The Big Bang Theory - Religion disguised as Science?

[origin]

paddoboy, I saw no reason to quote your whole Post.

My statements were not an "inference that "Ah well, it's just a theory" "! I stated that it is indeed called The Big Bang Theory- because it is just exactly that - The Big Bang Theory!
True, mainstream science uses it as the working hypothesis/model at the base of the current view of the workings of the observable universe - but I have yet to hear one scientist or read one article where it is called anything other than The Big Bang Theory!
There was no inference - make no mistake about that - I, dmoe, do honestly believe with every last neuron/synapse/cell in my brain that it is The Big Bang Theory!
So...paddoboy, please do not repeat that I am wrong about that fact unless you can provide Peer Reviewed and fully evidenced Proof that it is indeed anything other than The Big Bang Theory!
Heck, you, paddoboy, yourself, even stated : "These maybe status quo facts, but facts they are [or at least good scientific theory]"!

Meh!...I'm just ranting...again...

Well based on all of that I have to whole heartedly agree with paddoboy - you do not understand or realize the significance of a scientific theory!

I have read much of the article but I will not finish because it is not worth my time. For example this is from the article:

The observed red shifts in the sky are quantized, falling into discreet intervals. This is not explained by the theory that the red shift is produced solely by relative velocity. Some other effect is at work. And that means that the assumption that the universe is expanding based solely on the red shift is invalidated.

I have 2 very big problems with this quote. First the author states that reshifts are quantized like it is a fact. Well it is not a fact, it is not a theory, it is a hypothesis and based on the data that I have seen, it is a very poor hypothesis that is almost certainly wrong. The second problem is that the last part of the quote implies that the redshift is the only evidence for expansion of the universe. The author has a bias, not based on data, that is showing through loud and clear!

 

[dumbest man on earth]

Well based on all of that I have to whole heartedly agree with paddoboy - you do not understand or realize the significance of a scientific theory!

I have read much of the article but I will not finish because it is not worth my time. For example this is from the article:



I have 2 very big problems with this quote. First the author states that reshifts are quantized like it is a fact. Well it is not a fact, it is not a theory, it is a hypothesis and based on the data that I have seen, it is a very poor hypothesis that is almost certainly wrong. The second problem is that the last part of the quote implies that the redshift is the only evidence for expansion of the universe. The author has a bias, not based on data, that is showing through loud and clear!

origin, since you "have to whole heartedly agree with paddoboy" and you know that I "do not understand or realize the significance of a scientific theory!" - I have no choice but to accept your views.
Also, since you were so kind as to follow all that was requested in my OP, prior to repeatedly Posting in this Thread, I have no choice but to accept your level of consideration.

origin, thank you kindly for including your perception that "The author has a bias, not based on data, that is showing through loud and clear!". Would it be wrong of me to opine that, just possibly, the same could be perceived by some of the author of your own Post?

origin, as I stated, I accept your views. I do not, however, have to agree with them! Whether or not you choose to believe it, I do fully understand and completely realize the significance of scientific theory.
But, hey, you have already made your honest and rational judgment after careful consideration of all the presented evidence, so...

 

[paddoboy]

paddoboy, I saw no reason to quote your whole Post.

My statements were not an "inference that "Ah well, it's just a theory" "! I stated that it is indeed called The Big Bang Theory- because it is just exactly that - The Big Bang Theory!
True, mainstream science uses it as the working hypothesis/model at the base of the current view of the workings of the observable universe - but I have yet to hear one scientist or read one article where it is called anything other than The Big Bang Theory!
There was no inference - make no mistake about that - I, dmoe, do honestly believe with every last neuron/synapse/cell in my brain that it is The Big Bang Theory!
So...paddoboy, please do not repeat that I am wrong about that fact unless you can provide Peer Reviewed and fully evidenced Proof that it is indeed anything other than The Big Bang Theory!
Heck, you, paddoboy, yourself, even stated : "These maybe status quo facts, but facts they are [or at least good scientific theory]"!

