I have no problem with the facts of what has been observed. I have a problem with the model, Steven.
The facts are always fine. I will bend over backwards to accept all scientific facts. Yet the model must be correct, too.
The Lambda CDM model is too simplistic in a very important structural position; it moves to an 'earliest' position that is not scientific in essence. An extrapolation back in time is created based on the movement seen in the outcome.
In an analogy to show my point, there is a stadium and there are 500 supporters coming out of the stadium. All these facts have been recorded scientifically, including the motion of the supporters leaving the stadium. Then, to explain how that was possible, the Lambda-CDM model declares that the stadium and the supporters came forth from a single football. They incorporated the scientific facts of the leaving motion of the supporters and applied it to all scientific facts they recorded, stadium and all. Then they looked for a single setting for all that came to be and that could have only be a football.
That is the Lambda-CDM in a nutshell. Everything is scientifically correct -- except for the model. The model contains a flaw based on an over-simplification.
--
A theory is fine to keep in place. Yet a hypothesis must be abandoned when the data does not support it.
The larger Big Bang event? We have some data for it. Not much, but it is of a fairly good quality. You and I accept the same general conclusions based on that data. The theory can stay in place, for whatever it is worth.
The specifics of the Big Bang event? Folks are not considering the required structural aspects; they rather ignore the very important detail that zero plays a fundamental role in the process that resulted in a breaking.
By not-incorporating the breaking aspect, the different theory is rejected as if it were a hypothesis. The theory is abandoned, not discussed among peers. All are throwing out the baby with the bathwater because they only see the other baby.
--
What about you, Steven?
What is your idea about zero? Is it a singular number, or do you make distinctions between different kinds of zero?
This is vital.
If you have a single kind of zero in mind, then you cannot envision any different way the Big Bang came about than the Lambda-CDM model.
Nevertheless, the only decimal number that can represent a singular state is 1. Do you believe the universe we live in is some kind of 1?
What do you think of zero? Is it singular in essence?
Zero can be totally unimportant in the materialization process.
But zero can also be fundamentally important when it declares the fundamental breaking of the prior setup as the truth.
--
I do not know how much more playroom you have for me, so allow me to describe my frustrations. I am fine accepting that others do not see what I see, but it is frustrating when this continues year in year out. I have fans, strong supporters even, but no one actively supporting my work by talking about it to others. No, it is not my ego that pains me; it is the idea (the model) itself that should be discussed more widely and isn’t.
From my perspective, it is as if every scientific person I encounter is just a tiny bit 'on the spectrum'. They focus on their domain, know everything about their domain, and they turn off when it is about my domain.
In another example, perhaps more gentle to describe what I am experiencing, is as if most scientific persons I encounter have a red-green colorblindness (and I do not).
Obviously, a person with colorblindness can still see colors. So, when I describe the colors I see, there will be agreement on what I see. Yet here and there the things do not fall into place for them the way they fall into place for me, and vice versa.
They may say I have a yellow-blue colorblindness, and throw my baby out with the bathwater. It is part of the reality in which we exist.
Yet the point of this analogy is describing the frustration how many cannot envision themselves to have a 'colorblindness'. They do not see their own flaw, but they do see mine (or my perceived flaws that are then in this example not flaws).
Thank you, Steven. You've been kind to me. I appreciate that.
