Questions on the big bang expanding universe.

[Native]

Can't be bothered, frankly - I've posted a lot over the past few days. If you want point out where I supposedly didn't grasp something about dimensions, feel free, otherwise don't.

Well, mayby you should concentrate on fewer posts and hold onto the replies.

 

[Native]

There is no "timeless source" - we aren't talking about a source of any kind, it's more like a container. Remember, this is a theory for which we have extensive evidence, not a baseless intuitive or religious belief.

You keep on talking of "intuition" which I´ve asked you for your definition some posts ago. So once again, what is your definition of "intuition"?

You also claim the General Relativity to be flawless and fully confirmed and I linked you to the subject of "cosmological problems" but I never heard from you in this matter.

 

[ratiocinator]

Well, mayby you should concentrate on fewer posts and hold onto the replies.

So, you don't actually want to point out where I supposedly didn't grasp something about dimensions, then? Another problem is that you, and your favourite video presenter clearly don't have a clue about dimensions, so it's difficult for me to get what part of what I said you might think is wrong.

Anyway, as I said before, I'll happily address any specific points you have but you don't seem to want to....

You keep on talking of "intuition" which I´ve asked you for your definition some posts ago. So once again, what is your definition of "intuition"?

I'm not using an unusual definition, the dictionary definition is fine: "The ability to understand something instinctively, without the need for conscious reasoning." or "A thing that one knows or considers likely from instinctive feeling rather than conscious reasoning." The important point being that it is what you feel is right rather than basing a conclusion on evidence or reasoning.

You also claim the General Relativity to be flawless and fully confirmed and I linked you to the subject of "cosmological problems" but I never heard from you in this matter.

I don't consider if flawless, except in the sense that nobody has yet found a flaw in all the tests we've done, because it is almost certainly an approximation of some theory that unites it with quantum field theory. Your link is about cosmological problems, rather than direct problems with relativity.

I'm not actually trying to tell anybody here what the answer to the origin of the universe is, I've actually pointed out multiple hypotheses, but taking GR seriously gives us the space-time manifold view which must be better than just guessing based on intuition.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Because you don't seem to understand the concept - as demonstrated here:

There is no "timeless source" - we aren't talking about a source of any kind, it's more like a container. Remember, this is a theory for which we have extensive evidence, not a baseless intuitive or religious belief.

So if I understand you correctly, the timeless container is not where the manifest universe had it origin because the universe is without an origin of any kind, ie. it is sourceless.

And what is this extensive evidence that there is no source of any kind for the universe?
.

 

[ratiocinator]

So if I understand you correctly, the timeless container is not where the manifest universe had it origin because the universe is without an origin of any kind, ie. it is sourceless.

Yes - the universe, including time, would not have had an origin.

And what is this extensive evidence that there is no source of any kind for the universe?

As I said, the extensive evidence is for the theory (general relativity) on which this picture is based, so consists of all the successful predictions of the theory. To the extent we have been able to test it, the universe behaves according to the GR model.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Yes - the universe, including time, would not have had an origin.

As I said, the extensive evidence is for the theory (general relativity) on which this picture is based, so consists of all the successful predictions of the theory. To the extent we have been able to test it, the universe behaves according to the GR model.

I don't get how the universe does not have a source, how is this not a universe arises from absolute nothing model, apparently in an eternal timeless container that happens to exist for the universe to reside in?

 

[ratiocinator]

I don't get how the universe does not have a source, how is this not a universe arises from absolute nothing model...

Because the space-time didn't start to exist. It cannot be subject to time because time is internal to it.

...apparently in an eternal timeless container that happens to exist for the universe to reside in?

Yes. We have no idea why it exists or even if the question makes any sense - much like god(s) in that respect, except that we know the universe does actually exist...

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Because the space-time didn't start to exist. It cannot be subject to time because time is internal to it.


Yes. We have no idea why it exists or even if the question makes any sense - much like god(s) in that respect, except that we know the universe does actually exist...

Ok, that appears to be a 100% something from nothing imho?

You should rephrase this as it does not make sense, you seem to be saying we don't know why the universe exists but we know the universe exists. The correct phraseology should be, imho, we know why the universe exists, it is because it exists.

