The James Webb Space Telescope never disproved the Big Bang. Here's how that falsehood spread.

Page 7 - Seeking answers about space? Join the Space community: the premier source of space exploration, innovation, and astronomy news, chronicling (and celebrating) humanity's ongoing expansion across the final frontier.
Observations of images out there and beyond gives us some explanation of the workings of the universe.
Do we see expansion process? yes
Do we see contraction process? yes

Do we see clustering? yes
Do we see Deep Field 13.4 B yrs. billions of galaxies in various stages similar to near and far? Yes

Do we see a total expansion of the matter within the infinite universe? NO
Do we see Superclusters of galaxies? yes
The deeper we see the more we, see? Yes

Where is the accelerating Matter?
 
Jan 2, 2024
319
44
210
Visit site
Taking Unclear Engineer's point about not having to reverse time in a thought experiment the complete way back to a singularity how about this scenario?

This uses a Black Hole as a preBB cause to illustrate
The direction of time in a black hole points at 90 degrees to space and not towards a singularity. The Black Hole however is 'left behind' by the time process of the parent universe. Instead of becoming a singularity the shrinking star - at the point of detachment from the parent time - reverses its time from inward at 90 degrees to outward at 90 degrees. Simply the detachment from the parent universe releases it from the parent time. It then has its own outward-expanding time.

The Big Bang then in this scenario does not emerge from a singularity - it already has a size. The new direction of time is outward as per an expanding universe. In the inflationary period, the speed of light is consistent with the principle of 1 second = one light second; however, as measured by us the seconds and light seconds are mega shorter.
 
To sum up the results, you are saying that your version o f the BBT only takes the back-extrapolation of the universe's expansion to the size of a grapefruit and 10^-12 seconds after the "point" in time that you say is somehow not part of the theory.
Yes, that's pretty close to my personal view of it. BBT, too often in literature, gets bent to serve one's purposes. If we want to restrict BBT to the more solid scientific ground, then IMO we should limit the beginning moment for the theory to be that which physics can properly address. CERN can take us to t=1E12sec, which is the proper way to begin the theory, at least until objective evidence can take us closer to at magical t=0, if that ever existed. Perhaps the universe was initiated with a given size, and not a singularity, for instance.

I guess that is some progress, compared to the frequent popular media articles that tend to take it back to 10^-43 seconds and smaller than a proton, quitting only at the Planck size, or even going below that to a "quantum fluctuation".
Yes, the 1E-43 sec gets us to the smallest unit of time per Planck. Thus, authors who know this don't want to stray too far from actual science in their land of metaphysics, which is a fun playground for many, too many. Do they ever produce mathematical equations for events at this point? They can't because physicists have stated that their equations fall completely apart before then. Thus, the only solid ground begins, apparently, at t=1E-43 sec.

It's not wrong to play in this entertaining quicksand, but it must be seen as suppositional until they can meet the requirements of a true scientific hypothesis or theory.

This, of course, brings us to how to treat Inflation Theory, which is held to have occurred prior to 1E-12 sec. It has strong merit, and it comes with math, but it's not hard physics, yet, AFAIK. So, is it really a part of BBT? Perhaps it's not a winner, but gets "honorable mention" instead.
But, you are still missing my point that even to get to the size of a grapefruit, you need a "dark energy" that we do not understand, and have simply ASSUMED it does what is needed to do to get the expansion that the theory envisions. My point is that there could be other assumptions about how "dark energy" behaves, and they could result in substantially different histories of the universe. Oscillatory behavior cannot be ruled out on the basis of current knowledge. But, it seems to be excluded from the information silo associated with the BBT.
Yes, we can observe only the CMBR period, thus before this time we have no observations, unless something like neutrino telescopes come our way.

But DE and DM have tweaked the BBT variables, and will continue to do so, no doubt.

