This ISU is about a “before and beyond” the big bang. Won’t you agree that BBT does not address the issue except to say “we can’t know”?

If exponential expansion is necessary to bring science to a reasonable and responsible time line for BBT, and such superluminal expansion is not necessary in the ISU, then the ISU proposes an immediate simplification when compared to BBT.

In regard to CMB, the BBT starts with hot and nearly infinitely dense matter smaller than the size of a proton. The ISU starts with a big crunch from pre-existing matter and energy in the pre-existing space of a greater universe. Let’s weigh again what is reasonable and responsible. The ISU doesn’t need a singularity. BBT can’t explain itself without a singularity.

The CMB has been surveyed and studied and it has been seen to support the hot infinitely dense beginning of spacetime. It even is said that predictions of BBT have proved out in regard to the few degrees Kelvin and the slight anisotropy. This is the calling card to rally support around the Big Bang? Why couldn’t the reasonable and responsible big crunch and big burst from pre-existing conditions that I have predicted be supported by the same evidence? In my many posts I have proposed how that could be the case.

Quantification of BBT is centered on curved spacetime and big bang nucleosynthesis if I’m not mistaken. Curved spacetime does a fine job of predicting the movement of objects as I said in my last post, but there is only theory about how that movement comes about, not how gravity works. The ISU has a theory too, and it doesn’t require a singularity, exponential expansion, or curved spacetime. It simply identifies the cause of gravity as a field of energy that has the characteristic of connecting all mass and generating photons that are formed from the energy field as gravity occurs.

I look forward to the advances in science that will provide an explanation for the cause of gravity, not just an almost perfect ability to predict what it will do. In the ISU gravity looks almost exactly like curved spacetime. The only way to tell the difference is to compare how reasonable and responsible the two ideas are.

On the one hand we have BBT, a singularity, a hot big bang from almost nothing and almost nowhere, that expands exponentially just long enough to establish a causal connection between what we observe and how it might tie back to the Big Bang, a scenario of big bang nucleosynthesis that needs anti-matter that can’t be found, and uses cooling from what seems to be an impossible heat and density to establish a “what if” of how matter formed from the soup, and then a team of scientists go to work to find evidence and show how it supports the theory. They have to change the theory from time to time of course but that is to be expected with any unfolding science.

On the other hand we have the ISU, a big crunch that consumes its own radiation until the heat and density reach a limit that matter and photons themselves cannot stand, and that results in a huge burst of energy from the big crunch. Since radiation is photons, and photons are consumed in the crunch before the burst, that burst is a release of energy in the form of unifying particles with little or no temperature in the abscence of photons. The expansion is a natural result from a high energy density burst into a low energy density surrounding. Matter forms from the expanding energy when the density gets low enough for the unifying particles to start combining. I too have made changes from my early threads about the elementary energy particle and what characteristics I think it must have, but like with changes to BBT along the way, that is the result of how ideas unfold.

That is how I see the difference and how I make the comparisons, and that is an overview of how I can make the statement that the evidence supports the ISU scenario as well as BBT.