Dinosaurs not mentioned in the Bible? Wrong...

[A_Son_of_God]

It doesn't really matter what we call it. That's just semantics.

Well, in a sense, yes. Excepting that the point was it shouldn't be called a big bang as if there was an explosion somewhere, and that there was a centric point, a "middle of the universe" as it was. This theory is still proposed. Some do believe there is a middle of the universe, and their reasoning is based on the idea of a "bang". Your comment earlier was half "big bang" and half "steady state", really. Frankly, I like that. Because we actually don't know. But one thing about it. If in fact we can prove "dark matter" exists, not in theory, but in physical methodology, then we should be able to find a parallel to what we could call "waves" from the "bang". Some do state that there are such waves, too. Gravitational waves. Regardless though, all our theories are simplistic, and have only a tinge of information necessary to know for certain, yet we humans boast as if we know, when we really know nothing. We've basically dropped a pea in the ocean, and now we tell people we know all about the ocean.

If you're trying to determine the original conditions of a quantum system, you're going to spend a lot more time studying physics and mathematics than you spend thinking about what name you give it.

These original conditions though don't start with the Big Bang theory. As someone stated already, there was already matter there. This is no different to the first day in the Bible. Before the first day began, the heavens and earth were already there. So, the first day isn't a day of existence of matter, although that had already been covered with "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth", but the first day focussed on the earth becoming a planet fit for life. It already had water on it, and it was dark. The viewpoint given is as though someone was able to stand on the earth and summarise over a heck of a long time what processes took place as to how it appeared from standing on the surface.

The Big Bang Theory doesn't explain how matter came about any more than how life came about. Matter was already there. According to the theme song for the show with the same name, it was in "a hot, dense state", which some articles even state regarding this "Big Bang". So, something was already there.

What do I think? Well, I think we've all got the question 'How did something come out of nothing?'.

Yeah, to a degree. But some things are always there. We just weren't there to perceive them.

I think that the net electrical charge of the universe is zero, even though it contains many negatively and positively electrically charged particles. I also think that if you sum over the real numbers the result is zero. I think my personal sensibilities are not at all offended if the Theory Of Everything is mathematically and logically trivial.

I like your theory, and your thinking. Yes, it's entirely possible. I too have a theory for all things too. It is eternally bigger, and it is eternally smaller. There is - in my opinion, which may be proven wrong - no largest size, and there is no smallest particle of things in the universe. It's an illusion in a sense. We're created to enjoy the journey, the illusion. It's not an illusion, because God has made it a reality. We exist in it. But it only exists in God's mind, which he's determined to share with beings like us. We have the ability to perceive such things, and God ultimately dictates what he wants in it and what he doesn't.
It is like the rainbow. When you see a double rainbow, the colours go the other way around. And also, they are like those illusions where the steps continuously go up, just as the colours of the rainbow continuously go around. Another dimension as such, although not truly another dimension outside of x,y,z. Time isn't even a factor in it. It's just amazing, yet seems so simple, but it isn't. It goes on and on and on, infinitely, as regards discovery and explanation of it.

I also think things made out of meat that have brains and sense organs are in fact Boltzmann Brains and existence is fundamentally quantum mechanical.

I don't have any experience in looking at his theory on this. Superficially, I don't agree with it. That sounds like a confabulation, where memories are invented already. We don't do it. We may not remember that we didn't exist, but we know we didn't. Surely, the pattern continues in the eternal journey. We also know we die.

Anyway, enough of that. One thing I can tell you is exactly whose fault it was... his name was Fred Hoyle. He coined the term sometime in the 1940s/1950s if I recall correctly.

Ironically, Hoyle came up with the phrase 'Big Bang' for use as a pejorative expression for something he didn't believe in. Hoyle was a very vocal proponent of the Steady State model.

This Steady State model is more closely related to things happening all at once, and travelling out all at the same time. I understand why it is dismissed, yet there are factors of it that are still strongly supported, just as much as there are factors of the Big Bang theory that seem strongly supported. Personally, it fits my "illusion" or "mind of God" theory more closely, as it appears the universe is expanding at the same speed as the electron spins around the nucleus. Too many weird things like this that make me just admire the genius who has put it all in place. So much intelligence and understanding. Mathematics is the theory that explains the physical, as far as I see it. It is like the blueprint, the quality system, put on paper, so that the physical can be explained.

The thought of an initial singularity offended his personal sensibilities, but in the end Hoyle was a man of integrity who made a point of admitting quite publicly that he was wrong and that he'd modified his opinion based on the observational evidence.

 

[Moriarty]

Entropy is by its very nature a measure of uncertainty and is a quantity that can be measured/computed.

A simple experiment.

I will ask you to give a 24 digit number of your own choice.

Do you think I could guess that number on the first try?

Probability is not entropy.

Because probability is defined by what we know, entropy is defined by what we don't.

It's simple.
You could type out a 24 digit number by randomly pressing keys, or by using a formula.
You could do so many predictable things.
Like typing all zero's, or your birthday over and over again.
However, if there was a fault on the keyboard, the PC or the connection, unless it was oberved and corrected, it is an error which breaks the meaning of what you typed.
Perhaps not in the case of the keyboard unless you touch type and don't read the screen.

That is entropy.

It simply cannot be measured by it's nature of being unknown by the observer.
Hence observable and physical action/reaction can differentiate via entropy.

Come on, this is simple quantum dynamics.
You can only measure something if you know what state it is in.
Only via perception can something be measured.

Thats the problem with modern physics, they make up shite to fill in the blanks without actually thinking that, well maybe we are missing something so fundamental that we chase theories from 40 years or 100 years ago as "The Norm"

 

[MisterWensleydale]

Some do believe there is a middle of the universe, and their reasoning is based on the idea of a "bang".

Well I have no idea who these people are, but they're clearly ignorant. Not doing the most basic of research on a subject and then pretending they know what they're talking about? That's just shameful. There can be no future for such people unless they embark on a career in politics. You should pay no more attention to them.

If in fact we can prove "dark matter" exists, not in theory, but in physical methodology, then we should be able to find a parallel to what we could call "waves" from the "bang". Some do state that there are such waves, too. Gravitational waves.

To clarify, nobody is disputing the existence of gravitational waves from the Big Bang (as opposed to dark matter, the existence of which is still inferred and not proven - and it's certainly being disputed). It's just going to be a while before anyone builds a gravitational wave detector that can look right back to the Big Bang, just like it was a while between the first telescopes and the JWST.

