The Big Bang Theory of Universal evolution:

paddoboy said:
I was once informed by an astronomer we had on another now defunct forum, that any future QGT will almost certainly encase the current BB/Inflationary model.
Click to expand...

Just because he is an astronomer ...means nothing. Although posibly informed it js a guess really.

Mainstream offers no alternative but it is not conducive to different ideas in fact most aggressive in defending what we have.

Personally I think parts need rejection ..like inflation..it seems unsupported by observation but while we let it sit there is little effort, in my view, to move on...I did read it addressed a problem that was not necessarily a problem and I support that in so far as I see no need to introduce a sameness mechanism from an external approach as there could be some simple internal constraint that produces the result sort to be covered by inflation.

And the actions of individual components is not unreasonable in so far as all things are ruled by a law and that law cou.d have directed stuff evening out from within..as it were...anyways I don't know about any of this but thinking about it appeals... the more I look however the more I realise it is a huge task to come up with what really is going on but somehow comforting that humans are addressing these matters rationally without need for superstition... I would like to think as crazy as my ideas may be they at least try and take into account real things and never will I include a Devine entity as part of my explanation.

Alex
 
Xelasnave.1947 said:
Just because he is an astronomer ...means nothing. Although posibly informed it js a guess really.
Click to expand...
An informed guess, based on current knowledge and data and the current strength of the BB.
Xelasnave.1947 said:
Mainstream offers no alternative but it is not conducive to different ideas in fact most aggressive in defending what we have.
Click to expand...
That's the scientific method and just as it should be. Any new model, based on new observations etc, all need to "run the gauntlet" so to speak, before it over throws the incumbent model...just as the BB model needed to do when over throwing the Steady State and Oscillating models in the late fifties/early sixties.
It, [the BB] gained favour for a reason. The others fell by the wayside for a reason.
Xelasnave.1947 said:
Personally I think parts need rejection ..like inflation..it seems unsupported by observation but while we let it sit there is little effort, in my view, to move on...I did read it addressed a problem that was not necessarily a problem and I support that in so far as I see no need to introduce a sameness mechanism from an external approach as there could be some simple internal constraint that produces the result sort to be covered by inflation.
Click to expand...
But it is supported by observation! It explains the flatness, homegenity and isotropy. While it was originally a fudge factor [by experts] just as DM was a fudge factor, they both explain anomalies that were present. Much more data and research certainly is needed for inflation, and while that also goes for DM, that "fudge factor" has risen well above being just a "fudge factor" due to the bullet cluster observation, and gravitational lensing by DM....Hence the billions spent with state of the art detectors in trying to actually isolate it.

Xelasnave.1947 said:
the more I look however the more I realise it is a huge task to come up with what really is going on but somehow comforting that humans are addressing these matters rationally without need for superstition...
Click to expand...
On that Alex, we can 100% agree!!!
Whether our current models do stand the test of time, or otherwise, it is incredibly awesome that we are with reasonable confidence, able to go back to that first Planck instant, 13.83 billion years ago, delve into BH's and discover gravitational waves...and of course so much more.
 
Xelasnave.1947 said:
I would like to think as crazy as my ideas may be they at least try and take into account real things and never will I include a Divine entity as part of my explanation.
Alex
Click to expand...
Quite sensible, if only for the fact that any supernatural and/or paranormal nonsense, is totally unscientific anyway.
Why the hell any person needs to employ such myth, when we can all see where science has taken us, and in improving our lives etc, is totally beyond me. But that shit is best left to the god botherers and crusaders in their attempt in trying to define meaning and obtain comfort overcoming their fear of death.
 
paddoboy said:
Quite sensible, if only for the fact that any supernatural and/or paranormal nonsense, is totally unscientific anyway.
Why the hell any person needs to employ such myth, when we can all see where science has taken us, and in improving our lives etc, is totally beyond me. But that shit is best left to the god botherers and crusaders in their attempt in trying to define meaning and obtain comfort overcoming their fear of death.
Click to expand...
The god bothering mythical adherents, are of course coupled with the usual anti mainstream nut [and his ignorant baseless denials] that abounds the forum craving for attention.
 
must've said for fun. i just read james fallacy post.interesting but can't remeber all the terms. we are made of molecule and mud is molecules and atoms so we must have come from earth. is this a fallacy? and under what category?
 
paddoboy said:
The BB has four main pillars of cosmology supporting it.
Click to expand...
There may be one more pillar suggesting a small beginning. I read somewhere that background waves from the BB are missing the lowest frequencies, which would suggest a small object physically unable to generate the lowest frequencies.
Anyone have any ideas about this?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top