My Theory Of Everything. (Still Mathematically Incomplete)

[exchemist]

I don't see any reason to think that the BigBang must have occurred, it leads to lots of conflicting conclusions, and makes no sense whatsoever, so its more likely that it was just a wild guess by some stoned Uni student who was trying to get laid after a party.  it did not work.

So there is no merit in wasting time trying to figure out why it happened is there?  

What conflicting conclusions does the Big Bang hypothesis lead to, in your opinion? 

[marcospolo]

 

What conflicting conclusions does the Big Bang hypothesis lead to, in your opinion? 

 

 

You are kidding, right? The Big Bang is all contradiction. The universe started from nothing, then popped into existence. Nothing goes faster than light, except the big bang first bit, oh, and now space-time is still able to expand faster than light, cause Einstein did not say that it could not. Gravity caused the big bang, but there was nothing there, so what was making all that gravity?

 

BigBang is the single most stupid hypothesis ever. It's all speculation, guesswork and assumptions, based on nothing but some stupid math, which we all know is like silly putty, able to prove anything you want. BigBang has some problem, so rather than admit the theory is crap, they invent off the top of their head, fudges to make it work again, like Dark Matter, and Dark Energy, and invisible black holes.

 

Really? you ask what contradictions?

[exchemist]

   

 

You are kidding, right? The Big Bang is all contradiction. The universe started from nothing, then popped into existence. Nothing goes faster than light, except the big bang first bit, oh, and now space-time is still able to expand faster than light, cause Einstein did not say that it could not. Gravity caused the big bang, but there was nothing there, so what was making all that gravity?

 

BigBang is the single most stupid hypothesis ever. It's all speculation, guesswork and assumptions, based on nothing but some stupid math, which we all know is like silly putty, able to prove anything you want. BigBang has some problem, so rather than admit the theory is crap, they invent off the top of their head, fudges to make it work again, like Dark Matter, and Dark Energy, and invisible black holes.

 

Really? you ask what contradictions?

Interestingly angry response, betraying a complete misunderstanding of several things, including not only cosmic expansion but also dark matter and black holes, neither of which is anything to do with the Big Bang, amusingly.  

 

I could take the time to explain each in turn, I suppose, but I'm not sure what it would achieve. I expect your mind is made up regardless.

 

Dark Energy I grant you is a sign that there is a rabbit away somewhere, but the rest of it seems to fit observation rather well.

 

Do you have an alternative explanation for the recession rates of galaxies and the CMBR, then? 

[Dubbelosix]

Well dark matter may not be what we think it is. Certainly I have thoughts along those lines myself. But to disregard mountains of evidence supporting big bang and everything with it that follows, that's a big task.

[marcospolo]

 

Interestingly angry response, betraying a complete misunderstanding of several things, including not only cosmic expansion but also dark matter and black holes, neither of which is anything to do with the Big Bang, amusingly.  

 

I could take the time to explain each in turn, I suppose, but I'm not sure what it would achieve. I expect your mind is made up regardless.

 

Dark Energy I grant you is a sign that there is a rabbit away somewhere, but the rest of it seems to fit observation rather well.

 

Do you have an alternative explanation for the recession rates of galaxies and the CMBR, then? 

 

 

Well shows how much you know about the history of the development of the Big Bang theory.

The Big-Bang tried to explain the universe, after the redshift of some distant galaxies suggested that the universe may be expanding. They simply reversed the expansion in math, and came up with ... nothing. (the singularity)

 

That was great, they had some sort of theory. However when some chick observed that there were galaxies that did not move the right approved way, which destroyed the BigBang, then they had a problem. There was two options now.

 

Solution "A" was to scrap the theory and think up a new one that fitted the data. (this was the correct thing to do, scrap a theory that observational evidence demonstrated was incorrect)

 

Solution "B". This is where you dream up invisible energy with no source, and invisible undetectable matter as a fudge factor to make your first theory work. Thing is that these two fudge factors would have to account for 95% of the whole universe!

 

Solution B eventually also had to include another invisible, undetectable force which was called the Black Hole. All these inventions, fudge factors were necessary to keep the older Big-Bang theory.

 

So they went with solution B, as they had good jobs and carers to consider.

 

Now they say things like, "See that dark place between those stars, where there is nothing? well that is a black hole!"

 

Anyway, you could not be more wrong saying that dark matter and black hole have nothing to do with the Big-Bang theory.

They are the fudges that try to keep the Big-Bang theory from the rubbish bin. But all they achieve is that we need a bigger rubbish bin now.

Edited October 16, 2018 by marcospolo

[marcospolo]

 

Well dark matter may not be what we think it is. Certainly I have thoughts along those lines myself. But to disregard mountains of evidence supporting big bang and everything with it that follows, that's a big task.

 

 

the "mountains" of evidence is actually just small piles of dust. You have some smudge on the lens, and Realtivists claim that "there is the evidence to support my crazy theory"!

 

There is not mountains of uncontested evidence at all. Observations are often NOT observations at all, they are the result of the manipulation, filtering and rearrangement of massive amounts of data, by computer software, which was invented to "find" what they programmer want to find. (and gets paid to find)

 

This is all that the CMB is. Data processing using algorithms developed to come up with acceptable results. It's cherry-picking of the modern era using AI and super computers, with less than super software.

[exchemist]

   

 

the "mountains" of evidence is actually just small piles of dust. You have some smudge on the lens, and Realtivists claim that "there is the evidence to support my crazy theory"!

 

There is not mountains of uncontested evidence at all. Observations are often NOT observations at all, they are the result of the manipulation, filtering and rearrangement of massive amounts of data, by computer software, which was invented to "find" what they programmer want to find. (and gets paid to find)

 

This is all that the CMB is. Data processing using algorithms developed to come up with acceptable results. It's cherry-picking of the modern era using AI and super computers, with less than super software.

The CMBR was detected in 1964, before computers were available. 

[marcospolo]

The CMBR was detected in 1964, before computers were available. 

Yes, but detecting "something" does NOT mean they have proved WHAT was causing it.  The had one theory, there may be many more theories espouced, and others nbot yet invented, so they cant claim they KNOW the answer.  They "like" their theory, it fits the other theories they are attached to emotionally.

 

Thats about all you can say about CMB,

 

They later used computers to fiddle and manipulate the data according to someone's favorite pre conceived ideas, using algorithms to make the data look pretty.  Pretty much what they want to see anyway.

 

CMB is quack science, only accepted by quack mainstream scientists, and their quack conforming peers.

Edited October 21, 2018 by marcospolo