The supermassive black holes found in the middle of galaxies correspond to the hotter inhomogeneities in the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) over a timespan from a few hundred thousand years after the Big Bang (the surface of last scattering - when the universe ceased to be a plasma) to the present day.

You'd be hard pressed to find a cosmologist who'll tell you that the CMB inhomogeneities are non wave-like and unrelated to the initial fluctuation(s), from when gravity decoupled from the unified field and caused baryogenesis to begin. However - if you have found one who's telling you that, then you should almost certainly pay no more attention to them.

Regardless though, all our theories are simplistic, and have only a tinge of information necessary to know for certain, yet we humans boast as if we know, when we really know nothing. We've basically dropped a pea in the ocean, and now we tell people we know all about the ocean.

Unless you're prepared to study:

1) The relationship of the fundamental forces of nature to the particles of the Standard Model (fairly easy, no maths necessary)
2) Classical (Newtonian) mechanics (GCSE and some A level maths required)
3) Maxwell's laws of electromagnetism (involves vector calculus)
4) Special and General Relativity (to a point where you at least understand the principles behind Lorentz transformations, tensor calculus etc.)
5) Quantum Mechanics (to a point where you at least understand what complex numbers are, the principles of the Schrödinger wave equation etc.)
6) Cosmology (to the point where you can understand basic Newtonian FRW models)

Then you will never have any idea how inaccurate that statement is.

These original conditions though don't start with the Big Bang theory. As someone stated already, there was already matter there.

If somebody told you they've got a viable Big Bang model in which matter existed in our universe before spacetime did, then I'm afraid that person is talking out their arsehole and you should pay no more attention to them. As a matter of fact, if they show any signs of preparing to cough or clear their throat, hide behind the door immediately.

This is no different to the first day in the Bible. Before the first day began, the heavens and earth were already there. So, the first day isn't a day of existence of matter, although that had already been covered with "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth", but the first day focussed on the earth becoming a planet fit for life. It already had water on it, and it was dark. The viewpoint given is as though someone was able to stand on the earth and summarise over a heck of a long time what processes took place as to how it appeared from standing on the surface.

1) If that's based on the assumption that there is a viable Big Bang model in which matter existed in our universe before spacetime, then I'm going to pretend you didn't type it.
2) I know you don't want the bible to be any less scientifically valid than the Big Bang theory, but that is not an evidence based argument. It's just your personal bias based on your religious background.

If you're going to engage in any search for truth you must leave your personal bias out of it and be prepared to admit you may be wrong.

The Big Bang Theory doesn't explain how matter came about any more than how life came about.

It most certainly does. I would suggest you pay no more attention to whoever told you that, google the word 'baryogenesis' and do some studying.

Matter was already there. According to the theme song for the show with the same name, it was in "a hot, dense state", which some articles even state regarding this "Big Bang". So, something was already there.

It pains me to keep banging on about this, but that argument about there being a viable Big Bang model in which matter existed in our universe before spacetime did is complete and total bollocks. Whoever told you that was either trolling you or just plain wrong and you should pay no more attention to them.

As for the lyrics to the theme tune of 'The Big Bang Theory' being a viable source of information for the basis of any cosmological model... Whoever told you that was definitely trolling you and you really should pay no more attention to them.

I too have a theory for all things too. It is eternally bigger, and it is eternally smaller. There is - in my opinion, which may be proven wrong - no largest size, and there is no smallest particle of things in the universe.

There is a lower bound on the mass/energy density of particles, it's the inverse Planck mass. Anything below that that would be a virtual particle of the vacuum and its energy density would be the lowest possible - the ground state.

There is a lower bound on the size of any event in our universe - the Planck length/area/volume.

It's an illusion in a sense. We're created to enjoy the journey, the illusion. It's not an illusion, because God has made it a reality. We exist in it. But it only exists in God's mind, which he's determined to share with beings like us. We have the ability to perceive such things, and God ultimately dictates what he wants in it and what he doesn't.
It is like the rainbow. When you see a double rainbow, the colours go the other way around. And also, they are like those illusions where the steps continuously go up, just as the colours of the rainbow continuously go around. Another dimension as such, although not truly another dimension outside of x,y,z. Time isn't even a factor in it. It's just amazing, yet seems so simple, but it isn't. It goes on and on and on, infinitely, as regards discovery and explanation of it.

I don't have any experience in looking at his theory on this. Superficially, I don't agree with it. That sounds like a confabulation, where memories are invented already. We don't do it. We may not remember that we didn't exist, but we know we didn't. Surely, the pattern continues in the eternal journey. We also know we die.

I don't really know how to respond to this as it seems to be a subjective faith based conjecture as opposed to an at least semi-objective science based one. Not my area at all I'm afraid.

This Steady State model is more closely related to things happening all at once, and traveling out all at the same time. I understand why it is dismissed, yet there are factors of it that are still strongly supported, just as much as there are factors of the Big Bang theory that seem strongly supported.

Things happening all at once? That's nothing at all to do with the Steady State model. What you're describing is a spacelike singularity, or to use its more common description: The Big Bang.

The Steady State model is dead and has been for three quarters of a century. If anyone has told you otherwise then you should pay no more attention to them.

Personally, it fits my "illusion" or "mind of God" theory more closely, as it appears the universe is expanding at the same speed as the electron spins around the nucleus.

Even if this statement were true (which it certainly is not, as the velocities of electrons in a Bohr orbit around a nucleus are dependent on what layer of the shell they occupy) it would be a meaningless coincidence based upon the time of your birth, as the expansion rate of the universe is not constant and decreases with time.

Too many weird things like this that make me just admire the genius who has put it all in place. So much intelligence and understanding. Mathematics is the theory that explains the physical, as far as I see it. It is like the blueprint, the quality system, put on paper, so that the physical can be explained.

I'm sorry, but these 'weird things' just seem to be a list of inaccurate statements. I'm not knocking your faith (in many ways I wish I had some of my own) and I hope I've attacked the arguments without attacking the person... but... just like any subject (for example - bible studies), there's no substitute for putting the leg work in and spending a few years of hard work studying.

EDITS: Syntax, grammar & punctuation

 

[MisterWensleydale]

A simple experiment.

I will ask you to give a 24 digit number of your own choice.

Do you think I could guess that number on the first try?

Probability is not entropy.

Because probability is defined by what we know, entropy is defined by what we don't.

It's simple.
You could type out a 24 digit number by randomly pressing keys, or by using a formula.
You could do so many predictable things.
Like typing all zero's, or your birthday over and over again.
However, if there was a fault on the keyboard, the PC or the connection, unless it was oberved and corrected, it is an error which breaks the meaning of what you typed.
Perhaps not in the case of the keyboard unless you touch type and don't read the screen.

