And the physicist said, Let there be bang

I am not liking this at all. I am considering the universe as a whole and it doesn't work for me. The projection of data to the big bang is plausible, but the problem is that in the beginning there was nothing and then there was energy to make momentum and what happened before that? It is said that it cycled to big bang and big collapse and that just projects the problem to some infinite distance and therefore something that I shouldn't think about. Wrong. There cannot be a rule that momentum and energy / mass is conserved and then say that the rules of the universe break down and then magic happens. Not buying it. For one it is too biblical and seems some nod to creationists that there is that finger of God in the soup. It doesn't make complete sense. It does not correlate to a state where there is no ambiguity, it is not solved.

So I consider as I always do, what if it is wrong and that is my way of checking for tangles in thought and if it yields no answers then so it is. Only by questioning that which is assumed, can we be sure of its validity. Since there is no means to verify what happened 14 billion years ago, we are left with a forensic puzzle. The universe is the body and what is the crime and how was it perpetrated? The greatest evidence for Bang is the red shift of stars and galaxies based upon their distance. So lets break down the problem in parts. Near distance is determined by parallax and used as a measure. From this we have the distance of near stars. Stars are rated by their type or sequence. Types of stars have a radiance and by comparing the radiance for specific type stars it is assumed that they are a certain distance away. From this a correlation is made to Red Shift and thus a three dimensional model can be made with velocity and distance assigned. This would be a red shift survey. It would seem that if something were amiss then it would be considered as alternate theory number two, but that has not been my experience in business. Engineers and scientists tend to fixate on an idea when they are at the reach of their intellect. It is not possible to entertain things outside their understanding. This often happens in design when neither hardware or software can explain some anomaly. It lies in that gray area between the two specialties and is an area where neither feel comfortable. This is my home. I live the gray and corner cases of darkness.

The riddle is: what else could explain the data and be consistent with observation. I am quite capable of computing red shifts and parsecs or light years, and the mathematical physics seems rather simplistic.

I have considered this before and developed some scenarios which were not useful at all. ( many times ). If the red shift is caused by velocity then it is reasonable to assume that simple projection would indicate its origin. In this case it would be a single point. I can't accept that. It is too convenient. So what could cause objects at distance to be shifted precisely by their distance? Velocity is not an absolute thing as it is a relative measurement. A train is not moving if we are in it.

So that is the puzzle and now to consider some dimensional shifts. I can apply n-D analysis to the problem and see what pops out. If I label and mark the dimensions and put them in a matrix, then apply some new dimensions to it, I can see if there is a global minimum at another place. This then would be a solution space. Perhaps this will yield an answer. The explanation, as it is, leaves too many loose ends and that does not sit well with me ever. There must be a perp and a victim for this senseless crime against reason. I am not willing to accept a single point universe without more correlation than just energy shifts in distant objects. I am also not willing to accept "then magic" as an explanation, even if you put it at a temporal infinity so it is well away from thinking about it.

I smell cop out and things like "it was that way when I got here", "its a feature - not a flaw", "ship it anyway", "it rarely happens", "it mostly works for the intended purpose".

So what is homogeneous over distance? Could there be an effect which leads to the separation of galaxies without an original bang? I think I have an idea and it requires a bit of analysis and if is true then perhaps it has an anomaly that would be the proof of the pudding. I see a potential solution from the data and so I must crunch a bit to see what pops out. It implies there is something out there that is unseen by its very nature. To be continued...

ADDED: So it does work and there is another explanation as I assumed. It implies the universe is not aged but forever and infinite in form. If one assumes that people progress from age to age with greater understanding it can be projected what results. Across the vast unending ocean an eye sees itself. For everything is a part of everything else and infinity is as big from inside as out.


Automated Intelligence

Automated Intelligence
Auftrag der unendlichen LOL katzen