The Big Bang is hypothetical upon hypothetical, ad naseam. With Hubble’s Law shown to be a bust and the lack of gravitational waves, it’s end time for the theory.
For starters take a look at this paper-
arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0512614v5
Download PDF or other format in the upper right corner.
The odds are less than one billionth that the Big Bang is true.
Interesting. Could you possibly treat the two theories (EGR and FGR) as two different mathematical models of the same property? It says he’s trying to do an experiment that says FGR is the case and not EGR, but it sounds like one could be a transformation of the other. My knowledge of both is vastly incomplete, so someone tell me I’m completely wrong.
What’s the explanation for the Cosmic Background Radiation if the Big Bang isn’t correct?
I don’t think anything with the words Big and Bang in it can ever be entirely wrong.
^^ Bang chicka bang bang theory?
Try to calculate the odds of your making this post - when you did and why you did included - all the while considering in full the entire history of the world (throw in the history of the universe for good measure) and get back to me.
Odds have nothing to do with it.
well said! you can’t put odds on a theory being correct…only on whether something will happen asuming a theory to be true…so basically you could say theres a one billonth chance of the big bang hjappening if u assumed a theory to be correct.
Buty if you consider the 2nd law of thermodynamics you can see that there must have been a very high ordered state at the begining of time.
To understand this you don’t really need to understand physics you just need common sense
I’ll explain…the universe is made up of lots of particles so just imagine it like a gas in a box…now say i look at the gas at time a) and its all spread out throughout the box and then i look again at time b).Where between times a) and b) the gas particles have just been randomly moving around bouncing off each other. If i then ask the question is the gas more likley to be spread at or condesed to a small area at time b)? the answer is that it should remain spread out. This is just common sense and its how a gas does behave. But here comes the interesting bit…if we say that time b) is before time a) we should ge the same answer to the question ie that the gas is all spread out because reversing the time just means the particles move in the opposite direct…the laws of physics describing the movement of particles are the same in both directions of time. But if we know that the particles in the box started off in a corner of the box then this isn’t true. This all has to do with order; a gas confined to a small area is highly ordered a gas spread out is unordered. but saying that ordered states should evolve to unordered states (which is all the 2nd law of thermodynamics states) is a statement of asymmetry in time. But this is what we observe in nature. The only reason for this is that at the begining of time things were very highly ordered. this is the boundary condition that leads to the 2nd law of thermodynamics…
probably lost most of you… i dunno its all just logic…
I’ll explain a little more hopefully to help you understand a little more
In physics we have two things that we must consider:
1) the equations of motion of particles, waves, fields…ie a particle feels a force from a field and moves in this way e.g. force=mass x acceleration in classical newtonian mechanics
Boundary conditions come from how the physical system is set up i.e. that state of the system.
So if we only consider the universe with the universe with the laws of motion we wouldn’t the asymmetry in time we obseve in nature…in other words there would be no order in the universe…the only way we can get this asymmetry is if we apply the boundary condition that at some point the universe was in a very ordered state.
So in conclusion what im saying is that by logic alone, independent of what the equation of motion actually are, there must have been a begining or time where things were highly ordered…even more so this highly ordered state must have been the most highly ordered state possible…a singlurity at a single point in spacetime or in other words the quite unimaginatively named ‘big bang’.
The words “beginning of time”- counter-intuitive, no?
kind of…time is weird…my thourghts are that time is defined by entropy not the other way around…so our idea of time as a dimension are just that an idea…i’ll right more on the big band and time when im noy hangover though…roger penrose has a new theory which inspired me to these ideas…when the universe expands and goes to maxiumum disorder(entropy) it loses track of time…ensentially because everything becomes photons…this ‘resets’ space time so that another big bang occurs and thus a new universe…out of perfect disorder comes perfect order…so in that idea there would be no begining as such just a redefing of the dimensions of space time…bit of a weird one but i like it
you missed the word Big in your theory so it probably is wrong 
Do you have a better theory?
Muscular philosopher,
Given that there was no big bang. How do you expain the 2nd law of thermodynamics?
I need to read more of this. Where did you read this? Book? Website? Paper?
A tv interview with penrose on a bbc program called hardtalk…u may find it on youtube…I’m by no means convinced but its an interesting idea.
Didn’t I already answer this for you in another thread?
It does when applied to pomo physics, which is why the paper is named this way.
I understand what you are saying…BUT…the substance comes from the hypotheticals I am talking about. CP Matter is wrong, so obviously the physics are wrong.
Let me ask you guys a question- Do you understand how the non-spatial interacts with the spatial? Do you understand the relationship of the two?
Do you understand that all realms are congruent?
This is critical when understanding the Universe because that’s what the Universe is.
If you understand this, the big bang is eliminated and we are left with only one answer. The Universe is extremely simple.
P.S. I gave you a major clue…
No I believe you dodged the question…if not can you copy and paste?
I understand spacetime. Whats the metric for spatial and non spatial interactions?
If the universe is so simple why is there spacial and non sdpatial interactions thats more complicated than a single spacetime…
…basically you’ve read some book, by some guy, who is trying to make money selling books saying how ‘all modern physics is wrong’ and its a ‘giant consipiracy’ blah blah blah blah. So you read it now you come on here talking about stuff you don’t understand making no real sense to make yourself seem ‘out there’ and smart…
If its so simple please explain how, if things always tend to disorder, we do not see more and more order as we look back in time (which is what astrophysicist do see)?
I answered it in some other thread and the Jin He paper answers it, also (go through the entire paper before dimissing it). There are two sides to the Einstein field equation, spacetime curvature and mass energy tensor. There is no thermal connection. Thermal physics is the macrscopic behavior of a many-bodied system, while Einstein’s equation is based on a two-bodied system. Because galaxies do not have this phenomenon, they incorrectly defined dark matter to fit the theory. We already went over this, I think.
It making something up to prove the last thing you made up, that’s the big bang process.
Go through the He paper and dispute what you want and we’ll continue from there on these points.
Let me ask you another question, how many physicists to you think disagree with the big bang?