Questions on the big bang expanding universe.

[Subduction Zone]

Apparently you take circular arguments as logics.

Forming testable hypotheses and then testing them is not an example of circular logic. Perhaps you do not understand the tests of the concept.

 

[shunyadragon]

What make you believe that "academic qualifications" should be a garanty for understanding something in cosmos of which there are NONWHATSOEVER united consensus about?

There is united consensus among the scientists in physics and cosmology in particular concerning the natural origins of the universe from a singularity or a black hole, and the process of the formation of a singularity and black holes. Recently a scientist was given the Nobel Peace prize for his work on the cyclic universe. If you are going to reject the consensus of science you need to provide references from peer reviewed scientific literature and document your objections.

Guaranty? Academic qualifications, and scientific references, are critical in any field in science in particular if you are challenging the consensus of science.

 

[Native]

Academic qualifications are nice but not required. But what *is* required in the understanding that those academic qualifications show you had at some point.

With your "academic qualifications", do you then mean "consensus scientific qualifications" only have a point?

 

[shunyadragon]

Native said: ↑
Well, it didn´t predict an increasing expansion velocity

Who spoke of supernova data?
Hold your focus on the problem of how an assumed initial expansion of the universe can provide an increasing expansion velocity.

Peer reviewed scientific references are needed. Do you understand the current consensus of science concerning the origin and nature and rate of expansion of the universe.?

 

[Native]

Forming testable hypotheses and then testing them is not an example of circular logic. Perhaps you do not understand the tests of the concept.

Don´t give me that patronizing stuff Of course I understand this thesis, but what I don´t understand, is why science itself fails to obey their own rules and just inserts all kinds of dark this and that when their thesis is contradicted.

 

[Native]

Peer reviewed scientific references are needed. Do you understand the current consensus of science concerning the origin and nature and rate of expansion of the universe.?

Yes I understand why fellow scientists practice fellow peer reviewing and I also understand by this practice that alternative ideas never will have a chance and it will delay real solutions to the numerous standing troubles in modern cosmological science.

 

[shunyadragon]

With your "academic qualifications", do you then mean "consensus scientific qualifications" only have a point?

I have a strong back ground in math and science with a Masters degree in science, and reference peer reviewed scientific literature to support my scientific view.

Example: Roger Penrose received the 2020 Nobel Peace prize for his scientific work on black holes and the cyclic universe. He would not receive the Nobel Peace prize without the consensus support of the Physics scientific community.

New evidence for cyclic universe claimed by Roger Penrose and colleagues – Physics World

New evidence for cyclic universe claimed by Roger Penrose and colleagues
21 Aug 2018

Hot spots: do the Planck CMB data contain evidence of a cyclical cosmology? (Courtesy: ESA and the Planck Collaboration)
Unexpected hot spots in the cosmic microwave background (CMB) could have been produced by black holes evaporating before the Big Bang. So says a trio of scientists led by mathematical physicist Roger Penrose in a paper presenting new evidence that our universe is just one stage in a potentially infinite cycle of cosmic extinction and rebirth. Other researchers, however, remain sceptical that the microwave background really does contain signs from a previous “aeon”.

According to standard cosmology, the universe underwent a very brief but exceptionally intense expansion just after the Big Bang. This period of “inflation” would have ironed out any irregularities in the structure of the early universe, leading to the very uniform cosmos that we observe around us.

However, Penrose, based at the University of Oxford , has developed a rival theory known as “conformal cyclic cosmology“ (CCC) which posits that the universe became uniform before, rather than after, the Big Bang. The idea is that the universe cycles from one aeon to the next, each time starting out infinitely small and ultra-smooth before expanding and generating clumps of matter. That matter eventually gets sucked up by supermassive black holes, which over the very long term disappear by continuously emitting Hawking radiation. This process restores uniformity and sets the stage for the next Big Bang.

Losing mass
CCC has met with scepticism from many cosmologists since being put forward in 2005, not least because the matching up of an infinitely big universe in one aeon with an infinitely small one in the next requires that all particles lose their mass when the universe gets very old. However, in 2010 Penrose and Vahe Gurzadyan of the Yerevan Physics Institute in Armenia claimed that they had found evidence to support CCC in the form of rings of uniform temperature within the CMB. Those rings, the idea went, would be the signature in our aeon of spherically-emitted gravitational waves generated by colliding black holes in the previous aeon.

