I grew up in the mindset that the Big Bang Theory was it. So, we defended the theory through thick and thin.
We developed tunnel vision.
[Submitted on 18 May 2024]
We developed tunnel vision.
[Submitted on 18 May 2024]
Every argument challenging BB is along the lines of one or the other:
- You weren't there so you don't know
- If I can't understand it, thus it can't possibly be true
- BB is only an assumption
- BB is only a theory
- As an anonymous source on the internet, surely my version, which is contrary to the entire scientific community over the last 120 years, is better.
And no one ever gives a convincing alternative. If you have one, I'd like to hear it. And remember, BB theory starts at 10^-43 s, so any talk of the singularity or "dividing by zero" is outside the scope of the BB theory. Prior to that we don't know and never will.
- You weren't there so you don't know
- If I can't understand it, thus it can't possibly be true
- BB is only an assumption
- BB is only a theory
- As an anonymous source on the internet, surely my version, which is contrary to the entire scientific community over the last 120 years, is better.
And no one ever gives a convincing alternative. If you have one, I'd like to hear it. And remember, BB theory starts at 10^-43 s, so any talk of the singularity or "dividing by zero" is outside the scope of the BB theory. Prior to that we don't know and never will.
That the BB has disappeared from the universe, ceased to exist, Bill, is the "120 years" long incorrect assumption. It didn't go away. It doesn't go away. It is a Planck level constant of Horizon which the Hubble and JWST scopes are looking deeply up and out to and, at one and the same time resolving the light, deeply down and into. It never goes away.
Bill,
The cosmological community is fixated on the BBT. When you go to college and get a degree in it, you must spend 4-to-8 years "learning" to tell the professors what they expect you to know. There is rarely an opportunity to actually question professors. That has to come after you graduate, and typically requires somebody to fund your research so you can pay for computer time and don't starve in the process of trying to find some alternatives.
So, the BBT is and has been getting the funding for some time now, and asking for an alternative that has the same level of analysis under it is just a way of avoiding a realistic discussion of alternatives.
That said, there are definitely some red flags associated with the BBT.
The most obvious is that it relies on several things that have not been shown to exist, to the extent that it needs 20 times the energy + mass that we do understand to work out mathematically, and all that extra stuff has to do things that the other 5% we really understand cannot do. People in any other field will tell you that is a huge red flag for an improper model.
Additional red flags keep coming up in discrepancies between BBT predictions and new observations. But, the model is so full of unconstrained tuning parameters that it can just be adjusted with new assumptions about unexplained physical phenomena.
And the cop out at 10-43 second is a new feature, just to avoid talking about a singularity. The premise of the BBT is that the universe started from essentially nothing at essentially a single point. Which is just the ultimate extrapolation of the Hubble "constant" backward in time. Refusing to discuss the first 10-43 second is only a rhetorical tactic. Something must have happened, and it is the lynch pin for the whole concept.
So, yes it absolutely is "just a theory". And it absolutely depends on a lot of assumptions. Any attempt to claim that "we know it all, already" is going to be met with derision, because it is a gross overstatement of the current state of knowledge.
But, there are a lot of people, the vast majority of whom have never solved Einstein's field equations for themselves, who are eager to show off on the Internet with their knowledge of the BBT's "story". They state what they say as fact, and they should be stating it only as model predictions.
And, when I have tried to have discussions or ask hard questions, there is always some excuse to avoid them. Rules of forums, "lies we tell children", "go get a degree first", "you are insulting me", "show me a theory that is better, first, before we will discuss it".
Those are also red flags to those of us who have had to deal with projections that ultimately get tested in the real world.
So, less hubris and more honest discussion is what is called for.
The cosmological community is fixated on the BBT. When you go to college and get a degree in it, you must spend 4-to-8 years "learning" to tell the professors what they expect you to know. There is rarely an opportunity to actually question professors. That has to come after you graduate, and typically requires somebody to fund your research so you can pay for computer time and don't starve in the process of trying to find some alternatives.