Meh!...I'm just ranting...again...

Sure its the BB theory, isn't that what I said? And if you weren't inferring anything else, then it certainly looked as if you were.

As I said, the BB theory of Universal evolution is overwhelmingly supported, but that doesn't mean we cannot improve on it by further observations.Inflation was one of those improvements.
Even if the BB stands unchanged in the basics for another 100 years, it will still be a scientific theory.
I also believe an eventual observable, measurable QGT will almost certainly encompass the present BB model.
I also believe Newton's theory of gravity will hold on Earth in another 100 years, just as it does today.

 

[dumbest man on earth]

NOTE : The information below should NOT have to be Posted on a Science Forum !!!

For some reason, some people seem to equate Theory with Fact - and seem to believe/assume a Theory is indeed a Fact.

The Big Bang Theory is the currently accepted working Hypothesis/Model to explain one possible/probable origin of the known observable universe - possible/probable yes, but yet to be conclusively Proven as actual Fact.

In all honesty - the origin of the known observable universe will, MOST LIKELY, never be conclusively, beyond any/all shadow of doubt, Proven.
Scientists may/will Theorize - Religions may/will claim - Philosophers may/will ponder - Dreamers may/will visualize/fantasize - Cranks/Crackpots may/will continue to...spew - Authors may/will fictionalize - and the Ignorant may/will remain uninterested - but the actual truth of origin may well never be known.

All that being said, below are some definitions that Scientist (are required/expected to) know.
-----------------------------------------------------------
- below from : http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theory -

the·o·ry [thee-uh-ree, theer-ee] Show IPA
noun, plural the·o·ries.
1. a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity. Synonyms: principle, law, doctrine.
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. Synonyms: idea, notion hypothesis, postulate. Antonyms: practice, verification, corroboration, substantiation.
3. Mathematics . a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.
4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.
5. a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles: conflicting theories of how children best learn to read.
--------------------------------------------------------------
- below from : http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theory
the·o·ry noun \ˈthē-ə-rē, ˈthir-ē\
: an idea or set of ideas that is intended to explain facts or events
: an idea that is suggested or presented as possibly true but that is not known or proven to be true
: the general principles or ideas that relate to a particular subject

Full Definition of THEORY
1: the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2: abstract thought : speculation
3: the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>
4a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn>
4b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances —often used in the phrase in theory <in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>
5: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light>
6a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation
6b : an unproved assumption : conjecture
6c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations>
--------------------------------------------------------
- below from : http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theory
Definition of BIG BANG THEORY
: a theory in astronomy: the universe originated billions of years ago in an explosion from a single point of nearly infinite energy density
--------------------------------------------------------
- below from : http://science.nationalgeographic.com/science/space/universe/origins-universe-article/

The most popular theory of our universe's origin centers on a cosmic cataclysm unmatched in all of history—the big bang. This theory was born of the observation that other galaxies are moving away from our own at great speed, in all directions, as if they had all been propelled by an ancient explosive force.

Before the big bang, scientists believe, the entire vastness of the observable universe, including all of its matter and radiation, was compressed into a hot, dense mass just a few millimeters across. This nearly incomprehensible state is theorized to have existed for just a fraction of the first second of time.

Big bang proponents suggest that some 10 billion to 20 billion years ago, a massive blast allowed all the universe's known matter and energy—even space and time themselves—to spring from some ancient and unknown type of energy.

Origins of the Theory

A Belgian priest named Georges Lemaître first suggested the big bang theory in the 1920s when he theorized that the universe began from a single primordial atom. The idea subsequently received major boosts by Edwin Hubble's observations that galaxies are speeding away from us in all directions, and from the discovery of cosmic microwave radiation by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson.

The glow of cosmic microwave background radiation, which is found throughout the universe, is thought to be a tangible remnant of leftover light from the big bang. The radiation is akin to that used to transmit TV signals via antennas. But it is the oldest radiation known and may hold many secrets about the universe's earliest moments.

