Quote:
Originally Posted by Nereid
Bogie, the post of yours I am quoting here is full of mis-statements and misconceptions about BBT; may I recommend you read this site, and the references in it, to acquaint yourself with what it actually says? If you still have questions, please start new threads in BAUT's Q&A section.
|
Thanks for the link and as always I enjoyed reading about BBT.
What I didn’t find were the mis-statements and misconceptions that you refer to.
Maybe we could go over my statements from the referenced post one by one:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by bogie
“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”?”
|
What exactly is the position that BBT takes in regard to “before and beyond” the big bang if it is not “we can’t know”?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by bogie
”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.”
|
Are you saying that exponential expansion is not part of BBT or that it didn’t happen? I don’t think you are because that is the only way that there could be a causal connection between the observed universe, the GTR timeline, and the first picoseconds of big bang nucleosynthesis.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by bogie
”In regard to CMB, the BBT starts with hot and nearly infinitely dense matter smaller than the size of a proton.”
|
Are you saying that the phrase “hot and nearly infinitely dense” doesn’t apply to the starting point in BBT or that big bang nucleosynthesis doesn’t start with all the matter in the universe within a volume smaller that a proton?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by bogie
”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.”
|
Why would you need references and papers covering how the scientific community has surveyed and studied the CMB. Are you saying that their findings don’t support BBT, aren’t part of BBT, or what? Are you saying that predictions made by the scientific community haven’t proved to be supported by WMAP, etc.?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by bogie
”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.”
|
I take it that you don’t agree with what I said about BBT quantification being centered on GTR and big bang nucleosynthesis?
Why not answer the question that lead off the post:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by bogie
“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”?”
|
What exactly is your position on what BBT says in regard to “before and beyond” the big bang if it is not “we can’t know” or “we just don’t know” or something on that order?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Nereid
Just to be quite clear: there are no equations, no math, no numbers, and no quantitative outputs from these ISU ideas?
|
I didn’t say that the ISU was ready to take over as the standard cosmology. I think BBT is safe for the time being. I said that BBT doesn’t actually say where the expanding universe came from but it is implied that there was a singularity, a hot dense zero volume point. The ISU is intended to acknowledge a "before and beyond" the big bang in place of the implied singularity.