Theories of Cosmological Origins: Are They Science?

Hi fallacycop, The dynamical equilibrium model predicted the CMB better than the Big Bang Theory, prior to the prediction of the Big Bang Theory.So it was not abandoned for your stated reason. It was discarded instead for the Big Bang Theory for whatever reason or no reason at all. Unless you have some documentation where it was abandoned.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Hi Chiroptera,This response you made to Modulous in which you stated: Modulous had given a source for my statement in Message 7 to teen4christ where I said: "You do know other predicted the CMB before Gamow and did a better job and they did not use the Big Bang Model."My claim was that somebody had predicted the CMB prior to Gamow.Also that they had done a better job and had not used the Big Bang Model. Here I find: The conclusions of: A. K. T. Assis M. C. D. Neves Now it does not make any difference where Guillaume, Eddington, Regener and Nernst, McKellar and Herzberg, Finlay-Freundlich and Max Born, got their numbers from. It could have been a cracker jack box, or a fortune cookie.Others did it before and better than Gamow.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Hi Rahvin, Nobody on this site knew this paper existed until I pointed it out unless Modulous did. I am inclined to believe Mod was smart enough to look it up if he did not know it existed.Again my statement was:
"My claim was that somebody had predicted the CMB prior to Gamow.Also that they had done a better job and had not used the Big Bang Model."According to the article, Guillaume, Eddington, Regener and Nernst, McKellar and Herzberg, Finlay-Freundlich and Max Born, came up with numbers predicting the CMB. They had their reasons for those numbers.They came up with their numbers before Gamow and collaborators did.Eleven years later when the CMB was discovered their numbers matched what was found better than those of Gamow and collaborators.So I am going to leave the explanations to the experts and I will just take their word for it. When was the first time you heard of this paper and conclusion reached by A. K. T. Assis M. C. D. Neves? I am not arguing for or against either. I was pointing out information and it happened to question the Big Bang Theory.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

I have went back and read hundreds of posts and I am beginning to see where I am having a problem in the discussion here.I have been trying to approach the subject as if we were discussing the standard Big Bang Theory.But in rereading those posts I find everybody here is talking about The No-Boundry hypothesis model of Hartle Hawking which does not require the Big Bang or singularity only expansion as the universe is just sitting there in imaginary time.This brings a question to my mind, why is the Hartle Hawking hypothesis being discussed as the Standard Big Bang Model?I present the following evidence for the No-Boundry hypothesis model of Hartle Hawking being presented.
Here
Mention of Standard Big Bang Theory. Here
This time as I don't think of is imaginary time. Here
No time prior to T=0 as it is not necessary we have imaginary time of Hartle-Hawking No-Boundary hypothesis. Here
This is response to a message by Son Goku in the preceding msg 150.On to the discussion.I have asked where the singularity came from? This is what is mentioned in all the articles on the Big Bang Theory.Since nobody here believes there was a singularity I was really asking a question that had no answer, but there is no such thing.
But then it would have to be explained how it was dispatched to the garbage can.I asked the question where the universe came from. I was told it just is, it has been at any time, and it was past, present, and future.So we are talking about the No-Boundry hypothesis model of Hartle Hawking.This is still a hypothesis.Imaginary Time takes as much faith to believe as..
Imaginary God.So now I got a pea sized or smaller or larger it really does not matter as it is in imaginary time it could even be 500 million light years in diameter.This universe is sitting there in imaginary time. Since this is not time as we know it, more like eternal time. This universe could have been sitting there in this imaginary time for an eternity of imaginary time. Then all of a sudden for no reason at all the space in this universe begins to expand and does so into the universe we see today.Sounds reasonable if you have enough faith to believe in imaginary time to begin with.You still have the problem of the universe that is in imaginary time. It is not created, it just exists. Now you must have enough faith to believe it exists.Then you have the problem of who or what caused this universe to start expanding.But if you have enough faith to believe in the imaginary time with a universe in it I guess you would not have any problem with the universe starting to expand for no reason at all.I just think it takes a lot less faith to believe in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth then stretched out the heavens and is presently keeping the heavens the way they are and are becoming.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Hi Chiroptera, I was pointing out that each had a set of numbers and 11 years later when the CMB was found one set of numbers was better than the other set.That happened to be the set of numbers produced by Guillaume, Eddington, Regener and Nernst, McKellar and Herzberg, Finlay-Freundlich and Max Born.Remember all I can know is what I find to read and there is no way for me to prove it right or wrong unless I find someone who has refuted it. Then I have to decide which I will trust. Unless I can find a third party that agrees with one of them.I am sorry if I seem too stubborn. I like to think of it as being skeptical. But I assume both amount to the same thing.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Hi Chiroptera, I get to read that same other interesting material. Sometimes I even get pointed to some information in papers and on the internet. I just wish more of the bashers would point out papers and sites to read what the experts have to say that causes them to believe what they do.I was on a foreign mission field for 15 years so I got left behind in all the new knowledge that has abounded so I am playing catch-up.
