Big Bang is Mainstream

Jun 1, 2020
2,248
1,822
5,060
The theory for the entire cosmos involves not just a little physics, but all of physics both what we know today and what we are still learning.

Many people, including most of my friends (outside this forum), don't really bother learning a great deal about the theory or its history, hence some, perhaps a majority, assume it is not that solid a theory. When you combine the metaphysics of a multiverse concept to explain our universe and its incredibly fine-tuned features, then the general view becomes even more cloudy as to the veracity of BBT.

But since its beginning, BBT (originally the "Primeval Atom" theory) has grown into a very substantially supported theory. The original paper was published in 1927 (Georges Lemaitre). We are less than 6 years away from its 100th anniversary.

Ten decades has brought a great deal more discovery. These discoveries were often sought as a way to falsify the claims within BBT. No theory can be a theory without making testable claims, and any theory of the entire cosmos will come with a great many testable claims. [In contrast, any multiverse "theory" does not qualify as a theory until they can produce a claim that can be tested.]

It's also helpful to understand that no theory can be proven; they can only be falsified. The 2000 year-old Aristotle theory -- advanced by Ptolemy and Thomas Aquinas -- was never proven to be true but, thanks to Galileo and his little telescope, he was able to produce direct evidence that falsified it. [The Jesuits quickly accepted his results as they too used one of his scopes to verify this falsifiation (phases of Venus). At that time, they switched to the Tychonic model for an alternative Geocentric universe.]

IMO, each theory has a degree of strength regarding the claims that come from it. Some theories look strong but fail later. It's not uncommon for a theory to be considered very weak initially. Indeed, Einstein called Lemaitre's theory "abomniable", though he liked the math. Each theory should be understood for its relative strength or strengths. Engineers must have reliable science to build things like bridges and rockets.

So, here are some Big Bang Bullets demonstrating a great deal of direct, and some indirect, evidence supporting it. These many independent lines of evidence produce an amazing confluence of support for the theory.

....> Hubble Constant (redshift) More (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/astro/hubble.html)
....> Einstein's field equations (1916) predicted an expanding (or contracting) universe
....> Time Dilation of Supernova More1 (http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/99legacy/1-7-1999.html)also More2 (http://www-supernova.lbl.gov/public/)
....> Gamma Ray Bursts
....> The CMBR - Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation. More (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/bkg3k.html)
........> The wavelength (microwave)
........> The Temperature (2.73K). More (http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1997/SilinYang.shtml)
........> The Blackbody Results.
........> The "smoothness" (isotropy)
........> The very small "roughness" (anisotropy) in this radiation. WMAP (http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_mm.html)
........> The angular size of the "hot" spots matching predictions.
........> The power spectrum
....> Distant Cloud temperatures
....> The Element Abundances from Nucleosynthesis.
....> Helium (25%)
....> Deuterium, its relative abundance.
....> The observed Differences in Galaxies between today's and earlier ones.
........> Paucity of distant Barred Spirals.
........> Less organized distant Spirals.
........> No local Quasars.
....> The Age of the Universe in relation to Stellar Compositions.
....> Olber's Paradox resolved. More (http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/olbers.html)
....> Entropy - "The universe is dying" (Helmholtz & 2nd Law).
....> Galactic Superstructure of Super Clusters and Galactic Strands
....> No Ancient Objects older than 15 billion years.
....> The anisotropy found in background neutrino maping, probably.
....> The Lyman Forest morphology
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: TacovilleMC
Aug 14, 2020
702
124
1,060
The Hubble Constant (redshift) might be evidence of one thing, light doesn't travel faster than the speed of light (and everything it will tell us is, naturally, made by it to be slower than it). What that redshift, though, proves is that the object has traveled faster than the speed of light since the redshift tells us the object is now out of sight in the shadows of the dark universe beyond where the speed of light makes it out to be (where the speed of light puts it in the observable universe (two universes, minimum, the relative at any distance, and the real on the spot, is the very definition of multi-dimensional multiverse)). The light can tell us where the object might have been (providing it has not been broken up, shifted, and reformed), but in no way can it tell us where the object is, or whether it even still exists. Where it is, and if it even still exists, is really the stuff of instantaneity, simultaneity, locality (as in every point of infinity being the exact center of the infinity of universes since there is no other center), and, in general, 'Now (t='0'), everywhere Now (t='0') is, being faster than the speed of light.