So, the BBT is and has been getting the funding for some time now, and asking for an alternative that has the same level of analysis under it is just a way of avoiding a realistic discussion of alternatives.
That said, there are definitely some red flags associated with the BBT.
The most obvious is that it relies on several things that have not been shown to exist, to the extent that it needs 20 times the energy + mass that we do understand to work out mathematically, and all that extra stuff has to do things that the other 5% we really understand cannot do. People in any other field will tell you that is a huge red flag for an improper model.
Additional red flags keep coming up in discrepancies between BBT predictions and new observations. But, the model is so full of unconstrained tuning parameters that it can just be adjusted with new assumptions about unexplained physical phenomena.
And the cop out at 10-43 second is a new feature, just to avoid talking about a singularity. The premise of the BBT is that the universe started from essentially nothing at essentially a single point. Which is just the ultimate extrapolation of the Hubble "constant" backward in time. Refusing to discuss the first 10-43 second is only a rhetorical tactic. Something must have happened, and it is the lynch pin for the whole concept.
So, yes it absolutely is "just a theory". And it absolutely depends on a lot of assumptions. Any attempt to claim that "we know it all, already" is going to be met with derision, because it is a gross overstatement of the current state of knowledge.
But, there are a lot of people, the vast majority of whom have never solved Einstein's field equations for themselves, who are eager to show off on the Internet with their knowledge of the BBT's "story". They state what they say as fact, and they should be stating it only as model predictions.
And, when I have tried to have discussions or ask hard questions, there is always some excuse to avoid them. Rules of forums, "lies we tell children", "go get a degree first", "you are insulting me", "show me a theory that is better, first, before we will discuss it".
Those are also red flags to those of us who have had to deal with projections that ultimately get tested in the real world.
So, less hubris and more honest discussion is what is called for.
Last edited:
Is there an alternative to the Big Bang Theory.
It's not rocket science.
It comes from understanding of how matter compacts and recycles.
Understanding compact matter and its dipolar vector fields.
You can lead a horse to water, but! you cannot make the horse drink.
[Submitted on 21 May 2024]
It's not rocket science.
It comes from understanding of how matter compacts and recycles.
Understanding compact matter and its dipolar vector fields.
You can lead a horse to water, but! you cannot make the horse drink.
[Submitted on 21 May 2024]
Is Planckian discreteness observable in cosmology?
Gabriel R. Bengochea, Gabriel Leon, Alejandro Perez
I am strongly attracted to the quantum theory of gravity, but only in tiny, discrete amounts.
Most of the matter in the universe is in compact form.
Condensates and their transients.
Most of the matter in our solar system is found in the core of the Sun.
Look at M87
The jets expelled from the core goes for more than 100,000 years .
The Jet vector field generated comes from the core.
It takes more than discrete amounts.
Compaction of matter is no new thing.
We look at Neutron Stars and take reading of Quark Cores.
oops got to go for now
Condensates and their transients.
Most of the matter in our solar system is found in the core of the Sun.
Look at M87
The jets expelled from the core goes for more than 100,000 years .
The Jet vector field generated comes from the core.
It takes more than discrete amounts.
Compaction of matter is no new thing.
We look at Neutron Stars and take reading of Quark Cores.
oops got to go for now
Catastrophe
"Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
billslugg,
I do respect your position on the BB, but there is much more to the question than you suggest. I believe that the idea arose from Lemaitre, but we cannot discuss the possible source of his idea, because of his profession, so I will leave that aside, and get onto more interesting matters.
As we know, the name was coined by Hoyle, and that may part of the trouble. As a species, we have had a scientific background scarcely worth mentioning - for just a few score years. We leapt to adopt this ridiculous name, perhaps thinking that it was like a puny firework that we thought we understood. IMHO we are, comparatively speaking, still approaching 'flat earth' levels, in that this worked reasonably for hundreds of years, until we attempted a westerly route to the Asian 'indies'.
