Big Bang in Trouble

[Watchmen]

Is the Big Bang in crisis?
Stubborn problems with dark matter, dark energy, and cosmic expansion have some astronomers rethinking what we know about the early universe.

"...cosmologists have struggled — if not outright failed — to understand essential facets of the universe. We know almost nothing about dark matter and dark energy, which together make up more than 95 percent of the total energy in existence today. We don’t understand how the universe’s protons, electrons, and neutrons could have survived the aftereffects of the Big Bang. In fact, everything we know about the laws of physics tells us that these particles should have been destroyed by antimatter long ago. And in order to make sense of the universe as we observe it, cosmologists have been forced to conclude that space, during its earliest moments, must have undergone a brief and spectacular period of hyperfast expansion — an event known as cosmic inflation. Yet we know next to nothing about this key era of cosmic history."

.."scientists generally assume that space expanded steadily during the first fraction of a second, without any unexpected events or transitions. It is entirely plausible that this simply was not the case."

"they know relatively little about the first seconds that followed the Big Bang — and next to nothing about the first trillionth of a second. When it comes to how our universe may have evolved, or to the events that may have taken place during these earliest moments, we have essentially no direct observations on which to rely."

Is the Big Bang in crisis?

Creation is a better explanation.

Science is a better creator and god then God will ever be.

 

[gnostic]

I have an (apparently rare) ability to ignore fables in science articles. I tend to focus on facts and what is known.

That was absolutely hilarious!

From everyone whom come across your posts, know quite well from experiences, that you utterly incapable to distinguish facts from your deluded fantasies.

Your knowledge in science is nonexistent...but your (misplaced) ego is the size of Empire State Building.

 

[sun rise]

I have an (apparently rare) ability to ignore fables in science articles. I tend to focus on facts and what is known. In this article, it shows that a heavy emphasis on the basis of the BB theory rests of the imaginary first fraction of a second. The mentions of the theory in the article other than that, really are story recitals. Do you think I care what they believe?
So what is interesting in the article is that they admit the importance to the theory of the first fraction of an imaginary second, and also that they know diddly squat about it! Ha

Why should I care what you believe given your attitude?

 

[sun rise]

I think it is.
But it's very lacking in predictive power / testability.
It does have the advantage of no fancy math though.

And God said "Let E equal mc2" and lo, E became equal to mc2.

 

[sun rise]

As the article says:

Sometimes I wonder whether we might be on a significant precipice of scientific history, similar to what we experienced in 1904...
...
Scientific revolutions can profoundly transform how we see and understand our world. But radical change is never easy to see coming. There is probably no way to tell whether the mysteries faced by cosmologists today are the signs of an imminent scientific revolution or merely the last few loose ends of an incredibly successful scientific endeavor.


There is no question that we have made incredible progress in understanding our universe, its history, and its origin. But it is also undeniable that we are profoundly puzzled, especially when it comes to the earliest moments of cosmic history. I have no doubt that these moments hold incredible secrets, and perhaps the keys to a new scientific revolution. But our universe holds its secrets closely. It is up to us to coax those secrets from its grip, transforming them from mystery into discovery.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Is the Big Bang in crisis?

Creation is a better explanation

There is a Tablet, yet to be officially translated that tells us how creation started. It is the greatest detail we have to date, that I see science will use in the future.

The physical worlds reflect the spiritual reality, this is that tablet.

Tablet of the Universe

As to how creation was spread out, I see is preceded by a cause. I am not sure we can understand the cause, no matter how it happened.

Regards Tony

 

[Revoltingest]

I can't see grooming as very important for a being who necessitates the death of anyone who looks on him.

He works in mysterious ways.

 

[dad]

The BB theory predicted the cosmic background radiation.
What observable phenomena can be predicted using creation?

Is there some reason that God creating the stars would not leave some creation radiation remnant?

You don't want to compare bible prophesy to science predictions, I guarantee it!

 

[dad]

No the fact being discussed is how you you misrepresent facts.

Try not to misrepresent the article in the OP. It does point out how little they know about the key tenet of the BB.

If the op needs to make false witness to make its point then the op is in no way 'fine'

If you claim they are wrong and you know a whole bunch about the imaginary fraction of a second inflation, then post it. I think we all know you have nothing.

