Summations Only

Well, I am somewhat dissimilar to the Universe in that that I may be justifiably presumed to have an inside and outside. I've got a surface. The Universe is not like that. Therefore your analogy is somewhat lame. I may have age as I have an outside standard of comparison for that measurement of my duration. The Universe may not have a surface so your analogy is a category mistake.
Of course, anybody can google big bunk predictions and anybody can google failed big bunk prediction. One always finds a lot via googling.
On the other hand I've considered many alternative cosmogonies and they all also claim to predict a lot and they all claim their forecasts are very accurate and so on. Therefore my criteria is not the predictions but rather an absence or presence of plausible, rational explanations of the causal universal process offered by rivalling presentations. In that respect the big bunk cosmogony markedly lags behind most as hardly anything in it is making any good rational sense. Hot dimensionless points exploding into nowhere is not a particularly credible story. A huge pinch of salt should not be a surprising reaction for anyone telling such a tale.

In what way that question is nonsensical? Your answer seems to be a non-sequitor but the question is a most natural reaction to an unsupported and impossible claim made. The claim is like stating that somebody who is a basket case is a marathon champion. Obviously such a claim is likely to be met with scepticism and you'd need to explain how it is possible to be a marathon runner without legs to run on. To expand is a verb that has a certain meaning. A balloon can expand exactly because it can have a possible room it can be expanding into. The Universe is not a balloon nor is it a raisin muffin. It's lacking an oven needed to make a claim it does indeed perform the action alleged a plausible one.

This cannot possibly work. Light is made of Photons, which carry a spin (intrinsic angular momentum) of 1 unit. Gravity couples to mass, the relativistic generalisation of mass is Stress-Energy. Stress-Energy is a spin-2 quantity of matter, so photons cannot directly couple to it. (Only quantities of equal spin can couple directly.)The only spin-2 quantity associated with photons is electromagnetic flux. However coupling electromagnetic flux to Stress-Energy results in a theory which falls apart into infinities. (There are also serious conceptual issues with the theory, but I won't mention them for now.)

There is, it is easier to do most calculations in those coordinates. For some calculations other coordinates are easier and then we use those. This has been said before. No, it assumes (an assumption confirmed by the WMAP) that the universe is approximately homogeneous and isotropic in at least one reference frame. This simply isn't true. Could you tell me where in the metric this preferred universal direction is?

Strict ratios instead of doctrines? Sounds interesting, what value does it give for the Quadrupole moment of the Cosmic Microwave Background(CMB)?

First, ropes- that's not my idea, that's Bill Gaede's hypothesis. So talk to him and tell him that. His idea is actually that there are two forces- one of push and another of pull. His ropes got two strands and are sort of double helix. I don't accept the duality so we strongly disagree. Secondly photons are theoretical entities and in the theory light is propagated as waves, not as particles. Photons are waves dead on arrival in the theory if you forgot that.
Also every single motion may affect something directly and contribute indirectly to something else causing at once the effects of what is called gravity and of what is called electromagnetism. So I don't see what is a problem. My point is simply as there is only one existence, hence there is one motion only possible and therefore one and the same energy is spent for every action and reaction. The division into four forces is a convenient artefact. That division is nothing to be proud about and a good future theory will certainly scrap it. If the current theories fall apart into infinities is the fault of the theories and not any concern of Mother Nature. You folks are confused and don't even really know what gravity is. Is it forceless geometry as per Einstein or is it the force carried by gravitons as per QM? It can't be both, you know.

Ok, as you wish so I will propose a new thread on whether the big bunk hypothesis has got anything to with Minkowski and Einstein relativity.

I haven't really made an analogy. I have simply pointed out that when talking about the age of an object we are talking about the coordinate time in the object's rest frame. You still haven't said which frame of reference you are using....? In short you have abandoned the scientific method, abandoned any hope of reaching a remotely objective conclusion, and are just going with whatever seems subjectively plausible to you personally.The reason testable predictions are used in science is because whilst it is very easy to conjure up fantastical explanations to fit the facts one cannot easily force reality to conform to the logical consequences of one's theory. So when we have a theory that successfully leads to the discovery of new facts it is deemed a superior model of reality to one that doesn't.No doubt you feel that this is deeply unfair and intrinsically biased against your subjectively preferred descriptions. But that is kinda the point. The very purpose of the scientific method is to eliminate such biases as much as possible.So do you have anything other than subjectively derived notions of plausibility or is that the sum total of your argument here? Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

