###### • **Home** • Big Bang Cosmology Needs To Be Put In Time Out • *Top Ten* overview • January 3, 2017

## Though this posting began as a cheeky New Year’s Eve *Top Ten* posting about Big Bang Cosmology, those ten points are slowly being re-worked until the general consensus is that each captures a greater truth.

In that spirit let us focus on #10, then we can work on down to #1.

## #10 It’s a bully.

The big bang theory has been pushing itself around the academic playground since about 1980. It had been just another theory with roots that went back to the 1920s. Then, Stephen Hawking became its spokesperson. George Ellis signed on, Alan Guth and Andrei Linde got involved. Then, it began to take over the sandbox.

There is nothing gentle or introspective about Big Bang Cosmology; today, quite ubiquitous and confident, this theory is always in your face.

Planck * Temperature* defined this bully’s hot-headed singularity. It elbowed out the four Planck base units, Planck Time-and-Planck Length, and Planck Charge and Planck Mass.

Stephen Hawking says, “…expanding exponentially in every direction, from an infinitely small, infinitely hot, infinitely dense point…”

It’s always been counter-intuitive. How is anything infinitely manifest? Is that simple? Does it have an organizing principle? Assume there is a fundamental configuration within thermodynamics that generates the equations of gravity, i.e. an expanded Higgs family or a “true” God-particle, how is quantum information carried?

**Big Bang Cosmology is the opposite of simple**. It begins with an exquisite complexity of infinities that have no causal efficacy and it has no analogue in the universe. Regarding just the density issue alone, the densest known thing, a neutron star, doesn’t come close. “Infinitely small” has some folks claiming super-luminal expansion (Sean Carroll takes that on), but even Carroll has problems defining how temperature, space, time, or particles or quantum fluctuations are established.

**Big Bang Cosmology is an aggregation point for problems**. It appears to have reached a tipping point. More and more respected academics/scientists are saying, “Get out of the sandbox. Go over and stand in time out.”

* There is an unexplored alternative.* It rather unwittingly came out of a New Orleans high school geometry class in December 2011 (the back story). Replicating that classroom exercise is relatively simple. Use your imagination to go inside a simple tetrahedron. Divide the edges by 2, and discover the four half-sized tetrahedra in each corner and an octahedron in the center (four faces exposed and four faces interior). Continue dividing each object by 2. In about 112 steps you will be very close to the Planck Length. Now, multiply the initial simple tetrahedron by 2. In about 90 steps you are at the Observable Universe. The entire universe in about 200 notations sounds so unlikely a chart of those notations (all Planck base unit multiples) opens in a new tab or window. This high school class had been studying embedded geometries to tile and tessellate the universe using the tetrahedron and octahedron. By dividing by 2, base-2 exponentiation was employed, perhaps for the first time, to go from the Planck Length to the Observable Universe.

That was the beginning of* an **alternative point of view*. Yes, that base-2 chart *for a quiet expansion* at least creates a predictive model with real numbers to be studied. Some say that the numbers mimic the big bang. Others say these numbers are the script or equation to define the epochs of the big bang but ** without the bang**.

Its natural inflation and the first 67 notations are quite possibly the only logical-simple-deep infrastructure of the universe. It is a systems view, causal sets of basic geometries self assembling in space-time-charge-mass groups, sets, and couplets.

**So, let’s argue the key point**: Why shouldn’t the universe begin most simply with the basic four Planck base units and proceed, like cellular division, by multiplying by 2?

**Notes**: You will notice in the chart that the first second of creation takes us over two-thirds of the way through all the notations, right up between notations 143 and 144. The entire chart is just over 200 notations. We will soon apply the reduced Planck constant and have been told that the number will drop to 200. That is a lot of detail and it defines the first second of the universe predictively, using natural inflation that simulates the big bang epochs better than the big bang theory!

To create a more anthropomorphic sense of the bully, recognize its name:

**First name**: BigBang **Family name**: Cosmology

Top Ten Homepage___#9 It is a False Start.___#8 It’s a Hot Head.___A few of the open questions!___Website homepage