---------------------------------------

We have an abundance of evidence that the 'wild weed'' of the Universe is far more energetic than the structurally temporary perfect lawns we, and therefore the universe, creates. We, and therefore the universe, create structural "entropy", and the return (the re-turn!) is always to energy, to the frontier 'wild' (to endless beginning -- hence no ancient objectivity, most especially including light and gravity waves, still existing older than "15 billion years"). I haven't been a close student of history and the nature of things for more than 67 of 74 years, in addition to being tested and identified a "visual mathematician," for no reason.

----------------------------------------

According to Chaos Theory there are, at base, two planes, the smooth and the finely lumpy course. With "zoom" they alternate, progressively merging one into the other and separating out one from the other, to infinity. The reduction of the infinity, though, is to the base constant, the base two. The cauldron of quanta chaos that builds up and out unobserved from every local point of universe, collapses and merges into a perfect horizon constant of relative, observed, mural: a one-, at most two-, dimensionally perfect still 'photo' universe horizon, "no chaos . . . a plane smooth as silk," so to speak. The horizon mural's display and physicality: All beginnings, naturally, as a naked singularity of beginning ((Planck) Big Crunch (M) | Big Vacuum (C^2 (c = c . . . squaring)) | (Planck) Big Bang (E)). Not only a look, but a physicality, too, this way local out of that look. It's called "multi-dimensionality."

---------------------------------------

It's a Multiverse Universe.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: TacovilleMC
Jun 1, 2020
2,248
1,822
5,060
Atlan0101, you're covering a lot of ground that gets into the weeds related to BBT. They may be worthy of serious thought, but I'd like to make this thread focused on the strengths presented by those specific arguments (bullets).

Of those presented, can you provide some support reasons for some of them? Do you find some contrary to mainstream science, whether you agree or disagree? Do you disagree with any that are mainstream?
 
Aug 14, 2020
702
124
1,060
You want to lock this thread strictly to your view of universe and BBT, then say so. You want no denials, infringements, repaintings with twists, or curveballs, then say so. I have my say regarding the horizons as I see them. Do I disagree with the "mainstream"? You must be joking. How many posts have I posted since I've been on this forum? Even Einstein, his friend Godel, and his later equal Hawking, were never in fact "mainstream." They were always venturing outside the limits of the box when they weren't stretching the limits of the box itself. They did their share of writing the book on thinking and drawing outside the box. I won't quote Einstein on those he viewed as "great spirits," what they always faced, face, and will always face from "mainstream" thinking.

Your opening went much farther afield than just BBT. So did I in my coverage.
 
Last edited:
Jun 1, 2020
2,248
1,822
5,060
You want to lock this thread strictly to your view of universe and BBT, then say so.
Absurd. Are you not familiar with the term "mainstream"? These aren't my views but the position of a vast majority of physicists, astronomers, cosmologists, etc.

I present my limited understanding of their work, not mine. This presentation is for the very pupose of discussing the merits of each claim (bullets).

You want no denials, infringements, repaintings with twists, or curveballs, then say so.
Clearly, I've stated just the opposite.

I have my say regarding the horizons as I see them. Do I disagree with the "mainstream"? You must be joking. How many posts have I posted since I've been on this forum?
Indeed, but scientific claims are falsifiable to qualilfy as actual claims in science. So, is there any one item you can pick out and falsify? The more of these you can send down in flames the more interest you will garner in your ATM views.

Even Einstein, his friend Godel, and his later equal Hawking, were never in fact "mainstream."
So you don't understand what is considered to be "mainstream" at all, obviously. Or do you mean that only some of Einstein's views were not mainstream. SR and GR and most of his other work is definetly mainsteam. Why give a guy a Nobel Prize if it's not worthy?

Also, Einstein waited until he had three independent lines of objective evidence before he introduced GR. The solar eclipse experiement, for example, was one of those three.

They were always venturing outside the limits of the box when they weren't stretching the limits of the box itself. They did their share of writing the book on thinking and drawing outside the box. I won't quote Einstein on those he viewed as "great spirits," what they always faced, face, and will always face from "mainstream" thinking.
That's fair. But Einstein never rejected worthy science. He never said Newton's laws should be rejected.

Your opening went much farther afield than just BBT. So did I in my coverage.
Because the bullets are mainstream arguments for BBT, my hope is they can be discussed for all of us, espeically me, to better understand the merits (and weaknesses) of each.
 