 

[Revoltingest]

And God said "Let E equal mc2" and lo, E became equal to mc2.

I see that you have some Bible learn'n.
The only scripture I can quote is stuff I make up.

 

[dad]

Um, sorry, but yep -- we do. See "Doppler effect" applied to light rather than sound (doesn't matter, theyre both waves).

On earth and in the area, we do know the Doppler effect exists. In unknown deep space, for all we know, it could be something else. One possibility that comes to mind is time. How would time itself changing over the expanse of space affect what we see? Ha.

Then add "expansion of the universe" as a result of the Big Bang, and you have all you need to know.

I only add to something known, not to hunches.

 

[dad]

I did say "IF" but even so, 'waiting' is not a problem. "I don't know" is a far superior answer to "God did it"

Whether God created or not you are still left with your little 'I don't know'!

Then why at the end of your opening post did you state, "Creation is a better explanation."

It is. That doesn't mean we know how God does it. Just that He did.

I beg to differ, as do all scientists

No matter how much they and you beg, it won't change anything about the ignorance they admit, and you try to ignore.

 

[Revoltingest]

Is there some reason that God creating the stars would not leave some creation radiation remnant?

Before it was a prediction in science, did Bible scholars predict it?

You don't want to compare bible prophesy to science predictions, I guarantee it!

You're correct.
But our reasons might differ.

 

[dad]

The Big Bang theory itself is not in crisis. The observations still point to the universe being small, hot and dense at a point 14bn years or so ago. Nobody is suggesting alternative explanations to the Big Bang for those observations.

No one in your cult, maybe. I am not concerned with what they suggest, or believe. I already know.

The article instead points out the various features of cosmology that are not yet explained and draws a parallel with c.19th physics, in the era of (among other things) the Michelson Morley experiment and the Ultraviolet Catastrophe. In other words, the unexplained features of cosmology (dark energy, dark matter, asymmetry between matter and antimatter, etc) seem to be building up towards one of those revolutionary epochs in science such as happened in the early c.20th, when relativity and quantum theory came along and made sense of all the c.19th difficulties that had accumulated.

In other words they have no clue, we got that. Of course, they feel one day they might. That and a few dollars may get you a doughnut.

The author is hardly offering a new insight. It has been obvious for a while that these phenomena need some kind of breakthrough to resolve.

I did not post the article for insight, only for the admission that they are ignorant!

One thing I can guarantee, though: the breakthrough, if and when it comes, will not consist of giving up and saying "Goddidit".

Thanks for the prophesy.

 

[dad]

Science is a better creator and god then God will ever be.

So send science out into space and ask them to create another universe. You really thought we were born yesterday?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

On earth and in the area, we do know the Doppler effect exists. In unknown deep space, for all we know, it could be something else. One possibility that comes to mind is time. How would time itself changing over the expanse of space affect what we see? Ha.

I only add to something known, not to hunches.

Well, yes, adding to "something unknown" does seem to be attractive to you -- although the mathematician might point out that if you don't know what you started with, no matter how much you know about what you added, you still don't know what you've got. And hunches won't help.

 

[dad]

View attachment 40213​

That was absolutely hilarious!

From everyone whom come across your posts, know quite well from experiences, that you utterly incapable to distinguish facts from your deluded fantasies.

Your knowledge in science is nonexistent...but your (misplaced) ego is the size of Empire State Building.

Insult rather than post an honest reply. OK.

 

[dad]

Why should I care what you believe given your attitude?

Why should I care what you believe given the admitted ignorance of the BB expressed in the article?

 

[dad]

There is a Tablet, yet to be officially translated that tells us how creation started. It is the greatest detail we have to date, that I see science will use in the future.

The physical worlds reflect the spiritual reality, this is that tablet.

Tablet of the Universe

Your tablet is where, in hiding?

As to how creation was spread out, I see is preceded by a cause. I am not sure we can understand the cause, no matter how it happened.

I can't argue with people admitting ignorance.

 

[dad]

Before it was a prediction in science, did Bible scholars predict it?

We learn about creation. We do not predict how God creates.