So, not surprisingly, you got the whole thing ass backwards. The models don't point toward dark energy/matter and the big bang, the measurements do.
this post was submitted on 09 Apr 2025
-9 points (30.4% liked)
deepthoughts
74 readers
2 users here now
This is a community focused on thoughtful reflection and meaningful discussion. We're a place to explore unique ideas and profound concepts, creating a space for curiosity and open-mindedness. We encourage critical thinking and the sharing of knowledge. Everyone is welcome to participate. We value diverse perspectives and aim for respectful conversations in a positive environment.
This community is inspired by r/DeepThoughts.
Rules:
- Be kind and respectful
Healthy debates are welcome, but hate speech, bigotry, personal attacks and bad-faith arguments are not.
- Stay on topic
This is a place for deep thoughts, not quick questions or random ideas. Post titles should express a full idea that encourages meaningful discussion.
- Value different perspectives
We all think in different ways, and that makes discussions better. Discrimination of any kind - racism, sexism, homophobia or otherwise - is not allowed.
- Engage thoughtfully
Try to understand why others think the way they do, respond with empathy, and remember there is a real person behind every comment.
- Think clearly and critically
Good writing helps everyone think better. Avoid trolling and misinformation. Take the time to consider different viewpoints before responding.
founded 2 months ago
MODERATORS
Well that's me for ya.
Lmao okay. Whats your super deep alternative to the big bang? That the universe just existed forever and has no beginning? That god snapped his fingers and said let there be light? I dont understand how we got to the point where a person could honestly feel that their failure to properly comprehend something is reason enough to try to convince people that its false, especially with no evidence or contrary explanation. Seems like you still have the mentality of a child.
Disbelieving one thing doesn't require believing in something else. It's possible not to believe the big bang theory without suggesting (or believing in) an alternative.
I didnt say it wasnt possible. The OP mentioned that he didn't believe it ever since he was a kid. Thats fine for a kid, but to then grow up and realize how many measurements and observations and calculations went into the theory, and to think you know better than the many many extremely intelligent people who have spent literal lifetimes studying the possibility, without having any alternative is just stupid and childish.
Personal insults aren't necessary. But since you think you have psychic powers maybe you can tell how many fingers I'm holding up.
You have posted to the wrong community, try /shallowthoughts.
Well, there was a big bang, but the Big Bang Theory doesn't talk about the dimensions of empty space, just matter. There are several alternate theories that, for example, say the Big Bang is a reoccurring phenomenon, like all the contents collapose and it bangs again or bangs just happen rarely in empty space, but outside of distances we can observe.
About dark matter/energy: That's really just a fancy label for the math being off a bit. It might turn out as a formula/constant not being perfect or it's just something that's really hard to spot, like a UFO can just turn out to be some swamp gas. Something's there, but we don't know until we find out more.
If you can read German, here's a post about a new (published 21 March 2025) alternate cosmological model https://feddit.org/post/10550213
The original study seems to be in English, isn't free, but the abstract is visible: https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1361-6382/adbed1
You seems to think the entire process is "our model is missing something, so we made up so shit it kind of works and call it a day".
In fact it's A) our model is missing something B) it would work, if X was true, so to check if it could be valid... (And this part is crucial) C) ...lets consider what else would be true if X was true. What else (from outside the model) can we measure? Would the result be different if X was true or flase? Let's make predictions and see, see how well we did.
It's not A) The car stopped. Car that wouldn't have gas would stop. Ergo we belive that car don't have gas.
It's B) car have stopped. Car that wouldn't have gas would have stop. If car don't have gas, we would expect it to be lighter than cars with gas and we would expect a driver to go out with cannister and move in the direction of gas-station... and we weight the car, and look for a driver moving on foot. Only, once our predictions are confirmed we update our model.
Is it 100% correct? No but it's a systemic and reasonable aproch of moving model closer to the truth.
Do you have a PHD? Have you published a paper? Why should anyone care what you think on the subject, if not?