Was the Big Bang wrong?

Seattle said:
No, it is generated through the iteration of a simple mathematical formula applied to complex numbers.
Click to expand...
Careful, this idiot may now demand whether complex numbers are irreducibly complex, thus opening another vista of opportunities for completely derailing the thread. :confused:
 
exchemist said:
was intrigued to see this Gupta guy is trying to resuscitate the tired light hypothesis. But it doesn't look as if he has dealt with the standard objections to the idea
Click to expand...
It was met with a deafening silence on one site.
The Hubble tension is cropping up more and more as is the MOND/DM.

Webb has exceeded all expectations and has presented the Cosmology community with a few posers!
All exciting stuff.
 
Pinball1970 said:
You asked a good question then started using the usual stupid language and irrelevant stuff you always try and insert.
Why do you do that?
Click to expand...
Has it occurred to you that I might see a relevance, a common denominator? A recurring pattern? Ask me and I'll tell you what I think.
It took your initial good question and threw it in the garbage.
Click to expand...
Why?
 
Last edited:
Pinball1970 said:
Why did inflation happen? Why did it stop? Why did the expansion start accelerating, around 5 billion years ago?
Click to expand...
A "~ringing universe~"? (see #17). https://phys.org/news/2015-06-universe-crystal-glass.html#

Or on a grander scale, how about a toroidal universe?
A toroid has all the properties for an expanding-contracting universe emerging from a white hole singularity (the inflationary epoch) and returning into a black hole singularity .
And energy remains conserved!
Animated-Torus.gif

https://evolvingsouls.com/blog/toroidal-universe/

Note that all observations confirm the same event from different spacetime time coordinates.

IMO, this model is the simplest possible complexity for creating a known "dynamic pattern" at a universal scale that meets all tests and tends to confirm observation. What am I missing?

This is in context of a reducing and expanding "irreducible complexity" (energy) down to a singularity = BB

Is the universe shaped like a donut?
According to new astrophysics research, our universe may not be expanding outward in all directions. Instead, it may be rolled around itself like a gigantic cosmic donut.
Click to expand...
https://futurism.com/the-byte/physicists-universe-giant-donut
 
Last edited:
Write4U said:
This is in context of a reducing and expanding "irreducible complexity" (energy) down to a singularity = BB
Click to expand...
This is NOTHING to do with the thread and this has already been pointed out to you.

It is nothing to do with differential equations, common denominators, relational blah what ever the hell that means, Mandelbrot sets OR doughnuts.

This is wrt misconceptions about whether the BB has been given a question mark by Webb.
Webb has and is asking questions about the universe but not on whether the BB actually happened. It did, this is a fact.

Please stick to those points.
 
Pinball1970 said:
This is wrt misconceptions about whether the BB has been given a question mark by Webb.
Webb has and is asking questions about the universe but not on whether the BB actually happened. It did, this is a fact.
Click to expand...
I don't dispute that. I use the term just like everybody else. ( I also know the semantic problem with that term)
Please stick to those points.
Click to expand...
I am, and in addition to asking questions I also attempt to offer some existing theories that seem suitable for the current BB model.

Recent experimental evidence has hinted that the shape of the universe may be found among the ten orientable Euclidean 3-manifolds
Fortunately, recent observations in astronomy are beginning to hint at the shape of the spatial universe—or at least limit the wide range of possibilities. One type of shape, called a Euclidean 3-manifold, has arisen as a prime candidate. Amazingly, mathematicians have shown that there are only 18 Euclidean 3-manifolds and, of these, only ten are probable candidates for the universe.
Click to expand...
We would like to help the reader visualize these candidates for the universe by first describing simpler analogues that can be thought of as two-dimensional universes. Then we will visualize the three-dimensional shapes and discuss how ongoing work in astronomy may help us to finally answer the question: What is the shape of the universe?
Click to expand...
Topology and Surfaces
Mathematicians who talk about the shape of the universe are referring to its topological shape. In topology, objects are treated as if they are made of rubber. In this medium a doughnut is the same thing as a coffee cup. That is, we can deform a very malleable doughnut into the shape of a coffee cup without any cutting or pasting.
Click to expand...

