Could Dark Matter Possibly Be . . .

[BMAONE23]

Not that I believe in an Electric Universe Theory but...Consider this:
The Universe on a micro scale (relatively speaking of course), Galactic scale, can not readily transfer electrons due to the vast distances between normal matter particles that could carry the charge. However, the universe consists of only 4% of this type of matter. There is the other, darker matter to consider too. We have only surmised it's existance due to the gravity needed to hold things together. If Dark Matter does exist, it might also have extrordinary electrical properties yet to be discovered. In fact, the Dark Energy used to explain the Expansion might also be electrical in nature.
When you look at the Universe on the Macro-scale though, It more resembles the Brain of a living organism. With Neurons coupled together by Dendrites creating a vast spiderweb like structure with electrical impulses carrying innformation between the neurons.
The Neurons would be replaced by galaxies & galaxy clusters acting as that structure with Dark Matter then replacing the Dendrites that tie everything together and finally Dark Energy being the neural current that flows through the ties to reinforce and create new ones. These new ties would then force an overall expansion in the area as they are formed. Since the Dark Matter Dendrites are being reinforced and created constantly, the Universe in turn constantly expands, being driven by the universal (neural) electrical current Dark Energy.
an interesting article

[Martin]

[Chris Peterson]

Could Dark Matter be.....what our bubble like universe is contained in? And somehow thru the BB event some of the DM was locked into our expanding sphere of space-time?

It could be fairy dust. That's as good a guess. Or, we can base our opinions on something a little more solid.

[Martin]

Wow - I wasn't being sarcastic. Are there any theories on the origin of DM? Such as there is on Hydrogen and Helium. But I suppose we need to know what it is 1st, eh?

[Chris Peterson]

Wow - I wasn't being sarcastic. Are there any theories on the origin of DM? Such as there is on Hydrogen and Helium. But I suppose we need to know what it is 1st, eh?

There are a set of models (ACDM and variants) that attempt to explain the structure of the Universe. These assume that dark matter consists of cold, non-baryonic particles. These models have been extended to postulate mechanisms for the physical production of such particles. However, no tests have been made. Few people have much confidence that the theories and models developed to date are entirely accurate or complete, but many think they are on the right track. Experimentalists are looking at tests utilizing naturally occurring high energy events, and the LHC may soon provide the ability to test some of these ideas in the lab. The next decade should see rapid development in both theory and experimentation in this area.

[astrolabe]

Hello All,

I think I read Chris's answer to mean that there are no theories on DM. There are observations and a number of facts possibly but not enough along some hypotheses to support a theory. Rigorous, repeatable testing in all aspects af an idea is needed to become theory. And a theory, as we all know from this forum, is a collection facts proving a hypothesis and that it is not, itself, a fact. Early on I went down many roads with regard to other peoples ideas of the way things work in our universe and didn't know what to believe. I realised I was following a lot of great ideas and hypotheses by some very educated people. But, while there were facts leading me to a plausible theory, there wasn't ever enough to BE theory.

There are scientists in mainstream who have different ideas concerning the way things work but they, above all know that the hypotheses need to be proven no matter hoh sensible or logical they may sound. Tough lesson for me but one that now saves me time and energy by looking for supported evidence no matter how attractive the idea may be.

[Sputnick]

Nereid - I mean no disrespect to you by this post.

Copyright laws and therefore people copyrighting material allow limited reproduction of copyright material. I was not aware that posting copywriten material on the forum in accordance with copyright laws is not 'allowed', as I thought the forum tried to abide by all written laws. I did not copy that material to instigate trouble. If you are going to tell me again to "read the rules" I suggest please that you tell the same thing to Chris and other forum members whose derisions are showing deliberate disrespect for forum users as well as disrespect to people posting scientific information in other places on the internet.