The idea contradicted all sanity at the time, causing the abandonment of ideas including "you can't make something out of nothing", especially when endowing this beginning with infinite temperatures and infinite density.
I would say that some ideas of cyclic systems are nearly as ridiculous (cheers from certain quarters
Unlike some, I am not saying that we actually know anything about the early Universe. Scientific opinion would require examination which is not open to us. Even the most ardent adherents have to separate t = 0 and fall back on metaphysics. As I quoted recently, invocation of infinities usually (if not always) indicates that there is something very wrong with the model.
The regression towards t = 0 requires these 'infinite' properties, so BBT must be involved.
In olden times we just invented explanations for what we did not understand. I am just suggesting that, as honest scientists, we admit our circumstances and seriously discuss serious alternatives. Correcting failed hypotheses can still lead us forward.
We know so much more now, that we can give up magic wands, replacing them with ideas such as analogy with the Moebius Strip and Klein Bottle.
We can only progress by opening our minds. Progress will be more successful by modifying less than perfect notions, rather than clinging on to the fixed ideas of former times. All success to real science.
Cat
Last edited:
"you can't make something out of nothing",
But we did. The matter and energy of the universe are exactly balanced by gravitational potential energy of the expansion. If it were to collapse, which it can't*, it would simply disappear.
*The universe is expanding and much of it is now receding at faster than c, never to come back. Even if it did collapse, it would not be able to since there is too much energy resisting collapse. Same reason it didn't immediately form a black hole, too much energy pushing out.
But we did. The matter and energy of the universe are exactly balanced by gravitational potential energy of the expansion. If it were to collapse, which it can't*, it would simply disappear.
*The universe is expanding and much of it is now receding at faster than c, never to come back. Even if it did collapse, it would not be able to since there is too much energy resisting collapse. Same reason it didn't immediately form a black hole, too much energy pushing out.
Uh, Bill, It does collapse -- like a waterfall over the edge -- always . . . inversely to the far outside/deep inside "superposition" 'Mirror Horizon'! Our thinking about where it would contract and collapse is wrong, is back***ward, unless we look to Quantum Mechanics, the Q (QM)-Verse, for the model and actual picture.
All those super-massive black holes at the distant cliff edge before the superposition collapsed cosmological constant (/\) P/BB 'Mirror Horizon' (13.8 billion years in the past / 13.8 billion years in the future (at exactly the same time and constant of distance)) also tell the story.
Last edited:
The problem with a future collapsing universe is it can't happen. We know this because we can see galaxies receding faster and faster towards a cosmic horizon. The rate of expansion is increasing, not decreasing as it would if there was a Big Crunch going to happen. At the edge of the visible universe, space is expanding faster than c. Galaxies are being lost every day and matter is not being created any more. It is a dire situation. At some point in the far future everything will disappear.
Matter/Energy cannot be created or destroyed.
But! we can look at their properties and explain expansion and contraction.
We can observe expansion of matter.
We can observe contraction of matter.
As for an expanding universe, that's impossible.
The universe is infinite, and infinity cannot expand into infinity so to speak.
But! we can look at their properties and explain expansion and contraction.
We can observe expansion of matter.
We can observe contraction of matter.
As for an expanding universe, that's impossible.
The universe is infinite, and infinity cannot expand into infinity so to speak.
Catastrophe
"Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
Universe could stop expanding, contract and collapse on itself ‘remarkably’ soon, study finds
A form of dark energy may cause the accelerating expansion of the universe to come to an end
Universe could stop expanding, contract and collapse on itself ‘remarkably soon,’ study finds | The Independent
Cat 
Hello Catastrophe
I have readUniverse could stop expanding, contract and collapse on itself ‘remarkably soon,’ study finds | The Independent
In my opinion, they are wrong.My advice is research Transient Condensates and the properties.
Expansion and contraction are controlled by Condensates.
Right or wrong I post papers. Even though my opinion differes.
Who know maybe I'm on a wrong path thinking.
