In the news today...

[Pudpop]

Einstein was once skeptical about his own theory predicting the existence of black holes. A little over a hundred years later, astronomers captured images of one.



May not seem like much, but it's one of the most incredible photos of our lifetimes tbh

And the most valuable information gets lost on religious fanaticism and armchair moral policing based on incredible works of fiction.

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-47891902

Is it really what they think it is though?

I've studied some of this stuff and they make these big announcements yet when you dig a little deeper that's sometimes all that they are ........... grand gesture announcements.

Are all the scientists in agreement that its a Black hole?

Why do I say this for e.g, they announced the Big Bang as fact when its not, I once had a conversation with an Cosmologist who explained to me that not all scientist accept that model and can even offer counter evidence, but the most popular theory prevails as standard.

Our best understanding of what that is is that it's a black hole. Physicists/Cosmologists agree on that. Even if there is a different understanding it doesn't negate this understanding, and this one is the most complete.

[StLGooner]

Einstein was once skeptical about his own theory predicting the existence of black holes. A little over a hundred years later, astronomers captured images of one.



May not seem like much, but it's one of the most incredible photos of our lifetimes tbh

And the most valuable information gets lost on religious fanaticism and armchair moral policing based on incredible works of fiction.

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-47891902

Is it really what they think it is though?

I've studied some of this stuff and they make these big announcements yet when you dig a little deeper that's sometimes all that they are ........... grand gesture announcements.

Are all the scientists in agreement that its a Black hole?

Why do I say this for e.g, they announced the Big Bang as fact when its not, I once had a conversation with an Cosmologist who explained to me that not all scientist accept that model and can even offer counter evidence, but the most popular theory prevails as standard.

Technically nothing about our existence or the beginning of the universe/time is a fact, because we don't know the big answers about any of it. Having said that, scientist as a whole don't claim things to be facts, even if it's quoted as such. We're supposed to realize as humans that we don't know these answers, so when something is discovered and said as fact, it really just means that's what the current evidence points to. Not everyone in the world of science agrees on everything. That's why it has to be viewed by scientific peers in the industry and agreed upon by the majority to accept it.

[DiamondGooner]

Einstein was once skeptical about his own theory predicting the existence of black holes. A little over a hundred years later, astronomers captured images of one.



May not seem like much, but it's one of the most incredible photos of our lifetimes tbh

And the most valuable information gets lost on religious fanaticism and armchair moral policing based on incredible works of fiction.

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-47891902

Is it really what they think it is though?

I've studied some of this stuff and they make these big announcements yet when you dig a little deeper that's sometimes all that they are ........... grand gesture announcements.

Are all the scientists in agreement that its a Black hole?

Why do I say this for e.g, they announced the Big Bang as fact when its not, I once had a conversation with an Cosmologist who explained to me that not all scientist accept that model and can even offer counter evidence, but the most popular theory prevails as standard.

Technically nothing about our existence or the beginning of the universe/time is a fact, because we don't know the big answers about any of it. Having said that, scientist as a whole don't claim things to be facts, even if it's quoted as such. We're supposed to realize as humans that we don't know these answers, so when something is discovered and said as fact, it really just means that's what the current evidence points to. Not everyone in the world of science agrees on everything. That's why it has to be viewed by scientific peers in the industry and agreed upon by the majority to accept it.

The Cosmologist I spoke to said there is a quiet section of scientists who think the big bang is bollocks.

However because its the big famous theory that is able to wrap is up neatly its not argued against.

[StLGooner]

Einstein was once skeptical about his own theory predicting the existence of black holes. A little over a hundred years later, astronomers captured images of one.



May not seem like much, but it's one of the most incredible photos of our lifetimes tbh

And the most valuable information gets lost on religious fanaticism and armchair moral policing based on incredible works of fiction.

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-47891902

Is it really what they think it is though?

I've studied some of this stuff and they make these big announcements yet when you dig a little deeper that's sometimes all that they are ........... grand gesture announcements.

Are all the scientists in agreement that its a Black hole?

Why do I say this for e.g, they announced the Big Bang as fact when its not, I once had a conversation with an Cosmologist who explained to me that not all scientist accept that model and can even offer counter evidence, but the most popular theory prevails as standard.

Technically nothing about our existence or the beginning of the universe/time is a fact, because we don't know the big answers about any of it. Having said that, scientist as a whole don't claim things to be facts, even if it's quoted as such. We're supposed to realize as humans that we don't know these answers, so when something is discovered and said as fact, it really just means that's what the current evidence points to. Not everyone in the world of science agrees on everything. That's why it has to be viewed by scientific peers in the industry and agreed upon by the majority to accept it.