[Sputnick]

Hello All,

I think I read Chris's answer to mean that there are no theories on DM. There are observations and a number of facts possibly but not enough along some hypotheses to support a theory. Rigorous, repeatable testing in all aspects of an idea is needed to become theory. And a theory, as we all know from this forum, is a collection facts proving a hypothesis and that it is not, itself, a fact. Early on I went down many roads with regard to other peoples ideas of the way things work in our universe and didn't know what to believe. I realized I was following a lot of great ideas and hypotheses by some very educated people. But, while there were facts leading me to a plausible theory, there wasn't ever enough to BE theory.

There are scientists in mainstream who have different ideas concerning the way things work but they, above all know that the hypotheses need to be proven no matter how sensible or logical they may sound. Tough lesson for me but one that now saves me time and energy by looking for supported evidence no matter how attractive the idea may be.

Astro - your post here is one of the best I have seen on this forum, written in clearly understandable language, with wonderful intent. Sincere Thanks to you, and with great respect to you.

[Sputnick]

Not that I believe in an Electric Universe Theory but...Consider this:
The Universe on a micro scale (relatively speaking of course), Galactic scale, can not readily transfer electrons due to the vast distances between normal matter particles that could carry the charge. However, the universe consists of only 4% of this type of matter. There is the other, darker matter to consider too. We have only surmised it's existance due to the gravity needed to hold things together. If Dark Matter does exist, it might also have extrordinary electrical properties yet to be discovered. In fact, the Dark Energy used to explain the Expansion might also be electrical in nature.
When you look at the Universe on the Macro-scale though, It more resembles the Brain of a living organism. With Neurons coupled together by Dendrites creating a vast spiderweb like structure with electrical impulses carrying innformation between the neurons.
The Neurons would be replaced by galaxies & galaxy clusters acting as that structure with Dark Matter then replacing the Dendrites that tie everything together and finally Dark Energy being the neural current that flows through the ties to reinforce and create new ones. These new ties would then force an overall expansion in the area as they are formed. Since the Dark Matter Dendrites are being reinforced and created constantly, the Universe in turn constantly expands, being driven by the universal (neural) electrical current Dark Energy.
an interesting article

Bmaone - thanks - I've had the same thoughts myself. I hope no one will say such ideas are absurd, remembering that at one time any thought other than our planet was flat was considered absurd .. and also considered absurd was the belief held by some peoples that even a rock is alive - and of course we know how 'alive' a rock can become when we witness a nuclear explosion. There are of course those who will question the definition of 'life' - and of course that definition is hotly debated on many scientific levels by many highly educated people.

[Sputnick]

The Electro-Magnetic Radiation Pressure (EMRP) Gravity Theory
© Engineer Xavier Borg - Blaze Labs Research

Abstract

This paper aims at providing a satisfying theory for the yet unknown mechanism for gravity...

That's as far as I need to get to write this off. No responsible or respectable scientist would say this. This single sentence puts the author into crackpot/pseudoscience territory. A scientist proposing an alternate theory (particularly where the primary theory is well supported by mainstream research) cannot ignore the status quo. It would be reasonable to say "This paper aims at providing a theory of gravity that does not require GR. While GR has demonstrated great success in explaining our observations of gravity, it fails..." But by disregarding completely current theory, he turns away scientific readers. If you want a new idea to be accepted by a community, you'd better play by the rules!

Of course, if your mainstream 'community', Chris, holds that the world is flat as was the rigidly enforced doctrine not many years past among a culture living a barbaric mentality in almost every aspect of life, and someone suggests it the planet is a sphere, you will be severely challenged, and probably barbaric things will be done to you, the least of which would be that you would be told you are a crackpot and you had better play by the rules .. the 'or else' coming on the second warning if you are lucky, or perhaps that warning being repressed and the unorthodox espouser of contrary but truthful thought led directly to denial of an educational diploma or beheading. Should such barbarism remain 'the way' in science?

