The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewLarry Romanoff Archive
Calling All Cosmologists
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

The photo is of today’s desktop on my computer. (It changes every day).

The picture is of part of The Milky Way, our home. But the startling thing is that (with a few exceptions) each of those little dots of light is not a star, but another galaxy. To see this through a large telescope and realise the vastness of the universe, is an awe-inspiring experience to say the least.

Astronomers, physicists and cosmologists today are busy producing theories about the origin of the universe, worrying themselves about the Big Bang and the subsequent creation of the elements. But there are two items they fail to address, that seem to me the most important of all:

1. The universe is supposed to be the sum total of all existence, everything that is. By definition, there is nothing beyond it. But we are told this universe is expanding more or less uniformly in all directions, apparently at the speed of light or thereabouts. Assuming this is true, I want to know INTO WHAT is the universe expanding?

2. Physicists are reaching decreasingly farther back into time, into “the origin of everything” in a manner of speaking, now apparently determining precisely what happened in the first second after the Big Bang. But I don’t much care what happened in the first second after the Big Bang. I want to know what happened in the LAST SECOND BEFORE the Big Bang.

Anyone?

 
• Category: Science • Tags: Astronomy 
Hide 164 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Good evening, Mr. Romanoff,

    I don’t believe in the “Big Bang”…
    But I too would like to know into what the universe is expanding.
    (Assuming the universe is truly expanding.)

    Also, why something instead of nothing?

    Thanks, I hope you have a great weekend.

    • Replies: @JR Foley
    , @Wild Man
  2. Observationally, none of your questions can be answered. There’s no way to get a signal from beyond the universe, nor before the Big Bang.
    What you are asking is, How can we theoretically account for a universe that is of finite size?
    Start with Special Relativity. We can measure the separation between events, both in the three dimensions of space and the dimension of time. For that measurement to work, we must make the speed of light a universal constant.
    Then, let’s consider the General Theory of Relativity. We now measure the space — of 4 dimensions — as possessing a curvature denoted by a metric, which specifies the rates of change among the different dimensions with respect to one another. Intuitively we expect there to be no change, and to be living in a flat world, dimensionally: however, the use of a 4-dimensional metric of varying elements accounts for gravity better than classical 3-dimensional flat space.
    If you’re willing to accept those theoretical constructs as well-established, then I can tell you that the theoretical model of the Big Bang has the three dimensions of space and the fourth dimension of time, all starting at ZERO thirteen billion years ago.
    The expansion of the universe is an expansion of both space and time. There’s nothing beyond — unless, again we’re talking theoretically, other bubbles are expanding in other four-dimensional worlds in some meta-universe.

    • Thanks: Realist
  3. Franz says:

    There was no big bang.

    The universe always was, always will be.

    The earliest pre-Socratic philosophers told us — everything that has a beginning must have an end.

    What has no beginning cannot ever end. Nobody ever found a “This is the spot” for the start of the universe and time, therefore there isn’t one and time and space are both eternal.

  4. If we were to be restricted to observational astronomy, of course it’s quite impossible to give an answer to your question. We can only observe within the universe, by the nature of things, and only since the creation of the world.
    So, clearly we’re talking about a theoretical picture.
    Let us start with the Special Theory of Relativity. The separation of events can be measured by the three dimensions of space and by the dimension of time. To get the mathematics to work out consistently, however, it becomes necessary to use the square root of minus-one in front of the time dimension. If you do that, as well as accept that the speed of light is a universal constant, then a lot of physical observations come under the same mathematical laws. You can look at a moving electrical field and a moving magnetic field with the same laws (which was Einstein’s starting point in his 1905 paper).
    Go next to the General Theory of Relativity. The four dimensions which we have for the world can be placed in a metric array, denoting the rates of change of each dimension (x,y,z, it) with respect to each other. Intuitively, we should like to think that the world is made up of a flat set of dimensions (ones which do not change with respect to one another); the use of a curved set of dimensions, however, provides a powerful description of gravitational fields which is confirmed by numerous observations.
    Once we have a 4-dimensional world, with curvature, we can describe — and it is implied by our use of Einsteinian theory elsewhere — the universe at the moment of the Big Bang as generating three spatial and one time dimension compressed into a mathematical point.
    The space and time dimensions have since expanded together into the observable universe, beyond which it is not well-defined to pose a physical reality. Of course, speaking purely theoretically, there could exist other space-time universes composed of distinct other sets of dimensions.

  5. JasonT says:

    These are the classic arguments stemming from a ‘scientific’ view of existence, but the Truth is:

    1 Timothy 6:20
    O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:

    The ‘scientific’ response to point 1) is that ‘nothing’ exists outside of the ‘universe’ so expansion creates more universe (infinity is such a malleable concept!).

    As to point 2), the ‘scientific’ response is that Time started at the Big Bang. ‘Before’ the Big Bang, Time did not exist as the ‘universe’ was a timeless ‘State’ (infinity is such a malleable concept!).

    You can try to wrap your mind around these concepts, but this is the essence of cosmology today.

    If you really want to know cosmology, then understand infinity. I certainly don’t. But God does.

    • Replies: @dearieme
    , @Realist
  6. Biff says:

    2. Physicists are reaching decreasingly farther back into time, into “the origin of everything”

    Back when Aunt Edna was skinny?

  7. Bingo! Sir, me thinks you nailed it squarely right on the head with one huge big bang! The question of origins and existence is best dealt with by religion and philosophy, as happened for millennia, giving rise to various religions that exist today. Advances in material science caused a usurpation by materialist thinkers that have the arrogance to think that they could grasp and measure the Unfathomable by using the tools of their trade. Reliance on man made tools resulted in erroneous belief in man made theories, creating new intellectual idols that are separating man from his Lord and Creator.

    We definitely need the tools of modern science in order to become awestruck at the wonders of creation – the handiwork of the Creator God. We must rely on Biblical revelation (religious faith) to satisfy our mental quest for an answer to the Big Questions. Who created the universe? Who made us? Why? ETC.

    Psalm 18:1
    The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament showeth His handiwork.

    “The riddles of God are more satisfying than the solutions of man.” ~ G.K. Chesterton

    “For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance, he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”

    • LOL: Realist
  8. Aleks says:

    In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

    • Agree: Rich
  9. Levtraro says:

    Assuming this is true, I want to know INTO WHAT is the universe expanding?

    The universe is expanding into infinity. This infinity is not continuous though, it is the infinity in the set of natural numbers. After the infinity of the natural numbers is reached, at infinity + 1, the whole process of expansion will revert.

    I want to know what happened in the LAST SECOND BEFORE the Big Bang.

    In the last second before the Big Bang, the same things happened as in the first second after the Big Bang, but in reverse.

    These two insights together, achieve the understanding of the universe as a perpetual cycle of expansions and contractions. So on average across eternity, meaning averaging over all expansions and all contractions, the result is nothing, as expansions are cancelled out by contractions.

    That the result is nothing is as it should be, since there is no agency, no purpose, the very nature of nothing, that is, nothing that need explaining.

  10. meamjojo says:

    1. The universe is expanding into infinity. Actually, space-time is expanding and the universe is following along. Space-time is also expanding faster than the speed of light. The universe could be 92 billion light years or it might be 7 trillion light years in diameter. Read more:

    How big is the universe?
    January 28, 2022
    https://www.space.com/24073-how-big-is-the-universe.html

    2. If there truly was a big bang, then it most likely came from an existing multiverse. Why? Because that is the only explanation as to how an explosion could also create all the multitude of atomic particles and laws of the universe.

    Contending that an explosion of some dense matter (the Big Bang) also creates all the myriad atomic particles, codifies how they operate and imparts all the physical laws they operate under is equivalent to imagining that an atomic bomb explosion is going to produce a fully working city with fully working, nice and shiny infrastructure.

    This still leaves the question as to who/what/how the particles and laws imparted to our universe came to exist in the origin multiverse? And if your answer is some god being, then where did the god being come from?

  11. Silly boy. In the second before the big bang, God said something like “let there be light”. Now granted, there was no light until about 10 to the minus fourty-third second later, but some things take time; get it? That was a joke. Time. Oh well, it’s early in the day. Back to my navel gazing.

  12. Uncle Joe says:

    I tend to think of cosmology more as an enthusiasm than a science. And I expect you’ll hear from the enthusiasts; on #1 you’ll hear a lot of “the universe isn’t expanding into anything, space itself has unfolded since the ‘big bang’ so there is no other ‘space’ for it to expand into”; and #2 will likely bring “time itself began with the ‘big bang’, so there were no ‘seconds’ before the big bang.”

    If you are really looking for enlightenment on this subject, you have to open your mind to the possibility that the current paradigms in ‘cosmological science’ are simply wrong, i.e. the ‘big bang’ and ‘expanding space’ are fallacious concepts. A good mind-opener are the books by the late astronomer Halton Arp, Seeing Red, and Quasars, Redshifts and Controversies. You might also peruse the essay “The Case Against Cosmology” by the working astronomer (as opposed to ‘cosmologist’) M.J. Disney.

    • Agree: Jim Christian
    • Thanks: meamjojo
    • Replies: @Fox
  13. alphas says:

    There is no “before” the Big Bang, because the Big Bang created time (according to the theory). There is no “before” without the concept of time.
    And there is no way for a being that is restricted to the scope of the universe and its laws to imagine a “time without time”. We are observers with restrictions.

    It is similar to how you can not imagine an additional color, even thought that we know that the electromagnetic spectrum is not limited to that narrow window of human visible light.

  14. j2 says:

    The theory of the Big Bang is founded on three observations: 1) Hubble redshift, 2) Background Microwave Radiation, 3) proportions of light atoms (i.e. He to H and so on). Additionally 4) the General Relativity Theory (GRT) is assumed to be correct and verified by experiments.

    4) is not true and GRT fails as it cannot give a solution close to the Newtonian gravitation field in the case of empty space with a single point mass at the origin. (That is, write Einstein equations for this case and you will see that there are solutions, like the Schwarzschild solution, but they all have event horizon and are black hole solutions. They do not have constant speed of light to each direction and they are not close to the Newtonian gravitation potential. This can be directly proven.)

    Thus, cosmology as you have it now is fundamentally flawed.

    As for this whether there are other solutions than the Big Bang model that satisfy the observations 1), 2), and 3), the answer is yes. There is e.g. a steady state model with two dimensional time that satisfies all these properties nicely. This model does not have a beginning or end and the space does not expand. All happens in a cosmic egg. What is outside this egg? We cannot know but it is fully possible that there is the Higgs field and that there are other cosmic eggs. So, the Big Bang model is not proven, it is only the prevalent model.

    Assuming that the Big Bang model is correct, then what are the answers to your questions? The most reasonable theory in my opinion is explained in Michio Kaku’s popular science book Parallel Worlds. (I do not think this theory is correct as Kaku accepts GRT, but his idea is reasonable). In this explanation there is a field, we can assume it is the Higgs field. This field is eternal. There are born bubbles into this field by quantum fluctations, like a field generates virtual particles in quantum field theories. Such a bubble expands into a universe. Thus, in the moment before the Big Band there is the Higgs field in an n-dimensional space. The universe is a bubble and it expands in this n-dimentional space where the Higgs field is.

    This naturally is not the only explanation. Very many people still try to propose some version of a string theory without noticing that the main reason why there should be any string theory is that GRT cannot be put into a renormalizable form of a gauge field theory. The issue is that GRT is wrong and it does not need to be put to any form, it should be discarded. I have only briefly looked at string theories, so I do not comment them, but my feeling is that they are not correct.

    Hope this answer helps. better I cannot give at the moment. You find a long discussion from this topic from the ResearchGate. Most ResearchGate commenters know very little and have their crazy theories, but some know quite much. But each has his favorite theory and will not bend even slightly whatever logical arguments you give, so the discussion is tiresome. But if you are interested in discussing cosmology, it is a better place.

  15. The “Big Bang” logic was invented out of nothing by a Belgian priest, Georges Lemaître, that wanted to marry his religious stupidstitions with his interest in cosmology. Hubble came up with the expanding universe idea when he incorrectly associated redshift with distance. His protege, Halton Arp, catalogued hundreds of galaxies that violated the redshift theory, but for that heresy, he was denied telescope time in the US and eventually relocated to Germany. Redshift is at least partially quantized and an inherent quality of young galaxies and other celestial objects. Just search for Mr. Arp’s name on Amazon.

    The Big Bang theory has been patched over the years as observations have brought the original premise into question. That’s how we got the unicorns of black holes, neutron stars, dark matter, dark energy, etc, to add the necessary fudge factors to keep the theory alive just a few minutes longer. That theory is a gravity only model of the universe, since plasma physics is completely ignored. For the longest time, cosmologists refused to believe that electromagnetic energy even existed in space, but eventually were convinced that it does exist, but adamantly demand that it doesn’t do anything even though EM is 39 orders of magnitude more powerful than gravity.

    Look up “Electric Universe” and you’ll get a different perspective on how the universe functions electromagnetically via high energy plasma. The largest professional organization in the world, the IEEE, has a section devoted to plasma physics as it relates to cosmology. Names such as Wal Thornhill, Anthony Peratt, The Thunderbolts project, The Safire Project will get you started on a journey that actually makes sense, at least to an electrical engineer like me.

    • Replies: @Realist
  16. dearieme says:
    @JasonT

    WKPD: “First and Second Timothy are considered by many biblical scholars to be pseudoepigraphical and not written by Paul.”

    I assume that “many” means “practically all”. So who did write Timothy? If we don’t know – as presumably we don’t – then why should we pay it any heed?

  17. bwuce wee says:

    the big bang has already been disproven. how can there be someone pretending to be a scientist and still harping about the big bang? and further, the current theory is a multiverse, an unfinuty of universes, if you will. so this author is apparently stuck back in the 1960s!

    • Replies: @j2
  18. @Aleks

    In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

    and the passage culminates in what for me is the most dramatic of lines:

    “The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us”.

    • Agree: anno nimus
    • Thanks: Rich
    • Replies: @Anon
  19. j2 says:
    @bwuce wee

    “the big bang has already been disproven”

    where is it disproven and how?

