PDA

View Full Version : Big Bang logically impossible



ToSeek
2002-Nov-27, 12:47 AM
(along with black holes, curved space, etc.), according to Tom Van Flandern:

Physics Has Its Principles (http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/PhysicsHasItsPrinciples.asp)

Chip
2002-Nov-27, 12:59 AM
"Something is wrong with science - fundamentally wrong. Theories keep getting stranger and stranger.” - Tom Van Flandern

Sorry Mr. Van Flandern but nature is not always obligated to be served up as Meat and Potatoes. Sometimes it comes out as Sushi, Pad Thai, or even Jell-O! /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

Tim Thompson
2002-Nov-27, 02:26 AM
TvF: ... However, this is a particular case worth considering on its own merits because our primary cosmology today, the Big Bang, begins with the ultimate creation-from-nothing scenario - the mass, space, and time of the entire universe from nothing - as its first step.

Although commonly believed, this is simply not true, and Van Flandern really should know better than to make such an assertion. The focus of big bang cosmology is that the early universe was small & hot, and it has expanded since then, into the universe that we now know. But how the universe came to be that way is a wide open question.

The popularized idea of the universe springing from "nothing" comes out of the singular nature of the beginning in general relativity theory. In 4-dimensional GR alone, the universe indeed comes from "nothing". But quantized GR, or even GR in many dimensions without quantization, allow for the event we call a big bang to have clear physical antecedents. Likewise in string theory (a superset of GR), which allows for the "colliding brane" scenarios, and other models generically named "pre big bang cosmology".

ToSeek
2002-Nov-27, 03:54 AM
On 2002-11-26 21:26, Tim Thompson wrote:
TvF: ... However, this is a particular case worth considering on its own merits because our primary cosmology today, the Big Bang, begins with the ultimate creation-from-nothing scenario - the mass, space, and time of the entire universe from nothing - as its first step.

Although commonly believed, this is simply not true, and Van Flandern really should know better than to make such an assertion.


Van Flandern ignores a great many things when it suits him to do so - I think he still has up his "ten reasons the Big Bang is wrong" even though half of them have been made obsolete by recent findings.

xriso
2002-Nov-27, 04:53 AM
Van Flandern's conclusion is logically impossible, since the Big Bang did happen.

David Hall
2002-Nov-27, 07:43 AM
The way I see the BB, it doesn't state that something came from nothing. It simply pushes back the creation of the "something" back a bit. The BB postulates a singularity (or whatever) as the origin of the universe. What the BB doesn't (and probably cannot) do is adequately describe the origins of that singularity. That doesn't make it logically wrong, it's simply a definition of the scope of the theory.

But in any case, wouldn't this be a problem with all cosmologies? no matter what you imagine the universe to be, you can always ask the question "Well, what created that?" In fact, with a universe infinite in time and space the question becomes even trickier than with the big bang. What is the origin of something that has no beginning?

Michael
2002-Nov-27, 11:02 AM
On 2002-11-26 19:59, Chip wrote:
"Something is wrong with science - fundamentally wrong. Theories keep getting stranger and stranger.” - Tom Van Flandern

Sorry Mr. Van Flandern but nature is not always obligated to be served up as Meat and Potatoes. Sometimes it comes out as Sushi, Pad Thai, or even Jell-O! /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif


In science there are people that have the imagination to make theories that make sense out of the universe, and there are other people that don't have the imagination to make sense out of the universe, but demand that you believe their no sense theories anyways, by saying the universe makes no sense.

AgoraBasta
2002-Nov-27, 11:50 AM
On 2002-11-27 02:43, David Hall wrote:
In fact, with a universe infinite in time and space the question becomes even trickier than with the big bang. What is the origin of something that has no beginning?
Nothing tricky here - eternal existence is the origin of self, exactly the same way as today "originated" from yesterday.