The big bang theory leaves several major questions unanswered. One is the original cause of the big bang itself. Several answers have been proposed to address this fundamental question, but none has been proven—and even adequately testing them has proven to be a formidable challenge.
------------------------------------------------

Sorry to take up so much space on this Forum/Thread to Post what should be obvious to any who claim knowledge.

 

[Grumpy]

dumbest man on earth

The Big Bang Theory is the currently accepted working Hypothesis/Model to explain one possible/probable origin of the known observable universe - possible/probable yes, but yet to be conclusively Proven as actual Fact.

Nothing is ever "proven" in science. But the current iteration of Lemaitre's cosmic egg idea is well supported by observation. We didn't stop looking after Hubble discovered the effect. Like Evolution, the theory is shown to be true to a degree that it is perverse to withhold provisional acceptance(IE unless and until falsifying evidence is found). Our Universe once occupied a very small space from which some sort of high energy eruption began. At the beginning neither time nor space existed, there was no lightspeed limit and gravity could actually have had a negative value(or in the absence of gravity Dark Energy may have driven Inflation, which ceased when gravity began). There's a lot we don't know about the first second of our Universe's existence, we can't see anything until 300,000 years later when the Universe became transparent(that's the CMB), but we do know quite a bit about the Universe after that point. Not knowing everything does not mean you know nothing and not everything is knowable in the first place(ex. what conditions were "before" the BB), science is always a work in progress, subject to correction. If you want certainties, seek religion, there are none in the real world.

Grumpy

 

[origin]

origin, thank you kindly for including your perception that "The author has a bias, not based on data, that is showing through loud and clear!". Would it be wrong of me to opine that, just possibly, the same could be perceived by some of the author of your own Post?

The difference between the bais in the article and my bias is that I am led to be biased towards the BB theory do to the data. There is lots of evidence for the BB. There have been predictions made based on the BB that have been verified - it is a very solid theory. If there was data that indicated the BB theory was wrong then I would not accept the theory. Will the theory be modified - almost certainly it will, just as the theory of gravity first put forth by Newton was modified by Einsein's GR. The author of the article does a poor job of presenting a case and he appears to be purposely misleading in his article.

 

[dumbest man on earth]

dumbest man on earth



Nothing is ever "proven" in science. But the current iteration of Lemaitre's cosmic egg idea is well supported by observation. We didn't stop looking after Hubble discovered the effect. Like Evolution, the theory is shown to be true to a degree that it is perverse to withhold provisional acceptance(IE unless and until falsifying evidence is found). Our Universe once occupied a very small space from which some sort of high energy eruption began. At the beginning neither time nor space existed, there was no lightspeed limit and gravity could actually have had a negative value(or in the absence of gravity Dark Energy may have driven Inflation, which ceased when gravity began). There's a lot we don't know about the first second of our Universe's existence, we can't see anything until 300,000 years later when the Universe became transparent(that's the CMB), but we do know quite a bit about the Universe after that point. Not knowing everything does not mean you know nothing and not everything is knowable in the first place(ex. what conditions were "before" the BB), science is always a work in progress, subject to correction. If you want certainties, seek religion, there are none in the real world.

Grumpy

Grumpy, so...did you read the Link in my OP?

What makes you Post a re-hash of the BB Theory?

This is a Science Forum, you state : "it is perverse to withhold provisional acceptance" of a theory - since when is an open mind considered a "perverse" state?

Grumpy, would you have me believe that Science provides no certainties? Maybe there are none in your perception of nature - but it would be perverse of myself to accept any others perceptions when my own serve me just fine.

If your own path to the "certainties" that you seek can only be found in Religion and require you to ignore the "real world" - that is your choice to make, but only for yourself.

Thank you very much for making your sermon brief, but I make my own choices, and Religion or even Religion possibly disguised as Science is not one of my contemplated options.