    • Replies: @bwuce wee
    , @bwuce wee
  20. I see the Big Bang Theory Wikipedia page, heavily discussed on the talk pages, summarizes the current state of opinion in the scientific community thus:

    The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model explaining the existence of the observable universe from the earliest known periods through its subsequent large-scale evolution.[1][2][3]

    The model describes how the universe expanded from an initial state of high density and temperature,[4] and offers a comprehensive explanation for a broad range of observed phenomena, including the abundance of light elements, the cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation, and large-scale structure.

    Crucially, the theory is compatible with Hubble–Lemaître law—the observation that the farther away a galaxy is, the faster it is moving away from Earth. Extrapolating this cosmic expansion backwards in time using the known laws of physics, the theory describes an increasingly concentrated cosmos preceded by a singularity in which space and time lose meaning (typically named “the Big Bang singularity”).[5]

    Detailed measurements of the expansion rate of the universe place the Big Bang singularity at around 13.8 billion years ago, which is thus considered the age of the universe.[6]
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

    • Replies: @bwuce wee
  21. I am reminded of a line from Shakespeare’s King Lear when somebody tries to argue that the Universe comes into being from nothing: “Nothing will come of nothing”.

    As an aside to Roman Catholics who lament the state of the Church today – King Lear visited catastrophe on his Kingdom when he retired and gave his crown away and the image of Paul VI giving his crown away as part of the modern reforms and Benedict retiring come to mind.

  22. Before the Big Bang the universe of all matter was contracting for billions of years after the last expansion had lost momentum. All matter became so densely packed to the point where it could only explode in another Big Bang.

    How long the process of expansion and contraction of this universe of all matter has been going on is unknowable but my guess is eternal. What form the matter will take after this current expansion is finished and the next contraction and explosion comes is also unknowable.

    • Replies: @Jack McArthur
    , @Realist
  23. Bill H. says:

    Nice questions. Another is why we cannot actually detect dark matter. The only reason we “know” that it exists is that it explains the non-uniform manner in which the universe is expanding, and verifies the mathmatics of our understanding of gravity.

    But what if the math of our understanding of gravity is wrong? What if we don’t actually understand gravity at universal level at all, and the reason we cannot detect dark matter is because it doesn’t exist. What if dark matter is a fiction we invented to cover up how much we don’t know?

  24. anon[269] • Disclaimer says:

    I recommend ‘Closer To Truth’ for what the best minds think about these questions.

  25. bwuce wee says:
    @j2

    i cannot understand how you are unable to conduct an internet search.

    1st Law of Thermodynamics – Energy cannot be created or destroyed.

    this is a LAW. the big bang theory is merely a theory. if the theory violates the LAW, is it THEREFORE disproven.

    YOU’RE WELCOME!

    • Replies: @Realist
  26. 1) Space, time, and matter are epiphenomena of mind. So the universe is expanding in God’s mind, which has plenty of room for infinite expansion if He so wills.

    2) In the last second before the Big Bang, God was hurriedly finishing off his to-do list.

    • LOL: RoatanBill, Right_On
    • Replies: @animalogic
  27. bwuce wee says:
    @j2

    there are many more problems with the big bang theory:

    https://www.spaceandmotion.com/cosmology/top-30-problems-big-bang-theory.htm

    when someone claims to be a scientist, yet believes in a theory that clearly IS problematic, this qualifies as religion.

    a scientist would come up with an alternate theory.

  28. bwuce wee says:

    if you do not like the fact that the big bang theory is disproven, i suggest you take it up with the author of this article, since i am not hospitable to religious proselytizers:

    https://www.sott.net/article/226994-The-Big-Bang-is-just-Religion-disguised-as-Science

    Proof the Big Bang did not happen

    [MORE]

    Perhaps the biggest contradiction with the Big Bang Theory is the question of the singularity. The “primordial egg” had to be a super-massive black hole. Therefore no amount of “bang”, no matter how big, is going to thrust the universe out into, well, the universe.

    Cosmologists eager to promote the Big Bang Theory have hit upon the “explanation” that the laws of physics, gravity., etc. simply did not apply in those first few moments of the universe. The present Cosmology theory is that the universe enjoyed a period of “rulelessness” of about 3 seconds, after which the elements formed and the fundamental forces of the universe, gravity included, were functioning as we see them today.

    Ah, but there is a problem. The singularity formed by the primordial egg turns out to be rather large.

    Estimates of the total mass of the universe vary wildly, given that the ends of the universe have not yet been determined. One estimate is found here http://www.rostra.dk/louis/quant_11.html (2.6 x 1060).

    From the mass, you can calculate the diameter of the event horizon by finding the distance from a point mass that will have an escape velocity of c. Use sqrt(2GM/r) where M is the mass of the hole (the entire universe in this case) and r is the radius (classical), and G is the gravitational constant. Work it backward starting at c and you get c^2=2GM/r.

    This works out to an event horizon light years across!

    In short, at the moment in time when the Big Bang theorists claim the universe was functioning as it does today, complete with all fundamental forces, the entirety of the universe’s mass was still well within the event horizon of its own gravity well. That the well was not the product of a true singularity is irrelevant, Newton’s equation provides an equivalent gravity field for a singularity or a super dense mass in a localized region.

    Therefore the Big Bang, as currently described, could not have produced the universe as we see it today. At three seconds, the time the theorists claim the universe started operating as we know it, it would have come under the influence of its own gravity and unable to reach an escape velocity exceeding that of light, collapsed back into itself.

    The “Bangers” get around this paradox with the theory that when the universe was created, it had no mass at all. Therefore, so the theory goes, there was no gravity and no reason the the matter not to escape the bang into the universe. Then, after the matter was conveniently far away from the singularity, it interacted with a particle named the Higgs Boson. Like the two tubes that come with epoxy, the Higgs Boson blended with the massless matter and produced normal matter with mass. How all the matter in the universe knew just when to mix the tubes together is still open to speculation, but usually the proponents of this theory start whispering about God under their breath at this point.

    With the exception of one false alarm out of Fermilab, there has been no evidence that the Higgs Boson exists. The Large Hadron Collider was built specifically to look for the Higgs Boson, nicknamed “The God Particle”, thereby revealing the religious agenda that is actually behind what may be history’s most expensive church. It must be pointed out that even if the LHC, in the unimaginable fury of the high energy collisions it generates, succeeds in producing a particle that matches the description of the Higgs Boson (absent a piece of “massless matter” to test it with, how will we know?) that does not prove such a particle ever existed before, nor does it prove the Big Bang. The scientist-priests at the LHC will not be able to prove that their new particle is not itself a creation of the LHC rather than a part of nature.

    Particle physicists like to joke that studying matter with colliders is like smashing two mechanical clocks together and trying to guess what the clocks looked like based on the springs, gears, and levers that fly out. Let us take that analogy one step further and speculate that given enough speed at the moment of collision, individual teeth from the clock gears will come flying out as seperate distinct pieces. But clearly, prior to that moment of collision, they never did exist as seperate distinct pieces. Their separateness is created by the collision at that very moment. The same may well be true of the ultra-tiny particles generated by the collisions of the LHC, including whatever we may be asked to accept on faith as the “God Particle.” They may be artifacts of the collision, and not of natural processes.

    Another proof the Big Bang did not happen

    For the purposes of this thought experiment, let us assume that God waved a magic wand and the universe popped into existence from a Big Bang, and that “somehow” the universe escaped from it’s own gravity well. With the entire 2.6 x 1060 mass/energy of the universe confined to that small region, the temperatures and pressures amount to a super-supernova. We already know that in the cataclysm of a supernova, the heavier elements are created. That is where all the heavy elements in your body were created; inside an exploding star. Therefore, in that moment of super-creation called the Big Bang, as the universe started to operate by the rules we know today, the expanding universe should be creating all the known heavy elements.

    So, how to explain the Population II stars?

    Population II stars are stars with no heavy elements in them. When they explode at the end of their life cycles, heavy elements are created. These are swept up by stars that form afterwards creating Population I stars, usually with planets around them. Population I stars have heavy elements. Population II stars do not.

    If the Big Bang had happened, the universe would be filled with heavy elements created in those first few moments the universe started to operate under the rules of physics we know today. There should not be any stars in existence devoid of those heavy elements. And yet there are.

    The existence of Population II stars, devoid of heavy elements, directly contradicts the theory of the Big Bang.

    Yet another proof the Big Bang did not happen

    The Big Bang is currently imagined to have occurred 14 billion years ago.

    The farthest object seen in the sky by the Hubble and Keck Telescopes is 13 billion light-years distant, and is assumed to have been created when the universe was just 750 million years old. It would take at least that long (if not longer) for the material from the theorized Big Bang to coalesce into stars and for those stars to form a rotating galaxy.

    But here is the problem. We are seeing that object 13 billion light-years distant not as it is today and where it is today but as it was and where it was, 13 billion years ago, 13 billion light-years distant from earth.

    In other words, for this galaxy to lie 13 billion light-years away from Earth only 750 million years after the Big Bang, it would have had to travel 13 billion light years in just 750 million years’ time. That requires the galaxy in question to travel more than 17 times faster than the speed of light, a speed limit which according to the Big Bang supporters was in effect from the moment the universe was 3 seconds old.

    An intriguing question

    We see in the night sky that all galaxies rotate. Stars rotate. Planets rotate. Bodies orbit around other bodies. A dimensionless singularity posited by the Big Bang cannot have rotation. So where did all this angular momentum come from if the universe emerged from the Big Bang singularity? For that matter, how do we get a variation in velocity or density emerging from a singularity.

    Comment: The latest issue of Sott.net’s new print publication – The Dot Connector Magazine – features an in-depth analysis by Laura Knight-Jadczyk which also looks at the pertinent topics Michael Rivero raises in the above article and comes to the same conclusion: there really is no difference between the ‘Big Bang’ theory and ponerized religion.

    • Replies: @j2
    , @RoatanBill
    , @martin_2
  29. j2 says:
    @bwuce wee

    I do not need to read theories from the Internet. I know enough theoretical physics and cosmology to derive and calculate myself. You should do the same. Study the field and calculate. Check yourself.

    I briefly read the argument that you post and which you think disproofs the Big Bang Theory. I write a short comment on his arguments.

    His first argument end to the line “Another proof the Big Bang did not happen”. Before this line he states that the Big Bang had to start from a black hole with an event horizon and then he concludes that the black hole could not explode as gravitation keeps it together. His argument why the Big Bang started as a black hole is that as so much matter was in a small area, it had to be a black hole. This is wrong: the Big Bang can starts from virtual particles created by the quantum field and originally these virtual particles have no mass, they only gain mass from a phase transition. He mentions this theory but without explanation discards as an impossibility. It is not impossible. The Higgs field creates the mass of fermions and in a high temperature there is symmetry and no mass. Only when the temperature decreases from expansion, there is a phase transition and mass is created. Thus, in the prevalent theory there is no contradiction: mass is created only after the initial bubble expands enough so that temperature decrease causes a phase transition. Only then there is mass and the mass is already moving fast away from the initial point. It has the kinetic energy that equals the potential energy. There is no black hole that explodes. Thus, his first argument is based on total misunderstanding of cosmology and theoretical physics.

    He gives another argument after the line “Another proof the Big Bang did not happen”. His argument is that the Big Bang should have created heavy elements, like a supernova explosion creates heavy elements. This is incorrect. In the Big Bang theory there are no atoms in the beginning. Atoms are formed at the time when cosmic microwave background (CMB) was formed.
    That is when the temperature was cooled enough. Heavy elements are according to the present theory formed in second generation stars: the remains of first generation stars compress into a second generation star and this star burns lighter elements into heavy elements. His idea is contrary to everything that is believed in cosmology of the development of stars.

    He also gives a third argument after the line “Yet another proof the Big Bang did not happen”.
    He writes:
    “In other words, for this galaxy to lie 13 billion light-years away from Earth only 750 million years after the Big Bang, it would have had to travel 13 billion light years in just 750 million years’ time. That requires the galaxy in question to travel more than 17 times faster than the speed of light, a speed limit which according to the Big Bang supporters was in effect from the moment the universe was 3 seconds old. ”
    This is total nonsense. Indeed, a galaxy that we now see 13 billion light-years away could well have been formed in 750 million years after the big bang. His error is in thinking that after 750 million years from the big bang this galaxy already was located in the place where it is today, i.e., 13 billion light years away. This is not what cosmology claims. According to the prevalent theory of cosmology, 750 million years after the Big Bang the galaxy was 750 million light years away, but the space expanded later and now it is 13 billion light years away. This is the expanding space theory. It may be wrong (as I think) or correct, but it does not have a logical error like the writer of the text thinks.

    He still adds something “An intriguing question”.
    “A dimensionless singularity posited by the Big Bang cannot have rotation. So where did all this angular momentum come from if the universe emerged from the Big Bang singularity? For that matter, how do we get a variation in velocity or density emerging from a singularity. ”

    In most versions the Big Bang theory does not require that the starting point is a singularity. If we take the idea of Michio Kaku that it is not a singularity but a kind of a virtual particle pair expanding into a bubble, we do not have any of the problems he writes here. Besides, purely mathematically a black hole certainly can have angular momentum, like a Kerr black hole does. And it is not at all sure that the universe as a whole has angular momentum. I would discard this comment as not justified. First he should justify that there is a problem, then argue that the Big Bang needs a singularity, then that the singularity cannot have angular momentum. Nothing of this is clear.

    He still adds something:
    “The latest issue of Sott.net’s new print publication – The Dot Connector Magazine – features an in-depth analysis by Laura Knight-Jadczyk which also looks at the pertinent topics Michael Rivero raises in the above article and comes to the same conclusion: there really is no difference between the ‘Big Bang’ theory and ponerized religion. ”

    Here he is correct: the Big Bang theory is religion. It is a creation myth. But this writer of the comment does not have a scientific or logical argument that proves that this myth is incorrect. I also cannot prove that the Big Bang did not happen. It is possible, but it is also not proven. It is religion.

  30. Quasar says:

    Uncertainty is the completion of knowledge.