John Kierein
2002-Nov-27, 12:54 PM
At least TvL's Leonid model seems to have been the best predictor of the clumps arrival times.

heusdens
2002-Nov-27, 02:44 PM
On 2002-11-27 02:43, David Hall wrote:
The way I see the BB, it doesn't state that something came from nothing. It simply pushes back the creation of the "something" back a bit. The BB postulates a singularity (or whatever) as the origin of the universe. What the BB doesn't (and probably cannot) do is adequately describe the origins of that singularity. That doesn't make it logically wrong, it's simply a definition of the scope of the theory.

But in any case, wouldn't this be a problem with all cosmologies? no matter what you imagine the universe to be, you can always ask the question "Well, what created that?" In fact, with a universe infinite in time and space the question becomes even trickier than with the big bang. What is the origin of something that has no beginning?


The way you perceive or approach the issue on hand, raised this issue ('What created the universe'), while it is simply a non-issue.
Let us first define, that the universe is self-contained. Everything that exists, is in the universe. The universe constitues eveything that is.
Further, even though one can say that everything IN the universe has been caused by some previous state, this is NOT TRUE for the WHOLE.
The universe IS, HAS BEEN, and always WILL BE. And there cannot be a cause for the universe.

To think of that in such a way, is a simple misconception. But I think almost anyone makes that misconception.

The only way to arrive at the proper conclusion, is from proper definitions.
First, the universe is everything that is in existence, and as such, cannot have a beginning or end, it just exists.
( So, if the Big bang realy happenned, it follows that what we conceive of the universe, is not the whole, so a 'super-universe' must exist)

Second, and this more or less is a foundation for the first statement, 'nothingess' cannot exist, which explains that 'something' must have always been existent. Existence has no alternative.


Well, if one does not understand this fundamental issue, one is obliged to think that 'everything' came into existence from 'nothing' by an act of 'creation'.
But such an act of 'creation' is logically unnecessary and even impossible.


Btw. in some explenations of the Big Bang, it is supposed that the universe was even at the early stage infinite in extent, and contained an infinite amount of matter.
I think that is a misconception too, cause the issue of contraction or expanding, can only be a feature of a 'universe' which has a finite extent of matter.

Can someone dig into that issue?

One way to perceive of this is as follows.
Let us assume that in some stage, the universe was exactly ordered. There was exaclty one H atom in every cubic unit (conforming the average density we observe it to be now) throughout all of space, which was infinite in extent. We assume we 'create' this state with infinite precission, as to make all forces exactly balance out, or as precise as nature allows us to do.
Well, as nature has peculiarities at the quantum level, such a universe would not be stable, but matter would clutter together, although it could be that a huge amount of time is necessary for even the slightest change in the overall matter distribution to occur. But what DOESN'T happen is that the whole universe collapses on itself. THAT to happen namely, would require an INFINITE amount of time, so best said, that would NEVER happen. And besides of that, WHERE should that overall collapse occur, since all places in the universe are equal candidates. That means it would not happen ANYWHERE.

Got it now?

Of course this 'initial' state is just a thought experiment, in reality there is no initial state for the universe.


PS.
I think such a 'universe' when it had been in such a state, would in the long run just look as our current universe looks.
It is obvious that when TAKING INTO ACCOUNT the infinite of space and extent of matter, although the force of gravity extends throughout all of space, this doesn't give rise to an overall collapse (and therefore there is no need for expansion either), because in the infinitness of space all gravity balances out. That is the very nature of the universe.

PS 2

Let us call this (non-existent) intitial state, as opposed to the HOT BIG BANG model, the COOL INFINITE SEMI STEADY STATE model.
/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

(What's in a name?)

