Questions on the big bang expanding universe.

[Ben Dhyan]

Religion are about what to believe and follow. Philosophies are about what to believe and follow. Political views are about what to believe and follow. Opinions are what to believe.

Beliefs are about subjective views on what are possible and what are impossible.

And since belief are subjective, different people can have different beliefs or different opinions.

Science is about the available verifiable evidence, verifiable observations or verifiable data - the more the better.

Evidence are the objective ways to determine if the natural or physical phenomena are probable or improbable.

You can question or challenge any current explanatory/predictive model with alternative models, but the alternatives must be subjected to testing...hence requiring evidence to back the alternatives.

But if there are no evidence or all the evidence refute/debunk the models, then the alternative models are wrong.

I think it is silly to follow any models that have no verifiable evidence to back up the concepts/explanations.

The only possible reasons to believe and follow a zero-evidence model, is that the people allow their biases to decide the preferences for the models, hence not based on the available physical evidence.

Take for instance, Michael Behe, supposedly the expert witness for Intelligent Design in the Kitzmiller vs Dover Area School District trial (2005).

Behe admitted during being cross examined, that there are no evidence (observations, data), no original research and no peer review for ID, and yet, he still strongly advocated ID.

Behe is an example of scientist who allowed his religious belief biased his works...works based on belief, not on scientific evidence.

As biochemist, he has disgraced himself, making up all sorts of excuses for ID.

Apparently you do not understand that understanding is not the same thing as belief. If a young boy learns to ride a bicycle, he then understands how to ride a bicycle, it's not a matter of belief. Now there may be a case where another boy believes he can ride a bicycle and keeps falling off because he does not understand yet.. Do you see the difference?

This is true for all learning, the artist, the athlete, the scholar, etc... True understanding in whatever area of interest you have is not just understanding, it's also about what you do not understand. Belief can play a role at the beginning of an endeavor as a confidence thing that one will eventually gain mastery, ie. true understanding, but it naturally falls away as true understanding is realized.

Wrt religion since it seems to be a pet hatred of yours', you need to know that you would have to spend decades in, say for example, meditative practice to understand what the state of samadhi is in the context of cosmic being. And obviously you would need to believe it was real and attainable to make the sacrifice to devote that amount of time and effort out of your life to realize it. And it is probably true like the boy who keeps falling off his bike, that the aspirant's ego falls into a false belief at some point that they have realized enlightenment when it wasn't. So yes, belief is not understanding, but I dare say every aspirant that ever travels the path will have their falls due to mistaking belief for true understanding. As the saying goes, many are called but few are chosen.

 

[gnostic]

I am not a part of establishment science, and my interest is so broad it covers everything, but one does one's best.

So what?

You don’t think I don’t have wide areas of interests?

You don’t think @Subduction Zone, @ratiocinator, @Polymath257, @shunyadragon and others have all broad interests too?

I don’t know about many of them their educational and work backgrounds, but some of them are strong in maths and/or science.

My (formal) tertiary education have all been applied science, so most of science are based on the courses I have done - civil engineering in the mid-80s and computer science between the mid- and late 90s.

For instance, in my computer hardware subjects, I needs to learn not only electrical or electronic components, but also some basic working knowledge on physics of electricity. Likewise in my network subjects, I needs to have some basics on physics of electromagnetism (eg radiowave, microwaves and infrared for wireless network, laser for optic fibers), optics (eg reflection, refraction), etc.

In my engineering subjects, the same things occurred, they only taught science that are relevant to the course.

My points in all this, is that none of these subjects did in my courses, taught me more advanced physics, like Relativity, Particle Physics, Quantum Mechanics, Nuclear Physics, superconductors, astronomy, astrophysics, etc.

These are all of interests to me, but I have never study any of them in formal studies. So to acquaint myself in these other fields, I learn what I can, from textbooks and in some peer-reviewed articles, and by asking questions.

I don’t claim to be expert in any of them, and I have never referred to myself as a “physicist”. I always considered myself to be “engineer”.

But I have other interests in non-scientific subjects, like art and architecture, literature, history, geography, mythology, etc...and many more.

It is all about been curious on anything that fascinates me.

 

[ValdresRose]

The only possible reasons to believe and follow a zero-evidence model, is that the people allow their biases to decide the preferences for the models, hence not based on the available physical evidence.

We have all read about Time slowing down, or speeding up. The only way we can measure Time intervals is by using matter, atoms or molecules. So, is it matter that is changing when it is subjected to high speeds (velocities) and gravitation, or is it Time?

