Big Bang, Deflated? Universe May Have Had No Beginning

[shawn001]

yet still, your the one making a judgement of what a credible or not credible religion is to begin with.

"there is no place in credible religion for injecting one's personal scientific bias"

So with the Roman Catholic church that was okay because they weren't creditable with Galileo.

But if it was Galileo and a "A credible religion is one that teaches about the possibility of transcendence of awareness."

It wouldn't be okay?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Okay got it and am clear on what you meant with Galileo and the church. Although weird way of going about it instead of how you just clarified it.

"I don't care what you have read....your comment about Rev shows you are ignorant of its contents,,"

Au contraire

"I'm not against the teachings of Christ,"

why this comment to me?


"A credible religion is one that teaches about the possibility of transcendence of awareness."

Where does that definition come from?

Fine, we agree to disagree...

You asked me..."Again why just Christianity?" I replied..."I'm not against the teachings of Christ," You then ask me..."why this comment to me?' Do I have to explain why the teachings of Christ are the basis of Christianity? ..

From me....definition of religion...

.Look. I am sick of responding to your questions for which you have lost track of context, and I have to go back tracking to explain the logical sequence...enough, pay attention or educate yourself....

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Ben on this

"underlying eternal and infinite nature of existence"

its an opinion right?

You may consider it so, I don't....

 

[Ben Dhyan]

There is the whole Daniel and John issue and Revelations/ The Apocalypse and that is was not about the future but about them and the times they lived in the 1 century. The number 666 isn't right either.

Were you christened a Catholic?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

yet still, your the one making a judgement of what a credible or not credible religion is to begin with.

"there is no place in credible religion for injecting one's personal scientific bias"

So with the Roman Catholic church that was okay because they weren't creditable with Galileo.

But if it was Galileo and a "A credible religion is one that teaches about the possibility of transcendence of awareness."

It wouldn't be okay?

I am saying that Rev implies the Roman Church is apostate....if so then it is not a credible religion...I gave you the definition of apostate upthread....I am getting the feeling you have a soft touch for the Roman Church...

 

[gnostic]

Das' hypothesis might be under peer review, but nothing in the article say that he has proven anything about the universe is eternal.

He has only presented a model of one possibility that might be or might not be true, but he as no evidence for it. Peer review or undergoing peer review don't make it true, until he has evidences.

And that's what you seemed to be forgetting, ben.

And beside that his model is only new spin of Hoyle's Steady State model, which had also presented eternal universe.

My problem is not so much as JUST his model, but that you seemed to place Das' hypothesis, which is not yet a scientific theory, as if it were already true, despite the lack of evidences to support it...and add to that you are bringing the "divine" into it.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Das' hypothesis might be under peer review, but nothing in the article say that he has proven anything about the universe is eternal.

He has only presented a model of one possibility that might be or might not be true, but he as no evidence for it. Peer review or undergoing peer review don't make it true, until he has evidences.

And that's what you seemed to be forgetting, ben.

And beside that his model is only new spin of Hoyle's Steady State model, which had also presented eternal universe.

My problem is not so much as JUST his model, but that you seemed to place Das' hypothesis, which is not yet a scientific theory, as if it were already true, despite the lack of evidences to support it...and add to that you are bringing the "divine" into it.

I'm not forgetting anything pal....you are still just as sneaky as always...this is just another in the long line of the same strawman posts you've created on this thread to make me look closed minded, about which strawman I've raised attention about earlier on this thread, and asked you to desist. If you disagree with my disclosure, show readers explicitly where have I stated or implied that Das' paper was settled science? You were never able to before, what makes you think anyone forgets that the emperor has no clothes...

As to bringing the divine into it, go back and read the exchanges on this point that have taken place...you are just trying to create another strawman on this point and hope it has legs to get traction ...sneaky sneaky,,,

As to a comparison with Hoyle's SS model...no it's not......no dark matter and multiverse in his day....just infinity and eternal in common...

 

[gnostic]

As to a comparison with Hoyle's SS model...no it's not......no dark matter and multiverse in his day....just infinity and eternal in common...

Hoyle had also insisted on eternal universe, the same as Das.

So what Hoyle didn't have dark matter.

If you know the history of the Big Bang, you would know that the current theory to BB is really not exactly the same one that Lemaître had envisioned. When Lemaître formulate his hypothesis in 1927, he didn't know about nucleosynthesis that began occurring about 10 seconds after the Big Bang.