PS 3

And proper reasoning allows you to make the statement that, even though this 'inititial' state was never part of the history of the universe, which indeed is infinite, one can easility derive from this model that the universe as it exists now, behaves in the same way (doesn't collapse or expand as a whole). While on the other hand, in the BB theory, there ISN'T an alternative BUT to conclude that the universe at the beginning was in a bizarre and absurd state, which COULDN'T have happened, and there fore didn't happen. So the model is not valid for that reason.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: heusdens on 2002-11-27 10:54 ]</font>

heusdens
2002-Nov-27, 03:34 PM
On 2002-11-27 06:50, AgoraBasta wrote:

On 2002-11-27 02:43, David Hall wrote:
In fact, with a universe infinite in time and space the question becomes even trickier than with the big bang. What is the origin of something that has no beginning?
Nothing tricky here - eternal existence is the origin of self, exactly the same way as today "originated" from yesterday.


For the real BB fanatics (and there are a lot out there) this ain't a conclusive statement.
They INSIST on saying that the universe was a bit smaller yesterday as today...

JS Princeton
2002-Nov-27, 05:06 PM
I think that is a misconception too, cause the issue of contraction or expanding, can only be a feature of a 'universe' which has a finite extent of matter.

This is not true. An infinite universe can just as well expand and contract.

JS Princeton
2002-Nov-27, 05:10 PM
Here's why Quasi-Steady State is bunk:

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/stdystat.htm

heusdens
2002-Nov-27, 05:50 PM
On 2002-11-27 12:06, JS Princeton wrote:

I think that is a misconception too, cause the issue of contraction or expanding, can only be a feature of a 'universe' which has a finite extent of matter.

This is not true. An infinite universe can just as well expand and contract.


Yeah. Didn't you look up in the sky, and saw all these galaxies and stars???

It means that contractions is happening everywhere!!!

Everything IS contracting, like I explained in my model. But it is not contracting on itself as a WHOLE, but only in finite extents of the infinite.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: heusdens on 2002-11-27 12:59 ]</font>

heusdens
2002-Nov-27, 05:57 PM
On 2002-11-27 12:10, JS Princeton wrote:
Here's why Quasi-Steady State is bunk:

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/stdystat.htm



Ha ha ha ha ha/.....

Now, I don't believe this QSS model either, cause it sill goes on assuming this nonsense of creation ex nihilo....


Please critice MY MODEL and not something else, which contains the same nonsense as the BB theory.

For your convenience, I gave it a proper name. It's called by the name "COOL INFINITE SEMI STEADY STATE".

It's totally different then QSS or any other model.

samsara15
2002-Nov-27, 06:20 PM
Like it or not, quantum mechanics makes creation ex nihilo a possibility...at least for a little while...

heusdens
2002-Nov-27, 06:35 PM
On 2002-11-27 13:20, samsara15 wrote:
Like it or not, quantum mechanics makes creation ex nihilo a possibility...at least for a little while...


Yeah. The world was just a superposition of wave functions who collapsed at the moment the human observer came into being...

that sort of thing???

heusdens
2002-Nov-27, 06:38 PM
On 2002-11-27 13:20, samsara15 wrote:
Like it or not, quantum mechanics makes creation ex nihilo a possibility...at least for a little while...


If you realy believe this, outside of the context of the microcosmos, then please show me the creation of .. let's say a diamond .. a pound of gold .....

If the universe came into existence out of a vacuum bubble, then that must be a piece of a cake for you!

DJ
2002-Nov-27, 06:41 PM
I submit that we will never truly know the answer to the questions posed, answered, and critiqued here.

My reasoning is not that this is beyond our comprehension or sleuthing ability.

It is that WAY TOO MUCH funding is riding upon not finding the absolute understanding. And I suggest that some of the responses on this page reflect this. This is not to suggest that it is intentful, but that the truth can be blinded by a flash of green.


DJ

heusdens
2002-Nov-27, 07:15 PM
On 2002-11-27 13:41, DJ wrote:
I submit that we will never truly know the answer to the questions posed, answered, and critiqued here.

My reasoning is not that this is beyond our comprehension or sleuthing ability.

