Hijack from An Accountants theory of the universe and spirituality

[Brokenhearted]

Infinite universe? Show me stars older than the age of the Big Bang universe ... there should be many.

[Strange]

29 minutes ago, Brokenhearted said:

Show me stars older than the age of the Big Bang universe ... there should be many.

How can there be stars older than the Big Bang ? That makes no sense. 

[Brokenhearted]

4 hours ago, Strange said:

1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

It wasn't considered because it doesn't make any sense to anyone who has studied BBT. The theory begins with the universe in an extremely hot, dense state, and follows the expansion and cooling thereafter. There were no stars in the early universe. It's like asking why there's no cake available before it's been baked.

Mmmm, cake.

 

Why would there be?

 

I suspect you are both missing the point entirely & reading what you want to read, following from that schoolboy error,  the classical mixup between asking and telling (l was asking, not telling). but Strange at least is making amends by seeking clarification.

So, l'll explain: As l asked the OP (so l was speaking with regard to his theory, not BBT):

"Infinite universe? Show me stars older than the age of the Big Bang universe ... there should be many. "

Obviously in BBT there will not be stars older than BBT universe (who actually would think l'm expecting this? Oh, l know, both of you.).

 

In case you missed it (which you shouldn't have done seeing as you've replied copiously to the OP), OP said: "... the universe (the space) is and has always been infinite"

Therefore l ask: why are there no stars older than the age of the Big Bang universe, if the universe were infinite, and if it had always existed ("always been")?

 

Sorry for sounding like l take umbrage lightly. I don't.

It is impossible for two people in a row to mistake my question for a statement, and to think the evidence in support of BBT is actually my evidence to attack BBT, when the evidence itself speaks for itself - that there are no stars known to be older than the BBT universe. It is impossible to make this comprehension error. It is not possible.

 

 

[Strange]

4 minutes ago, Brokenhearted said:

In case you missed it (which you shouldn't have done seeing as you've replied copiously to the OP), OP said: "... the universe (the space) is and has always been infinite"

Therefore l ask: why are there no stars older than the age of the Big Bang universe, if the universe were infinite, and if it had always existed ("always been")?

The universe being infinite, and even infinitely old, can be entirely consistent with the Big Bang model. So I still don’t understand the question. 

5 minutes ago, Brokenhearted said:

It is impossible to make this comprehension error. It is not possible.

And yet it happened. 

[Brokenhearted]

11 hours ago, Layers said:

As regards infinity of the space always without a beginning or end, I think I will present some scientific proof too. Thanks 

 

If you ignore questions that seriously undermine your theory, you are merely blogging / monologuing. You are making repeated assertions without integrating feedback (maybe replying to the choicest objections that you can dodge, but definitely ignoring this serious objection of mine)

 

 

EDIT: And now a moderator (guess who? Phi) has blocked me from replying to anything on this forum. That attitude will leave you forever under the trowel of team leaders, line managers, middle management, etc. You take knowledge (objective) too personally (subjective). You are built not to understand, but to learn by rote. Better to just accept when you  are wrong, maybe even apologise? Arrogance has no place in science, in fact Einstein said that arrogance is the inverse of wisdom.

 

And Strange? This is where we break off communication anyways. You do not understand BBT yet you are pushing your viewpoint beyond its natural death. I'm frightened of zombiies . Turaloo!

Edited August 27, 2018 by Brokenhearted

[Strange]

1 hour ago, Brokenhearted said:

And now a moderator (guess who? Phi) has blocked me from replying to anything on this forum.

And yet, here you are replying.

I believe there is a 5 post per day limit for new members (an anti-spam measure). Not sure how long it lasts, but you should be able to post again tomorrow.

1 hour ago, Brokenhearted said:

And Strange? This is where we break off communication anyways. You do not understand BBT yet you are pushing your viewpoint beyond its natural death.

Please feel free to explain exactly where I have gone wrong, rather than making vague claims like this.

Here is an article (by an actual astrophysicist) explaining how the universe can be infinite spatially: https://phys.org/news/2015-03-universe-finite-infinite.html

And here is a paper describing the possibility of an infinitely old universe: https://arxiv.org/abs/1404.3093

And, there are other models for an infinitely old universe such as: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conformal_cyclic_cosmology

 

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, Brokenhearted said:

It is impossible for two people in a row to mistake my question for a statement, and to think the evidence in support of BBT is actually my evidence to attack BBT, when the evidence itself speaks for itself - that there are no stars known to be older than the BBT universe. It is impossible to make this comprehension error. It is not possible.

