Problems with the Big Bang Theory

[Roy]

Proof that there is only one universe.

If there is more than one universe, then our universe is divided from other universes.
If our universe is divided from other universes via matter, then matter is part of our universe, and consequently the other universes are also joined to our universe through matter belonging to our universe.

Argumentum ad rectum

What is joined to a body through the body is the body.

E.g. piercings?

[Yttrium]

One would expect the science academy to admit the standard model is only a hodge podge of ideas and theories melded together into an eclectic mess. Yet, such is not so, for the main stream physics establishment wants the rest of humanity to buy into a model that is almost entirely fictional. Why? We live in the scientific age in which humanity expects answers where no certain answers are forthcoming. Hence the academy has collectively decided to deliver us a truck load of stale bread, called the standard model which we are all expected to dunk into our soup on Sunday night and give thanks.

JM

Could you define what you mean by the "standard model"? I'm a bit lost on that. You seem to be generalizing it across all of science. Science includes a wide variety of theories, and any theory is subject to change at any time. Any theory could be falsified without affecting most or all others. It's hard for me to see a particular model here.

[Yttrium]

27) The Problem of Forced reasoning within the Standard Model.

The Copernican principle (CP) says there is no special place in the universe.

Right.

The redshift interpretation that says cosmological redshift is caused by the expansion of space,

... Sure, let's go with that.

But the interpretation that says all space is expanding is based upon the Copernican principle.

It's based on observation of the evidence. Even if Earth were stationary, we would still infer that the known universe is expanding. I conclude that this step in your logic is incorrect.

So redshift is said to be caused by the expansion of space, whereby the expansion of space is said to be universal because of the CP.

I don't think CP has any role in determining whether the expansion of space is universal. If the evidence showed that parts were expanding, other parts were contracting, and still other parts weren't moving much at all, I don't see how that would be a problem for CP.

Yet universal expansion of space is not required by the evidence.

I really don't know what you mean by this. Our analysis of the evidence suggests that the known universe is expanding. It could turn out that this analysis is incorrect. It could turn out that any expansion is not, as you say, universal.

So the standard inflationary model is merely the product of the CP and a forced interpretation of locally viewed data, applied universally.

I don't see how the CP has much of anything to do with it, and your conclusion is invalidated by your previously incorrect logic anyway.

As the inflationary model is based upon a forced interpretation of the data, then the there is no guarantee that the standard model is realist.

There you go with "standard model" again. You should narrow your terms so we know what you're talking about. And "realist"? What does that mean? Another metaphysical/philosophical term? One could say that there is no guarantee that the conclusion of an expanding universe is correct, because the interpretation of the data may be flawed. That's normal in science. That's true with any scientific theory, so there's no problem. To replace a scientific theory, one simply has to come up with a new one that provides a better explanation of the evidence
.

[Yttrium]

28) The Problem of Incredulity within the Standard Model (SM).

The SM assumes the Copernican Principle (CP) is sound.

It does? What is the SM again?

Yet the Copernican principle is a negative principle, made in denial of any special place in the universe.

Um... okay.

The CP then assumes a special place in the universe is incredulous, and infers the CP is then credulous.

The CP is... credulous? What?

But when the CP is applied to the redshift data, the CP is used to arrive at the SM, whereby it is assumed that all of space is expanding in all directions.

You're going to have to show me where you got this. It doesn't make sense to me.

Therefore the SM is based upon the denial of the principle of a special place in the universe, due to incredulity, but then claims the entire universe is expanding, because 1) such expansion is assumed to be the correct interpretation of redshift data, and 2) the CP is applied to have the entire universe acting as supposed with the expansion witnessed from one reference frame.

Ignoring for the moment that I don't know what you mean by SM, I don't see how CP would be applied that way.

Hence the SM is in principle, based upon the denial of a specific model (stationary earth), because it claims the model is incredulous.

Whatever the SM is, it has many reasons for discounting a stationary Earth, none of them having anything to do with your strange sequence of (il)logic here.

But then the SM concludes to a far more incredulous model, which says 1) Space expands between the observer and the galaxies, without any experimental evidence to explain what space expansion is, 2) space expands in all directions from a mechanism that is unknown and unknowable, 3) space expands from a naturalist cause, which is not understood, and 4) space expands, when it need not expand, because other theories can account for redshift.

