Scientists Accidentally Recreate Big Bang Detonation in the Lab

[Zenaan Harkness]

On Wed, Nov 06, 2019 at 05:41:48PM -0300, Punk - Stasi 2.0 wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Nov 2019 07:40:32 +0000 (UTC)
> jim bell <jdb10987 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> > First, you are assuming that there is a "center" of (our) universe.  
> 
> 	Of course. At least there should be one, according to the big bang bullshit tale.
> 
> 	It is claimed based on observed 'redshifts' that stars are moving. So, it should be easy to compute the direction of the movement, reverse it, and see where it points to. That's where the matter allegedly came from. 
> 
> 
> > You don't explain why you think that is true, or at least why it's location can be known. 
> 
> 	I really shouldn't have to explain it, though I just did above. The fact that you ask for an explanation seems to suggest you are not making any basic inference from the big bang bullshit tale. So that's your problem, not mine. 
> 
> 
> > That not clear.   One common analogy is to view the 'universe' as a somewhat inflated balloon,
> 
> 	sorrrryyyyy. We are talking about physical reality. Spare me the 'analogies' piled upon already absurd tales. 
> 
> 	If you can't explain it in physical terms based on experience (and you can't), then it is bullshit. 
> 
> 	We exist in 3D space. Stuff is allegedly moving. So WHERE did the movenment start. 


AIUI:

  - If the balloon analogy were a ballon fact (say the universe is
    ballow in 3D shape),

  - and the expansion is accellerating,

  - and has been accelerating for a very long time, 

  - then the limits of what we can see are at the edges of our light
    cone

  - and it could (here's the superstitious theory, not fact, part of
    this story) appear the same for every "point in the universe"


The reason that last step is superstitious is that, assuming the
expanding balloon theory, there must be SOME galaxies somewhere that
don't have "galaxies further away from themselves" - i.e. from
-their- point of view, they would be near or indeed at, the very edge
of the actual (expanding balloon) universe.

This could theoretically give rise to conclusions and possible things
that could be tested, but IDK about this.


One problem with the above theory (it's not a fact, but a theory or
"model" from which certain conclusions were able to be tested such as
CBR) is that it appears not ultimately testable.

A second problem is that by stroke of pure luck, our particular
galaxy happens to be pretty well "central" or at least "nowhere near
any edge of this grand universe";

  - in other words, at least visibly ("within our light cone",
    another theory), we're back to cosmic "we're at the centre of the
    universe" old Jewish/Christianity beliefs, and attempting to
    explain reality around this belief.

It could be that the universe is far larger than we imagine and that
there are many light cones between us and the edge of the physical
universe.

IDK if math can be sensibly applied to determine max/min possible
counts of such light cones.

In any case, we do not yet know, meaning our present theories are
insufficient to the task of solving these riddles, and we don't know
if our universe is shaped like a balloon, and we don't even know if
the light-cone theory is sufficiently flawed as to be leading us
astray in our thinking about the present theories.

That's why they're called theories, models, or posulates, not facts.

These theory thoughts might be seductive muffas, but they still ain't
facts :)