Grumpy, you present as an example as a possible unknowable - "(ex. what conditions were "before" the BB)" - is that not tantamount to Blind Faith (one of your proposed certainties attainable through Religion, perhaps?)?
And is that not unlike the unknowable singularity that many Religions harbor before their respective God(s) chose to create "all that is"?

Grumpy, is that ?

 

[dumbest man on earth]

The difference between the bais in the article and my bias is that I am led to be biased towards the BB theory do to the data. There is lots of evidence for the BB. There have been predictions made based on the BB that have been verified - it is a very solid theory. If there was data that indicated the BB theory was wrong then I would not accept the theory. Will the theory be modified - almost certainly it will, just as the theory of gravity first put forth by Newton was modified by Einsein's GR. The author of the article does a poor job of presenting a case and he appears to be purposely misleading in his article.

origin, thank you once again for your opinion.
Would it be wrong of me to point out that if all someone had to go on was your admitted bais/bias and your poor spelling/editing skills, some might opine in reference to your Post #26, that : "The author of the article does a poor job of presenting a case and he appears to be purposely misleading in his article."?

Again, origin, thank you for your opinion.

 

[origin]

origin, thank you once again for your opinion.
Would it be wrong of me to point out that if all someone had to go on was your admitted bais/bias and your poor spelling/editing skills, some might opine in reference to your Post #26, that : "The author of the article does a poor job of presenting a case and he appears to be purposely misleading in his article."?

Again, origin, thank you for your opinion.

That is interesting. You asked for feedback and also asked that everyone refrain from responding with flaming/trolling/extremely biased or otherwise unnecessary comments.

It seems you don't really want feedback and you responded to me with flaming and unnecessary comments.

Why are you being such a dick? Were you expecting everyone to say, "great article and you are a swell guy"?

 

[paddoboy]

It seems you don't really want feedback and you responded to me with flaming and unnecessary comments.

Why are you being such a dick? Were you expecting everyone to say, "great article and you are a swell guy"?

That was the exact impression I got from the OP....Obviously he has an agenda, and that agenda sticks out like dog's balls.

But just to reiterate......
A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. If enough evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, it moves to the next step—known as a theory—in the scientific method and becomes accepted as a valid explanation of a phenomenon.

When used in non-scientific context, the word “theory” implies that something is unproven or speculative. As used in science, however, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.

Any scientific theory must be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts. In the scientific method, there is a clear distinction between facts, which can be observed and/or measured, and theories, which are scientists’ explanations and interpretations of the facts. Scientists can have various interpretations of the outcomes of experiments and observations, but the facts, which are the cornerstone of the scientific method, do not change.

 

[dumbest man on earth]

That is interesting. You asked for feedback and also asked that everyone refrain from responding with flaming/trolling/extremely biased or otherwise unnecessary comments.

origin, so...in my OP, I asked...

I would like to have some feedback from other users of this Forum. I only ask that the link is read in its entirety, prior to commenting, and that any comments be logical, rational and at least minimally intelligent in the nature of their content.

origin, you then responded with the following...

I looked through most of the article and it is mostly bull shit.

...and...

That makes sense to me. God was used to fill in the gaps in our understanding of the world. The more we understand the world the smaller the gaps become so the smaller the role of God becomes. We will never know everthing so people will always be able to look to a God for the answers to the unknown if they chose.

...and...

Well based on all of that I have to whole heartedly agree with paddoboy - you do not understand or realize the significance of a scientific theory!
I have read much of the article but I will not finish because it is not worth my time. For example this is from the article:
I have 2 very big problems with this quote. First the author states that reshifts are quantized like it is a fact. Well it is not a fact, it is not a theory, it is a hypothesis and based on the data that I have seen, it is a very poor hypothesis that is almost certainly wrong. The second problem is that the last part of the quote implies that the redshift is the only evidence for expansion of the universe. The author has a bias, not based on data, that is showing through loud and clear!

