Light - For Those Who Are More Educated In This Field

[Ben Dhyan]

The rest of the universe. That atom sized thing (if it existed--it is an extrapolation), was only what corresponds to the obsevable universe today.

Ok, so are you saying that this atom sized thing, presuming it existed, was in universal space?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Given that the exerts in the subject agree with me, I am not concerned.

Reality does not depend on opinions, it is what it is.

 

[Polymath257]

Ok, so are you saying that this atom sized thing, presuming it existed, was in universal space?

Of the observable universe was ever that size, it was still part of the rest of the universe. Also, time existed.

I have no idea what universal space means.

 

[Polymath257]

Reality does not depend on opinions, it is what it is.

Agreed. What does the actual evidence show? And it isn't tired light. It is an expanding universe.

 

[metis]

And this atom sized universe existed in what? Iow, what was outside of it?

It is impossible to determine this, plus time and space would have been VERY different than we have here in our time & place. More and more cosmologists drift in the direction that our universe may be just one in a multiverse, and for all we know ours may have spun off from another universe-- possibly a black hole may have spewed us out?

The consensus that our universe expanded [the BB] roughly 13.8 billion years b.p. comes from observations of our continually expanding universe [observed through "red shift"] and then projecting it backward, and it's highly unlikely that the math is wrong to any significant degree.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

It is impossible to determine this, plus time and space would have been VERY different than we have here in our time & place. More and more cosmologists drift in the direction that our universe may be just one in a multiverse, and for all we know ours may have spun off from another universe-- possibly a black hole may have spewed us out?

The consensus that our universe expanded [the BB] roughly 13.8 billion years b.p. comes from observations of our continually expanding universe [observed through "red shift"] and then projecting it backward, and it's highly unlikely that the math is wrong to any significant degree.

The red shift may not be caused by the doppler effect, but by distance the light has travelled, a theory called tired light. BB adherents do not accept the TLT in a steady state eternal infinite universe, but there it is fyi. Tired Light Denies the Big Bang

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Of the observable universe was ever that size, it was still part of the rest of the universe. Also, time existed.

I have no idea what universal space means.

If I understand you, by 'universal space', I mean the space of the 'observable universe' and 'the rest of the universe'.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Agreed. What does the actual evidence show? And it isn't tired light. It is an expanding universe.

I have problems accepting the expanding universe as you know, so I tend to lean towards an eternal (no beginning) infinite (no nothing) steady state universe. I accept that the popular model is the expanding universe theory, so we will see if it continues to hold up in time.

 

[metis]

The red shift may not be caused by the doppler effect, but by distance the light has travelled, a theory called tired light. BB adherents do not accept the TLT in a steady state eternal infinite universe, but there it is fyi. Tired Light Denies the Big Bang

So, you honestly believe that the cosmologists wouldn't have understood so as to miss this?

BTW, red shift is only one of the indications that there was indeed a BB. Observations are showing that the universe not only is expanding but that it actually is speeding up.

Here, maybe read this: Big Bang - Wikipedia

 

[Ben Dhyan]

So, you honestly believe that the cosmologists wouldn't have understood so as to miss this?

BTW, red shift is only one of the indications that there was indeed a BB. Observations are showing that the universe not only is expanding but that it actually is speeding up.

Here, maybe read this: Big Bang - Wikipedia

Cosmologists have a preferred opinion about cosmic reality, but reality is what it is, not theoretical models. The scientists who authored that TLT item are astronomers, so some cosmologists obviously have opinions other than BBT cosmologists. In any event, as I said, reality is what it is, it is not theoretical opinion about reality, so I keep an open mind and consider all opinions.

I would have thought that red shift observations would also be the method of determining the universal expansion is speeding up, no?

 

[metis]

Cosmologists have a preferred opinion about cosmic reality, but reality is what it is, not theoretical models. The scientists who authored that TLT item are astronomers, so some cosmologists obviously have opinions other than BBT cosmologists. In any event, as I said, reality is what it is, it is not theoretical opinion about reality, so I keep an open mind and consider all opinions.

I would have thought that red shift observations would also be the method of determining the universal expansion is speeding up, no?

Now all you are doing is using a scriptural myth* as a set of blinders and assuming that these scientists are just jumping the shark. The BB is quite obviously real if one looks at enough of the evidence, but there are tons of questions that it leaves us, especially causation.


*myth does not mean falsehood in the theological context but means a narrative that teaches values and morals.

 

[exchemist]

The red shift may not be caused by the doppler effect, but by distance the light has travelled, a theory called tired light. BB adherents do not accept the TLT in a steady state eternal infinite universe, but there it is fyi. Tired Light Denies the Big Bang

Why are you still pushing this discredited nonsense?

@Polymath257 and I have already explained to you, on this very thread, that this paper contains basic physics errors and is published in a predatory journal of low reputation.

To continue to promote it without acknowledging this is dishonest.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Why are you still pushing this discredited nonsense?

@Polymath257 and I have already explained to you, on this very thread, that this paper contains basic physics errors and is published in a predatory journal of low reputation.

To continue to promote it without acknowledging this is dishonest.

It might even be thought of as trolling...and perhaps should be reported...just sayin'

 

[Polymath257]

I have problems accepting the expanding universe as you know, so I tend to lean towards an eternal (no beginning) infinite (no nothing) steady state universe. I accept that the popular model is the expanding universe theory, so we will see if it continues to hold up in time.

Yes, you have stated your opposition, but not given any reasons for that opposition that shows understanding of what the theory actually says.