The Cosmologist I spoke to said there is a quiet section of scientists who think the big bang is bollocks.

However because its the big famous theory that is able to wrap is up neatly its not argued against.

Yea I know, there are a bunch that don't believe it, especially as new evidence comes to light. Really, the whole world of physics right now is in disarray because they are discovering so many things right now, many of which goes against the standard physics model. They can't make much sense of it, and seem to be waiting for even more evidence before they make any key decisions or new theories.

The stance I take is, that I think people should have a very agnostic view of those "big" answers about our existence. It's ok IMO to accept certain theories in a sense, but I don't think it's ok to believe they are facts, or even put much faith in them at all. We should take them into consideration as possibly being true, but keep an open mind and a stance that we don't know. The problem comes when people think they know the answer. You know like religions do.

From what I have read, many are starting to see evidence that we are in a simulation. Which of course the religious fanatics love, because they idiotically attribute it to a creator, which to them means their god.

[LMAO]

The Cosmologist I spoke to said there is a quiet section of scientists who think the big bang is bollocks.

However because its the big famous theory that is able to wrap is up neatly its not argued against.

Is it that they think the Big Bang is nonsense or that the singularity is? Based on the evidence we do have (the universe currently expanding), I'd be wary of anyone claiming there wasn't a Big Bang.

As for the singularity, I don't think that's really mainstream anymore (at least in the circles I've been in). My physics professor in college and one of his friends who came in to give a guest lecture (one of the dudes who was on the team that discovered the Higgs boson) both think the universe has always existed, but that, in layman's terms, it's like an infinitely expanding and contracting rubber band—the Big Bounce of which the Big Bang is the expansion portion and the Big Crunch is the contraction portion. And that explanation sort of fits with the first law of thermodynamics (even though no one knows how the universe started/came to be), but all that changes if one day astrophysicists find evidence of there being parallel universes or something else groundbreaking. But right now, I think that's our best working model.

[Dejan]

I wish id even understood a fraction of this space shit

Too dumb for it

Verstuurd vanaf mijn SM-G920F met Tapatalk

[Sims]

I wish id even understood a fraction of this space shit

Too dumb for it

Verstuurd vanaf mijn SM-G920F met Tapatalk

[Ach]

I wish id even understood a fraction of this space shit

Too dumb for it

Verstuurd vanaf mijn SM-G920F met Tapatalk

[Va-Va-Voom]

Literally no one has a clue what Brandon is on about.

He's name dropping breakthrough space theories like it's supposed to resonate and I'm just sitting here like...

[DiamondGooner]

The Cosmologist I spoke to said there is a quiet section of scientists who think the big bang is bollocks.

However because its the big famous theory that is able to wrap is up neatly its not argued against.

Is it that they think the Big Bang is nonsense or that the singularity is? Based on the evidence we do have (the universe currently expanding), I'd be wary of anyone claiming there wasn't a Big Bang.

I might dig up the info I chatted to him about so I can be more specific and refresh but basically (and I did raise that about the expansion) he said expansion is happening all over the Universe.

Right I've found it, its going to take up some space but I'd rather you see the convo in full than me try to answer questions in snippets because I've not refreshed on this stuff for literally years.

Here goes .....................

[DiamondGooner]

DG: Is the CRB analysed from the WMAP proof the universe was once condensed or is there other explanations for this?

Cosmologist: Not at all! There is no evidence at all that the universe has ever been more condensed than it presently is. All cosmological models have always asserted that the inter-galactic medium has a temperature to it. This temperature is based upon galactic radiation. Such temperatures have been accurately estimated for more than a hundred years concerning the interstellar medium temperature of our own galaxy. This was also in the video. Some of these estimates are very close to what has been observed concerning the microwave background radiation temperature, what is presently called the CMBR.
Here's two links which give what might be called standard alternative explanations of the observed microwave background radiation.

DG: One question I have is, is there any evidence to suggest where the proposed expansion is emanating from within the Universe?

Cosmologist: There is no conclusive evidence the universe is expanding. The primary evidence according to the BB model and many other models is the observed galactic redshifts. There is also much evidence to support the assertion that there is a direct correlation between a galaxy's brightness and its redshift. This would mean that we accordingly can calculate galactic distances based upon their observed redshifts. As to determining the expansion of the universe, an assumption must first be made. This assumption is that the redshifts of galaxies are caused by their relative recession velocities away from us and each other. If this assumption is wrong then the observable universe is not necessarily expanding. All of the cosmological models mentioned in the video, along with the Big Bang model, make this same assumption that redshifts indicate a recession velocity and related to the Doppler effect. For my own cosmological model I make a different assumption and otherwise explain galactic redshifts having a different cause, so in my model the observable universe is not expanding.