If all the matter in the Universe was accumulated into 1 gigantic sphere, would there be such a thing as Time?

Have you, Gnostic, found any physical evidence that Time is either slowing down or speeding up? or physical evidence that matter slows down when subjected to high speeds? Perhaps this weighs heavy on your quote above?

This could be very useful if we want to retrieve photons from atoms in a controlled environment.

 

[gnostic]

Apparently you do not understand that understanding is not the same thing as belief. If a young boy learns to ride a bicycle, he then understands how to ride a bicycle, it's not a matter of belief. Now there may be a case where another boy believes he can ride a bicycle and keeps falling off because he does not understand yet.. Do you see the difference?

This is true for all learning, the artist, the athlete, the scholar, etc... True understanding in whatever area of interest you have is not just understanding, it's also about what you do not understand. Belief can play a role at the beginning of an endeavor as a confidence thing that one will eventually gain mastery, ie. true understanding, but it naturally falls away as true understanding is realized.

Wrt religion since it seems to be a pet hatred of yours', you need to know that you would have to spend decades in, say for example, meditative practice to understand what the state of samadhi is in the context of cosmic being. And obviously you would need to believe it was real and attainable to make the sacrifice to devote that amount of time and effort out of your life to realize it. And it is probably true like the boy who keeps falling off his bike, that the aspirant's ego falls into a false belief at some point that they have realized enlightenment when it wasn't. So yes, belief is not understanding, but I dare say every aspirant that ever travels the path will have their falls due to mistaking belief for true understanding. As the saying goes, many are called but few are chosen.

You think I hate religions?

That’s not the case.

You don’t know me...

My problems are more to do with people’s interpretations of religious literature - people who take the religious literature out of context, such as trying to turn scriptures into a book of history or book of science, when clearly they are not.

I would prefer to understand the scriptures as they are, as much as in their original contexts as the English translations would allow them, because they were written for the people of that time, who may or may not have working knowledge of history or science.

If they have no scientific merits, then I would appreciate the works for what they are, and not something they are not.

For instances, I love reading myths, such as Homer’s Iliad or Sophocles’ Oedipus Rex, or Euripides’ Medea, for what they are - ancient literary masterpieces. It is a terrible mistakes to treat them as history, when clearly they are not.

You will often see me arguing with other people here at RF, about the story of 6-day creation or story of Adam and Eve, not because I hate these stories, but because I dislike people’s modern interpretations to these stories, trying to twist them as either science treatises or as historical records, when they are not.

The stories of creation and the flood are actually my favourite parts in Genesis and the whole Bible.

Do you understand what I am telling you?

 

[Subduction Zone]

We have all read about Time slowing down, or speeding up. The only way we can measure Time intervals is by using matter, atoms or molecules. So, is it matter that is changing when it is subjected to high speeds (velocities) and gravitation, or is it Time?

If all the matter in the Universe was accumulated into 1 gigantic sphere, would there be such a thing as Time?

Have you, Gnostic, found any physical evidence that Time is either slowing down or speeding up? or physical evidence that matter slows down when subjected to high speeds? Perhaps this weighs heavy on your quote above?

This could be very useful if we want to retrieve photons from atoms in a controlled environment.

Have you ever used the GPS on your phone?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

So what?

You don’t think I don’t have wide areas of interests?

You don’t think @Subduction Zone, @ratiocinator, @Polymath257, @shunyadragon and others have all broad interests too?

I don’t know about many of them their educational and work backgrounds, but some of them are strong in maths and/or science.

My (formal) tertiary education have all been applied science, so most of science are based on the courses I have done - civil engineering in the mid-80s and computer science between the mid- and late 90s.

For instance, in my computer hardware subjects, I needs to learn not only electrical or electronic components, but also some basic working knowledge on physics of electricity. Likewise in my network subjects, I needs to have some basics on physics of electromagnetism (eg radiowave, microwaves and infrared for wireless network, laser for optic fibers), optics (eg reflection, refraction), etc.

In my engineering subjects, the same things occurred, they only taught science that are relevant to the course.

My points in all this, is that none of these subjects did in my courses, taught me more advanced physics, like Relativity, Particle Physics, Quantum Mechanics, Nuclear Physics, superconductors, astronomy, astrophysics, etc.

These are all of interests to me, but I have never study any of them in formal studies. So to acquaint myself in these other fields, I learn what I can, from textbooks and in some peer-reviewed articles, and by asking questions.

I don’t claim to be expert in any of them, and I have never referred to myself as a “physicist”. I always considered myself to be “engineer”.

