I actually can't argue it's non-sensical because it's so easily inferred. But if one is to present a description of what BBT is, it is wiser, IMO, to work backwards as it was originally derived to better address what it describes. Unfortunately, BBT certainly argues for a beginning, and it's easy to want to start at a place we call a "beginning" but not if we must be forced to include a t=0 story."Supposition, inference, metaphysics, pseudoscience are the correct approach to a singularity."
Well, I agree that the singularity suggestion is nonsensical.
Agreed, but when those lines are less than a nanosecond of travel for someone who has already traveled 13.8 billion years, it's tough to be too critical. Yet too many want to stretch science to go there and I object; like an artist drawing a bikini on science when formal attire is more appropriate. It may sell more books, and every headline should have a little sizzle, but....Drawing a line through a plurality of points may facilitate an inference, no matter how many lines might be possible. And why straight lines, even in log-log graphs? Why should a straight line prove that the Universe gets forever smaller in one direction and larger in the other, both approaching the glorious limits of the god of division by zero? "Gobbledegook", said Mr. Micawber.
Anytime the run is made where the boundary between science and pseudoscience is crossed, the way out is to not cross that boundary, unless proper signage is placed to avoid collisions, etc.The space.com article has 12 references to *inflation* and 5 references to *multiverse*. Einstein GR run backwards for the expanding space leads to the singularity - no way out.
Yes, when physics needs inflation to solve those two problems, there should be additional signage along the road. Guth's, et. al., inflation model may still be correct, but it is less convincing than the BBT in the later years of expansion.My observation. Solving the horizon problem and flatness problem in BB cosmology by postulating infinite speed of light at moment of the BB event. Very interesting physics used. No need for inflation apparently. 7 page report attached and 13 references to *infinite* as well as infinite speed of light and radiation particles at the moment of the BB event. Inflation features 3D space expanding > 10^21 c velocity and Alan Guth uses repulsive gravity too. Both the pre-Planckian universe and inflation require enormous expansion speed changes for 3D space to occur in nature compared to the Hubble constant value today, > 10^49 expansion speed decrease and changes.
If you see it as a choice, like me, and thus something far more subjective than objective, then my point is to keep the BBT on the high road, and only go where formal science can take us -- the ballroom vs. the bikini disco.But if there is a singularity after the previous 13.8 billion years, and the previous 13.8 billion years could just as soon do without the singularity, I'd rather take the latter . . . . . . . . .
Right. And there is certainly math out there that claims singularities can avoid infinities.Helio, I think there are some things in the new thread on Singularities in the Agreed terms series now open. Some interesting ideas about the singularity being open to persuasion.
My guess is you will see some mind-boggling math, which may look like physics, but we may be unqualified to say what percent of it is physics. If the math can calculate the temperature at t= 0, and provide some objective tests that can be obtained, then we will likely have another attachment to the BBT as we have with Inflation - a trifecta theory.Helio, I am about to start including up to date magazine quotes, so I should be getting up to 2021, but not authoritative as books but very up to date. Cat
Thanks. I will quote "here" if that's OK 2017 is pretty recentRight. And there is certainly math out there that claims singularities can avoid infinities.
"all terms are finite and smooth everywhere, including at the singularity "
But there is a difference between math and physics, as Einstein noted when he ridiculed Lemaitre and Friedman.