For example, when you ask what the universe is expanding into, you betray the (false) understanding that the expanding universe is like a shock wave that travels through space. Instead, it is an actual expansion of space itself.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Yes, you have stated your opposition, but not given any reasons for that opposition that shows understanding of what the theory actually says.

For example, when you ask what the universe is expanding into, you betray the (false) understanding that the expanding universe is like a shock wave that travels through space. Instead, it is an actual expansion of space itself.

I know the pat explanation about expanding space is not expanding into space, but I keep asking in order to show you and other BB believers that it is not logical for finite space to have no form, to be expanding into nothing. Nothing does not exist, so given that this BB universe exists, it either exists in infinite space, or nothing. To keep saying the question of 'outside' is invalid is a cop out.

It is similar to the question of what existed before the BB, if you agree there is no nothing, then it had to have began somewhere in infinite space.
I know you will then say time had not begun so the question is invalid, but it's another cop out.

The logic on which I lean is human logic, if we discard that, then we can not have a reasonable discussion. If there were a multiverse, then what would exist between universes? In this multiverse scenario, assuming there would be universes sufficiently developed whereby very advanced intelligent life could detect the BB beginning of new universes, these new BBs would be referenced to spacetime.

I will never accept BBT until I understand how and why it came into being!

 

[ratiocinator]

I know the pat explanation about expanding space is not expanding into space, but I keep asking in order to show you and other BB believers that it is not logical for finite space to have no form, to be expanding into nothing. Nothing does not exist, so given that this BB universe exists, it either exists in infinite space, or nothing. To keep saying the question of 'outside' is invalid is a cop out.

It is similar to the question of what existed before the BB, if you agree there is no nothing, then it had to have began somewhere in infinite space.
I know you will then say time had not begun so the question is invalid, but it's another cop out.

The logic on which I lean is human logic, if we discard that, then we can not have a reasonable discussion.

The problem is that you're confusing human intuition with logic. You are trying to use the intuitive ideas of space and time (basically Newtonian) when they have been shown to be wrong - a good enough approximation in a lot of circumstances but nevertheless wrong.

The ideas of relativity that have replaced them can be fully expressed mathematically and are perfectly self-consistent and hence logical. They are undoubtedly counter-intuitive but definitely logical and supported by evidence. Within that view it is perfectly possible for finite or infinite space to expand, without anything 'outside' and for time to have a start.

As an aside, the Newtonian ideas are not good enough for the GPS system, which has to correct relativity.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

The problem is that you're confusing human intuition with logic. You are trying to use the intuitive ideas of space and time (basically Newtonian) when they have been shown to be wrong - a good enough approximation in a lot of circumstances but nevertheless wrong.

The ideas of relativity that have replaced them can be fully expressed mathematically and are perfectly self-consistent and hence logical. They are undoubtedly counter-intuitive but definitely logical and supported by evidence. Within that view it is perfectly possible for finite or infinite space to expand, without anything 'outside' and for time to have a start.

As an aside, the Newtonian ideas are not good enough for the GPS system, which has to correct relativity.

I said logic and mean logic.

It would be illogical for me to accept BBT until or unless you or science can explain to me why there was a BB?
And what a caused the BB?
And proof of the cause of the BB?
And are there other BBs, ie. a multiverse?
Etc., etc..

Otoh, a SS eternal infinite universe is perfectly logical, I have no questions.

 

[ratiocinator]

It would be illogical for me to accept BBT until or unless you or science can explain to me why there was a BB?

No, it wouldn't. The big bang theory is about the expansion of space and development of the universe since a hot dense state in the past, so this is a bit like saying that it would be illogical to accept chemistry until somebody told you where atoms came from (of course we know that now, but chemistry worked just fine before we did) or saying that you won't accept human history until somebody explains abiogenesis.

And what a caused the BB?

It is far from clear if such a question has any meaning. Again you're using intuition by assuming that there must have been one. Causation happens within space-time, so if time is actually finite in the past direction (something which isn't known yet) then your question could not apply.

And proof of the cause of the BB?

Apart from the above, science doesn't do proof it does evidence.

Otoh, a SS eternal infinite universe is perfectly logical, I have no questions.

What about why it exists at all? Regardless, it is not what the evidence is telling us, so we can be next to certain that we don't live in such a universe.

 

[ratiocinator]

Otoh, a SS eternal infinite universe is perfectly logical, I have no questions.

Just to add. The implication here seems to be that you think that a lack of unknowns and unanswered questions about something is some sort of indication of its truth. Are you really suggesting that?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

No, it wouldn't. The big bang theory is about the expansion of space and development of the universe since a hot dense state in the past, so this is a bit like saying that it would be illogical to accept chemistry until somebody told you where atoms came from (of course we know that now, but chemistry worked just fine before we did) or saying that you won't accept human history until somebody explains abiogenesis.



It is far from clear if such a question has any meaning. Again you're using intuition by assuming that there must have been one. Causation happens within space-time, so if time is actually finite in the past direction (something which isn't known yet) then your question could not apply.



Apart from the above, science doesn't do proof it does evidence.



What about why it exists at all? Regardless, it is not what the evidence is telling us, so we can be next to certain that we don't live in such a universe.

Well let me say I do not accept anything on face value, I need to understand, BB is a theory, I deal in reality.

Haha, a BB without a cause. great science!

Ok, where is the evidence then?

What is, is, there is no question, reality means reality, not a theory about, not a belief in, not an opinion concerning, but absolute reality.