That is entropy.

It simply cannot be measured by it's nature of being unknown by the observer.
Hence observable and physical action/reaction can differentiate via entropy.

Come on, this is simple quantum dynamics.
You can only measure something if you know what state it is in.
Only via perception can something be measured.

Thats the problem with modern physics, they make up shite to fill in the blanks without actually thinking that, well maybe we are missing something so fundamental that we chase theories from 40 years or 100 years ago as "The Norm"

What a wonderful experiment. I can't believe we've all spent the last century being such fools.

If you're prepared to conduct it a few times and write it up, then the least I can do is contact as many physicists as possible and share your post as a definitive and final proof that their understanding of entropic uncertainty is now flawed beyond retrieval.

 

[Moriarty]

What a wonderful experiment. I can't believe we've all spent the last century being such fools.

If you're prepared to conduct it a few times and write it up, then the least I can do is contact as many physicists as possible and share your post as a definitive and final proof that their understanding of entropic uncertainty is now flawed beyond retrieval.

Have to chuckle at the sarcasm, but come on really.. lol

It's actually really easy to understand.
Because we can only observe a single state, when we know on a quantum level the idea of a singular state is meaningless.
We have a bias toward what we see and use that to dictate what we can prove.

All science is ego, mitigated by peer review.
The problem is the peer review system is flawed.

Hence we have theories such as quantum gravity being seen as a "Norm"

It's all very silly.

 

[Kev45]

Brilliant! Says the sausage who claimed 10% of the worlds' population are a "burden" on society simply because 10% of recruits for the American military apparently fail an "IQ" test that doesn't even exist.

Minus the study and minus the peer reviews.

 

[Moriarty]

Brilliant! Says the sausage who claimed 10% of the worlds' population are a "burden" on society simply because 10% of recruits for the American military apparently fail an "IQ" test that doesn't even exist.

Minus the study and minus the peer reviews.

Oh Kev.

Do I really need to prove I am not a sausage?

You forever ask me not to answer to your posts.
Yet here you are.

It's US code 520

These days it is based on the 35th percentile, take from that what you wish.

Here is a direct quote.

520. Limitation on enlistment and induction of persons whose score on the Armed Forces Qualification Test is below a prescribed level
(a) The number of persons originally enlisted or inducted to serve on active duty (other than active duty for training) in any armed force during any fiscal year whose score on the Armed Forces Qualification Test is at or above the tenth percentile and below the thirty-first percentile may not exceed 20 percent of the total number of persons originally enlisted or inducted to serve on active duty (other than active duty for training) in such armed force during such fiscal year.
(b) A person who is not a high school graduate may not be accepted for enlistment in the armed forces unless the score of that person on the Armed Forces Qualification Test is at or above the thirty-first percentile; however, a person may not be denied enlistment in the armed forces solely because of his not having a high school diploma if his enlistment is needed to meet established strength requirements.

Now, however the USA defines people being in a 35th percentile?
Open to debate.
However, for you and me, that usually means about a third.

Plus, not all those in the lower 35th percentile are not capable and able to serve.
So please Kev, it's not me saying this, it's as I qouted, like it or not.


So I will await whatever new character assination you have for me because you really can't debate.

Have fun

 

[MisterWensleydale]

Have to chuckle at the sarcasm, but come on really.. lol

Yes, really. The humour was the lesser of two evils.

It's actually really easy to understand.

I really wish you hadn't typed that... I was hoping you'd reconsider your conjectures instead of doubling down on them.

I genuinely hope you don't take this the wrong way, because there's no personal malice intended here but... your conjectures are naive and they are preposterously wrong from both an information theory perspective and a quantum mechanics perspective.

You could type out a 24 digit number by randomly pressing keys, or by using a formula.
You could do so many predictable things.
Like typing all zero's, or your birthday over and over again.
However, if there was a fault on the keyboard, the PC or the connection, unless it was oberved and corrected, it is an error which breaks the meaning of what you typed.
Perhaps not in the case of the keyboard unless you touch type and don't read the screen.

That is entropy.

No it isn't.

Entropy is a measure of the amount of thermal energy in a system that you can never use for work, due to the system interacting with itself/its environment at atomic/molecular scales, not you just typing stuff on a computer keyboard.

If you're going to insist otherwise then you're starting from entirely erroneous first principles.

All science is ego, mitigated by peer review.
The problem is the peer review system is flawed.

Claiming you have a better knowledge of a subject than you actually do and not admitting when you're wrong is ego.

Your conjectures would not survive peer review.

Hence we have theories such as quantum gravity being seen as a "Norm"

Ah, string theory. Still very much a work in progress and absolutely nothing to with what we're discussing - entropic uncertainty.

The uncertainty principle is a lower bound on the value returned when obtaining Gaussian probability distributions for the sum of wave functions associated with the spectral Shannon entropy and the temporal Shannon entropy.

That's entropic uncertainty, regardless of any claims your conjectures make to the contrary.

It's all very silly.

SILLY​	NOT SILLY​
The well established physics of entropic uncertainty	Equating your personal uncertainty about macroscopic events to the amount of uncertainty concerning the positions/momenta of particles in a system
	Issuing an erroneous definition of entropic uncertainty
	Issuing an erroneous definition of 'simple quantum dynamics'
	Dismissing science as "nothing more than ego, mitigated by peer review"

I think we should stop this exchange now, don't you?


EDITS: Syntax, grammar & punctuation

 

[Kev45]

Oh Kev.

Do I really need to prove I am not a sausage?

You forever ask me not to answer to your posts.
Yet here you are.

It's US code 520

These days it is based on the 35th percentile, take from that what you wish.

Here is a direct quote.

520. Limitation on enlistment and induction of persons whose score on the Armed Forces Qualification Test is below a prescribed level
(a) The number of persons originally enlisted or inducted to serve on active duty (other than active duty for training) in any armed force during any fiscal year whose score on the Armed Forces Qualification Test is at or above the tenth percentile and below the thirty-first percentile may not exceed 20 percent of the total number of persons originally enlisted or inducted to serve on active duty (other than active duty for training) in such armed force during such fiscal year.
(b) A person who is not a high school graduate may not be accepted for enlistment in the armed forces unless the score of that person on the Armed Forces Qualification Test is at or above the thirty-first percentile; however, a person may not be denied enlistment in the armed forces solely because of his not having a high school diploma if his enlistment is needed to meet established strength requirements.

Now, however the USA defines people being in a 35th percentile?
Open to debate.
However, for you and me, that usually means about a third.