Perhaps it's a language problem. For instance, you're using the word "impossible" incorrectly in the above statements.

1 hour ago, Brokenhearted said:

EDIT: And now a moderator (guess who? Phi) has blocked me from replying to anything on this forum. That attitude will leave you forever under the trowel of team leaders, line managers, middle management, etc. You take knowledge (objective) too personally (subjective). You are built not to understand, but to learn by rote. Better to just accept when you  are wrong, maybe even apologise? Arrogance has no place in science, in fact Einstein said that arrogance is the inverse of wisdom.

Please calm down. New members only get 5 posts on their first day, to prevent spammers. Come back tomorrow, by all means. And in the future, no moderator makes heavy judgement calls about a thread they're involved in. We have multiple moderators. We like to discuss science too, and are all volunteers, and we try to be as fair as possible. See you tomorrow.

[studiot]

1 hour ago, Brokenhearted said:

It is impossible for two people in a row to mistake my question for a statement, and to think the evidence in support of BBT is actually my evidence to attack BBT, when the evidence itself speaks for itself - that there are no stars known to be older than the BBT universe. It is impossible to make this comprehension error. It is not possible.

So someone misunderstood you.

I didn't and was considering a +1 for a perceptive opening comment, which you now have.

Go back to what Phiforall said - he is a very likeable chap - and just read the mmm cake part.

While you are eating it, consider if perhaps you also over reacted a tad.

 

So I look forward to more poignant comments/questions in the future from yourself.

 

 

[Brokenhearted]

Hi there Phi & studiot - thanks for your kind words, and my sincere apologies for being so unscientific in my response.

Talk about foot in mouth!

 

 

As for the board member peppering the thread with links to support his view of an infinite universe's compatibility with BBT,  a quick perousal of the trashcan subforum suggests that what l call "Link splurging" / "Book stacking" (where people reference links and books as the core of their argument, or even just as a significant part, when really the Bibliography section should be a minor detail right at the end of a trenchant argument - not the argument itself) is rightly not allowed.

 

There should be stars older than the BBT age of the universe, if the universe is infinitely old (unless we have star theory wrong - which is possible, but then where are all the white dwarf stars, if stars actually have a shorter shelf life?). Yes l know there didn't have to be stars, and yes l know the universe could be elastic. What l don't know is why these things are being mentioned?

 

Once again: there should be stars older than the BBT age of the universe if the universe is infinite. An infinite universe would mean an infinitely old universe by the way, unless there were some mechanism for an infinite universe just popping up ex nihilo - which would be beyond magic, by definition it would be beyond even magic, any magic you could think of would be a mere subset of { infinity popping up ex nihilo }.

 

A finitely-old universe that is spatially infinite would mean expansion at greater than infinity, at least for an itsy while. Which is logically impossible - absurd.

 

And remember: space is expanding. It has been observed - not infallibly of course. But you have to counter that in your objections. Please don't linksplurge, bookstack, or tell me random stuff disconnected from the post of mine you're replying to.   {I'm talking to the linksplurger / bookstacker when l say this}

 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 28, 2018 by Brokenhearted

[Brokenhearted]

As l said in my edited post just above:

An infinite BBT universe is impossible.

That is, spatially infinite, or temporally infinite. Unless an infinite universe appeared right away, ex nihilo (also consider we are observing expansion, not an infinite universe that just appeared complete as-is, instantly), then we have only this option for an infinite universe in BBT: today an infinite universe (infinitely large), whereas at t=00 there was nothing. Between now and then, expansion must have exceeded infinite speed and infinite anything-else. Logically absurd.

Infinite iterations of an oscillating BB universe do not make each iteration infinite in any way, let alone temporally (you really don't get the essential thing about BBT if you think that).

 

 

The only viable option for an infinite universe is an infinitely old universe with no big bang, a universe that always was.

In that universe, there should be stars older than the BB universe. There aren't, so that is a major nod to BBT, and a giant frown at OP. Dishonest of the OP to ignore this objection and instead chase arguments he can derail by "I'll do this soon, watch" type remarks.

 

 

 

Edited August 28, 2018 by Brokenhearted

[beecee]

59 minutes ago, Brokenhearted said:

Once again: there should be stars older than the BBT age of the universe if the universe is infinite. An infinite universe would mean an infinitely old universe by the way, unless there were some mechanism for an infinite universe just popping up ex nihilo - which would be beyond magic, by definition it would be beyond even magic, any magic you could think of would be a mere subset of { infinity popping up ex nihilo }.