    • Agree: Sollipsist
  31. TG says:

    1. Science is still in the early stages of thinking about such issues. It’s not at all settled, and one must remember that – unlike things like evolution or relativity – we don’t have any physical records or ability to conduct controlled experiments, just apparent echoes of what once was a very long time ago.

    2. At some point the human imagination cannot grasp these issues. Can I imagine a time ‘before’ the creation of time, when there was no time? No I can’t, and you can’t either. We get to the point where we can only grapple with these issues through the abstraction of mathematics, intuition becomes pointless.

    • Agree: Realist
  32. Cosmology is a branch of philosophy, like logic. It is in a sense the interface between science and philosophy, or perhaps between science and religion.

    And, like logic, cosmology’s precepts and conclusions should make sense.

    I don’t want to ‘measure’ the universe. I want to understand it. Adding “the square root of minus-one in front of the time dimension” does not assist my understanding of anything. Nor does “The universe is expanding into infinity”. Nor does “In the last second before the Big Bang, the same things happened as in the first second after the Big Bang, but in reverse.”

    Upon absorbing these “insights”, I understand no more than before.

    “There is no “before” the Big Bang, because the Big Bang created time.”

    Well then, what created the Big Bang? Did it come from nothing? How could that happen, exactly?

    “Thus, cosmology as you have it now is fundamentally flawed.”

    Agreed.

    “Before the Big Bang the universe of all matter was contracting for billions of years after the last expansion had lost momentum. All matter became so densely packed to the point where it could only explode in another Big Bang.”

    Maybe, but this is a circular argument that doesn’t explain anything.

    Some of the comments raised another question that cannot be answered by science: If the cosmos was preceded by a “singularity”, how, exactly, does a “point of nothingness” expand into billions of galaxies that eventually produce velociraptors and tea roses?

    I’m not sure we are any closer to answering the two questions.

    • Replies: @j2
  33. TG says:

    Now, my own suspicion is that the universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose. I have read and heard many attempts at a systematic account of it, from materialism and theosophy to the Christian system or that of Kant, and I have always felt that they were much too simple. I suspect that there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamed of, or can be dreamed of, in any philosophy.

    J.B.S. Haldane (1892-1964).

    • Replies: @Jack McArthur
  34. @TG

    “There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy” Hamlet Act 1

  35. @bwuce wee

    Modern science is based on the principle: ‘Give us one free miracle, and we’ll explain the rest.’ The one free miracle is the appearance of all the mass and energy in the universe and all the laws that govern it in a single instant from nothing.
    Terence McKenna

    • Agree: Larry Romanoff
    • Thanks: Right_On
    • Replies: @Levtraro
  36. @Gary Seven

    Creation seems to be cyclical in Ancient Egyptian mythology which some might see as supporting a closed universe. Another curious coincidence: the hydrogen atom representation of one electron orbiting a single proton is very close to the Ancient Egyptian hieroglyph for the sun (it’s principle constituent).

  37. tosca says:

    Epistemology, my dear is the answer. The research problem is that it only finds what it wishes to find.
    First a theory, and then search for its confirmation, with adequate tools . The ‘reality’ depends on our tools. Through pink glasses, everything is pink. What we call ‘reality’ is a modelized concept. What a thing is ‘an sich und für sich’ will remain unknown. If we had fly eyes, we then should build another modelized ‘reality’. Brotherhood with all that lives is the guide line of life on earth. There are not too many humans on earth, but too many greedy rich. If we had managed it properly, the earth could feed still a lot more people, but it is too late. The sumerian ‘epics’ or history, tells us what is happening to-day. Mighty beings have ‘created’ men to serve them as slaves.

  38. Gordo says:
    @Larry Romanoff

    Then who took that photo?

    • LOL: Adam Smith
    • Replies: @meamjojo
  39. j2 says:
    @Larry Romanoff

    “I’m not sure we are any closer to answering the two questions.”

    Science does not search for the truth. It searchers for a consistent theory that explains observations in that particular field.

    The truth most probably is that what exists is much more than what there is in a physical theory, and cosmology is physics. We have feelings, consciousness, free will, and not only we humans but also at least all mammals, birds also have these all but in a different way. Then there is time that seems to move on, which it should not do if time is a coordinate. And so on and so on. So, the real truth is something completely different from what a cosmological theory says.

    But a theory in cosmology is limited to explaining physical observations and the prevalent theory, the Big Bang theory, has philosophical implications: it gives an explanation where the time and the universe has a beginning and very possibly also the end. This can be irritating for someone who wants to ask: if there was a beginning of the time, what was before the beginning, obviously nothing can come from nothing, so something had to be. But the consistent cosmological theory only tries to explain a small number of observations: Hubble red shift, cosmic microwave radiation, why the night sky is dark, how the elements were born, how stars develop and so on. A theory explaining these things can be right in the sense of absolute truth, but almost certainly it is wrong, as it does not even try to look at everything there is in the universe (like how velociraptors, or anything could develop by the mathematically unsound evolution theory from the hot soup).

    Therefore, we can almost certainly say that the theory of the Big Bang is not the truth and if there are illogical aspects in it (like asking where the space expands), this is only to be expected. It is a perfectly good theory in the sense that cosmologists can write PhDs and papers and even popular science books that sell well. But it is only true in the sense that, say, quantum electrodynamics is true. That is a theory where there is a clear mathematical absurdity (dividing infinity by infinity and getting a finite number), so it is certainly unsound though this is often denied, and the motivation why this theory should be used is that it gives results that agree with measured values (yes, they agree, because the theory is tuned to match). It is about the same with cosmology.

    What to do? Well, if you want to fix the problem with cosmology, you have to invent another mathematically formulated theory and get is accepted. This would take more time than you have left. You can only personally discard this theory and consider it only as yet another example of pseudoscience, just like the evolution theory, or history, or whatever. The rot goes deep. You cannot fix it.

  40. DYL says:

    Time does not exist. Everything is infinite, nothing appears from nothing or transforms into nothing

    El tiempo no existe. Todo es infito, nada aparece de nada ni se transforma en nada.

  41. Gödel proved with his “Incompleteness Theorem” that it is mathematically impossible to create a self-containing logical system. You must have a seed, so to speak, to extrapolate your logic from, but the seed itself cannot be proven – it must be taken at face value.

    This doesn’t mean that logic is not useful, only that it is inherently limited. The fact that we end up with logical inconsistencies when we take material reality as our seed and construct our “reality” from that, is a hint that material reality is not the correct starting point.

    For deep existential questions, we are better off looking to mystics than to scientists.

    Here’s a good video on Gödels Incompleteness Theorem – it is a very curious thing:

    • Replies: @Larry Romanoff
  42. bwuce wee says:
    @j2

    you asked for proof I ALREADY GAVE IT!:
    1. the fact that your pet theory violates the 1st law of thermodynamics invalidates your theory.
    2. you asked for proof, yet your ‘proof’ is all theories. THEORIES ARE NOT PROOF! THEY ARE NOT FACTS! you lose.
    3. i said if you do not like the article, take it up with the author, and yet here you are pretending to talk to the author by way of me. i have already won the argument. so TALK TO THE HAND.
    4. you well know no one on this forum views you as any sort of fount of knowledge, your presence here is merely an excuse for you to release a barrage of mental diarrhea- as the bard says: full of sound and fury signyfying NOTHING. stick a fork in you- you are done.

    • Replies: @meamjojo
  43. anon[593] • Disclaimer says:

    One has to beware of the pitfalls of language. As inferred by commenter Michael Meo, the seemingly meaningful questions ‘what is outside it that the universe is expanding into?’ and ‘what happened before the Big Bang?’ are, to astronomy, asking ‘what is outside of Space?’ and ‘what happened before Time?’ Put this way, one can see that the questions are not meaningful within the scope of current astronomy, which tautologically defines the universe as all observable Space that has existed for all observable Time and links both in a single Space-Time continuum, since both are measured by assuming a single constant, the speed of light.

    The simple fact at the heart of current cosmology is that if one assumes the speed of light is constant, it turns out that the galaxies are not fixed in position relative to each other, but are mostly moving apart, ie Space as a whole is expanding. From there it is possible to calculate how fast various portions are moving apart and, therefore, an overall expansion rate for Space. And from there, it is possible to calculate when Space began to expand, and call that the moment Time began. Note how the issues become unanswerable within current cosmology when I put it this way.

  44. meamjojo says:
    @Bill H.

    “But what if the math of our understanding of gravity is wrong? What if we don’t actually understand gravity at universal level at all, and the reason we cannot detect dark matter is because it doesn’t exist. What if dark matter is a fiction we invented to cover up how much we don’t know? ”

    Agreed. Dark energy/matter is simply a kluge factor right now to make the current mathematics of the universe work The problem is that a new theory is needed. See:
    ———
    Unique prediction of ‘modified gravity’ challenges dark matter
    January 21, 2021

    An international group of scientists, including Case Western Reserve University Astronomy Chair Stacy McGaugh, has published research contending that a rival idea to the popular dark matter hypothesis more accurately predicts a galactic phenomenon that appears to defy the classic rules of gravity.

    This is significant, the astrophysicists say, because it further establishes the hypothesis—called modified Newtonian dynamics (MOND), or “modified gravity”—as a viable explanation for a cosmological dilemma: that galaxies appear to buck the long-accepted rules of gravity traced to Sir Isaac Newton in the late 1600s.

    The mystery: For decades, we’ve measured more gravitational pull in space than we think we should have—that there’s not enough visible or known matter to account for it all.

    So, dark matter proponents theorize that most of the known universe is actually made of material that doesn’t interact with light, making it invisible and undetectable— but that this material accounts for much of the gravitational pull among galaxies. It has been the prevailing theory for nearly 50 years.

    MOND theory, a counter explanation introduced by physicist Mordehai Milgrom from Weizmann Institute (Israel) in the early 1980s, says this gravitational pull exists because the rules of gravity are slightly altered.
    ….
    https://thedaily.case.edu/unique-prediction-of-modified-gravity-challenges-dark-matter/

    • Agree: Realist
    • Replies: @Peter Rabbit
    , @bwuce wee
  45. meamjojo says:
    @Gordo

    Clearly Romanoff is an alien or witch and should be burned at the stake!

  46. meamjojo says:
    @bwuce wee

    What if the 1st law of thermodynamics isn’t an actual law?

    • Replies: @bwuce wee
    , @bwuce wee
  47. nameless says:

    The earth only looks flat to one who lacks the proper point of view. Likewise, the universe only looks like it’s expanding because one cannot see that it’s actually rotating or circulating hyperdimensionally. This satisfies the notion that there is no ‘beyond’ because the interior and exterior of an environment of at least four dimensions are one and the same thing. If one could see a distant future one might notice that the only differences are superficial, different stars in different locations but much the same as now. This noneuclidean flow of the cosmos will continue for eternity. No big bangs, no big crunches and no paradoxes.

  48. Anon[400] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jack McArthur

    What is the content of the word?
    Awareness
    What is the content of all words, names, forms, emotions, knowledge etc?
    Awareness
    Can any thing, sentient or in sentient in the Universe (known or unknown) be outside Awreness?
    No
    Can the unknown as a thought in the mind be outside Awareness?
    No
    What is the basis of everything?
    Awareness
    What is the ultimate basis or Truth of you and the Universe?
    Awareness
    If Awareness as the ultimate Truth of subject and object is called God, it’s not merely belief but knowledge.
    Word is a form with a meaning. Meaning is Awareness. Awareness is God, the ultimate Truth of the Universe including You.

    • Replies: @Jack McArthur
  49. Fox says:
    @Uncle Joe

    Thank you for your comment and also thank you for the book suggestions. I suppose the ‘big bang’ is the creation myth as presented in the Bible in mathematical form.

  50. bwuce wee says:
    @j2

    the only thing you can possibly do to refute me is publish your collected evidence in a scientific paper in a reputable scientific journal where the world announces ‘j2 PROVES THE BIG BANG THEORY’! i await your paper. sound of crickets…

    • Replies: @j2
  51. @Thomas Faber

    “Here’s a good video on Gödels Incompleteness Theorem – it is a very curious thing:”

    Curious indeed. Thank you for posting it.

    “For deep existential questions, we are better off looking to mystics than to scientists.”

    Agreed. 🙂

  52. martin_2 says:
    @bwuce wee

    The farthest object seen in the sky by the Hubble and Keck Telescopes is 13 billion light-years distant, and is assumed to have been created when the universe was just 750 million years old. It would take at least that long (if not longer) for the material from the theorized Big Bang to coalesce into stars and for those stars to form a rotating galaxy.

    But here is the problem. We are seeing that object 13 billion light-years distant not as it is today and where it is today but as it was and where it was, 13 billion years ago, 13 billion light-years distant from earth.

    In other words, for this galaxy to lie 13 billion light-years away from Earth only 750 million years after the Big Bang, it would have had to travel 13 billion light years in just 750 million years’ time. That requires the galaxy in question to travel more than 17 times faster than the speed of light, a speed limit which according to the Big Bang supporters was in effect from the moment the universe was 3 seconds old.

    This seeming paradox is explained by the fact that the Universe is expanding, meaning that empty space is being created, and the creation of empty space between objects in space means that they are indeed moving apart at greater than the speed of light, although they are not moving at greater than the speed of light relative to their surroundings.

    • Replies: @Larry Romanoff
    , @bwuce wee
  53. There was nothing good on Netflix, God was bored and a little high so…

  54. It may be there are times when science or math lead us astray, not because they are wrong but because their their descriptions are irrelevant to the mind.

    For example, I want to know where the sun goes when the sky is cloudy. I don’t need a mathematical formula; I need a concept my mind can grasp, a concept of the reality of real things.

    My mind can grasp an image of a blanket of cloud covering the earth, and from that I have understanding. Not so with √-1.

  55. Yes I can explain this but not tonight. Perhaps tomorrow night, if you are still interested. The explanation is a no-nonsense logic, but tonight I have no time.

    And the Big Bang thing is plain stupid. Just like the Flat Earth. You are one of a few people who ask the right questions. Most people are fine with the Big Bang.