This Big Bang nucleosynthesis was what made atomic nucleii and MATTERS, from the subatomic particles. This was brainchild of George Gamoz (BBN), in 1948. Lemaître didn't know this.

Lemaître also didn't know about the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR), which was predicted by Robert Herman and Ralph Alpher, also in 1948. This radiation wasn't discovered until 1964, and confirmed with the images from the satellite WMAP (Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe), in the 21st century.

Like Hoyle, Lemaître didn't know about dark matter or dark energy too, but BB cosmologists and astrophysicists have reasoned and postulated that the dark matter was what cause the universe to expand (as well as cause other interstellar or intergalactic motions), and causing it (universe) to accelerate even today.

Das is just one of many, who hypothesed the multiverse or eternal universe.

Sorry, just because Hoyle didn't know about dark matter, doesn't mean much, especially when you considered Lemaître didn't know about it too.

Charles Darwin didnt know about mutation or DNA, but other biologists have expanded and updated his Natural Selection beyond his original theory in 1869.

Perhaps, multiverse had nothing to do with Hoyle's SS model, but the multiverse is not a original idea of Das. Nor was Das the first to propose the existence of dark matter.

You argument is pathetically weak.

 

[mystic64]

Well Ben d, if it wasn't for you this topic would have died a while back , so you must be doing something right!

"There is no room for scientific bias in responsible religion and there is no room for religious bias in responsible science"

Ben d, I really like that concept! One could fill a library with the discussion and debate on just it alone ! I think that it would make an awesome topic and that everyone would have something to say about it. The good, that bad, and the ugly .

 

[mystic64]

Hoyle had also insisted on eternal universe, the same as Das.

So what Hoyle didn't have dark matter.

If you know the history of the Big Bang, you would know that the current theory to BB is really not exactly the same one that Lemaître had envisioned. When Lemaître formulate his hypothesis in 1927, he didn't know about nucleosynthesis that began occurring about 10 seconds after the Big Bang.

This Big Bang nucleosynthesis was what made atomic nucleii and MATTERS, from the subatomic particles. This was brainchild of George Gamoz (BBN), in 1948. Lemaître didn't know this.

Lemaître also didn't know about the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR), which was predicted by Robert Herman and Ralph Alpher, also in 1948. This radiation wasn't discovered until 1964, and confirmed with the images from the satellite WMAP (Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe), in the 21st century.

Like Hoyle, Lemaître didn't know about dark matter or dark energy too, but BB cosmologists and astrophysicists have reasoned and postulated that the dark matter was what cause the universe to expand (as well as cause other interstellar or intergalactic motions), and causing it (universe) to accelerate even today.

Das is just one of many, who hypothesed the multiverse or eternal universe.

Sorry, just because Hoyle didn't know about dark matter, doesn't mean much, especially when you considered Lemaître didn't know about it too.

Charles Darwin didnt know about mutation or DNA, but other biologists have expanded and updated his Natural Selection beyond his original theory in 1869.

Perhaps, multiverse had nothing to do with Hoyle's SS model, but the multiverse is not a original idea of Das. Nor was Das the first to propose the existence of dark matter.

You argument is pathetically weak.

Thank you Gnostic for the "Timeless Myths" and the "Dark mirrors of Heaven" web addresses! They are a gift in my reality.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Hoyle had also insisted on eternal universe, the same as Das.

So what Hoyle didn't have dark matter.

If you know the history of the Big Bang, you would know that the current theory to BB is really not exactly the same one that Lemaître had envisioned. When Lemaître formulate his hypothesis in 1927, he didn't know about nucleosynthesis that began occurring about 10 seconds after the Big Bang.

This Big Bang nucleosynthesis was what made atomic nucleii and MATTERS, from the subatomic particles. This was brainchild of George Gamoz (BBN), in 1948. Lemaître didn't know this.

Lemaître also didn't know about the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR), which was predicted by Robert Herman and Ralph Alpher, also in 1948. This radiation wasn't discovered until 1964, and confirmed with the images from the satellite WMAP (Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe), in the 21st century.

Like Hoyle, Lemaître didn't know about dark matter or dark energy too, but BB cosmologists and astrophysicists have reasoned and postulated that the dark matter was what cause the universe to expand (as well as cause other interstellar or intergalactic motions), and causing it (universe) to accelerate even today.

Das is just one of many, who hypothesed the multiverse or eternal universe.

Sorry, just because Hoyle didn't know about dark matter, doesn't mean much, especially when you considered Lemaître didn't know about it too.