Plus, not all those in the lower 35th percentile are not capable and able to serve.
So please Kev, it's not me saying this, it's as I qouted, like it or not.


So I will await whatever new character assination you have for me because you really can't debate.

Have fun

I didn't read this, but now I have, I am having fun, but I am not going to dig up the ORIGINAL quotes again because we have already been here. I am laughing, and hence my comment in the first place, because ironically you yourself have NO idea how to "debate". Peddling ego driven bullshit and "free-thinking" while you grandly sneer at all the experts that they are wrong and that you are right, and it simply isn't debate.

Then, when you lose the "debate", you resort to glibly rubbishing science and making snarky comments about "silliness" etc.

Although, you boast about being a "masters educated scientist" you don't appear to understand that the burden of proof is on you to provide supporting evidence and no one else.

Constantly moving the goalposts, which was my point and which is a familiar theme on this forum by you so-called "debatists", proves sweet FA.

You have rapidly run out of people to "debate" on the forum.

Now that is funny.

Is that what you mean by "character assassination" you utter fraud?

 

[Confused_Fred]

I am having fun, but I am not going to dig up the ORIGINAL quotes again because we have already been here. I am laughing, and hence my comment in the first place, because ironically you yourself have NO idea how to "debate". Peddling ego driven bullshit and "free-thinking" while you grandly sneer at all the experts that they are wrong and that you are right, and it simply isn't debate.

Then, when you lose the debate, you resort to glibly rubbishing science and making snarky comments about "silliness" etc.

Although, you boast about being a "masters educated scientist" you don't appear to understand that the onus of proof is on you to prove it and no one else.

You have rapidly run out of people to "debate" on the forum.

Now that is funny.

Is that what you mean by "character assassination" you utter fraud?

I understand that you may have frustrations or disagreements with certain individuals or viewpoints on the forum. It's important to approach discussions with respect and an openness to different perspectives, even when there are disagreements.

Engaging in debate and dialogue should ideally involve listening to others' viewpoints, presenting evidence or reasoning to support your own arguments, and being willing to reconsider your position based on new information or insights.

Regarding claims about qualifications or expertise, it's reasonable to expect individuals to provide evidence or credentials to support their assertions, especially in discussions where expertise is relevant. However, it's also important to approach such inquiries with respect and professionalism.

If you feel that certain individuals are not engaging in constructive debate or are resorting to personal attacks, it may be helpful to address those concerns directly with them or to seek moderation from forum administrators to ensure a respectful and productive environment for discussion.

Ultimately, fostering a positive and respectful atmosphere for debate and exchange of ideas benefits everyone involved and promotes learning and understanding.

 

[TwoWhalesInAPool]

 

[Moriarty]

Yes, really. The humour was the lesser of two evils.



I really wish you hadn't typed that... I was hoping you'd reconsider your conjectures instead of doubling down on them.

I genuinely hope you don't take this the wrong way, because there's no personal malice intended here but... your conjectures are naive and they are preposterously wrong from both an information theory perspective and a quantum mechanics perspective.



No it isn't.

Entropy is a measure of the amount of thermal energy in a system that you can never use for work, due to the system interacting with itself/its environment at atomic/molecular scales, not you just typing stuff on a computer keyboard.

If you're going to insist otherwise then you're starting from entirely erroneous first principles.



Claiming you have a better knowledge of a subject than you actually do and not admitting when you're wrong is ego.

Your conjectures would not survive peer review.



Ah, string theory. Still very much a work in progress and absolutely nothing to with what we're discussing - entropic uncertainty.

The uncertainty principle is a lower bound on the value returned when obtaining Gaussian probability distributions for the sum of wave functions associated with the spectral Shannon entropy and the temporal Shannon entropy.

That's entropic uncertainty, regardless of any claims your conjectures make to the contrary.

SILLY​	NOT SILLY​
The well established physics of entropic uncertainty	Equating your personal uncertainty about macroscopic events to the amount of uncertainty concerning the positions/momenta of particles in a system
	Issuing an erroneous definition of entropic uncertainty
	Issuing an erroneous definition of 'simple quantum dynamics'
	Dismissing science as "nothing more than ego, mitigated by peer review"

I think we should stop this exchange now, don't you?


EDITS: Syntax, grammar & punctuation

What do you think a keyboard is?

It is a way of using energy to transfer a subjective opinion into to another state, data.
That data is then transferred back to energy to create an image on a screen.
Thereby transferring energy.

The energy from a keyboard stroke taken from point A, the one that types it, to point B the one that reads it.

How that energy is created is thermal, through a grid fed by power stations independant of the user.
You are misplacing the reason for energy transfer with the outcome of it.
Literally putting the cart before the horse.

As for the rest.

If one thinks one knows how to measure entropy, then one is highly deluded.

As for string theory, where did I mention that?

Neither did I mention chaos theory, which is linked to entropy.
However they differ because chaos and entropy are seen as either predicable or not, dependent on if they can be percieved.
Which is the whole point I was trying to make.

What is the difference between chaos and entropy?
What is the difference between certainty and probability?

In the modern world of scientific funding I would say whatever is politically expedient wins out over what is actual science.

In the end the real question of all scientists should be what is perception vrs reality.

Because we don't yet understand the physical, meta-physical or "Real" world, then what are we.
Smart apes is all we are.

We are childlike in our understanding of reality, yet we are so sure.
So certain.
It's laughable.

 

[Moriarty]

I didn't read this, but now I have, I am having fun, but I am not going to dig up the ORIGINAL quotes again because we have already been here. I am laughing, and hence my comment in the first place, because ironically you yourself have NO idea how to "debate". Peddling ego driven bullshit and "free-thinking" while you grandly sneer at all the experts that they are wrong and that you are right, and it simply isn't debate.

Then, when you lose the "debate", you resort to glibly rubbishing science and making snarky comments about "silliness" etc.

Although, you boast about being a "masters educated scientist" you don't appear to understand that the burden of proof is on you to provide supporting evidence and no one else.

Constantly moving the goalposts, which was my point and which is a familiar theme on this forum by you so-called "debatists", proves sweet FA.

You have rapidly run out of people to "debate" on the forum.

Now that is funny.

Is that what you mean by "character assassination" you utter fraud?

It always tickles me that those who are most against what one says are usually the ones who don't actualy want to learn.

Thats fine, it's funny.

Everything I post is either my simple opinion, or something I find interesting.

I am not a so called "expert" on any given subject, I am qualified in some fields but what does that mean?
There is always more to learn.