I would think that "space expansion" is explained by momentum. That's a pretty obvious explanation.

All of this incredulity within the SM is promoted after the theory is promoted by those who think the stationary earth model is incredulous.
Evidently incredulity within a model is both a reason to reject a model, and another reason to promote another model, that is at least as incredulous as the model previously rejected.

The stationary Earth model was discredited a very long time ago. Incredulity has nothing to do with it.

[Yttrium]

29) The Problem of the rejection of classical based physics within the Standard Model (SM).

The SM is based upon relativity theory, which proposes a new understanding of time, space, length and place, whereby the classical understandings of the same are rejected.
Those who promote Relativity theory do so by referring to a series of experiments that purport to support the relativistic concepts of time, length, velocity, etc.

Also supported by ongoing obvservations.

Yet because relativity theory never deductively proves the relativistic nature of time, length, relative velocity, etc, such concepts within the theory are never known deductively to be real.

I don't know what you mean here. Many deductions were made, based initially on the constant speed of light in a vacuum, and the deductions were tested to be accurate.

As they are not known to be real from deductive reasoning, they can only be known to be possible through the inductive method, whereby experiments are constructed to measure any predictions made by relativity theory.

Predictions were made due to deductions. Again, I don't know what you mean here. How could they not have come up with deductions?

So even if some experiments purport to produce the results predicted by relativity theory, such results are merely interpreted by relativists as evidence for the theory, and in no manner actually ever demonstrate concepts, such as time dilation, length contraction and the space-time continuum are actually real.

That's just nonsensical. Experiments demonstrate the concepts. There's a growing list of such experiments.

Hence, because the SM is based upon the concepts within relativity, and such concepts are never demonstrated to be real, then SM can never be demonstrated to be a realist theory.

Dunno what you mean by SM or realist. I assume it doesn't matter at all.

Hence SM will always only ever be a maths hypothesis, which can be either accepted, or rejected at whim.

Don't you go rejecting my maths hypotheses on whim. You... you meanie.

Hence the SM is not a realist theory.

Dunno what you mean by SM or realist. I assume it doesn't matter at all.

[Yttrium]

30) The Problem of acentrism within the Standard Model

The SM is based upon the CP, which says there is no special place within the universe.

Dunno what the SM is.

Yet the CP infers there cannot be a center point in the universe, because a center point would mean that there is at least one point in the universe that is special.

Okay.

Yet according to Olber's paradox, the universe is finite.

The paradox concludes that the universe can't be infinitely old and infinitely large, with infinite stars. This doesn't mean, for example, that it couldn't be infinitely large with finite stars.

And according to observations, the universe has mass.

Well, yes. Objects with mass exist, therefore the universe has mass.

But what has mass and is finite, according to Newtonian mechanics, has a center of mass.

Remember that Newtonian Mechanics is wrong. Just pointing that out. At best, it's a useful approximation when speeds are relatively slow.

And what has a center of mass has a center.

The center of mass would be at the center, yes. There is no guarantee that this location would be stationary, as the mass in the universe is shifting around.

Therefore, the SM both explicitly denies the universe has a center, but implicitly affirms the universe has a center.

Your logic has failed.

Hence the SM is self contradictory, and therefore invalid.

Whatever the SM is, I conclude that you are incorrect.

[Yttrium]

31) The Problem of the apriori, assumed agnostic/atheistic worldview as an ideological foundation of the Standard Model

The SM is a non religious based model that implicitly denies any revealed truth concerning the origin and structure of the universe.

Assuming SM is some scientific theory or collection of scientific theories, then it's a product of the scientific method. The purpose of the scientific method is not to deny religion, but to try to come up with natural explanations for the evidence we see in nature.

Yet both agnosticism and atheism are false world views.

Neither are world views.

For agnosticism is invalidated through the Judaeo-Christian revelation, whereby man comes to know the name and life of God, and where the universe came from through the creation event.

This is an assertion based on your own religious beliefs.

And atheism is false, as known through the absurdities within atheism and the proofs for the existence of God, within monotheism.

Also based on your religious beliefs.

Hence the SM is based upon false apriori assumptions about what man knows about the universe, prior to any scientific investigation into the origin and structure of the universe.

