What was the Big Bang

[ChristineM]

Explicitly predictable actions are the ready meals of thought, microwave information in a needless state of conversation. My study of these mere mortal earth creatures is astonishing, I expected much more in all this time. Well the consciousness state is just a chaos of words and thoughts compared to the solid of a brick. In confusion there is an illusion my dear, perhaps I have decided to be disliked so am going to go wicky wicky wack and jump around.

Does your tinfoil hat still fit properly?

 

[james blunt]

Does your tinfoil hat still fit properly?

I use mirrors , more effective

Perhaps you wear a tin foil hat?

 

[`mud]

hey Sus,
Reality doesn't appear in the old books,
that `reality` is just imagination wrapped in mythology.
Reality is the passing blur of everything happening,
not what is going to happen.
No books can tell us that.

 

[`mud]

Oh......Sus.....nice pasting.....but original ??

 

[ChristineM]

I use mirrors , more effective

Perhaps you wear a tin foil hat?

Whatever suites you and no, Faith, Gucci and Louboutin don't do tinfoil hats.

 

[whirlingmerc]

There's no evidence for what caused the Big Bang, which appears to be a perfect fire wall against information leaking from whatever existed "before". But I think it's obvious what happened. What existed, and apparently still does, is a non-local Quantumland--that is, a timeless and "distanceless" ether into which the universe, at the Big Bang, started expanding into. The difference between Quantumland and the Universe, is that at a given dimensionless point in Quantumland, it was made (or happened) to become something that was composed of three dimensions of distance and one of time that weren't infinitely divisible. Said another way, there became a limit to the divisibility of the ether/Quantumland which converted it, via the Big Bang, to the Cosmos or universe we all know and love. Those limits, which are specific, are known as Planck-space and Planck-time, and they resolved the 2500 year-old Xeno's Paradox (which see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno%27s_paradoxes).

So, our universe is undergoing an accelerating expansion into/within this Quantumland/ether. Thus we can say we know what preceded the universe. And we can theorize that quantum transactions take place in the "external" Quantumland which would explain Einstein's "spooky action at a distance" and other quantum weirdness.

But the ultimate question still remains, what caused that initiation, that first instance of space-time as the result of the first limit to the divisibility of the ether from which it sprang--which is also known as the Planck Epoch? That ether, that Quantumland, is still there and accessible to quantum entities "through" the infinitesimal Planck space-time "gaps" in the fabric of our universe.

Which big bang? it's radically changed through the last 50 years
It's something not very scientific since there is no cause.
Expansion of space is scientific

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Expansion of space is scientific

It is correct that there is presently no other plausible scientific explanation for the red-shift other than implying expansion, but there is no scientific proof that light cannot red-shift over a large distance for reasons other than the Doppler effect?

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is correct that there is presently no other plausible scientific explanation for the red-shift other than implying expansion, but there is no scientific proof that light cannot red-shift over a large distance for reasons other than the Doppler effect?

You have the burden of proof backwards. It would be up to the person claiming that distance causes red-shift to provide evidence for their claim. To paraphrase Matt Dillahunty, there is no proof that universe farting pixies were not the cause of the expansion.

The burden of proof is upon the person making the positive claim.

 

[Polymath257]

It is correct that there is presently no other plausible scientific explanation for the red-shift other than implying expansion, but there is no scientific proof that light cannot red-shift over a large distance for reasons other than the Doppler effect?

More accurately, the red shift in cosmology is due to gravitational effects, not, strictly speaking, the Doppler shift. For very close galaxies the two effects are very close, but for distant ones, they are different.

So, yes, there is a way other than Doppler shifts to get red-shifts. But we know a fair amount about light and how it propagates. Unless you can suggest a specific mechanism for red-shifting at those distances that explains the observations better than general relativity, then there isn't much else to say.

There are other *reddening* effects that are known: for example, when light goes through dust, it tends to be reddened. But the actual effect for this is quite different than the red-shift where the actual absorption lines in a spectrum change. Dust just filters out light, leaving the longer wavelengths. The absorption lines don't get shifted.

 

[Thief]

So you are a follower of god of the gaps?

I know of 28 hypothesis which are mathematically sound, some actually have physical evidence to back them up, not one requires a god. In fact any claim of god magic is just that, a claim.

and God doesn't know numbers?

He created infinity

and I've seen a popular theoretical physicist say.....
we (physicists) have a problem with infinity (mathematically)

 

[Polymath257]

and God doesn't know numbers?

He created infinity

Two claims:
1. That God exists.
2. That he 'created infinity'

Neither is proved. Nor is evidence given.

and I've seen a popular theoretical physicist say.....
we (physicists) have a problem with infinity (mathematically)

Physicists are more likely to have problems with infinity than mathematicians.

 

[Thief]

Two claims:
1. That God exists.
2. That he 'created infinity'

Neither is proved. Nor is evidence given.



Physicists are more likely to have problems with infinity than mathematicians.

you already know......
you can't put the experiment in a petri dish

all you CAN do is think about it

and the instant of a secondary point......infinity forms with it

 

[Thief]

Two claims:
1. That God exists.
2. That he 'created infinity'

Neither is proved. Nor is evidence given.



Physicists are more likely to have problems with infinity than mathematicians.

math is not a trump card.....obviously

 

[Ben Dhyan]

You have the burden of proof backwards. It would be up to the person claiming that distance causes red-shift to provide evidence for their claim. To paraphrase Matt Dillahunty, there is no proof that universe farting pixies were not the cause of the expansion.

The burden of proof is upon the person making the positive claim.

So let me rephrase it, falsifiability of a scientific theory is a part of how science works, so long as it has not been falsified means it stands, but that does not mean in the future it won't be.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

More accurately, the red shift in cosmology is due to gravitational effects, not, strictly speaking, the Doppler shift. For very close galaxies the two effects are very close, but for distant ones, they are different.

So, yes, there is a way other than Doppler shifts to get red-shifts. But we know a fair amount about light and how it propagates. Unless you can suggest a specific mechanism for red-shifting at those distances that explains the observations better than general relativity, then there isn't much else to say.

There are other *reddening* effects that are known: for example, when light goes through dust, it tends to be reddened. But the actual effect for this is quite different than the red-shift where the actual absorption lines in a spectrum change. Dust just filters out light, leaving the longer wavelengths. The absorption lines don't get shifted.

Thank you Polymath, an informative post, I understand that is where it stands at this time. Btw, is the gravitational effect associated with inelastic scattering?

 

[Thief]

You have the burden of proof backwards. It would be up to the person claiming that distance causes red-shift to provide evidence for their claim. To paraphrase Matt Dillahunty, there is no proof that universe farting pixies were not the cause of the expansion.

The burden of proof is upon the person making the positive claim.

there are two sides to that coin

they who are not informed are ....ignorant
they who chose to ignore are profoundly ignorant
no cure

some lines of thought and some observations lead to conclusions
but the experiment won't fit in the petri dish

all you CAN do id think about it

asking proof.....is shallow (now and then)

 

[Thief]

Thank you Polymath, an informative post, I understand that is where it stands at this time.

so you gave up the Doppler effect?

not yet.....you need something to take it's place

 

[Ben Dhyan]

so you gave up the Doppler effect?

not yet.....you need something to take it's place

Well as Polymath explained there is another cause of red shift due to gravitational effect. Who knows what the future will bring?

 

[Thief]

observers rely on what they see
the shift gives indication of movement

going to dump all of that observation?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

observers rely on what they see
the shift gives indication of movement

going to dump all of that observation?

Not unless or until the present theory is falsified.