I have 3 to 4 articles open on my computer studying all the time, well at least 8 to 12 hours a day about some subject.Unless we can do the experiments ourselves, or examine the actual data ourselves we have to take what someone else says the data says or the experiments prove. Thus we have to trust them to be telling us the truth and that takes faith.This is the reason I say anything prior to the beginning of expansion has to be believed by faith. If we go the imaginary time route, we have to believe imaginary time exists, that the universe existed in this imaginary time and that for no reason it began to expand. To believe this you must exercise faith as there is not one shred of evidence for those things existing. Everybody says we don't know what was there. But you have to believe it is there to go any further. I say that belief, acceptance, or whatever you call it is faith.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Hi t4c,According to Admin I would be off topic to comment on this message in this topic.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Hi cavediver, I did not say I did not understand why it expands.I said I do not understand why it STARTED to expand as it was just sitting there in imaginary time and all of a sudden begins to expand.What could cause this?I think we agreed in an earlier thread that there was something at T=0.Now as I look back you was agreeing that imaginary time was there and I was saying imaginary God was there.http://EvC Forum: Before Big Bang God or Singularity -->EvC Forum: Before Big Bang God or Singularity The Big Bang Theory tells us the universe was expanding at T=10^-43.Science can not tell us anything prior to T<10^-43.Everyone says "we don't know". Don't know = no evidence. There are several lines of current research. = No evidence.The only way you can say anything existed prior to T<10^-43 is to believe it is there.That requires "FAITH".Now according to my definition of faith that would simply mean you are hoping those things are there as you have no proof and your faith is the evidence of things not seen.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Hi Percy,What does the video you presented have to do with the Big Bang Theory.You seem to think they are the same type of thing.The apple, and the can, are sitting there like the universe is in imaginary time.End of similarity.The difference in the video and the Big Bang Theory is:The video has a cause for what takes place. Powder is discharged to cause the bullet to fly through the air.There is no cause for what takes place in the Big Bang Theory.
The Bang has been eliminated and replaced by expansion but there is nothing to cause the expansion to BEGIN to take place.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Hi cavediver, I know the no boundary hypothesis talks about imaginary time as vertical time and that it is just as real as real time but it is just time as we do not know time.Hawking said in "A Brief History of Time" on page 135 imaginary time is a mathematical device (or trick) to calculate answers about real space-time."This hypothesis has been around since 1983 and the only support I find for it is here on EvC.When I talk about God he is compared to imaginary fairies or the flying pink unicorn. You start telling me about imaginary time it fits the same description.Imaginary time is exactly that, you have to believe it is there
by "FAITH". You do not know what is there. Science does not tell you what is there. Until the Big Bang Theory takes over and can explain what is happening in expansion you have no clue as to what preceeds the beginning of time as we know it.You make assumptions and you believe them. Therefore by "FAITH" you believe it is there and happened like you believe it happened.Spin it any way you want it comes out the same. You exercise "FAITH".God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Hi Percy, Not really observational evidence.I assumed at the speed the bullet was traveling that it did not come out of a slingshot.I assumed it did not come out of a vice that someone squezed the bullet in as the path was straight at the target.Since bullets are in casings there are only two ways to get them out one is to remove them manually from the casing.Two is to activate the powder in the casing with the cap that is centered or the rim with rim fire bullets. I got no problem with that Percy but when you get to T=0 there is zero happening.Or did the universe exist at T=0? Well if I concluded it burned up in the atmosphere. Went out of existence. I would have to conclude if what I saw was a bullet something or somebody had to manafactured and propelled that bullet at the object it hit and went through. There is no amount of faith that would create the bullet and propell it.Now if that bullet was sitting there in imaginary time and could somehow be activated and hit the target. I would have to have faith the imaginary time was there. I would have to have faith the bullet was there. I would have to have faith somehow it activated and hit the target.But like the bullet if I concluded the universe burned up at singularity at which point everything is squished out of existence I would need some form of creation to get an expanding universe. If you can't see it, feel it, dupicate it, or test it you have to accept it on "FAITH" or discard it.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Hi Percy, I think I concluded the bullet was removed from the casing by the powder being activated. Anything else would be a guess. Doesn't mean that the universe did exist either. It means you don't know.So you can either believe it existed or did not exist. It is just as easy to believe it was created as to believe it just existed and for no reason began to expand into what we see today.Besides if it just existed, where did it come from?They both take faith.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Hi Rahvin, Nothing to tell us there was as I have been told, "we don't know". If the universe was created by the Big Bang or God there was no need for anything to be there at T=0. The bullet had to be created. If it is the same as the bullet then it had to be created. Now if the Hartle Hawking hypothesis is correct, there would be a universe sitting in imaginary time at T=0. It would begin to expand and the Big Bang Theory would take over and try to explain what is observed in the universe.We know Penrose does not agree with Hawking on this view.Hawking said Hereon page 40. Now if it can be assumed that the imaginary time is there with the universe in it and that it began to expand for no reason there would be no problem.To do that you must believe the universe is sitting there in imaginary time doing nothing. The imaginary time having existed in imaginary time for a long time. Or it was created in imaginary time at T=0.If it was created at T=0, where did it come from? How was it created?If it had always been there, where did it come from or who created it? Same question asked when creationist mention God.Since all this takes place at T=0 in imaginary time as there is no before we are talking about T=0.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Hi Percy, Message 85
I was referencing your statement "That doesn't mean the universe didn't exist then". Which only speaks to T=0 not before. I drew my conclusions based on prior knowledge of ammunition. Message 74Everything I discussed in msg 81 was possibilities of things that could have happened. Nothing changed the conclusion that the bullet was made to fly through the air by the discharge of the powder. I concluded the bullet existed before it came into view because I know a bullet has to be created to exist. It did not come from an absence of anything. Neither did it come from imaginary time.
It was created by man and directed at the target.There is no evidence of the universe at T=0 only conclusions based on fantasy.Cosmologist conclude it existed before it came into view because the alternative is unthinkable.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Hi Rahvin, The bullet in the video leads me to believe it existed the moment it came off the assembly line in an ammunition plant or someone packing his own bullet, which is that particular bullets point of origin. Anything else is mechanics. You can conclude the universe existed prior to T=10^-43 if you want to. You do not have any evidence other than your assumption. The only thing you have is your faith that it did exist.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."