 

[ratiocinator]

Ok, that appears to be a 100% something from nothing imho?

Except it isn't. I've tried multiple times to explain but the bottom line is: if there was never a time at which nothing existed, then it can't possibly be something from nothing.

You should rephrase this as it does not make sense, you seem to be saying we don't know why the universe exists but we know the universe exists. The correct phraseology should be, imho, we know why the universe exists, it is because it exists.

Why?

 

[Native]

So, you don't actually want to point out where I supposedly didn't grasp something about dimensions, then

This was excactly what I did when posting the video - which underlines the highly specualtive perceptions in modern cosmology.

Another problem is that you, and your favourite video presenter clearly don't have a clue about dimensions, so it's difficult for me to get what part of what I said you might think is wrong.

The posted video isn´t "my favorite video or video presenter" and it/he just pointed out the cosmological nonsens of having a "time-dimension" added to the consensus 3 dimension in space.

You CAN add a time-calculation to human made objects in space but NOT to the Universe.

Native said: ↑
You keep on talking of "intuition" which I´ve asked you for your definition some posts ago. So once again, what is your definition of "intuition"?

I'm not using an unusual definition, the dictionary definition is fine: "The ability to understand something instinctively, without the need for conscious reasoning.

I´ll go for that, except from the term "instinctivily" which IMO should be "an immediate knowledge" of something. "Instinct" is more related to animals and "gut feelings".

The important point being that it is what you feel is right rather than basing a conclusion on evidence or reasoning.

You´re totally missing what your definition say. It´s not a "feeling" but a "factual knowledge WITHOUT reasoning" - according to the very definition.

You can make all kinds of "reasoning conclusions" of everything cosmological - and you can find all kinds of observations which you can add to your biased cosmological theories - but you can´t beat intuitive informations.

Native said: ↑
You also claim the General Relativity to be flawless and fully confirmed and I linked you to the subject of "cosmological problems" but I never heard from you in this matter.

I don't consider if flawless, except in the sense that nobody has yet found a flaw in all the tests we've done, . . .

That doesn´t convince me at all as your very basic favorite theory initially can be wrong and all observations interpreted in hindsigt as "evidences".

Your link is about cosmological problems, rather than direct problems with relativity.

So why does the link refer to "List of unsolved problems in physics#cosmology and General Relativity" as written in plain text here -
List of unsolved problems in physics - Wikipedia

Obvious you didn´t take the time to read the linked contents and ponder over it´s relations and problems in General Relativity. This is why I told you to go back in the former issue of "dimensions". You didnt watch the video to its end and now you even don´t open and a provided link.

Having said this, you are excellent in posting lots of replies which isn´t founded on much other but cosmological convensus believes.

I'm not actually trying to tell anybody here what the answer to the origin of the universe is, I've actually pointed out multiple hypotheses, but taking GR seriously gives us the space-time manifold view which must be better than just guessing based on intuition.

I suggest you to read the linked contents about the cosmological problems in General Relativity before you take it as the supreme cosmological knowledge.

And I also suggest you to get the "intuition" definition correct and understand it correct before using it.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Except it isn't. I've tried multiple times to explain but the bottom line is: if there was never a time at which nothing existed, then it can't possibly be something from nothing.

Why?

That is a play on words, in reality it means that before the time of the bb, nothing existed. Anything amiss with that statement?

Because Y is a crooked letter and Z's no better! Seriously, it exists because non-existence does not exist. I see your problem though, you imagine that your mind is capable of understanding reality beyond your pay grade. In fact I suspect you do not even know what an electron is. What is the shape of an electron? What is it constituted of? Etc., etc..?

 

[ratiocinator]

This was excactly what I did when posting the video

Like I said, the video was scientifically illiterate nonsense from the start to the blatant, barefaced lie about what Hawking said about a globe. I've invited you to pick something from it that you think is valid and I'll tell you specifically why it isn't; you haven't done so yet...

The posted video isn´t "my favorite video or video presenter" and it/he just pointed out the cosmological nonsens of having a "time-dimension" added to the consensus 3 dimension in space.

