Big Bang Bullets II

[Harry Costas]

If the BBT was based on recycling processes.

Then we could fit the BBT in a limited process everywhere but not at the same time.

 

[Helio]

Did Harry miss something?

(Did you miss the OP (Opening Post)?)
I read the OP, it's not the first time reading.
For decades questioning the opinions that are repeated time and time.

You can choose to call those opinions, but they are known in mainstream science as objective evidence, some are based on such.

The BBT will remain a theory until evidence supports it.

All theories remain as theories. No theory can be proven since another theory could overcome it. They can be falsified, however, as was the Ptolemy model when the telescope revealed it failed. BBT started as a wimpy model, but more and more evidence has earned it great reputation. There is no serious model that offers competition to it.

 

[Atlan0001]

You can choose to call those opinions, but they are known in mainstream science as objective evidence, some are based on such.

All theories remain as theories. No theory can be proven since another theory could overcome it. They can be falsified, however, as was the Ptolemy model when the telescope revealed it failed. BBT started as a wimpy model, but more and more evidence has earned it great reputation. There is no serious model that offers competition to it.

That the Horizon of Creation always has existed and does exist in entangled, spontaneously concurrent (t=0) REALTIME NOW (t=0) eternal instant is easily serious competition to a fairytale "Once upon a magical time universe creation."

 

[Helio]

How many peer-reviewed papers, published in major journals, are there favoring BBT?

Please cite even one paper of equal merit for the “Horizon of Creation” model.

I’d like this thread to be about objective-based arguments for, or against, BBT, given the thread’s title.

You may wish to start, if you’ve not already done so, on your favored model.

 

[Atlan0001]

How many peer-reviewed papers, published in major journals, are there favoring BBT?

Please cite even one paper of equal merit for the “Horizon of Creation” model.

I’d like this thread to be about objective-based arguments for, or against, BBT, given the thread’s title.

You may wish to start, if you’ve not already done so, on your favored model.

You two are telling the rest of us that because of what you state above, the BBT as conventionally stated, too often stated as absolute "objective fact" instead of subjective reasoning, has been proven absolutely to be "objective" fact beyond all dispute!!!! We are NOT to suspect it of being wrong, or being wrongly premised, or you of being so when you state on this forum that it is not their OPINION, not your OPINION, either, of the when, where, what and how of the Universe Horizon invisibly, un-observably, outside and inside, too, the "observable universe," from incoming sources accelerating in contracting, compacting, crunching, to this blue dot singularity!

You state in no uncertain terms that anyone who presents alternative positions and possibilities of SPACE, TIME, and other factors, are just too stupid to live, much less argue them with you here (presenting the alternative possibilities (even pointing to alternatives presented by otherwise general backers of the conventional BBT, such as Stephen Hawking)!

I will argue the points of your cosmological beliefs, right here and anywhere else I choose to argue the physics, in fact the embedded [must metaphysical philosophy], of the "cosmology"! Meaning, particularly, your fairytale point of "Once upon a magical time...!"

With "BBT Cosmology", you specifically and in the most general you, enter the realm of "metaphysics", my realm to debate, to argue, to dispute, my modeling version versus your modeling version, head to head! Don't think you haven't! And, as I think you've realized, I've gained what picturing and modeling, what description, I've needed to gain to go toe to toe in this realm.
-----------------------------

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds...." -- Albert Einstein.

 

[Helio]

You two are telling the rest of us that because of what you state above, the BBT as conventionally stated, too often stated as absolute "objective fact" instead of subjective reasoning, has been proven absolutely to be "objective" fact beyond all dispute!!!! We are NOT to suspect it of being wrong, or being wrongly premised, or you of being so when you state on this forum that it is not their OPINION, not your OPINION, either, of the when, where, what and how of the Universe Horizon invisibly, un-observably, outside and inside, too, the "observable universe," from incoming sources accelerating in contracting, compacting, crunching, to this blue dot singularity!

BBT is not a fact. No theory is a "fact". All scientific theories are factually-based. The facts are foundational to the theory. But a scientific theory also must be falsifiable. Thus, they must include predictions that are either directly observable or observable in principle.

Each item in the OP list represents the objective evidenced (facts) that argue for the BB theory. The only foundational facts known at the time Lemaitre founded the theory were the recessional velocities of spiral galaxies, and perhaps the obvious Obler's Paradox observations. This, of course, is in the framework of GR. GR is also a theory, but the observations (facts) soon established it as mainstream science, yet many scientists didn't like it.

A theory only becomes strong when its predictions are verified with observations (facts). The CMBR was a very unique and powerful prediction that would necessarily require expansion. Copernicus' model predicted Venus would have crescent and gibbous phases, but Ptolemey's model only allowed crescent phase observations. Once the observations were discovered thanks to Galileo's telescope, even the Church was quick to agree to the falsification of this 2000 year-old model.

No theory for the entire universe's history will come with only a few predictions. It's taken almost 100 years of observations to help establish BBT, taking it from Einstein's preliminary opinion of it ("abomination").

Since BBT, however, still lacks the additional observations of the predictions that have bubbled-up, perhaps it will be, somehow, falsified. But whatever replaces it will be required to address all the items listed in the OP, else it will be DOA.

You state in no uncertain terms that anyone who presents alternative positions and possibilities of SPACE, TIME, and other factors, are just too stupid to live, much less argue them with you here (presenting the alternative possibilities (even pointing to alternatives presented by otherwise general backers of the conventional BBT, such as Stephen Hawking)!

This is an absurd strawman argument claiming I'm saying things that I'm not. I've never called anyone "stupid".

I've even encouraged you to do a thread on your alternative model.

 

[Atlan0001]

A mirage exists in two places at once, and/or almost at once (possibly photo-frames / photons quantum entangling). It is an observed fact in both places, but it actually exists in only one place superpositioned (mirrored) to the other (<--||-->):

=====================

Standing wave - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

=====================
Spooky action. I consistently read that Relativity predicts its own failure . . . its own nervous breakdown. And sizes, and directions, and magnitudes..., finites all (all finites), are relative. All "observability" is local and relative.

Give me more openings, Helio. I'm hungry!

 

[Atlan0001]

Helio,
After thinking it over I'll retract that last above and let you be, here, from here on as long as it's mutual.