Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Results 121 to 142 of 142

Thread: The Red Shift?

  1. #121
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    2,858
    Quote Originally Posted by Olli S View Post
    Thank you. I am happy with answers. Very good dicussion for your part! My part is not so good and finished. Your forums here are for BBT supporters and students. So I have no more interest to be here because I want to discuss alternative models and my model and so to do what is not allowed here. Good luck with your sincere believes and very good science! I'm sorry that I can not answer to the interesting points to my last post. It can not be done without breicking the rules.

    Olli S, i genuinely hope that you hang around, because you do seem to have a legitimate interest and the purpose of this board is primarily to educate. However, holding a position in defiance of evidence to the contrary is dogma, not science. That is going to be challenged in any scientific forum.

    If you are still reading, I would like to throw one more item into the mix. You are having difficulty accepting that space might expand, because it runs counter to what you regard as 'common sense' - no one has any personal experience with "space" expanding, you can't imagine what could possibly be happening to cause such a thing.

    You may be interested then to read up about the Casimir Effect. First developed as a theory in the 1940's and with experimentation confirming predictions in the 1990's, it is best described by the quantum mechanics effect of virtual particles. The concept of virtual particles runs directly against common sense - is our day to day experience, something either is, or it is not. But anyone can run an experiment in a laboratory here in Australia, or in Europe, or America or the moon that will show that the effects predicted by Casimir are very real indeed.

    Now, if I argue that the non-existence of quantum mechanics is a "rational fact" because my day to day experience of the world around me doesn't operate 'that way', then I need to come up with an explanation for the Casimir effect that is also consistent with the entirely of observations (and the very real technological advances made using QM).

    If you argue that the non-existence of the expansion of space is a "rational fact" because that's your day to day experience of the world around you, then you need to come up with an explanation for the redshift effect that is also consistent with the entirely of observations.

    Until we can, our arguments would be dogma, not science.

  2. #122
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    71
    What then is the exact level of the presupposion that the space can not expand? I only ask this more. I hope it is allowed, when it is asked from me here.

    You say here that it is "common sense" or believing. Can it not be a rational, logical, philosophical, scientific fact? Or as you say, best model? When we think of the universe, it has some logical properties, or has it not? In philosophy there is only one certain truth: the Descartes's cogito "cogito, ergo sum", "I think, so I am" that also the sceptical philosophers accept. And from logic follows nothing to the reality. But isn't it so that also the universe exists? Other certain truth. And this universe has some logical properties. They are not the same as common sense. Far from that. From the logical properties follows something to the reality here. Or is it impossible? Which one is the impossible thing, that from logic follows something to the reality or that the expansion is impossible?

  3. #123
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    34,521
    Quote Originally Posted by Olli S View Post
    What then is the exact level of the presupposion that the space can not expand? I only ask this more. I hope it is allowed, when it is asked from me here.

    You say here that it is "common sense" or believing. Can it not be a rational, logical, philosophical, scientific fact? Or as you say, best model? When we think of the universe, it has some logical properties, or has it not? In philosophy there is only one certain truth: the Descartes's cogito "cogito, ergo sum", "I think, so I am" that also the sceptical philosophers accept. And from logic follows nothing to the reality. But isn't it so that also the universe exists? Other certain truth. And this universe has some logical properties. They are not the same as common sense. Far from that. From the logical properties follows something to the reality here. Or is it impossible? Which one is the impossible thing, that from logic follows something to the reality or that the expansion is impossible?
    It has to be consistent with observation. Logic can only manipulate premises, and science is based on the premise that observation trumps reasoning. The existing evidence, based on our observations, says that expansion is happening. Expansion models fits what we see and allows us to make predictions that have been tested and turned out to be quite accurate. If you know of another interpretation of our observations that also produce consistent, testably accurate observations, the ATM section of the forum is where you can present it. But for this section, the mainstream answers will have to do. That is, theories that have been repeatedly and rigorously tested and checked.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  4. #124
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,039
    Quote Originally Posted by Olli S View Post
    You say here that it is "common sense" or believing. Can it not be a rational, logical, philosophical, scientific fact? Or as you say, best model? When we think of the universe, it has some logical properties, or has it not?
    But what logical properties? Classical ones or only constructive ones? Or should we be adopting logical relations derived through category theory? What about the law of distribution? There are proposals to present a coherent picture of quantum mechanics that make use of denying the universal application of the law of distribution.

