Let's not talk about the Big Bang

[Ben Dhyan]

The scattering that TLT proposes as the mechanism for light getting 'tired'. Without such a mechanism, it is of even less value.

Do I need to read the TLT papers to you as well?

No, TLT is based on only one mechanism, that of energy loss of a photon from interaction with material particles as it travels from the source to earth.

The model describes a boundless and timeless Cosmos.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Not really. The SSU has too many minuses in its column to have this be of any value.

A boundless and timeless Cosmos is what is. Human science/philosophy/religion trying to circumscribe its infinite space, and delimit its timelessness, is vanity.

 

[wellwisher]

Depends on which phase of the expansion you are talking about. Right now, dark energy is the dominant energy contributor, so is what drives the expansion. At an earlier time, ordinary matter dominated and before that light energy dominated. In each case, the expansion is described nicely by general relativity applied to the way the energy density changes under expansion or contraction.

Oh, you want a 'cause' for the universe. Sorry, that makes no sense. All causality is *within* the universe. Causes only make sense when time exists and that is at or after after the BB.

Expansion and dark energy are both connected to the 2nd law. Astral Physics has the cause and affect backwards, when it tries to make dark energy lead.

One way to understand this is with a simple example. Say we have two factories that both make widgets. Both factories are exactly the same, with both creating X defects per day. I will use the defects to measure the relative entropy changes of both factories, since defects makes life more complicated for the Process Engineers; higher complexity situation to deal with.

Next, I will place one factory in each of two different space-time frames of reference, so I can see them for a side by side for comparison; compact versus expanded space-time references. One factory will placed in a more time dilated reference; compact universe, and the other in a less time dilated reference; expansion universe.

If we look at both factories, side by side, from an earth reference, the factory in the more expanded space-time reference will appear to make more defects per hour in our reference, since its time is moving faster. The other contracted reference with time slowed, appears to make fewer defect per hour, based on the same side by side comparison. Expansion amplifies the second law, and adds more defects per any standard reference of time. Expansion is consistent with the second law adding complexity.

When entropy increases, energy is absorbed; endothermic. The expansion, by increasing the rate of entropy will also increase the rate at which energy is absorbed from the universe; amplifying red shift. We see this an an accelerated expansion. I often wondered where the energy went during a red shift since the red shift lowers the energy value for all photons.

If I take two objects and bring them together, this will lower their complexity similar to a vapor becoming a liquid; fewer degrees of freedom. This reflects a loss of entropy and should be exothermic; heat of vaporization and blue shift. If I go from together back to separated; liquid to gas, this increases entropy and absorbs energy; endothermic or red shift. Galaxies that approach each other lower entropy; exothermic or blue shift. But most galaxies expand away from each other consist with the needs of the second law.

The 2nd law states that the entropy of the universe has to increase over time Therefore, one would expect more red shift than blue shift in our universe, which is seen. Entropy has to net increase, also implies the universe is bleeding energy, that goes into the ever increasing endothermic nature of entropy increase. This lost energy is conserved, as dark energy, but it is no longer part of the universe's useful free energy budget. We can see lost energy pockets all over the universe; called dark energy, which formed from entropy, acting upon matter and energy. Dark energy is a product of the universe.

Entropy is not energy, since free energy G = -TS, where T is temperature and S is entropy. Free energy is sort of an engineering term used to describe energy that you can easily exploited; free. The minus sign before TS implies the universe is always losing free energy; its easy to use energy, due to the constant entropy increase; available universal free energy decreases with time.

Entropy times temperature is energy. But entropy is not energy per se. At absolute zero, we have zero temperature; T=0, but entropy still exists. The energy value of entropy is a function of temperature; heat and energy, but entropy by itself, exists apart from energy; different but parallel realm we call dark matter and dark energy.

Life and the brain generates a lot of entropy; metabolism and neuron firing, with neurons firing connected to the action of our memory. Conceptually, the connection between memory and universal entropy increase, implies we are adding entropic content to the dark energy pool, based on our unique entropic memory signatures; endothermic. Science is now looking to see if dark energy interacts with itself; any organizing affects in the other realm.

We cannot see dark energy in the lab. The reason is there is no perpetual motion and all experiments will increase entropy and thereby add to the pool; data is lost but conserved. We can only see the larger scale universal scale affects. Since the pool of dark energy comes from the past, it acts like the inertia of where we came from, that impacts where we are heading.