I think it's reasonable to assume CERN's estimate for the physical conditions they can test to have occurred at approx. t= 1E-12s implies these two variables have been incorporated into BBT.

There is no reason to diminish BBT simply because changes are made to it.

The original estimates of the expansion rate, by many, were almost 10x that of today's far more accurate rate. Those early estimated rates produce a value of about 1 billion years for the universe, but astronomers, and geologists, noted that if this was an accurate estimate, then stars would be younger than the universe, as well as some rocks.

It wasn't tossed into the trash because of this "failure" because there were still lines of evidence that gave it credence, and BBT made many other predictions that could help make or break it. I don't think BBT became mainstream until the CMBR prediction was verified.

And, since you do not believe in "inflation" being part of the BBT, I think it is misleading for you to call what you do believe "the BBT".
I hold some "belief" that Inflation theory, or something like it, must have occurred in a time preceding the time when science can produce results (t=1E-12 s).

We both know many include Inflation Theory within BBT. I think we both agree it is still ad hoc, though I think it has merit and is elegant.

The reason I've been willing to post so often in this thread is for the problem I see with many, not you, who think metaphysics, even pseudoscience, is science. IOW, my opposition isn't with you, but with the creep toward scientism; something I think we both don't wish to see advance. I personally see it as a subtle form of atheism; a crutch for it.

Your version seems to have excluded the "bang". I suggest that you call it the "Lambda Cold Dark Matter Theory after 10^-12 seconds". That still seems to invoke the timing of a "bang" at t=0 seconds, but at least it would avoid a lot of confusion with the articles that we keep seeing about the BBT in Space.com and elsewhere.
Well said.
 
Last edited:
We may (or may not) be able to "see" past the CMBR with gravity waves, if we can figure out how to interpret them. Similar to interpreting radio astronomy data, but requires very large "telescopes". Something that might be done in space. perhaps using pulsars.

But, of course, if there were no massive objects before and shortly after the CMBR was released, then there would be no gravity waves originating at those times. Some people think there should still be gravity waves detectable that originated in the inflation period, but I think those would be hard to detect and hard to interpret. For one thing, it sort of raises a boundary problem for the universe, if we think that it was tiny and waves propagated across it at the speed of light to keep things homogeneous, how do those waves persist to this time, and how huge would they be now if they "inflated"?
 
Jan 2, 2024
319
44
210
Visit site
but with the creep toward scientism; something I think we both don't wish to see advance. I see it as a subtle form of atheism; a crutch for it.
It used to be Philosophy first and mathematics backup. Now it's mathematics first and philosophy second even nil. We have got lazy and need to try harder.
 
There is plenty of math involved. But, these days, it is mostly simulations on computers that do the math. Instead of looking for analytical solutions to problems simplified by convenient assumptions, more realistic solutions are created using numerical analyses, with the computers doing the drudge work of the numerous computations.

But, that means "checking the math" involves reviewing the computer codes as well as the simulation "models" that they are built to evaluate. And, those still have some assumptions in them. It is pretty much opaque to the casual reviewer - it requires intense effort to review or independently reproduce.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Helio
Similar to interpreting radio astronomy data, but requires very large "telescopes". Something that might be done in space. perhaps using pulsars.
Radio astronomy will still be limited to the event of Recombination, apparently. Only then did the mean free path become infinite. What would be found would be the radio band of the Planck distribution of the CMBR. It would be another test of BBT, but I suspect it's already been accomplished.
But, of course, if there were no massive objects before and shortly after the CMBR was released, then there would be no gravity waves originating at those times.
One of the predictions was the size of the hotter and colder spots. A slightly denser region would begin to collapse, but then this would heat it causing it to expand. This would oscillate, apparently. The regional sizes were a prediction and confirmed. At least I think that's the simplest way to put it. But the math is well beyond me.

I don't know if this would produce detectable gravity waves, however.
 
