Questions on the big bang expanding universe.

[shunyadragon]

Well, it didn´t predict an increasing expansion velocity which caused yet another dark invention, called "dark energy".
Regarding "accounting for data" I´m afraid you´re taking factual observations and interpret these into the prime assumption of a BB. IMO this is just working with hindsight bias practise.

Still waiting for you to reveal your academic qualifications in physics and cosmology that support your shotgun of assertions without merit.

 

[Polymath257]

Regarding a BB, there is nothing to explain as it is utterly nonsense and disconnected from all natural logics. This too belongs to the squared consensus box with all its invented dark ghosts in a Dark Cosmology wich belongs to a bad Science Fiction.

OK, explain the CMBR. Explain the red-shifts as a function of distance. Explain the elemental abundances. Explain the precise devitions from the blackbody radiation in the CMBR. Explain gravitational lensing.

 

[alsome]

@Thief
I guess the "water" there, before `the creation`, was really only the presence in everywhere and everything, of God. Then He waved His mighty hands and created Earth. In this case the "water" would be God Himself, the "void" or "space" as you could say. Maybe Moses saw something that we can't ? Where does the universe end, in the "water" of the void ?
I'm failing at trying to think like God aren't I ? The "creation" was of Earth, by the "cosmos", call it "God" if you must.
The true spirit is everywhere and is everything, into which we must return. I wish for all that your "God" is there waiting.

 

[alsome]

Without the chalk on the floor, what would one have, except a chalky eraser.

 

[Polymath257]

Universal existence.

In other words, existence of the universe?

I see spacetime is a concept that applies to an measurement of an aspect of universal existence, I'm not sure a concept can be called timeless.

I'm not sure I see spacetime as being a 'concept'. As I am using it, spacetime is the inherent four dimensional geometry of existence.

Beginnings and endings apply to finite observed aspects of universal existence..

But the words 'beginning' and 'ending' only make sense if there is time. To say that something has no beginning or ending implies that time is infinite in duration.

Universal existence is one, all apparent parts are observed conceptualizations.

Again, I see no connection between that and what you wrote. What 'paths' are you talking about?

By timeless, I mean it is beyond measurement as a time period because there is no beginning and no ending.

So an infinite interval of time, by your definition, would be timeless? That seems like a strange use of the word.

Correct, terms like velocity, volume, charge, etc., are concepts that help us understand observed phenomena, but there is no real entity as such.

Here I will strongly disagree. We have those concepts because they help us describe reality. They only work because they have reality.

Now Polymath, I appreciate your gist and the workings of science to learn more about the universe, I just threw my more philosophical non-conceptual observations out there, not to try and persuade you otherwise, but to express the way I apprehend the universe in what I see as a different, but valid (to my non-conceptual state of mind) manner. Thank you for your understanding, my view is not the scientific way and I understand that.

I'm attempting to figure out your system, but it makes no sense to me. Possibly because of my training and the fact that we seem to be using some words very differently ('timeless' for example, 'eternal' for another).

When I say 'timeless', I don't mean simply not having a beginning or an end (which may happen even with time), but that there is no time dependence at all.

When I say 'the universe', I mean all of matter and energy throughout space and time. Time is *within* the universe, not something external to it.

The word 'eternal' tends to be ambiguous. It can imply that there is an infinite duration of time OR it can simply mean 'throughout all time'. In the second version, if time had a beginning, then 'eternity' did as well. If time has an end, then eternity does as well. The first version (involving an infinite time duration) may not be reality.

 

[Polymath257]

Well, it didn´t predict an increasing expansion velocity

Which is one (of many) reason that your position is disregarded.

How do you explain the supernova data?

which caused yet another dark invention, called "dark energy".
Regarding "accounting for data" I´m afraid you´re taking factual observations and interpret these into the prime assumption of a BB. IMO this is just working with hindsight bias practise.

OK, you explain those factual observations. In detail.

The problem is that you get the order wrong. The observations come first and the theory helped to explain them. Then the theory made more predictions, which were verified. Then some discrepancies were found and the theory was modified. The modified theory also made predictions that were verified.

What predictions has your theory made that were subsequently verified by observation?

 

[Native]

Still waiting for you to reveal your academic qualifications in physics and cosmology that support your shotgun of assertions without merit.