...then this...Post #26

The difference between the bais in the article and my bias is that I am led to be biased towards the BB theory do to the data. There is lots of evidence for the BB. There have been predictions made based on the BB that have been verified - it is a very solid theory. If there was data that indicated the BB theory was wrong then I would not accept the theory. Will the theory be modified - almost certainly it will, just as the theory of gravity first put forth by Newton was modified by Einsein's GR. The author of the article does a poor job of presenting a case and he appears to be purposely misleading in his article.

origin, since you were so kind to not read the article - in its entirety - as you related to me by your apparent "necessary comments".
I thanked you for your opinions.

...then you Post this...

It seems you don't really want feedback and you responded to me with flaming and unnecessary comments.Why are you being such a dick? Were you expecting everyone to say, "great article and you are a swell guy"?

origin, when I responded to your Post #26 ^^above^^ with what is essentially a verbatim quote of your comments - you claim that response as "flaming and unnecessary comments" and ask me why I am "being such a dick"!?!?
origin, could it possibly be that you, yourself, also have "a bias, not based on data, that is showing through loud and clear"?

Were you expecting everyone to say, "great article and you are a swell guy"?

origin, I stated quite clearly the reason for my Posting the Essay, and what I was looking to achieve...

The authors arguments/beliefs/conclusions are not my own, dumbest man on earth, and I only Post in the interest of sparking a hopefully enlightening discussion.
I would like to have some feedback from other users of this Forum. I only ask that the link is read in its entirety, prior to commenting, and that any comments be logical, rational and at least minimally intelligent in the nature of their content.
Although I am aware that this may be a touchy/personal subject for some people - I humbly ask for restraint in Posting flaming/trolling/extremely biased or otherwise unnecessary comments.
Thanks for your time, and I hope to be enlightened further on the subject in question.
dmoe

origin, honestly, from my time on these Forums, I expected exactly what you provided!

That is why I tried my darnedest to nip the Posts of that ilk in the bud, so to speak - and put the ^^above^^ so prominently in my OP!

origin, the essay is not of my creation. There would be no reason to compliment me, dmoe, at all!

origin, thank you once again for Posting your comments/views/perceptions/opinions.

 

[paddoboy]

origin, I stated quite clearly the reason for my Posting the Essay, and what I was looking to achieve...

Obviously you are pushing some sort of anti mainstream agenda. [just for the sake of it]

 

[dumbest man on earth]

That was the exact impression I got from the OP....Obviously he has an agenda, and that agenda sticks out like dog's balls.

But just to reiterate......
A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. If enough evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, it moves to the next step—known as a theory—in the scientific method and becomes accepted as a valid explanation of a phenomenon.

When used in non-scientific context, the word “theory” implies that something is unproven or speculative. As used in science, however, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.

Any scientific theory must be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts. In the scientific method, there is a clear distinction between facts, which can be observed and/or measured, and theories, which are scientists’ explanations and interpretations of the facts. Scientists can have various interpretations of the outcomes of experiments and observations, but the facts, which are the cornerstone of the scientific method, do not change.

paddoboy, thank you for your opinion of what you perceived as the "agenda" of the author of the Essay in the OP.

May I be so humble as to ask if you have any "agenda" that someone might possibly perceive and find in some way similar to a canines testicles?

paddoboy, again, thank you for your opinion.

 

[paddoboy]

paddoboy, thank you for your opinion of what you perceived as the "agenda" of the author of the Essay in the OP.

The author twists and mingles facts with myth and pseudoscience.
[1] The BB was not an explosion in the recognised sense...
[2] It was an evolution of space and time from a hot dense state we call a singularity....
[3] It was not an evolution of matter in the first instant.
[4] The BB is not a theory about the creation of the Universe, rather it is a well supported theory regarding the evolution of space and time.
[5] No other theory/hypothesis matches observations as well as the BB/Inflationary model of Universal evolution.
[6] We do not know the why's or the how's of the BB, and no one has ever said that.
[7] A future QGT may reveal the answers to [6]

And my original thoughts re your agenda stands, and is constantly being reinforced.