  56. Right_On says:

    If all the matter in the Universe were compressed into the same density as our sun, it would fit into a cube that’s approximately 1,000 light years on each side. That’s a lot of stuff. And yet, according to Big Bang Theory, all that matter/energy was once squeezed into the size of a pinhead. Pretty implausible.

    But, dear reader, help is at hand! The Zero-Energy Universe Hypothesis proposes that the positive energy, in the form of matter, is exactly canceled out by its negative energy, in the form of gravity. So the total amount of energy in the Universe is A Big Fat Zero. Now, can zero energy be squeezed into a pinhead? Hell, I could do that with one hand tied behind my back.

  57. Anonymous[388] • Disclaimer says:

    So you want to know? First, you have to give up everything that you believe in. And that means, along with other things, the Big Bang, which is your religion. You assume that that reality begins with matter. Therefore, you will have a materialist theory of reality. That belief means that you also believe in nothingness, as well as “somethingness,”—matter— both of them being real as well. That means you believe in dialectical materialism, or thesis and antithesis coming together to produce synthesis. The usual way this was conceived was “good and evil,” or light and darkness, coming together, in a state of conflict. The most developed theory of the Big Bang, was put forth, not, as that big know-it-all Roatan Bill says, “Georges Lemaître,” but by Mani (216-274), who developed Manichaeism. He was not the first, but the most successful proponent of Dialectical Materialism, or Dualism. Even more successful than Karl Marx. Mani’s religion is found throughout the whole world, in various disguises. For example, besides Communism, as Tibetan Buddhism, and Scientology. Or Jehovah’s Witnesses. Or Anthroposophy, Calvinism, and so forth.

    The way Mani explained it: the God of Light was sitting in his garden (pardes), which was walled on three sides, but open on the fourth side. Out of nowhere, wham! came the god of darkness and attacked the God of Light (because that was his nature, see?). The God of light created the world as a trap for the god of darkness, and the God of Light created man as his left behind army (to recuperate parts of himself, particles of light, left behind). And after creating the world and man, then the God of Light went of the the cosmos which he created for this purpose, through a trap door in outer space (which, for reasons which it would take much too long to explain) is found in the constellation of Orion. There he sits, behind that trap door, and receives shipments of light particles carried by cosmic caravans which collect them from the Moon, which waxes as it collects the recuperated light particles, and wanes when it off loads them. The light particles are collected on earth by the Elect, the Knowers, the real Knowers, and (not the know-it-alls, like Roatan Bill). The Elect Knowers are Vegans, and they extract it from bio-dynamic food, that is, by eating vegetables. Then the recuperated light comes out of their chests, while the crap is expelled the usual way.

    When all, or rather, almost all, of the left behind light has been shipped out, the Elect will be raptured out, and the remaining world will burn for 1,462 years, approximately the “Sothic Year.” (Why the Sothic year? Because, actually, as the Babylonians knew, our Sun and Sirius are in a binary system together going around common foci. And the complete revolution of the two, Sun and Sirius, takes that long.) After the long burning, evil, darkness, will be reduced to a bolus of slag, or schlock as the Jews say, rendered harmless. Perhaps we would call it “vitrified” today. What was Mani’s philosophical-theological mistake? He thought that Darkness, or Evil is Real. Or, as they say in theology, a god. Augustine, who had been a Manichean, corrected the mistake when he said that “evil is the absence of Good.” But this is Dualism, and it is a very, very common mistake, a materialist mistake. It is so common it is taught in schools as science.

    For a more in-depth look at the science of it (for Mani thought of himself as a scientist), you can read “Manicheism, Religion of a Thousand Masks” and “Mani’s secret trap door in Outer Space.”
    In the Big Bang, the world is created by emanation, not out of the “One,” as Plotinus said, but out of the “Two” as Mani said. (By the way Manichaeism broke up early on, that is in the third century, into two groups: the Stalinists, or “Manichaeism in One Country” and Troskyites: “Manichaeism is not possible until the whole planet is Manichaean.” Of course the social system of Manichaeism is communism, or one big plantation that exists for the benefit of the Elect, as Karl Schwab teaches us: “You will have nothing. And you will be happy.”

    But you want to know the real theory of creation. That is more subtle. The Big Bang is for Simpletons. But the real theory of creation is from nothing. Not by emanation but ex nihilo. And reality is not made up, not of “matter,” or schlock, but as Aristotle taught us, from hyle, or pure receptivity, receiving “form” or eidos, and giving eidos, or “idea,” extension. Like I said, out of nothingness, and hyle gives eidos extension, not in three “dimensions” but in in three dynamics within time, which Hinduism calls the three gunas, or “bow string tensions”: sattwas, rajas, and tamas, or “the upward tendency, the expansionist tendency, and the downward tendency, or really tendency to a lower reality. You know, like going to hell. That means that “under” what you see is really nothingness. You are actually looking into a void. This is Sunday School scholastic philosophy. Did you not go to Sunday School?

    • LOL: RoatanBill
    • Replies: @RoatanBill
  58. @martin_2

    “This seeming paradox is explained by the fact that the Universe is expanding, meaning that empty space is being created, and the creation of empty space between objects in space ”

    But that is one of the problems; not “the creation of empty space between objects in space”, but the fact that the universe itself is expanding – INTO WHAT is it expanding? How can there be anything beyond the entire universe?

    And if there is something beyond the entire universe, then what is it?

  59. @meamjojo

    So complicated that only a Troll would think of something like that.

    • Thanks: meamjojo
  60. @Franz

    This was basically Aristotle’s view…

  61. @Larry Romanoff

    When I was seven years old I broke my leg badly and spent nearly three months hospitalized, mostly in traction. Your question plagued my young mind for many hours. I never came up with a satisfactory solution.

    I think Leibniz’ hint that space is “created” as a relation of objects (as opposed to the Newtonian notion of an “empty” plenum) is helpful, but leaves the basic issue unsolved. Leibniz himself (who may have been as intelligent as any man has been) thought that metaphysical speculation is the best we can do. After all, he is the one who asked “Why is there something? Why not simply nothing?” Which in his mind invokes a creator deity.

    • Thanks: Larry Romanoff
  62. bwuce wee says:
    @meamjojo

    what if? what if monkeys fly out of your anus? you apparently have nothing to contribute to this discussion, so what is you comment? are you advocating blind faith in some scientific theory, like j2? or are you supporting the idea that the ‘big bang theory’ is another version of the genesis creation story? either one is off topic for this particular thread…

    • Replies: @Larry Romanoff
  63. bwuce wee says:
    @meamjojo

    you do know that gravity is only theoretical- don’t you? physicists have not yet proven the existence of gravity- so basing your comments on a theory with another theory- well- your limb is creaking, dude. and i hear it crack right about now… yeaaaaaa!

    • Replies: @meamjojo
  64. Uncle Joe says:

    Again, you might gain some of the insight you’re looking for by reading the dissident literature in astronomy and cosmology. Your “two questions” are meaningless outside of the scientific paradigm that accommodates the big bang. If the universe is static (i.e. non-expanding) and infinite then you would be asking different questions (e.g. what does “infinite” mean in a physical context?).

    Likewise, a universe in which new matter is being ejected from active galactic cores, mass is variable and matter “grows” over time (the possible origin of galaxies and galactic clusters, and a nifty alternate explanation of the redshift phenomenon) and quasars are local phenomena (as opposed to being at the “edge” of the universe) is a very different world than that postulated by the current cosmological consensus. The difference is in the physical interpretation of astronomical observations, something the consensus just assumes they have gotten right.

    There is a large literature that suggests they have gotten it very wrong, and that the ‘big bang’ is probably a dead theory walking. In addition to writing of Arp and Disney, a good introduction to this literature is the writing of Martın Lopez-Corredoira, a Spanish dissident. Here are a couple of review articles from a non-orthodox POV:

    Non-standard Models and the Sociology of Cosmology

    Tests and Problems of the Standard Model in Cosmology

    Other famous dissidents who were practicing astronomers or astrophysicists: Halton Arp, Jayant Narlikar, Fred Hoyle, William Tifft, Geoffry and Margaret Burbidge, V. Ambarzumian. Some of the issues they dealt with that directly impinge on modern cosmology’s ability to explain our universe (and which have been expelled from modern research): redshift quantization, “intrinsic” redshift vs. Redshift as Velocity, luminous bridges between galaxies and quasars (that orthodox theory says should not be there), discordant redshift measurements in galaxies and quasars, variable mass theory, and much more.

    I guess what I am suggesting is that you might want to get a more solid grounding in the subject before blithely declaring that cosmology is “just another branch of philosophy.” While I have plenty of issues with cosmology and think of it more in terms of a “protoscience” rather than a mature discipline (and also think that the picture of the universe they have painted to date is mostly incorrect), I believe that too much has been left out of the discussion that rightly belongs there.

    • Replies: @Larry Romanoff
  65. Hacienda says:

    1. The physical universe is expanding, because that’s what the galaxies and stars show us. But it doesn’t mean that the universe is “in” something. It could mean that the universe is a cell amongst at vast number or infinite number of other cells. But maybe not.

    Space could be relational only, as Leibnitz said. It has no independent existence. It is an intuition as Kant said. Both of these views accord well with Darwinian evolution. Space and time are intuitions constructed. The better intuitions, given the selection pressures for that particular organism, gradually winning out.

    It could be universes themselves could be in some Darwinianian competition.

    2. If time is an intuition, then the big bang did not create time. Time is the thing measured by a clock. The thing is that our minds are a type of clock. If our minds completely create all the properties of time- the relation of time to space, the apparent arrow of time, then it makes no sense to ask what happened before the big bang, or even what happened a moment ago.

    But, I tend to believe nothing occurs independently. The intuition of time must be related to the observed galaxies and stars. And universe must be related in some way to what occurred “before” the big bang. It could be the big bang is not singular. That there was a kind of time before the big bang, with a different space-time geometry.

    • Replies: @PJ London
  66. @Anon

    The straightforward version is that in Genesis 3:1-22. A modern instance is the logo for Apple Computers. Jesus instead taught that you must become like little children to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Millennia before an instruction text used by the Ancient Egyptian elite taught that wisdom, a divine gift, was to be found at the grindstone i.e the lowly who ground the grain were not to be looked down as low I.Q nobodies. But that was in a culture steeped in Maat.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maat

    The big sin usually attributed to Satan is pride.

    • Replies: @Anon
  67. @bwuce wee

    ” what if monkeys fly out of your anus? you apparently have nothing to contribute to this discussion,”

    I think I must tell you that rudeness of this magnitude is unacceptable and unforgivable. If you are unable to conduct yourself as a civilised human being, please don’t comment again on any of my articles.

    • Thanks: meamjojo
    • Replies: @bwuce wee
  68. j2 says:
    @bwuce wee

    “a scientific paper in a reputable scientific journal where the world announces ‘j2 PROVES THE BIG BANG THEORY’! i await your paper. sound of crickets…”

    Practically all in cosmology, including the Big Bang theory, depends on the General Relativity Theory (GRT) and GRT is wrong. I have a proof that both the Special and General Relativity Theories are wrong. It is here:
    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358352774_The_final_blow_to_the_relativity_theory

    You can read and check the arguments in this paper. If you think something should be published in a reputable scientific journal and there should be an announcement to the world by the mass media, then I think you do not understand that it is not only mass media that is controlled. Also those reputable scientific journals are controlled by a small group of people. It is impossible to get pass these people with anything that contradicts something they want to support.

    But I can use this my paper to refute the first proof that the big bang theory is false in your comment. You use GRT in order to conclude that if much mass is in a small place, then it is a black hole and you even mention an event horizon. This is incorrect. As GRT is wrong, there are no GRT black holes. There are only Newton-Nordstrom black holes. There is no event horizon and there is no singularity in a Newton-Nordstrom black hole. As you mention the event horizon, your comment is refuted.

  69. meamjojo says:
    @bwuce wee

    “you do know that gravity is only theoretical- don’t you? physicists have not yet proven the existence of gravity- so basing your comments on a theory with another theory- well- your limb is creaking, dude. and i hear it crack right about now… yeaaaaaa! ”

    So what causes us to stick to the surface of planet Earth, wee wee?

    • Replies: @bwuce wee
  70. meamjojo says:
    @Larry Romanoff

    “But that is one of the problems; not “the creation of empty space between objects in space”, but the fact that the universe itself is expanding – INTO WHAT is it expanding? How can there be anything beyond the entire universe? ”

    The universe is infinite, therefore what we see is expanding into infinity.

  71. j2 says:
    @Larry Romanoff

    To Larry:
    you write:
    “the fact that the universe itself is expanding – INTO WHAT is it expanding?”

    In the prevalent theory, based on the General Relativity Theory, the space is expanding. It is not expanding into anything, only the measure of the distance between two points is getting larger. Consider a balloon and two painted dots on the balloon. You can picture expanding space by thinking that the balloon is blown up more, so it expands into the air. But you can also picture this expansion by thinking that the measurement stick that is used on the space of the balloon surface is getting smaller, so all measured distances increase and because of this the space expands.

    Personally I do not think the space expands and I do not think the Big Bang theory is correct. I have my own theory, but I have no intention of explaining it or trying to publish it as every cosmologist seems to have his own theory and they are all ignored. There is accumulating evidence that may be against the Big Bang theory, but so far the theory stands. When the Big Bang theory is replaced by a new theory, it will come from someone who is allowed to publish dissident theories in respectable journals because he belongs to a certain group of people, and that his work will be hailed as a great breakthrough and we have another genius from this small group. (Outsiders will not get their papers even reviewed, they cannot make breakthroughs and will be ignored.)

    • Replies: @John Pepple
  72. @Larry Romanoff

    John 9:11
    [The man who had been born blind] answered: That man that is called Jesus made clay, and anointed my eyes, and said to me: Go to the pool of Siloe, and wash. And I went, I washed, and I see.

    John 11
    46 But some of them went to the Pharisees, and told them the things that Jesus had done.
    47 The chief priests therefore, and the Pharisees, gathered a council, and said: What do we, for this man doth many miracles?

    John 12
    9 A great multitude therefore of the Jews knew that He was there; and they came, not for Jesus’ sake only, but that they might see Lazarus, whom He had raised from the dead.
    10 But the chief priests thought to kill Lazarus also:
    11 Because many of the Jews, by reason of him, went away, and believed in Jesus.

