beecee

In the meantime I'll see if I can relay some more info.... (1) The BB arose from a fluctuation in the quantum foam. (speculation) (2) At that early epoch, the four forces were united into what we know as the superforce. (speculation) 3) As pressures and temperatures dropped. the superforce started to decouple, gravity first (speculation) (4) During this period, phase transitions and false vacuums were created and the energy excesses went into creating our first fundamentals (some evidence) (5) after 3 minutes our first atomic nuclei were formed. ( again some evidence) 6) After 380,000 years temperatures and pressures were such that electrons were able to couple with nuclei and our first element was formed. 7) From then on, it was plain sailing! But again in essesnce, while the universe/spacetime did have a beginning, we no nothing about that beginning and can only speculate. I said, I was not saying there was no beginning, there certainly was, but we can only speculate on its nature...you know, the singularity which you have yet to give a definition on?

Sure! you take your time and think about your what you have said

Sure thing! Now tell me what is a singularity? Why are we trying to formulate a QGT?

Again, take it easy...Don't get so excited. It's childish to start hurling insults because others pick you up on a common error. Speaking again to what I corrected you on...The universe certainly had a beginning according to the current BB theory, but we are unable to speak with any certainty about the instant of the BB and only from 10-43 seconds. Then you go all coy and say so what? with regards to the singularity....you know, where our models do not apply?

Take it easy fella. You are wrong and need to admit it. Again, the BB is a theory of the evolution of spaceyime/Universe from a hot dense state at t+10-43 seconds.

Of course it matters! That's why we are trying to get a QGT! No one is disputing the fact that the universe/spacetime , as we know it, had a beginning at the instant of the BB. But we know nothing about that instant, no why, no how, no nothing...and that is all that Strange has correctly pointed out to you.

Again for your information, the BB is a theory of the evolution of the universe, from a hotter, denser state beginning at t+10-43 seconds: We cannot apply anything to the singularity region (the quantum/Planck level) because our models ( the BB and GR) break down.

And space and time (spacetime) make no sense, because??? Because we have no theory that covers that period, only speculation.

Believe what you will. Perhaps you first need to tell me what a singularity is and what theory we have that covers it...best of luck.

The singularity marks the barrier if you will, of where the BB model does not cover, ie t+10-43 seconds....the Planck/quantum era.

Then you need to realize that the BB does not talk about a beginning, but an evolving from t+10-43 seconds.

By creation I am speaking of what you seem to be referring to as the instant of the BB. Sorry, our model begins at t+10-43 second.

Strange is correct and I suggest you calm down a tick. The BB is not a theory of the creation of the universe: It is a theory of the evolution of space and time, (spacetime) from a hotter, denser state beginning at t-10-43 seconds. It was also not an explosion. That first instant up to 10-43 seconds of time, is the quantum/Planck era of which we have no true inkling of what happened and can only speculate. I hope that helps.

GR accommodates DM but as Strange has said, it does not really play a part in the movement of the planets which is described by GR. Although a fudge factor, when first proposed, it is now well supported by the bullet cluster observation and other examples of gravitational lensing by DM as explained here....http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2011/04/20/how-gravitational-lensing-show/ here's another....https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3263800/ As mentioned the other day in a thread, the incredible success of GR and the validation of its predictions, always meant that it could not be thrown out due to the apparent anomalous rotations of galaxies, despite what some people with non scientific agendas would like us to believe. GR of course does have limitations and parameters outside of which it doesn't work: That's why the professionals are searching for a validated QGT. People, expert professionals are testing to the ultimate, the validity of GR every day, checking out its predictions, making further observations etc. Just last month the fourth gravitational wave was recorded on three instruments in two different continents. It's track record speaks for itself, and even when the long sort after QGT is found and validated, it will not invalidate GR...just as GR did not invalidate Newtonian: Each new model extends the zones of applicability of the former. We could use GR instead of Newtonian for our every day living and it will give the same results but with far better accuracy which is simply not needed and a waste of time and brain power in working through the maths.