May I be so humble as to ask if you have any "agenda" that someone might possibly perceive and find in some way similar to a canines testicles?

paddoboy, again, thank you for your opinion.

My agenda??? Let's see.....I accept the scientific methodology as is, and am well aware of what a scientific theory is.

 

[dumbest man on earth]

Obviously you are pushing some sort of anti mainstream agenda. [just for the sake of it]

paddoboy, thank you for your opinion.

I clearly stated my reason for Posting the essay in the OP!

I am not "pushing some sort of anti mainstream agenda", as you so eloquently stated : "[just for the sake of it]".

paddoboy, the main thing that I have gathered from this Thread so far that I could possibly use the word "obviously" in commenting on, is the following.

There seems to be an "obviously" heavy reluctance on the part of Posters to address the actual issues presented in the Essay I Posted in my OP.

I was looking to get some clarification/rebuttal/explanation to the Authors seemingly valid views and questions.

The responses/comments that have been Posted so far, are "obviously" not what I had hoped for or requested.

paddoboy, perhaps you could Post some feedback on maybe just a few of the issues/questions pointed out by the Author in the Essay Posted in the OP?

Maybe just to rule out any possibility that anyone is " pushing some sort of...mainstream agenda. [just for the sake of it]".

paddoboy, again, thank you for your views/comments/opinions.

 

[dumbest man on earth]

The author twists and mingles facts with myth and pseudoscience.
[1] The BB was not an explosion in the recognised sense...
[2] It was an evolution of space and time from a hot dense state we call a singularity....
[3] It was not an evolution of matter in the first instant.
[4] The BB is not a theory about the creation of the Universe, rather it is a well supported theory regarding the evolution of space and time.
[5] No other theory/hypothesis matches observations as well as the BB/Inflationary model of Universal evolution.
[6] We do not know the why's or the how's of the BB, and no one has ever said that.
[7] A future QGT may reveal the answers to [6]

And my original thoughts re your agenda stands, and is constantly being reinforced.

My agenda??? Let's see.....I accept the scientific methodology as is, and am well aware of what a scientific theory is.

paddoboy, thank you for your response, finally you Post the kind of information I was hoping to get!

I have yet to go over your comments "one by one" and relate them by issue to the Essay of the OP, but on first perusal, your #4 stood out.

You state : "[4] The BB is not a theory about the creation of the Universe, rather it is a well supported theory regarding the evolution of space and time."

That seems to contradict the mainstream view, and after doing some quick research, I am prepared to show you why it stood out to me:

- below is from : http://big-bang-theory.com/
"Big Bang Theory - The Premise
The Big Bang theory is an effort to explain what happened at the very beginning of our universe. Discoveries in astronomy and physics have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that our universe did in fact have a beginning. Prior to that moment there was nothing; during and after that moment there was something: our universe. The big bang theory is an effort to explain what happened during and after that moment."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- below is from : http://www.wisegeek.org/what-is-the-big-bang-theory.htm
The Big Bang theory is science's best explanation of how the universe was created. The theory asserts that our entire universe was created when a tiny (billions of times smaller than a proton), super-dense, super-hot mass exploded and began expanding very rapidly, eventually cooling and forming into the stars and galaxies with which we are familiar. This event is said to have happened approximately 15 billion years ago. Rather than expanding outward into some preexisting vacuum, the event of the Big Bang was space itself expanding - perhaps at speeds greater than light. (While Einstein's theory of relativity forbids anything within space from travelling faster than light, it sets no limitations on how fast the fabric of space itself may expand.)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- below is from : http://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-powered-the-big-bang/
The Big Bang
The night sky presents the viewer with a picture of a calm and unchanging Universe. So the 1929 discovery by Edwin Hubble that the Universe is in fact expanding at enormous speed was revolutionary. Hubble noted that galaxies outside our own Milky Way were all moving away from us, each at a speed proportional to its distance from us. He quickly realized what this meant that there must have been an instant in time (now known to be about 14 billion years ago) when the entire Universe was contained in a single point in space. The Universe must have been born in this single violent event which came to be known as the "Big Bang."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

paddoboy, I hope that by Posting the ^^above^^ Links/quotes, you do not get the impression that I am : "pushing some sort of mainstream agenda. [just for the sake of it]".

paddoboy, again,thank you for your response.