A degree is a staring point, anyone who has one knows they open a door, real experience is what makes one a real practitioner of a subject.

As for burden of proof, I ask questions, those who debate it can come back with any evidence they wish, happy to discuss.
I am simply not ego driven, I know a can be wrong, I have been on many occasions, that is why I question, to learn.
It was a chatter on this site that got me to re-think my view on the death penalty.

Moving the goalposts.
That is simply a way of looking at a problem from different angles, if you think your right, theres always someone out there with another argument which can change the narrative.

So Kev, I don't mind talking to you, even though you keep repeating that I should not.
You keep replying.

I am curious.

What exactly do you want from me?
Ask away, anything you like.

I would love you to actually make a debate we could discuss.
Not as a silly points scoring exercise but as a real discussion.

Because I love talking to people who disagree with me, only then can I learn if I am wrong in my opinions.

 

[Kev45]

10% of the population have an IQ of less than 83, which according to the US army, who have studied IQ for over 50 years, is detrimental to a unit. Now apply that to society as a whole".

I said that the US army found that anyone with an IQ of under 85 cannot have a position which is not actually detrimental to the armies collective effort as a whole. Hence 10% of any given population are actually detrimental to society as a whole.

There is also a third variation that I could not find.

IQ bingo, confused blob of nothingness of the same argument, that mean completely different things, and with NO link/evidence to support either statement.

The 'US Army' for one, has "found" no such thing, and that statement is based on an "IQ" test that doesn't exist. Recruits take an "aptitude test" called the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB) and there is not a separate "IQ" test for the US Army.

An aptitude test is not an IQ test, and it measures completely different things, with a completely different outcome.

Google "is an aptitude test an IQ test?"

Is it sinking in yet?

Based on your own statement, a master bricklayer with a so-called 'IQ' of 84, laying 1,000 bricks a day, earning far more than the minimum wage, is "detrimental to society", right?

Mumbo-jumbo pseudoscientific gibberish.

Post evidence, try and stick to the same IQ figure and the relevant research you say you are quoting and prove me wrong.

I am a practiced psychologist with many years experience in clinical diagnosis and treatment."

A boasty self-proclaimed "masters educated social scientist", and who does not even understand the basics that the onus is on them to provide evidence to support a claim that they have made.

Oh, and what's a "practiced" psychologist, btw, because it's not a title that I, or Google, are familiar with?

"You forever ask me not to answer to your posts."

Which you have always completely ignored, yes, however thanks for finally confirming publicly that not only have you been trolling me for years, but also subjecting me to prolonged badgering and harassment.

Now I fully UNDERSTAND that you will respond in a desperate (needy) attempt to draw me in even further, feeding off my energy like a blood sucking vampire, but in the meantime how about you "character assassinate" that one, you fraudulent, disingenuous, gaslighting sausage.

Edited. I have just skimmed through your last post, you are an extremely abusive man, Moriarty.

 

[TwoWhalesInAPool]

an actual quote from that most stable genius Don Pooralone

 

[MisterWensleydale]

What do you think a keyboard is?

It is a way of using energy to transfer a subjective opinion into to another state, data.
That data is then transferred back to energy to create an image on a screen.
Thereby transferring energy.

The energy from a keyboard stroke taken from point A, the one that types it, to point B the one that reads it.

How that energy is created is thermal, through a grid fed by power stations independant of the user.
You are misplacing the reason for energy transfer with the outcome of it.
Literally putting the cart before the horse.

As for the rest.

If one thinks one knows how to measure entropy, then one is highly deluded.

As for string theory, where did I mention that?

Neither did I mention chaos theory, which is linked to entropy.
However they differ because chaos and entropy are seen as either predicable or not, dependent on if they can be percieved.
Which is the whole point I was trying to make.

What is the difference between chaos and entropy?
What is the difference between certainty and probability?

In the modern world of scientific funding I would say whatever is politically expedient wins out over what is actual science.

In the end the real question of all scientists should be what is perception vrs reality.

Because we don't yet understand the physical, meta-physical or "Real" world, then what are we.
Smart apes is all we are.

We are childlike in our understanding of reality, yet we are so sure.
So certain.
It's laughable.

What do I think a keyboard is? A macroscopic object you can't be trusted to use responsibly, and seemingly can't tell apart from a system of microscopic quanta.

If your keyboard is powered by a power station instead of some batteries it doesn't surprise me, but it's time you considered upgrading to a wireless one. And frankly, your nonsensical musings on power stations and the transfer of energy have absolutely nothing at all to do with the subject under discussion - the obvious and long proven relationship between entropy and uncertainty.

And by the way, the string theory reference was there as you mentioned theories of quantum gravity. What quantum gravity theories were you referring to if not string theory? You don't strike me as an expert on noncommutative geometry or someone who'd know a great deal about the mathematics of twistors. You haven't stated a preference for background independent theories of quantum gravity. I've yet to hear you mention LQG or CDT. Not that any of this has anything whatsoever to do with entropic uncertainty in the first place.

Anyhow, enough of this. This is absolute garbage.

The fact that I'm having to wade my way through this inane drivel merely because I pointed out that entropy is a measure of uncertainty is pathetic. Nobody in the world disagrees with that statement except you.

If you're trolling, then this word salad you're pretending is physics is laughable. If you're not trolling then it's just worrying.

Whatever points you're trying to make, you're not making them. Suddenly mentioning chaos theory and pretending it's what your point's been all along isn't going to work. You're just smashing words together because you mistakenly believe typing the words 'chaos theory' in the middle of your word salad makes you sound clever.

That scam might work on someone without a science background, but anybody with even a rudimentary science background isn't going to fall for this childishness for a moment.

You obviously don't know what you're talking about. You're a bluffer.

Stop pretending you know better than all the physicists and information theorists on the planet. Every single thing you've said so far about the relationship between entropy and uncertainty is ridiculous.

Being too proud to say "I don't know" or "I was wrong about that" when there's a gap in your knowledge is what's preventing you from retaining any useful information on this subject.

Unfortunately, no matter how loudly you proclaim your infallible genius, that never works when you actually run into somebody who isn't bluffing and doesn't speak on subjects they don't know about.

Until you realise there's no shame in not knowing something, you will always reflexively make up something that you misguidedly believe makes you sound like you're an authority.

The shameful part is hearing an adult doubling down on an obvious piece of nonsense, then trying to support it by smugly and aloofly assuming a god perspective as they dismiss all science and human knowledge as laughable because it dares to contradict their delusions.

I personally hope the explanation for this madness is that you're addicted to senseless squabbling or you're just having fun indulging in some trolling, as the only other plausible explanation is rampant egomania.

