The Universe

What you are saying about making protons and singularities from nothing is not a work of nature. It is a belief of people that worship the BB model. It is a well entrenched belief system that has little more than a lack of something else to believe to support it. The whole theory needs to be seen as a tool and not anything real in nature.

Jim; One of the biggest problems cosmology has, is incorrect
"Assumptions". The assumption that if any part of a theory is wrong, the entire theory must be wrong, is just as detrimental.
You are correct, the BB part is wrong...and where the heck did the proton part come from???

For example; Since it is impossible for the Friedmann naked singularity to have created the whole universe (for soooooo many reasons), that makes the whole universe part wrong!!! So, all the matter didn't get here at once, but must get here a little at a time.
That makes one part of the Steady State Theory right. Matter gets here a little at a time, but since they and umpteen other theories have failed to explain how the matter gets here, The BB Theory is the only theory that so far can explain how the matter gets here, albeit...incorrectly!!! There is a huge clue here[]

The proton is the basic mass unit of the universe and where it came from is something I don't know. But,the BB theory has an explaination and you may what to look there for where the heck the proton came from. I do not believe the underlay of the theory either. But, it is a belief system and nothing more.

Sorry Jim, I should have stated my question about the proton more clearly! I meant, how did the proton get into the discussion of
creation ex nihilo?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Jim</i>
... the BB theory has an explaination and you may what to look there for where the heck the proton came from. I do not believe the underlay of the theory either. But, it is a belief system and nothing more.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Science is not a belief system. It must be a rigourous set of observations and explanations, and must first try to use the old, well verified knowledges: in place of imaginating a BB and its strange properties, it is necessary to apply all well known physics : the redshifts are observed every days in the labs by a parametric (therefore coherent) light-matter interaction, and they may be confused with Doppler effects (no blur of the spectra and of the images, nearly constant relative frequency shifts...); the same interaction explains the blueshift of the Pioneer radio emissions (beyond 5 UA), that the anisotropy of the CMB is bound to the ecliptic, ...

But simple physics is not marvelous !

JMB...what does this mean? that the anisotropy of the CMB is bound to the ecliptic, ...

You are correct though...all this about scientific theories being a religion is bunk! Evolution is certainly not a religion.

S=G