Dunno what SM is, but since your logic is fundamentally flawed, I'll conclude that you're incorrect.

As the apriori assumptions are false, then the SM is false in principle.

Nonsensical.

But what is false in principle is false.

Okay.

Hence the SM is false.

Still nonsensical.

[Yttrium]

32) The Problem of the Unknown Unknowns within the Standard Model.

All models based upon the inductive method, seek to explain reality through what is known via observation and theory.
Yet what is known, infers there are always known unknowns, and unknown unknowns.
But what is a known unknown may be incorporated into the model as a possible outcome.
But what is an unknown unknown may not be incorporated into the model as a possible outcome.
So, because the SM will always have unknown unknowns, then no mater what is claimed to be known, the model may well be always false, because the unknown unknowns may well invalidate the model, when they become known.
Hence the validity of the SM, like all other models that try to explain the origin of the universe from the inductive method, will always suffer from the problem of the unknown unknowns.

Really vague, but true.

[JohnMartin]

Argumentum ad rectum

This is not an argument.

E.g. piercings?

What is joined to a natural body through the natural body is the natural body. Even if a piercing becomes joined to a natural body, then the artificial body is joined to the natural body as an aggregate. Hence the union of bodies brings about an aggregate body (or a similar notion of union). If another universe exists, then it does so either by union with ours via matter, or by nothing, either way, the other is united to ours. Hence there is only one universe.

JM

[JohnMartin]

But then the SM concludes to a far more incredulous model, which says 1) Space expands between the observer and the galaxies, without any experimental evidence to explain what space expansion is, 2) space expands in all directions from a mechanism that is unknown and unknowable, 3) space expands from a naturalist cause, which is not understood, and 4) space expands, when it need not expand, because other theories can account for redshift.
I would think that "space expansion" is explained by momentum. That's a pretty obvious explanation.

There is no momentum to speak of.

All of this incredulity within the SM is promoted after the theory is promoted by those who think the stationary earth model is incredulous.

Evidently incredulity within a model is both a reason to reject a model, and another reason to promote another model, that is at least as incredulous as the model previously rejected.
The stationary Earth model was discredited a very long time ago. Incredulity has nothing to do with it.

The stationary earth has never been discredited. You only believe it to be so.

JM

[JohnMartin]

Yet according to Olber's paradox, the universe is finite.

The paradox concludes that the universe can't be infinitely old and infinitely large, with infinite stars. This doesn't mean, for example, that it couldn't be infinitely large with finite stars.

Olber's paradox says if the universe was infinite then the sky would always be filled with light. Because there is darkness, it follows that the universe is finite.

And according to observations, the universe has mass.
Well, yes. Objects with mass exist, therefore the universe has mass.

But what has mass and is finite, according to Newtonian mechanics, has a center of mass.
Remember that Newtonian Mechanics is wrong. Just pointing that out. At best, it's a useful approximation when speeds are relatively slow.

Newtonian mechanics is a useful model, which arrives at a universe with a center.

And what has a center of mass has a center.
The center of mass would be at the center, yes. There is no guarantee that this location would be stationary, as the mass in the universe is shifting around.

Correct, but there is no guarantee that the center point is moving either.

Therefore, the SM both explicitly denies the universe has a center, but implicitly affirms the universe has a center.
Your logic has failed.

Not demonstrated.

Hence the SM is self contradictory, and therefore invalid.
Whatever the SM is, I conclude that you are incorrect.

Standard (big bang) model.

JM

[JohnMartin]

27) The Problem of Forced reasoning within the Standard Model.

The Copernican principle (CP) says there is no special place in the universe.
Right.

The redshift interpretation that says cosmological redshift is caused by the expansion of space,
... Sure, let's go with that.

But the interpretation that says all space is expanding is based upon the Copernican principle.

It's based on observation of the evidence. Even if Earth were stationary, we would still infer that the known universe is expanding. I conclude that this step in your logic is incorrect.

Not demonstrated. The expansion of space is only one interpretation of the redshift data. Even if we only had one interpretation, it doesn't necessitate that that interpretation is correct. We may not have any correct interpretation simply because we can never be sure what the cause of redshift really is.

