All you wrote equals "we don't know how everything got here before the singularity expanded or why there was a singularity at all".
So what is more likely, that the universe with its incredible order and precision is random in origin or designed?
Three physicists in the 1920s predicted in their respective hypotheses that the universe was expanding:
- Alexander Friedmann, Russian theoretical physicist, in 1922
- Howard Percy Robertson, American physicist, in 1925-26
- Georges Lemaître, Belgian theoretical physicist, in 1927
All three put up papers on the expanding universe model, before it was called the "Big Bang" in 1948. All three had independently used Albert Einstein's General Theory of Relativity (1916) as framework to build the model on the expanding universe.
Robertson not only predicted this concept in 1925, but had also predicted that the "redshift" of astronomical bodies, such as the galaxies, are moving from one moving away from each other, indicated by the redshift in the spectrum and the universe expanding.
This prediction about the Robertson's redshift was later confirmed by American astronomer, Edwin Hubble in 1929, when he observed the redshift of two galaxies. This was very first evidence for the expanding universe model.
Although we have 2 physicists predicting the same model earlier than Lemaître, the Belgian priest and theoretical physicist, was the one who earned the title of the Father of the Big Bang theory.
The concept that the galaxies are moving away from each other and the universe is expanding, does indicate singularity. It does indicate the universe was smaller, denser, hotter.
All evidences showed this.
What you don't seem to grasp is that the we don't have technology today, to observe and detect the earlier epochs than the Recombination epoch.
As you know, or you should know, the Big Bang cosmology indicate the universe is about 13.798 ± 0.037 billion years, this last estimate by the Planck space program.
This Recombination epoch, which I have repeatedly brought up, it is the time when matters, the hydrogen and helium became stable matters, when it combined electrons to these originally ionised atoms. This bonding of electrons released photons, the earliest light we could detect and measure, in the form of Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation CMBR), another thing that I keep bringing up.
The best estimate age of the universe may be 13.798 billion years old, but this Recombination epoch didn't start until the universe was about 377,000 years old, and this process didn't stop until the formation of large structures, the earliest stars.
The CMBR was predicted by Ralph Alpher and Robert Herman under the leading scientist George Gamow, in 1948, but this CMBR was accidentally discovered until 1964 by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson.
NASA's WMAP and ESA's Planck space telescope have indications that the universe is still expanding, and that it is accelerating in expansion. Currently the astrophysicists think the expansion is caused by dark energy, though it has never been directly detected. But what else could cause the universe to accelerate in expansion. If the dark energy don't exist, then astronomers should see the gravity would cause the universe to contract. But the evidences point to continually expand.
It still early days, science may develop the technology to directly detect and measure dark energy and dark matters.
But did you know that since Galileo but before 1919, astronomers thought the universe comprised only of the Milky Way?
All the nearby galaxies that they could observed with the earlier telescopes (pre-1919 telescopes), they thought those blobs of the Andromeda Galaxy and Triangulum Galaxy were nebulae, not galaxies.
It wasn't until they had finished constructing the Hooker Telescope, and Edwin Hubble used it and looked through this telescope, that he discovered those nebulae were actually galaxies.
Do you understand why I keep giving you a history lesson on astronomy and astrophysics?
It showed that physical cosmology, a lot predictions were made by scientists, and it took time, years, to confirm some predictions with observable evidences, while other predictions remain hypothetical and theoretical.
We have only been able to "observe" right up to the Recombination epoch, and have not been able to see anything earlier than this, but so far the only cosmological models getting their predictions right, is the Big Bang model.
The other models (eternal universe model, oscillating universe model (sometimes called the "Big Bounce"), the various multiverse models, etc) are still in their respective hypothetical and theoretical stages.
You have not shown any evidence that the universe. You believe it is, but you haven't been able to prove it.
Like I have said, there are many predictions in the cosmology business, and really not that much confirm. The technology is still in the catching-up with concepts.
Astrophysics and cosmology is ongoing learning and discovery process. We don't know everything, and we certainly don't know if the universe is eternal or has a beginning.
I favoured -
- the "wait and see" approach,
- and the "I don't accept anything until it can be observed, detected and measured" approach.
Your approach is "I don't care if we cannot observe it, I believe what I believe to be fact". Your unjustifiable and unverifiable concept is just that, BilliardsBall, "baseless speculation" based on wishes that "your opinion is true".
Sorry, but I need more than your words, your wishes, your hubris.
And your belief in the universe being designed by Intelligent Designer or ultimate Consciousness is just more of your unsubstantiated opinion...pseudoscience.
