0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
About 14 billion years ago the universe started and there was a bang. The rest, well, don't know. The bang was part of everything that happened in the year dot but what is cause and what is effect is up for grabs.
CERN banged an awful lot of particles together and there is one clear result. They had no trouble converting energy into matter but always exactly as much matter as anti-matter. What we have is matter without the anti-matter.
The big bang doesn't explain the Hubble red shift. It can only explain part of it. That's why dark energy has to be added to explain the rest. And what is dark energy? - it's a very clear don't know. So why not just a don't know doing it all rather than a don't know plus a bang? I know what Occam would say.
My New improved theory of how it all started:..
Quote from: Blame on 09/12/2016 21:49:19My New improved theory of how it all started:..This is the wrong forum for personal/"New" theories. There's a special forum here for that.
1) The big bang created the universe's matter VS don't know.CERN banged an awful lot of particles together and there is one clear result. They had no trouble converting energy into matter but always exactly as much matter as anti-matter. What we have is matter without the anti-matter. So what's the odds - a theory that the evidence denies or something else even if we don't know what?
2) The big bang caused the universe to expand VS don't know.
The big bang doesn't explain the Hubble red shift. It can only explain part of it.
That's why dark energy has to be added to explain the rest.