 

A finitely-old universe that is spatially infinite would mean expansion at greater than infinity, at least for an itsy while. Which is logically impossible - absurd.

A few points in regard to some of the misconceptions on your part. Firstly we do not yet have any evidence supporting the infinite or finite nature of the universe. Secondly the BB is a theory of the evolution of space and time [as we know them] from a hot dense state at t+10-43 seconds. Thirdly the BB only applies to the observable universe. http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html

"The Universe was not concentrated into a point at the time of the Big Bang. But the observable Universe was concentrated into a point. The distinction between the whole Universe and the part of it that we can see is important. In the figure below, two views of the Universe are shown: on the left for 1 Gyr after the Big Bang, and on the right the current Universe 13 Gyr after the Big Bang (assuming that the Hubble constant is H_o = 50 km/sec/Mpc and the Universe has the critical density.) 

The size of the box in each view is 78 billion light years. The green circle on the the right is the part of the Universe that we can currently see. In the view on the left, this same part of the Universe is shown by the green circle, but now the green circle is a tiny fraction of the 78 billion light year box, and the box is an infinitesimal fraction of the whole Universe. If we go to smaller and smaller times since the Big Bang, the green circle shrinks to a point, but the 78 billion light year box is always full, and it is always an infinitesimal fraction of the infinite Universe.

Note that the black dots represent galaxies, and the galaxies do not expand even though the separation between galaxies grows with time".

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

So again, we really have no evidence which tells us whether the universe is finite or infinite, only that it is very very big, or as I like saying, near infinite in content and extent.

With your remark re " An infinite universe would mean an infinitely old universe by the way, unless there were some mechanism for an infinite universe just popping up ex nihilo - which would be beyond magic, by definition it would be beyond even magic, any magic you could think of would be a mere subset of { infinity popping up ex nihilo }."

Perhaps one need first to define nothing. Secondly a universe/space/time popping out of nothing is not really magic or absurd and in fact can be reasonably explained this way and supported by vacuum energy.....

https://www.astrosociety.org/publication/a-universe-from-nothing/

Yes some speculation needed but if we think it through, far more logical then some more supernatural reasonings.

[Brokenhearted]

7 minutes ago, beecee said:

A few points in regard to some of the misconceptions on your part. Firstly we do not yet have any evidence supporting the infinite or finite nature of the universe. Secondly the BB is a theory of the evolution of space and time [as we know them] from a hot dense state at t+10-43 seconds. Thirdly the BB only applies to the observable universe. http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html

"The Universe was not concentrated into a point at the time of the Big Bang. But the observable Universe was concentrated into a point. The distinction between the whole Universe and the part of it that we can see is important. In the figure below, two views of the Universe are shown: on the left for 1 Gyr after the Big Bang, and on the right the current Universe 13 Gyr after the Big Bang (assuming that the Hubble constant is H_o = 50 km/sec/Mpc and the Universe has the critical density.) 

The size of the box in each view is 78 billion light years. The green circle on the the right is the part of the Universe that we can currently see. In the view on the left, this same part of the Universe is shown by the green circle, but now the green circle is a tiny fraction of the 78 billion light year box, and the box is an infinitesimal fraction of the whole Universe. If we go to smaller and smaller times since the Big Bang, the green circle shrinks to a point, but the 78 billion light year box is always full, and it is always an infinitesimal fraction of the infinite Universe.

Note that the black dots represent galaxies, and the galaxies do not expand even though the separation between galaxies grows with time".

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

So again, we really have no evidence which tells us whether the universe is finite or infinite, only that it is very very big, or as I like saying, near infinite in content and extent.

With your remark re " An infinite universe would mean an infinitely old universe by the way, unless there were some mechanism for an infinite universe just popping up ex nihilo - which would be beyond magic, by definition it would be beyond even magic, any magic you could think of would be a mere subset of { infinity popping up ex nihilo }."

Perhaps one need first to define nothing. Secondly a universe/space/time popping out of nothing is not really magic or absurd and in fact can be reasonably explained this way and supported by vacuum energy.....

https://www.astrosociety.org/publication/a-universe-from-nothing/

Yes some speculation needed but if we think it through, far more logical then some more supernatural reasonings.

 

Hi there,

 

Thanks for taking the time to write this reasoned response, l really do appreciate it, and l take no umbrage at being corrected.

Now, as for what the UCLA article is describing, let me state that the Big Bang theory can go back to primordial singularity, not just the specific time post-singularity you have offered.

As far as l am aware, and as you yourself seem to be confirming, the universe is everything that the universe interacts with. So, the Big Bang theory does indeed trace the universe back to a point.