It is that WAY TOO MUCH funding is riding upon not finding the absolute understanding. And I suggest that some of the responses on this page reflect this. This is not to suggest that it is intentful, but that the truth can be blinded by a flash of green.
DJ


Yeah, you know. For some people (calling themselves scientists) this is a way of living, creating illusions, and creating everything from nothing...

Now anyone denying that magicians should have a living too???

But let's say, perhaps they should just perform in theatres, and not use the stage of science for their illuster tricks and cheats.

Science has an important task in explaining the world AS IT IS, and no play tricks with peoples minds!!

You know, a lot of people on this planet don't even have access to proper education, which is a BIG SHAME!!!

I know of many ways how to use those GIGANTIC science budgets, for eduacting and helping mankind with the REAL problems which need to be solved.

So, let's pinch through that self created false images and get rid of those infalting vacuum bubbles theories.

We KNOW what the universe as a self-contained entity is like, it's INFINITE, and that's the only way it can be.

There are a few details worth exploring (just for knowing, not for any practical purposes), but they don't allow us to spend so much money on that!

Yeah, and it's a shame they got almost everybody brain washed on that!

RELIGION is not an alternative to understandint, that's for sure. But current 'inflation bubbled' science can be easily put into that same camp of Creation Scientist, since they in fact don't serve another purpose as to brain wash people into believing "creation ex nihilo" and other mysteries.

And this for the simple fact they refuse to adopt to proper concepts of time, space and matter, and don't want to conceive of an infinite self-contained universe.
Big Bang hypothese is just an inflating lie.
It's a bubble of vacuum, there is realy nothing in it, in fact you cannot even pinch through it, cause it contains nothing.

For real knowledge you must relie on other sources. For a good theory of everything, I would propose you look in the old books of dialectical materialism, because that contains knowledge that is realy different from religion.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: heusdens on 2002-11-27 14:40 ]</font>

informant
2002-Nov-27, 07:41 PM
The way you perceive or approach the issue on hand, raised this issue ('What created the universe'), while it is simply a non-issue.
Let us first define, that the universe is self-contained. Everything that exists, is in the universe. The universe constitues eveything that is.
Further, even though one can say that everything IN the universe has been caused by some previous state, this is NOT TRUE for the WHOLE.
The universe IS, HAS BEEN, and always WILL BE. And there cannot be a cause for the universe.

To think of that in such a way, is a simple misconception. But I think almost anyone makes that misconception.

The only way to arrive at the proper conclusion, is from proper definitions.
First, the universe is everything that is in existence, and as such, cannot have a beginning or end, it just exists.
( So, if the Big bang realy happenned, it follows that what we conceive of the universe, is not the whole, so a 'super-universe' must exist)

Second, and this more or less is a foundation for the first statement, 'nothingess' cannot exist, which explains that 'something' must have always been existent. Existence has no alternative.

No offense, heusdens, but to me arguments like these always seem like some sort of a cop-out. It looks like they amount to just changing the notion of “universe” into something else that couldn’t possibly have had a beginning, by definition.
But this is evading the question. When people ask: “How did the universe begin”, they’re not thinking of everything that “IS, HAS BEEN”, or “WILL BE”.
When the man on the street – like me – asks that question, he’s thinking about the past, not the present, and not the future. And it isn’t even all the past, but some initial moment in the past.
Now, it may be that for physical reasons the question “doesn’t even make sense” (although that’s tough to swallow), but to simply change the definitions, and replace them with new ones according to which the question is meaningless, does not constitute a physical reason to me.

AgoraBasta
2002-Nov-27, 07:45 PM
heusdens,

Don't forget you are arguing against religious fanatism. That's a frustrating task, in general...

heusdens
2002-Nov-27, 07:49 PM
On 2002-11-27 14:41, informant wrote:

The way you perceive or approach the issue on hand, raised this issue ('What created the universe'), while it is simply a non-issue.
Let us first define, that the universe is self-contained. Everything that exists, is in the universe. The universe constitues eveything that is.
Further, even though one can say that everything IN the universe has been caused by some previous state, this is NOT TRUE for the WHOLE.
The universe IS, HAS BEEN, and always WILL BE. And there cannot be a cause for the universe.

