Kenny wrote: ↑Sat Dec 18, 2021 8:04 am
But I'm willing to give it another shot...
Which specific claims from either the videos or the Wikipedia article do you think I do not accept?
I'll be happy to let you know if I accept or reject those statements.
Or some may simply be irrelevant because science simply doesn't know.
*Your 2 videos claim the Big Bang was a massive explosion, but the Wikkipedia link makes it clear it was not an explosion but an expansion.
An explosion is a violent expansion in which energy is transmitted outward.
So it is accurate to describe the Big Bang as either an expansion or an explosion.
I do agree with what Wikipedia says in the following statement
"The Big Bang is not an
explosion of matter moving outward to fill an empty universe. Instead, space itself expands with time everywhere and increases the physical distances between comoving points. In other words,
the Big Bang is not an explosion in space, but rather an expansion of space.
*Your first video claims during the explosion matter and energy were created, then tens of thousands of years after the explosion years during the Planck Epoch it makes it clear that matter and energy didn’t exist yet.
You are wrong on the facts here
Matter and energy were created during the Big Bang explosion/expansion. The Planck Epoch makes up the earliest phase of the expansion and does not encompass the full duration of the Big Bang.
The Planck Epoch lasted from time = 0 to 10^(-43) seconds (your assertion that the Planck Epoch occurred tens of thousands of years after the beginning of the explosion/expansion is inaccurate. 10^(-43) seconds is the smallest fraction of a second not tens of thousands of years)
According to the National Geographic video, energy existed during the Planck Epoch, but matter did not exist during the Planck Epoch (which I have no disagreement with).
Your description of the timing of the Planck Epoch and the absence of energy during the Planck Epoch are both factually incorrect, but I have no disagreement with either Wikipedia or National Geographic regarding the Planck Epoch.
Initially your first video claims the singularity was several centimeters in size
the video does describe the singularity as...
"only a few millimeters wide it was similar to a supercharged black hole"
I do not think that the singularity was a few millimeters wide (I think it was infinitesimally small)
But as I noted earlier, speculation about the size of the Big Bang singularity is just that, speculation.
The key here is that the precise size of the singularity (which science doesn't know for sure anyway) has no bearing on whether matter, energy, space and time were created by the Big Bang.
I do agree with the key relevant point about the singularity from the video
"Big Bang began as a hot and infinitely dense point"
, but later after the Planck Epoch and during the inflammatory Epoch which was hundreds of thousands of years later, it grew from the size of an atom to the size of a grapefruit.
As noted above you are factually incorrect regarding the timing of the Planck Epoch
You are also factually incorrect about when the universe grew from the size of an atom to the size of a grapefruit.
According to the video that occurred during the Inflationary Epoch (not the Planck Epoch)
*Your second video claimed the singularity immediately went from the size of an Atom to billions of miles across.
Which is also factually correct.
This occurred during the Electroweak Epoch which took place from 10^(-36) seconds to 10^(-12) seconds.
With so much contradiction, how can you claim to agree with all 3? I look foreword to you cutting and pasting some of your previous responses that answered those questions.
I would recommend being more concerned about correcting the multitude of factual errors on your part, before you start critiquing information from reputable scientific organizations like National Geographic and NASA.