So redshift is said to be caused by the expansion of space, whereby the expansion of space is said to be universal because of the CP.

I don't think CP has any role in determining whether the expansion of space is universal. If the evidence showed that parts were expanding, other parts were contracting, and still other parts weren't moving much at all, I don't see how that would be a problem for CP.

The CP is applied universally, to arrive at universal expansion of space.

Yet universal expansion of space is not required by the evidence.

I really don't know what you mean by this. Our analysis of the evidence suggests that the known universe is expanding. It could turn out that this analysis is incorrect. It could turn out that any expansion is not, as you say, universal.

Hence the evidence does not compel one to arrive at the conclusion that space is expanding. The expansion of space is not a well defined concept anyway. What does it mean, ad how can such be experimentally verified?

So the standard inflationary model is merely the product of the CP and a forced interpretation of locally viewed data, applied universally.

I don't see how the CP has much of anything to do with it, and your conclusion is invalidated by your previously incorrect logic anyway.

The CP is a principle applied to obtain the conclusion of expanding space.

As the inflationary model is based upon a forced interpretation of the data, then the there is no guarantee that the standard model is realist.

There you go with "standard model" again. You should narrow your terms so we know what you're talking about. And "realist"? What does that mean? Another metaphysical/philosophical term? One could say that there is no guarantee that the conclusion of an expanding universe is correct, because the interpretation of the data may be flawed. That's normal in science. That's true with any scientific theory, so there's no problem. To replace a scientific theory, one simply has to come up with a new one that provides a better explanation of the evidence

The Standard Model is the standard inflationary model, known as the big bang model.

Alternatively we don't know what redshift is, and we are collectively deceiving ourselves when we think we know, when we probably do not know.

JM

[JohnMartin]

31) The Problem of the apriori, assumed agnostic/atheistic worldview as an ideological foundation of the Standard Model

The SM is a non religious based model that implicitly denies any revealed truth concerning the origin and structure of the universe.
Assuming SM is some scientific theory or collection of scientific theories, then it's a product of the scientific method. The purpose of the scientific method is not to deny religion, but to try to come up with natural explanations for the evidence we see in nature.

But science doesn't know where the universe came from because the universe is contingent. The contingent is from the necessary, hence the origin of the universe is about an effect caused by the necessary, whereby the necessary is God. Therefore the origin of the universe is a matter of investigation by philosophy and theology and not the inductive method.

Yet both agnosticism and atheism are false world views.
Neither are world views.

They most certainly are. That both are negatives about the most important questions a man can ask. Does God exist, and can we know that God exists? If we answer no to these and other similar questions, then our world view is based upon a negative principle. Hence the world view.

For agnosticism is invalidated through the Judaeo-Christian revelation, whereby man comes to know the name and life of God, and where the universe came from through the creation event.
This is an assertion based on your own religious beliefs.

In part, yes, but it is still true.

And atheism is false, as known through the absurdities within atheism and the proofs for the existence of God, within monotheism.
Also based on your religious beliefs.

No, atheism is false as has been demonstrated many times at Tweb, and throughout the history of human thought.

Hence the SM is based upon false apriori assumptions about what man knows about the universe, prior to any scientific investigation into the origin and structure of the universe.
Dunno what SM is, but since your logic is fundamentally flawed, I'll conclude that you're incorrect.

Not demonstrated.

As the apriori assumptions are false, then the SM is false in principle.
Nonsensical.

Not demonstrated.

But what is false in principle is false.
Okay.

Hence the SM is false.
Still nonsensical.

No argument made.

JM

[Yttrium]

There is no momentum to speak of.

What do you mean, "to speak of"? Are you insulting Jupiter? Are you?

[Yttrium]

Olber's paradox says if the universe was infinite then the sky would always be filled with light.

That's only if there are infinites stars.

Newtonian mechanics is a useful model, which arrives at a universe with a center.

Useful but wrong. Even you agree that it's wrong. Don't go trying to use it to prove a point when we agree it's wrong.

Not demonstrated.

The simple possibility of it makes a hole in your logic. You haven't demonstrated that it isn't moving.

Standard (big bang) model.

Well, you keep mixing it in with other scientific theories. It's hard to keep track of what you're talking about. If you mean Big Bang, call it Big Bang.