It used to be Philosophy first and mathematics backup. Now it's mathematics first and philosophy second even nil. We have got lazy and need to try harder.
Indeed. Galileo had the lowliest job as a professor of mathematics. His goal, one he obtained, was to reach the top -- philosopher.

Even today we still honor that tradition with the PhD (Doctor of Philosophy).

Science (modern science) gained great clout beginning with Galileo, in the opinion of many. During his time and prior was the embrace of teleology -- where purpose was assigned for each phenomenon. This had that philosophical and religious feel that gave greater meaning.
 
When I was 14 I read "The Star Gazer" by Zolte de Harzani and covered Gallileo's life. He had an abdominal hernia so bad it protruded out of his belly and had to be confined in a leather bag he fashioned that hung off his belt.
Hmmm. I have perhaps a dozen books on Galileo and I don't recall that one. Was it late in his life, where he was restricted to his house? It's quite possible I just forgot.

He did suffer from other ailments in his mid to latter lifetime. And he eventually went blind, ironic given his super sight of the universe.
 
Helio, I was posting about using gravity waves to "see" past the CMBR. And possibly using pulsars to make a huge gravity wave detector.

My point is that gravity waves are not blocked by ionized gas, so IF there is something massive embedded in that pre-CMBR ionized gas, we still might be able to "see" by being able to decipher the gravity waves related to it. Primordial black holes, for instance, might show up in gravity waves.

But, I am somewhat concerned that interpreting gravity waves requires some assumptions, so there could be an argument about what is detected with them in that era, because we would have no other means to check with optical or radio telescopes, unlike what we try to do with gravity waves being detected now for things like star and black hole merges.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Helio
Hmmm. I have perhaps a dozen books on Galileo and I don't recall that one. Was it late in his life, where he was restricted to his house? It's quite possible I just forgot.

He did suffer from other ailments in his mid to latter lifetime. And he eventually went blind, ironic given his super sight of the universe.
Yes, it would have been towards the end of his life. I have picked a likely spot in the book, towards the end, and started reading. I will find the reference, it's in here somewhere. Meanwhile I chanced upon this:

Later in life he was living at his son's house at Costa San Giorgio. One August day there came a guest, "I am an English poet called Milton, John Milton".
Milton recited an ode from "the greatest dramatist of my country".
"What did you say his name was?"
"Shakespeare, William Shakespeare"
"A strange name", Gallileo responded

The Star Gazer
Zsolt de Harsanyi
Putnam, NY, 1938, pp 538-539
 
  • Like
Reactions: Helio
Jan 2, 2024
319
44
210
Visit site
On the issue of not returning "all the way back" to the BB singularity - to explain the development of our universe:
The image of a grapefruit comes to mind. Instead of inflation is there any mechanism by which information might be transferred from a black hole via a grapefruit, and generate a BB instead of inflation?
At first sight, that statement seems er, daft. But a flip of time direction might be enough at the point of the grapefruit separating from its parent black hole (?) (because the time process for it had stopped - it was 'left behind').
 
Hmmm. I have perhaps a dozen books on Galileo and I don't recall that one. Was it late in his life, where he was restricted to his house? It's quite possible I just forgot.

He did suffer from other ailments in his mid to latter lifetime. And he eventually went blind, ironic given his super sight of the universe.
I have not found the quote on fabricating a leather bag for his rupture but did come across this on page 535: "Will you please inform the Chief Inquisitor that my rupture is so enlarged that only a doctor can bandage it?"
 
I have not found the quote on fabricating a leather bag for his rupture but did come across this on page 535: "Will you please inform the Chief Inquisitor that my rupture is so enlarged that only a doctor can bandage it?"
Can you picture it, Bill? When and if we break out into that raw, alien, harsh, and forbidding new frontier, technology will simply help us to equalize ourselves to all those Earthly strong and weak frontier types who've lived so much history before us. Going BACK to the FUTURE!
 
  • Like
Reactions: billslugg

Latest posts