[Sputnick]

Speculation - if Dark Matter is reality and consists of a nearly infinite number of undetectable or nearly undetectable tiny particles it will almost certainly be affected by the heat of galaxies and stars. As we all know when heat interacts with liquids or gasses currents of flow are begun. This flow could then affect for instance the 700 Galaxy clusters heading south .. that effect being the carrying of those clusters within the current. Also, it is my understanding that when currents in liquids or gasses move and react with the main body of liquid or gas, electrical charges can be generated. Can the movement of Dark Matter currents within the main body of Dark Matter not generate Dark Energy (those energies perhaps beginning to flow in their own currents - and therefore leading to observations upon which Plasma Cosmology is based?

[Chris Peterson]

Of course, if your mainstream 'community', Chris, holds that the world is flat as was the rigidly enforced doctrine not many years past among a culture living a barbaric mentality in almost every aspect of life, and someone suggests it the planet is a sphere, you will be severely challenged...

I don't know of a single new scientific idea (including those that created paradigm shifts) that came from somebody who didn't play by the rules. History shows that the only way for a new scientific idea to gain acceptance is for the proposer to follow the formula I explained earlier. It's as simple as that. Science doesn't resist change (or at least, not so hard that it doesn't happen), but it won't take seriously ideas offered in a non-scientific manner. And it can't, since such ideas are impossible to understand.

If you've listened closely to my earlier comments, you'd see that for the most part I don't have a problem with your ideas as such- how could I? They aren't presented in a format that even allows me to determine what your ideas are!

[Chris Peterson]

Speculation - if Dark Matter is reality and consists of a nearly infinite number of undetectable or nearly undetectable tiny particles it will almost certainly be affected by the heat of galaxies and stars.

In the vacuum of space, heat (using the term loosely) is transferred by radiation. There aren't enough particles to transfer much energy any other way. However, what distinguishes dark matter from "normal" matter is that it doesn't interact (or weakly interacts) with electromagnetic fields. That's why it is invisible using light and other EM. It also means it won't interact with "heat" energy radiating from galaxies or stars.

As we all know when heat interacts with liquids or gasses currents of flow are begun.

This is the result of convective processes, which are insignificant in a near vacuum.

[apodman]

Humans of the past had incorrect ideas based on incomplete information.

Today we have more information and ideas that are closer to correct based on that information.

In the future we will have even more information and ideas that are even closer to correct.

We may never have complete information and ideas that are completely correct.

---

It is illogical to say that the state of affairs described above invalidates anything about science.

It is illogical to say that rejection of current knowledge by ignorant humans of the past implies that all rejection of new ideas is done out of ignorance.

It is ridiculous to say that all ideas, no matter how ridiculous, deserve consideration.

It is hubris to think that intellect can make a correct conclusion by anything other than logical means. Just because I'm right a lot and an idea looks good to me doesn't make it so.

It is improbable that I could guess all the laws of nature without detailed observation. Imagination is important, but a vision is just a vision and an idea is just an idea until we see how they compare with reality.

[Nereid]

Nereid - I mean no disrespect to you by this post.

Copyright laws and therefore people copyrighting material allow limited reproduction of copyright material. I was not aware that posting copywriten material on the forum in accordance with copyright laws is not 'allowed', as I thought the forum tried to abide by all written laws. I did not copy that material to instigate trouble. If you are going to tell me again to "read the rules" I suggest please that you tell the same thing to Chris and other forum members whose derisions are showing deliberate disrespect for forum users as well as disrespect to people posting scientific information in other places on the internet.

It is common for the owners of the intellectual property that copyrights seek to cover to include statements of use. For example, here's the APOD one, and here's the NASA official guidelines one. Such is the case for blazelabs too.

More generally, a common convention is to quote the abstract of a paper or presentation (or the introductory paragraph of an article) and provide a link to the full paper, presentation, or article. In any case, acknowledging the source, with a URL, is not only common practice, shows respect, is polite, etc, it is also helpful in cases where permissions, copyrights, etc may be difficult to ascertain.

