodinger rescues the wave-particle duality of nature from confusion with the wave equation
-March 1926 Quantum mechanics is formulated
-1932 James Chadwick announces discovery of neutron
-1956-57 Tsung-Dao Lee and Chen Ning Yang propose parity non-conservation in certain sub-atomic processes, which is confirmed by experimentalist Chien-Shiung Wu
-1962 The first experimental observation of the muon neutrino occurs
-1967 Raymond Davis creates the first solar neutrino detector, finding only half of the predicted solar neutrino flux
-1967 Steven Weinberg, Sheldon Glashow (collaboration) and Abdus Salam (independent) create the electro-weak theory, unifying the electromagnetic and weak nuclear force (they win Nobel prizes in 1979)
-1964 Quarks are proposed by Murray Gell-Mann and George Zweig
-1969 Jerome Friedman, Henry Kendall, and Richard Taylor find the first evidence of quarks
-1970-73 Standard model of particle physics is developed
-1974 The charmed quark is observed
-1975 Evidence of the tau lepton is found
-1977 Experimenters find proof of the bottom quark
-1983 Carlo Rubbia discovers the W and Z bosons, mediators of the weak-force
-1994 Planning for LHC (Large Hadron Collider) at CERN begins
-1995 Evidence for the top quark, the final undiscovered quark, is found at Fermilab
-2000 The tau neutrino, the last piece to the standard model, (with the exceptopm of the higgs particle) is observed at Fermilab
Components of the Standard Model:
The standard model is divided into three sections: quarks, leptons and force carriers. The quarks and leptons, which in turn are divided into three generations, are members of a family of particles called fermions (particles with half integer spins). Both the quarks and leptons come in pairs. For example, quarks are grouped up and down, charm and strange, and top and bottom (And yes, those are their real names). Experimental evidence for the top quark was recently found here at Fermilab in 1995. Scientists have proven that quarks combine in triplets to form baryons or quark-antiquark pairs to form mesons, both types of elementary particles.
Leptons, which belong to a class of particles called fermions, also come in pairs. The electron, muon and tau particles each have an associated low mass, charge-less neutrino. The electron, like the proton and the neutron, is a stable particle and is present in almost all matter. The muon and tau particles are unstable and are found primarily in decay processes.
The intermediate vector bosons, or force carriers, make up the third section of the standard model. They transmit three of the four fundamental forces through which matter interacts. The gluon, like its namesake, is responsible for the most powerful force, the strong force, which binds together quarks inside protons and neutrons, and holds together particles inside an atomic nucleus. The photon is the electromagnetic force carrier that governs electron orbits and chemical processes. Lastly, the W and Z bosons are attributed to the weak force, playing a role in radioactive decay. The weak force is very important in observing neutrino reactions, because the neutrinos are impervious to the electromagnetic force (due to their lack of charge) and unaffected by the strong (which governs nuclear interactions), leaving only the weak force to characterize the neutrino.
The standard model is not a complete theory; in fact it is far from being so. Detectors at Fermilab and eventually at the LHC at CERN are looking for the elusive Higgs particle, which, if found, will either explain the standard model or force us to readjust our conception of matter. Also the standard model does not have a place for gravity, the fourth force, which does not play a significant part in atomic and subatomic processes because it is so weak on those scales. Physicists are searching for a grand unified theory that would unite all four of the forces, currently only those included in the standard model are united. The next twenty years should prove very exciting for this field of physics.