If you think I have any interest in discussing physics and information theory with a troll who'll deliberately misunderstand it all then you're wrong.

If you think I'm interested in discussing these subjects with somebody afflicted with a Donald Trump level ego who's too proud to admit they don't understand the first thing about any of it, you're wrong there too.

From what I've read on these forums, there's no shortage of people in this place who get a real kick from that sort of thing. You'll normally find them squabbling incessantly about the culture wars, race, gender, identity politics and so forth, just like such people always do.

You know the ones I'm talking about. The ones who always seem to get a thrill from arguing the toss with you, long after the point when it could possibly serve any useful purpose.

I'm not interested in any of the playground bickering, insecurity, hatred, self loathing, virtue signalling, calling people c**ts and flat out ignorance that permeates far too many of the threads here.

If that's what passes for thought here on UKChat, then fine. It's hardly any different to any other place on the internet these days.

Having said that, I'm f****d if I'm going down that disgusting cesspit of a rabbit hole with you. Or any other poster on this site for that matter.

I wish you no ill will. Do whatever you've got to do, and good luck with it.

Just leave me out of your trolling and or/vanity from now on please.

 

[A_Son_of_God]

Well I have no idea who these people are, but they're clearly ignorant. Not doing the most basic of research on a subject and then pretending they know what they're talking about? That's just shameful. There can be no future for such people unless they embark on a career in politics. You should pay no more attention to them.

The universe began with a bang, not a bounce, new studies find

Scientific American reports on new studies which found that the universe likely began with a bang, not a bounce. The article quotes Will Kinney, who is one of the studies co-authors.

www.buffalo.edu

To clarify, nobody is disputing the existence of gravitational waves from the Big Bang (as opposed to dark matter, the existence of which is still inferred and not proven - and it's certainly being disputed). It's just going to be a while before anyone builds a gravitational wave detector that can look right back to the Big Bang, just like it was a while between the first telescopes and the JWST.

The supermassive black holes found in the middle of galaxies correspond to the hotter inhomogeneities in the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) over a timespan from a few hundred thousand years after the Big Bang (the surface of last scattering - when the universe ceased to be a plasma) to the present day.

You'd be hard pressed to find a cosmologist who'll tell you that the CMB inhomogeneities are non wave-like and unrelated to the initial fluctuation(s), from when gravity decoupled from the unified field and caused baryogenesis to begin. However - if you have found one who's telling you that, then you should almost certainly pay no more attention to them.

Again, Dr Will Kinney might be your man to discuss this with. But if you don't want to pay any attention to him, that's your call.

Unless you're prepared to study:

1) The relationship of the fundamental forces of nature to the particles of the Standard Model (fairly easy, no maths necessary)
2) Classical (Newtonian) mechanics (GCSE and some A level maths required)
3) Maxwell's laws of electromagnetism (involves vector calculus)
4) Special and General Relativity (to a point where you at least understand the principles behind Lorentz transformations, tensor calculus etc.)
5) Quantum Mechanics (to a point where you at least understand what complex numbers are, the principles of the Schrödinger wave equation etc.)
6) Cosmology (to the point where you can understand basic Newtonian FRW models)

Then you will never have any idea how inaccurate that statement is.

They're all simplistic.

If somebody told you they've got a viable Big Bang model in which matter existed in our universe before spacetime did, then I'm afraid that person is talking out their arsehole and you should pay no more attention to them. As a matter of fact, if they show any signs of preparing to cough or clear their throat, hide behind the door immediately.

I don't have the problem. The "Big Bang"ers do. See, I'm not of the belief that "Our whole universe was in a hot, dense state", as nothing can be hot unless there is something to be heated. Is not temperature technically the measurement of the movement of particles? Therefore, particles are the problem in this ideology.
I think nowadays the whole universe is in a hot dense state. People angrily wanting their rights, and yet they're fighting for it at the expense of everyone else. Moronic. It's a hot, dense state for sure.

1) If that's based on the assumption that there is a viable Big Bang model in which matter existed in our universe before spacetime, then I'm going to pretend you didn't type it.

You're telling me not to say it, but why? I'm not the one saying it. Read the aforementioned reply.

2) I know you don't want the bible to be any less scientifically valid than the Big Bang theory, but that is not an evidence based argument. It's just your personal bias based on your religious background.

The Bible isn't a scientific textbook. But that said, there are more scientific textbooks that have proven more inaccurate scientifically than the Bible. That is why they are revised so often, and some of the ideas are thrown out the window. The Big Bang theory may well be one of them in the future. I'm surprised though, as it was you who was stating that there was a problem with people calling it an "explosion", and then went on to state something about the Big Bang theory which isn't the Big Bang theory at all. Nonetheless, it isn't my personal bias. Hence why I'm here discussing things. Sure, I'd have a bias on some things. It isn't wrong to lean towards truth, for instance. I choose that bias. That is why I enjoy discussing certain subjects.

If you're going to engage in any search for truth you must leave your personal bias out of it and be prepared to admit you may be wrong.

Did I state somewhere that I was never wrong? I agree with you on this point. But...the same goes for you.

It most certainly does...

No. It doesn't. It states that a "hot, dense" state went bang. Therefore, what was this hot, dense state, if not matter? What was hot? How was anything hot if it wasn't matter? It wasn't. I look forward to your explanation.

Baryogenesis? That isn't how something came from nothing either! This is the problem with most people. They're happy to say "A, then B, then C", yet, they pretend that B has been addressed. Your theory of baryogenesis doesn't explain how something came out of nothing. It - again, just like the Big Bang theory - states how something came out of SOMETHING. Another flawed theory, because people want to presume that the issue is resolved when it isn't. That's up to you mate. You believe what you want. Just know, you're putting faith in something that it says something when it doesn't.

I think YOU should be doing some studying on the Big Bang theory. Then you'd know why people relate to it as a "bang", even if technically we wouldn't hear it...but we might have, if we existed, and wouldn't be blown to smithereens by such forces. Did the Japanese in Nagasaki and Hiroshima hear the bang? Was it a bang even? I'm sure in the resurrection some would argue that they didn't hear a bang. The speed that the universe is expanding - according to some theories (it has to be theories, because there are so many things that have to be ignored and presumed to get any actual measurement from things) is way faster than an explosion.

It pains me to keep banging on about this...

You seem to have a lot of advice for me. LOL Well, if it's the thought that counts, thanks, I guess. Still, nope. The generalisations are good enough to show up the errors in the waffle of the big words.
Who said it? "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit."