    37 And whereas He had done so many miracles before them, they believed not in Him:
    38 That the saying of Isaias the prophet might be fulfilled, which he said: Lord, who hath believed our hearing? and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed?
    39 Therefore they could not believe, because Isaias said again:
    40 He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart, that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them.
    41 These things said Isaias, when he saw His glory, and spoke of Him.
    42 However, many of the chief men also believed in Him; but because of the Pharisees they did not confess Him, that they might not be cast out of the synagogue.
    43 For they loved the glory of men more than the glory of God.

    https://ethiotewahido.blogspot.com/2020/08/behold-from-henceforth-all-generations.html

  73. @Kevin Barrett

    “In the last second before the Big Bang, God was hurriedly finishing off his to-do list.”
    No, he was looking for his keys — naughty Jesus had hid them.

  74. Molip says:

    With Guth-type cosmological inflation, mass suddenly expanded faster than the speed of light (c).

    Because gravity only travels at c, the gravitational effect of most of the mass in cosmos is delayed by distance. The gravitational effect is felt eventually and that is what I think dark energy is.

    That is, dark energy is not some mysterious force pushing everything in the universe apart, it is delayed gravity _pulling_ everything apart instead.

  75. Conformal cyclic cosmology (CCC) is a cosmological model in the framework of general relativity and proposed by theoretical physicist Roger Penrose. In CCC, the universe iterates through infinite cycles, with the future timelike infinity (i.e. the latest end of any possible timescale evaluated for any point in space) of each previous iteration being identified with the Big Bang singularity of the next. Penrose popularized this theory in his 2010 book *Cycles of Time: An Extraordinary New View of the Universe*.
    Wikipedia link:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conformal_cyclic_cosmology

  76. @Larry Romanoff

    You’re starting from an erroneous assumption, that the universe is expanding.

    The universe isn’t expanding. Redshift does not indicate distance, at least not in all cases since it was shown to be quantised by observation of numerous galaxies and their quasar ejections.

    Below is my list of Internet materials I’ve found that provide a different perspective on how the cosmos works. To prevent this site from showing each video, I’ve crippled the URL’s by replacing the ‘http’ with ‘xxxx’, so to view any video, replace ‘xxxx’ with ‘http’ .

    Why the Big Bang is wrong:
    xxxxs://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gK6zHysxoCo
    The second half of this video goes into plasma, and is also very good.

    Plasma Cosmology that debunks dark matter, etc
    xxxxs://youtu.be/E4pWZGBpWP0

    Electric Universe:
    xxxxs://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5AUA7XS0TvA

    Good video explaining the EU concepts:
    xxxxs://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6t2glWNeVyg

    Deep Impact:
    xxxxs://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wn_HqbMmn-4

    Plasma Cosmology vs Big Bang Mythology – NGC-7603
    xxxxs://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gK6zHysxoCo

    Electric Universe overview:
    xxxx://www.holoscience.com/wp/synopsis/

    Article that questions Big Bang:
    xxxx://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/050610arptest.htm

    Wallace Thornhill – The Electric Universe Paradigm Shift:
    xxxxs://youtu.be/IMS7vFzqg7Q

    Predictions of Thornhill and the EU Model :
    xxxxs://youtu.be/Dh3YBg1fqJ4

    Vela Pulsar falsifies the lighthouse model:
    xxxxs://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tiPmoFmBnN8

    Black holes behaving badly:
    xxxxs://youtu.be/-FdWTH08u30

    Black Holes don’t exist:
    xxxxs://youtu.be/8Pm-4MneIck

    Wal Thornhill on Black Holes:
    http://www.holoscience.com/wp/the-black-hole-at-the-heart-of-astronomy/

    Electrical comets:
    xxxxs://youtu.be/aoVWuRo6D9Y

    Halton Arp:
    xxxxs://youtu.be/LfxrEFf3Wuc

    Halton Arp & the Big Bang:
    xxxxs://youtu.be/UlFVUozGWyU

    Excellent articles on a plasma universe:
    xxxxs://youtu.be/PYzEy4GlcQI
    xxxx://www.holoscience.com/wp/twinkle-twinkle-electric-star/
    xxxx://www.holoscience.com/wp/electric-galaxies/?article=2m1r5m3b
    xxxx://www.holoscience.com/wp/voyager-1-at-the-edge-of-what/?article=0yfteeje

    Article on how astronomers are ignorant of plasma physics:
    xxxx://www.holoscience.com/wp/the-astrophysical-crisis-at-red-square/?article=7hjpuqz9

    Two videos for people that dismiss EU theory:
    xxxxs://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y8k7AwmKs90
    xxxxs://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QBsBUypc1VE

    • Thanks: Ultrafart the Brave
    • Replies: @Larry Romanoff
  77. bwuce wee says:
    @Larry Romanoff

    apparently you have no sense of humor, and apparentlky you missed the pop culture reference- – the monkeys quote was from WAYNE’S WORLD. and was i talking to you? i note you cannot respond the the fact that the big bang theory has already been disproven!

    • Replies: @Larry Romanoff
  78. Kali says:

    It seems to me, uneducated as I am in such matters, but at least with the inteligence of curiosity to drive my appreciation of “life, the universe and everything, that we/life/the universe exist within a “bounded infinity” or a series of them, and that those observers of the cosmos who supose the universe is expanding neglect to imagine that it may simply be orbiting within its infinite bounds.

    I am not nearly as clever as my husband. But when he had call to use Kepler’s “orbital mechanics” in order to determin the rate/speed of progression (progression of the equinoxes) around our solar system, and explained to me the accelerations/decelerations involved in orbital mechanics, so my vission of the universe expanded to take note of percieved expantion in time and space.

    A time may come when observers declare that the universe is contracting.

    So much for the “big bang” theory.

    I think I’m going to enjoy this thread! Thanks for the interesting questions Larry.

    Much love,
    Kali.

    • Replies: @Notsofast
  79. JR Foley says:
    @Adam Smith

    Let the mental geniuses enter –“Joe Biden–Justin Trudeau–what do you say?”

  80. PJ London says:
    @Aleks

    and as young Sheldon famously said : “That word was kaBOOM!”

  81. @Bill H.

    Another is why we cannot actually detect dark matter. The only reason we “know” that it exists is that it explains the non-uniform manner in which the universe is expanding, and verifies the mathmatics of our understanding of gravity.

    I thought it was because we can’t explain how galaxies stay together unless we assume they have a lot more matter than we can observe.

  82. Hi Larry:

    I am a physicist. Your puny intellect is incapable of understanding these things. Having said that, full marks for asking the questions. Ignorance is bliss. Enjoy your day. 🙂

    • Replies: @Thomas Faber
  83. We live in an infinite and eternal universe, though religion and science both choke on saying so.

  84. Realist says:

    Yes, Mr. Romanoff, there are a million questions…that is what makes science so exciting.

    If all the questions were answered…we would be omniscient.

  85. PJ London says:
    @Hacienda

    “The physical universe is expanding, because that’s what the galaxies and stars show us.”

    No, that is how we interpret the data we see. It is entirely dependent on Hubble’s “Red Shift” interpretation.
    “Dark Matter” and “Dark Energy” means we don’t have a clue as to what else is going on in physics.
    It is entirely possible that say Dark Matter or Anti Matter or “Someother Matter” cause Photons to slow and shift Red. In which case the Universe could be collapsing and we would not realise it.
    One can slow photons in a laboratory by changing the “Shape” of the photon. Interestingly, when a photon emerged having changed shape it stayed at the slower speed, which over sufficient distance and in sufficient quantity would be ‘seen’ as a Red Shift.
    So your statement is incorrect.
    All science is merely hypotheses, a fact which Fauci, Climate ‘Experts’ and numerous others would do well to remember.

    • Thanks: Kali
    • Replies: @Hacienda
  86. Realist says:
    @Franz

    The universe always was, always will be.

    Sounds like a religious approach.

  87. Realist says:
    @JasonT

    ‘Before’ the Big Bang, Time did not exist as the ‘universe’ was a timeless ‘State’

    Time is the interval between events…no events…no time.

  88. bwuce wee says:
    @martin_2

    in quantum mechanics- which rejects the big bang theory- they are operating under their observations that there is NO EMPTY SPACE.

  89. bwuce wee says:
    @Jack McArthur

    wikipedia is convenient, however, it is NEVER going to be a valid source of anything for any scientific papers or discussions. i wouldn’t let my kids use it on a school paper! wikipedia is heavily politicized and propagandized. it is self-edited- meaning many persons can go to a page and alter the text. and there are many people on their staff that act as GATEKEEPERS AND FACT-CHECKERS. so look up fact checkers before you use wikipedia as some type of ‘source’- it is no encyclopedia britannica! i know of one famous independaent media site owner and journalist that found a fake bio or himself there, and he could not even get it fixed, altered, or taken down because of an agenda against him. so can you say ‘bias’? well, wikipedia can!

    • Replies: @Jack McArthur
  90. @j2

    Regarding the balloon analogy, I have often heard this, and many years ago I asked a physics grad student about it. If we take the skin of the balloon to be two (spatial) dimensions, then the balloon is expanding in the third dimension. Likewise, then, our three spatial dimensions must be expanding in a four-dimensional space. (Feel free to say that our four-dimensional space-time is expanding into a five-dimensional space-time, if you feel that is more accurate.)

    The grad student rejected this, even though it obviously follows from the analogy. Nor do I see how any physicist can prove it wrong since it seems impossible that any empirical evidence we are likely to have would help.

    So, then, your first question is answered. Our space (or space-time) is embedded in a space with one more dimension, and it is expanding in that space. Regarding what else is in that higher-dimensional space, naturally we can’t know.

    I don’t have anything to say about your second question, except that I thought the cyclic theory some have mentioned here — a big bang, expansion, followed by contraction to a point, followed by another big bang — was implicitly disproved once we learned that the expansion was gaining and not losing speed.

    • Replies: @j2
  91. I want to know INTO WHAT is the universe expanding?…
    … I want to know what happened in the LAST SECOND BEFORE the Big Bang.

    Dear Sir,

    I suspect that your questions themselves betray their own underlying purpose, namely to force the realisation that the prevailing cosmological theory is self-evidently BS.

    If so, then I wholeheartedly agree.

    [MORE]

    The Big Bang Theory is pseudo-scientific dogma. Anyone who questions it is a heretic, cast out from the international community of politically correct cosmologists and astrophysicists.

    However, the Big Bang Theory is indeed eminently questionable, as it should be, being just a theory.

    The scientific method demands that any theory be subject to testing – as Einstein himself stated, all the experiments in the world will not prove any theory, but just one single experiment suffices to disprove any of them.

    As it happens, the Big Bang Theory has been tested repeatedly, and found wanting.

    The Big Bang Theory is itself a necessary consequence of another theory, that being the Red Shift Theory proposed by Mr. Hubble (after which the Hubble Teslescope was named) to explain the observed shift in starlight toward the red end of the spectrum. Mr. Hubble’s theory proposed that this red shift is the doppler effect resulting from the sources moving away from Planet Earth – but as this seems to be occuring in every direction, that would imply that the entire visible universe is expanding in every direction.

    Hence the Big Bang Theory – now an article of religious dogma masquerading as science.

    The problem we have is that the Red Shift Theory has been tested and has failed – multiple objects supposedly bleedingly far far away according to the Red Shift Theory have been discovered in front of objects which the Red Shift Theory places at a much closer distance.

    So scratch the Red Shift Theory, and suddenly the entire edifice upon which the Big Bang Theory has been constructed as a necessity – collapses.

    Except the Big Bang Theory hasn’t collapsed, because it has a life of its own – something of an evangelical persistance, you might say. Not unlike the dogmatism encountered by Galileo, except probably orders of magnitude worse.

    Too many careers have been built on it, too many reputations rest on it, too many egos rely on it, too much money and idiotic accessory theories invested into it, and far too many have been so thoroughly indoctrinated with the Big Bang Theory that they can never let it just go and die a dignifed death. Paradigms do that to people, and this is a mighty strong one. One ring to rule them all, as they say.

    So the Big Bang Theory – fake science and mandatory dogma that it is – lives on, despite the fact that it’s a load of codswallop that any intelligent non-conformist can so determine to their own satisfaction.

    The undeniable truth about the temporal history and origins of the cosmos is just so awful that it will be resisted at all costs by the establishment, and with terrible repercussions and consequences for any prospective heretics – the awful truth that we just don’t know.

    • Thanks: Kali
  92. @Aleks

    In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.
    Terry Pratchett

  93. @Uncle Joe

    ” blithely declaring that cosmology is “just another branch of philosophy.”

    I wonder if the popular meaning of cosmology has changed since my university days. My professors clearly thought of cosmology as simply a branch of philosophy and treated it as such. We learned to do likewise. And also as a sort of cogitative interface with science.

    We weren’t so much interested in red or blue shifts as in ‘How could this be?”

  94. @bwuce wee

    Britannica:

    big-bang model, widely held theory of the evolution of the universe. Its essential feature is the emergence of the universe from a state of extremely high temperature and density—the so-called big bang that occurred 13.8 billion years ago. Although this type of universe was proposed by Russian mathematician Aleksandr Friedmann and Belgian astronomer Georges Lemaître in the 1920s, the modern version was developed by Russian-born American physicist George Gamow and colleagues in the 1940s.
    https://www.britannica.com/science/big-bang-model

    There is no mention of it having been disproved as claimed in some of the posts above. I have no real interest other than indicated in my previous comments regarding something supposedly emerging from nothing and a couple of curious coincidences relating to Ancient Egypt – the hieroglyph for the sun, recurring creation/closed universe and one I never mentioned relating to the transcendence of the godhead as the “something” rather than the nothing from which creation emerges.

    • Replies: @bwuce wee
  95. @bwuce wee

    So you are defending your right to be insulting and offensive?

    I’m sorry, but a foul mouth is not indicative of a sense of humor, but of poor upbringing and a contempt for others. In any case, please wash out your mouth and rid yourself of your arrogance or go someplace else. Your offensive remarks contribute nothing to the conversation.

