[DarkKnight (OP)]

If we could accept an "edit" to the details of the Big Bang Theory

That's like accepting an edit to 2+2=4 to 2+3=4. A simple change, but the mathematics don't work anymore. You are free to still believe that 2+3=4 because it makes you feel happy, but it isn't a valid theory. You are also utterly free to ignore where people point out where 2+3=4 doesn't work and continue asserting it, and even asking if anything is wrong with it.

True. TRUE.
That is why I hypothesize out here on the "lighter side", and I don't call my rantings a theory; they are ideas for discussion.




165953,166043,

Why does the Universe require any ''bangs'' when spaces potential to conserve energy could form a quantum mainframe that was constructed of zero point conserved energy?
ham.jpg (23.49 kB . 595x352 - viewed 1548 times)Food for thought
Uni.jpg (16.69 kB . 365x332 - viewed 1479 times)

[Bogie_smiles]

Why does the Universe require any ''bangs'' ...

To address that part of the issue from my layman level perspective, a Big Bang type of event seems to be a good explanation for the expansion of the observable universe.

[DarkKnight (OP)]

Why does the Universe require any ''bangs'' ...

To address that part of the issue from my layman level perspective, a Big Bang type of event seems to be a good explanation for the expansion of the observable universe.

Receding objects best explains an extension of observable space . The Hubble red shift is based on visible matter , not space. The Big Bang is somewhat an incomplete theory with several fundamental errors .
This misleading information unfortunately gives the student the wrong perception of physics and astronomy.

[Kryptid]

Receding objects best explains an extension of observable space .

If by "receding" you mean "moving away from us physically through space", then that is incorrect because it would require distant galaxies to travel faster than light. That is forbidden by special relativity.

The Hubble red shift is based on visible matter , not space.

It's based on the red-shifting of photons as they travel through expanding space.

The Big Bang is somewhat an incomplete theory with several fundamental errors .

Although this is technically true, what fundamental errors do you specifically think it has?

This misleading information unfortunately gives the student the wrong perception of physics and astronomy.

What's misleading?

[DarkKnight (OP)]

Although this is technically true, what fundamental errors do you specifically think it has?

The BB magically manifests a high temperature , dense state , would be my main objection . The first principle of evidence should always be in determining if the evidence is relative to the subject or the evidence has another meaning(s) . One should never automatically assume that the alledged evidence proves something to be true because evidence can be viewed in different contexts by the observer. It is important we are clear in our minds what the evidence is relative to, or this can lead to false facts entering the education system . 
Reliable first principle information and reliable evidence is imperative for building a factual underlying basis  of any subject. Without this first principle,  any subject is open to ridicule and expression of disapproval .The reliability of proceding information that is derived from principle information , can be considered in being only as reliable as the principle information . If strict disciplines of how we view principle information is not adhered too , then again proceding information may not be factual information .

[Origin]

The BB magically manifests a high temperature , dense state , would be my main objection .

I'm not sure what your objection is.  There are multiple lines of reasoning to indicate the early universe was in a very hot and dense state.  If your objection is that we don't know why the universe started off that way, then you are moving out of the realm of science into philosophy.  For instance the science of general relativity tells us that mass warps space time.  Why does mass warp space time?  That is not a science question that is a philosophical question.

[DarkKnight (OP)]

The BB magically manifests a high temperature , dense state , would be my main objection .

I'm not sure what your objection is.  There are multiple lines of reasoning to indicate the early universe was in a very hot and dense state.  If your objection is that we don't know why the universe started off that way, then you are moving out of the realm of science into philosophy.  For instance the science of general relativity tells us that mass warps space time.  Why does mass warp space time?  That is not a science question that is a philosophical question.

There is multiple reasoning that the early universe started off in a low temperature , low density , sparse state .
Space-time is a math model, perhaps you mean something else?

[Kryptid]

The BB magically manifests a high temperature , dense state , would be my main objection .

I don't see how that's magical.

The first principle of evidence should always be in determining if the evidence is relative to the subject or the evidence has another meaning(s) . One should never automatically assume that the alledged evidence proves something to be true because evidence can be viewed in different contexts by the observer. It is important we are clear in our minds what the evidence is relative to, or this can lead to false facts entering the education system . 
Reliable first principle information and reliable evidence is imperative for building a factual underlying basis  of any subject. Without this first principle,  any subject is open to ridicule and expression of disapproval .The reliability of proceding information that is derived from principle information , can be considered in being only as reliable as the principle information . If strict disciplines of how we view principle information is not adhered too , then again proceding information may not be factual information .

I can't make sense of this. Evidence isn't a relative thing.

There is multiple reasoning that the early universe started off in a low temperature , low density , sparse state .

That doesn't mesh with the evidence.

Space-time is a math model

Space-time is an actual thing.

[DarkKnight (OP)]

Space-time is an actual thing.

Science deny the existence of any sort of aether , isn't your reply contradictive ?

[Kryptid]

Science deny the existence of any sort of aether , isn't your reply contradictive ?

Space-time isn't aether.

[Origin]

There is multiple reasoning that the early universe started off in a low temperature , low density , sparse state .

Do you have a source for this idea or any evidence for this?

[paul cotter]

"Aether" is a hangover from a time of inadequate physics understanding. Since one cannot prove or disprove the existence of aether, it has no place in real world science and belong in pseudoscience.

[DarkKnight (OP)]

Science deny the existence of any sort of aether , isn't your reply contradictive ?

Space-time isn't aether.

Then what do you suggest is curving that Origin asked about ?

[DarkKnight (OP)]

There is multiple reasoning that the early universe started off in a low temperature , low density , sparse state .

Do you have a source for this idea or any evidence for this?

My brain is the source of this new information and physics discourse demonstrates the truth of this compared to a magically manifested dense state . The dense state could not occur without previously being a sparse, low density state .

Ψ→A(x) is the operator that allows for all motion , including gravity and orbiting bodies within a xyzt quantum mainframe .

A(x) is also the field line and space-time ''fabric'' tensor .

Any light or bodies entering an A(x') operator space , becomes ''frozen'' in time , the wave function collapses and is conserved by the operator .

[Kryptid]

Then what do you suggest is curving that Origin asked about ?

Space-time.

My brain is the source of this new information

Ideas that a brain comes up with are only as good as the information giving to it to work with.

The dense state could not occur without previously being a sparse, low density state .

Citation needed.

[DarkKnight (OP)]

Space-time.

Space-time is a mathematical model , are you saying the only curvature that exists is one that only exists drawn on paper ?

[Kryptid]

Space-time is a mathematical model

No, it's an actual thing. I already said that before.

[DarkKnight (OP)]

Space-time is a mathematical model

No, it's an actual thing. I already said that before.

Which implies a physical substance that can be curved relative to flat space . I propose this substance is conserved zero point energy that is within the x-ray range of light .

[Kryptid]

Which implies a physical substance that can be curved relative to flat space

It need not be a "substance".

I propose this substance is conserved zero point energy that is within the x-ray region of light .

If that was true, we'd all be dead because we would be constantly exposed to x-rays.

[DarkKnight (OP)]

If that was true, we'd all be dead because we would be constantly exposed to x-rays.

These are really weak x-rays with a very low density , so weak that it passes through all matter as matter moves  .

In the curvature of space-time , this point energy is attracted to mass because of the A(x) operator and can be displaced to curve vectors of the space-time ''fabric'' . Of course the space-time energy has maximum inertia and can easily snap back into position once the curvature force has passed .

I can't see how science can explain space-time curvature as being an actual thing without providing the operator and physical substance .