As for the dimensions of a singularity, l believe its spatial dimensions to be zero. Fair point that it also has infinite gravity, so it is a thing, not nothing. However, l feel that the implication of quantum fluctations leading to primordial singularity = that fluctuations arose ex nihilo, otherwise they wouldn't be purely random, and so they would be qualified with some word, not just "quantum fluctuations". Therefore l believe if the singularity itself isn't nothingness, then what gave birth to it is, and l can therefore be justified in arguing that as the starting point of the BBT.

 

As for evidence that the universe is finite vs. infinite, it is impossible for it to be infinite in the BBT as l conceive of the BBT, (you are free to undermine my concept of it in your reply, in fact l think it'd be necessary to do so) - evidence or no, but can you counterargue what l wrote on how it has to be finite not infinite?

 

Also, l never said a universe popping out of nothing is magic, although actually l do see it as that. I said: an infinite universe popping up out of nothing is greater than magic. That is not the same as magic, in fact, it is greater than magic could ever be. That is because all forms fit within infinity. For infinity to appear in an instant out of nothing, would be greater than magic because all permutations of magic would be contained therein, so it's the Hat Trick of all  hat tricks. Like l said, l specifically said this in reference to an infinite universe appearing ex nihilo / out of nothing.

 

 

 

 

By the way, please could you explain vacuum energy in your own words. The bibliography (in this case, the link) comes after the argument. It is not the argument itself.

[Strange]

1 hour ago, Brokenhearted said:

As l said in my edited post just above:

An infinite BBT universe is impossible.

I gave you links to a couple of articles by scientists about how an infinite universe is possible. 

Call me crazy, but I would rather trust experts in the field over some random guy on the Internet.

Just to be clear; if the universe is infinite in extent then it has always been infinite in extent. (And if it is finite, then it has always been finite.)

1 hour ago, Brokenhearted said:

Infinite iterations of an oscillating BB universe do not make each iteration infinite in any way, let alone temporally (you really don't get the essential thing about BBT if you think that).

What do you think the "essential thing" about the Big Bang model is?

I'll show you mine first: the essential feature is that the universe is expanding and cooling from an earlier hot dense state.

Your turn ... [OK, your later post seems to explain your misunderstandings]

31 minutes ago, Brokenhearted said:

Now, as for what the UCLA article is describing, let me state that the Big Bang theory can go back to primordial singularity, not just the specific time post-singularity you have offered.

Except it can't go back to a primordial singularity. We have no physical theories that work easier than about 10^-43 seconds. The conditions were too extreme and we probably need a theory of quantum gravity to explain what happens under those conditions.

31 minutes ago, Brokenhearted said:

Also, l never said a universe popping out of nothing is magic, although actually l do see it as that. I said: an infinite universe popping up out of nothing is greater than magic. That is not the same as magic, in fact, it is greater than magic could ever be.

It seems equally implausible for something of finite or infinite size to appear from nothing.

31 minutes ago, Brokenhearted said:

Like l said, l specifically said this in reference to an infinite universe appearing ex nihilo / out of nothing.

And that is not part of the Big Bang model.

Edited August 28, 2018 by Strange

[Brokenhearted]

28 minutes ago, beecee said:

I see this as describing the mathematical sigularity, which at this stage most cosmologists do not accept exists in reality. Rather they see the quantum/Planck level where our theories and laws do not apply as being more realistic as far as BB and BH singularities go.

 

Which is what I meant by defining what "nothing truly is". Perhaaaaps the quantum foam is as close to nothing that in reality exists and that nothing is eternal and infinte.

All I can do is refer you back to the link I gave and the fact that the BB applies to the observable universe. Here's another answer......https://www.quora.com/How-can-the-universe-be-infinite-if-it-began-with-the-big-bang                                                                                

"This is going to come as a shock to you, but the physics community does not believe in the Big Bang and it does not believe that there was a ”singularity”.

The term Big Bang is misleading, and was in fact invented by the British astronomer Fred Hoyle to mock the idea of the universe exploding from a “singularity” (he believed in a steady state universe, which exists forever, more or less unchanged).

Our best theories of the early universe say that there was a time when our visible universe was incredibly small, hot and dense. That’s it. You could extrapolate back from that and say “Well, looking at this graph of the size of the universe, it crosses the zero line at this time, therefore it must have come from nothing, or a point of zero size, which we call a singularity.”, but you would be mistaken in doing so. Lots of people have made this mistake, and the name also helps to create the commonly held misconception that there was a big explosion where previously there was nothing.