Some internet discussion fora have explicit policies on the copying of entire articles, or more than a paragraph or two; we haven't such a policy yet, partly because very few members have hitherto done that.

[Nereid]

Not that I believe in an Electric Universe Theory but...Consider this:
The Universe on a micro scale (relatively speaking of course), Galactic scale, can not readily transfer electrons due to the vast distances between normal matter particles that could carry the charge.

I don't know what you mean by this, but there are plenty of papers reporting studies of cosmic rays, and among those are lots identifying the source of the high energy electrons in the cosmic rays as (likely) "vast distances" from us.

Also, DRAGNs seem to involve the transport of relativistic electrons over distances up to several Mpc.

However, the universe consists of only 4% of this type of matter. There is the other, darker matter to consider too. We have only surmised it's existance due to the gravity needed to hold things together. If Dark Matter does exist, it might also have extrordinary electrical properties yet to be discovered. In fact, the Dark Energy used to explain the Expansion might also be electrical in nature.

Indeed.

However, anything "electrical in nature" or with "extrordinary electrical properties yet to be discovered" will 'feel' the electromagnetic (EM) force, by definition.

If you go through the long list of classes of observations that point to the existence of Dark Matter, I expect you'd find it very difficult to show how mass which feels the EM force could have not left an observable footprint.

In any case, how would one go about testing this idea?

When you look at the Universe on the Macro-scale though, It more resembles the Brain of a living organism. With Neurons coupled together by Dendrites creating a vast spiderweb like structure with electrical impulses carrying innformation between the neurons.
The Neurons would be replaced by galaxies & galaxy clusters acting as that structure with Dark Matter then replacing the Dendrites that tie everything together and finally Dark Energy being the neural current that flows through the ties to reinforce and create new ones. These new ties would then force an overall expansion in the area as they are formed. Since the Dark Matter Dendrites are being reinforced and created constantly, the Universe in turn constantly expands, being driven by the universal (neural) electrical current Dark Energy.
an interesting article

Nice analogy ... in what ways do you think it could help develop testable hypotheses?

[Sputnick]

Chris - I don't mean this as an insult, but while your posts display some level of education some of your posts are deliberately antagonistic, and very often too immature intellectually for me to respond to or to read from this point on. If I can block your posts I will.

[apodman]

Chris - I don't mean this as an insult, but while your posts display some level of education some of your posts are deliberately antagonistic, and very often too immature intellectually for me to respond to or to read from this point on. If I can block your posts I will.

... alcohol

Block my posts too, please. I would be honored to be considered as intellectually immature as Chris.

[Nereid]

Hello All,

I think I read Chris's answer to mean that there are no theories on DM. There are observations and a number of facts possibly but not enough along some hypotheses to support a theory. Rigorous, repeatable testing in all aspects af an idea is needed to become theory. And a theory, as we all know from this forum, is a collection facts proving a hypothesis and that it is not, itself, a fact.

If I may, it's a little more involved, or complicated, than that.

There are several classes of astronomical observations, most of which amount to tens of thousands to millions of individual observations (and TB of data), of hundreds to millions of objects, which can be accounted for ('explained')^ by just a few lines of text (tied to well-established, textbook, physics). Whether you choose to call these few lines of text 'theory', or 'hypotheses', or 'models, is somewhat arbitrary; the point is that an extraordinarily simple concept has astonishing explanatory power. Furthermore, it also has great predictive power, in that analyses of a set of new observations of a newly discovered strong gravitational lens (say) are well within what you can predict, using these few lines of text.

Even better, this simple concept is very fertile in the sense of the ease with which testable hypotheses can be derived from it, especially given the enormous range of astronomical observations (and objects) it applies to.

And tested it has been ... there are hundreds and hundreds of papers on Dark Matter, seeking to nail down its nature through ever more ingenious and powerful techniques.