The term entropy was first coined during the development of early steam engines. Engineers notice that there was lost energy that could not be accounted for. This lost energy was called entropy. Engineering continues to use the concept of entropy since it is needs this for energy balances when making practical things. Physics lost its way, since they do not have to make anything practical when exploring the unknown extremes. It could ignore entropy, until now, with the evidence of dark energy pools that seem to hold the universe together; anchored in the past.

 

[Aupmanyav]

The concept of the 'nothing' of Quantum existence is not no-existence.

Quantum Mechanics is a developing discipline, many miles to go before we rest.

 

[shunyadragon]

The steady state infinite eternal universe is shaping up to be the way things are. So existence had no beginning, it is eternal in an infinite universe.

There is no nothing, the Quantum Vacuum is not a vacuum, there was a time when science thought that space devoid of particles was a vacuum.

I am not arguing for the Hawking theorem for the origins of our universe. I am arguing against your misunderstanding of what the Hawking 'nothing' and Quantum time, Quantum Mechanics is in terms what Hawking describes.

Of course, there is no complete explanation for the origins, and there are problems with the different theories. It is likely as more information becomes available theories and theorems in the future may have attributes of both and better explain the origins of our universe.

There are significant problems with the the 'steady state infinite eternal universe, and fundamentally they both have problems. The teady state infinite eternal universe is at present rejected by most cosmologists, and scientists,

What will be likely happen in the future is the question of the expansion of the universe will be resolved.

 

[shunyadragon]

No, we agree that there is no before. No before means no time, no space, no existence, no nothing, zilth, zero, nada.

No as described at least several time the 'nothing' described by Hawking is NOT no existence, no nothing, zilth, zero, nada.

The Quantum 'nothing' described by Hawking and the smallest scale Quantum nature of our universe has no 'continuous time and space.

 

[paarsurrey]

"Let's not talk about the Big Bang"​

Is it against Science or the truthful Word of Revelation to talk about the Big Bang, please? Right?

It must be embarrassing, if not ashaming, for some science people to talk about it, please, right?

"So it might surprise you to learn that the name of this popular origin story (Big Bang) came from a guy who thought the whole idea was total nonsense. It all started on March 28, 1949, when physicist Fred Hoyle got on a BBC broadcast to discuss his own ideas about how the universe began—namely, that it didn’t actually begin."
Right?

Regards
_____________

The big bang got its name from a man who thought the theory was total nonsense

The big bang is one of those theories that even the most casual student of science finds familiar and, at least at face value, fairly easy to understand. So it might surprise you to learn that the name of this popular origin story came from a guy who thought the whole idea was total nonsense.

www.popsci.com

 

[Subduction Zone]

In spite of all the evidence. TLT does not explain angular distance vs red shift distance. It does not work with how actual scattering works. SSM, even with TLT cannot explain the details of the CMBR.

The BB model handles all of those and matches observations.

At this point, you are rejecting a theory that works because of a philosophical objection. And that is no better than what happened to geocentrism vs heliocentrism.

But one can do that honestly when one has no clue as to how the model that one chooses is wrong. Ignorance is bliss.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Experts will to jump ship if the evidence shows BBT to be flawed, time will tell.

Of course they will. That is what one is supposed to do in the sciences. One is supposed to follow the evidence. You are not doing that. You refuse to even learn what the evidence is both for and against various ideas. You are approaching this problem religiously instead of scientifically.

 

[Subduction Zone]

TLT is not based on scattering, a photon emitted from a star anywhere in the universe undergoes a continuous process of energy loss on its journey by interacting with material particles before it reaches an observer on Earth. That energy loss of the photon on its journey will be reflected in redshift of wavelength.

How does light interact with particles? Compton scattering at east has a mechanism. There does not appear to be any testable mechanism in some of your Tired Light WAG articles. I can't use the term theory because you yourself have told us that it is not a theory WAG is a much better term to use.

What is the mechanism for the reddening in your WAG? What test could possibly refute it?

 

[YoursTrue]

No as described at least several time the 'nothing' described by Hawking is NOT no existence, no nothing, zilth, zero, nada.