Charles Darwin didnt know about mutation or DNA, but other biologists have expanded and updated his Natural Selection beyond his original theory in 1869.

Perhaps, multiverse had nothing to do with Hoyle's SS model, but the multiverse is not a original idea of Das. Nor was Das the first to propose the existence of dark matter.

You argument is pathetically weak.

Thank you for your homily on the BB genesis theory....we will see how it fares going forth,,,,when it comes to science...the heresies of yesterday are the orthodoxies of today, and these in turn will become the superstitions of the future.... scientific progress doesn't stop because of the inertia of any one generation...new younger and brighter leaders will always arise to shine light on any residual errors in existing theories...

Oh, and btw, on the positive side, I do appreciate it that you have apparently dropped the strawman claims...

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Oh....hows that for synchronicity wrt my last post....here is a new paper that concludes...understanding of physics is incomplete.....and that science will likely need a new idea as profound as general relativity to explain these mysteries and require more powerful observations and experiments to light the path toward our new insights.

When you think about it....science so far is only knows and experiments directly with stuff that only comprises 5% of the Universe....and yet there are some poor souls who think that the science is settled and there is no mysteries left to discover. My advice...keep your mind open....the 95% unknown part will bring about great changes to present understanding as the veil of its mystery is lifted...

The dark side of cosmology: Dark matter and dark energy

 

[gnostic]

Oh....hows that for synchronicity wrt my last post....here is a new paper that concludes...understanding of physics is incomplete.....and that science will likely need a new idea as profound as general relativity to explain these mysteries and require more powerful observations and experiments to light the path toward our new insights.

When you think about it....science so far is only knows and experiments directly with stuff that only comprises 5% of the Universe....and yet there are some poor souls who think that the science is settled and there is no mysteries left to discover. My advice...keep your mind open....the 95% unknown part will bring about great changes to present understanding as the veil of its mystery is lifted...

The dark side of cosmology: Dark matter and dark energy

I am well aware about dark matter and dark energy, and the composition of these against ordinary matters, but none of these prove Das' hypothesis.

What you are forgetting that the astrophysicists in current Big Bang model, have also used dark matter and dark energy to account for the "expanding" of the universe, as well as for why gravitational forces cause rotational and orbital motions of stars in galaxies.

Das is not the only person who use dark matter or dark energy in their papers, and that's including just about every cosmologies, whether it be for an universe or for any versions of multiverse models.

Das' paper is not the only multiverse models, and there is nothing special about his model.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I am well aware about dark matter and dark energy, and the composition of these against ordinary matters, but none of these prove Das' hypothesis.

What you are forgetting that the astrophysicists in current Big Bang model, have also used dark matter and dark energy to account for the "expanding" of the universe, as well as for why gravitational forces cause rotational and orbital motions of stars in galaxies.

Das is not the only person who use dark matter or dark energy in their papers, and that's including just about every cosmologies, whether it be for an universe or for any versions of multiverse models.

Das' paper is not the only multiverse models, and there is nothing special about his model.

I must say, your reading skills are terrible....my post was not about the Dad paper, it was about the David Spergel paper...good grief, please pay attention...

 

[shawn001]

I am saying that Rev implies the Roman Church is apostate....if so then it is not a credible religion...I gave you the definition of apostate upthread....I am getting the feeling you have a soft touch for the Roman Church...

I have no soft feeling for the Roman church and they should give away the wealth. I am also not a Christian.

 

[shawn001]

You may consider it so, I don't....

You have no proof at all though so you know its your opinion..

 

[shawn001]

Ben, explain to us the CMB? What is it, how was it discovered and confirmed? In your own words preferably.

 

[shawn001]

Cosmic Inflation Model Gets A Boost From Planck Data

"
New data from the Planck satellite suggests very good news for proponents of the standard Big Bang cosmological model of the universe.

By standard I mean what cosmologists now label as the ΛCDM or Lambda Cold Dark Matter version of the Big Bang, which assumes the cosmological constant which Einstein wanted so much to dismiss, as well as something he never envisioned: a period of rapid cosmic inflation in the very first instants of the universe.

Cormac O’Rafferty of the Waterford Institute of Technology had a ringside seat at the recent presentations by some of the Planck team leaders in Cambridge, UK.

