Let's not talk about the Big Bang

[mikkel_the_dane]

Red shifts can be explained in a SS model. The CMBR cannot.

Find, in a SS theory, an explanation for a background Planck distribution that matches the theoretical curve to one point in 100,000 *and* matches predictions as to the *variations* from that theoretical curve. It is the most precise Planck curve we have ever detected, which excludes esentially all explanations in terms of background galaxies and such.

Red shifts are only one, rather small piece of evidence. You also need to explain the light element abundances, which again match the theoretical predictions, with deuterium being the most difficult to match. The expansion 'cuts off' the formation of equilibrium in the early universe. Again, no SS model manages to do this.

I can go one, with discussion of the details of gravitational lensing, of how angular distance changes with other distance metrics, etc.

The BB models fits all of these. No model without a universal expansion manages to get anywhere close, especially with the CMBR.

Let me be honest. For all predictions from a model that can be tested, all fine and well.
But that doesn't make the singularity a fact.
And yes, you can try to run us around with words, but so far I see no possibility to test the singularity itself as a fact. So that is theoretical in another sense that theory is used in another sense in science.

So yes, I take your words that there are better models than others. But there are no models that are fully tested.

 

[Polymath257]

I understand that there is red shift measurements that suggests an expanding universe, but imho, there may be another reason for red shift, and so I look to the future for a correct conclusion. I also understand that contemporary science has already reached the conclusion of doppler red shift and thus an expanding universe, that's fine also. But it is the scientific correct conclusion concerning nucleosynthesis in the future that will establish an end to the speculation of a BB. Let's see.

So, you reject the current best scientific explanation in favor of a position that has been considered and rejected based on the evidence. Then you say that you have an inside track to the truth of the matter and are just waiting for science to catch up?

Really?

Have you ever studied red shifts in any detail? Do you understand the difference in what happens to a spectrum when red shifted versus what happens when it goes through dust? Do you know what the Lymann-alpha forest is and how it relates to the nature of the red shifts? Do you know of the known ways in which red shifts can happen and the theoretical reasons for such?

Or are you basing all of your objection on the results of your navel gazing and it feeling contradictory to you? If so, have you ever actually picked up a modern book on cosmology and looked over the evidence? or do you simply 'have faith' that your idea will win out eventually?

 

[Polymath257]

Let me be honest. For all predictions from a model that can be tested, all fine and well.
But that doesn't make the singularity a fact.
And yes, you can try to run us around with words, but so far I see no possibility to test the singularity itself as a fact. So that is theoretical in another sense that theory is used in another sense in science.

So yes, I take your words that there are better models than others. But there are no models that are fully tested.

Absolutely the case. And I have repeatedly said that anything prior to nucleosynthesis is mostly speculation for exactly that reason.

Again the notion of a 'singularity' is a description of how our models act: certain numbers blow up. And that is the case in, say, general relativity. But, in some versions of quantum gravity, that singularity is 'smoothed out' and there was a previous, contracting universe before the point of maximum density.

At this point, we don't have the evidence to distinguish between those models. Again, if you watch, I correct what people mistakenly think the models say. For times prior to nucleosynthesis, I do not say which or any of those models is correct.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Red shifts can be explained in a SS model. The CMBR cannot.

Find, in a SS theory, an explanation for a background Planck distribution that matches the theoretical curve to one point in 100,000 *and* matches predictions as to the *variations* from that theoretical curve. It is the most precise Planck curve we have ever detected, which excludes esentially all explanations in terms of background galaxies and such.

Red shifts are only one, rather small piece of evidence. You also need to explain the light element abundances, which again match the theoretical predictions, with deuterium being the most difficult to match. The expansion 'cuts off' the formation of equilibrium in the early universe. Again, no SS model manages to do this.

I can go one, with discussion of the details of gravitational lensing, of how angular distance changes with other distance metrics, etc.

The BB models fits all of these. No model without a universal expansion manages to get anywhere close, especially with the CMBR.

I understand how it works, if you have a theory, you provide all the apparent evidence that supports it. But there is always more to it, and if it falsifiable, one must allow the possibility of future developments that may change things. Lets see if BB theory is still around in 50 years time.

 

[Polymath257]

I have the feeling I am repeating this over and over yet you still do not understand. Religion is the path to a subjective state of relative enlightenment, one must seek the path, there is no objective evidence, only a subjective experience.

The difference between 'truth' and 'opinion' is precisely that between objective and subjective.

Your subjective experience means *exactly nothing* to anyone else. Others have *different* subjective experiences and arrive at different *opinions* about some things than what you do.

So, once you admit you are basing your ideas on subjective experiences, you are saying you care more about your opinions than you do about objective truth.

Which is fine, but don't expect anyone else to take it seriously.

 

[Polymath257]

I understand how it works, if you have a theory, you provide all the apparent evidence that supports it. But there is always more to it, and if it falsifiable, one must allow the possibility of future developments that may change things. Lets see if BB theory is still around in 50 years time.

I'll probbaly not be around in 50 years. But I would bet my estate that the BB theory will be in some form.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

So, you reject the current best scientific explanation in favor of a position that has been considered and rejected based on the evidence. Then you say that you have an inside track to the truth of the matter and are just waiting for science to catch up?

Really?