I could do the same for your mass, as a foetus: I’d say “Well, looking at this graph, we can see the mass of the foetus crossing the zero line at this time here - therefore, the foetus came from a singularity!”. But, you didn’t come from nothing. There was a single fertilized cell, which we know about, and then before that, something happened, but we don’t know exactly what. (And we don’t really want to know, thanks, that’s between your mom and dad).

The current leading theory states that the universe expanded incredibly rapidly in a very very short space of time, due to a process called cosmic inflation. This theory made some predictions which have since been borne out, eg by some features of the cosmic background radiation, and so it’s a strong, widely accepted theory. That begs the question “Well, what inflated?”, and that is a good question. We’re not quite sure. But, it seems that there was something there before, that dumped a great deal of energy (for some reason), and that triggered a short runaway expansion of a small part of space into the much much larger part of space which made up the very early universe. Then, the inflation chain reaction stopped, and the universe continued to expand just due to the fact that it was incredibly hot and dense, and that’s what hot and dense things do if they’re not contained.

Personally, i think we could cure a lot of public misunderstanding if we ditched the phrase “The Big Bang” and replaced it with “The Big Stretch”.

Regarding infinity - you're right: if it is infinite now it must have been infinite then too: you can't transition from finite to infinite. All we know about is our finite part of the Big Kahuna. We don't know if the Big Kahuna is infinite. It might be."

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

The underlined part at the end, supports the premise of the first article I believe.

 

 

 

 

 

Thank you for elaborating on your figure being based on Planck dimensions. That is a tradesman's definition, much like a carpenter saying that wood comes from the logging industry, when actually, wood had its origin in the BB (ok not much of an analogy then, it leads to the same actual subject).

 

That small furball is not an answer to the origin of the universe, the universe being everything. The BBT was conceived as a theory of the origin of the universe. It is therefore not in keeping with the theory to just leave it at a furball, because it still leaves a period of infinite spatial expansion before that. Therefore it is actually no answer. If nothingness is not to your liking, then consider what surrounds the furball ...so you see either way, you have to confront this thing, if you are committed to BBT.

 

I have explained what l feel the BBT should rightly cover. Unrefuted as that logic is, let me as an asides, let me drop you a link that supports what l'm saying, that BBT should go back, way back:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Singularity

"This primordial singularity is itself sometimes called "the Big Bang",[20] but the term can also refer to a more generic early hot, dense phase[21][notes 1] of the universe."

 

It can go back to primordial singularity, but the tradesmen like to stop at the limit of their trade: the Planck level furball. Which is no singularity, it is infinitely larger than a singularity.

 

As for your - and what you say is also mainstream physicists' view - that the BBT doesn't even go beyond Planck Furball - l would say this is classic goalpost moving. Whatever you call it, it is an indellible, essential part of the mystery, without it, infinite things are left unexplained.

 

You refer me back to the UCLA article, but the article as you presented it talks about observable universe, and rest of universe, and thus confirms that it is all universe, as it should be, because universe = everything that universe interacts with.

 

Here is another quote:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

"The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model for the universe[1] from the earliest known periods through its subsequent large-scale evolution.[2][3][4] The model describes how the universe expanded from a very high-density and high-temperature state"

 

So, the Big Bang theory relates to the universe, and you yourself admit that universe is universe. So therefore the Big Bang theory relates to universe, observable or not.

 

In any case, if you must move the goalposts (no matter how many physicists are with you), it then remains that there remains to be a theory of how the entire universe started, going right back to the first thing.

If you now say l am not allowed to call it the Big Bang Theory, because the Big Bang Theory is arbitarily now:

- Not about the whole universe

- Nothing before infinitely large (compared to zero) Planck furball

 

... I would say that's dodging the issue, issue being redefined as the Bang Big Theory (BBT). So please, out of interest, could you comment on that theory? Maybe also explain why Wikipedia defines Big Bang Theory (the sister theory of the Bang Big Theory that emerged around the Hair Splitting Goal Shifting Epoch) as the entire universe, and either going back to singularity or planck furball, stress on singularity (which you excommunicated because you dislike zero, even though furball is surrounded by zero any which way)

 

Edited August 28, 2018 by Brokenhearted

[beecee]

1 hour ago, Brokenhearted said:

Thank you for elaborating on your figure being based on Planck dimensions. That is a tradesman's definition, much like a carpenter saying that wood comes from the logging industry, when actually, wood had its origin in the BB (ok not much of an analogy then, it leads to the same actual subject).

It's the definition most cosmologists do use. Again, most do not accept the mathematical point singularity, rather the Singularity where our laws and GR break down at t+10-43 seconds.

