Good way

 

of putting it :-).

The universe doesn't care 

about your precious standard model

"Astronomers have known for many decades that the universe is expanding; in the 1990s, the first image of the cosmic microwave background—the echo of the big bang—revealed that this expansion is accelerating for unknown reasons.

(Theism:

belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures.)

"Astronomers call this expansion "dark energy," which translates to "we don't understand what this energy is."

"When we combine all the cosmological data, it favors that the universe's expansion was accelerating at a slightly higher rate around 7 billion years ago," said Arnaud de Mattia, a French physicist on the team analyzing the data. However, the researchers emphasize that they do not have absolute certainty for this yet—meaning the research effort has not yet met the "five sigma" statistical threshold physicists use as a marker for certainty.

"This new theory of "evolving dark energy" will impact the standard cosmological model, which will require substantial changes to incorporate new findings."

(Natural expansions do not slow down and then speed back up again to where they almost were to start with, its not a very good example, but if you blow up something lol, it doesn't start to fall back to the earth then take off again like close to the velocity it had previously and that's what the universe is doing except its more like the expansion of a balloon with helium, than an explosion. Hey I said it wasn't a good example lol.)

"OK, but let's speculate

So let's say this result—that dark energy evolves over time—is confirmed by DESI and the forthcoming next-gen surveys later in the decade."

(That would make it a "parameter" which is still "the law" so to speak, even though it changes over time, (Think different speed limits, it's still the speed limit, even though it changes depending on where you are) and not "a (physical) constant" which does not vary over time.

Some (Chuck Missler, Courtney Hunt, and others) have made the case that the same is true for the speed of light, and that it changes over time as well and it also is a parameter and not "a physical constant". If they are right? Big implications for carbon dating etc.

Hey? If dark energy can change over time? Just sayin...And?

this has nothing to do with tired light which has been repudiated enough already.)

"Right now, the standard model suggests expansion until the ultimate heat death of the universe. But now, we can consider more exciting, cinematic possibilities for the fate of the universe: if the universal expansion acceleration increases over time, the universe could tear apart in a "big rip." Alternatively, it could reach a point of maximum expansion and collapse inward in a "big crunch."

(And, well, whoptie-shit, big deal lol.)

"In the "big rip" scenario, as the acceleration of universal expansion increases toward infinity within a finite time, all matter down to the scale of atoms and subatomic particles, and spacetime itself, are (as the best dungeon masters put it) "torn asunder."

"As the universe approaches this point, galaxies would become gravitationally unbound as matter dispersed; ultimately, the same thing would happen to planetary systems; then military squadrons, families and married couples. Then atoms would become ionized as their electrons were ripped away. Finally, atomic nuclei themselves would disassociate."

"By contrast, in the "big crunch," the expansion of the universe reverses and all matter and spacetime reconverge toward a singularity, or at least toward a singular point. If the universe contains a high enough density of matter, gravity would stop universal expansion and all matter would fall back in on itself."

This leads to a third theory, the "big bounce," which suggests that the universe itself is a cycle of expansions, collapses and re-expansions. 

(Explosions, inflations and expansions do not 

and simply can not put them selves back together 

in an orderly fashion as this violates the second law of thermodynamics:

"In a closed system (Our Universe)

everything tends toward entropy (disorder)"

You can not unscramble an egg

so its pretty easy to figure out:

universes don't put themselves back together.

So back to the drawing board Hindus 

and Rodger Penrose, 

and shame on Physic.org 

for not point that fact out.

Reference:

Tuesday, October 31, 2023

Haven't

"It is unknown what spawned the state of inflation, 

only that it couldn’t be eternal 

to the past."

You can’t weasel your way out of this past-timelike-incompleteness by appealing to alternatives to inflation either, such as bouncing cosmologies or cyclic cosmologies, as those have been shown to suffer from the same problems. But that, alone, isn’t enough to tell us that the Universe must have begun from a singularity, either.

All of which is to say:

The hot Big Bang may be the best description we have of our early Universe, but it wasn’t the very beginning, as there’s a cutoff in how far back you can extrapolate the temperature and density of our matter-and-radiation rich Universe.

Before the hot Big Bang, there was a period of cosmic inflation, which set up and gave rise to the hot Big Bang,"

(That was Ethan Seigal BTW)

Me now:

(If:

cosmic inflation,...

set up and gave rise to the hot Big Bang...?

Then what set up and gave rise to cosmic inflation?

Oh yeah...:-)

Causeless effects is bad logic 

and even worse science and theology.)

Now back to the Physics.org piece:

"At the smallest point of convergence, general relativity demands the emergence of a singularity."

(Where the laws of nature disappear.)

"However, physicists theorize that quantum effects become highly important at that stage, preventing the formation of a singularity and instead resulting in a highly energetic and explosive expansion (and the birth of a new universe). This theory is currently so far away from the "five sigma" threshold as to effectively exist in another universe, but it is indisputably the prettiest of the theories of the nature of the universe.

(Makes great click-bait and pod-cast material though :-) Who cares how pretty it is if its already been invalidated repeatedly? And again shame on physic.org.)

Lets see what the scripture says:

2 Peter 3:10-12

10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

11 Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness,

12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?

Id still be going with the Heat death predicted by the standard model of cosmology if I was you, just not quite on the time line the physicist would like to assume.

:-).

Just sayin'.