[Submitted on 20 May 2024]
Who know maybe I'm on a wrong path thinking.
[Submitted on 20 May 2024]
Expanding Microscopic Black Holes
Samuel KováčikCatastrophe
"Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
Harry, I just posted it out of current topical interest.
At least it shows that everyone is not content with old hypotheses.
Cat
At least it shows that everyone is not content with old hypotheses.
Cat
Catastrophe is a Greek Word.
Smile
I understand
65 million years to slow down, no way. The universe will keep doing its thing.
Smile
I understand
65 million years to slow down, no way. The universe will keep doing its thing.
Catastrophe
"Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
Universe could stop expanding, contract and collapse on itself ‘remarkably soon,’ study finds | The Independent
Universe could stop expanding, contract and collapse on itself ‘remarkably’ soon, study finds
A form of dark energy may cause the accelerating expansion of the universe to come to an end
In the new study, scientists applied this theory to model how long it might take the universe to slow down, stop, begin contracting, and eventually reach a single point if dark energy is a quintessence.
The model, built using actual data describing features of the known universe, suggests if the idea of quintessence is true, then the universe could already be slowing its accelerated expansion, and could slow all the way to a standstill in approximately 65 million years.
It suggests that after about 14 billion years of the universe expanding since its formation, it may even start a slow phase of contraction “surprisingly soon,” maybe “less than 100 million years from now.”
Disproof of Spacetime and General Relativity (ospublishers.com)
I am not saying that I support this, but it is good to see that everyone is not immersed in a century old sleep.
What I am concerned about is the idea that FTL travel of galaxies occurs at greater distances, as a consequence of expansion and the so-called Hubble Law - recession velocity proportional to distance.
Cat
It, the Big (little) Crunch/Big (little) Bang, always "happened," is "happening," and will always "happen," at and in a quantum entangled spontaneously concurrent instant (t=0) REALTIME 'Final Frontier' canvas!:
Chaos theory's 1-dimensional "String" has point but no line.
Chaos theory's 2-dimensional "Sierpinski Carpet" has line but no surface plane.
Chaos theory's 3-dimensional "Menger Sponge" has surface plane but no volume.
Chaos theory's 4-dimensional....
Last edited:
billslugg said:
"The problem with a future collapsing universe is it can't happen. We know this because we can see galaxies receding faster and faster towards a cosmic horizon. The rate of expansion is increasing, not decreasing as it would if there was a Big Crunch going to happen. At the edge of the visible universe, space is expanding faster than c. Galaxies are being lost every day and matter is not being created any more. It is a dire situation. At some point in the far future everything will disappear."
The passage makes notes that are not correct.
Show me the evidence
or else it is here say or there say.
"The problem with a future collapsing universe is it can't happen. We know this because we can see galaxies receding faster and faster towards a cosmic horizon. The rate of expansion is increasing, not decreasing as it would if there was a Big Crunch going to happen. At the edge of the visible universe, space is expanding faster than c. Galaxies are being lost every day and matter is not being created any more. It is a dire situation. At some point in the far future everything will disappear."
The passage makes notes that are not correct.
Show me the evidence
or else it is here say or there say.
This paper is dated wrong, regardless of the date.
Regardless info reading
[Submitted on 28 Mar 2024]
Regardless info reading
[Submitted on 28 Mar 2024]
Measuring the baryon fraction using galaxy clustering
Alex Krolewski, Will J. Percival
Imagine making a statement, in the first microsecond,,,,,,,,,,,Bang
[Submitted on 20 Mar 2024]
[Submitted on 20 Mar 2024]
Exploring the Big Bang with femtoscopy
Mate CsanadSimilar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
Basic Error: The accelerating Universe conclusion - reason
- Started by Gibsense
- Replies: 189
-
-
This Christmas Eve, humans will try to embrace a star
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 4
-
Could that be Santa's sleigh? Early risers can spot the ISS from the UK this Christmas
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 0
-
Who is that dying blue robot in the new 'Superman' trailer?
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 0
-