    • Replies: @bwuce wee
  96. @Steven Beresford

    Hi Steven;

    Is your comment meant as satire, or did you accidentally include a “y” too many in your second sentence?

    • Agree: Kali
  97. Realist says:
    @RoatanBill

    Names such as Wal Thornhill, Anthony Peratt, The Thunderbolts project, The Safire Project will get you started on a journey that actually makes sense, at least to an electrical engineer like me.

    If all you have is a hammer…everything looks like a nail.

    Likewise.

    If all you have is a double E…everything looks like a Thunderbolt.

    • Replies: @RoatanBill
  98. Realist says:
    @Gary Seven

    Before the Big Bang the universe of all matter was contracting for billions of years after the last expansion had lost momentum. All matter became so densely packed to the point where it could only explode in another Big Bang.

    How long the process of expansion and contraction of this universe of all matter has been going on is unknowable but my guess is eternal.

    This is a possibility…but to what point. What is gained by creating and destroying?

  99. Realist says:
    @Bill H.

    But what if the math of our understanding of gravity is wrong? What if we don’t actually understand gravity at universal level at all, and the reason we cannot detect dark matter is because it doesn’t exist. What if dark matter is a fiction we invented to cover up how much we don’t know?

    Exactly…a fudge factor. That is my supposition.

  100. @Anonymous

    I usually don’t bother with Anonymous posters because there’s more than one and I don’t know who I’m replying to. In your case I’ll make an exception, since you apparently find my comments objectionable.

    Any time you like, you may take me to task for anything I’ve stated in error or where you think you have a better idea. If you don’t correct me when I’m wrong, how am I supposed to learn? I noticed that you didn’t reply to the comments I’ve made on this article, but you find the time to dis me on the sly. That’s pretty cowardly, don’t you think?

    Now, step up and come at me directly.

    • Replies: @Ralph B. Seymour
  101. Notsofast says:
    @Kali

    kali i’m so glad you’re here! i came here to learn all about cosmetology but haven’t seen one comment on mani-pedis or waxing unwanted body hair, so i’m a little disappointed (just joking larry, please don’t throw me off the bus).

    with that said, here is where a hindu perspective comes in handy. many hindus view the entirety of the cosmos as a state of consciousness, rather than being made of “stuff”, nuts and bolts, if you will, from this viewpoint all the paradoxes and contradictory positions melt away into the illusion of maya. it seems to me that any time you attempt to describe the ultimate nature of “reality” you find yourself in a paradoxical situation. take light for instance is it a wave or a particle? sometimes it behaves like a wave sometimes a particle, is it a waveicle? einstein could never resolve relativistic physics with quantum physics spending the last part of his life trying in vain to find a unified field theory.

    the illusion of maya is so convincing that most people fail to realize that their waking reality is being processed with the same “equipment” they use to process their dream reality. in our dreams most of us are convinced that what we experiencing is “real” when in fact we are creating the entire cosmos of that dream, all of it’s characters, dialogues and “infrastructure”. when we wake from the dream we realize that it was all illusion but immediately believe our waking consciousness to be “real”.

    in shaktism, shakti (who is kali and durga) is the entirety of the cosmos as dreamed by the sleeping shiva. in the words of neil young (who i used to like before he turned into such a dickhead), i am just a dreamer, but you are just a dream.

    • Replies: @Kali
  102. @Franz

    What has no beginning cannot ever end.

    … and yet the Christian tradition speaks of a literal End of Time and End of All Things (space?) – probably rather beyond the scope of human comprehension – at least so long as our perception remains bound within these constructs.

    In a practical sense, time and space are just fleeting illusions captured by our temporally conscious state. What lies behind the veil?

    Nobody ever found a “This is the spot” for the start of the universe and time, therefore there isn’t one and time and space are both eternal.

    One thing doesn’t logically follow from the other. Not being able to find an artifact doesn’t mean it’s not there – but neither does that assure its existence.

    At some point, simple humility demands the admission that we just don’t know.

    • Replies: @Franz
  103. @Realist

    Wal Thornhill is a physicist. Anthony Peratt is a physicist. The Safire project’s team can be found here : https://safireproject.com/about-us/team.html

    I don’t detect a dummy among them. Maybe you should investigate what others are excited about before you sound off. You may learn something. The Safire Project in particular has made some interesting discoveries.

    • Replies: @Realist
  104. Levtraro says:
    @RoatanBill

    The problem is that humans don’t understand Nothing. They even don’t know that Nothing is what they need to understand. They are so lost. They think they need to understand Infinity.

    So here it is.

    Nothing is not the absence of all things. Nothing is the cancelling of all negative things by all positive things. Forward time is cancelled by backward time, expanding space is cancelled by contracting space. Nothing is full of things that exactly cancel each other so the net result is, … Nothing.

    The Universe did not start at the Big Bang, there is no initial unexplainable miracle after which all can be explained. The Big Bang of 15 billion yr ago is what happened after the last Big Crunch. On average, across eternity, there is not time and there is no space, as it should.

    Humans and other sentient beings live briefly in the small eddies formed on the edges of the flow.

    • LOL: RoatanBill
    • Replies: @Kali
  105. The universe is time. This answers both questions. Firstly, there was no “last second” before the universe came into existence because the universe/time did not exist. Secondly, the universe is not expanding into anything, the universe/time is expanding. Simple.
    I invite anyone to test my theory using Occam’s razor.
    Regards, Mr. Cracker

  106. j2 says:
    @John Pepple

    The questions are Larry’s, not mine. But anyway, I comment your answer.

    The balloon analogy is often given by cosmologists as the explanation how the Hubble redshift can give redshifts indicating galaxy escape speeds exceeding the speed of light (as it does for some quasars). The explanation avoids the problem: a quasar does not have speed over c, only the space expands. If the space expands, then your suggestion is a logical one: the 3-space would expand to a 4th dimension.

    But a different explanation is that the measurement stick becomes shorter. Think about a sphere in a 3-dimensional space:
    r^2=x^2+y^2+z^2

    Make this infinitesimal
    dr^2=dx^2+dy^2+dz^2

    This is a round sphere. Now, make it flattened sphere by using a function f=f(x,y,z)
    dr^2=f dx^2 + f dy^2 + f dz^2

    If you put some function f that is not constant in the equation, your sphere is not round.
    Extend this to a 4-dimensional Euclidean space with the coordinates x,y,x,t
    dr^2 = f dt^2+ f dx^2+ f dy^2 +f dz^2

    Next make this a Minkowski space, so the time is taken as positive and the others as negative and we do not consider dr as the radius and use for it the symbol ds, the line element
    ds^2 = (1/c^2)f dt^2 – f dx^2 – f dy^2 – f dz^2

    OK, now you have a metric in a Minkowski space defined by the line elements. This is a spacial metric since for all coordinates you have the same function f=f(t,x,y,z). This is a metric you get if your metric is induced by a scalar gravitation potential phi. Indeed, if it is so, then f=phi^2.
    Newtonian gravitation theory has a scalar gravitation potential, Einstein’s GRT does not. But assume now that the metric is as given and it is induced by a scalar gravitation potential.

    In a strong gravitation field phi^2 is larger and if the field is weak, phi^2 is smaller. You see this if you consider Newtonian gravitaiton potential around a point mass phi = -GM/r. It is larger if the radius r from the point mass M in the origin is smaller.

    Consider what this means: close to a mass the line element is smaller. If there is less mass, then the line element becomes larger. This line element is the measurement stick we use to measure the distance between two points in the balloon. We sum the line elements on the shortest path to get the distance. Thus, if the mass distribution changes, then certainly the distance between the points changes even if they do not move anywhere in the Minkowski space.

    It is perfectly possible to explain the “expansion” of the space in this way. The space does not need to expand anywhere, only the mass distribution changes. The result is that our measures of distances in GTR change and it looks like the space is expanding.

    In fact, assume the space is contracting. The mass of the universe is gets concentrated into a small area. The mass density grows. Thus, f=phi^2 grows. You may well see the distances growing, while in fact the real distances are decreasing. So, interpreting the redshift is not so straight forward.

    Notice also that the metric I gave is the only one where the speed of light is the same to each direction. The square of the speed of light to direction x is f/((1/c^2)f )=c^2. Similarly for the directions y and z, and any direction. But if f is not the same for all four coordinates, then the speed of light is not the same in every direction. This exactly means that GRT is false: Einstein equations
    do not allow f to be phi^2, a scalar. But it must be if the speed of light is constant.

    Sorry about writing a metric, but cosmology is so tied to GRT that I cannot explain it in another way.

    • Replies: @John Pepple
    , @bwuce wee
  107. Realist says:
    @bwuce wee

    1st Law of Thermodynamics – Energy cannot be created or destroyed.

    this is a LAW. the big bang theory is merely a theory. if the theory violates the LAW, is it THEREFORE disproven.

    Why do think the big bang theory violates the 1st law of thermodynamics? Energy and mass are convertible one to the other.

    E=mc^2 and E/c^2=m are valid

  108. We’re doomed to the eternal frustration of not being able to know all there is to know about the universe. Every answer will cause more questions. That should not stop us from fulfilling our ambition to master all that is, though. What else are we going to do?

  109. @RoatanBill

    Endlessly entertaining!

    • Replies: @RoatanBill
  110. bwuce wee says:
    @Jack McArthur

    you are correct! brritannica is just as bad as wikipedia. i looked up pecccary there and britannica claimed the word javelina linguistically was from javelin, which has already been debunked as coming from the arabic jabali. so i made an error recommending britannica. how times change0 we live in soviet russia where all the information must be approved by the politburo.

    • Replies: @bwuce wee
  111. Realist says:
    @RoatanBill

    My flippant remark was somewhat tongue-in-cheek. You and I have had this discussion before.

    Like you, I find many of the current cosmological theories to be flawed, but the Electric Universe theory also has flaws. The fact is there is currently not an acceptable/workable theory of Everything.

    • Replies: @RoatanBill
  112. @Larry Romanoff

    Nooo, don’t give away my location! I’m pretty sure I have dangerous enemies. My evidence for for supposing this is the fact that life can be tough sometimes, for no apparent reason.

    • LOL: Kali
  113. bwuce wee says:
    @Larry Romanoff

    that is correct! i am defending free speech. nor need i explain myself to you, pencil neck. anus is a medical term, a biological term- exactly like foot, or leg, it is not offensive unless you are a sunday school teacher. ‘doctor my anus is swollen’. is the doctor going to say- ‘please don’t say anus, it is offensive’? hahahahahha! so someone called me wee wee(didn’t bother me with childish name-calling which goes on here every hour of every day), and i told a joke from the movie ‘wayne’s world’- and poow widdle wawwy got TRIGGERED. i find it very very difficult to concieve that you are american(?) and you have not seen wayne’s world?!?!?! the skits were on SNL for years and then they made a movie! as i said, YOU HAVE NO SENSE OF HUMOR. humor is being cancelled in the US- because of people like you- who allow themselves to be triggered, and then pretend that their outrage is justification to censor free speech. like it or not, that makes you a libtard. offensive is like beauty- in the eyes of the heholder. no one was talking to you, and you insert yourself into a conversation- if this was a restaraunt or bar, i would say mind your own business, buddy. but if this were face to face, you would have not said a thing- am i right? because i guarantee you, ‘you have not seen me offensive’. and that is paraphrase of tom cruise in mission impossible- another film you are likely unaware of. a person who is unaware of movie references, unaware that movie references are part and parcel of modern american culture, language AND social interaction, falls into a very small category in the US…

    • Troll: meamjojo
    • Replies: @Kali
  114. bwuce wee says:
    @Realist

    there exists no evidence anywhere that a giant ball of ‘all matter that will ever exist’ sat around in an unknown corner of nothingness*(not moving like all known celestial objects- mind you!). there exist no evidence that the ball then magically exploded. there exist no evidence of what could cause that explosion. clearly gravity would have held the pieces together at some point like the asteroid rings of our solar system- so this idea posits the absence of gravity- and the pieces are STILL expanding a gazillion years later? clearly, if this was true there could be no gravity. or the explosive force was great enough to counter the force of gravity generated by a ball of ‘all the matter in the universe’?!?!?! (inertia- an object at rest will remain at rest unless acted upon by a force- yada-yada)… no evidence of any of this: the mass, the force, the gravity. this hypothetical situation requires the suspension of disbelief at an unimaginable magnitutde! this is the realm of religion, as i have explained- it is faith in systems, events, and factors that cannot AND are not, explained by facts and evidence.

    the very fact that so many here try to defend the indefensable, PROVES this is religious belief.

    *a ball of ALL matter exist in nothingness? what a crock! ‘nothing to see here folks, move along’!

    • Replies: @Realist
  115. @Realist

    If you seriously looked into EU theory, I think you’ll find it’s far more logical, intuitive and has experimental evidence behind it. Plasma scales from the very small to the very large. Lots of lab experiment have been done to explain far more than the conventional theories and doesn’t rely on any unicorns.

    Just some of the predictions made by the theories that turned out to be true provide further evidence that EU can do a better job of explaining how the cosmos works. The Deep Impact mission surprised all the NASA folks when the EU prediction came true, for example. A video of that is part of the list I supplied.

    You are missing out if you don’t spend some time examining what lots of bright people have come up with.

  116. Realist says:
    @bwuce wee

    there exists no evidence anywhere that a giant ball of ‘all matter that will ever exist’ sat around in an unknown corner of nothingness*(not moving like all known celestial objects- mind you!). there exist no evidence that the ball then magically exploded.

    Your idiotic comments demonstrate that your understanding of the big bang theory is as goofy as your understanding of sentence structure.

  117. – Fred Hoyle, a contrarian, gave us the term “Big Bang” to denigrate the idea,
    and to his chagrin it stuck.
    – The arguments from element abundance fall flat – everything fits the standard model
    right down to the predicted lithium and rubidium peaks in red supergiants that
    swallowed a neutron star (the only observable p-process yield).
    Hoyle & Cie. have nothing.
    – The formation times of (speculative) Population III blue supergiants and
    galaxies are a problem; the universe must have had stucture before
    it became transparent* (= which it cannot), requiring serious tweaking of the
    Friedmann Equations (describing the behaviour of an ideal plasma; Friedmann
    married and died of typhoid before he could explain what he meant).
    – Inflation postulates the universe is both flat and smooth; flat it may be but smooth
    it ain´t; same as above, it´s a problem of oversimplification.