No, photons are particles which have been detected and manipulated on an individual basis.The strongest proof is the photon correlation experiments of the 1980s, the best of which is the classic:
Grangier, P.; Roger, G.; Aspect, A. "Experimental Evidence for a Photon Anticorrelation Effect on a Beam Splitter: A New Light on Single-Photon Interferences". Europhysics Letters 1 (4): p. 173—179.In this paper photon beams were observed to exhibit effects that cannot possibly be explained in any classical theory of light. Any theory in which light has real determined properties can be shown (mathematically) to be incapable of producing the anti-correlation effects in the beams of light.Your idea has been totally experimentally refuted. What do you mean? Yes, energy is involved in motion, but that tells you nothing. You want to know what causes the motion and it would seem thus far that there is four forces.Remember people have tried to unify the forces, but all such theories are experimentally refuted. It is conceivable that there really are four forces and not one or two (some think that all the non-gravitational forces might unify, but that gravity is different). You seem to be convinced that raw logic can trump experimental evidence. There is no evidence thus far that the forces are unified. We think they might be, but that's it. We certainly just can't decide that they are, because it seems nicer. I never said that the theories used by scientists at present have infinities, in fact there are proofs that they don't (J. Feldman, T. Kurd, L. Rosen, J. Wright, QED: A Proof of Renormalizability).I said that the idea of having gravity being caused by electromagnetism does. All such theories have infinities. I don't know who this is directed at, but the current evidence suggests and the widely accepted theory is that gravity is a forceless effect which results from geometry.Many people have suggested that, if gravity is in some way quantum mechanical, then one of the first pieces of evidence would be that gravitational waves would come in particle like lumps. (this is not "per QM", but from separate theories.)Edited by Son Goku, : No reason given.

Ok, so what is a photon? Does it have physical borders, surface, volume and shape? What happens when two photons meet in one place? Do they bounce off each other or do they pass through one another like ghosts through walls? Light from many sources seems to fuse. Why is that? And what do you mean by light being undetermined? Term is a limit and light has limits as I can stop it with my palm feeling its pressure. And it casts shadows and so on. It's something tangible and not a ghost.
I did not say gravity is caused by electromagnetism. Both are ideas. Ideas don't cause anything. I said what is assumed to be gravity and what is assumed to be electromagnetism are different aspects or combined effects of motion of physical objects. Gravity and charge are both ratios of mass and mass is a measure of material objects in motion. If it's yet not possible to derive the ratios without running into contradiction may not mean it will never be possible. What do you mean by saying the four forces are separated? Are they divorced like husband and wife and live in different countries or what?

Hi Alfred,First, there is no need to respond to moderator messages, unless they request a response.Second, about this: That's not what I said. You were using your own personal definition of relativity. If you would like to propose a thread to argue for the advantages of your definition over the current one you are welcome to do so, but in this thread, unless otherwise noted, qualified or modified, relativity refers to Einsteinian relativity.You may also propose a thread to discuss your ideas about the big bunk being unrelated to Minkowski and Einsteinian relativity if that's what you'd like to do, but that wasn't what I suggested.I have stepped in as moderator simply because there can be no constructive discussion while people insist on using different definitions of the same word. What matters to me isn't whether or not the Big Bang is bunk, but clear communication. Relativity already has a definition in cosmological contexts, and that's the definition we will use in this thread.

If you introduce an idea into a thread then you're expected to address reactions to it yourself.The goal here at EvC Forum is discussions that actually get somewhere. All evidence and argument should appear in messages in your own words (some quoting is fine) and not be in the form of references or instructions to go elsewhere.

Well, I've been trying to look this up, but do I recall that the forces separated in seriously small fractions of a second after the singularity ? It would make Britney Spears' marriage to Jason Allen Alexander seem like the very model of commitment !(In all seriousness, and genuinely, I do enjoy your analogies - we've had ghosts through walls, marriages, raisin muffins and laundered knickers - they do add some great colour to these boards)

The Universe contains all things. Any thing that it would be expanding into would also be some thing that is a part of the Universe, and thus subject to that expansion. There cannot be anything outside of the Universe for which it to expand into. Well hang on, I'm not saying that the model is most definately the truth. I'm just explaining to you what the model says. Even if the model is wrong, we can still talk about what the model does and does not say. That's fine, but all that really means is that the word "expand" is not totally sufficient for describing the behavior of the Universe in this model. All points in the Universe have the distance between them getting larger. That doesn't require something outside of the universe to exist.

First of all, you've got no clue what the so-called Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation is. You just allege it is a remnant of the Big Blank. That is an unsupported claim. It might be something else. Some suggest that it is the result of the ubiquitous orbital decay. The spin of every rotating body gradually slows down, friction and dissipation of radiation ensue. That's a much more likely explanation.