Does "Big Bang" include a groundless presuppositi

[John Human]

The calculations behind the Big Bang theory presuppose that the gravitational constant "G" had always remained the same.

Question for debate: Is that a groundless supposition that has no place in a theory worth the name?

Perhaps "G" oscillated or fluctuated wildly in the earliest decade or century or millennium, etc., producing swirling effects in a way that might better explain variations in the motion of distant galaxies (as perceived from Earth, of course).

Perhaps instead of a big bang, the origin was a "pop and swirl."

[Divine Insight]

However, science doesn't work by just guessing what you think might have happened.

Good point, and it underscores the fact that what passes for "science" is often doctrinally-motivated guesswork. For example, the "Big Bangers" made the idle guess that "G" has stayed constant through the history of the universe, and that passes for "science."

It's hardly an idle guess. You seem to have forgotten (or perhaps never fully understood) that when we look out into the universe we are also looking back in time. Therefore we can actually see how the universe was behaving billions of years ago.

So we have actually observed that G has remained constant for at least billions of years. So the current Big Bang theory is accurate to an extremely early point in time in the birth of our universe.

No, if currently-accepted calculations are correct, we can "see back" about 9 billion years, with the age of the universe estimated at 13 billion years. 13 minus 9 equals 4 billion years' worth of idle presupposition. Combined with the apparent discovery a few years ago that "G" actually isn't completely constant, it seems unscientific to blithely assume that "G" remained constant during the first year, or first century, or the first billion years.

You've lost me entirely.

Scientists don't claim to know things they don't know or cannot confirm. Insofar as I am aware scientists openly admit that they can't be certain about the very early formation of the universe, nor do they claim to know.

Also, the physics of how elements are created in are compatible with a "Hot Big Bang", not to mention the obvious microwave afterglow of the Big Bang.

So scientists have reported what they know (without any need to guess about anything).

The totally arbitrary hypotheses that you have invented are not compatible with what has been observed. So you are hardly in a position to complain about scientists who have done all the hard word, while your proposals have nothing to back them up.

Where are you research papers and evidence to support the claims you are making about the early universe?

Claiming that scientists are wrong when you have nothing but empty guesses with no evidence to offer for why you've made them, is hardly impressive.

Obviously those difference could not affect anything that we have currently observed, otherwise we would have visually seen the discrepancy.

It was recently reported that a distant galaxy was observed to be moving TOWARD us. This is inconsistent with simplistic "Big Bang" theory. One way to explain this discrepancy is the supposition that early on "G" varied from region to region, leading eventually to a distant galaxy heading toward us.

Another way to explain it is with the paired supposions that the initial universe event did not create proto-matter of uniform density, and that periodic reversals in the value of "G" (pop and swirl) led to gravitational interactions that led eventually to the disorderly complexity that we now see, including a distant galaxy heading toward us.

I have never heard of any distant galaxies heading toward us at such a rate of speed that it would violate our current understanding of an expanding universe. Nearby galaxies heading toward us is in complete harmony with the current Big Bang model.

Not only this but if there truly were problems with the current Big Bang theory as you claim scientists would themselves be aware of these problems. Yet they haven't reported that such problem exists.

So I think it's far more reasonable to simply conclude that you don't know what you are talking about on this subject.

Also, why is it important to you that the current model is wrong? What do you think that would mean? Apparently you seem to have a need for the current model to be wrong like as if that would lead to some major different conclusions about something.

As far as I can see you have nothing to offer here other than your own misguided views of what science actually knows about our universe.

If you claim to have evidence that disproves the current theory, just take that evidence to the scientific community. They will then either have no choice but to agree with you, or they can simply point out why you are wrong. My guess is that the latter is far more likely than the former.

[alexxcJRO]

I often have limited time and limited internet access, and fail to follow up quickly on interesting discussions/debates, and some of them fall through the cracks, including old threads that I have started and still intend to pursue. (For example, the original intent in the "Debate with a Scientist" thread at viewtopic.php?t=35419, which I still intend to get back to -- and there I refer to the pseudo-scientific "doctrine" that Imprecise Interrupt confused with my discussion of G.)

Q: Who are you fooling sir?!!!! )))

Your reply was just an emoticon.
You could have not responded at all or say you will do later.
Common sir we all now you were done.