As we saw in previous posts, the theory of cosmic inflation suggests that the universe underwent an extremely rapid, gigantic expansion in the first fractions of an instant, expanding in volume by a factor of about 1078 in the time interval 10−36 to 10−32 of the first second. Such numbers seem crazy in comparison with the relatively sedate expansion of space observed today (Hubble constant above), but inflation gives a very neat solution to several different problems associated with the big bang model; a lack of magnetic monopoles in the universe, the smoothness of the cosmic microwave background, and the fact that the geometry of space appears to be flat. Best of all, it can be shown that inflation provides a natural explanation for the tiny perturbations in the microwave background that gave rise to today’s galaxies (it is thought that quantum fluctuations in the infant universe were amplified by inflation to become the seeds of today’s galactic structures).

Inflation has had its challengers since it was first proposed in the 1980s by Alan Guth of MIT and Andrei Linde of Stanford.

For some it was a little too ad- hoc, a little too clever in the way it avoided the problems of the classic Big Bang model that O’Rafferty discussed.
Planck’s data seems to reaffirm it, however, and also rules out some alternat.
O’Rafferty:

One intriguing alternative to inflation is the ekpyrotic cyclic universe. In this model, the big bang is the result of a collision of two branes in a cyclic universe. Such models can reproduce all the characteristics of a standard big bang universe in a natural way, without the extra premise of inflation and its special initial conditions. As a bonus, the postulate of a big bang in the context of a cyclic universe is very attractive because it sidesteps difficult philosophical questions such as ‘when did the laws of physics become the laws of physics?’ or ‘when did spacetime become spacetime?’

During his presentation at Cambridge last week (see last post), Professor Paul Shellard mentioned that the new Planck data render many cyclic models, including the ekpyrotic universe, a lot less likely. At question time, I asked him what aspect of the new data disfavours the cyclic theories; it seems the lack of non-Gaussianities in the CMB spectrum rules out the conversion mechanism required by most cyclic models.

At the risk of oversimplifying, this is the lack of noticeably non-random fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background spectrum measured by Planck. Had such been measured, this would’ve been a key finding for one cyclical model proposed by cosmologists Paul Steinhardt and Neil Turok in their fascinating book,Endless Universe, which I discussed before.


Cosmic Inflation Model Gets A Boost From Planck Data - Forbes


Evidence For Universe Inflation Theory May Lurk In New Data From Planck Space Probe

Evidence For Universe Inflation Theory May Lurk In New Data From Planck Space Probe



I am in favor of multiverses, but there still is no evidence.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Ben, explain to us the CMB? What is it, how was it discovered and confirmed? In your own words preferably.

The old CMBR.....it's a measure of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) Radiation that provides the temperature signature that GR theory scientists consider is the leftover heat from the BB. But ESA's Planck satellite provided the most detailed CMB map ever in 2013, and some anomalies appear that challenge the standard model.

ESA Science & Technology: Simple but challenging: the Universe according to Planck

The view of the Universe presented in the standard model may not be able to fully explain the richness of detail present in the CMB at the largest scales on the sky, as cosmologists revealed a number of 'anomalies' in the all-sky CMB map that do not fit very well with this model's predictions.

While the observations on small and intermediate angular scales agree extremely well with the model predictions, the fluctuations detected on large angular scales on the sky – between 90 and six degrees – are about 10 per cent weaker than the best fit of the standard model to Planck data would like them to be. Another, perhaps related, anomalous signal appears as a substantial asymmetry in the CMB signal observed in the two opposite hemispheres of the sky: one of the two hemispheres appears to have a significantly stronger signal on average. An additional peculiar element in the data is the presence of a so-called 'cold spot': one of the low-temperature spots in the CMB extends over a patch of the sky that is much larger than expected.

 

[gnostic]

I must say, your reading skills are terrible....my post was not about the Dad paper, it was about the David Spergel paper...good grief, please pay attention...

It not my reading skill the problem.

The whole purpose of this thread of yours, was that the Big Bang theory has been replaced by Das' hypothesis about the eternal universe, the multiverse, and your own little spin to sneak the "divine" into the subject.

You have brought up QR and QM clashing with each other, and you have brought up how dark matter have "seem" to have been the answer to Das' paper.

You rebuke me for not reading the original article with about Das' new so-called "theory", when I didn't bring up dark matter...and now you are rebuking me for talking about dark matter and Das' model, for not talking of Spergel's article.

So far I have been moderately patient with you, but you are trying my bloody patience when you keep moving the goal post on me. That's my problem I am having right now.

Do you really want us talk about dark matter relating to Das' model?

Or do you want to talk about dark matter without relating to Das at all?

I can do one or the other, but if you want the later, I will do so, if you would please start another fri@##ng bloody new thread.