Have you ever studied red shifts in any detail? Do you understand the difference in what happens to a spectrum when red shifted versus what happens when it goes through dust? Do you know what the Lymann-alpha forest is and how it relates to the nature of the red shifts? Do you know of the known ways in which red shifts can happen and the theoretical reasons for such?

Or are you basing all of your objection on the results of your navel gazing and it feeling contradictory to you? If so, have you ever actually picked up a modern book on cosmology and looked over the evidence? or do you simply 'have faith' that your idea will win out eventually?

I don't reject it outright, but there is always more to it, so I say let the next scientific generation or two to carry on the relevant research and see how it holds up. I deal with reality as it unfolds, I am not convinced this generation has all the answers. It pays to be patient, I don't have a dog in this fight,

 

[Polymath257]

I don't reject it outright, but there is always more to it, so I say let the next scientific generation or two to carry on the relevant research and see how it holds up. I deal with reality as it unfolds, I am not convinced this generation has all the answers. It pays to be patient, I don't have a dog in this fight,

And I would agree that we *never* have all of the answers. But that does not mean we will go *back* to the old answers that were excluded based on the data.

And rejecting the current best answers because of a particular religious view is the depth, as I see it, of irrationality.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

The difference between 'truth' and 'opinion' is precisely that between objective and subjective.

Your subjective experience means *exactly nothing* to anyone else. Others have *different* subjective experiences and arrive at different *opinions* about some things than what you do.

So, once you admit you are basing your ideas on subjective experiences, you are saying you care more about your opinions than you do about objective truth.

Which is fine, but don't expect anyone else to take it seriously.

That is the difference between science and religion, one is objective and the other subjective. Every human is unique, therefore there will be different subjective experience for every soul. Science otoh is looking at a common object, and finding evidence that everyone can consider as correct. I take my subjective experiences more seriously than the objective, because I consider religion the more serious aspect of life, as Jesus said, my kingdom is not of this world (meaning the material). However the weeds in the garden are real too, and I accept that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That is the difference between science and religion, one is objective and the other subjective. Every human is unique, therefore there will be different subjective experience for every soul. Science otoh is looking at a common object, and finding evidence that everyone can consider as correct. I take my subjective experiences more seriously than the objective, because I consider religion a more serious aspect of life, as Jesus said, my kingdom is not of this world (meaning the material).

And subjective is wrong far far too often. That is why we rely on objective evidence. Claimed subjective evidence is all but worthless.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

And I would agree that we *never* have all of the answers. But that does not mean we will go *back* to the old answers that were excluded based on the data.

And rejecting the current best answers because of a particular religious view is the depth, as I see it, of irrationality.

Why are you fixated on this time, there is all the time in the world to get it right, a 100, a 1,000 years, be patient.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I'll probbaly not be around in 50 years. But I would bet my estate that the BB theory will be in some form.

We will see.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

And subjective is wrong far far too often. That is why we rely on objective evidence. Claimed subjective evidence is all but worthless.

Apples and oranges, don't conflate the two.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Apples and oranges, don't conflate the two.

Projection. When you do your homework then you can make comments.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Projection. When you do your homework then you can make comments.

Scallywag!

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Absolutely the case. And I have repeatedly said that anything prior to nucleosynthesis is mostly speculation for exactly that reason.

Again the notion of a 'singularity' is a description of how our models act: certain numbers blow up. And that is the case in, say, general relativity. But, in some versions of quantum gravity, that singularity is 'smoothed out' and there was a previous, contracting universe before the point of maximum density.

At this point, we don't have the evidence to distinguish between those models. Again, if you watch, I correct what people mistakenly think the models say. For times prior to nucleosynthesis, I do not say which or any of those models is correct.

*Winner*

 

[Subduction Zone]

Scallywag!

Please no name calling even in jest. There are some very accurate names that I am tempted to use about many posters.

Why are you afraid to try to demonstrate that you know what you are talking about? Fear tells everyone that you are just making it up as you go along and you hope that no one notices.

 

[metis]

All will be revealed to those who seek to know what and who they really are in the context of universal existence, seek and you will find, knock and the door will be opened.

Did you ever stop and think that maybe I'm aware of that? Obviously, you know nothing about my background.

 

[metis]

Lets see if BB theory is still around in 50 years time.

You obviously don't have a clue what "theory" means within the scientific community.

 

[Polymath257]

We will see.

I would point out that Newtonian mechanics is still used even though it is known to be 'wrong' since it is a very good approximation in many cases.

Even if the BB model is shown to be 'wrong', it will continue to be used for the same reason: for periods after nucleosynthesis, it is an incredibly accurate model.

Just saying to 'wait and see' given that the data has come in and shown the SS models to be wrong seems, to me, like someone advocating the Ptolemaic system and claiming that we should wait for all the data to come in.

Enough data has already come in to reject the SS model. Enough data has come in to reject 'tired light'. Neither of those are serious contenders any longer *because the data has come in*.

Now, will the current BB model be the same as that in 50 years? I seriously doubt that it will be. Among other things, we have a lot to learn about neutrino physics and how that relates to cosmology is yet to be determined. We have a lot to learn about the way structure forms in the early universe. We have a lot to learn about the period before nucleosynthesis. We have a lot to learn about matter-antimatter asymmetry. We have a lot to learn about dark matter and dark energy: are there alternatives that don't have these, if not, what is their nature?

ALL of those could significantly affect some aspects of the current BB model.

But what *won't* happen is that the overall model will be eliminated.