    By assuming certain logical laws without reflection, you introduce biases in your reasoning that you don't realize.
    In philosophy there is only one certain truth: the Descartes's cogito "cogito, ergo sum", "I think, so I am" that also the sceptical philosophers accept.
    Well, no. Many philosophers aren't too happy with the reasoning involved there. There are even good reasons--based off of our understanding of the science of the mind--for denying that consciousness in humans is a singular process where we can identify one individual. What most serious philosophers do agree on is that this Cartesian maxim doesn't get us anything that we'd like to think about in or outside of philosophy.

  5. #125
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    The Wild West
    Posts
    9,212
    Quote Originally Posted by Olli S View Post
    What then is the exact level of the presupposion that the space can not expand?
    Actually, we do not have much of a theory about "space itself." That's mainly because... how can you "observe" space?

    General relativity does not really answer the question of "how space expands" or even if it does. But it is well-equipped to provide a quantitative and predictive model of whatever expansion appears to be occurring simply by representing it as the scale factor.

    Remarkably, general relativity is so "well-equipped," it was prepared to handle the idea that the "expansion" (scale factor) is somehow accelerating (growing), a phenomenon discovered in 1998. This acceleration can be handled by the cosmological constant term in Einstein's field equations. The apparent expansion is something like 20-30% faster today than it was 3 or 4 billion years ago (IIRC). This current mainstream view is based on a rational series of logical steps associating Supernova Ia redshifts to their (adjusted) light curves. Of course, some steps along the path have been rigorously challenged. An accelerating expansion remains the mainstream view. (By the way, this was nowhere predicted in the "big bang theory," which does incredibly well explaining the ratios of the elements throughout the visible universe, but it has no real idea how dark matter and dark energy fit in there.)

    Other scientists view space as "the vacuum." Even after all the gas, dust, atoms, ions, etc., etc., have been removed, the vacuum is not empty. It is seething with particle pairs that blink in and out of existence, obviously in much less than the blink of an eye. These have some kind of virtual existence not fully understood. Not only that, ever since the aforementioned acceleration was discovered in 1998, our vacuum - the vacuum of our universe - is called upon to account for about 70% of the universe's mass-energy budget! That's a lot of mass-energy that apparently has some sort of accelerating effect on the existing expansion.... and which does not seem to have any existence outside of a particle accelerator....
    Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

  6. #126
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    71
    So, the expansion is not really expansion but something else?

    And we don't have a theory of the space of the whole universe. (Me: The space does not have to be empty to be just the space)

    You have said these two things.

    When a space is the whole space that there is - as the space of the whole universe necessarily is - how can there be more space or less space? It is possible only if the space and more space is the same thing somehow, a differential calculus thing; or if the space expands to a meta- space, and there is other spaces. But only the all spaces together is the whole space. So how you put this logic in your mainstream theory?

    Is our metagalaxy, the universe of all the galaxies, the whole universe or only a part of it? It is the whole universe, looks like that, do you agree?

  7. #127
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    3,462
    Quote Originally Posted by Olli S View Post
    So, the expansion is not really expansion but something else? ...
    The distances in the universe are getting bigger. That is the English definition of expansion - things getting bigger. Cosmologists tend to drop "distances" because they know what they are talking about and just say an expanding universe.

    We do have a theory of the space of the whole universe. It is called the Big Bang theory!

    You seem to still think of an expanding universe as expanding into something. What is the Universe expanding into?

    There is no such thing as a "metagalaxy". Galaxies are a minor part of the universe. There is dark energy (69% ) + dark matter (27%) + normal matter (4%) and that normal matter is mostly gas, not galaxies.

    Is the Universe really infinite or just really big?