Over in particle physics land, the collection of models/theories which has amazing explanatory and predictive power is called the Standard Model (SM) of particle physics. However, there are some jolly good puzzles here, based on well-established classes of observations across an astonishing range of phenomena, that point to SM's incompleteness. Many extensions to SM have been proposed, possibly thousands by now. Common to many are sets of symmetries whose breaking produces new classes of particles hitherto unobserved here on Earth (or in cosmic rays); among those are some which are predicted to be heavy, blind to the EM force (and, for some, the strong force too), ... and stable. There are also some which predict light stable particles.

And I could go on, and on ... but the bottom line is that there are very good reasons for thinking that the zoo of particles so far known is far from complete, and that there may well be at least one stable particle, as yet unknown, with properties that would match well the totality of conclusions drawn from astronomical observations.

Early on I went down many roads with regard to other peoples ideas of the way things work in our universe and didn't know what to believe. I realised I was following a lot of great ideas and hypotheses by some very educated people. But, while there were facts leading me to a plausible theory, there wasn't ever enough to BE theory.

There are scientists in mainstream who have different ideas concerning the way things work but they, above all know that the hypotheses need to be proven no matter hoh sensible or logical they may sound. Tough lesson for me but one that now saves me time and energy by looking for supported evidence no matter how attractive the idea may be.

Indeed.

And may I add that, in my experience, a near-universal feature of 'alternatives' that can be found on thousands of websites (and which are sometimes introduced into this forum) is a lack of any suggestion whatsoever as to how these idea may be tested. Of course, only astronomical tests are directly relevant in this forum.

^ 'explanation' here has a rather more precise meaning that the all-too-common handwaving you so often read; it includes things like objective estimates of goodness of fit, and quantitative analyses.

[Nereid]

The Electro-Magnetic Radiation Pressure (EMRP) Gravity Theory
© Engineer Xavier Borg - Blaze Labs Research

Abstract

This paper aims at providing a satisfying theory for the yet unknown mechanism for gravity...

That's as far as I need to get to write this off. No responsible or respectable scientist would say this. This single sentence puts the author into crackpot/pseudoscience territory. A scientist proposing an alternate theory (particularly where the primary theory is well supported by mainstream research) cannot ignore the status quo. It would be reasonable to say "This paper aims at providing a theory of gravity that does not require GR. While GR has demonstrated great success in explaining our observations of gravity, it fails..." But by disregarding completely current theory, he turns away scientific readers. If you want a new idea to be accepted by a community, you'd better play by the rules!

Of course, if your mainstream 'community', Chris, holds that the world is flat as was the rigidly enforced doctrine not many years past among a culture living a barbaric mentality in almost every aspect of life, and someone suggests it the planet is a sphere, you will be severely challenged, and probably barbaric things will be done to you, the least of which would be that you would be told you are a crackpot and you had better play by the rules .. the 'or else' coming on the second warning if you are lucky, or perhaps that warning being repressed and the unorthodox espouser of contrary but truthful thought led directly to denial of an educational diploma or beheading. Should such barbarism remain 'the way' in science?

Why not test your perceptions of the nature of science, Sputnick?

And if you feel so passionately about it, why not apply what is surely one of the most stringent tests imaginable ... start on the path to getting a PhD in astronomy?

Or, if you don't like the way this forum is run, why not start your own, where you can write any rules you wish and define its scope in any way you like?

But above all, your post contains a logical fallacy that is sometimes called 'the strawman', or so it seems to me ... are you familiar with this? and do you see how you have employed it here?

[bystander]

I think I read Chris's answer to mean that there are no theories on DM. There are observations and a number of facts possibly but not enough along some hypotheses to support a theory. Rigorous, repeatable testing in all aspects af an idea is needed to become theory. And a theory, as we all know from this forum, is a collection facts proving a hypothesis and that it is not, itself, a fact. Early on I went down many roads with regard to other peoples ideas of the way things work in our universe and didn't know what to believe. I realised I was following a lot of great ideas and hypotheses by some very educated people. But, while there were facts leading me to a plausible theory, there wasn't ever enough to BE theory.

