Talk:Big Bang

IMPORTANT: This is not the place to discuss how you think the universe began, or to discuss whether or not the Big Bang model is correct. This page is for discussing improvements to the article. The article is about the Big Bang model, with content based on information presented in peer-reviewed scientific literature about it or other appropriate sources. See Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. If you wish to discuss or debate the validity of the Big Bang, please do so at talk.origins.

Flatness Problem

The Einstein-Cartan theory avoids the flatness problem as well as unphysical singularities. I believe this link needs be included in the Flatness Problem section. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein%E2%80%93Cartan_theory#Avoidance_of_singularities47.201.190.53 (talk) 19:26, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

The shrinking universe hypothesis (all matter shrinks but space doesn't, near matter shrinks in groupings)

(Extremely old postulation. I don't claim it's right or wrong. It has to be mentioned. If you mathematically fix it well it's absolutely equivalent with the popular theory (I repeat, fix it well - because some fix it to fail because they love the standard religion), and you can think among theories when you face something difficult. Then you can discribe in different ways the same phenomena.)

Everything shrinks (gets impacted by dark energy) from an initial ultra dense state. We call it big bang.

Afar light doesn't shrink but afar matter does, so we interpret the light as being stretched.

Near matter and near light, shrinks almost with the same pace, except for a tiny percentage which contributes to gravity and dark matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:4104:9000:B82A:A462:371:563F (talk) 20:34, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

What if light didn't become of lower energy, but if matter itself was bigger? (it cannot work, it's wrong, and we have to say why! If matter was bigger we would have different quantization numbers, except if the fields were equivalently bigger, but then...) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:4104:9000:B82A:A462:371:563F (talk) 20:43, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

You might have to add some parameters but it's absolutely the same. Also you might have to create some lies as explanations. If you want to, it works. Why to do it? Not because the shrinking universe is a fact or superior. Simply because it will allow you to think in two different ways. That's the whole point. Not the egoism of some particular dogma, but the ability to play from both sides!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:4104:9000:B82A:A462:371:563F (talk) 20:47, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

That's interesting and all, but you need to have a source for any information before it can be put into the article. Original research, regardless of it being comprehensive or not, isn't sufficient. 74.132.8.133 (talk) 13:24, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Big Bang Forbidden

There are viable alternatives to general relativity which forbid singularities such as the Big Bang. This should be mentioned in Wikipedia's Big Bang article. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein%E2%80%93Cartan_theory#Avoidance_of_singularities 47.201.190.53 (talk) 02:51, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

That section doesn't cite any sources, which is normally a requirement. The statements need sources to even be worth considering, since they won't go onto this page without them. 74.132.8.133 (talk) 13:28, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Three sources are now added.47.201.190.68 (talk) 04:31, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

What is going on with the caption for the graphic immediately below the words "Part of a series on Physical Cosmology" ?

What is going on with the caption for the graphic immediately below the words "Part of a series on Physical Cosmology" ? If you click on the picture, the caption beneath seems inappropriately long and rambling. I'm not qualified to judge its accuracy, but it looks a little fishy to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:645:C000:AF7B:9104:FDB8:FFE5:BF20 (talk) 23:16, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

no beginning

The dying stars are the brightest stars. They and their orbiters are shrinking in size and distance. When we look out as far as we can see the normal emitters are interfered out of view by these dying stars. Therefore, rather than expansion the most visible emitters are simply getting smaller. THERE IS NO EXPANSION, no beginning. Even life that is trapped inside Volcanic rock under the sea has no beginning. It is simply redistributed when a a planet breaks up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.132.9.140 (talk) 11:55, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion. You might be interested to read Steady state model, a theory that I recall Fred Hoyle putting forward very convincingly many years ago. It is now considered unlikely by modern scientists. Dbfirs 12:03, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

BBT

"The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model for the observable universe from the earliest known periods through its subsequent large-scale evolution."

Its the current prevailing theory. What is the higher category article which contains this and other cosmogenesis theories? Ostensibly it would be cosmogenesis (links to cosmogony).-Inowen (nlfte) 05:18, 6 February 2019 (UTC)