Very good replies, showing me you have a malleable brain while at the same time I see signs of your holding on to some assumptions as well. Not bad, sir.
Giving and trying to give explanations was used to make a further moving away of the facts visible. Perhaps not the best way to express this. But starting with facts, then build theories on these facts, and next build theories on these theories, and the connection with the facts becomes loose.
Same for the Big Bang model.
* We have CMBR
* We have red-shifting of light
When you say that the universe is a singularity, then we are talking religion and not science. You have then moved away a bit too far from the facts and yet you seem quite adamant that the universe is somehow a single entity.
In an analogy I liken this to calling a nation a person. Of course no nation on the planet is a person. Nations are a collective outcomes established by people. When we say that China is a strong competitor to the US, we do not see China as a person. We know that there is no single person in control in China about everything there is involving China.
Same for the center of the universe. If we were to declare the center of the US and point to its geographical middle point, then folks think not much special about it. Yet when we appoint that center spot as the place where all action is coming from, associated with the US, then folks will start laughing because that is definitively not true. The center spot is just the center spot. Not that important.
So, it is inside your thinking that I find several assumptions that are strong, and while I do not mind that, I have to point out that some of them are not facts but you seem to make them very important.
Space is one of them. We think differently about space. For me, there is nothing about space that can move. One cannot create a spatial hammer and hit anything spatial. So, space is as empty as an empty wallet, and I mention that because an empty wallet is still real and something that is actually important while there is nothing there.
With the photon-photon interaction we do have a certain reality of the photon. I give it a vector, a pathway. Again, this is just me describing this, I am not a photon myself, so I can only give you my speculation. The photon experiences the heads-on army and is pushed in a slightly different direction. As such, I would imagine it would miss Earth. What I see with the images is that the photons are coming toward Earth where we capture them. I do not see them as coming from a side-perspective. In my mind, that requires a straightening of the pathway. I may be incorrect, and there may not be any need for straightening. But just like a ball can receive spin, I would imagine the nudging that the army of photons does on the single alien photon is a nudge in one way in the heads-on section and a nudge in the opposite way in the tail-section. So, if there is nudging (and that may not be the case), then the two nudges neutralize themselves, while the photon did get pushed outwardly.
A universe with a single component is your idea, not mine. There are no handles why a universe would end up resulting with matter and yet then still be a single entity. That is not good thinking in my book. If you don't separate energy from matter, then you think they both appeared at the same time. I cannot do anything with that thought. It is not a correct thought.
The pink unicorn is where many scientists miss the boat. They think science is all-knowing or can be all-knowing.
That is why I state that we only have data about the beginning of matter.
We do NOT have data about the beginning of time, space or energy. Zero, nada, zilch. Any scientist throwing everything in one bag is not a scientist in my dictionary.
One cannot say that Energy does not get lost and then demand evidence that energy existed prior to the arrival of matter. That is like asking where your keys are when they are right in your hand. Energy does not get lost (and it was therefore already present), or Energy was created with the Big Bang. One cannot say both things at the same time because one of them is then automatically incorrect.
Good conversation. Thank you.