There are scientists in mainstream who have different ideas concerning the way things work but they, above all know that the hypotheses need to be proven no matter hoh sensible or logical they may sound. Tough lesson for me but one that now saves me time and energy by looking for supported evidence no matter how attractive the idea may be.

emphasis mine

Scientific theory, unlike mathematics, can never really be proven. The preponderance of evidence and the ability of the theory to explain, and to make useful predictions about, observable phenomena can only serve to make that theory more acceptable. Even the most widely accepted theories usually require modification as more information becomes available.

[Nereid]

Speculation - if Dark Matter is reality and consists of a nearly infinite number of undetectable or nearly undetectable tiny particles it will almost certainly be affected by the heat of galaxies and stars.

A form of 'dark matter' is already known, but it is 'hot' rather than 'cold' (it is, however, non-baryonic) ... neutrinos. These fit your description extremely well, and so can be used to test your idea.

As Chris P has already pointed out, such dark matter is not "affected by the heat of galaxies and stars".

So if something so early in the chain of logic has been shown to be inapplicable (or, if you prefer, 'wrong'), then there's no need to consider the rest, is there?

As we all know when heat interacts with liquids or gasses currents of flow are begun. This flow could then affect for instance the 700 Galaxy clusters heading south .. that effect being the carrying of those clusters within the current. Also, it is my understanding that when currents in liquids or gasses move and react with the main body of liquid or gas, electrical charges can be generated. Can the movement of Dark Matter currents within the main body of Dark Matter not generate Dark Energy (those energies perhaps beginning to flow in their own currents

As you have described it, no.

But even if the answer were something like a qualified yes, how would - could! - one go about testing it?

- and therefore leading to observations upon which Plasma Cosmology is based?

OMG! Sputnick, I'll try to be as gentle as I can ... this comment of yours shows a deep misunderstanding of PC. How well do you think you understand it? For example, what is the status of General Relativity within PC? Another one: what, in PC, is the explanation for the Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect? (and why are these highly pertinent questions wrt your post?)

If I may, I suggest, nay recommend, that you take the time to engage in the discussion in another thread here, on the nature of 'observations' and the extent to which any modern astronomical observations can be said to be 'theory-free'.

[astrolabe]

Hello All,

Feels kinda lonely when I look at the bottom of the page and see that I'm the only one "browsing" the forum. It's like being the only thing grazing in a field...........oh well.

Hello Sput thank you for your kind remarks. I followed this thread and read every word of every point and counterpoint but felt the point was not arrived at even though all you smart people knew the point. A lot of swinging but no knockouts. Coupla shiners, but no harm done. Clarity is where it's at anyway......Ya think?

As for the flat Earth, it was a product of the times and a lack of knowledge of course. Accepted mainstream theory like the BB is in a sense the flat Earth of today, but even though, if we've learned nothing from the past we've at least learned this: We can only generate Knowledge at a rate that we are capable of in any given generation, assumptions and speculations aside- we"ll always have those. I'm really speaking to the ability to amass hard evidence about our world and beyond. The BBT is the current framework used to put the puzzle together. 50 yrs. from now, 200 yrs. who's to say- the BBT could be hogwash. But for it is the big dog on the block and whether mainstream scientists even like the idea or not doesn't matter. It appears to be more than a passing fad however, and sometimes things within it get improved or disproved but it SEEMS to be currently a working model, albeit in an admitted progressional state.

I know you may have trouble with this as do I. at least because of its incompleteness but if it became an undiniable,inescapable fact? Then it would become the next logical thing- Truth.