But I have other interests in non-scientific subjects, like art and architecture, literature, history, geography, mythology, etc...and many more.

It is all about been curious on anything that fascinates me.

So what?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

You think I hate religions?

That’s not the case.

You don’t know me...

My problems are more to do with people’s interpretations of religious literature - people who take the religious literature out of context, such as trying to turn scriptures into a book of history or book of science, when clearly they are not.

I would prefer to understand the scriptures as they are, as much as in their original contexts as the English translations would allow them, because they were written for the people of that time, who may or may not have working knowledge of history or science.

If they have no scientific merits, then I would appreciate the works for what they are, and not something they are not.

For instances, I love reading myths, such as Homer’s Iliad or Sophocles’ Oedipus Rex, or Euripides’ Medea, for what they are - ancient literary masterpieces. It is a terrible mistakes to treat them as history, when clearly they are not.

You will often see me arguing with other people here at RF, about the story of 6-day creation or story of Adam and Eve, not because I hate these stories, but because I dislike people’s modern interpretations to these stories, trying to twist them as either science treatises or as historical records, when they are not.

The stories of creation and the flood are actually my favourite parts in Genesis and the whole Bible.

Do you understand what I am telling you?

Yes, but I don't understand why you are upset with misinterpretations of religious literature.

 

[ratiocinator]

We have all read about Time slowing down, or speeding up. The only way we can measure Time intervals is by using matter, atoms or molecules. So, is it matter that is changing when it is subjected to high speeds (velocities) and gravitation, or is it Time?

Which is why you apply the scientific method. You build hypotheses that make testable predictions and you test them against reality using observations and/or experiments. The conclusion with regard to space, time, and gravity, is that general relativity is the best model.

Also velocity is always relative, so there really isn't such a thing as a "high speeds" in any absolute sense. Time dilation due to speed is symmetrical; both observers see the other's time running slower. This is easy to understand if you adopt the geometric notion of space-time.

 

[Native]

I have said repeatedly that I don't "fully believe" in it.

Well, you certainly act as you fully believe in everything in GR without questioning anything.

Are you just not paying attention or is the misrepresentation deliberate?

Yes I am but my replies deals with the problematic/questionable parts of different cosmological theories. Parts which all too often is "confirmed" by adding more assumptions to former assumptions which are contradicted. And yes I know "this is the scientific method", but IMO it really isn´t.

And open questions in cosmology do not necessarily mean problems with the theory.

When/if a theory is contradicted, the entire theory must be revised and eventually abandoned instead of adding assumptions.

 

[ratiocinator]

Well, you certainly act as you fully believe in everything in GR withtou questioning anything.

What I'm actually trying to do here is point out that we have a theory which although we know cannot be the final answer (because we need to have a theory that combines it with QFT), is very well tested, and so is far superior to guessing, intuition, or faith.

When/if a theory is contradicted, the entire theory must be revised and eventually abandoned instead of adding assumptions.

Yes - if there is a direct contradiction, but things we don't understand do not always mean that the underlying theory is wrong. In addition, the cosmological model is distinct from GR (even though it relies on it as a theoretical basis). Dark matter, for example, is pretty well established as actual matter - we can even map where it is - so it doesn't represent a challenge to the underlying theories (well, not GR anyway, it does challenge the standard model). Dark energy may be more of a problem but again we are into the intersection of GR and QFT because we actually would expect something like dark energy from QFT but it's orders of magnitude different from what we observe.

 

[Native]

Thanks. We're on the same 'page' so it was nice to read your comments. For the past couple days I was getting a weird feeling about reality.

Our Posts in this Thread are going off the original OP's concerned and I was wondering yesterday if we could start a new thread that gets closer to the topic.

I notice your 'mini' comment about time. I'll stick my neck out, Time doesn't exist in the Natural Universe!! The concept of Time is a human imagination, invented by humans. We don't use Time, we use Time intervals, we have no applications for Time, only for Time intervals. Without Time intervals we have basically no use for Time. One of the reasons we have confusion about Time is because the only way we can measure Time intervals is by using 'matter', either atoms or molecules. We need to reason out the possibility that molecular motion changes with change of speed or strong gravitation influence. Since that can't be measured without Time intervals we're stuck, unless we reason it out.

Agreed

The "natural time-perception" is much different from the perception in modern cosmological science as "time" here is connected to all kinds of motions in space, included the highly speculative idea of a "Big Bang".

Our ancestors took "motions in space" as a cyclical process and not as the linear measuring method in math and modern science. In some Myths of Creation it is stated that some atomic elements are eternal and that everything undergoes an eternal formation, dissolution and re-formation - quite opposite the modern speculations of a linear Big Bang.

