3 ms·
The Big Bang theory makes more assumptions and contradicts more evidence than just assuming our universe is an event horizon embedded in a higher dimensional sp
by quantadev 2y ago
The Big Bang theory makes more assumptions and contradicts more evidence than just assuming our universe is an event horizon embedded in a higher dimensional space. The Event Horizon explains lots of things the Big Bang doesn't also, like why time is a special dimension, and why space always only expands. The Event Horizon theory explains everything that the Big Bang theory cannot explain and contradicts NONE of the evidence.
The Event Horizon theory doesn't postulate a "beginning" of everything, in the comical "it popped into existence" nonsense of the Big Bang. The EH theory doesn't try to establish a first-mover or uncaused-cause. It just describes how the universe is without trying to describe any "magical" beginnings. The Big Bang is a theory about magic, not a theory of science.
- antonvs 2y ago> The Event Horizon theory explains everything that the Big Bang theory cannot explain and contradicts NONE of the evidence. Can you point me to any papers about this? Preferably peer-reviewed.
- quantadev 2y agoIt's my own theory, which I haven't published. "Holographic Theory" (Susskind) is similar but still quite different. But others are having similar ideas, as seen in this video: https://youtu.be/A8bBhkhZtd8?si=3CLPl_WAoQDnfYfc&t=1450 https://youtu.be/A8bBhkhZtd8?si=3CLPl_WAoQDnfYfc&t=1450
- antonvs 2y agohttps://undsci.berkeley.edu/understanding-science-101/how-science-works/scrutinizing-science-peer-review/ https://undsci.berkeley.edu/understanding-science-101/how-sc... The reason scientists do peer review is captured well by the Mike Tyson quote, “Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the face,” which we can rephrase as, "Everyone has a theory until they undergo peer review." The point is that your theory is almost certainly wrong, but you won't find out how wrong it is unless you describe it in enough detail for others to check it.
- quantadev 2y agoWhat an incredible keen eye for the obvious you have. Since only one theory is correct, that means all theories are "almost certainly wrong". lol.
- antonvs 2y agoNo. The point is standing outside the ring shit-talking about how you have the best punch is just BS, and you know it - otherwise you would have published something.
- quantadev 2y agoIt's pretty clear to everyone which one of us is doing all the sh*t-talking.
- antonvs 2y agoYou're talking about an amateur conjecture that no-one has seen as though it has some relevance to a discussion about physics. That's just nonsense. My analogy about boxing is not shit-talking, it's pointing out what you're actually doing: talking a big game with no ability to back it up. I'm doing you a favor by pointing that out, because if you somehow don't realize it, it might help prevent you from turning into a complete crackpot. Go do an honest evaluation against the Crackpot Index: https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html I'd do it for you, but I can't even do that because your idea isn't documented.
- quantadev 2y agoAw, lighten up a bit. I'm just on HN having fun discussing Physics, because it's something I love. But it's super nice of you to take so much time and effort to encourage people to publish.