Lets talk about the big bang.

I have no issues whatsoever with thinking if we reverse the process it does not take us to a singularity, I believe in a creation event, so it started fully formed, as in the stars were already in place, the planet, moon, and life were part of a singular creation event.

No matter which event narrative you happen to believe in the only evidence is going to be found in the here and now. Einstein didn't like the idea of a beginning which was why he inserted that constant in his theory to avoid a beginning maintaining a steady state. It wasn't until I believe it was Hubble who showed him the expanding universe that he changed his mind and renounced that constant due to the red shift in light.

I don't think Einstein was a great intellect. I find it distasteful to discuss him: a little like constantly using Jimmy Savile as an example. I think he was a clever guy but that's all. Jimmy Savile had a decent IQ too .... maybe not far removed from Einstein's.

The quote was the important thing, if chance and chaos is what is responsible for everything, how is it that what we see is mathematically rationally understandable?

Thanks for not jumping to his defence but you aren't making a good argument there. Statistics uses maths and can be used to understand chance events. The rather stupid Einstein told us that God doesn't play dice with the universe or some such. There are accounts that have it that he couldn't tie his shoelaces but I think that's an exaggeration.

Statics are good if you know how to properly weight each variable and know what to look at and avoid. This requires a mind that has understanding and if the universe is without a rational cause why trust your mind about anything?

From an earlier point if everything is subjective then having a better mind is not possible to judge as reasonable requires reasoning based upon objective reality not subjective. What ever scale your use to determine what is better can be meaningless to someone else

Astounding conceit! You dismiss a mind such as Einstein's as a second-rate intellect and claim that for yourself.

Narcissicism on a breathtaking scale.

Oh shut up for Heaven's sake. If anyone's conceited and pompous it's definitely you.

Anyway I'm not claiming second rate intellect for myself at all. I'm clever and I know it. You're hysterical and you should try to grow up. Truthmuse had the sense and intelligence not to comment but you don't so it's better for you not to make judgements.

Wow, razor-sharp refutation. I should have known better than to tangle with someone who has a mind superior to that of Einstein, lol!

I have nothing 🙄

Ah, at least you realised my refutation was razor sharp. I thought it was too. The thing is that you didn't have to make that comment, which probably speaks much more about you than it does about me. I wasn't addressing you and I thought that truthmuse would accept it in the spirit which was intended, which was one of honesty. I was explaining why I think a certain way and reach some conclusions I reach. I wasn't justifying it and that should have been clear to a perceptive person. I was explaining how I think.

I don't rate Einstein's intellect for several reasons. He was dogmatic and mentally inflexible, taking much too long to understand ideas that he should have been more open to. He was extemely dishonest, since he didn't credit Maxwell in his major work. Some think that all Einstein did was to jiggle with Maxwell's equations. Also it's likely that Mileva Maric was the real brains behind him and of course, she had to submit to him. He treated her abominably and there was nowhere for her and their disabled son to live, so he forced her to promise never to mention her contribution to his work, in exchange for the Nobel prize money, with which she bought a house. He was really quite a disgusting person, forcing himself on many women. His niece committed suicide because of him and there was much more, including his violent behaviour towards Mileva. All these details and more were available 20 years ago but now, they've been hidden, so it's harder to investigate. Yes, you can hide things online if you know how or pay enough. I researched him very carefully online, about 25 years ago, due to some things my father told me when I was very young, because he knew a number of people who knew Einstein, since he worked in the same place as they did. So I don't like him. Misogynistic, dishonest, vain etc.

The Big Bang is not a fact, no.

But it is by far the leading theory, best explaining the formation of our Universe.

And is the only theory so far, supported by observable evidence.

I agree the Big Bang is not a fact but a theory, but it does not explain anything concerning where everything came from or its formation. What banged, where did that come from, and from an explosion where did all of the order in the placement of all the matter come from and the forces that keep them there with such precision? Something at rest doesn't just move for no reason at all, and being put into a steady orbit is not an act of chaos either.

Newton:

An object at rest remains at rest, and an object in motion remains in motion at constant speed and in a straight line unless acted on by an unbalanced force.

The acceleration of an object depends on the mass of the object and the amount of force applied.

Whenever one object exerts a force on another object, the second object exerts an equal and opposite on the first.

That isn't correct. Firstly, the Big Bang is an hypothesis rather than a theory. It's considered by many to be a very strong hypothesis and by others to be a weak one. The only observable evidence is the expansion of the universe. Few doubt that the universe is expanding. It isn't evidence for the Big Bang, however, which is an hypothesis about the cause or origin of the universe. C.M.B. is speculated to be a vestige from the beginning of the universe. Again, no evidence.

There's much more evidence against the Big Bang theory than for it. One very significant piece of evidence is acceleration of expansion. In actuality that is sufficient evidence to junk the BBT.

This is somewhat misleading because every reference I can find refers to theory as opposd to hypothesis. The cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation was a prediction of the theory from what I've heard and was discovered (accidentally) in 1965. It is regarded as strong evidence for the Big Bang.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background

Optimissed wrote:

There's much more evidence against the Big Bang theory than for it. One very significant piece of evidence is acceleration of expansion. In actuality that is sufficient evidence to junk the BBT.

Never thought of that.

That's because its proper name has become The Big Bang Theory (rather than the big bang theory). Spelled in capitals so it's a name rather than a description. Right?

The CMB isn't evidence for the Big Bang so much as that it's thought to signify such an event by some people: perhaps by a majority, because so few people can think for themselves so they just follow-the-leader.

So if it's evidence for the BBT, then it's also evidence against the BBT. It can be an energetic frequency associated with the propagation of space quanta, for instance. Basically, they're making it up, so others can too. I think I'm more likely to be right. I usually am so that's a good precedent.

We haven't had a top class astrophysicist since Hoyle. There's been no-one in the World since the 1960s who's really been any good. Certainly not Hawking. He did some good work on the Big Bang but Hawking radiation is pretty obvious. As soon as you think about it you would understand that it must exist, since there's bound to be an interface between normal gravitational effects and an escape boundary where the gravity becomes sufficiently intense.

My son was in charge of inviting visiting speakers to St Andrews University when he was in, I think, the third year of his physics PhD. I suggested "why don't you ask Hawking?" and he wouldn't hear of it. He thought his credibility would be ruined and that Hawking had no ideas at all and was, basically, useless. If that's an example of what what real, working physicists thought of Hawking, then it exemplifies the opinion I'd already formed of the man. So he certainly wasn't regarded as a leader in the field by many other physicists. Hawking was a very good mathematician indeed but my son was considered as one of the two best mathematicians in the physics department at St Andrews, along with a German girl he was friends with: and therefore one of the best mathematicians of his generation. The difference between him and Hawking is that he didn't want to stay in academia. There's a feeling that those who do are second class. So there! Our theories in physics are led by second class physicists. The best ones work in a proper job instead of teaching!

And in a single post practically all the brightest minds in Cosmology are dismissed as intellectual second-graders?

"It can be an energetic frequency associated with the propagation of space quanta, for instance. Basically, they're making it up, so others can too. I think I'm more likely to be right. I usually am so that's a good precedent" - what is 'space quanta' when it's at home?

And you don't think Cosmologists have investigated every alternative explanation for the CMB that you might think of, plus several more, and dismissed them?

Words fail ....