In such a cyclical process of formation, this takes place via BOTH an attractive and repulsive force wich cannot be explained by the assumed "one direction force of gravity". Only an electromagnetic force can make such a formational process.

 

[Native]

Unfortunately our science deniers have no clue as to what the scientific method is or even understand the concept of rational reasoning. Like most true believers they are only looking for excuses to believe. When one tries to get them to understand the basics of science, by which I mean the scientific method and the concept of evidence, they will simply run away.

You and other "scientific proponents" confuses the comments of many "science deniers" as having no ideas of the sceintific methods, where in fact many "deniers" simply are doing your own job of questioning the cosmological interpretations from alternate point of views.

Unfortunately many proponents are themselves running away for doing their own independent critical analysis and thinking. They are just staying in the trap of scientific dogmatism which is on the level of religious dogmatism.

 

[Native]

ben d said: ↑
Tut tut, remember the importance of succinctness.
Here, have a listen to the very famous physicist Richard Feynman as he explains the scientific and unscientific methods of understanding nature as he teaches future scientists.

So why don't you follow what he teaches?

I bet you didn´t notised anything else but the very title of the video "Feynman on the Scientific Method" and quickly jumped over his pondering philosophical contents.

 

[ratiocinator]

You and other "scientific proponents" confuses the comments of many "science deniers" as having no ideas of the sceintific methods, where in fact many "deniers" simply are doing your own job of questioning the cosmological interpretations from alternate point of views.

Unfortunately many proponents are themselves running away for doing their own independent critical analysis and thinking. They are just staying in the trap of scientific dogmatism which is on the level of religious dogmatism.

The problem is that most of them don't have any idea of the scientific method. Also, in order for this to be true the 'deniers' would actually have to have a reasonable working knowledge of the theories they were trying to criticise and the evidence that supports them. I have yet to meet such a 'denier', either in the real world or online.

 

[Native]

Religion are about what to believe and follow. Philosophies are about what to believe and follow. Political views are about what to believe and follow. Opinions are what to believe.
Beliefs are about subjective views on what are possible and what are impossible.
And since belief are subjective, different people can have different beliefs or different opinions.

Then, what would you call Newton´s initial conclusions of gravity which was his belief and wich later on was refused by Einstein for another belief?

Science is about the available verifiable evidence, verifiable observations or verifiable data - the more the better.

No it´s not. Cosmological ideas all derives from philosophical belief systems - just as in the case of the Natural Philosopher, Newton - and all observations are connected to the initial and prime belief, whether this is right or wrong.

To a large extend observations and experiments in modern cosmology are nothing more by "confirmations on the initial guessworks", apropos the Feynman opening comment in his video posted above.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You and other "scientific proponents" confuses the comments of many "science deniers" as having no ideas of the sceintific methods, where in fact many "deniers" simply are doing your own job of questioning the cosmological interpretations from alternate point of views.

Unfortunately many proponents are themselves running away for doing their own independent critical analysis and thinking. They are just staying in the trap of scientific dogmatism which is on the level of religious dogmatism.

Nope,blind and ignorant questioning is not part of the scientific method. That is what you do. One questions ideas when there is evidence against it. Unanswered questions are not evidence against an idea. There is no dogma in science, but there does appear to be some in science deniers.

 

[Subduction Zone]

ben d said: ↑
Tut tut, remember the importance of succinctness.
Here, have a listen to the very famous physicist Richard Feynman as he explains the scientific and unscientific methods of understanding nature as he teaches future scientists.

I bet you didn´t notised anything else but the very title of the video "Feynman on the Scientific Method" and quickly jumped over his pondering philosophical contents.

No, I watched the whole thing.. You appear to be the uneducated person calling him with silly questions. Do you remember why he didn't respond to silly questions?

 

[Native]

What I'm actually trying to do here is point out that we have a theory which although we know cannot be the final answer (because we need to have a theory that combines it with QFT), is very well tested, and so is far superior to guessing, intuition, or faith.

IMO the theory isn´t "very well tested" when it cannot be connected with other needed models.

Native said: ↑
When/if a theory is contradicted, the entire theory must be revised and eventually abandoned instead of adding assumptions.

Yes - if there is a direct contradiction, but things we don't understand do not always mean that the underlying theory is wrong.

And then you come up with the "dark matter" topic!?

