Big Bang Bullets II

[Harry Costas]

If the BBT was based on recycling processes.

Then we could fit the BBT in a limited process everywhere but not at the same time.

 

[Helio]

Did Harry miss something?

(Did you miss the OP (Opening Post)?)
I read the OP, it's not the first time reading.
For decades questioning the opinions that are repeated time and time.

You can choose to call those opinions, but they are known in mainstream science as objective evidence, some are based on such.

The BBT will remain a theory until evidence supports it.

All theories remain as theories. No theory can be proven since another theory could overcome it. They can be falsified, however, as was the Ptolemy model when the telescope revealed it failed. BBT started as a wimpy model, but more and more evidence has earned it great reputation. There is no serious model that offers competition to it.

 

[Atlan0001]

You can choose to call those opinions, but they are known in mainstream science as objective evidence, some are based on such.

All theories remain as theories. No theory can be proven since another theory could overcome it. They can be falsified, however, as was the Ptolemy model when the telescope revealed it failed. BBT started as a wimpy model, but more and more evidence has earned it great reputation. There is no serious model that offers competition to it.

That the Horizon of Creation always has existed and does exist in entangled, spontaneously concurrent (t=0) REALTIME NOW (t=0) eternal instant is easily serious competition to a fairytale "Once upon a magical time universe creation."

 

[Helio]

How many peer-reviewed papers, published in major journals, are there favoring BBT?

Please cite even one paper of equal merit for the “Horizon of Creation” model.

I’d like this thread to be about objective-based arguments for, or against, BBT, given the thread’s title.

You may wish to start, if you’ve not already done so, on your favored model.

 

[Atlan0001]

How many peer-reviewed papers, published in major journals, are there favoring BBT?

Please cite even one paper of equal merit for the “Horizon of Creation” model.

I’d like this thread to be about objective-based arguments for, or against, BBT, given the thread’s title.

You may wish to start, if you’ve not already done so, on your favored model.

You two are telling the rest of us that because of what you state above, the BBT as conventionally stated, too often stated as absolute "objective fact" instead of subjective reasoning, has been proven absolutely to be "objective" fact beyond all dispute!!!! We are NOT to suspect it of being wrong, or being wrongly premised, or you of being so when you state on this forum that it is not their OPINION, not your OPINION, either, of the when, where, what and how of the Universe Horizon invisibly, un-observably, outside and inside, too, the "observable universe," from incoming sources accelerating in contracting, compacting, crunching, to this blue dot singularity!

You state in no uncertain terms that anyone who presents alternative positions and possibilities of SPACE, TIME, and other factors, are just too stupid to live, much less argue them with you here (presenting the alternative possibilities (even pointing to alternatives presented by otherwise general backers of the conventional BBT, such as Stephen Hawking)!

I will argue the points of your cosmological beliefs, right here and anywhere else I choose to argue the physics, in fact the embedded [must metaphysical philosophy], of the "cosmology"! Meaning, particularly, your fairytale point of "Once upon a magical time...!"

With "BBT Cosmology", you specifically and in the most general you, enter the realm of "metaphysics", my realm to debate, to argue, to dispute, my modeling version versus your modeling version, head to head! Don't think you haven't! And, as I think you've realized, I've gained what picturing and modeling, what description, I've needed to gain to go toe to toe in this realm.
-----------------------------

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds...." -- Albert Einstein.

 

[Helio]

You two are telling the rest of us that because of what you state above, the BBT as conventionally stated, too often stated as absolute "objective fact" instead of subjective reasoning, has been proven absolutely to be "objective" fact beyond all dispute!!!! We are NOT to suspect it of being wrong, or being wrongly premised, or you of being so when you state on this forum that it is not their OPINION, not your OPINION, either, of the when, where, what and how of the Universe Horizon invisibly, un-observably, outside and inside, too, the "observable universe," from incoming sources accelerating in contracting, compacting, crunching, to this blue dot singularity!