To think of that in such a way, is a simple misconception. But I think almost anyone makes that misconception.

The only way to arrive at the proper conclusion, is from proper definitions.
First, the universe is everything that is in existence, and as such, cannot have a beginning or end, it just exists.
( So, if the Big bang realy happenned, it follows that what we conceive of the universe, is not the whole, so a 'super-universe' must exist)

Second, and this more or less is a foundation for the first statement, 'nothingess' cannot exist, which explains that 'something' must have always been existent. Existence has no alternative.

No offense, heusdens, but to me arguments like these always seem like some sort of a cop-out. It looks like they amount to just changing the notion of “universe” into something else that couldn’t possibly have had a beginning, by definition.
But this is evading the question. When people ask: “How did the universe begin”, they’re not thinking of everything that “IS, HAS BEEN”, or “WILL BE”.
When the man on the street – like me – asks that question, he’s thinking about the past, not the present, and not the future. And it isn’t even all the past, but some initial moment in the past.
Now, it may be that for physical reasons the question “doesn’t even make sense” (although that’s tough to swallow), but to simply change the definitions, and replace them with new ones according to which the question is meaningless, does not constitute a physical reason to me.



Some people are never satisfied, no matter what answer is given.

First if you think of the universe of something self-contained (everything that exist, is part of the universe, and nothing is outside it) is doesn't has a begin or end.

So, if people ask then what is the begin, the answer is: it doesn't have a begin.

What ELSE could be said then?

Ok, people may ask then why doesn't it has a begin. The answer is then: cause at any given time there was a preceding state of the universe, so it couldn't have a begin.

Any other answer possible???

Then, ok people can ask. Why AT ALL is there an EXISTING world, a universe, why does it exist.

The answer is then. Well since "nothing" can't exist, everything that does exist, must exist, and since everything that exists, is ever changing, moving, transforming, adapting, evolving, becoming, decaying, etc. the universe goes on and on and on and on (etc. etc. etc. etc.) INDEFINATELY

Is there any possible other way of conceiving that????

And finally, if that doesn't make people happy, why then don't they go find a bible or qu`ran or something, if that pleases them better.

I did my best.

heusdens
2002-Nov-27, 07:55 PM
On 2002-11-27 14:45, AgoraBasta wrote:
heusdens,

Don't forget you are arguing against religious fanatism. That's a frustrating task, in general...


Ha, ha ha....

Yes, the hight priests of cosmology with their inflating vacuum bubbles, who brainwash the whole of the world community with their genuine orthodox nonsense big bang model, are not easy to deal with, that's for sure.

You cannot even punch a hole in their vacuum bubble, cause nothing is in there....

Chip
2002-Nov-27, 08:04 PM
On 2002-11-27 14:49, heusdens wrote:
"Any other answer possible???"


Many.
For starters:
1. On the macro scale, an expanding, accelerating, finite-yet-unbounded space-time manifold.
2. Space expanding not from a central point, but from every point.
3. Considerably denser and hotter in the past than today.

These ideas are supported by many levels of observation.

Silas
2002-Nov-27, 08:05 PM
On 2002-11-27 13:38, heusdens wrote:


On 2002-11-27 13:20, samsara15 wrote:
Like it or not, quantum mechanics makes creation ex nihilo a possibility...at least for a little while...


If you realy believe this, outside of the context of the microcosmos, then please show me the creation of .. let's say a diamond .. a pound of gold .....

If the universe came into existence out of a vacuum bubble, then that must be a piece of a cake for you!



There was an article in Scientific American, about two years ago, entitled "The Breakdown of Empty Space." Experimenters had perceived the spontaneous emission of particles from the breakdown of a virtual particle-antiparticle pair in the vicinity of a large atomic nucleus. i.e., you don't need a "black hole" to observe "Hawking Radiation." Any sufficently large gravitational gradient can do the trick.

