(January 15, 2019 at 4:18 pm)pocaracas Wrote:(January 15, 2019 at 2:19 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: I've read numerous scientific papers on it in the past, and I'm happy to read scientific papers on it today. The thing is, it's not just one theory anymore. It's multiple theories that keep changing. That's the problem with human bias. You'll get an increasing number of people saying they have a better explanation. Quite honestly, I appreciate the beauty of personal opinion/bias, but I don't have time to visit everybody's personal take on something. There are many things out there more relevant to my own life, so that's what I try to focus more of my precious time on.
I'm happy to consider the math you're suggesting, but please provide something that is conclusive if you choose to do so. So far I've gotten two different numbers. 85 percent and 95 percent. A 10 percent disparity in the universe's matter is quite a disparity. Also, please keep in mind that I'm not a mathematician. In college I took statistics and classes related to research methods, and as such I understand those aspect of applied mathematics. If the math gets too complex, I may have to defer to a professional who can analyze it more readily.
Of course it's complex... not sure even I can follow it properly, but I'm not the one interested in redoing what they did, so... for a quick fix, this will have to do, and if you wish follow through the references:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda-CDM_model
And you may want to read what these guys say (again, following the references for more info):
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questi...ryonic-mat
I read the link for the CDM Model, but these problems still remain -
- It asserts that the CMB is evidence of the BBT, but actually it was the problem. They didn't find what they predicted (smooth), but rather found something else (lumpy). That's just putting it simply of course.
- As such, they're using dark matter to prove the BBT without first proving dark matter exists.
- If you can't show it exists, then it makes no sense to say it makes up almost the entire universe.
- This model doesn't state a point, but a rapid appearance. The original model was a point. They couldn't establish a point, so I can see why they swapped it out. But this actually favors creation.
The whole thing doesn't prove, but rather assumes. When it can prove rather than assume, then it's worth serious consideration.