The pair found such rings in data from NASA’s Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP), while at the same time claiming that they saw no such pattern in (standard) simulations of the CMB that they had carried out. Other groups, however, argued that simulations did indeed contain rings – once they had been modified to take account of the distribution of hot and cold spots at various angular scales that are seen in the real CMB and which are predicted by inflationary physics.

Undeterred, Penrose has now published a different kind of evidence in support of CCC. Rather than rings of near uniform temperature, he has instead identified patches within the CMB that are much hotter than the surrounding region. The idea is that these hot spots could be due to the (mainly electromagnetic) radiation given off during the Hawking evaporation of supermassive black holes in the previous aeon.

Hawking points
Penrose says that although originally very feeble, those emissions would have been concentrated in our own aeon into spots with huge amounts of energy that he and his colleagues call Hawking points. That concentration comes about, he explains, because “the universe loses track of how big it is at the transition between aeons”. The Hawking points would then have stretched during the early universe, forming circular patches with a diameter on the sky about five times that of the Moon.

In a preprint recently uploaded to the arXiv server, Penrose and two colleagues – Daniel An of the SUNY Maritime College in the US and Krzysztof Meissner at the University of Warsaw in Poland – report scouring CMB data from the European Space Agency’s Planck satellite for hot spots of various sizes and analysing how quickly the microwave temperature drops off around them compared to spots in 1000 simulated maps of the CMB. They found that in and around small spots, not a single simulated map had higher temperature gradients than the real cosmos – with the temperature variations in the latter case being about an order of magnitude higher (some 3×10-4 K) than the CMB average.

Strong backing
According to Penrose, this disparity between real and simulated data provides strong backing for CCC over inflation. “We certainly welcome attempts to explain these observations in terms of currently accepted models,” he says, “but we think this will be hard unless radically new ideas come forth”.

READ MORE

The universe could be caught in a loop and a natural nuclear reactor

 

[shunyadragon]

Yes I understand why fellow scientists practice fellow peer reviewing and I also understand by this practice that alternative ideas never will have a chance and it will delay real solutions to the numerous standing troubles in modern cosmological science.

Alternate ideas still need support from peer reviewed scientific research.

Still waiting . . .

 

[shunyadragon]

This question was for Polymath257.

In an open forum anyone can respond. My response stands.

 

[Native]

Example: Roger Penrose received the 2020 Nobel Peace prize for his scientific work on black holes and the cyclic universe. He would not receive the Nobel Peace prize without the consensus support of the Physics scientific community.

Of course he did. Fellows supports fellows and when the Nobel Prize jury have no idea what is going on in all kinds of theories, they just follows the fellowers suggestions.

This unconscious practise in itself is a Nobel Prize worthy.

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
I didn´t ask for your hindsight constants assumptions but for your explanation of the very dynamic cause of an increasing velosity.

When the CC is included, there is accelerating expansion.

You STILL don´t answer my clear and specific question.

It is nonsense to take a cosmological constant to be the explanation of a non constant expansive velocity.

If you cannot explain the dynamics of an increasing expansion velocity from the initial expansion, all the rest is pure hindsight assumptions.

 

[Polymath257]

Native said: ↑
I didn´t ask for your hindsight constants assumptions but for your explanation of the very dynamic cause of an increasing velosity.

You STILL don´t answer my clear and specific question.

Once again, if there is a CC, the vacuum energy has the effect of producing an accelerating expansion. it simply comes out of the equations. That *is* the explanation.

It is nonsense to take a cosmological constant to be the explanation of a non constant expansive velocity.

No, actually, it is not. Without the CC, the equations do not allow for an accelerating expansion. They always predict a slowing expansion. With the CC, they give an accelerating expansion. So the CC is the cause of the accelerating expansion.

If you cannot explain the dynamics of an increasing expansion velocity from the initial expansion, all the rest is pure hindsight assumptions.

