Before Big Bang
What was there before the bigbang?
On the outside of a black hole .... dark matter !!
Big bang theory re-invented and rewritten
Big Bang is bold and baseless
Bold - we have the bravado to claim we understand the universe well enough to describe how it was created.
Baseless - there are far too many unknowns for the theory to be even a rough guess.
There is no valid basis for most assumptions.
1. It is impossible to know when it happened.
Cosmologists assume an incorrect conclusion that the universe is expanding. Hubble's Law is a mistake treating absorption lines as actual velocities, so there is now way to know the start time. The start time is always a guess.
1. It is impossible to know the initial conditions.
Cosmologists talk of starting with a singularity but it is impossible to know anything about what existed at the start time.
To even begin developing a scenario we must know what is present at the beginning.
Any mass at the start could have a temperature > 0K.
The amount of energy at the start is important, present with the amount of mass.
There is no basis for determining the amount of mass and energy at the start.
Those are required to define how the start must change to become the end.
2. It is impossible to know the final conditions.
Our technology limits the extent of our observable universe.
Approximately 10% of the sky remains difficult to survey as extragalactic objects can be confused with stars in the Milky Way.
Even the number of stars in the Milky Way is uncertain with a range 200-400 billion.
As our technology improves we should expect to observe more objects that are too dim right now.
The big bang must define how those initial conditions become the final conditions - which are unknown. Therefore the big bang has no valid end goal.
3. How the universe works now is not fully understood.
Cosmologists still cannot explain our universe when dark matter and dark energy are still around as place holders until a real explanation is found.
It is impossible for the big bang to create the correct amount of these unknown entities, if they truly exist.
4. It is impossible to know any intermediate conditions.
5. The theory needs a span of time from start to end. We cannot verify all intermediate steps that happened.
For example our universe has a number of intergalactic structures that span billions of light years. It is impossible to know how many years were required for them to form when we don't even know if they formed in place or whether all the pieces moved into their positions along unknown paths.
One current assumption for the big bang sequence involves antimatter.
In our current universe there is no antimatter; only infrequent antiparticles which exist briefly before they are destroyed by normal particles.
Cosmologists propose the big bang sequence has a step to create both matter and antimatter but the matter wins and the antimatter disappears. This step is illogical to propose in one step something is created and disappears. To claim this intermediate step actually happened with no observation, the CMB is claimed to be evidence of that annihilation of antimatter, a transient event with no basis for a proposed time in the sequence. However attempts to detect the CMB are debatable due to incorrect instruments and analysis, or it’s not there. This is the only step with a debatable observation.
There is no evidence for any intermediate steps; they are just conjecture.
6. When cosmologists don't know what's in our universe and don't understand how our universe works now and so they cannot predict how to get to only the current observable universe.
The big bang theory is bold and baseless - and is just conjecture.
This comment was posted:
I think a bit of humility might be in order here. We have our Standard Model, which works well under some circumstances, but which fails in others.
Among many other issues, we have that of Dark Matter and Dark Energy, neither of which do we understand. Together these make up about 95+% of the Universe. What we know about is somewhat under 5%. I don't think there's much justification to extrapolate from what we know, to describe the 95% we don't know about.
We have our Quantum Theory, which makes the most precise of predictions that turn out to be accurate to many decimal places - up to 8 or 9, maybe even more.
first for the easy one Dark Matter: A spiral galaxy rotates by the magnetic field's tangential force. Studies have shown when using the galactic magnetic field like in M31 the rotation curve matches. The model assumes stars rotate like planets in our solar system - that is wrong. The excuse for the mismatch is dark matter.
That is a failure at looking for the real cause of an observation.
Doesn't work, at least for now. Sorry. It may well turn out that we find a reasonable explanation that supports our Standard Model; but at the moment, we have no such explanation.
Dark energy: In the 1920s the galaxy red shifts were found to be proportional to distance. The hydrogen atoms in the intergalactic medium result in an accumulating absorption line red shift. This observation meant the red shift was a rough distance scale. It failed with the magellanic clouds which have large red shifts due to their hydrogen gas clouds.
Someone made the big mistake of treating this red shift from distance as a velocity. This results in the observation as we observe more distant galaxies they are all zooming away according to their distance. It is impossible to describe a force that varies by the distance from Earth. With this explainable observation cosmologists say it is dark energy, something undefinable.
Hit back to go to previous page in history.
Here is the list of topics in this Cosmology Topic Group .
Ctrl + for zoom in; Ctrl - for zoom out ; Ctrl 0 for no zoom;
triple-tap for zoom to fit; pinch for zoom change; pinched for no zoom