  8. #128
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    6,443
    Quote Originally Posted by Olli S View Post
    When a space is the whole space that there is - as the space of the whole universe necessarily is - how can there be more space or less space? It is possible only if the space and more space is the same thing somehow, a differential calculus thing; or if the space expands to a meta- space, and there is other spaces. But only the all spaces together is the whole space. So how you put this logic in your mainstream theory?
    We describe spacetime as a 4 dimensional pseudo-Riemannian manifold. Specifically a Lorentzian manifold. Distances between two points are calculated by evaluating the distance function associated with it. This distance function can be couched in terms of intrinsic or extrinsic geometries. Casting it in terms of intrinsic ones means that we can equate expansion with a spatially and temporally varying distance function that doesn't require higher dimensions or existing space to produce something that reproduces what we see.

    Most linguistic paradoxes in physics vanish when you actually look at the model, not some mental picture you have of it. Dropping back to the geometry of the model shows that it is logical.

  9. #129
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,609
    Quote Originally Posted by Olli S View Post
    So how you put this logic in your mainstream theory?
    As the great philosopher Inigo Montoya said, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

    For you, something is not logical if you merely don't like it or understand it. But you should open your mind to the possibility that you simply haven't studied the subject enough to grasp it.

    Reality Check and others have repeatedly linked to Ned Wright's faq on cosmology. I strongly suggest that you actually read Wright's pages. His explanations are clear, accessible to non-experts, and he links to relevant scholarly articles for those interested in going deeper. Studying the evidence that has led to the mainstream view might help you overcome the rigidity of your thinking.

  10. #130
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    9,863
    Quote Originally Posted by Olli S View Post
    What then is the exact level of the presupposion that the space can not expand?
    Zero.

    You say here that it is "common sense" or believing. Can it not be a rational, logical, philosophical, scientific fact?
    There is no such thing as a "rational fact" or a "logical fact" or a "philosophical fact".

    And it is not a scientific fact because the evidence suggests otherwise.

    When we think of the universe, it has some logical properties, or has it not?
    No, it has not "logical properties".

    But isn't it so that also the universe exists?
    Not necessarily. But we have an existing thread, with 20 billion posts, discussing that idea.

  11. #131
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    4,498
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    (edit)

    Not necessarily. But we have an existing thread, with 20 billion posts, discussing that idea.
    Olli, I think I should warn you that two billion posts is a conservative estimate for the never ending thread.
    Last edited by John Mendenhall; 2017-Feb-25 at 02:58 AM.

  12. #132
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    71
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Zero.

    There is no such thing as a "rational fact" or a "logical fact" or a "philosophical fact".

    And it is not a scientific fact because the evidence suggests otherwise.

    No, it has not "logical properties".

    Not necessarily. But we have an existing thread, with 20 billion posts, discussing that idea.

    I cannot answer within the rules and in the ATM forum I was forbidden to defend my view even before I had wholly expressed it. If the moderator gives me place I will make explisit my model, even a mathematical model of it, as long as my math can do. Do I have permission, moderator there somewhere?
    Last edited by Olli S; 2017-Feb-24 at 03:44 PM. Reason: writing errors

  13. #133
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    25,555
    Quote Originally Posted by John Mendenhall View Post
    Olli, I think I should warn you that two billion posts is a conservative estimate for the never endin thread.
    Actually, the reason it has so many posts is because so many people keep trying to turn it into a thread about why the universe exists, etc., which is not at all what it is about. For this current thread, the issue is how much can we say about the universe if we insist on starting from some kind of preconceived logic about what "must be," versus how much do we need to just observe and model whatever we get. Of course, science is all about the latter, so almost the first step of science is to forget whatever preconceptions you have, and just observe and model with an open mind. Then questions like "how can the universe be infinite" or 'how can something infinite expand" simply never come up, because we would never ask that about models, and models are what we have. Any time someone says to me, a model can do that but the universe can't, all it means is that they already have one model in their mind that is blocking their ability to entertain a different one.
    Last edited by Ken G; 2017-Feb-24 at 04:13 PM.

  14. #134
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Peters Creek, Alaska
    Posts
    11,369
    Quote Originally Posted by Olli S View Post
    I cannot answer within the rules and in the ATM forum I was forbidden to defend my view even before I had wholly expressed it. If the moderator gives me place I will make explisit my model, even a mathematical model of it, as long as my math can do. Do I have permission, moderator there somewhere?
    You have not complied with the request I sent you via PM. In fact, you haven't even read it. So no, you do not have permission...and this thread isn't the place to ask for it.
    Forum Rules►  ◄FAQ►  ◄ATM Forum Advice►  ◄Conspiracy Advice
    Click http://cosmoquest.org/forum/images/buttons/report-40b.png to report a post (even this one) to the moderation team.


