David Levy Posted May 13, 2017 Share Posted May 13, 2017 Dear All Thanks for the excellent support which I have got from you. Now I have much better visibility on the BBT. It is clear to me that the science community takes the BBT as the only feasible solution for our Universe. Therefore, a BBT filter applies on any evidence or idea. This is a severe mistake. Our Universe is infinite in its age and in its size. The Big bang is needed to set only the first SMBH in the whole Universe. Once it is there, by using Higgs Boson, Newton gravity and velocity momentum in space, I can explain every phenomenon in our Universe, so simple and clear. There is no need for acceleration expansion, inflation or any other current hypothesis. I'm quite sure that one day students will learn this break through theory in Universities. However, I have no intention to upset anyone at this forum. So I have a simple question - Is it possible to discuss science without the BBT filter (Offline, or some other way)? -2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

Daecon Posted May 13, 2017 Share Posted May 13, 2017 (edited) Do you have the mathematics to support your ideas? The Big Bang Theory is a "feasible solution" because it's an explanation of what we directly observe to be fact. Edited May 13, 2017 by Daecon 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

Strange Posted May 13, 2017 Share Posted May 13, 2017 Now I have much better visibility on the BBT. I doubt that very much. It is clear to me that the science community takes the BBT as the only feasible solution for our Universe. Nonsense. You can find published papers discussing alternative ideas. The trouble is, none of them work. The only filter is science: does the theory match the evidence. Our Universe is infinite in its age and in its size. It may be. And there are published theories describing both possibilities. Currently we have no evidence which will tell us if this is true or not. Do you? The Big bang is needed to set only the first SMBH in the whole Universe. If there is a first anything, then it can't be infinitely old, can it. And why is the big bang model (i.e. that the universe is currently expanding) needed to create an SMBH? Once it is there, by using Higgs Boson, Newton gravity and velocity momentum in space, I can explain every phenomenon in our Universe, so simple and clear. Then please do. Don't forget to include the appropriate mathematics and show how it produces results consistent with observation. There is no need for acceleration expansion, inflation or any other current hypothesis. So you have an alternative explanation for the evidence? Good. Show us. Is it possible to discuss science without the BBT filter (Offline, or some other way)? Yes. Just present the mathematics and show it matches the observations. That's all. You can do that here or in scientific journals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

Lord Antares Posted May 13, 2017 Share Posted May 13, 2017 Once it is there, by using Higgs Boson, Newton gravity and velocity momentum in space, I can explain every phenomenon in our Universe, so simple and clear. Explain it then. Don't just exclaim that you can explain it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

David Levy Posted May 13, 2017 Author Share Posted May 13, 2017 (edited) O.K. Let's start with mathematics. We all know by now, that the discovery of the acceleration expansion have set a severe violation in the BBT mathematics. It just didn't work on the basic Einstein equation. I would expect that this violation by itself should send the BBT into deep freeze. However, our scientists couldn't give up on this unrealistic Theory. (As there was no real alternative at that time -1998). Therefore, they have decided to call back the forbidden cosmology constant - the one which Einstein himself have stated that it was his biggest mistake. With this constant, our scientists have set the requested mathematical fit. Actually, Einstein had added this constant to prove totally different theory - Static universe theory: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant "Einstein included the cosmological constant as a term in his field equations for general relativity because he was dissatisfied that otherwise his equations did not allow, apparently, for a static universe: " I have full thrust in Einstein that by using the cosmology constant he had proved mathematically the Static Universe Theory. Today, the science community is using that constant to prove the BBT. So, if with the same constant it was feasible to prove two totally different theories, I would assume that with the help of that constant we can proof any theory which we can dream on. However, Einstein had stated clearly that the cosmology constant was its biggest mistake. Therefore, I have full confidence in Einstein. We shouldn't use this constant in order to prove any sort of unrealistic theory!!! It is clear to me that the only real mathematical solution must be based on basic Einstein equation, without any added constant and without any change in the parameters. I would never ever use this forbidden cosmology constant to prove my theory. We are cheating ourselves by using that constant. We shouldn't use it to prove the BBT, we shouldn't use it to prove the Static universe and we shouldn't use it at all! This cosmology constant was the biggest Einstein' mistake. If we take Einstein as an important scientist, we must accept his will as is. Hence, before you ask me to give you a mathematical proof, you are requested to prove the BBT on basic Einstein equation (Without the cosmology constant)! Unfortunately, currently I have no deep knowledge in advanced science mathematics, but I'm quite sure that with some help I would be able to find a perfect fit between basic Einstein equation and my breakthrough Theory. Without it – my theory is just useless. Edited May 13, 2017 by David Levy -2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

Lord Antares Posted May 13, 2017 Share Posted May 13, 2017 This is incredibly poor reasoning for science. Shameful, really. First, you start off saying this: O.K. Let's start with mathematics. but you talked about nothing but argument from authority and no math. Will you please ditch the idea of godly people in science? A theory's correctness is NOT decided by the esteem of the author, but on the validity and evidence of said theory. However, Einstein had stated clearly that the cosmology constant was its biggest mistake. Therefore, I have full confidence in Einstein. We shouldn't use this constant in order to prove any sort of unrealistic theory!!! This is also exceptionally poor reasoning. You say you have full confidence in what Einstein says. So, you had full confidence when he said that the cosmological was correct. Then you had full confidence when he said it was a mistake. If he hadn't lived long enough, he wouldn't have the time to change his mind and so you would believe in his first assumption just because he said so. If he had lived longer, he might have changed his mind again, and you would consider that correct again. This is a great fallacy and I'm glad this is what scientists don't do. I suggest you start making sense in the near future. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

swansont Posted May 13, 2017 Share Posted May 13, 2017 Hence, before you ask me to give you a mathematical proof, you are requested to prove the BBT on basic Einstein equation (Without the cosmology constant)! ! Moderator Note That's not how this works. Unfortunately, currently I have no deep knowledge in advanced science mathematics, but I'm quite sure that with some help I would be able to find a perfect fit between basic Einstein equation and my breakthrough Theory. Without it – my theory is just useless. ! Moderator Note So there's no point in continuing this. As it stands this is just another thread to bash science that you do not understand, and yet don't agree with. And we've had quite enough of that. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

## Recommended Posts