Quote:
Originally Posted by Bogie
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:
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”?
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.
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?
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.?
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:
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?
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.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Nereid
If you still have questions, please start new threads in BAUT's Q&A section.
|
If you still have questions, about details of the BBT, please start new threads in BAUT's Q&A section.
=======================================
Here are the (direct, pertinent) questions that I asked, about the ATM idea you presented in this thread, as you presented them. I have not seen any answers to them yet; would you please answer them?
I don't recall reading any such
1 in which any quantification - or equations, or even consistent definitions - were presented. Perhaps I missed them; please provide links to posts which contain relevant equations and quantifications.
Please provide links to relevant posts, in which this ISU 'theory'
2 is described, including the parts which provide a consistent set of relationships with the standard (physics) terms 'gravity', 'field', 'energy', 'mass', 'photons' and so on.
It
3 does?
Where may one compare the relevant ISU equations with, for example, the Einstein Field Equations?
Alternatively, where may one read the details of how the ISU 'theory' confronts the relevant experimental and observational evidence?
Why not compare the two
4 in terms of how well they approach GR and the Standard Model in the appropriate 'limit' domains?
Just to be quite clear: there are no equations, no math, no numbers, and no quantitative outputs from these ISU ideas?
1
Bogie: 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.
2
Nereid: It seems there is a pretty basic communication gap here ... from what I've read in posts in this ATM section, there is no ISU 'theory', in the standard, scientific (cosmology) meaning of that word.
3
Bogie: In the ISU gravity looks almost exactly like curved spacetime.
4
Bogie: The only way to tell the difference is to compare how reasonable and responsible the two ideas are.