Wrong. But you need to understand the math to see what happens. Since you don't, you won't.

The dynamics is that the CC is, in essence, an energy density of the vacuum, which manifests as a pressure. That pressure produces the accelerating expansion because it overpowers the decelerating aspect of the gravity of normal matter.

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
I didn´t ask for your hindsight constants assumptions but for your explanation of the very dynamic cause of an increasing velosity.

You STILL don´t answer my clear and specific question.

Once again, if there is a CC, the vacuum energy has the effect of producing an accelerating expansion. it simply comes out of the equations. That *is* the explanation.

OK, so you at the start bases your arguments on if there is a CC and then take it as an argumentative fact. This isn´t an explanation but an assumption.

Native said: ↑
If you cannot explain the dynamics of an increasing expansion velocity from the initial expansion, all the rest is pure hindsight assumptions.

Wrong. But you need to understand the math to see what happens. Since you don't, you won't.

Your math cannot explain the cause for a Big Bang and it also cannot explain what happens in a black hole.

What make you believe at all that the Universe obeys your math?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Don´t give me that patronizing stuff Of course I understand this thesis, but what I don´t understand, is why science itself fails to obey their own rules and just inserts all kinds of dark this and that when their thesis is contradicted.

Where do they do that? Where do scientists "just inserts all kinds of dark this and dark that"? Where is there thesis contradicted?

And when one posts nonsense such as claiming theories that arose from testable and confirmed hypotheses are the product of "circular reasoning" that indicates that one does not understand the scientific method.

 

[alsome]

Testable hypothesis, really ? How does one `test` a hypothesis, isn't that a modified guess, awarded or not.
From `Bing search`:

1. a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.
   "professional astronomers attacked him for popularizing an unconfirmed hypothesis"
   synonyms:
   theory · theorem · thesis · conjecture · supposition · speculation · postulation · postulate · proposition · premise · surmise · assumption · presumption · presupposition · notion · concept · idea · contention · opinion · view · belief
   • philosophy
     a proposition made as a basis for reasoning, without any assumption of its truth.
     synonyms:
     reason(s) · reasoning · thinking · (logical) basis · logic · grounds · sense · principle · theory · philosophy · thesis · argument · case · motive · motivation · the whys and wherefores · explanation · justification · excuse · vindication · raison d'être

 

[Subduction Zone]

Testable hypothesis, really ? How does one `test` a hypothesis, isn't that a modified guess, awarded or not.
From `Bing search`:

1. a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.
   "professional astronomers attacked him for popularizing an unconfirmed hypothesis"
   synonyms:
   theory · theorem · thesis · conjecture · supposition · speculation · postulation · postulate · proposition · premise · surmise · assumption · presumption · presupposition · notion · concept · idea · contention · opinion · view · belief
   • philosophy
     a proposition made as a basis for reasoning, without any assumption of its truth.
     synonyms:
     reason(s) · reasoning · thinking · (logical) basis · logic · grounds · sense · principle · theory · philosophy · thesis · argument · case · motive · motivation · the whys and wherefores · explanation · justification · excuse · vindication · raison d'être

If one is going to play the dictionary game one should play it properly. Search for "scientific hypothesis".

"Scientific hypothesis, an idea that proposes a tentative explanation about a phenomenon or a narrow set of phenomena observed in the natural world. The two primary features of a scientific hypothesis are falsifiability and testability, which are reflected in an “If…then” statement summarizing the idea and in the ability to be supported or refuted through observation and experimentation. The notion of the scientific hypothesis as both falsifiable and testable was advanced in the mid-20th century by Austrian-born British philosopher Karl Popper."

scientific hypothesis | Definition, Formulation, & Example



As to how one tests such hypotheses one can often do that by the predictions that they make. One prediction of the Big Bang theory was that there would be a universal background radiation due to the Big Bang. You may know that it was discovered, by accident, in 1965. That was when our ability to detect such radiation was just beginning. Our technology has improved by quite a bit since then. If there was no such radiation that would refute at least one early version of the Big Bang theory:

Cosmic Microwave Background: Remnant of the Big Bang | Space

 

[alsome]

Most of that projection depends on a lot of `IFS`
Most of the `then's` are still coming. Everything changes eventually.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Most of that projection depends on a lot of `IFS`
Most of the `then's` are still coming. Everything changes eventually.