...it's the inverse Planck mass....the Planck length/area/volume.

How can you state that, when as yet we're still debating how and why the photon exists as both matter and a wave? There is still no completion of the idealistic "string theory" model, so that there is a change from a theory of everything (which sure, theories exist, all with holes in them) to a LAW of everything. It is unwise to determine a minimum size. I mean, all the Plancks in the world, nailed together, couldn't calm the ocean.
What you could say is, "As yet", or "to the best of our knowledge at this moment, and supported by many scientists", but what you can't state is that there is a minimum. Sorry. It will be shown that Dalton's Plum Pudding theory is only being expanded by other wording with more detail.

I don't really know how to respond to this as it seems to be a subjective faith based conjecture as opposed to an at least semi-objective science based one. Not my area at all I'm afraid.

That's okay.

Things happening all at once? ...The Big Bang.

The Steady State model is dead...

You have to stop stating that I shouldn't be paying attention to "them" over and over. The Steady State theory is NOT dead. There are derivatives of it...just as there are with the Big Bang theory. And no, what YOU were describing was more Steady State than Big Bang. The Big Bang is the theory where there was a point of origin. The Steady State is the one which you seemed to explain in your original comment way back, when we started this conversation about theories on the universe on this thread. Yet you ascribed it to the Big Bang theory, which again clearly states that there was something hot and dense at the beginning. Therefore, there was matter already. Otherwise nothing would be hot, and nothing would be dense.

Even if this statement were true...

It is, although it's an approximation. It is 1/3 the speed of light. I like coincidences. Also, I believe they're mathematically related. Proof of them being related? No. It's my theory. I'll look into it more when I have forever to study it.

I'm sorry, but these 'weird things' just seem to be a list of inaccurate statements....

They're less inaccurate to your idea of the Big Bang theory, obviously.
Let me put the explanation to you. Please, tell me your theory of the Big Bang - the one where there was no matter, the one where there was no hot, dense state. I would like to hear your point of view on it, as I am missing something obviously.

 

[A_Son_of_God]

If the Big Bang theory was right, matter and antimatter should have been equally produced at this "explosion", and then they would have obliterated each other and given off massive amounts of energy again, which, in that volume, could have caused a Big Bang, which would have caused an "explosion", giving off equal parts of matter and antimatter, which would have obliterated each other and given off massive amounts of energy again, which, in that volume, could have caused a Big Bang, which would have caused an "explosion", giving off equal parts of matter and antimatter, which would have obliterated each other and given off massive amounts of energy again, which, in that volume, could have caused a Big Bang, which would have caused an "explosion", giving off e...you get the point.

But it didn't.

 

[MisterWensleydale]

The universe began with a bang, not a bounce, new studies find

Scientific American reports on new studies which found that the universe likely began with a bang, not a bounce. The article quotes Will Kinney, who is one of the studies co-authors.

www.buffalo.edu

Again, Dr Will Kinney might be your man to discuss this with. But if you don't want to pay any attention to him, that's your call.

I don't recall saying anything in my post about not wanting to pay attention to Dr. Kinney or why you would assume I wouldn't want to.

Did you even read the article all the way through?

“I feel like we’ve demonstrated something fundamental about the universe,” Kinney says, “which is that it probably had a beginning.” That implies a big bang occurred at some point, even if that event happened many bouncing universes ago, which in turn suggests that it took a singularity to get everything going in the first place.

You don't seem to understand that you're not even discussing the big bang part of this model here.

From the abstract of Dr. Kinney's article, it should be self-evident that he is discussing big bounces that follow an initial big bang model where there was an initial singularity. The initial phase of his model is a big bang cosmology and what follows are big bounce cosmologies.

He's combined the two. If you read the article he is NOT arguing that matter was present at the beginning of the initial big bang phase.

An initial singularity in any big bang model does not contain matter.

The matter is present in the big bounce cosmologies that follow in a cyclic cosmology model, but by their very definition they are not big bang models.

A big bang and a big bounce are two completely different things. A big bounce model won't even mention the initial creation of matter and energy from a spacelike singularity because it can't.

The relationship of the fundamental forces of nature to the particles of the standard model, classical mechanics, Maxwell's laws of electromagnetism, special and general relativity, quantum mechanics, cosmology, vector calculus, Lorentz transformations, tensor calculus, the Schrödinger wave equation and Newtonian FRW cosmologies are all simplistic.

It can't be that simplistic if you're confusing a big bang cosmology with a big bounce cosmology.

Simplistic as opposed to what? Chapter 1 of the bible?

Is not temperature technically the measurement of the movement of particles? Therefore, particles are the problem in this ideology.

That's a good place to start from for an intuitive description.

The temperature of a system is inversely proportional to the change in its entropy.

I think nowadays the whole universe is in a hot dense state. People angrily wanting their rights, and yet they're fighting for it at the expense of everyone else. Moronic. It's a hot, dense state for sure.

Irrelevant.

No. It doesn't. It states that a "hot, dense" state went bang. Therefore, what was this hot, dense state, if not matter? What was hot? How was anything hot if it wasn't matter? It wasn't. I look forward to your explanation.

It didn't go bang, it's not an explosion and you seem to be under the assumption that Big Bang models provide a description of the initial singularity. They don't. That's the attraction of cyclic cosmology ('big bounce') models as they avoid the initial singularity completely via analyticity and the introduction of a complex time dimension (or dimensions).

In the lecture I posted a link to earlier in this thread, Turok and Boyle imposed CPT (charge, parity, time) symmetry at the big bang via a mirror universe model, enabling them to apply these analytic tools to the singularity in a big bang model. This is an exciting new approach that's already yielding some incredibly promising results.

Baryogenesis? That isn't how something came from nothing either! This is the problem with most people. They're happy to say "A, then B, then C", yet, they pretend that B has been addressed. Your theory of baryogenesis doesn't explain how something came out of nothing. It - again, just like the Big Bang theory - states how something came out of SOMETHING. Another flawed theory, because people want to presume that the issue is resolved when it isn't. That's up to you mate. You believe what you want. Just know, you're putting faith in something that it says something when it doesn't.

Baryogenesis (the creation of matter) describes how energy converts into matter and vice versa. It's not my fault if you don't understand it, just like it's not my fault if you don't know the difference between a big bang cosmology and a big bounce cosmology.

I think YOU should be doing some studying on the Big Bang theory.

Of course you do. You don't know the difference between a big bang and a big bounce so that's obviously a shortcoming in my knowledge and not yours, professor.

