The balloon then is not an accurate model. If it's actually true, there has to be a model we can mimic it with. Perhaps a computer model? Does one exist that can visualize expansion from the Big Bang without a singularity?
The balloon (surface) is not intended as a model, just an analogy to help explain plausibly
and visually how space itself can expand. It lacks the right number of spatial dimensions.
There's no known direct evidence for anything prior to the "inflation" phase.
A mathematical singularity at the origin can be the result of a flawed theory,
and not actually physically exist (in black holes as well). These theories are all
tentative (like for all science) and will evolve, and likely either change or be disproven.
This is the best we have for what you want.
Astrophysicists Have Built The Most Detailed Simulation of The Universe Ever Created
Last edited:
The balloon is but a poor analogy. Physicists are curently working on computer simulations. In this link they are studying the transition from inflation to the big bang.
Putting the 'bang' in the Big Bang: Physicists simulate critical 'reheating' period that kickstarted the Big Bang in the universe's first fractions of a second -- ScienceDaily
Putting the 'bang' in the Big Bang: Physicists simulate critical 'reheating' period that kickstarted the Big Bang in the universe's first fractions of a second -- ScienceDaily
There are other ideas as mentioned earlier. No current theories are "proven" to be true.
All of the current ideas may be wrong. Theories that require a singularity are questionable.
Quanta Magazine
Last edited:
Why the quotations? Anything we've discovered scientifically through the ages we have a model for, easily constructed. Yet when it comes to this topic, declarations abound. Theories about theories we declare to be true. No religion allowed here but do you really think some nerdy goofball with coke bottle glasses sat at his computer somewhere and stumbled us into existence? When you look around and see just how complex a balance our eco-system is, I think it would be foolish to think so however intelligently we must have come to be. Darwin needed a model and made one about something that has yet to be "proven". Clearly the same holds true for this topic. It appears what we actually know about our existence is "diddly squat".🙂
The middle of the balloon might be analogous to a fourth or "higher" dimension.
Extra dimensions brings to mind String Theory (or Superstring Theory, or whatever these things are called that have lots of extra dimensions). This and cosmology are admittedly two of the more speculative areas of science, so much so that some don't like calling them science at all.
A model (or analogy) doesn't have to be perfectly accurate to be useful. Water flow is often used as an analogy for electricity flow, even though there are a lot of limitations to that.
benb,we've seen water flowing, hence we identify with it. have you seen a big bang analogy in motion? drawing spots on a balloon and blowing it up hardly qualifies. unless of course the universe is a humongous bag all blown up with all that other stuff of our imaginations that can't be proved.
Here's a "meta hypothesis" I could lob in here - if things like the amount of Dark Matter don't appear to be what they should be, maybe it's because some meta-entity is setting the knob for "amount of dark matter" to some value we don't expect.
Simulation hypothesis - Wikipedia
Are We Living in a Computer Simulation? - Scientific American
Simulation hypothesis - Wikipedia
Are We Living in a Computer Simulation? - Scientific American
Scientific theories cannot be proven. Evidence might be collected tending to confirm a theory,
but new evidence could refute it at any time. The classic example is how general relativity refuted
Newton's theory, by correctly predicting the amount of the precession of Mercury's orbit.
Newton's theory is then simply wrong, because he cannot predict that correctly. Einstein's theory does,
and in the special case of low velocities and low gravitational field, it gives the results that Newton does,
as it must. Newton's math is an approximation that he found during his research, but it is not correct,
even though good enough for many practical purposes.
Last edited:
Well, I'd have to ask you, do you have an alternative explanation as to how the Universe got to be the way it is?
And the way science works, NOTHING can be proved. The laws of gravity can't be proved, there's just a lot of evidence for Newton's descriptions, and as modified by Einstein, and no evidence of any consequence against it. As I said in my last post, cosmology doesn't have a lot of hard evidence (though maybe there's a cosmologist who would argue with that), so if you have an alternative explanation that fits the data we have, it just might grow in favor over the current ideas.
Just saying "this is effin' crazy" isn't very convincing or helpful unless you can come up with a less crazy idea.
any correlation between the positions of stars and dinosaur bones is ridiculously incidental. seriously? bones?
chicken bones
Actually, fully 50% of all fossils unearthed are never presented because they don't fit current models of evolution. Human remains have been found in the same sedimentary layer as dinosaur bones
That's the same as refuting the existence of unicorns when a group of people insist they must exist because they know horses do. I'm just calling their bluff.
And I'm pretty sure you'll get an apple on the head if you sit under an apple tree long enough in season.
It's also ridiculous for someone to demand an alternative theory in order to debunk theirs. The one who presents the theory is the one taken to task.
That was another analogy, describing how correlations are used to advance scientific knowledge.
Analogies don't prove anything, they are an attempt to show a similarity for clarification.
Last edited:
Seems more like a clever attempt at confirming something that also may not be true. 'look, here it is right in our back yard'
I really don't mean to be a pain here but there's no way this stuff doesn't deserve all the scrutiny it gets.
If you are accusing scientists of intellectual dishonesty, that is not a thing.
Such behavior will be quickly found out these days, and the person's career would be ruined.
There are mistakes of course, and these are corrected when found.
Last edited:
All science absolutely deserves the highest scrutiny, which helps advancements to be made.
The sooner we falsify a theory, the sooner we will have a (better) replacement for it.
The same applies to the replacement theory as well. No pain, no gain. Induction does not work.
https://nemenmanlab.org/~ilya/images/0/07/Popper-1953.pdf
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.