[Nereid]

Not that I believe in an Electric Universe Theory but...Consider this:
The Universe on a micro scale (relatively speaking of course), Galactic scale, can not readily transfer electrons due to the vast distances between normal matter particles that could carry the charge. However, the universe consists of only 4% of this type of matter. There is the other, darker matter to consider too. We have only surmised it's existance due to the gravity needed to hold things together. If Dark Matter does exist, it might also have extrordinary electrical properties yet to be discovered. In fact, the Dark Energy used to explain the Expansion might also be electrical in nature.
When you look at the Universe on the Macro-scale though, It more resembles the Brain of a living organism. With Neurons coupled together by Dendrites creating a vast spiderweb like structure with electrical impulses carrying innformation between the neurons.
The Neurons would be replaced by galaxies & galaxy clusters acting as that structure with Dark Matter then replacing the Dendrites that tie everything together and finally Dark Energy being the neural current that flows through the ties to reinforce and create new ones. These new ties would then force an overall expansion in the area as they are formed. Since the Dark Matter Dendrites are being reinforced and created constantly, the Universe in turn constantly expands, being driven by the universal (neural) electrical current Dark Energy.
an interesting article

Bmaone - thanks - I've had the same thoughts myself. I hope no one will say such ideas are absurd, remembering that at one time any thought other than our planet was flat was considered absurd .. and also considered absurd was the belief held by some peoples that even a rock is alive - and of course we know how 'alive' a rock can become when we witness a nuclear explosion. There are of course those who will question the definition of 'life' - and of course that definition is hotly debated on many scientific levels by many highly educated people.

I missed this earlier ...

Sputnick, I have already written a post on part of BMAONE23's post (that you quoted), saying that the idea, as presented, is (in effect) absurd ... actually, it's worse, it's internally inconsistent ('Dark Matter' by definition cannot "have extrordinary electrical properties yet to be discovered").

But there seems to be another logical fallacy in this post of yours, which you'll see summed up in other fora by a reference to something Sagan (?) said; it goes something like this: "they laughed at Galileo, yet he was right; true, but they also laughed at Bozo the Clown".

Surely the really interesting question is how does one go about telling absurd ideas from really cool ones?

[apodman]

Scientific theory, unlike mathematics, can never really be proven.

Agreed a thousand times over. No matter how many people say this how many times, it will still be true and I will still agree.

On the other hand, I live not too far from Aberdeen Proving Ground. They prove that weapons work. They don't prove that every weapon will always work. Not that this is the definition we should use, either. It just led me finally to look up "prove", and the mathematical stuff we all continually cite is way down the list of definitions.

So I for one have dispensed with my knee-jerk reaction against casual and common uses of the words "prove" and "proven". As far as I'm concerned, everyone here is welcome to use "prove" and "proven" as they wish, and the words will carry as much or as little meaning as the statement they are in can support.

... like the BB is in a sense the flat Earth of today ...

(Note: I'm commenting on the phrases, not on anything else in astrolabe's point.)

Is this some kind of mantra? Why do people repeat it over and over? Beyond a few superficial and non-useful statements one can make to compare big bang with flat earth, there is no similarity between the two concepts, their acceptance, or the framework in which they are/were being considered. Continued placement of the two terms in the same sentence doesn't make a point no matter how often it is repeated. Saying one is like the other is, IMHO, simply ridiculous.

And just for the record, there were more than a few ancients who knew the earth wasn't flat. Anyone who considered the earth's shadow on the moon had a pretty good hint. Those who didn't know the earth was round (non-sailors, non-astronomers) didn't need to know. A flat earth worked fine for those who didn't travel far. It's still my preferred model when I get around my home county using a roadmap. Kinda like knowing when to use Newton's law of universal gravitation and when to supplement it with GR.

Feels kinda lonely when I look at the bottom of the page and see that I'm the only one "browsing" the forum.

You're not as alone as phpBB would indicate. It never says I'm here even when I am. There's a phpBB login option to let others know I'm present, but I'm not so sure it works. The forum could be full of cold non-baryonic browsers, and with my EM detection methods I would never know it.

Surely the really interesting question is how does one go about telling absurd ideas from really cool ones?

Ooh, ooh, ooh, I know! But I want to let Sputnick answer.