 

[paddoboy]

You state : "[4] The BB is not a theory about the creation of the Universe, rather it is a well supported theory regarding the evolution of space and time."

That seems to contradict the mainstream view, and after doing some quick research, I am prepared to show you why it stood out to me:

- below is from : http://big-bang-theory.com/
"Big Bang Theory - The Premise
The Big Bang theory is an effort to explain what happened at the very beginning of our universe.

No what I say aligns with mainstream cosmological data and thoughts exactly.
We know nothing about the evolution of the Universe/space and time before 10-35 seconds after the "ëvent" itself.
That first unknown 10-35 seconds is the Planck/quantum era. It's well within logical reasoning then, to extrapolate back to the initial event/BB at T-0.

Of course we often also hear that the BB was an "explosion", or similar dialogue addressed to the layman.

ps: I havn't time to check but the 10-35 seconds I mention could well be 10-43 seconds....not 100% sure but I'm sure you do get my drift.

 

[Grumpy]

dumbest man on earth

Grumpy, so...did you read the Link in my OP?

Yes. Right up to this paragraph...

Then history repeated itself. Evidence surfaced that the "Big Bang" might not really be a workable theory in the form of General Relativity, and its postulation that super massive objects would have gravity fields so strong that even light could not escape, nor would matter be able to differentiate. Since the entire universe existing in just one spot would be the most super massive object of all, the universe could not be born.

It illustrates sufficiently the complete ignorance the author has regarding Relativity and how it enhances the theory of the Big Bang. The original singularity occurred before gravity existed, before lightspeed was a limit, before time started and before space existed, a Black Hole exists within a Universe where all of these things are operative, they are not the same thing, they do not behave the same way. In fact, the Big Bang is the only White Hole known to have ever existed and is probably the destination of any wormhole created by any Black Hole.

Reading just a bit further and you get gems like this...

An attempt was made to prove the Big Bang by searching for the "Cosmic Background Radiation"

Actually, Penzias and Wilson were trying to find the interference in their telephone microwave receiver and discovered the Microwave Background purely by accident(they thought at one time it was pigeon droppings in the horn). Nobody went looking for microwave evidence to back up the BB.

Georges Lemaître (like Aristotle) assumed there was no other explanation for the red shift he observed than the motion of the observed objects relative to Earth.

Neither Aristotle nor Lemaitre ever observed anything, nor did either know anything about redshift until Hubble observed it(of course it was way too late for Aristotle).

It get worse, this guy is an idiot, scientifically. Your cite is a total farce. As is that whole website

What makes you Post a re-hash of the BB Theory?

It is what is known to be correct, to the extent of our ability to know anything. We don't yet understand all of it, but we get closer to that every day. Your stupid cite notwithstanding.

This is a Science Forum, you state : "it is perverse to withhold provisional acceptance" of a theory - since when is an open mind considered a "perverse" state?

That was a fragment of the whole sentence, let me repair it for you...

" Like Evolution, the theory is shown to be true to a degree that it is perverse to withhold provisional acceptance(IE unless and until falsifying evidence is found)." (That is the definition of a scientific theory, it is not a guess.)

An open mind is a good thing, an ignorant one with an agenda of denying what science tells us about reality, not so much.

Grumpy, would you have me believe that Science provides no certainties?

Well, that's what Science tells us. We were pretty certain that Newton had it right, until Einstein came along. There is no such thing as certain knowledge, it is always subject to falsification given new evidence or new understanding. There are no absolute truths in science(or in reality as a whole). And no scientist ever claims certainty, they know better. Put another way, "The fool is certain, the wise full of doubts."