Last edited:
Dec 3, 2021
50
11
35
You want to lock this thread strictly to your view of universe and BBT, then say so. You want no denials, infringements, repaintings with twists, or curveballs, then say so. I have my say regarding the horizons as I see them. Do I disagree with the "mainstream"? You must be joking. How many posts have I posted since I've been on this forum? Even Einstein, his friend Godel, and his later equal Hawking, were never in fact "mainstream." They were always venturing outside the limits of the box when they weren't stretching the limits of the box itself. They did their share of writing the book on thinking and drawing outside the box. I won't quote Einstein on those he viewed as "great spirits," what they always faced, face, and will always face from "mainstream" thinking.

Your opening went much farther afield than just BBT. So did I in my coverage.
He was just trying to keep the discussion about what he had presented, not branching into every possibility out there.
 
Aug 14, 2020
702
124
1,060
1) I am very, very, familiar with the term "mainstream" as it is politically and Orwellian defined now in the 21st century. There is no other definition today. Other than that, I get your point now. You weren't looking to lecture. You are as a student looking to gain deeper knowledge and understanding of the particular items inside their precise boxes of mainstream conventional wisdom. I don't agree with much of the conventional wisdom, as I said, but I can understand what you were looking for. Therefore, since I paint pictures in a more radical-imaginative style, I would be the last person you want to sit at this table because I would be the last you would understand. By the way, your views aren't the views aren't the views of many physicists, astronomers, and cosmologists today, thank goodness. That is why I add the pointers to various articles, illustration, animations, and quotes, to a lot of my posts . . . that apparently you haven't followed in the first place.

2) Einstein's became mainstream sometime after he did the work. And SR and GR were not what he got his "Nobel Prize" for. He never got a Nobel for that work.

3) Of course, he never rejected worthy science. I didn't say he did. I've never rejected it either. Reinterpretation, or interpreting it differently, isn't rejection, however you may believe anything but your interpretations, or so-called "mainstream" interpretations, to be rejection. The science may be objective, but interpreting it is entirely subjective.

4) I've interpreted BBT as I see the BB to be for months and months now. Some here even imagine, some rightly so, they can see my interpretations of Universe (U) and universes (u) even if they don't agree with them. As I said, interpretation is subjective. Interpretation regarding such a vast background as infinite Universe, and the infinity of universes, is really subjective. I leave the objectivity of scientific accumulations to the professionals (as I was a professional on the fringes of science myself at one time). I won't leave subjective interpretation of the objective science to them to try to turn into a tyranny of Orwellian "Big Brother" concrete. Interpretation of the 'Horizon' is a completely different matter. Interpretation of the Universe, the universe, and Multiverse, enters the realm of philosophy ("the philosophy of physics" : "the philosophy of cosmology" : "the philosophy of Cosmopolis" : the "mind's eye" imaginative).

5) The title of this thread is "Big Bang is Mainstream": The sentence opening this thread (all emphasis mine): "The theory for the entire cosmos involves not just a little physics, but all of physics both what we know today and what we are still learning." Bullets: "Hubble Constant (redshift)" : "expanding (or contracting) universe" : "Time dilation" : "The smoothness (isotropy) : The observed Differences in Galaxies between todays and earlier ones" : "Entropy - 'The universe is dying'" : "No Ancient Objects older than 15 billion years". Quite a spread, a very large territory wanted to be covered in the narrowest of ways, but all addressed to some degree in my mostly "out of the box" way. Not what you were looking for; but addressed . . . somewhat. You want only the "mainstream" and degreed professionals, it's quite a big internet and a huge amount of material is there.

I notice one big difference between today and yesteryear. The existence of infinity, and infinities, is gaining a larger acceptance today. There seems to be fewer of the best calling infinity absurd. Recognizing the existence is opening up the universe to much greater possibilities. What is infinity? The definition is widening. One day all of the major "constants" will be defined as "horizon infinites."
 
Last edited:
Jun 1, 2020
2,248
1,822
5,060
Since no one seems interested in debating any of these objective and testable lines of evidence for BBT in the OP (Opening Post), then perhaps we can reference this thread when others wish to imply BBT isn't all that strong of a theory.

If they can falsify some of these bullets, then they would deserve great credit for doing so, and perhaps an ATM theory would deserve greater consideration.

My hope isn't to push these claims but to discuss them so that we can all understand the merits to this remarkable theory. I'm no expert so I do my best learning when discourse takes place, even if I'm the one who must think about my arguments for any one of these claims. Normally, pedagogy forces one to think clearly before teaching.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: TacovilleMC

ASK THE COMMUNITY

Latest posts