The Realistic Cosmology An Alternative To The Big Bang Theory

[A-wal]

The Big Bang simply says that the Universe is now in a state of expansion, and tracing it back to time-zero indicates it began in high density and high energy levels.  As for the future, it could decelerate, accelerate, or remain at the same velocity of expansion.  Evidence currently suggests it is accelerating.

What evidence are you referring to exactly?

That red-shift is proportional to distance, exactly as you would expect if it were being stretched during the journey and certainly wouldn't expect if it were caused by galaxies moving away from us?

 

That they would be moving away from us faster than the speed of light (that you don't get away with by saying the space is increasing because it's obviously the same bloody thing) if that were the cause?

 

The microwave radiation that could be coming from any distance away and didn't match the predictions of the big bang because of the lack of uniformity?

 

That there should be as much anti-matter as matter?

 

That there should be 66% more lithium in the universe according to the big bang model?

 

That the further back in time we look, the greater the red-shift, suggesting that if anything the expansion would be slowing down?

 

That nothing somehow became something that could explode?

 

That it needs an inexplicable inflationary phase?

 

We are now no longer the Knights who say Ni.

 

NI.

 

Shh...

 

We are now the Knights who say..."Ekki-ekki-ekki-ekki-PTANG. Zoom-Boing, z'nourrwringmm."

[mrg]

> What evidence are you referring to exactly?

 

I'd explain it to you but ... you know the drill.

[A-wal]

That you have no clue what you're talking about, got it.

[AmishFighterPilot]

 

Actually I think he raises an interesting point. What test could one hypothetically devise which, if a certain result were obtained, would show the big bang hypothesis false?

 

What he is effectively challenging is whether or not the big bang hypothesis makes falsifiable predictions of future observations that should be expected if it is correct. If it makes no falsifiable predictions, then it does not meet Karl Popper's test for a scientific theory. 

 

But does not the observed CMBR spectrum provide exactly such a test, in fact? See here: https://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_tests_cmb.html  If the spectrum were different, that would put the big bang hypothesis in trouble, presumably. 

Thank you. I do think that is a better way to put it. I can't think of anything else in science where the starting assumption is that a phenomenon is unique.

[AmishFighterPilot]

 

But we can't do any of these things. For any of the three.  

Yes, but the point is, we know there were causes that lead to the formation of those things, but Big Bang expects us to accept creation ex nihilo at some point. That's not necessarily true of either dinosaurs or Charles Barkley or Eminem or whatever other human you're talking about. Only religion and Big Bang theory demand you accept there was a specific beginning or that there was nothing prior to it.

[mrg]

Big Bang expects us to accept creation ex nihilo

 

All it says is that there was a time-zero.  Either there was or wasn't; science simply determines from the evidence there was, whether anyone likes the idea or not.  Why there was a time-zero is, for myself, a dubious and uninteresting question. 

[Super Polymath]

All it says is that there was a time-zero.  Either there was or wasn't; science simply determines from the evidence there was, whether anyone likes the idea or not.  Why there was a time-zero is, for myself, a dubious and uninteresting question. 

Absolutely not.

 

We can only see back to the electromagnetic cloud of the early universe. We can't see what was beyond its horizons or what it looked liked earlier. What we see is actually more scientifically consistent with what you'd get from evaporating black holes in a googol years from now.

 

 

 

 

In short, these regions of the unobserved universe are orbiting these regions pulled by a vaster region of emptiness save for ancient hypermassive black holes, evaporating to form new atoms as the electromagnetic clouds of the nucleus expand to become the galaxy clusters of the electron rings. This forms one of infinite colossal hyper-omega atomic structures.

 

I mean, could you imagine how large

 

 

 

The cosmos on its largest scale should look like the inside of the atomic world of a larger cosmos, meaning our universe could be inside larger organisms. 

Edited May 22, 2017 by Super Polymath

[mrg]

Let me think about that, and I'll get back to you.   Maybe I'll get back to you.  Maybe I'll think about it.  If I remember.

 

... Who did you say you were again?   Never mind, not important.

[Super Polymath]

Let me think about that, and I'll get back to you.   Maybe I'll get back to you.  Maybe I'll think about it.  If I remember.

 

... Who did you say you were again?   Never mind, not important.

I am Satan's gift to women. 

[Super Polymath]

& I am very important, because I can wake sheeple up. 

[exchemist]

& I am very important, because I can wake sheeple up. 

You get at least 30 crank points for "sheeple". Very good. Even more than you would get for "Tesla", Halton Arp" or "Galileo".  

Edited May 22, 2017 by exchemist

[Super Polymath]

You get at least 30 crank points for "sheeple". Very good. Even more than you would get for "Tesla", Halton Arp" or "Galileo".  

Is 30 enough points to buy Keira Knightley? 

[exchemist]

Is 30 enough points to buy Keira Knightley? 

Oh? I didn't know she was a crank. But she's an actress so I expect so. You can always try your luck. 

[A-wal]

All it says is that there was a time-zero.  Either there was or wasn't; science simply determines from the evidence there was, whether anyone likes the idea or not.

Utter BS! The evidence overwhelmingly supports the steady state model. It has ever since it was found that red-shift is proportional to distance, but by then it was too late.

 

 

What does it say, Brother Maynard?

 

It reads, "Here may be found the last words of Joseph of Aramathia. He who is valiant and pure of spirit may find the holy grail in the Castle of Aaauuuggghhh... "

 

What?

 

"The Castle of Aaaauuuggghhhh"

 

What is that?

 

He must have died while carving it.

 

Oh come on!

 

Well, that's what it says.

 

Look, if he was dying, he wouldn't have bothered to carve 'Aaaauuuggghhhh'. He'd just say it.

 

Maybe he was dictating it.

 

Oh shut up!

 

Well does it say anything else?

 

No, just "Aaaaauuuugggghhh".

 

Do you think he could have mean, 'Camaaaauuuuggghhhh'?

 

Where's that?

 

France, I think.

[xps13579]

big bang theory can not guide practice and its only work is constantly to modify data after practice

[A-wal]

big bang theory can not guide practice and its only work is constantly to modify data after practice

Exactly. It's been proved wrong countless times but every time it happens the data is forced into the model until you end up with the mess we've got now.

 

 

(Singing): Bravely bold Sir Robin rode forth from Camelot.

He was not afraid to die, oh brave Sir Robin.

He was not at all afraid to be killed in nasty ways, brave, brave, brave, brave Sir Robin.

He was not in the least bit scared to be mashed into a pulp

Or to have his eyes gouged out and his elbows broken

To have his kneecaps split and his body burned away

And his limbs all hacked and mangled

Brave Sir Robin His head smashed in and his heart cut out

And his liver removed and his bowels unplugged

And his nostrils raped and his bottom burnt off

And his penis...

 

That's enough music for now lads.

Edited May 24, 2017 by A-wal

[Moontanman]

 

Yes, but the point is, we know there were causes that lead to the formation of those things, but Big Bang expects us to accept creation ex nihilo at some point. That's not necessarily true of either dinosaurs or Charles Barkley or Eminem or whatever other human you're talking about. Only religion and Big Bang theory demand you accept there was a specific beginning or that there was nothing prior to it.

 

 

This is simply not true, the big bang theory has nothing to say about what came before, in the current state of theory it can only go back to plank time just after the expansion. Any assertions about before that are nothing but speculation, lots of speculation about that but no one says anything about ex nihilo except creationists..