What make you believe that "academic qualifications" should be a guaranty for understanding something in cosmos of which there are NONWHATSOEVER united consensus about?

 

[shunyadragon]

@Thief
I guess the "water" there, before `the creation`, was really only the presence in everywhere and everything, of God. Then He waved His mighty hands and created Earth. In this case the "water" would be God Himself, the "void" or "space" as you could say. Maybe Moses saw something that we can't ? Where does the universe end, in the "water" of the void ?
I'm failing at trying to think like God aren't I ? The "creation" was of Earth, by the "cosmos", call it "God" if you must.
The true spirit is everywhere and is everything, into which we must return. I wish for all that your "God" is there waiting.

The belief in 'water' before the Creation was reference to the Creation of the firmament separating the water above to the water below in Genesis.

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
Well, it didn´t predict an increasing expansion velocity

Which is one (of many) reason that your position is disregarded.
How do you explain the supernova data?

Who spoke of supernova data?
Hold your focus on the problem of how an assumed initial expansion of the universe can provide an increasing expansion velocity.

 

[Polymath257]

Native said: ↑
Well, it didn´t predict an increasing expansion velocity

Who spoke of supernova data?
Hold your focus on the problem of how an assumed initial expansion of the universe can provide an increasing expansion velocity.

Cosmological constant. Even proposed by Einstein long before these observations.

 

[Polymath257]

What make you think that "academic qualifications" should be a garanty for understanding something in cosmos of which there are NONWHATSOEVER united consensus about?

Academic qualifications are nice but not required. But what *is* required in the understanding that those academic qualifications show you had at some point.

There *is* a consensus on cosmology at this point: the LCDM description.

Are there still things we don't understand? yes, of course. But research is still being done as it always will be.

 

[alsome]

@shunyadragon ,
I can read, even the bible, but, from where did the "water" come, If "God" wasn't the "water" ?
Who created the "water" ? You call it "space" ? Just like the Christian "God", He is in everywhere and everything, yes ? Maybe He is the "water".
Not to think that I believe all of this bunk, but in the mean "time", I like the "water" format, it meets all religious beliefs, almost.

 

[alsome]

And all of scientists believed that the Earth was a disk. and the Sun revolved around us-----
And even Einstein was wrong a lot of times.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Apparently you take circular arguments as logics.

There's nothing circular about it.
It's just what the words mean.

 

[Polymath257]

And all of scientists believed that the Earth was a disk. and the Sun revolved around us-----
And even Einstein was wrong a lot of times.

Absolutely. But the 'flat Earth' theory was made dogma by the religions and geocentrism was supported by the Bible.

Science at least has processes by which to correct its mistakes.

Religion doesn't. But it makes the mistakes nonetheless.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Well, it didn´t predict an increasing expansion velocity which caused yet another dark invention, called "dark energy".

It predicted plenty of other things that did check out, with remarkable precision.

You are free to ignore it all, but that doesn't seem to be a very intellectually honest position. Especially not if you do it with an a priori motivation to dismiss it no matter what.

Regarding "accounting for data" I´m afraid you´re taking factual observations and interpret these into the prime assumption of a BB. IMO this is just working with hindsight bias practise.

Predicting data and then finding out the data is exactly as predicted, is the exact opposite of that.

 

[alsome]

The true science doesn't follow the Bible, it can change rapidly, and still does.
Your floor is dusty, clean your board.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What predictions has your theory made that were subsequently verified by observation?

@Native has a theory, or even only a hypothesis? I must have missed it. All I'm seeing is trying to shotgun scientific consensus with bare assertions and ignoring evidence.

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
Well, it didn´t predict an increasing expansion velocity

Who spoke of supernova data?
Hold your focus on the problem of how an assumed initial expansion of the universe can provide an increasing expansion velocity.

Cosmological constant. Even proposed by Einstein long before these observations.

What prevents you from understanding and answering a clear question?

I didn´t ask for your hindsight constants assumptions but for your explanation of the very dynamic cause of an increasing velosity.

 

[Polymath257]

I didn´t ask for your hindsight constants assumptions but for your explanation of the very dynamic cause of an increasing velosity.

When the CC is included, there is accelerating expansion.

Whether that is 'hindsight' or not is irrelevant if it fits the observations and makes new observations that can be tested. And it does.