First cause of the universe.

[TagliatelliMonster]

Well, what he said is not what you say he said.

It seems to me that it is what he implied. I guess he was overestimating your reading comprehension.

Bottom line: you shouldn't be making truth claims about things you don't know.

So, finally general relativity is better understood.
What astrophysics have found about "nothing" using the well understood general relativity?

I don't know. It also is off no concern to me, and it is irrelevant to the point.
The fact that you need to ask the question, reveals that you don't know either.

So the same applies: you shouldn't be making any truth claims one way or the other about things that are unknown to you. Instead, you should just be saying "i don't know".

That is, if you care about being intellectually honest at least.

 

[Luchito Prays]

It seems to me that it is what he implied. I guess he was overestimating your reading comprehension.

Bottom line: you shouldn't be making truth claims about things you don't know.



I don't know. It also is off no concern to me, and it is irrelevant to the point.
The fact that you need to ask the question, reveals that you don't know either.

So the same applies: you shouldn't be making any truth claims one way or the other about things that are unknown to you. Instead, you should just be saying "i don't know".

That is, if you care about being intellectually honest at least.

I think you know nothing.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I think you know nothing.

On the subject of the origins of the universe?
Indeed, like everybody else - including you, I know nothing.

The thing is, I'm not pretending to know. You are - since you think you know enough to make truth claims about it.

I would like to know for sure. But wanting to know and actually knowing are two different things.
Pretending to know is also not the same as actually knowing.

I'm fine with "i don't know" until we actually know.

You don't seem fine with it.
You prefer making stuff up, it seems.

 

[gnostic]

Because ignorance, Lemaitre thought the entire universe was compressed inside a microscopic particle in the middle of nothing. His model implied a cold nothing. When his particle exploded (expanded) then the motion of its mass caused heat, his explosion was like fireworks. A "big bang" as the rest of scientists interpreted it.

Sorry, but you still don’t understand, the Big Bang model moved beyond Lemaître’s limited scope.

Why are you stuck on Lemaître’s old model? This is 2022, Luchito.

And it wasn’t called the “Big Bang” in Lemaître’s days - the 1920s. Friedmann, Robertson & Lemaître (independently) came up with very similar ideas, and the model was unofficially known as the “Expanding Universe Model”.

The Big Bang was coined in 1949, almost a year after the Gowan-Alpher-Herman model (the Hot Big Bang), but their rival Fred Hoyle during radio talk show, and since then it became known as the Big Bang theory.

Hoyle was worked on the Steady State model with Hermann Bond and Thomas Gold, from 1948-51.

In that talk show, he was referring to the Gowan-Alpher-Herman model, not Lemaître’s model, as the Big Bang theory.

Get your facts straight, Luchito.

Beside all of that.

The Big Bang cosmology have been updated several times, with 1980s’ inflationary model, and the latest model being the 1990s’ ΛCDM (lambda-cold dark matter) model.

While Lemaître was famed as being one of 3 founders of the Big Bang theory, his model is out-of-date.

The ΛCDM model have incorporated some of each past models’ information, as well as new information, including observational data from COBE, WMAP & Planck space missions, regarding to Alpher-Herman model on CMBR.

The recently launched JWST (James Webb Space Telescope) mission, will used their near-infrared instrument to investigate the earliest generation of galaxies.

All the space observatory missions from NASA & ESA (which I have already mentioned above), including NASA’s older missions Hubble (HST), Spitzer Space Telescope (SST), Chandra X-ray Observatory (CXO) and Compton Gamma Ray Observatory (CGRO), as well as many terrestrial observatories (optical & radio astronomy, and redshift survey) have mostly being focused on the Big Bang cosmology than any other theoretical cosmologies.

The thing is why are you so focused on Lemaître’s model, when you should be acquainting yourself on the latest BB models and newer discoveries (eg WMAP, Planck & JWST)?

My previous reply, the history lesson, is to show you the advancement in knowledge, and new information obtained from more recent evidence and discoveries. It is called “progress”.

You do understand that science knowledge progress forward, don’t you?