2003530143659_150.jpg

But, topologically speaking, the surface of a doughnut, a torus, is not the same as a sphere, the surface of a solid ball. There is no way to mold one into the other without cutting and pasting.
There are many more surfaces that are topologically distinct from these two. For instance, we can add handles to the torus. Each handle creates a new hole. Thus, the torus, a one-handled surface, has one hole, whereas a two-handled surface has two. Topologically, the number of handles defines the surface. Any two surfaces with different numbers of handles are distinct. With this information we can already generate an infinite number of distinct surfaces.
Click to expand...

2003529105247_150.jpg

We call all of these surfaces 2-manifolds—they all share a defining property. Around any point on these surfaces exists a disk of points. The disk might be very small and slightly bowed, but its existence tells us that, locally, the surface is two-dimensional. Tom Dunne
This definition may sound technical, but we encounter this property every day. From our vantage point on the surface, the Earth looks flat. Locally, the surface of the Earth appears two-dimensional—there is a disk of points around every point on the surface. If we only saw this local picture, it would be reasonable to believe that the Earth is an infinite plane, a sphere, a torus, or any one of the infinite number of multi-handled surfaces.
Click to expand...
https://www.americanscientist.org/article/the-shape-of-the-universe-ten-possibilities#

I believe the model of an "inflating singularity" is accepted theory and if true that would reduce the "beginning of this universe" to a small object containing (and releasing) all the energy of the current universe, during the Inflationary epoch, no? Can we agree on that?
 
Write4U:
Write4U said:
I did and of course it is not testable as it concerns the nature of the pre-BB condition, before the universe came into existence.
Click to expand...
I take it, then, that you accept and agree with my previous statement: "There's a glaring gap between your 'absolute nothingness' with no properties and your expanding spacetime fabric with its current measuable properties. How do you propose it went from A to B, exactly? So far, you haven't actually explained anything."
IMO, this only lends itself to deductive reasoning from known properties and behavior of light and the only environment that can produce FTL.
Click to expand...
You didn't answer me when I asked you what you did to determine that you have discovered the "only environment that can produce FTL". Because that's just a guess on your part, isn't it? All that stuff about absolute nothingness etc.? It's just hot air from you.
AFAIK, the only (environmental) condition that can permit FTL is the total absence of any possible resistance, i.e. a timeless, dimensionless, condition of nothingness.
Click to expand...
You have done nothing to show that your "timeless, dimensionless condition of nothingness" can permit FTL, let alone making progress towards showing it is the only such condition.

Do you recognise this deficiency in your claims?
Once the Inflationary epoch established an initial spacetime object, all things within that object were subject to the emergent properties and relational (universal) geometrics of the whole object. (See Bohm's "Wholeness and the Implicate Order")...?
Click to expand...
If you mention Bohm again you will be excluded from posting to this thread and you will receive a warning. You will not turn this thread into yet another iteration of one of your three pet topics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_universe
Click to expand...
What is the relevance of that to the thread topic?
The ringing Universe
Click to expand...
What is the relevance of that to the thread topic?
It would appear that the BB was mega-quantum event...
Click to expand...
Please explain the difference between a "mega-quantum event" and any other quantum event.
..., where everything happened all at the same time in the same place (singularity), unrestrained by any (not yet extant) natural laws and ordering principles.
Click to expand...
Did you understand my explanation of why you shouldn't assume there was a physical singularity at the BB?

More importantly, what do you think the Big Bang Theory is actually about? Hint: it is not "unrestrained by any natural laws and ordering principles". The whole point is that it is a predictive scientific theory. Of course it refers to physical laws. It's a physical theory.
The natural (universal) regulating mechanisms came later, emerging from the interior of the geometrically expanding and cooling universal manifold.
Click to expand...
When did they come, according to you? And why?
I believe that Chaos Theory defines it...
Click to expand...
No. That does not define it.
... and also suggests the emergence of recurring relational differential equations...
Click to expand...
You're just making up word salad at this point. You still have no clue about what a differential equation is, do you, even after all this time?

What on earth would a "recurring relational differential equation" be? Your posts is almost pure pseudoscientific gibberish.
I am basically a reductionist who does not believe in "irreducible complexity".
Click to expand...
That has nothing to do with cosmology or the thread topic. If you are unable to discuss the topic in any sensible way, you should leave this thread alone.
This Universe had to start from "nothing" somehwen (13 bil. yr) in our past, no?
Click to expand...
Had to? What do you mean?
IMO, what came before the singular BB is untestable and irrelevant.
Click to expand...
It's irrelevant to the question "is the Big Bang theory wrong?", certainly. Because the BB theory doesn't talk about anything that came "before".
Is there a more definitive answer ?..... :confused:
Click to expand...
Most answers are better than word salad.
 