    Man is a tool-using animal. Nowhere do you find him without tools; without tools he is nothing, with tools he is all. Thomas Carlyle (1795-1881)

  15. #135
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    71
    Quote Originally Posted by PetersCreek View Post
    You have not complied with the request I sent you via PM. In fact, you haven't even read it. So no, you do not have permission...and this thread isn't the place to ask for it.
    Now I have read it and posted you properly. So I wait your private post.

  16. #136
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    11,696
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken G View Post
    Any time someone says to me, a model can do that but the universe can't, all it means is that they already have one model in their mind that is blocking their ability to entertain a different one.
    Yes, though I would add that even with the former view, science can be useful in tweaking whatever it is that brought this view about. Astronomy has introduced, for instance, some strong objective evidence and models that would allow one to tweak at least one Genesis interpretation. So even if the starting point is dogmatic and myopic, it would be wise to recognize all that science has to offer. Truth has no fear of great objective evidence.
    We know time flies, we just can't see its wings.

  17. #137
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,039
    Quote Originally Posted by Kwalish Kid View Post
    <logic and philosophy stuff>
    You know, it's telling that so often people try to avoid scientific questions by claiming to introduce "logic" and "philosophy", but then they never engage in actual logic or philosophy.

  18. #138
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    25,555
    Quote Originally Posted by George View Post
    Truth has no fear of great objective evidence.
    Yes, if one is taking a religious perspective, wouldn't they want to know if they were using a wrong interpretation of their own revered text? And if taking a scientific perspective, as on this forum, wouldn't they want to know if a better model existed than the one they were applying? There's just no situation where preconception trumps evidence.

  19. #139
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Falls Church, VA (near Washington, DC)
    Posts
    7,456
    Quote Originally Posted by Kwalish Kid View Post
    You know, it's telling that so often people try to avoid scientific questions by claiming to introduce "logic" and "philosophy", but then they never engage in actual logic or philosophy.
    Yes, my perception is that they often use "logical" and "rational" as buzzwords when they really mean their gut sense of what seems right, based on qualitative everyday sensations in ways that can break down under rigorous logical analysis.

  20. #140
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Peters Creek, Alaska
    Posts
    11,369
    Back away from the rabbit hole, folks. That's not what this thread is about.
    Forum Rules►  ◄FAQ►  ◄ATM Forum Advice►  ◄Conspiracy Advice
    Click http://cosmoquest.org/forum/images/buttons/report-40b.png to report a post (even this one) to the moderation team.


    Man is a tool-using animal. Nowhere do you find him without tools; without tools he is nothing, with tools he is all. Thomas Carlyle (1795-1881)

  21. #141
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,609
    Quote Originally Posted by Olli S View Post
    I cannot answer within the rules and in the ATM forum I was forbidden to defend my view even before I had wholly expressed it.
    That's because you stubbornly insisted on simply repeating your beliefs, rather than providing anything resembling a scientific argument. You wasted your chance. It's shameful to blame the moderators for the consequences of your own behaviour.

  22. #142
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Peters Creek, Alaska
    Posts
    11,369
    Quote Originally Posted by Geo Kaplan View Post
    That's because you stubbornly insisted on simply repeating your beliefs, rather than providing anything resembling a scientific argument. You wasted your chance. It's shameful to blame the moderators for the consequences of your own behaviour.
    That's not appropriate, either. Since the last few posts haven't included any questions or answers on the topic of this thread, it is now closed.
    Forum Rules►  ◄FAQ►  ◄ATM Forum Advice►  ◄Conspiracy Advice
    Click http://cosmoquest.org/forum/images/buttons/report-40b.png to report a post (even this one) to the moderation team.


    Man is a tool-using animal. Nowhere do you find him without tools; without tools he is nothing, with tools he is all. Thomas Carlyle (1795-1881)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •