Why do scientists think there was a big bang?

[Walker]

So, it can’t be seen or touched by scientists, and it’s believed by scientists to exist by inference of action upon the observable.

Are you talking about God, or dark matter?

If talking about dark matter, then logically, shouldn't this same standard of proof be acceptable as evidence of God, by those who infer the existence of dark matter?

The same standard of evidence is acceptable. But are we talking about the same phenomenon and simply calling it different names?

How do you reconcile phenomenological perception with the English labelling of said phenomena?

Simply: is God a synonym for dark matter?

If the answer is “No” then which methametical artefact/variable in Physics equations do you call ‘God’?

Finally, an intelligent inquiry into content.

[Walker]

I didn't quite pick up those thoughts on gravitational lensing, Walky.

You should know by now that Walky ain't your monkey.

[uwot]

I think this bears repeating.

Dark matter is incredibly elusive but it exists...

Strictly speaking, the phenomenon that is attributed to dark matter exists. Dark matter is just one of several hypothetical causes.

[Walker]

I think this bears repeating.

Dark matter is incredibly elusive but it exists...

Strictly speaking, the phenomenon that is attributed to dark matter exists. Dark matter is just one of several hypothetical causes.

True enough as far as it goes.

[Walker]

Walker, what are your thoughts about gravitational lensing?

Greta, conditions form the available portals of non-guaranteed access, for you.

One of four things may cause action. Without these the mountain doesn't move.

1. Show me the money.
2. Show me the love.
3. Show me both.
4. My whims.

This is the how of access, should it be your need or desire. The why of the how is irrelevant, so you can blame the stars if you like.

This is the way things are.



I bet you can guess what this is.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFrag8ll85w

[Impenitent]

if everything is sucked into a black hole, does it make a little bang in the universe on the other side?

-Imp

[TimeSeeker]

if everything is sucked into a black hole, does it make a little bang in the universe on the other side?

-Imp

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_hole

[QuantumT]

We from the Boom Society must persist that Bang is a very biased description.

Boom forever, Bang never!

Professor E.X. Pansion
The Boom Society

[gaffo]

In a perfect vacuum there'd be no time cuz time is change (and the possibility of measurement) and in a perfect vacuum there's nuthin' to measure.

nonesence. the space with no stuff in it is still expanding via time!

I think I'm with Henry on this one; unless you can explain what expanding via time means.

yes "time is change" space changes over time - it gets bigger - with or without atoms in that "Cubic yard" of space.

Well here's the thing; if it's still a cubic yard of space, what is getting bigger?

the yardstick is expanding with the cubic space it is measuring!

all space is expanding. - including the space bet elecrons and the nucleus, space between atoms (say in a solid) - even the space inside the nucleus itself (so protons/neutrons are "Growing" over time).


go and pull our your measuring tape 12 billions yrs from now when space is larger (lets say 2x as big) - that measuring tape you stored for 12 billion years is now 2x as big - as is everything it measures, including that cubic yard of space - whether it contains matter in it or not.

[gaffo]

https://willijbouwman.blogspot.com

from the moment you were born every arrangement of atoms that gave rise to every thought you have ever
had has been generating waves and patterns in Big Bang stuff that will spread out across the universe forever

The lifespan of a stable atom is limited by the lifespan of a proton which is estimated at I0 25 years
The lifespan of the Universe before heat death occurs [ assuming proton decay ] is estimated at I0 I000 years

The only thing in theory which could possibly exist forever is a photon in empty space but in reality they either disintegrate or are absorbed
The notion of forever therefore cannot apply to any thing including the Universe and so from a scientific perspective it is really meaningless

there are large vats of water under ground with photo-sensors around to verify theory of radioactive decay of the proton - for 30 yrs now. Have they empirically affirmed theory yet? - asking here.

they have since about 8 yrs ago WRT to Bismuth. theory predicted it was in fact a radioative element - with a decay rate lower then the age of the universe - so "appears as non-radioactive".

2-3 atoms decaying over a same yrs time of a 40 lb? kg? piece of he metal has been noted empirically.

[gaffo]

The four fundamental forces were fused together at the Big Bang and only became separated after expansion
And as atoms did not exist then one can say that the field came before the particle not the other way around

So electromagnetism existed before electrons just as gravity existed before stars

yes, well said.

Also quantum fluctuations cause virtual particles to pop in and out of existence
Because a state of nothing cannot persist for too long before becoming unstable

question; is there anything different about a "virtual" particle from a particle?

does one have less mass less charge than the other?

or are they the same in all ways, only one was created via the vacuum energy of expanding space, and the other from the Big Bang?

asking here.

[gaffo]

Well, that's one possibility that physicists are investigating.

no, thats actually conventional Physics 101 since the 1930's.

[gaffo]

Are you sure that's what you mean? According to general relativity, the field is 'spacetime' or just space. This is a substance that is warped by things like stars. So if there are no stars, there's no warping, hence no gravity.

atoms cannot come together to form stars without gravity to allow them to form stars!

[gaffo]

It is only within and around galaxies that general relativity applies. Outside of them spacetime
is basically flat and can be treated as Euclidean even though Newtonian gravity is still universal

Well, it's rather that we only apply general relativity within and around galaxies, and it only works at the galactic scale if we bung in dark matter, which doesn't show up anywhere on a smaller scale. At the inter-galactic scale, we chuck in dark energy to account for the fact that Newtonian gravity apparently isn't universal.

So, it can’t be seen or touched by scientists, and it’s believed by scientists to exist by inference of action upon the observable.

Are you talking about God, or dark matter?

If talking about dark matter, then logically, shouldn't the same standard of proof be acceptable as evidence of God, by those who infer the existence of dark matter?

I think it should.

for record, i do not beleive in the existance of Dark Matter (more willing to beleive in Dark Energy - via the clear emerical evidence since 1998).

something is "broke" in our understanding - and dark matter is not the answer.

[gaffo]

If talking about dark matter then logically shouldnt the same standard of proof be
acceptable as evidence of God by those who infer the existence of dark matter ?

No because science can actually investigate dark matter which is a physical phenomenon but it cannot investigate God
Dark matter is incredibly elusive but it exists whereas God is metaphysical so his existence can never be demonstrated

I don't beleive DM exists. the Xenon gas-tube showed no WIMPS.

there is NO evidence via emiricism that can show me "there! there is a DM "Atom").