"Gravitational Constant" at wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitati ... ite_ref-54

Common sir.

You said: “No, if currently-accepted calculations are correct, we can "see back" about 9 billion years, with the age of the universe estimated at 13 billion years. “

Sir the “Under the assumption that the physics of type Ia supernovae are universal, analysis of observations of 580 type Ia supernovae has shown that the gravitational constant has varied by less than one part in ten billion per year over the last nine billion years according to Mould et al. (2014)� talks about the negligible variation of G in the last 10 billion years not about how much we can see back in time.

This does not support your claim that we can only see 9 billions years back in time.

We have pictures with z8_GND_5296 that immortalizes it how it was just 700 million years after the big bang. That is us seeing 13.1 billions years back in time, not just 9 billions years back in time.

https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/ ... -16105099/

Per "Come a Little Closer" at https://www.spacetelescope.org/images/potw1920a/: "Messier 90 is remarkable; it is one of the few galaxies seen to be travelling toward the Milky Way, not away from it."

Cheery picking again. Ignoring the part that explains the anomalies.

This is a rather dishonest tactic.

If the density is high enough, gravity is sufficient to overcome the expansion.

So clusters of galaxies do not individually expand, but clusters of galaxies like the Local Group(Andromeda, Milky Way), Virgo Cluster(Messier 90) do still fly apart from each other everywhere.

Therefore there is no problem sir.

“Astronomers think that this blueshift is likely caused by the cluster’s colossal mass accelerating its members to high velocities on bizarre and peculiar orbits, sending them whirling around on odd paths that take them both towards and away from us over time. While the cluster itself is moving away from us, some of its constituent galaxies, such as Messier 90, are moving faster than the cluster as a whole, making it so that from Earth we see the galaxy heading towards us. However, some are also moving in the opposite direction within the cluster, and thus seem to be streaking away from us at very high velocity.�

https://www.spacetelescope.org/images/potw1920a/

[Imprecise Interrupt]

@Imprecise Interrupt, if you go back and read what I actually said, you may see (perhaps with the help of a request for clarification) that you have misinterpreted what I was referring to with the use of the word "doctrine."
[…]
… and there I refer to the pseudo-scientific "doctrine" that Imprecise Interrupt confused with my discussion of G.

What you said was:

Good point, and it underscores the fact that what passes for "science" is often doctrinally-motivated guesswork. For example, the "Big Bangers" made the idle guess that "G" has stayed constant through the history of the universe, and that passes for "science."

To which I replied:

Observation of distant Type 1a supernovas, that is, those that happened in the distant past, point to negligible detectable variation in G over time. If it were a 'doctrine' as you claim, nobody who investigated it would get published.

In any case, G is simply a measure of how much mass produces how much gravitation. Changing the value would not result in things 'swirling around'. The observed expansion would simply be at a different rate. But changing G would not produce the expansion.

You gave G remaining constant as an example of ‘doctrinally-motivated guesswork’. I was not confusing anything. But claiming I did makes for a nice diversion from addressing the second half of my post – which you chose not to quote but I provided above – which points out that regardless of how G might have fluctuated it would not produce swirling.

[Imprecise Interrupt]

@Imprecise Interrupt, if you go back and read what I actually said, you may see (perhaps with the help of a request for clarification) that you have misinterpreted what I was referring to with the use of the word "doctrine."
[…]
… and there I refer to the pseudo-scientific "doctrine" that Imprecise Interrupt confused with my discussion of G.

What you said was:

Good point, and it underscores the fact that what passes for "science" is often doctrinally-motivated guesswork. For example, the "Big Bangers" made the idle guess that "G" has stayed constant through the history of the universe, and that passes for "science."

To which I replied:

Observation of distant Type 1a supernovas, that is, those that happened in the distant past, point to negligible detectable variation in G over time. If it were a 'doctrine' as you claim, nobody who investigated it would get published.

In any case, G is simply a measure of how much mass produces how much gravitation. Changing the value would not result in things 'swirling around'. The observed expansion would simply be at a different rate. But changing G would not produce the expansion.

You gave G remaining constant as an example of ‘doctrinally-motivated guesswork’. I was not confusing anything. But claiming I did makes for a nice diversion from addressing the second half of my post – which you chose not to quote but I provided above – which points out that regardless of how G might have fluctuated it would not produce swirling.