    So what?

    The redshift is not even 100 years old.
    Edwin Hubble himself (who´d had to support himself as a prizefighter) warned
    against jumping on the Doppler explanation to the exclusion of others
    (it does remain the simplest).
    It´s four decades we have telescopes** in space – a quantum leap comparable
    to Ejnar Hertzsprung´s putting the Harvard Classification in order.
    It´s less than two decades we have presolar matter (that we recognized as such)
    in our labs to do … intrusive things to them 😛

    The times when physicists (in the Greek sense, what we would call “hard sciences”)
    believed they could explain everything but for this little thing have historically
    always been the best
    [handrubbing intensifies].

    *t+400,000a or so, the proposed origin of background radiation.
    **for scientific purposes – I mean, there have to be priorities.

  118. @RoatanBill

    Wow. Many sincere thanks for compiling all this.

    🙂

    • Replies: @RoatanBill
  119. Hacienda says:
    @PJ London

    Anything is possible. But the preponderance of evidence goes to BB and currently expanding universe.
    It fits cosmic background radiation curves and age of universe fits distribution of matter.

    You have to explain why the physical universe upped and started to shrink. There is not any known mechanism for that.

    • Replies: @RoatanBill
  120. @Larry Romanoff

    You’re welcome.

    I collected these URL’s over many years and I hope they all still work.

  121. @j2

    I’m too lazy to wade through all that, but looking at your first comment, I see what you are getting at. Space doesn’t expand into anything because it’s not really expanding. Got it.

  122. I think I’ll begin my ‘reply’ with a quote from the SF author Arthur Clarke.

    During interviews, both in 1993 and 2004–2005, he stated that he did not believe in reincarnation, saying there was no mechanism to make it possible, though “I’m always paraphrasing J. B. S. Haldane: ‘The universe is not only stranger than we imagine, it’s stranger than we can imagine.’”

    If a person looks at astronomy books from only 60 years ago, everything seemed to be very simple. Not anymore!

    A website I check regularly has this rather mind-blowing story about the state of our very own Solar System.

    The solar system is really messed up (and it might mean Planet 9 exists)
    Blame it on gravity.
    https://www.syfy.com/syfy-wire/planets-with-unstable-orbits-might-have-kicked-planet-9-out

    Facinating reading, but even the “simple” orbital mechanics involved here are way over my head. So what am I to make of “Life, the Universe and Everything?”

    While waiting for a dumbed-down version of the final answer, I’m content to read Speculative/Science Fiction. A person could do worse than by starting with the works of Gregory Benford. Before he retired his day job was professor of Astrophysics.

    http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/ea.cgi?109

    • Thanks: Kali
  123. Franz says:
    @Ultrafart the Brave

    At some point, simple humility demands the admission that we just don’t know.

    A premise I start from.

    But the further back you go, you notice the Tribes of the World has no real “creation” legends, only the origin of our tribe legends. So something — in the Hebrew case just darkness — pre-existed the order to let there be light.

    I like the “big bounce” theory that says the universe flames on for a bit, entropy kicks in, goes dark for a long long time then comes back. It has no more evidence than the big bang, but it makes sense when we consider ALL nature is a series of cycles.

    Could be wrong. No way of knowing, as you note.

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

    • Thanks: Ultrafart the Brave
  124. Kali says:
    @Notsofast

    Dear Notsofast, I’m very glad you’re here too.

    Several years ago I took a wander through the subject of “sacred geometry”, through the flower of life, through the Mandelbrot Set, and through the fractal, holographic nature of existance. And what an enlightening meander it was.

    That was before I accepted the calling of “Kali” and began to discover the teachings of hindu tradition, of the ancient masters, the Rishi’s and Mooni’s, and gained an understanding of ‘what is Maya’.

    The two aproaches are equaly applicable and complimentery. Both have led me to a deep joy in and love for every single bounded infinity and every “inexplicable” (lol) paradox I have encountered or found myself bound up in ever since.

    [MORE]

    This dream-jouney IS God, and every step along the way is Divine. The trouble comes when we take any of it too seriouly or personally; when we forget to simply be the witness of it.

    Is light a wave or a particle? Let it be both, let it be a waveicle. Right now it is reflecting the bright yellow of the broom-flowers all over the mountain and growing my garden. Surely that’s enough for it to be going on with. Certainly it’s enough for me and the flowers. The birds seem happy with it to be as it is (or isn’t) too.

    Cutting slots in card to see how light behaves when shone through them is an interesting past-time, but watching it dance through the trees is a much more worthwhile practice.

    Anyway, it’s my understanding that a wave is a process of the ocean, and that a drop (particle) of water, upon entering the ocean, ceases to be a drop, but rather joins the ocean itself… processes and all. Will the drop ever experience itself as a drop again? I do hope not! – I would like this to be my final experience of separation from God. (And, oh f*ck, I think I just had a desire!! 😄)

    I have recently started reading another Osho book, The True Name, vol 1, which explores the teachings of one Nanak. Nanak says “Ek Omkar Satnam” – He is Everything…

    I have yet to fully apreciate Kali – but I think she may ultimately be the manifestation of the dream of Shiva as experienced by we dwellers on the earthly dreamscape.

    I think I’d better insert a ‘more’ tag into this comment! Moderation may not appreqiate the relevance of these meanderings through the Cosmic Consciousness which brings forth the dream.

    Much love, Notsofast,
    Kali.

    P.S. Do check out that book I mentioned. I think you’ll enjoy it.

  125. Kali says:
    @Levtraro

    Nothing is not the absence of all things. Nothing is the cancelling of all negative things by all positive things. Forward time is cancelled by backward time, expanding space is cancelled by contracting space. Nothing is full of things that exactly cancel each other so the net result is, … Nothing.

    Put another way, No-thing is that which contains the potential of all-thing. All-thing is the dream, which is ultimately no-thing.

    Once again, I have to thank Larry for asking the questions which began this conversation, which I am loving! 🙂

    Much love,
    Kali.

    • Agree: Levtraro
  126. Kali says:
    @bwuce wee

    I hate to say it Mr wee, because I don’t think you are here to troll (time will tell) but your comment, not to mention your attitude, to the man upon whose column/thread you are posting shows a level of ignorance and stupid arrogance that (I hope) does you no justice.

    Larry Romanoff is curently based in Shanghi. Read more of his work before making too many more silly assumptions.

    Don’t make me deploy the ‘troll’ tag on you!

    Love,
    Kali.

    • Thanks: meamjojo
    • Replies: @bwuce wee
  127. bwuce wee says:
    @Kali

    i did read his work before i posted- and what i found was very revealing. the guy admits he posts stuff as clkick bait, to read the comments of others, which in turn give him ideas. so that amounts to picking someone’s brain- trolling for material. and, if someone goes out of their way to call me out, i will walk all over them. your move.

    • Troll: Kali
  128. bwuce wee says:
    @meamjojo

    asking a question is not presenting evidence. i have been around the internet a long time, and your strategy is called ‘sniping’. you cannot debate, so you snipe with questions- usually passive/agressive deflections. you cannot face your opponent, so you snipe from a distance. the big bang theory is outdated, flawed, and disproven. i am merely the messenger. you do not like the message, so you shoot the messenger. infortunately for you, when someone advances a theory, it is their job to PROVE that theory. you are asking me to disprove the flawed theory. that’s not how science works. you support the big bang- then your job is to prove it. instead, you shoot the messenger. how lame is that?

    • Replies: @meamjojo
  129. bwuce wee says:
    @j2

    i agree, however, it does not take much to prove that the speed of light CANNOT be a constant, and therefore einstein’s theory falls short of solving the problem. when space/time are considered inseparable, then the speed of light (time being a major factor in speed calculations)will change when it reaches a gravity well. according to einstein, space/time curves because of gravity. so when space/time is affected, then the speed of light is affected. now if light is traveling at it’s constant speed, and it curves in response to the gravity of an object, then that speed will increase because of the variation off the straight line, in exactly the same manner as a car or boat traveling at a constant rate of speed will reach a greater speed when it turns. that is why a car must break before and during a turn if it is traveling at a high speed, and also why the astronauts were able to return their craft to earth. they used the slingshot maneuver: they used the gravity force in their turn to increase their speed and were able to then excape the gravity of their lunar orbit. so gravity, by it’s nature, alters space/time, and therefore alters the speed of light. the speed of light cannot be a constant.

    • Replies: @j2
    , @j2
  130. @Realist

    Energy and mass are convertible one to the other.

    Although I don’t subscribe to the Big Bang Theory, your statement here (arguably first explicitly proposed by Albert Einstein through an ingenious process of mathematical reasoning) is indeed true at a fundamental level.

    The equivalence of matter and energy becomes self-evident when one considers matter to be the manifestation of motion – so-called “vortices” or stable fluidic flow structures – in the aether which forms the substrata of our material reality. What we perceive as matter and energy in that context are alternate abstractions of equivalent phenomena.

    A good deal of Tesla’s work seemed to be delving into these subjects, as did Maxwell with his original equations.

    If we can find someone who, either individually or collectively, has the intellectual capacity to do the necessary calculations and engineering to properly understand and exploit the properties of the aether, then literally nothing would be beyond humanity’s reach.

    • Replies: @Realist
  131. anon[122] • Disclaimer says:

    I have an undergrad math and cosmology background. I studied relativity with a pretty well known physicist and full time cosmologist. This is what he said:

    “The Big Bang wasn’t an explosion IN space-time, it was an explosion OF space-time”.

    When you get that, and the general relativistic math behind it (Minkowski 4-space etc), you’ll get where the bangers are coming from, theoretically.

    The problem though is evidence, or lack thereof. CBR and dark matter, for example. As a consequence, I personally am more and more of a big bang skeptic, as I’m increasingly persuaded by men like Don Scott

    The plasma / electric universe is an enormous topic; if you actually care about Physics, check it out.

  132. j2 says:
    @bwuce wee

    No, you misunderstand. Look again at the line element

    ds^2=eta^{ii}g_{ii}{dx_i}^2

    or written in a clearer way with eta=(+,-,-,-)

    ds^2 = (1/c^2)g_{00}{dx_0}^2 -g_{11}{dx_1}^2 -g_{22}{dx_2}^2 -g_{33}{dx_3}^2

    where x_1,x_2,x_3 are the local spatial coordinates (for clarity I write them with a lower index), x_o is the time, c is the speed of light and g_{ab} is the metric tensor. So, this is the metric given in the form of the line element. The metric tensor g_{ab} is a function of x=(x_0,x_1,x_2,x_3).
    The square of the speed of light in the direction i, i=1,2,3, is
    (g_{ii}{dx_i}^2 ) / (1/c^2) g_{00}{dx_o}^2 ) = c^2 (g_{ii}”/g_{00}) (dx_i/dx_0)^2

    but x_i are Euclidean coordinates, thus d_i/d_0=1 for every i=1,2,3.

    We have the square of the speed of light exactly at c^2 if and only if g_{ii}=g_{00} for every i=1,2,3. This means that g_{ab}(x) is not a tensor at all. It is a scalar function. We can write this scalar function as g_{aa}=phi^2(x) as it is a convenient way where phi(x) is directly a scalar gravitation field. A scalar gravitation theory is renormalizable gauge field theory.

    You see that the speed of light in every infinitesimal interval is always c in this theory. Integrating it to any length, the speed of light is constant c in every length. It is fully possible to have a constant speed of light in this theory.

    Your argument is that as light bends (and it does bend in the scalar gravitation theory), it could not keep the speed. You use as an example that a massive object must slow down when it turns. Light has no mass (not even moving mass, Einstein is wrong here also). It does not slow down. What happens is that the time infinitesimal becomes longer close to a mass and also the spatial infinitesimal comes longer close to a mass. This is the phenomenon that time slows down in a gravitation field (if we measure the time from a far away place). In order to explain what happens, consider Canadian hockey players playing in Europe. In Europe the hockey rink is bigger. Canadian players skate with the same speed as in Canada (this is the constant speed of light), but for the audience is looks like they skate slower because the rink is longer: it takes them longer time to skate from one end to the other because the measurement stick (length of the rink) has increased. The tempo of the game is slower in Europe. We say that time (the relevant time here is the tempo of the game) has slowed down. Thus, if the field phi^2 is larger, then time slows down for a person looking at what happens from a distance.

    Is this now clear to you?

    • LOL: meamjojo
    • Replies: @j2
    , @bwuce wee
  133. j2 says:
    @j2

    It is more correct to write g_{00}=(1/c^2)phi^2, g_{ii}=phi^2, (i=1,2,3). Physicists usually set c=1, but I wanted to put c explicitly for you.

  134. Realist says:
    @Ultrafart the Brave

    Although I don’t subscribe to the Big Bang Theory, your statement here (arguably first explicitly proposed by Albert Einstein through an ingenious process of mathematical reasoning) is indeed true at a fundamental level.

    As I have stated the Big Bang theory has flaws.

    • Troll: GKWillie
  135. j2 says:
    @bwuce wee

    “it does not take much to prove that the speed of light CANNOT be a constant,”

    I will explain this in another way, then you will understand where you make the error.

    Consider a star in the space. You have an observer far from the star looking at a rocket
    approaching the star. There is another observer in the rocket. This rocket moves with the
    speed of light (though it is not possible, we here assume so). The x direction is the
    direction where the rocket moves.

    The star has a high gravitation field, so the infinitesimal line elements increase noticably
    when the rocket approaches the star. The observer in the rocket notices that the infinitesimal line elements are ds^2= (1/c^2)phi^2 dt^2 – phi^2 dx^2. When he moves closer to the star phi^2 grows. His speed stays always at the constant speed of light c. But the time he needs grows (it is the (1/c) |phi| dt in the infinitesimal step). So, in his view the trip is very, very long and he needs very, very much time for doing it with the speed c. He sees the speed of light as constant.