But he did no such thing. None of his illiterate nonsense did anything to undermine the model. It's clearly a propaganda video designed to confuse and indoctrinate people with little or no scientific knowledge.

When we use the space-time model, the answers we get match reality. That is the one and only scientific test of any theory.

That doesn´t convince me at all as your very basic favorite theori initially can be wrong and all observations interpreted in hindsigt as evidences.

They can't possibly be hindsight if the predictions were in the public domain before the confirming experiments and observations - which they were.

 

[Native]

As I said, the extensive evidence is for the theory (general relativity) on which this picture is based, so consists of all the successful predictions of the theory. To the extent we have been able to test it, the universe behaves according to the GR model.

Oh, so you and your followers have "tested the Universe"? Nonsens, the only thing which is tested is your assumptive cosmological model and all the rest of it´s assumptions - which has it problems you should know by know.

Do you know of the danish poet, Hans Christian Andersen? He who wrote "The Emperors Cloth"?

 

[ratiocinator]

That is a play on words, in reality it means that before the time of the bb, nothing existed. Anything amiss with that statement?

Only in the same sense as there is nothing on the surface of the earth that is north of the north pole. It doesn't mean that something came from nothing because nothing never existed. "Before the BB" does not refer to a time, just as "north of the north pole" doesn't refer to a place on the surface of the earth.

I see your problem though, you imagine that your mind is capable of understanding reality beyond your pay grade.

It appears to be you who are doing that - I said that I didn't know if there was a reason why the space-time existed or even if it was a valid question. It's you who wanted to answer it.

In fact I suspect you do not even know what an electron is. What is the shape of an electron? What is it constituted of?

I suspect I know somewhat more than most on the subject. To the extent it has a shape, an electron is considered to be a point, and it is an excitation of a quantum field.

 

[ratiocinator]

Oh, so you and your followers have "tested the Universe"?

I don't have followers, and we have tested many aspects of the theory against reality, i.e. how the universe behaves. I didn't mean to imply that we've tested the whole universe - but every time we do any experiment or make any observation, we are collecting evidence of how the universe behaves.

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
That doesn´t convince me at all as your very basic favorite theori initially can be wrong and all observations interpreted in hindsigt as evidences.

They can't possibly be hindsight if the predictions were in the public domain before the confirming experiments and observations - which they were.

That doesn´t matter at all as several cosmological models are inconsistent and insufficient long before its ideas hits any paper at all and as long factual observations is interpreted in favor (biased) of a certain theory which then is called "predictions".

 

[Native]

I don't have followers, and we have tested many aspects of the theory against reality, i.e. how the universe behaves. I didn't mean to imply that we've tested the whole universe - but every time we do any experiment or make any observation, we are collecting evidence of how the universe behaves.

Don´t give us such self-imagined nonsense! As long as cosmological scientists haven´t come up with a consensus Theory of Everyting, you should hold a much lower profile with a humble attitude.

You´re using cosmological statements much like a proponent of Jehova´s Wittnesses are taking biblical paragraphs uncritically as evidences.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Native said: ↑
That doesn´t convince me at all as your very basic favorite theori initially can be wrong and all observations interpreted in hindsigt as evidences.

That doesn´t matter at all as several cosmological models are inconsistent and insufficient long before its ideas hits any paper at all abd as long factual observations is interpreted in favor (biased) of a certain theory which then is called "predictions".

Is this just rhetoric and projection or can you support your claims for once?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Don´t give us such self-imagined nonsense! As long as cosmological scientists haven´t come up with a consensus Theory of Everyting, you should hold a much lower profile.

You´re using cosmological statements much like a proponent of Jehova´s Wittnesses are taking biblical paragraphs as evidences.

Nope, we don't need a Theory of Everything to see that we do know something. You really should try to understand the scientific method and how we advance using it.

 

[ratiocinator]

That doesn´t matter at all as several cosmological models are inconsistent and insufficient long before its ideas hits any paper at all abd as long factual observations is interpreted in favor (biased) of a certain theory which then is called "predictions".

That doesn't even make sense. The predictions of GR (the first being about perihelion precession of Mercury) were precise, numerical, and available well before the observations.