Dark matter, for example, is pretty well established as actual matter - we can even map where it is - so it doesn't represent a challenge to the underlying theories (well, not GR anyway, it does challenge the standard model)

Are you serious!? "Dark matter" was specifically invented when the celestial laws of orbital motions was directly contradicted by the discovey of the galactic rotation curve. "Dark matter" is NOT an "actual matter" but a pure assumption made to resque a former assumption which initially was taken as an scientific universal law of celestial motion.

This was/is certainly one of the obvious examples when at theory should be completely abandoned instead of adding further human assumptions!

"Dark matter" is not a fact at all and you only can assume it´s "existence" by observing and interpreting circumstantial matters" into a cosmological model. Such a "scientific wishful thinking method" certainly is a huge problem for all cosmological models and physics, no matter what the models are called.

The only "dark matter" in this case is that concensus scientists counts the weakest of all fundamental forces of "gravity" to count for everything in the Universe and when these scientists are short for real explanations, they just add "matter and energy" instead of including the other and much stronger fundamental forces and their logical explanations.

Just think of it: If the Universe don´t fit our models or laws and mathematical calculations, we just insert all kinds of human made "dark matter", "heavy dark holes" and "dark energy".

Dear oh dear . . . :-(

 

[Subduction Zone]

IMO the theory isn´t "very well tested" when it cannot be connected with other needed models.

Native said: ↑
When/if a theory is contradicted, the entire theory must be revised and eventually abandoned instead of adding assumptions.

And then you come up with the "dark matter" topic!?

Are you serious!? "Dark matter" was specifically invented when the celestial laws of orbital motions was directly contradicted by the discovey of the galactic rotation curve. "Dark matter" is NOT an "actual matter" but a pure assumption made to resque a former assumption which initially was taken as an scientific universal law.of celestial motion.

"Dark matter" is not a fact at all and you only can assume it´s "existence" by observing and interpreting circumstantial matters" into a cosmological model. Such a "scientific wishful thinking method" certainly is a huge problem for all cosmological models and physics, no matter what the models are called.

Just think of it: If the Universe don´t fit our models or mathematical calculations, we just insert all kinds of human made "dark matter", "heavy dark holes" and "dark energy".

Dear oh dear . . . :-(

My oh my. . . That is some first class ignorance. You are partially right. Dark matter was proposed because galaxies rotate to quickly. It is a testable hypothesis that was later confirmed by more evidence. Unfortunately you do not appear to understand the concept of evidence and like most science deniers refuse to attempt to learn what is and what is not evidence.

 

[Polymath257]

We have all read about Time slowing down, or speeding up. The only way we can measure Time intervals is by using matter, atoms or molecules. So, is it matter that is changing when it is subjected to high speeds (velocities) and gravitation, or is it Time?

If all the matter in the Universe was accumulated into 1 gigantic sphere, would there be such a thing as Time?

Have you, Gnostic, found any physical evidence that Time is either slowing down or speeding up? or physical evidence that matter slows down when subjected to high speeds? Perhaps this weighs heavy on your quote above?

This could be very useful if we want to retrieve photons from atoms in a controlled environment.

First of all, and most importantly, time isn't slowing down when things speed up. The problem with that statement is that there is no absolute notion of speed. ALL uniform velocity is relative.

So, if you are going past me at 75% of the speed of light, I am going past you are 75% of the speed of light in the opposite direction. Either one of us can regard ourselves as at rest and the other moving. Alternatively, there could be a third person that each of us sees as moving and that third person sees the two of us as moving at equal speeds in opposite directions.

Lesson: velocity is always relative to some frame of reference. There is no absolute frame.

Second, in the case where you move past me at 75% of the speed of light and I am moving past you at 75% of the speed of light, BOTH of us measure the other's clocks as moving slower. I see your clock as slow and you see my clock as slow.

Lesson: the slowing of time is what is measured between frames in motion with respect to each other. It is not just one way.

Third, yes, we have a LOT of physical evidence of this effect. It has been measured with atomic clocks in airplanes. It has been measured in particle accelerators with subatomic particles. I has been has been measured in astronomical contexts with high energy particles.

Special relativity is a theory that has been extensively tested and verified.

An early example for time dilation was the decay of muons created in our upper atmosphere. Their half-life at rest is so short that even moving at close to the speed of light, they would not get to the ground from where they are created by cosmic rays. But, in fact, they do reach the ground. The reason is that they are moving with respect to us at a good fraction of the speed of light and so the time for decay is slowed in our frame. That gives them time to reach the ground.

But this was only one test. Like I said this time dilation effect is measured on a daily basis in particle accelerators. The increase in half life of unstable particles follows the predictions of the theory in every case measured.