Write4U:
Write4U said:
Does it matter ? The Universe did not exist until it emerged.
Click to expand...
You brought up the topic of the "absolute nothingness", asserting that it is the only possible thing that could "allow for" the Big Bang. Now you want to argue that what you posted doesn't matter? That it was all irrelevant?

Well, okay. Don't talk about that stuff again. Okay? Because, you know, it's irrelevant.
From where is beyond our ability to know and/or verify.
Click to expand...
If you admit this, then why on earth would you believe in your hypothetical condition of "absolute nothingness", and go on to assume that's somehow the only possible "cause" of the BB? Can't you recognise your own inconsistency?
Behe's ID was used in context of the flagellar motor during the Kitzmiller trial, but it referred to the intentional creation of the universe and humans as irreducibly complex patterns by an intelligent designer.

This "belief system" was debunked during the trial.
Click to expand...
Why are you talking about a belief system you believe was debunked, in a thread in which that belief system is utterly irrelevant?
Today, we are beginning to understand interactive mechanics at nanoscales.
(See my recently closed thread on microtubules.) This is what I presented as a "quasi-intelligent" system.
Click to expand...
If you mention the word "microtubules" again in this thread, you will no longer be allowed to post in this thread. That's two strikes. Do you want to push your luck by mentioning Tegmark next? I would advise against it.
The Cosmological Case for Intelligent Design
Abstract
No irreducible complexity.
Click to expand...
Why are you now trying to discuss a topic you just said was debunked in a trial?
If the BB was a mega-quantum event releasing all its energy in a single burst, that could not be considered a "designed event", but it would be an irreducible complex system from the start. . It would be chaotic, no?
Click to expand...
You're back to the word salad again.
Complexity and Chaos
Click to expand...
Relevance to the thread topic: none.
Question: Is the Mandelbrot set an irreducibly complex system derived from the iteration of a simple triangle?
Click to expand...
Can you not see that this question has nothing to do with "was the big bang wrong?"
Does the Mandelbrot set exist in nature?
Click to expand...
Nor does this.
Figure 2. The Great Red Spot on Jupiter is an example of self-organization in a complex and chaotic system.
Click to expand...
Nor this.
p.s. I believe that the formation of the human brain was not a gradual evolutionary process as with other great apes, but an accidental mutation, fusing 2 separate chromosomes into 1 double sized single chromosome #2. But that was a chance event resulting in a beneficial "mutation".
Click to expand...
Nor this.

Stay on topic.
 
Last edited:
Write4U:
Write4U said:
Recent experimental evidence has hinted that the shape of the universe may be found among the ten orientable Euclidean 3-manifolds
Click to expand...
If this turns out to be true, will it show that the big bang theory is wrong? Yes or no?

Because, you know, that's the topic of this thread.
I believe the model of an "inflating singularity" is accepted theory...
Click to expand...
The BB theory does not require a "singularity".
... and if true that would reduce the "beginning of this universe" to a small object containing (and releasing) all the energy of the current universe, during the Inflationary epoch, no? Can we agree on that?
Click to expand...
Yes, if the BB theory is true, then I think we can all probably agree that the universe started in a big bang.
 
Moderator note: Write4U has been warned for repeatedly posting way off-topic.

At some points it looked like he was trying to steer the conversation off the original topic and onto one of the three pet topics he prefers to discuss. We have already seen two of his obsessive topics get a mention (by him) in this thread: microtubules and Bohmian physics. If he had mentioned Max Tegmark as well, we'd have the usual trifecta.

There are already other threads in which those topics can be discussed - apart from the recently closed thread on microtubules, which became unproductive long ago.

Due to accumulated warning points, Write4U will be taking a brief break from sciforums.
 
James R said:
Due to accumulated warning points, Write4U will be taking a brief break from sciforums.
Click to expand...
Hallelujah.

In short the BB is intact, it never was in doubt. Webb has and will continue to change modern cosmology however.
The types of galaxies within 500 million years after the BB.
Black holes, size, locations, activities.
Star formation in nearby nebulae.
Spectral data on chemistries, water, PAH/other organics in our and other galaxies.
Information on Exoplanets.

Lots of papers already on the above.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top