[DiamondGooner]

Continued ...........

Cosmologist: In the BB model the expansion of the universe is generally associated with the expansion of space. Reasons for this expansion of space seem to be hypothetical since there is no consensus of opinion concerning why space accordingly should expand. In most Steady State models the expansion of the universe is due to the continuous creation of new matter which accordingly would expand the space that encompasses this new-creation process. In the Plasma Cosmology model the universe's expansion is proposed to be created by a continuous matter creation mechanism at the centers of galaxies which result in the creation of both matter and anti-matter which upon their interaction and anti-matter's annihilation, would accordingly cause the expansion of galaxies and ultimately the expansion of the universe.

DG: I'm assuming that as we are supposed to be observing expansion due to the BB model the reversing of time must show or give an indication of a starting point in space?

Cosmologist: In a totally flat universe this might be true, flat meaning Euclidean geometry. But according to the BB model based upon General Relativity, space "warps" (bends). This means that it does not follow Euclidean geometry which is common-sense to our senses, but instead follows another kind of geometry called Riemann Geometry. If the universe curves around on itself as many BBers propose, then the universe however large it may be, would have no edge since when traveling far enough in a straight line one eventually would move in a three dimensional circular path. In this model the universe also would have no center to it.

DG: If some time down the road we discover the Universe is much larger than anticipated and that it could be twice maybe more so as big would that not completely destroy the notion that we are in the vicinity of that starting BB point because surely we could not be the centre point of something that large?

Cosmologist: According to the BB model the size of the universe must remain unknown because of the Inflation hypothesis which has a number of different versions. Accordingly the universe could be almost countless time larger than we can presently observe. According to the BB model, everywhere was the center of the BB since space has expanded everywhere since the proposed initial expansion.

[DiamondGooner]

Just to note this guy was qualified, I remember myself and others who were privy to the convo checked and he had a book and papers plus his actual qualifications and experience recorded, he was a great guy to be fair, very helpful.

This was a final explanation I found, not sure where I got it from but it lists the issues he mentioned.

Problems with the proposed age of the universe and Big Bang calculations.

Globular cluster age

In the mid-1990s, observations of globular clusters appeared to be inconsistent with the Big Bang. Computer simulations that matched the observations of the stellar populations of globular clusters suggested that they were about 15 billion years old, which conflicted with the 13.7 billion year age of the Universe. This issue was generally resolved in the late 1990s when new computer simulations, which included the effects of mass loss due to stellar winds, indicated a much younger age for globular clusters.There still remain some questions as to how accurately the ages of the clusters are measured, but it is clear that these objects are some of the oldest in the Universe.
Obvious problem after the James telescope goes up if we see any older clusters they will be older than the universe is accepted to be according to the BB, this imo is very likely.

There are 80 billion galaxies with 30 Sextillion stars ….. but the universe is only 13.7 Billion years old see the problem? how many stars would be generated per year to fit this theory? To justify this to suit the status quo modification after modification has taken place, now to the point where we have the final coup de grace, Dark Matter …. Why not? With a made up theoretical substance you can make adjustments for anything.

[LMAO]

Literally no one has a clue what Brandon is on about.

He's name dropping breakthrough space theories like it's supposed to resonate and I'm just sitting here like...

tbh I 'understand' it as much as I do string theory, which is to say not very well. Like I remember sitting there with them doing the math in front of 30-something students, but I couldn't reproduce it or explain the concept as well as they did. But it did make sense when they were doing it.

I'll try though:
We all know the singularity Big Bang. The universe was infinitesimally small in the form of a single point—a singularity. Something happened that caused it to expand and we get the universe we live in today...but we still don't know where it came from.

^That's probably close to what the average person on the street thinks.

My professor and his friend (The Big Bounce):
There wasn't necessarily a singularity. The universe has always existed in some form or another. We're currently in an expansion period of the universe, but that will eventually stop one day when the universe can't expand anymore. Then it will snap back and begin to contract like a rubber band. Eventually, the universe won't be able to contract any longer and will reverse the process to expand again, thus starting the entire process over. Repeat ad nauseam.

^That seems to be the more accepted view now in the physics community.

Then like StL said, there's another camp that believes we're in a simulation.

Are any of those three correct? Are none of them correct? Nobody knows right now.

[DiamondGooner]

So Brandon what do you make of the Q&A I had with the Cosmologist?

From that and the other discussions we had plus I had done more research following I walked away thinking he was right tbh.