Questions on the big bang expanding universe.

[Native]

Your concept of "truth" is self defeating.

How can you make such a statement when you de facto don´t know the truth yourself?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Firstly it isn't my understanding; it isn't even something I'm particularly arguing for, but it is something that is based on a well tested theory and shows that a finite past doesn't necessarily lead to "something from nothing".

The idea is about the nature of time or space-time. To date, the best theory we have in that regard is GR which leads directly the the conclusion and has been extensively tested. We can never know that any theory in science is true, theories can only be proved to be false.

I understand that, but certain folk think I am anti-science for just questioning what they presumably believe is settled science. And it seems some, if not all of these bb theories can't be fully tested and so can't be falsified. It is one thing to say GR has been extensively tested but I have questions about some basic fundamentals.

If you bear with me, I would like to go step by step on the question of 'time' to hopefully find a common understanding that would allow me to see what you see as to what time really is. First can we clearly define what we mean by time?

 

[Native]

If you bear with me, I would like to go step by step on the question of 'time' to hopefully find a common understanding that would allow me to see what you see as to what time really is. First can we clearly define what we mean by time?

And bear with me for interfering. IMO "time" is basically connected to "motion" and on an universal scale, you can percieve "motions" as cyclical or linear.

Do you have a cyclical perception, all from the atomic scale and "upwards", the Universe is eternally timeless and you´re having no troubles explaining this - and if you have a linear time perception, made by different kinds of human invented distance measuring methods, you can make theories of a beginning as in the Big Bang ideas and then you´re having all kinds of cosmological problems when trying to explain such theories dynamically and logically.

The linear thinking of the Universe is philosophically and explainable not much better than the religious interpretation of creation that we´ve inherited from the Abrahamic tradition.

 

[shunyadragon]

Native said: ↑
Interesting indeed. How is this observation explained? What is the difference between "galaxies which assumingly has "dark matter" and which has not? Which other attempts to corrections were tried?

I don´t think so. You have to explain WHY "dark matter" is connected to SOME and NOT other galaxies.

"Dark matter" is initially "rotation depended" and not "size depended" so you can´t use such an argument.

Actually observed collisions between and in galaxy clusters has provided a lot of evidence concerning 'dark matter and why some galaxies have bark matter and some do not.

https://physicstoday.scitation.org/doi/abs/10.1063/1.2435634?journalCode=pto

Collision between galaxy clusters unveils striking evidence of dark matter
The nonbaryonic matter generally assumed to dominate large aggregates of stars and gas almost always shares a common center of mass with the ordinary matter we can see. But a titanic collision can force them apart.
Bertram Schwarzschild.

Read more by referencing the Physics article.

Well then just get rid of the [convensus?] gravity theory if it isn´t good enough to explain such a formation. In fact the theory should have been abandoned when contradicted by the galactic rotation curve almost a century ago.

Expecting to science to explain everything and 'WHY?' is terribly unreasonable. Science is descriptive of the nature of our universe, and yes the knowledge of science increases with time. Of course the Theory of gravity is not completely resolved and neither is the problem of 'dark matter,' but 'arguing from ignorance' as to what science cannot completely know is not a coherent argument.

 

[shunyadragon]

Native said: ↑
Well said and explained indeed, ben d

If philosophical explanations are "incoherent word salad" in you mind, I just feel sorry for you.

When you attempt to put science in a philosophical box, and continue to shotgun 'arguing from ignorance' without a sufficient educational background in science I feel sorry for you.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

And bear with me for interfering. IMO "time" is basically connected to "motion" and on an universal scale, you can percieve "motions" as cyclical or linear.

Do you have a cyclical perception, all from the atomic scale and "upwards", the Universe is eternally timeless and you´re having no troubles explaining this - and if you have a linear time perception, made by different kinds of human invented distance measuring methods, you can make theories of a beginning as in the Big Bang ideas and then you´re having all kinds of cosmological problems when trying to explain such theories dynamically and logically.

The linear thinking of the Universe is philosophically and explainable not much better than the religious interpretation of creation that we´ve inherited from the Abrahamic tradition.

Your comment is welcome. I can understand and basically agree with your point. I hold out hope that a definition of time can be found that will show clearly that time as generally understood by GR folk is a distortion of reality in the cosmic context.

 

[Subduction Zone]

How can you make such a statement when you de facto don´t know the truth yourself?

And this is where you fail and science succeeds. One does not have to know the "truth" to refute an idea.

 

[ratiocinator]

I hold out hope that a definition of time can be found that will show clearly that time as generally understood by GR folk is a distortion of reality in the cosmic context.