https://phys.org/news/2017-09-ligo-virgo-observatories-black-hole.html LIGO and Virgo observatories detect gravitational wave signals from black hole collision: In August, detectors on two continents recorded gravitational wave signals from a pair of black holes colliding. This discovery, announced today, is the first observation of gravitational waves by three different detectors, marking a new era of greater insights and improved localization of cosmic events now available through globally networked gravitational-wave observatories.The collision was observed Aug. 14 at 10:30:43 a.m. Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) using the two National Science Foundation (NSF)-funded Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO) detectors located in Livingston, Louisiana, and Hanford, Washington, and the Virgo detector, funded by CNRS and INFN and located near Pisa, Italy.Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2017-09-ligo-virgo-observatories-black-hole.html#jCp ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/ Gravitational waves from a binary black hole merger observed by LIGO and Virgo News Release • September 27, 2017 The LIGO Scientific Collaboration and the Virgo collaboration report the first joint detection of gravitational waves with both the LIGO and Virgo detectors. This is the fourth announced detection of a binary black hole system and the first significant gravitational-wave signal recorded by the Virgo detector, and highlights the scientific potential of a three-detector network of gravitational-wave detectors. The three-detector observation was made on August 14, 2017 at 10:30:43 UTC. The two Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO) detectors, located in Livingston, Louisiana, and Hanford, Washington, and funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF), and the Virgo detector, located near Pisa, Italy, detected a transient gravitational-wave signal produced by the coalescence of two stellar mass black holes. A paper about the event, known as GW170814, has been accepted for publication in the journal Physical Review Letters. It appears I'm a bit slow. Strange has already posted on this. Could a friendly mod perhaps merge both threads?

Mordred imo has taken a softly softly approach with you, as all did in the beginning of your claims and confessions of those claims being based on an agenda. Mordred has actually echoed the claims most of us have made, but in probably nicer terms then maybe I have or anyone else..... I believe as with most with a religious obsession, that you are blinkered to the marvels, and predictive power of GR and dismiss it entirely for the reasons I stated very early on in the thread...that is that the power, logic, explanatory expertise, and predictability of science, has driven other long held mythical beliefs into near oblivion. That obviously may grate on you and prevent you in seeing the gentleman that I truly am. But we all have our styles, and I'm equally impressed with Mordred's, but obviously I'm no Mordred, either in my style or knowledge. I have highlighted the probable only fact in your ramble, and obviously as many of your posts seem to reflect this with mentions of creations etc, certainly imo supports your blinkered attitude and the agenda behind it. In essence, it appears to me that your are trying to upturn every pebble of scientific knowledge, and pretend its at fault, for the fact that cosmology as a science has led the way into banishing the many previous mythical beliefs that you seem to fervently uphold.

I would really be more concerned in obtaining any empirical evidence, and/or mathematical support for any of your mythical ideas/explanations to satisfy this mission/lust you seem to have and have admitted to.

Wrong: GR has limitations, and that is why scientists are trying to formulate a validated QGT. But it does most certainly work a treat within its zones of applicability. And of course as usual you seem to have ignored the evidence for DM...Here is one aspect of that.....http://chandra.harvard.edu/press/06_releases/press_082106.html And until you do, you have only a concept just as valid as any other concept including a magical spaghetti monster. Speaking personally, all I need is an empirically based model that matches my observations and makes validated predictions. eg: GR and spacetime curvature in the presence of mass. As you have openly admitted, you do have a mythical agenda that appears to be blinkering you from this reality you pretend to seek.

Funny, I was about to say the same thing.