Quote

That small furball is not an answer to the origin of the universe, the universe being everything. The BBT was conceived as a theory of the origin of the universe. It is therefore not in keeping with the theory to just leave it at a furball, because it still leaves a period of infinite spatial expansion before that. Therefore it is actually no answer. If nothingness is not to your liking, then consider what surrounds the furball ...so you see either way, you have to confront this thing, if you are committed to BBT.

The BB as described in one of my links was a point of derision by the Steady State proponent Freddy Hoyle, which along with the Oscillating hypothesis were invalidated with the discovery of the CMBR. The BB was never a theory on the origin: It was a theory of how the observed space/time/universe, [as we know them]  evolved from a hotter, denser state at t+10-43 seconds.

 

Quote

 

I have explained what l feel the BBT should rightly cover. Unrefuted as that logic is, let me as an asides, let me drop you a link that supports what l'm saying, that BBT should go back, way back:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Singularity

"This primordial singularity is itself sometimes called "the Big Bang",[20] but the term can also refer to a more generic early hot, dense phase[21][notes 1] of the universe."

 

Your quoted part simply gives both the mathematical point singularity  and the accepted singularity where GR and our laws fail to describe...that is the quantum/Planck level, where it is presumed a surface of sorts exist [with regards to the BB and BHs] They prefer this simply because it does away with the infinities. Makes perfect sense to me.

Quote

It can go back to primordial singularity, but the tradesmen like to stop at the limit of their trade: the Planck level furball. Which is no singularity, it is infinitely larger than a singularity.

It is also a singularity as defined where our laws and GR break down. that is the quantum/Planck level.

Quote

As for your - and what you say is also mainstream physicists' view - that the BBT doesn't even go beyond Planck Furball - l would say this is classic goalpost moving. Whatever you call it, it is an indellible, essential part of the mystery, without it, infinite things are left unexplained.

No actual fact. GR and subsequently the BB does not apply at the quantum/Planck level, or t+10-43 seconds. This is why the holy grail of physics will be the formulation of a validated QGT.

Quote

 

You refer me back to the UCLA article, but the article as you presented it talks about observable universe, and rest of universe, and thus confirms that it is all universe, as it should be, because universe = everything that universe interacts with.

 

 

 

The BB applies to the observable universe, simple as that. Anything beyond, no matter how extensive is unknown and unknowlable.

Quote

 

Here is another quote:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

"The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model for the universe[1] from the earliest known periods through its subsequent large-scale evolution.[2][3][4] The model describes how the universe expanded from a very high-density and high-temperature state"

 

So, the Big Bang theory relates to the universe, and you yourself admit that universe is universe. So therefore the Big Bang theory relates to universe, observable or not.

 

Again, as per the link I gave, and the quora answer, the BB applies to the observable universe.

Quote

 

In any case, if you must move the goalposts (no matter how many physicists are with you), it then remains that there remains to be a theory of how the entire universe started, going right back to the first thing.

If you now say l am not allowed to call it the Big Bang Theory, because the Big Bang Theory is arbitarily now:

- Not about the whole universe

- Nothing before infinitely large (compared to zero) Planck furball

 

I'm not moving any goal posts, simply stating the accepted general mainstream incumbent thought. That being the BB describes the evolution of space/time/universe from t+10-43 seconds, and that we are unaware of the extent of what was before. We are only aware of the space and time from 10-43 seconds, which is why I said the evolution of spacetime, [as we know them]

..

Quote

. I would say that's dodging the issue, issue being redefined as the Bang Big Theory (BBT). So please, out of interest, could you comment on that theory? Maybe also explain why Wikipedia defines Big Bang Theory (the sister theory of the Bang Big Theory that emerged around the Hair Splitting Goal Shifting Epoch) as the entire universe, and either going back to singularity or planck furball, stress on singularity (which you excommunicated because you dislike zero, even though furball is surrounded by zero any which way)

I prefer that you yourself research some more in depth reputable papers or journals on mainstream cosmology. 

Edited August 28, 2018 by beecee

[Brokenhearted]

30 minutes ago, beecee said:

It's the definition most cosmologists do use. Again, most do not accept the mathematical point singularity, rather the Singularity where our laws and GR break down at t+10-43 seconds.

The BB as described in one of my links was a point of derision by the Steady State proponent Freddy Hoyle, which along with the Oscillating hypothesis were invalidated with the discovery of the CMBR. The BB was never a theory on the origin: It was a theory of how the observed space/time/universe, evolved from a hotter, denser state.

