Was the Big Bang wrong?

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by Seattle, May 2, 2023.

  1. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,874
    No, it is generated through the iteration of a simple mathematical formula applied to complex numbers.
     
    Write4U, Pinball1970 and exchemist like this.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,521
    Careful, this idiot may now demand whether complex numbers are irreducibly complex, thus opening another vista of opportunities for completely derailing the thread.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Seattle likes this.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Pinball1970 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,036
    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.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Pinball1970 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,036
    Please stick to the topic.
     
  8. Pinball1970 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,036
    You can stop that as well.
     
  9. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,521
    I thought MOND was looking increasingly doubtful these days. https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/527/3/4573/7342478?login=false
     
  10. Pinball1970 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,036
  11. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,076
    Which you just did!
     
  12. Pinball1970 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,036
    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?
    It took your initial good question and threw it in the garbage.
     
  13. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,076
    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.
    Why?
     
    Last edited: Feb 1, 2024
  14. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,076
    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!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    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?
    https://futurism.com/the-byte/physicists-universe-giant-donut
     
    Last edited: Feb 1, 2024
  15. Pinball1970 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,036
    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.
     
  16. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,076
    I don't dispute that. I use the term just like everybody else. ( I also know the semantic problem with that term)
    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
    Topology and Surfaces

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    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.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    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
    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?
     
  17. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,644
    That's not really possible for him.
     
  18. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,421
    Write4U:
    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."
    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.
    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?
    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.
    What is the relevance of that to the thread topic?
    What is the relevance of that to the thread topic?
    Please explain the difference between a "mega-quantum event" and any other quantum event.
    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.
    When did they come, according to you? And why?
    No. That does not define it.
    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.
    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.
    Had to? What do you mean?
    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".
    Most answers are better than word salad.
     
    exchemist likes this.
  19. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,421
    Write4U:
    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.
    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?
    Why are you talking about a belief system you believe was debunked, in a thread in which that belief system is utterly irrelevant?
    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.
    Why are you now trying to discuss a topic you just said was debunked in a trial?
    You're back to the word salad again.
    Relevance to the thread topic: none.
    Can you not see that this question has nothing to do with "was the big bang wrong?"
    Nor does this.
    Nor this.
    Nor this.

    Stay on topic.
     
    Last edited: Feb 2, 2024
  20. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,421
    Write4U:
    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.
    The BB theory does not require a "singularity".
    Yes, if the BB theory is true, then I think we can all probably agree that the universe started in a big bang.
     
  21. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,421
    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.
     
    Seattle, exchemist and Pinball1970 like this.
  22. Pinball1970 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,036
    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.
     
  23. BdS Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    512

Share This Page