Agnostic.com

1 0

The Simulation Hypothesis and the Big Bang.

If you read any modern account of the Big Bang (origin of our Universe) event - and I've read dozens - you'll note, or should note, one very obvious oops that you'll NEVER read about or see discussed / addressed. And that is, if the entire or total mass / energy contents of our Universe started out being crammed back into a space the size of a tennis ball (or usually even less), what are you going to actually have, especially when terms like "singularity" are tossed around with reckless abandon? I'll tell you. You're going to start the origin of our Universe out from the initial condition of there being, of necessity, the Mother of all Black Holes from which nothing in turn can Bang! A Black Hole will of course leak radiation very, very, very slowly (Hawking radiation) but no one Big coherent Bang! So how do cosmologists arrive at having the entire matter / energy contents crammed in the beginning back into the size of a tennis ball (or less)?

Starting with observations made today that the Universe is expanding, cosmologists wind the clock back (using their mathematical / physical equations) to a nanosecond after Time = Zero which translates into that tennis ball (or less) size. Now IMHO this is totally unjustified especially given that those same equations suggest that the Universe was opaque until some roughly 400,000 years or thereabouts after the Big Bang event. Thus, cosmologists have no way of actually knowing via direct astronomical observations if their equations are telling them a reality story prior to 400,000 years after the Big Bang event. In that 400,000 year interval, it's 100% theory as to the state of play rather than discovering the state of play via actual observation. This is just about as unjustified an approach as if they filmed the inflation of a hot air balloon and then taking that expansion rate over time and then running the equation clock backwards until such time as they conclude that the hot air balloon was the size of a tennis ball, or pea, or even less. That approach would be nonsense. So why is it allowed in cosmology?

So either the Big Bang event happened in a geographical region large enough to prevent the formation of the Mother of all Black Holes, or else - software / special effects rule the origin of our Universe. The Big Bang event (let there be light) and a software program kicking in are quite compatible.

johnprytz 7 Feb 17
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

1 comment

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

0

My take on this is that it is just another attempt by the type of people that poo-poo'ed Galileo's and Copernicus's work because it did not align with the christian beliefs. But I do keep an open mind, although a very skeptical one at that. If there was some variation in the strength of dark matter that intensified as the size of the universe was smaller, I suppose it could be possible, but that is just a passing thought.

I have a friend from Russia, who is a theoretical physicist who has done quite a bit of work on this kind of thing, who disagrees with the big bang theory and has quite a bit of work in that direction, although a lot of it is in Russian - [vps137.narod.ru] I am working on improving my higher mathematics so I can better understand it.

My hope is that when they start deploying the more powerful telescopes that work in the longer wavelengths, they begin to see how wrong they are, and, it sure would be nice to put the religious right in their place when it comes to the whole creationism garbage.

THHA Level 7 Feb 17, 2019
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:291614
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.