Yes, he developed a new theory by observing what existing thought/theory could not explain properly. He developed work done by previous notable scientists, made some assumptions that would alleviate the problems with the existing theory/thought, and that aligned accurately with what the maths told him. I'm not sure if that is discarding the scientific methodology. What I have said is that the framework of the scientific method, (logic) is what is set in stone, noting that this "logic" is governed by what we observe and our explanation for it. Scientific theory is always being tested, including GR, isn't that the name of the game? Agreed, but does this discard the scientific method as understood being the foundation of science? Again, agreed, but I don't see that as a negative: Scientists know that sometimes patience is necessary: Einstein had to wait 3 years for confirmation of GR and gravitational lensing. And then probably after further finds, much more thought, some other observations, a consensus is formed: Some may disagree, just as some are still disputing the GWS discovery as further validating GR: I don't really see that as discarding the scientific method. My point is simply that the scientific method is the foundation stone of science...without it we open the door to pseudoscientific claims, myth and other woo. Whether one begins with an hypothesis, or an observation does not imo invalidate the foundation or conceptual framework. I havn't as yet read the full article, but this continued philosophical discussion on the scientific methodology is interesting to say the least. Let's look at the scientific method again. I see it as an application of common sense and logic based on what we observe. If we decide to hypothesise first, and experiment or observation shows we are wrong, we take another tack. That is logic. What I'm trying to say is that imo the scientific methodology is the application of this logic and that we, all of us use it everyday, and used it even before it was labelled the scientific method. Let me give an example I was personally involved in: Many years ago while driving home from work after an afternoon shift, [1500hrs to 2300hrs] I saw what is loosely described as a UFO...it was a small blue disk, that was moving on the horizon for around 20 seconds and the size of the apparent diameter of the overhead full Moon. It then disappeared. I went home, turned on the TV, but there was no reported sighting. I showered and went to bed...Woke the next morning and checked the TV again and the local paper...no reports, no nothing, zilch, nada. I came to the possible conclusions that (1) I was hallucinating, (2) It was something else but it did not look like a plane or helicopter, (3) It was a UFO....with the emphasis on the "Ü" for unidentified. I did not jump to the conclusion that I was being buzzed by some Aliens even though I doubt very strongly that we are alone in this universe. I see that as using proper deductive reasoning or the scientific methodology, and dismissing the crank pseudoscientific, jumping to an emotional conclusion. I hope that indicates where I am coming from.

It may seem a pedantic pickup or correction, but I did make the same mistake myself many years ago and was "reprimanded"by a professional astronomer. That's not correct...space and time are actually non absolute or variant and there is absolutely no universal "NOW" GR describes the geometry of spacetime and the effect that mass has on that geometry.

The scientists that follow the scientific method, obviously do know those limitations as I have discussed previously. As the foundation stone to the workings of science, the reality is that it is simply what one logically applies from the observational and experimental data, and the follow up research of one's peers. In more detail ...... https://www.google.com.au/imgres?imgurl=https://www.sciencebuddies.org/Files/5084/7/2013-updated_scientific-method-steps_v6_noheader.png&imgrefurl=https://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/science-fair/steps-of-the-scientific-method&h=496&w=415&tbnid=EeJkq_6OZAXuwM:&tbnh=160&tbnw=133&usg=__B_nVLp3Ok9pRvZaXq0hTVDzsaeo=&vet=10ahUKEwjv6KKCxcLWAhVDn5QKHWoOAd0Q9QEILDAA..i&docid=AA2g1H3Ak7hPoM&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjv6KKCxcLWAhVDn5QKHWoOAd0Q9QEILDAA

Spacetime was expanding, plus inflation. Is this what you are after? And it's 13.83 billion years, not light years.

That's nice. Whatever you see in another frame is real though...all frames of references are valid. Time and space are both flexible..there is no universal now. E=Mc2 ... Energy equals mass times the speed of light. C is the symbol for Carbon. c for celeritas latin for speed and symbol for light..

Hmmm are you sure? let's look at what a scientists, any scientists does....makes an observation, or observes an experiment.....formulate a hypothesis as to the why...collect all the data and consider what can be predictive from that hypothetical....if predictions successful, publish for proper peer review and consideration. This is what most scientists do and is considered compulsory. I don't agree. Scientism is simply a made up word, probably by an annoyed philosopher. Science and the scientific method I believe do know their limitations