I am not a scientist.
Is this serious ?
[Scientists Say We Were Wrong About the Big Bang and the Universe - YouTube]
I have a simple rule… Any proposition that posits an “irreducible complexity” is false.
From what I heard in that video, there is no alternate hypothesis offered and all arguments that attempt to falsify the “expanding universe” , are speculative in themselves and do not offer a solution to the “beginning”.
Question : How did the Universe Begin?
As an expanding singularity or as a preformed static object.
Consider that this universe is a dynamic object and that all observable galaxies seem to be receding from each other. (there are exceptions where galaxies are on a collision course and will merge)
In a static universe, how do get a dynamic environment? Like an ocean? Going back and forth, pulled by an extra-universal attractor or agency?
Or is the Universe a wavelike object that alternately expands and contracts but always expands into the future.
Consider the “Ringing Universe”
Is the universe ringing like a crystal glass?
https://astronomynow.com/2015/07/01/is-the-universe-ringing-like-a-crystal-glass/
Remember , there is no such thing as an “irreducible complexity”. That is religion.
Morgan, doesn’t the very tone of that presentation scare one off?
Breathless drama, and a few fundamental claims about what others are thinking that are simple false - all that in the first couple minutes. Serious science is about presenting evidence, perhaps a story, in a constructive rational manner, >>> the object is to facilitate learning <<<
That requires honesty representing your ‘opponents’ position and this narrator doesn’t come close to doing that. Red flags everywhere, be aware.
I did a little google and quickly came up with another example of video:
That is an educator, explaining and adding to one’s knowledge in a, what’s the word, “objective manner” perhaps. Get what I’m trying to say?
Here’s my thoughts that I ask myself:
-
Is it a reliable source?
-
If not, do reliable and trusted sources back what is being said?
-
If it is a reliable source, do other reliable sources back up what is said?
-
If is backed up, then it might be true.
-
If is not backed up, it probably is not true.
-
Does the source provide links to reliable sources? If not, see #5, if so, see #4.
In other words, do not go with just one source, especially if you do not know the source. I realize this may require more researching sources you believe are reliable and trustworthy, but IMHO, it is worth the time and energy.
I’d check Live Science, Nat Geo., Science Daily, space.com, and others like them. I think it goes without saying to avoid sources like Ken Ham’s site.
1 Like
Thanks.
I was interested by the video but cautious and uncertain, that’s why i asked you.
Yes, and that’s what I was talking about. I thought you were looking for the reliability of the information in the video.
And you were right, sorry if i was not clear.
I forget who was explaining it -
The BB (more or less) started from a singularity where physics, math, time, distance, space … no longer matters, or at least anything we can understand.
So BANG! … assume it is a forever expanding phenomenon, and “the end” of the universe is when everything has expanded, cooled, slowed to the point where …physics, math, time, distance and space no longer matter … So if there is no dimension, it’s a Singularity!
Bang! We start all over again …
And they said something like maybe there was a single anomaly in the dimensionless universe that sparked the next Big Bang.
The person was someone that I saw referenced on this site. I’ll try to find it.
OK - Finally got a chance to watch it.
I hate those kinds of videos where the words are all on top of each other.
But,
- If I’m not mistaken, they’re always trying to tweak the BBT to match the new observation (cosmic radiation background)
- As noted above, there was no real alternative offered.
- Some of the contradictions were only speculative on the observations themselves.
I believe that when the Universe loses dynamic expansion and becomes static, it will begin to collapse into itself and all Universal matter will begin to fall inward creating a Universal black hole until all matter has reconverted into pure energy which reaches a threshold moment and boom, the singularity explodes and experiences a FTL “inflationary epoch” into the left-over permittive condition until the fledgling new universe cools and matter begins to form all over again.
A wavelike expansion is a perfect model for an expanding and retracting universe until the wave function flattens and at a certain fold the contraction overcomes the remaining expansionary energy and begins to continue to contract at an ever-increasing speed, converting all matter back into energy.
Theoretically such a model creates multiple universes but it does so in chronological order, rather than a whole bunch of little universes all at once. That concept is fraught with problems.
Someone had a saying:
The time to panic is when the red-shift changes to blue.
But the “expand to dimensionless …” is another neat concept I haven’t heard. - and tied back to the singularity of BB
What is the difference between the singularity before the big bang, and the completely dissipated universe to a dimensionless expanse. If you can’t measure either one … if there is nothing to measure it against or with - what is the difference?
Or another way to look at it.
What is your POV?
What would it “look” like from inside of the singularity before the BB?
Just an interesting thing to ponder.
Sine wave → Rate of change
On one side, it would look like expansion (or contraction) is accelerating, on the other side, expansion (or contraction) is slowing
There is no way in our miniscule slice of time we can really know if that is the case (red-shift, blue-shift)
Guess that would depend on the observational instrument you are using?
Exactly the same from a relatively perspective, just as things “look” from inside of the expanding spacetime we find ourselves today. We can measure the expansion or contraction but we cannot experience it from an inside POV.