Already did. I've claimed that my philosophy of science largely comes from Popper. Yes, I did. YOU don't understand what he was saying. YOU instead subscribe to more of a Francis Bacon philosophy of science (that conflates religion with science) Yes. Do YOU?
Yes, it is. It is an outright denial of logic. There isn't much to discuss with someone who outright denies the most basic logical proof. In order to falsify the BBT, yes. The test of the null hypothesis of the BBT is unavailable, since we can't go back in time to see what actually happened. Speculation is not data.
Philosophy is not a class. It is much more than "if a tree falls in a forest and no one is there, does it make a sound? So? Insulting one's intelligence is not an argument.
I didn't propose any proof. Claiming you said somethig somewhere in the past is not an argument. Sorry, but this form isn't constructed to support that kind of nonsense. If you want to hold a position, you're going to have to be willing to make clear what the heck it is that you're talking about. We already clearly know that the BB theory is not somehow immune from assault. It absolutely could be falsified with technology and methods that are in use today. It's in the realm of science, not theoretical physics.
You're still not answering my question concerning what these other competing theories might be. If you're going to claim that there are competing theories, you need to state what they are. It's a significant claim in that you are proposing that we CAN have theories of origins AND in that it could be illustrative of how theories of orignis may be studied. So, please state one or two of these competing theories.
It's an observation. For me, phil of sci began with Kant, Prologomena to any future Metaphysic. Everyone has read Kuhn, but I also read Richard Rorty's thoughts on the subject. I've mentioned Giere, died earlier this year, but his work is still well regarded. You seem to be making a common mistake, phil of sci is descriptive, not prescriptive. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Giere
Stan Lee and Jack Kirby and first documented this theory in the 60s.. That is where Galactus is from.
Those aren't theories of experimental science. Some were once postulations by theoretical physics. Take "Cyclic universe" - there is clear evidence that this universe is not cycling in any way. The falsification of the steady state idea is another example of how humans today can falsify ideas concerning our early universe. Popper would be proud. As for "simulation", give me a freaking break. That doesn't answer any questions. It doesn't have any way of falsifying the big bang (as far as I've ever heard), and it requires major new assumptions. There ARE theoretical physicists working on the question of what the larger context might be. Our physics is clearly incomplete as seen by the problems of QM and gravity. - or just in that we use QM, but don't know why it works.
Neither of these is compatible with the increasingly rapid expansion of the universe that was discovered in 1998 or so. Gravity lost. However, like with all serious theories of science, the big bang will continue to be tested. Maybe someone will find help for gravity or something. Nothing in science is claimed to be true - our theories of science (not theoretical physics) are hypotheses that have undergone serious attempts at falsification. As a fan of Popper you know that doesn't allow for science to declare truth. Yet, our theories of science have proven to be highly useful in undersanding how this universe works.
I have my own personal theory about the rapid expansion of the universe. The momentum of photons can be harnessed to a solar sail which can be likened to air pressure pushing a boat sail. As more stars form they emit more photons in all directions. These photons essentially increase the "pressure" of the surrounding space in a similar manner to warm air increasing pressure here on earth. More and more stars means more and more photons which means more and more "pressure" which results in an expanding universe. So what happens when the stars die off and there are no new ones being created? Without photons the photon "pressure" to expand disappears and all that is left is gravity. As Stephen Hawking pointed out that unless every single atom in the universe is exactly equidistant to every other atom all it takes is the distance to be fractionally less between two of them for them to be attracted and clump together and then gravity takes over and matter starts to contract again. That is what makes the Cyclical model work feasible IMO. The photon expansion pressure is exhausted and replaced by gravity and the universe coalesces back into a Singularity.
I think it is not necessary to put quotes around pressure - it is literally a measure of energy density, as in energy/volume. It is also a measure of force/area. Funky stuff ain't it!?
Understood but since I was not using the correct scientific terms and instead using it as a concept to explain my personal theory I felt that the quotes were appropriate. Someone can make the valid point that there cannot be pressure in a vacuum which is correct and it is actually the exchange of the photon momentum into energy that creates the concept of "pressure" in the vacuum of space that I am using for my personal theory.
I am, as I said earlier in this thread, amazed by how little we actually know about fundamental reality at the theoretical physics level. Do we actually know what a photon is? It seems to me that we do not, when we characterize it as a particle with no mass. Pure energy is it? And because of one experiment, the Michelson-Morley experiment, there is no ether, and yet we include wave characteristics as fundamental properties of matter that inherently require space to provide a structure capable of propagating wave forms? It seems a bit inconsistent at the least to me that of all the speculation inherent in high energy particle physics that questions concerning how wave like properties exist in a, hmm, a what exactly? What is the structure of space that allows particle to behave as waves? And all those photons smacking into the Earth - zero mass pure particles? How does a zero mass "particle" exist? This wave vs particle thing is maybe one of *the* fundamental questions in my mind.
Physicists Debate Hawking’s Idea That the Universe Had No Beginning By NATALIE WOLCHOVER June 6, 2019 A recent challenge to Stephen Hawking’s biggest idea — about how the universe might have come from nothing — has cosmologists choosing sides. https://www.quantamagazine.org/phys...-that-the-universe-had-no-beginning-20190606/
Agreed that these concepts have yet to be fully explained and it would be nice to still be around when the answers are found but I doubt that I will live that long. In essence our scientific knowledge rests on those who did the foundations and now we build upon it a small piece at a time. It will always be a work in progress and that is a positive because it means that our knowledge base will evolve. The particle/wave properties strike me as being something that might only make sense in other dimensions. Our observation of a photon as particle might be like observing a 3 dimensional circle passing through a two dimensional space. It would begin as a dot and become a line that grows longer then shorter then disappears. Because those occupying the two dimensional space cannot envision the three dimensional circle they conclude that it is a line that appears, grows, shrinks and disappears. My position is that our space/time dimensions limit us to what we can observe about the particle/wave properties of photons. Perhaps if we could observe those other dimensions then photons would be like snakes weaving through these other dimensions. Pure speculation on my part but it helps me sleep at night.
Interesting article! I have always wondered why this problem has not been looked at from a different perspective. If we observe shock waves radiating out from an explosion at a central point there is a great deal of randomness. But if we look at a controlled explosion like a Catherine Wheel the particles fly apart in an arc within a flat plane. What if the Singularity was spinning as it coalesced and, like an ice skater spinning, increases rotational speed as the arms are drawn closer into the body. If that was happening to the Singularity and the rotation increased to the point where the internal pressures exceeded the pull of gravity then it would all fly apart in much the same way as a Catherine Wheel. Furthermore when we look at spiral galaxies we observe the same Catherine wheel in reverse where the black hole in the center is compressing the surrounding matter into itself. If these black holes collided and grew and absorbed more black holes eventually you would have a spinning Singularity containing all matter in the universe. Then it reaches critical mass and flies apart again in another Big Bang event. Just my own speculations on the matter. I lack the math skills and knowledge to figure out if there are any gaping holes in this idea.