Grumpy, you present as an example as a possible unknowable - "(ex. what conditions were "before" the BB)" - is that not tantamount to Blind Faith (one of your proposed certainties attainable through Religion, perhaps?)?

Admitting that you don't have the evidence to know anything about something and realizing that will probably always be true is faith? Faith is believing something for which you have no evidence, Blind Faith is believing something in spite of evidence to the contrary. I don't believe anything about which there is no evidence and make no claims of knowledge of the conditions that preceded the BB, so what, exactly is it you think I have faith in? Science is not a religion to believe in, it is the accumulation of knowledge that can be supported by the evidence, faith is not required or wanted.

Grumpy

 

[wellwisher]

The original singularity occurred before gravity existed, before lightspeed was a limit, before time started and before space existed, a Black Hole exists within a Universe where all of these things are operative, they are not the same thing, they do not behave the same way. In fact, the Big Bang is the only White Hole known to have ever existed and is probably the destination of any wormhole created by any Black Hole.

My theory is also that just before the BB or big boom occurred, space-time did not yet exist. Rather only time existed, but without space. If time existed without space, this will still allow a singularity to undergo change of state, since change does not need space if it remains a point. But it will need time to change and progress as a point. When space connects to time to form space-time, the parameters of the singularity change; Boom!

Energy is composed of wavelength and frequency, therefore energy is dependent on space-time. Energy cannot exist in time without space or space-time. Before the BB, we would have potential in time, but not in yet in space. There is no energy in the universe until space-time appears.

A singularity with only time potential would be analogous to planning a vacation in an easy chair, before you start to move and expend energy to bring it forth into reality. The singularity is brooding like the little chick forming inside the egg (point), ready to burst open the egg; boom! We need to combine space with time before the birth of the universe. The singularity egg pops.

 

[dumbest man on earth]

Grumpy, thank you for your considered response. This is the type of response I was looking for when I Posted the Essay!

I saw no reason to repost your entire Post, I hope you do not mind. I will do my best to address the pertinent points.

At least you read it up to that paragraph. I must confess that I do understand that the BB theory offers no "ideas" or parameters for the existence of anything prior to the BB - nor of the exact nature of existence of a small span of time after t-0 (did I get that near correct?).

I believe I understand the other points you brought up and have no problem with your rebuttals/views/opinions (including the websites reputation,shall we say?).

There is one sticky point however : "In fact, the Big Bang is the only White Hole known to have ever existed and is probably the destination of any wormhole created by any Black Hole." i.e. fact - White Hole known - probably/destination/wormhole...?
Grumpy, can we agree that these are theoretical constructs that seem to fit some factual observations - but as stated prior, we have no real facts on what "existed" before or even precisely AT the "Birth" of the BB?

The "perverse" issue is one of a kind of personal "philosophy" type thing. I felt no need to quote the whole sentence in my response to you - as you were the Poster - I was not trying to quote you out of context.

As far as : "An open mind is a good thing, an ignorant one with an agenda of denying what science tells us about reality, not so much."
Grumpy, if you were to actually know me - you would know that I am not completely ignorant and have no such agenda toward Science.

Grumpy, as for Religion - When you Posted : "If you want certainties, seek religion, there are none in the real world." I had no idea how to take that!
I threw that back at you because the BB and Creation do indeed have some themes in common, do they not?

What you Posted in Post #38 ^^above^^, the last paragraph - is quite in line with my own outlook on "evidence prior to belief/disbelief".
Incidentally, I have no preconceived notions on people - I can only know what they think when they tell me - that is why I use the word "seem" and constantly "ask" for clarification.

Grumpy, I am completely grateful that you actually took the time to read more and respond more kindly than some other Posters - believe it or not you actually helped point me more in the direction I was originally headed before Posting the OP. As far as to the info in the Essay goes, that is!

It has been nigh on 28 years (spring '86) since my college days and a lot has transpired in that time.

Grumpy, again, thank you for honestly responding and hope we can relate more in the future.

And, may you and yours have a Happy Holiday Season!