The emitted matter is not sufficient to justify either a steady-state universe or a big-bang universe, but it does point to an example of creation of matter from nothing.

Silas

AgoraBasta
2002-Nov-27, 08:07 PM
Silas,

So you say massenergy is not conserved in that process? /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

heusdens
2002-Nov-27, 08:08 PM
On 2002-11-27 15:05, Silas wrote:


On 2002-11-27 13:38, heusdens wrote:


On 2002-11-27 13:20, samsara15 wrote:
Like it or not, quantum mechanics makes creation ex nihilo a possibility...at least for a little while...


If you realy believe this, outside of the context of the microcosmos, then please show me the creation of .. let's say a diamond .. a pound of gold .....

If the universe came into existence out of a vacuum bubble, then that must be a piece of a cake for you!



There was an article in Scientific American, about two years ago, entitled "The Breakdown of Empty Space." Experimenters had perceived the spontaneous emission of particles from the breakdown of a virtual particle-antiparticle pair in the vicinity of a large atomic nucleus. i.e., you don't need a "black hole" to observe "Hawking Radiation." Any sufficently large gravitational gradient can do the trick.

The emitted matter is not sufficient to justify either a steady-state universe or a big-bang universe, but it does point to an example of creation of matter from nothing.

Silas



A gravitational gradient sufficiently large is NOT NOTHING I would say.

Give it another try, maybe in the end I believe you...

heusdens
2002-Nov-27, 08:15 PM
On 2002-11-27 15:04, Chip wrote:


On 2002-11-27 14:49, heusdens wrote:
"Any other answer possible???"


Many.
For starters:
1. On the macro scale, an expanding, accelerating, finite-yet-unbounded space-time manifold.
2. Space expanding not from a central point, but from every point.
3. Considerably denser and hotter in the past than today.

These ideas are supported by many levels of observation.


You only see what you wanna see.

What is 'macro-scale' in your definition?
The universe as a self-contained infinitely large entity is big you know.
Your macro scale would be less then infinitesimally small.

I just see contraction of matter happening in every point of space. That is what are called galaxies, stars, etc.

How did you stick your thermometer in this past universe?

Silas
2002-Nov-27, 09:27 PM
On 2002-11-27 15:07, AgoraBasta wrote:
Silas,

So you say massenergy is not conserved in that process? /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif


I don't know for sure... Does Hawking Radiation violate the conservation laws?

Silas

Zathras
2002-Nov-27, 09:31 PM
On 2002-11-27 16:27, Silas wrote:


On 2002-11-27 15:07, AgoraBasta wrote:
Silas,

So you say massenergy is not conserved in that process? /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif


I don't know for sure... Does Hawking Radiation violate the conservation laws?

Silas



No it doesn't. The energy radiated is compensated by the loss of energy contained in the gravitational field. As Harking radiation continues, the event horizon shrinks further and further (with the rate of shrinkage accelerating) until the black hole has completely evaporated.

Chip
2002-Nov-27, 09:43 PM
heusdens:
You only see what you wanna see.

Chip:
My ego doesn't enter into it. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

heusdens:
What is 'macro-scale' in your definition?

Chip:
Here's a breakdown of the statement: "On the macro scale, an expanding, accelerating, finite-yet-unbounded space-time manifold."

macro scale: Largest that we can see. Not local events.

expanding: Becoming more diffuse. Galactic clusters and galaxies moving further apart over time.

accelerating: Appears to be expanding more rapidly over time based on recent data.

finite-yet-unbounded: finite: Visual limit of our event horizon. yet-unbounded: No edge or end. Not "contained." Curved space-time.

manifold: Our event horizon. Cannot see beyond the density of the cosmic background radiation from the initial expansion.

heusdens:
How did you stick your thermometer in this past universe?