The Quantum 'nothing' described by Hawking and the smallest scale Quantum nature of our universe has no 'continuous time and space.

So? He changed his mind on things several times. And as I read, Einstein was working on reversing one of his big theories before he died. He kinda died at an early age. I guess evolution just didn't keep him alive longer, although he said he had enough of this life anyway. OK, bye, maybe I'll meet him yet -- Quantum physics or no quantum physics.

 

[YoursTrue]

I am not arguing for the Hawking theorem for the origins of our universe. I am arguing against your misunderstanding of what the Hawking 'nothing' and Quantum time, Quantum Mechanics is in terms what Hawking describes.

Of course, there is no complete explanation for the origins, and there are problems with the different theories. It is likely as more information becomes available theories and theorems in the future may have attributes of both and better explain the origins of our universe.

There are significant problems with the the 'steady state infinite eternal universe, and fundamentally they both have problems. The teady state infinite eternal universe is at present rejected by most cosmologists, and scientists,

What will be likely happen in the future is the question of the expansion of the universe will be resolved.

Quantum physics or mechanics, I guess some people care as if it means anything regarding the origin of the universe. Which leads to a question -- what came first, the universe or life? Physically or mechanically. (Have a good one...)

 

[Subduction Zone]

So? He changed his mind on things several times. And as I read, Einstein was working on reversing one of his big theories before he died. He kinda died at an early age. I guess evolution just didn't keep him alive longer, although he said he had enough of this life anyway. OK, bye, maybe I'll meet him yet -- Quantum physics or no quantum physics.

Seventy six in the mid 1950's was young?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Quantum physics or mechanics, I guess some people care as if it means anything regarding the origin of the universe. Which leads to a question -- what came first, the universe or life? Physically or mechanically. (Have a good one...)

Life was a much later addition. Billions of years after the formation of the universe. You would need generation three stars at lest for life to exist.

 

[Polymath257]

A boundless and timeless Cosmos is what is. Human science/philosophy/religion trying to circumscribe its infinite space, and delimit its timelessness, is vanity.

OK, I know that is your position.

So here is an important question for you:

What sort of evidence would convince you that you are wrong in this belief?

If this is a scientific belief, you should be able to say what sort of evidence would show you to be wrong.

Otherwise, this is simply an unfounded philosophical belief and irrelevant to science.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

The scattering that TLT proposes as the mechanism for light getting 'tired'. Without such a mechanism, it is of even less value.

Do I need to read the TLT papers to you as well?

So if you are saying that energy loss from a photon to a particle, involving a minute increase in wavelength, during its travel through the intergalactic medium is scattering, then so be it,

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I am not arguing for the Hawking theorem for the origins of our universe. I am arguing against your misunderstanding of what the Hawking 'nothing' and Quantum time, Quantum Mechanics is in terms what Hawking describes.

Of course, there is no complete explanation for the origins, and there are problems with the different theories. It is likely as more information becomes available theories and theorems in the future may have attributes of both and better explain the origins of our universe.

There are significant problems with the the 'steady state infinite eternal universe, and fundamentally they both have problems. The teady state infinite eternal universe is at present rejected by most cosmologists, and scientists,

What will be likely happen in the future is the question of the expansion of the universe will be resolved.

There is no expansion of the universe, it is infinite. What misunderstanding of the Hawking "nothing" are you referring to?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

No as described at least several time the 'nothing' described by Hawking is NOT no existence, no nothing, zilth, zero, nada.

The Quantum 'nothing' described by Hawking and the smallest scale Quantum nature of our universe has no 'continuous time and space.

It there is existence there is time and space, so it is not nothing.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Of course they will. That is what one is supposed to do in the sciences. One is supposed to follow the evidence. You are not doing that. You refuse to even learn what the evidence is both for and against various ideas. You are approaching this problem religiously instead of scientifically.

It is consistent with my sense of reality, that is what is important for me.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

How does light interact with particles? Compton scattering at east has a mechanism. There does not appear to be any testable mechanism in some of your Tired Light WAG articles. I can't use the term theory because you yourself have told us that it is not a theory WAG is a much better term to use.

What is the mechanism for the reddening in your WAG? What test could possibly refute it?

The loss of energy from a photon to a particle during its travels through space will cause a lengthening of wavelength.