Welcome to the Technology & Science Forum :)

[Doer]

Oh yes, please believe me I sipulate to all of that and more.
Just to say, I can poke holes in big bang from many directions.
(pun intended)
and I totally accept the evolutionary time frames currently proposed.
And I am a computer geek techie to the core.

But, my point is that we are only observing indirectly all that we consider
hard science evidence. The more we look the more bewildering it becomes
and drives us to create tech to sort the confusion. But it leads to more
bewilderment and more tech.

I'm not knocking it. The LHC is the most exciting development
in directed particle beams, yet.

I happen to think the best cosmological model now is where C is
a variable, not a constant. It's a pulsating model where the speed
of light changes as the timespace manifold expands, then contracts.

I'm not making it up. I subscribe to the journals, now. Just like I read
Scientific American when I was a kid.

 

[Doer]

Oh, right. As to why, I mentioned some ideas over in the "other" thread, where robotic
ghosts do tread.

The bbt is based on the idea that time is a constant. That time can be rolled back to
zero. But, the notion has to include the phase where somehow the Inflationary Epoch
is expanding much faster than the speed of light and, of course, there was no light yet.

Heisenberg in the Copenhagen Conjecture (1921) proved, to me, there is no time
within the atom. The uncertainty doesn't allow it. No time = no space. What
we call matter is a magnetic displacement of timespace. And I believe if we would
stop mashing gravity as the weak sister Fudamental Force, we might find intersting
conclusion if we spent our efforts there.

Even NASA says there is no center of the unverse in 3D. That leads
me to think of several explainations that don't include bbt.

And the published ones are diffent from that. I just don't have the math.

 

[cannabineer]

I don't see a problem with the "inflationary epoch" having superluminal expansion. The lightspeed limit is specific to things that happen in our timespace, while inflation happened to our timespace. Apples and oranges imo.
As for the variability of c ... I cannot discount that, but the best scientific constructs are elegant. Variable c is the sort of big claim that would require firm (if not extraordinary) evidence.
Cosmological/metaphysical musings are fun. But science is about finding, ordering, verifying facts. Its "purpose" isn't to catch up to cosmology or any ideology really, but to simply learn. Jmo ... cn

 

[Doer]

With all due respect, I don't see the evidence for either the apples or the oranges.
When you add a non-time, superluminal measure, of what happened "to" our timespace to account for Higgs, Dark-Both, and whatever else, the logic chain is too thin.

I submit, too thin logic in the origins of the ideas of Higgs, Hawkins and Dark forces. When applied to BBT which is already on thin ice, it suggests a dog chasing it's tail. The blind lead the blind to the trough of public funds.

BBT is weakened considerably by the new constant, the common form Super Nova as a "standard candle."

If the expansion is accelerating, we have lost all Hubble based reference. We don't
know if it simply looks like it is expanding. The light could have been so red and blue
shifted in the past, this could simply be part of a cycle.

 

[cannabineer]

Doer, I will have to bow out from this discussion because I am finding myself hard up against the limits of my own ignorance.
All my life I have been fascinated by astronomy cosmology, physics etc. These past few years I have been "out of the loop" in so many ways, and I have not kept up with science (or any other) news. You are raising issues that are half- or unfamiliar to me. If you could provide links to some of these questions (specifically how the use of supernovae as standard candles, type 1a if memory serves, weakens current BBt thinking, i'd be obliged. cn

 

[Doer]

Yeah, I understand. And this is not in the loop thinking by any means. I doubt that
I can dig up anything that says, yep, old Doer's right. What he says...

I've made it a point to follow along. I can put 2 and 2 together. Often, with research
grant restrictions, that's not very wise.

I would say these guys might agree with my ham-fisted objections to BBT, but perhaps in a way that benefited their grant proposals. IAC, my logic here is probably beneath
theirs. Not to say they are right. I have a brain and not seeking grants. Only Knowledge. I have more on this. But to say the fracture point was the 1a candle
maybe only history will tell. Cheers.
http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/26170/?ref=rss

 

[Psychedelic Breakfast]

I thought I recognized a new forum. sounds cool