 

Your quoted part simply gives both the mathematical point singularity  and the accepted singularity where GR and our laws fail to describe...that is the quantum/Planck level, where it is presumed a surface of sorts exist [with regards to the BB and BHs] They prefer this simply because it does away with the infinities. Makes perfect sense to me.

It is also a singularity as defined where our laws and GR break down. that is the quantum/Planck level.

No actual fact. GR and subsequently the BB does not apply at the quantum/Planck level, or t+10-43 seconds. This is why the holy grail of physics will be the formulation of a validated QGT.

The BB applies to the observable universe, simple as that. Anything beyond, no matter how extensive is unknown and unknowlable.

Again, as per the link I gave, and the quora answer, the BB applies to the observable universe.

I'm not moving any goal posts, simply stating the accepted general mainstream incumbent thought. That being the BB describes the evolution of space/time/universe from t+10-43 seconds, and that we are unaware of the extent of what was before. We are only aware of the space and time from 10-43 seconds, which is why I said the evolution of spacetime, [as we know them]

..

I prefer that you yourself research some more in depth reputable papers or journals on mainstream cosmology. 

 

Hi there, basically you are curtailing the theory of the origin of the universe at both ends, to wit:

- Furball at small end, prior to which: ask no questions, tell no lies.

- Edge of candle light at the distal end, beyond which: ask no questions, tell no lies.

 

In itself, it is honest, l'll admit, but it omits three things:

(1)- What can be surmised by logic, which is probably the missing physics needed to complete the theory (= logic, l mean - that is the missing know-how)

(2)- This is not a complete theory of the universe, this is a theory of the incompleteness of the universe's knowability to mankind, this is an admission to not knowing. Which is fine, but it's dressed up as a theory of matter-of-fact more-or-less surefire knowing.

(3)- BBT does in some opinions go back to mathematical singularity. I would say it originally did, but to cover up the scariness of nothingness, it was decided to leave it at the aforementioned two arbitrary demarkations. You say that Hoyle was smoking a pipe and he was silly and he looked silly and he was smelly and stuff, but l really don't see what impact this has on the following:

- BBT does in some opinions go back to mathematical singularity.

 

So no, what l originally said still stands, that BBT is either:

OPTION A - Infinite universe appears complete, in an instant, ex nihilo (this by definition will include unicorns, dragons, wizards - hey presto, anything every thing possible, appears all at once, as a fact, it's all real)

OPTION B - Finite universe appears ex nihilo, growing, growing all the while until now, and it's still finite now -

 

These two options are both disgusting, but l don't give myself the luxury of ignoring them & l won't lower myself to gesture at a bookshelf and tell you to go read, no l will stand and deliver. I will not be leather elbow-patch-shamed into dropping these two options - and l hate to say it, but: Wikipedia is with me.

 

l'll admit that either way, the OP is doomed because a finite BBT universe is vindicated by the age of the oldest stars, in opposition to his infinite universe.

 

Goodnight

Edited August 28, 2018 by Brokenhearted

[beecee]

3 minutes ago, Brokenhearted said:

 

Hi there, basically you are curtailing the theory of the origin of the universe at both ends, to wit:

- Furball at small end, prior to which: ask no questions, tell no lies.

- Edge of candle light at the distal end, beyond which: ask no questions, tell no lies.

Actually, basically I'm doing no more then describing the BB as currently accepted in mainstream cosmology.

Quote

 

In itself, it is honest, l'll admit, but it omits three things:

(1)- What can be surmised by logic, which is probably the missing physics needed to complete the theory (= logic, l mean - that is the missing know-how)

(2)- This is not a complete theory of the universe, this is a theory of the incompleteness of the universe's knowability to mankind, this is an admission to not knowing. Which is fine, but it's dressed up as a theory of matter-of-fact more-or-less surefire knowing.

(3)- BBT does in some opinions go back to mathematical singularity. I would say it originally did, but to cover up the scariness of nothingness, it was decided to leave it at the aforementioned two arbitrary demarkations. You say that Hoyle was smoking a pipe and he was silly and he looked silly and he was smelly and stuff, but l really don't see what impact this has on the following:

- BBT does in some opinions go back to mathematical singularity.

 

Correct, it is not a copmlete theory, targeted at the origin of the universe: It is a theory of the evolution of space and time as we know them from t=10-43 seconds....much the same way as the theory of the evolution of life is not about how life first started. We call that Abiogenesis. With the BB we can speculate as per my previous link.

