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.
Then we could fit the BBT in a limited process everywhere but not at the same time.
You can choose to call those opinions, but they are known in mainstream science as objective evidence, some are based on such.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.
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.The BBT will remain a theory until evidence supports 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."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.
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!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.
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.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!
This is an absurd strawman argument claiming I'm saying things that I'm not. I've never called anyone "stupid".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)!
We will most probably never be able to travel back in time to observe the big bang to study it scientifically.Rod, I heartily support and endorse the real science taking place today, especially by those amateurs making real contributions by assisting professionals by their sheer force of numbers. I totally deplore pseudo science which attempts to bastardise the truth by distorting the import of accurate observation to support its weird fantasies.
Having said that, I tried to point out that knowledge does move on, and our discovery of the truth is bettered by more and more observation of facts and by careful and reasoned consideration of the new facts discovered.
Do not mistake my pointing out that progress does take place as an excuse for believing nonsensical fictions. Flat Earth and other palpably ridiculous ideas can be, and are being, disproved by observation and sound logic.
Nevertheless, let us not deny that ideas, hypotheses and theories sometimes denote progress. As scientists, we know the difference between the advancement of science and the distortions of neurotic belief in proven fictions. Sadly, there are some cases where new theories are not accepted even when scientifically proven. These proven theories, few in number in comparison with rubbish speculation, do eventually find their rightful place in the hall of science, although ultimately to be improved by the ever continuing advancement of science. I hope you are in no doubt about where I stand in this exegesis.
I tried to point out above, as you well know, that there are some interesting things about the Universe which are not, and maybe never will be, amenable to science. We will most probably never be able to travel back in time to observe the big bang to study it scientifically.
It is this latter situation where we find ourselves in the realm of metaphysics. We can only consider suggestions, which is totally different from unwarranted belief in patent fictions. At the moment BBT is the best we have and has many supporting arguments. The closer we get to t = 0, the less science applies and the more metaphysics takes over. Infinities and division by infinity have no place in reality. At t = 0 we are leaving science and confronting metaphysics.
As an example, let us consider the idea of a cyclic Universe. This is in the realm of metaphysics. It is no more amenable to science than the idea of a singularity at t = 0 in BBT. Neither can be observed and proven or discarded. I am not promoting a Cyclic Universe, although I find the idea interesting. I accept BBT until it gets within a whisker of t = 0. In other words, I accept science as long as science applies. Closer to t = 0, I am interested in the idea that the idea of a singularity is replaced by the idea of a nexus, connecting with another 'phase' of the Universe. I do not believe in the singularity suggestion or the nexus suggestion.
Both are within the realm of metaphysics.
Cat![]()