That is always the way it is in the sciences. But there is a pattern. Though things change, they continually change to a smaller and smaller degree as the sciences zero in on the "right" answer. Meanwhile certain beliefs, quite often based upon irrational beliefs, are demonstrated to be wrong and no matter how much things change they only become "wronger".

 

[gnostic]

Apparently you take circular arguments as logics.

The only time when I see circular arguments, are when religious people tried to mix religion with science, trying to justify their beliefs in their respective religions or spirituality.

Like you do.

You often try to credit the so-called “Stories of Creation” being more accurate than modern astronomy, astrophysics and physical cosmology.

For instance, you think the Egyptian god Amun-Ra is the light of the Milky Way.

But the amalgamation of two gods - Amun and Ra (Re = Sun) - into a single god didn’t occur until the New Kingdom Egypt and later.

But in the Old Kingdom period and Middle Kingdom period - about nearly 1500 years, they were 2 separate and distinct gods.

In the Old Kingdom pyramids (5th & 6th dynasties), the hieroglyphs Amun only mentioned twice, 1st time in Unas’ pyramid (Unas 206), mentioned with Amaunet:

206 RECITATION. You have your bread-loaf, Nu and Undersky, you pair of the gods, who joined the gods with their shadow; you have your bread-loaf, Amun and Amaunet, you pair of the gods, who joined the gods with their shadow; you have your bread-loaf, Atum and Dual-Lion, who made their two gods and their body themselves— that is Shu and Tefnut, who made the gods, begot the gods, and set the gods.

The 2nd time (Pepi 521), it doesn’t really mention Amun, but Amun’s throne:

521 RECITATION. This emergence of yours from your house, Osiris Meryre, is Horus’s emergence in search of you, Osiris Pepi. Your envoys have gone, your runners have run, your announcers have bustled, and they will say to the Sun that you have come, Pepi, as Geb’s son, the one on Amun’s throne.

There are actually lot more mentions of Geb’s throne than the single instance to Amun’s throne.

There are lot more mentions of Atum in the Pyramid Texts - the creator god of Heliopolis, as well as him being the sun god of Heliopolis - and Atum is frequently mentioned with the Sun (Ra, Re), AND on 4 passages, as Ra-Atum or “Sun Atum” (depending on translations) -

Unas 148, 150; Pepi 447*; Merenre 336.​

For examples, twice in Unas 146:

Sun Atum will not give you to Osiris: he will not claim your mind, he will not have control of your heart. Sun Atum will not give you to Horus: he will not claim your mind, he will not have control of your heart.

Five times in Unas 150 (note that I have only quoted the 1st instance of “Sun Atum” (or “Ra-Atum” in ), in Unas 150, because this recitation is a lot longer):

150 RECITATION. Sun Atum, this Unis has come to you—an imperishable akh, lord of the property of the place of the four papyrus-columns.41 Your son has come to you, this Unis has come to you. You shall both traverse the above, after gathering in the netherworld, and rise from the Akhet, from the place in which you have both become akh.

Note that the translations above, come from James Allan’s translation because his book is available in Kindle. The translation in Raymond O Faulkner’s book, used “Re” in place of the “Sun”, and therefore “Re-Atum” more frequently, where as Allen used “Sun Atum”.

My point is that Amun wasn’t that important in Heliopolis, therefore in the pyramids of Saqqara, he is only mentioned once with Amaunet in the Pyramid Texts.

There are no mentions of Amun-Ra or Ra-Amun in the Old Kingdom texts (eg Pyramid Texts), and not even in Middle Kingdom Coffin Texts.

 

[paarsurrey]

I would like to learn what others believe the big bang universe is expanding into? I only want to talk with those who are prepared to explain their own understanding directly, not second parties, and I don't intend to read articles by others that may be posted or linked to on this thread. .Thank you for your understanding.

I understand the Universe could not expand on itself, big bang or no, who created the space for it to expand into. Right, please?

Regards