Quote

 

So no, what l originally said still stands, that BBT is either:

- Infinite universe appears complete, in an instant, ex nihilo

- Finite universe appears ex nihilo, growing, growing all the while until now, and it's still finite now -

 

 

We do not know if our universe [the whole universe] is finite or infinite. We do though know that the BB only applies to our observable universe from t=10-43 seconds.

Quote

 

These two options are both disgusting, but l don't give myself the luxury of ignoring them & l won't lower myself to gesture at a bookshelf and tell you to go read, no l will stand and deliver. I will not be leather elbow-patch-shamed into dropping these two options - and l hate to say it, but: Wikipedia is with me.

 

l'll admit that either way, the OP is doomed because a finite BBT universe is vindicated by the age of the oldest stars, in opposition to his infinite universe.

 

Goodnight

 

Nothing wrong in reading, particularly reputable stuff on cosmology. And things are what they are whether it agrees with your previous thoughts or not.

you gave a link previously.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Singularity

from that link you failed to show 

Singularity

See also: Gravitational singularity and Planck epoch

Extrapolation of the expansion of the universe backwards in time using general relativity yields an infinite density and temperature at a finite time in the past.[19] This singularity indicates that general relativity is not an adequate description of the laws of physics in this regime. Models based on general relativity alone can not extrapolate toward the singularity beyond the end of the Planck epoch".

What they are saying in that is that extrapolating the observed expansion backwards we would arrive at your mathematical singularity of infinite density. It then says that GR and all our laws fail at that epoch, the Planck/quantum epoch. This is why cosmologists today prefer to accept that the mathematical singularity and its abhorant infinities does not exist, rather that [with the BB] a region of space and time we are unfamiliar with, or [with the BH] matter/energy in a form that is unknown to us.

Worth also noting that so far no discussion re Inflation, including Eternal Inflation has been discussed...both areas I am not totally knowledgable on.

[Brokenhearted]

2 minutes ago, beecee said:

Actually, basically I'm doing no more then describing the BB as currently accepted in mainstream cosmology.

Correct, it is not a copmlete theory, targeted at the origin of the universe: It is a theory of the evolution of space and time as we know them from t=10-43 seconds....much the same way as the theory of the evolution of life is not about how life first started. We call that Abiogenesis. With the BB we can speculate as per my previous link.

We do not know if our universe [the whole universe] is finite or infinite. We do though know that the BB only applies to our observable universe from t=10-43 seconds.

Nothing wrong in reading, particularly reputable stuff on cosmology. And things are what they are whether it agrees with your previous thoughts or not.

you gave a link previously.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Singularity

from that link you failed to show 

Singularity

See also: Gravitational singularity and Planck epoch

Extrapolation of the expansion of the universe backwards in time using general relativity yields an infinite density and temperature at a finite time in the past.[19] This singularity indicates that general relativity is not an adequate description of the laws of physics in this regime. Models based on general relativity alone can not extrapolate toward the singularity beyond the end of the Planck epoch".

What they are saying in that is that extrapolating the observed expansion backwards we would arrive at your mathematical singularity of infinite density. It then says that GR and all our laws fail at that epoch, the Planck/quantum epoch. This is why cosmologists today prefer to accept that the mathematical singularity and its abhorant infinities does not exist, rather that [with the BB] a region of space and time we are unfamiliar with, or [with the BH] matter/energy in a form that is unknown to us.

Worth also noting that so far no discussion re Inflation, including Eternal Inflation has been discussed...both areas I am not totally knowledgable on.

 

I have already countered all of these things you are saying (and let me, sigh, restate: BBT does go back to math singularity, hence the talk of quantum fluctuations, so you ought to stop pretending you can't comment while presenting that stance of non-comment as science - that is pseudo-science by strict definition - pretending you cannot investigate further when actually you can, others have done, even in the mainstream, plus it's even up on Wikipedia - not an appeal to authority but rather it shows that you are dishonestly saying that we don't go as far back as math singularity, when actually it's so mainstream it's even up on Wikipedia, so you are therefore misrepresenting). I love new ideas, new challenges. Old ones, l've either accepted or dismissed via reasoning. I am leaving because there's nothing new coming out of this debate and what there is, l have dismissed, without logical fallacies.  Goodbye - and thank you for your effort.

[Phi for All]

13 minutes ago, Brokenhearted said:

I am leaving because there's nothing new coming out of this debate and what there is, l have dismissed, without logical fallacies.  Goodbye - and thank you for your effort.

!

Moderator Note

Don't ever do this here again. This is a science discussion forum, and we expect more rigor and intellectual honesty.

Since you're leaving, thread closed.