Why? The fact that you hope for a particular answer is both bizarre and the antithesis how science works. Why don't you just want to get as good an understanding (the best model) as we can?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, I do only know one piece of dark matter, namely the original assumed use of term. But now, all kinds of cosmological realms are connected to "dark matter" because "standard scientists" adds this imaginary stuff to numerous observations which they can´t explain.

Native said:
Well then: How does your "dark matter evidence" in galaxies influence the different celestial orbital motions in the Solar System?

Do you really mean that the "enormeous strong dark matter", which theoretically hold ALL STARS in the orbital positions in galaxies, don´t affect the galactic star system which we call the Solar System? Where have you deposited your logical reasoning?

Again your illogical answer reveals your own lack of understanding.

You do not even understand simple Newtonian gravity. That is all it takes to refute your concept. On the scale of the solar system the gravitational field from dark matter will be constant. That means that it will not affect the paths of two objects relative to each other within that constant field.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Why? The fact that you hope for a particular answer is both bizarre and the antithesis how science works. Why don't you just want to get as good an understanding (the best model) as we can?

The context of my statement was an exchange with someone who also understands the limitations of the GR concept of time. The fact is I think if you have an open mind and are prepared to engage me in good faith, I will also open my mind to your understanding and we should theoretically have the opportunity to find common understanding. Are you prepared to provide a definition of time as you understand it?

 

[Native]

Expecting to science to explain everything and 'WHY?' is terribly unreasonable. Science is descriptive of the nature of our universe, and yes the knowledge of science increases with time. Of course the Theory of gravity is not completely resolved and neither is the problem of 'dark matter,' but 'arguing from ignorance' as to what science cannot completely know is not a coherent argument.

Well. excuse me from arguing from the terrible annoying approach that "science don´t know everything". I just thought that such arguing could get some people to think otherwise in order to know a bit more.

 

[ratiocinator]

The context of my statement was an exchange with someone who also understands the limitations of the GR concept of time.

What limitations?

Are you prepared to provide a definition of time as you understand it?

The definition is mathematical and is of space-time, not time. You simply cannot separate the two in GR.

And you didn't really address the point. I have no idea how the notion of space-time may change if/when we get a unified theory that combines GR and QFT but I have no preferences, I just want to understand. I don't get the whole wanting the universe to conform to your preferences thing. Why would you want one answer rather than another?

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
How can you make such a statement when you de facto don´t know the truth yourself?

One does not have to know the "truth" to refute an idea.

Agreed indeed. Many debaters here are the evidence of that, including your good self.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Native said: ↑
How can you make such a statement when you de facto don´t know the truth yourself?

Agreed indeed. Many debaters here are the evidence of that, including your good self.

Too bad that that point went over your head.

 

[ratiocinator]

One does not have to know the "truth" to refute an idea.

Agreed indeed. Many debaters here are the evidence of that, including your good self.

Did you really mean to say that?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Did you really mean to say that?

It was a humorously failed attempt at an insult.

 

[Native]

You do not even understand simple Newtonian gravity. That is all it takes to refute your concept. On the scale of the solar system the gravitational field from dark matter will be constant. That means that it will not affect the paths of two objects relative to each other within that constant field.

May I remind you that the Newtonian ideas of gravity and celestial motion was contradicted on the galactic scale and abandoned by Einstein? You cannot even refer to galaxies and mention Mr. Newton in the same sentense.

Besides this, you apparently take the "gravitational field in galaxies to be inconstant" as it in your opinion only works constantly in the Solar System which is an integrated part of the galactic rotation.

Get the logical dot´s together before you reply, please.

 

[Native]

Did you really mean to say that?

Of course I did. When some truth is lacking in cosmological models, believers of convensus dogmatism cannot even descide what other truths there can be posted by alternative thinkers, as they themselves don´t know the entire truth.

 

[shunyadragon]

Well. excuse me from arguing from the terrible annoying approach that "science don´t know everything". I just thought that such arguing could get some people to think otherwise in order to know a bit more.

The one sentence obvious "Science does know everything," is sufficient which all scientists would agree. The problem is you are presenting a combative shotgun approach that is confusing and not productive.

 

[Subduction Zone]

May I remind you that the Newtonian ideas of gravity and celestial motion was contradicted on the galactic scale and abandoned by Einstein? You cannot even refer to galaxies and mention Mr. Newton in the same sentense.

Besides this, you apparently take the "gravitational field in galaxies to be inconstant" as it in your opinion only works constantly in the Solar System which is an integrated part of the galactic rotation.

Get the logical dot´s together before you reply, please.

LOL, time to go back to school. One does not need to completely throw out old models even when there is a new one. Newtonian physics still works on that level.

Right now your errors are at the high school level or lower. You need to work on the basics of science. You just took a fork to a gun fight and stuck yourself in the eye.