Let's not talk about the Big Bang

[Ben Dhyan]

OK, I know that is your position.

So here is an important question for you:

What sort of evidence would convince you that you are wrong in this belief?

If this is a scientific belief, you should be able to say what sort of evidence would show you to be wrong.

Otherwise, this is simply an unfounded philosophical belief and irrelevant to science.

An acceptable explanation for the cause of the BB.

 

[Polymath257]

So if you are saying that energy loss from a photon to a particle, involving a minute increase in wavelength, during its travel through the intergalactic medium is scattering, then so be it,

And it is. The photon scatters off the particle. The exchange of energy, giving the particle more energy and the light less energy is known as scattering. This direction happens if the light has more energy than the particle. if the light has less energy than the particle, then the light tends to gain energy and decrease in wavelength. Both phenomena happen and are well known.

The loss of energy from a photon to a particle during its travels through space will cause a lengthening of wavelength.

But not of the sort seen in distant galaxies and red shifts. It is easy to tell the differences via spectroscopy and what we see from distant galaxies is NOT due to scattering. I have detailed several aspects that can tell the difference. There is also the difficulty that scattering won't give the uniformity in the background radiation that is observed.

In addition, TLT does not explain the fact that *very* distant galaxies have *larger*, not smaller angular diameters in the sky. This *is* explained by a universal expansion.

So, you claim a single plus to SSU and TLT in that there are well developed galaxies that appear earlier than expected.

Pair this with the *multiple* minuses associated with the details of scattering, angular sizes, isotropy of the background radiation, the lack of stars or galaxies older than, say, 14 billion years, etc. In ALL of these, the standard BB theory gets strong pluses.

 

[Polymath257]

An acceptable explanation for the cause of the BB.

Not what I asked. What *observation* would be enough to convince you that you are wrong?

What you consider acceptable is irrelevant. What you consider to be intuitive is irrelevant.

What is an observational test for your ideas that would convince you that you are wrong if they come out in a different way than you expect?

 

[Polymath257]

There is no expansion of the universe, it is infinite.

Which only shows you don't understand that even a universe in which space is infinite can expand.

 

[shunyadragon]

"Let's not talk about the Big Bang"​

It must be embarrassing, if not ashaming, for some science people to talk about it, please, right?

"So it might surprise you to learn that the name of this popular origin story (Big Bang) came from a guy who thought the whole idea was total nonsense. It all started on March 28, 1949, when physicist Fred Hoyle got on a BBC broadcast to discuss his own ideas about how the universe began—namely, that it didn’t actually begin."
Right?

Regards
_____________

The big bang got its name from a man who thought the theory was total nonsense

The big bang is one of those theories that even the most casual student of science finds familiar and, at least at face value, fairly easy to understand. So it might surprise you to learn that the name of this popular origin story came from a guy who thought the whole idea was total nonsense.

www.popsci.com

After this nonsense let's get back to science as science.

 

[shunyadragon]

Quantum physics or mechanics, I guess some people care as if it means anything regarding the origin of the universe. Which leads to a question -- what came first, the universe or life? Physically or mechanically. (Have a good one...)

Quantum Mechanics represents our understanding of our physical existence on the smallest scale. Yes, it is important and has many industrial and commercial applications.

By the objective evidence the universe comes before life.

 

[shunyadragon]

A boundless and timeless Cosmos is what is. Human science/philosophy/religion trying to circumscribe its infinite space, and delimit its timelessness, is vanity.

Huh?!?!?!

 

[shunyadragon]

Experts will to jump ship if the evidence shows BBT to be flawed, time will tell.

No evidence of any significant number of scientists 'jumping ship. Variation of the expansion of our universe in one way or another represents the present cosmological view. Most consider the question still open to explain the origins beyond the expansion of the universe inconclusive.

What I need from you, is not that there are unresolved problems, but a documentation of a significant shift of scientist who now believe in a 'steady state universe.'

 

[shunyadragon]

It there is existence there is time and space, so it is not nothing.

There is a continuing miscommunication on your part on the insistence to an absolute definition of 'nothing' concerning Hawking's explanation of his theorem. You're falling into his description from the 'Newtonian' human perspective that Hawking referred to. I have repeated it numerous times, Hawking's use of nothing does not translate into 'absolute nothing.' First, it has been objectively determined by overwhelming evidence that at the small scale Quantum level of our physical existence there is not 'continuous time and space. The key word here is 'continuous.' We have to get past this communication problem before we get anywhere.

 

[shunyadragon]

There is no expansion of the universe, it is infinite. What misunderstanding of the Hawking "nothing" are you referring to?