BBT is not a fact. No theory is a "fact". All scientific theories are factually-based. The facts are foundational to the theory. But a scientific theory also must be falsifiable. Thus, they must include predictions that are either directly observable or observable in principle.

Each item in the OP list represents the objective evidenced (facts) that argue for the BB theory. The only foundational facts known at the time Lemaitre founded the theory were the recessional velocities of spiral galaxies, and perhaps the obvious Obler's Paradox observations. This, of course, is in the framework of GR. GR is also a theory, but the observations (facts) soon established it as mainstream science, yet many scientists didn't like it.

A theory only becomes strong when its predictions are verified with observations (facts). The CMBR was a very unique and powerful prediction that would necessarily require expansion. Copernicus' model predicted Venus would have crescent and gibbous phases, but Ptolemey's model only allowed crescent phase observations. Once the observations were discovered thanks to Galileo's telescope, even the Church was quick to agree to the falsification of this 2000 year-old model.

No theory for the entire universe's history will come with only a few predictions. It's taken almost 100 years of observations to help establish BBT, taking it from Einstein's preliminary opinion of it ("abomination").

Since BBT, however, still lacks the additional observations of the predictions that have bubbled-up, perhaps it will be, somehow, falsified. But whatever replaces it will be required to address all the items listed in the OP, else it will be DOA.

You state in no uncertain terms that anyone who presents alternative positions and possibilities of SPACE, TIME, and other factors, are just too stupid to live, much less argue them with you here (presenting the alternative possibilities (even pointing to alternatives presented by otherwise general backers of the conventional BBT, such as Stephen Hawking)!

This is an absurd strawman argument claiming I'm saying things that I'm not. I've never called anyone "stupid".

I've even encouraged you to do a thread on your alternative model.

 

[Atlan0001]

A mirage exists in two places at once, and/or almost at once (possibly photo-frames / photons quantum entangling). It is an observed fact in both places, but it actually exists in only one place superpositioned (mirrored) to the other (<--||-->):

=====================

Standing wave - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

=====================
Spooky action. I consistently read that Relativity predicts its own failure . . . its own nervous breakdown. And sizes, and directions, and magnitudes..., finites all (all finites), are relative. All "observability" is local and relative.

Give me more openings, Helio. I'm hungry!

 

[Atlan0001]

Helio,
After thinking it over I'll retract that last above and let you be, here, from here on as long as it's mutual.

 

[Harry Costas]

Helio said

[BBT is not a fact. No theory is a "fact". All scientific theories are factually-based. The facts are foundational to the theory. But a scientific theory also must be falsifiable. Thus, they must include predictions that are either directly observable or observable in principle.

Each item in the OP list represents the objective evidenced (facts) that argue for the BB theory. The only foundational facts known at the time Lemaitre founded the theory were the recessional velocities of spiral galaxies, and perhaps the obvious Obler's Paradox observations. This, of course, is in the framework of GR. GR is also a theory, but the observations (facts) soon established it as mainstream science, yet many scientists didn't like it.

A theory only becomes strong when its predictions are verified with observations (facts). The CMBR was a very unique and powerful prediction that would necessarily require expansion. Copernicus' model predicted Venus would have crescent and gibbous phases, but Ptolemey's model only allowed crescent phase observations. Once the observations were discovered thanks to Galileo's telescope, even the Church was quick to agree to the falsification of this 2000 year-old model.

No theory for the entire universe's history will come with only a few predictions. It's taken almost 100 years of observations to help establish BBT, taking it from Einstein's preliminary opinion of it ("abomination").

Since BBT, however, still lacks the additional observations of the predictions that have bubbled-up, perhaps it will be, somehow, falsified. But whatever replaces it will be required to address all the items listed in the OP, else it will be DOA.]

Well put.

 

[jhixon]

Rod, I heartily support and endorse the real science taking place today, especially by those amateurs making real contributions by assisting professionals by their sheer force of numbers. I totally deplore pseudo science which attempts to bastardise the truth by distorting the import of accurate observation to support its weird fantasies.