I do study cosmology and have done for the last couple of decades. I don't proclaim to be Stephen Hawking, but I'm not likely to confuse big bounce models with big bang models any time soon. And I at least have the good sense to say "I don't know" when there's a gap in my knowledge on any given subject.

You certainly wouldn't catch me reading (and misunderstanding) a magazine article, then assuming I knew enough to start telling people who actually know what they're talking about that they're wrong.

Then you'd know why people relate to it as a "bang", even if technically we wouldn't hear it...but we might have, if we existed, and wouldn't be blown to smithereens by such forces.

It doesn't matter if 'people' refer to it as a bang or an an explosion. If they do then they are not correct.

I don't know if you're familiar with the expression 'not even wrong'... but those people are not even wrong.

Did the Japanese in Nagasaki and Hiroshima hear the bang? Was it a bang even?

The ones who were far enough away from the blast not to be incinerated by it definitely heard the bang. This isn't a matter of debate.

Are you seriously suggesting nuclear explosions are silent and you can't find any evidence they make a sound?

I'm sure in the resurrection some would argue that they didn't hear a bang.

Irrelevant.

The speed that the universe is expanding - according to some theories (it has to be theories, because there are so many things that have to be ignored and presumed to get any actual measurement from things) is way faster than an explosion.

If you are referring to the model used to calculate the age of the universe, then the Hubble parameter decreases with time. If you require graphs and equations then don't hesitate to ask. I can easily provide you with both.

You seem to have a lot of advice for me. LOL Well, if it's the thought that counts, thanks, I guess. Still, nope. The generalisations are good enough to show up the errors in the waffle of the big words.

If you're finding any of the any of the 'big' words hard to understand, then I am more than happy to provide you with any further explanation you require. I'm not some bluffer who types things they've read on the internet that they don't understand properly.

I haven't resorted to algebra here because it tends to make most people run to the hills, but if you require equations (or at least equations that are within my skill set, I'm not Roger Penrose) then that's not a problem either.

Who said it? "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit."

I give up. Was it your dad?

I'm not interested in dazzling you or anyone else and I'm certainly not bull*****ing you. If you want bull****, consult a clergyman.

How can you state that, when as yet we're still debating how and why the photon exists as both matter and a wave?

You may well be debating wave/particle duality, but nobody else is. Who exactly are you claiming is debating wave/particle duality?

All particles have a wavelength, whether they have mass or not. Everything that occurs in nature that we use wave equations to describe has a wavelength.

 

[MisterWensleydale]

There is still no completion of the idealistic "string theory" model, so that there is a change from a theory of everything (which sure, theories exist, all with holes in them) to a LAW of everything. It is unwise to determine a minimum size. I mean, all the Plancks in the world, nailed together, couldn't calm the ocean.

You seem to be conflating the quantisation of mass, energy and spacetime across the entirety of the cosmos with an ocean on a very small and insignificant planet. Why are you doing that?

As for string theory... this is the ultimate straw man argument used whenever somebody's got an axe to grind with physics. It's a promising candidate for a theory of quantum gravity or 'Theory of Everything' but thus far it can only describe Anti-deSitter (AdS) cosmologies. It could well take centuries to complete or may never be completed due to the sheer magnitude of the task.

Complaining that string theory is an incomplete theory today is like someone in 1929 complaining quantum mechanics is incomplete.

However, the dualities discovered by string theorists have led to AdS/CFT correspondence, in which a quantum gravity theory in Anti-deSitter space is equivalent to a conformal field theory on its boundary.

This is an astonishing development and one that I can explain conceptually, but which I have no chance of walking anybody through the equations for as I haven't got round to studying it in that kind of depth yet... I probably never will, because the amount of dedication, time and effort these things take is considerable and nowhere near as much fun as my drum kit.

What you could say is, "As yet", or "to the best of our knowledge at this moment, and supported by many scientists", but what you can't state is that there is a minimum. Sorry. It will be shown that Dalton's Plum Pudding theory is only being expanded by other wording with more detail.

And what you could say is "Oh dear, I didn't realise that the Planck density is merely the upper limit on the amount of information that can be contained in a non-singular spacetime, thereby implying that any singular spacetime above the Planck density would by definition involve smaller length scales. I suppose if I'd researched the subject, then I would have realised there was a spacetime phase transition at the Planck time, caused by an unstable and rapidly decreasing vacuum expectation value. As a matter of fact, now I come to think of it it seems obvious that such scales are determined by the values of the constants of nature."

You obviously know a lot more about advanced pudding theory than me though and it is to your credit.

The Steady State theory is NOT dead. There are derivatives of it...just as there are with the Big Bang theory.

Name one then. Name just one steady state cosmology model that anyone takes seriously that gives a finite age for the universe and explains the evolution of the state of the universe over the last n billion years.

I feel it's only fair to warn you that Hoyle's quasi steady-state model does not make the nut.

And no, what YOU were describing was more Steady State than Big Bang. The Big Bang is the theory where there was a point of origin. The Steady State is the one which you seemed to explain in your original comment way back, when we started this conversation about theories on the universe on this thread. Yet you ascribed it to the Big Bang theory, which again clearly states that there was something hot and dense at the beginning. Therefore, there was matter already. Otherwise nothing would be hot, and nothing would be dense.

Your confusion about what I have typed seems to arise from your not understanding the difference between big bang models and big bounce models. Every single big bang model has to choose a cutoff point as arbitrarily close to the initial singularity as possible in order to avoid mathematical infinities (singularities) which are no use for calculating anything, as they are the equivalent of dividing by zero.

If you are describing something hot and dense containing particles then your big bang model has either chosen the electroweak epoch as the cutoff point, or it's a GUT theory describing the proposed electronuclear epoch. Any model that chooses a cutoff before baryogenesis begins is going to start off with a Bunch-Davies vacuum.

If there is anything you wish me to explain to you about any of that I'm happy to do so.

It is, although it's an approximation. It is 1/3 the speed of light. I like coincidences. Also, I believe they're mathematically related. Proof of them being related? No. It's my theory. I'll look into it more when I have forever to study it.

Once again, the velocities of electrons in a Bohr orbit around an atomic nucleus are dependent on what layer of the electron shell they're in.

I can only assume you're restricting this to hydrogen or helium atoms as (if I recall correctly) they are the only atoms that have a single layer electron shell, otherwise you are disregarding all electrons not in the first layer of the electron shell, in all atoms of the periodic table with an atomic number larger than 2.

Let me put the explanation to you. Please, tell me your theory of the Big Bang - the one where there was no matter, the one where there was no hot, dense state. I would like to hear your point of view on it, as I am missing something obviously.

I hope this suffices.