Your opposition to the expansion of the universe is an assertion on your part, and not the contemporary view of science. I will admit only that the issues of expansion are not all resolved and there will be in the future of more unified approach as more evidence becomes available

See post #2309

 

[shunyadragon]

So? He changed his mind on things several times. And as I read, Einstein was working on reversing one of his big theories before he died. He kinda died at an early age. I guess evolution just didn't keep him alive longer, although he said he had enough of this life anyway. OK, bye, maybe I'll meet him yet -- Quantum physics or no quantum physics.

No Hawking did not change his mind.. Your reference to Einstein and Hawking are meaningless, unless you actually quote him specifically and not third hand comments.

Quantum Physics is based on objective verifiable evidence by many years of research in this and the past century.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

And it is. The photon scatters off the particle. The exchange of energy, giving the particle more energy and the light less energy is known as scattering. This direction happens if the light has more energy than the particle. if the light has less energy than the particle, then the light tends to gain energy and decrease in wavelength. Both phenomena happen and are well known.



But not of the sort seen in distant galaxies and red shifts. It is easy to tell the differences via spectroscopy and what we see from distant galaxies is NOT due to scattering. I have detailed several aspects that can tell the difference. There is also the difficulty that scattering won't give the uniformity in the background radiation that is observed.

In addition, TLT does not explain the fact that *very* distant galaxies have *larger*, not smaller angular diameters in the sky. This *is* explained by a universal expansion.

So, you claim a single plus to SSU and TLT in that there are well developed galaxies that appear earlier than expected.

Pair this with the *multiple* minuses associated with the details of scattering, angular sizes, isotropy of the background radiation, the lack of stars or galaxies older than, say, 14 billion years, etc. In ALL of these, the standard BB theory gets strong pluses.

No, you have bits and pieces about the subject, but don't understand, the redshift that BBT sees is the same redshift but seen by SSU as just showing relative distance from Earth from the SSU pov.

For example, that JWST redshift data for those fully formed galaxies that show up in a time nearer the BB beginning where fully formed galaxies should not yet exist, whereas from the SSU pov, the redshift just shows these are the furthest galaxies from Earth we have seen.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Not what I asked. What *observation* would be enough to convince you that you are wrong?

What you consider acceptable is irrelevant. What you consider to be intuitive is irrelevant.

What is an observational test for your ideas that would convince you that you are wrong if they come out in a different way than you expect?

The conversion of matter into absolute nothing, ie, the reverse of the BB universe's beginning from nothing. Can CERN do it?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Which only shows you don't understand that even a universe in which space is infinite can expand.

But the redshift is not expansion, it is distance.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Huh?!?!?!

You have a question?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

No evidence of any significant number of scientists 'jumping ship. Variation of the expansion of our universe in one way or another represents the present cosmological view. Most consider the question still open to explain the origins beyond the expansion of the universe inconclusive.

What I need from you, is not that there are unresolved problems, but a documentation of a significant shift of scientist who now believe in a 'steady state universe.'

There is none that I am aware off, science will evolve as knowledge and correct understanding increases.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

There is a continuing miscommunication on your part on the insistence to an absolute definition of 'nothing' concerning Hawking's explanation of his theorem. You're falling into his description from the 'Newtonian' human perspective that Hawking referred to. I have repeated it numerous times, Hawking's use of nothing does not translate into 'absolute nothing.' First, it has been objectively determined by overwhelming evidence that at the small scale Quantum level of our physical existence there is not 'continuous time and space. The key word here is 'continuous.' We have to get past this communication problem before we get anywhere.

But if it is not continuous, what exists in the gaps of the continuity of time and space?

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is consistent with my sense of reality, that is what is important for me.

You just admitted that it is an irrational belief.

The loss of energy from a photon to a particle during its travels through space will cause a lengthening of wavelength.

And now have you not only admitted that it was an irrational belief you supported that claim. You only used a nonsensical hand waving explanation that explains nothing, no even worse you told us your idea was pseudo science..

Do you want to know how you admitted that?

 

[Subduction Zone]

But if it is not continuous, what exists in the gaps of the continuity of time and space?

Mmm, pseudoscience word salad.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

You just admitted that it is an irrational belief.

And now have you not only admitted that it was an irrational belief you supported that claim. You only used a nonsensical hand waving explanation that explains nothing, no even worse you told us your idea was pseudo science..

Do you want to know how you admitted that?

But my sense of reality is not a belief, seems likely your sense of reality is a belief, and it is certainly irrational.

So here is a question for you,

When the BB had just began, and say was about the size of a golf ball, what was outside of it?