Having said that, I tried to point out that knowledge does move on, and our discovery of the truth is bettered by more and more observation of facts and by careful and reasoned consideration of the new facts discovered.

Do not mistake my pointing out that progress does take place as an excuse for believing nonsensical fictions. Flat Earth and other palpably ridiculous ideas can be, and are being, disproved by observation and sound logic.

Nevertheless, let us not deny that ideas, hypotheses and theories sometimes denote progress. As scientists, we know the difference between the advancement of science and the distortions of neurotic belief in proven fictions. Sadly, there are some cases where new theories are not accepted even when scientifically proven. These proven theories, few in number in comparison with rubbish speculation, do eventually find their rightful place in the hall of science, although ultimately to be improved by the ever continuing advancement of science. I hope you are in no doubt about where I stand in this exegesis.

I tried to point out above, as you well know, that there are some interesting things about the Universe which are not, and maybe never will be, amenable to science. We will most probably never be able to travel back in time to observe the big bang to study it scientifically.

It is this latter situation where we find ourselves in the realm of metaphysics. We can only consider suggestions, which is totally different from unwarranted belief in patent fictions. At the moment BBT is the best we have and has many supporting arguments. The closer we get to t = 0, the less science applies and the more metaphysics takes over. Infinities and division by infinity have no place in reality. At t = 0 we are leaving science and confronting metaphysics.

As an example, let us consider the idea of a cyclic Universe. This is in the realm of metaphysics. It is no more amenable to science than the idea of a singularity at t = 0 in BBT. Neither can be observed and proven or discarded. I am not promoting a Cyclic Universe, although I find the idea interesting. I accept BBT until it gets within a whisker of t = 0. In other words, I accept science as long as science applies. Closer to t = 0, I am interested in the idea that the idea of a singularity is replaced by the idea of a nexus, connecting with another 'phase' of the Universe. I do not believe in the singularity suggestion or the nexus suggestion.
Both are within the realm of metaphysics.

Cat

We will most probably never be able to travel back in time to observe the big bang to study it scientifically.

The universe shows time does move forward in a "field" created by matter. When antimatter creates a "field", time moves in reverse. These two directions of time are not looped, however using entanglement one can travel to somewhere else in "this universe" and time on that planet would be different because the "field" is different. That then poses the question could one travel to an entangled planet and then go through another entanglement to keep going backwards to see the start of time/big bang? Time works from the strength of the magnetic field and motion both. The two support articles below talk about putting a .5 volt field across a wound, and blood vessels skin etc. all grew 3 times faster than normal healing. How does blood vessels grow 3 times faster if time is not affected, and the only change is the electrical field? Food for thought....

https://interestingengineering.com/health/water-powered-bandage-heals-chronic-wounds

Smart bandage improves wound healing in mice

A smart bandage used wireless power to protect and monitor wounds, provide feedback on tissue health, and encourage healing using electrical current.

www.nih.gov

 

[Harry Costas]

Sorry, I will comment on this later.

For now, there is no BB.

 

[Harry Costas]

Over 20 Years ago, NASA told me that they were going to point the Hubble telescope at an area of a rice seed for 1,000,000 seconds Northern Hemisphere.
To show the Big Bang.
Deep Field 13.2 billion years.
I said they will observe over 5,000 galaxies in various stages.

NASA insisted that they would observe the Big Bang.

After 1 million seconds.

NASA said that they could not explain how they observed over 5,000 galaxies in various stages of formation.

Then they pointed Hubble is the southern Hemisphere in an area of complete darkness.
Deep Field images, 13.2 billion years old, showed the same, over 5,000 galaxies in various stages of evolution.

Billions of galaxies exist at 13.2 billion Lt/yrs deep field.

The universe has no age.

Some scientists place the universe at 13.8 billion years old.