    But the other observer does not see the distance increasing because of phi^2. He sees the star embedded in the Euclidean 3-space. He sees that in each infinitesimal step the distance is dx and the time needed is (1/c)|phi|dt, so the rocket really slows down and never reaches the center of the star. He concludes that the speed of light is not constant.

    But the speed of light is constant in the local frame of reference, in the rocket’s frame of
    reference. And that is where it should be constant.

    • Replies: @j2
    , @bwuce wee
  136. j2 says:
    @j2

    To bwuce wee

    Of course, the speed of light is not the same in all frames of reference. That is the false claim of Special Relativity Theory, if you look at my paper I linked in a previous comment, you will see the refutation of Special Relativity, as well as of the General Relativity and Einstein’s proof of E=mc^2 (which is a correct formula, but not Einstein’s ). Einstein’s only achievement was in managing to get his false theories accepted. This he did with the help of friends. Cosmology is very closely tied with General Relativity. Especially the theory of Black Holes is directly a result of assuming that General Relativity theory is correct, then we get Einstein black holes, but this is all wrong. It is not only Einstein and Relativity theory and cosmology that is wrong. Theoretical physics is a captured field. Also particle physics is largely wrong, captured by the same powers. This is just the way this world is today. No way to fix it, nobody cares.

    But the Big Bang theory is not refuted. It may be true. I do not think it is true, but it is not refuted and it is the prevalent theory. I have no valid refutation, though I have an alternative theory. The problem is that it seems that there are very many cosmologists who do not accept the Big Bang theory and all say that they have refuted it, but these cosmologists all have their own theory and these theories are all in contradiction with each other. They cannot agree on anything. Therefore they are all ignored as crazy, crackpot, conspiracy, questionable, not published in “respected” journals etc. theories. And this is so in many fields. Many fields are captured. And nothing can be proven wrong as no proof is checked. If you do not know this, then try yourself. You will soon verify that I am correct.

    In fact, of fundamental questions, like what was in the beginning and what is at the end, we do not know more today than in the time of shamanism.

    • Replies: @Ultrafart the brave
  137. meamjojo says:
    @bwuce wee

    You just like to hear yourself talk (post) BS Wee.

    P.S. Just added you to my ignore list. Buh-bye.

    • Replies: @bwuce wee
  138. pax smith says:

    In the Beginning, there was Nothing. Then God said “Let there be Light” – there was still Nothing,but you could see it a lot better.

  139. @j2

    Of course, the speed of light is not the same in all frames of reference… (etc etc)

    It’s refreshing to be occasionally reminded that there are people capable of independent thought out there.

    I’ve come to equate all the dogma about light speed and so forth, as loosely analogous to stating “nothing can go faster than the speed of a sheep” – which is true within it’s own limited context, namely that a sheep can’t go faster than the speed of a sheep.

    But the Big Bang theory is not refuted. It may be true. I do not think it is true, but it is not refuted and it is the prevalent theory.

    The torpedoing of the Red Shift Theory is enough for me. They are only theories, after all – and we don’t have to accept any of them. As a general observation, it seems to be human nature to resist the admission that we just don’t know, or having made the admission, being comfortable with it.

  140. @Ralph B. Seymour

    Off topic

    I just watched the 2000 mules video you identified. You found another winner.

    I have to believe Trump knows about this video and is preparing a response. That the DOJ and the media aren’t all over this shows just how corrupt the system is.

    This should be important enough for Mr. Unz to feature it.

    • Troll: meamjojo
  141. @RoatanBill

    It’s too late for any voting remedy. Trump”s just another stooge anyway. The jew money power has already compromised everyone and everything that might get in its way. And even if anyone does try to get in the way, they will just get bought off—- or killed if it comes to that.

    Remember, the people that are supposedly the “richest people in the world” (Gates, Bezos, Musk, et. al.) are not the richest by a long shot. They’re just the hired help for the real jew money associated with the British Crown. And it should be obvious by now, given the instant levels of corruption, that money actually does make the world go around. It controls EVERYTHING.

    When the jews finish looting the West with their fake money and the convenient Russia conflict, the majority of the western populations will be finished off by “vaccine” poisoning and engineered starvation– and maybe a nuclear exchange. They don’t care as long as they retain control.

    The remaining population will work, essentially as slaves, for god’s chosen people, the less than one percent of the world’s population that will own and control everything.

    Game, Set, Match— jewish supremacists (and British aristocracy)

    With resepct to 2000 Mules, Unz might feature it if he reads about it in the New York Times.
    Otherwise, it’s doubtful. Let’s see what he does.

    • Agree: RoatanBill, JasonT
  142. @Ralph B. Seymour

    The video isn’t powerful. It doesn’t grab the viewer. For someone like me, it’s preaching to the choir.

    I instinctively distrust all authority figures and organizations, so I don’t need convincing that they are bad. The average person is dumb enough to vote, to think that police are there to protect them, that murderers in costume should be thanked for their service, etc, and this won’t change their world view. I can appreciate the attempt, but it has no power.

    People will be more receptive to new messages when their bellies are aching from hunger, when they are evicted from their homes, when their paper investments become worthless and when gov’t finally is identified by them as the enemy. That awakening is slowly occurring, but critical mass won’t be achieved for some time yet. Till then, I’m afraid the process of propaganda will continue to hold sway.

    • Agree: Kali
  143. @Ralph B. Seymour

    Oh, yeah. That was a piece of pablum.

    But I thought it communicated the central idea that it’s all a plan.

    Of course it won’t change the course of the sheeple.

  144. bwuce wee says:
    @j2

    no, you still do not get it:
    1. the big bang theory is flawed- it does not hold up.
    2. einstein’s GTR is flawed- it does not hold up.
    3. if space/time is affected by gravity, that means the speed of light is changed by gravity. no 2 ways about it. if the speed of light can be affected by gravuty, LIKE BEING SUCKED INTO A BLACK HOLE, it cannot be a ‘constant’. IF TIME AND SPACE ARE AFFECTED BY GRAVITY, and both time and space are factors in speed, then your math is meaningless. stick a fork in you, you’re done.
    not to mention chinese scientists have managed to transmit photons instantaneously, refuting einstein who said it was impossible.

  145. bwuce wee says:
    @meamjojo

    good, now i can refute you without having to listen to your whining.

  146. bwuce wee says:
    @bwuce wee

    i ended up on a britannica page in an internet search this morning- know what i saw? A GIANT AD FOR A QUESTIONAIRE THAT READ- TAKE THIS TEST TO SEE IF YOU ARE GAY! really, people decide they are gay after taking a test?!!?!?!? sounds scientific! yeah, it was in an encyclopedia so it must be scientific… NOT!

  147. bwuce wee says:
    @j2

    again, the only thing you can possibly do to refute me is publish your collected evidence in a scientific paper in a reputable scientific journal where the world announces ‘j2 PROVES THE BIG BANG THEORY’! i await your paper. sound of crickets…

    • Replies: @j2
  148. j2 says:
    @bwuce wee

    ‘j2 PROVES THE BIG BANG THEORY’

    I told you many times that I do not support the Big Bang theory, I have my own theory like very many cosmologists today have being unsatisfied with the Big Bang theory. I cannot prove that the Big Bang theory is false, and I cannot prove it is true, but I did prove that your argument why the Big Bang theory is false is flawed. I think you either to not read or do not understand what is written, so I will not try longer to explain this to you. In any case, why I commented on this thread is that Larry wanted some cosmologist to answer his questions. As I know something of cosmology I answered. Answering to you was not my goal and it seems quite a waste of time.

    • Replies: @Kali
    , @bwuce wee
    , @bwuce wee
  149. @Hacienda

    There are industrial microwave ovens that you can walk into. If one were to place some microwave detection gear inside such an oven then one would expect to get readings from every direction when the unit is turned on.

    The earth is inside an arm of the Milky Way galaxy chock full of radiation emitters. No one knows where the radiation claimed to be the CMB came from. Pointing detection equipment in any direction from earth could just be the readings of the local environment.

  150. Anon[428] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jack McArthur

    Thank you for the reference of word”Maat”, which I was not aware of earlier. I wonder if it is related to the “Maata”, a word in Sanskrit and other related languages, meaning mother, both at individual and Universal levels. “Maaya” is another word for mother at the Universal level (Infallible Universal Order)

  151. @j2

    Thank you, j2, for your explanation.

  152. Kali says:
    @j2

    Dear j2,

    Though your efforts may have been wasted on “bwuse wee”, they have been apreciated by others. Much went over my head, but not all.

    Thank you!

    Kind regards,
    Kali.

  153. bwuce wee says:
    @j2

    you proved nothing of the sort. you are a typical blowhard who utilizes the principal: ‘if you cannot dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit’. what a crock! you tried to tell me that if a car is going down a flat road at 100 miles per hour and he suddenly is traveling downhill, that his speed will not increase. patently false denial of basic physics. the speed of light is ‘distance x time’. if grabity alters space/time THEN IT AFFECTS BOTH DISTANCE AND TIME. you cannot and did not refute that fact. you are full of crap. i proved that the speed of light cannot be constant. that disproved both einstein’s GRT and the ‘big bang theory’. i proved you wrong- didn’t even need math to do it. it was easy- a child could prove you wrong. cosmologist? what a joke. scientists who have no creative bones in their bodies desperate to come up with something original go to primitive creation mythology and steal old childs stories and voila- i’m a cosmologist! give me a master’s, sign me up to the intellectuals club. never mind that you don’t know how to work a screwdriver.

  154. bwuce wee says:
    @j2

    i proved the speed of light is NOT a constant, thereby disproving einstein’s GTR as well as the flawed big bang theory:

    1. the chinese scientists have successfully transmitted photons instantaneously from one point to another. faster than light speed. in fact, in quantum mechanics, it is theoretically possible for the photon to arrive before it is transmitted. einstein claimed this was both these events were impossible… but it is happening as we speak.
    2. a black hole sucks in all light within it’s gravity field- the light accelerates/decellerates bending from it’s path and entering that field. the speed of light is not a constant.

    and further-
    1. the guy who came up with the big bang theory did not ever refer to his theory by that ridiculous moniker. he called it the ‘primordial atom theory’. he would have been laughed out of the academy of sciences if he had used such a term as big bang.
    2. there are no sounds in space(nor was there anyone to hear the imaginary event, so there could never be a ‘big bang’- the very idea is utterly ridiculous.
    3. this ‘primordial atom theory’ was merely a rehash of primitive creation myths(such as the cosmic egg) found in many cultures around the world. there was nothing original about it- it was CULTURAL APPROPRIATION, like most of the theories of modern day physicists.

    j2 is exactly like a singer who cannot write his/her own material, but rather ‘covers’ the hits of another artist. a compiler of other people’s ideas…

  155. roonaldo says:

    Hey cosmologists, there’s a gem at e-catworld.com under the May 2, 2022 topic titled “Has O’Day Arrived?” by Bob Greenyer. He doesn’t say what he means by “O’Day.” (Overunity Day?)

    He was preparing a video when he received a document from a researcher named Shiskin of classified Russian research from 1993 that recorded electromagnetic structures of electric currents, indicating that these structures arise from the vacuum and describing them in straightforward Maxwellian terms.

    The structures in the 1993 paper resemble those that Greenyer tracks from work of Shoulders, Hutchison, Matsumoto, Parkhomov, the Safire Project, and others, but now the photographs of the structures are explicit and their theoretical and mathematical descriptions clarified.

    Greenyer finds these structures in cavitation, vibrator plate, and LENR experiments and in various electrical phenomena, along with transmutation of elements.

    The thing to do is scan the comments to find the translation of the 1993 document by a fellow named Vhzirbliv and a paper titled “The Bagel Game” by Nevessky–bagel referring to the toroidal structure that forms. A spherical form, as in ball lightning, is also found. Look for the link to Greenyer’s substack account where finer elements that comprise the toroidal structures may be seen. He says there is a must-see livestream on Sunday, May 15th.

    Greenyer put out a 2 hour 42 minute video that he was working to refine. I waded through it, but found it too stream-of-consciousness and disjointed for someone looking for the main points, though Greenyer’s excitement about breakthrough research is evident.

    This should be of especial interest for those familiar with electric-universe plasma cosmology, LENR, zero-point energy, and Safire’s experiments. Big Bang-Gangers may risk cognitive disruption, mental heebie-jeebies, and pain of theory dismemberment.

  156. Wild Man says:
    @Adam Smith

    “Also, why something instead of nothing?”

    Yes, … that gets to the gist of the deepest mystery of all. Also, within the metaphysics I prescribe to (which albeit, is just speculation, just as the standard model of the universe is just speculation), …. the universe is infinite (unlike the standard model). Mr. Romanoff’s question as to what the universe is expanding into, speaks to the idea that the universe may well be infinite.

    Within these metaphysical speculations, I prefer the ‘infinite’ qualification, because it marries up very nicely with my theological perspective, which is that ‘ontological humility’ is the key theological insight, (the idea that we are beings whom are akin to a finite precipitate of the infinite). Such perspective forces the necessity of Jesus’ central command (to cease and desist with the very awful community scapegoating humans are generally all too prone to, ….. said community scapegoating needs ontological conceit to operate). Within my theological perspective, the ‘sin of ontological conceit’ becomes the most basic and most egregious sin of all, …. the source of all other sin. It is pretty easy to see, that within the lying that we, the general pubic, are constantly on the receiving end of, ….. the leadership responsible for this lying (many of whom don’t even seem to realize the are lying) are some of the most awfully ontologically conceited people whom have ever walked the face of this earth. More ontological humility, among leadership, please.

  157. It’s turtles, all the way down.

  158. I love it; questions that the bullshitters cannot answer. The universe is. It is eternal and without limits. It is guided by electricity. Plasma makes up most of the matter in the universe. It is not expanding and it has no beginning; and especially no big bang. Black holes and dark matter are mathematical fictions.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply -


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
$
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Larry Romanoff Comments via RSS
PastClassics
Analyzing the History of a Controversial Movement
The Shaping Event of Our Modern World
The Surprising Elements of Talmudic Judaism