Chip:
One tool (of many): The COBE satellite's "Differential Microwave Radiometer." The very minute uniformity in the background radiation is what lead to the formation of the galaxies. As you look deeper into space, you look further back into time. The temperature of 3 degrees Kelvin everywhere in the distant sky is the afterglow of the "Big Bang." (Note: "Big Bang" is a term from the popular press and was coined by early opponents of the initial concept. The slang term stuck with scientists, but is misleading to the general public. The actual theory addresses no "explosion," nor does it conceive of space expanding into anything. Actual "Big Bang" theory does not say there was nothing "before." (You don't know the theory you're criticizing.) Evidence from this is that the early universe was far different 15 billion years ago than today.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Chip on 2002-11-27 16:44 ]</font>

heusdens
2002-Nov-27, 10:02 PM
On 2002-11-27 16:43, Chip wrote:
heusdens:
You only see what you wanna see.

Chip:
My ego doesn't enter into it. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

heusdens:
What is 'macro-scale' in your definition?

Chip:
Here's a breakdown of the statement: "On the macro scale, an expanding, accelerating, finite-yet-unbounded space-time manifold."

macro scale: Largest that we can see. Not local events.

expanding: Becoming more diffuse. Galactic clusters and galaxies moving further apart over time.

accelerating: Appears to be expanding more rapidly over time based on recent data.

finite-yet-unbounded: finite: Visual limit of our event horizon. yet-unbounded: No edge or end. Not "contained." Curved space-time.

manifold: Our event horizon. Cannot see beyond the density of the cosmic background radiation from the initial expansion.

heusdens:
How did you stick your thermometer in this past universe?

Chip:
One tool (of many): The COBE satellite's "Differential Microwave Radiometer." The very minute uniformity in the background radiation is what lead to the formation of the galaxies. As you look deeper into space, you look further back into time. The temperature of 3 degrees Kelvin everywhere in the distant sky is the afterglow of the "Big Bang." (Note: "Big Bang" is a term from the popular press and was coined by early opponents of the initial concept. The slang term stuck with scientists, but is misleading to the general public. The actual theory addresses no "explosion," nor does it conceive of space expanding into anything. Actual "Big Bang" theory does not say there was nothing "before." (You don't know the theory you're criticizing.) Evidence from this is that the early universe was far different 15 billion years ago than today.



Big Bang theory is an inflating bubble of false vacuum.

Now, I don't believe the theory, cause the matter that was created during the Big Bang must have come from somewhere.

If you believe the Big Bang, then you believe that the CMBR is the remnant from the light created at the Big Bang.
Since I don't believe the Big Bang, the CMBR is not from the Big Bang, but from light sources far away, and were disturbed in such a way that we see a blackbody spectrum of around 2,7 K.
In fact, using Olbers` paradox, it was already calculated that all the light of all the infinite stars and luminous objects in the infinite universe, and which would have interactions with the matter that is in every part of the universe (it ain't a plain vacuum) would radiate at 3 K (later even calculated to be 2,8 K) at a blackbody spectrum. And this was calculated a long time BEFORE it was even measured!
Gamow, on the basis of the BB hypothese, didn't came further then an estimate of 50 K.

So, the CMBR is the remnants of the infinite number of stars and luminous objects in the infinite universe.

Now, for your knowledge, may I ask where did the Big Bang come from?

1) a "super nature" or "super universe" did it, and still does it, causing baby universes to come into existence everywhere and everytime, but which are unobservable to us.

2) It's "creation ex nihilo" it didn't come from anywhere (or God did it)

3) The question is without meaning, we can't go further back then let's say 10 to the power minus 43 seconds or so.

4) Inflaton, which was something that existed in imaginary time, and occured before the inflation epoch.


But I know why the Big Bang theory is there, without it, a lot of cosmologist and particle physicist would loose their job.

As any magician knows, one has to create new trics everytime, or you are out of work some day...

It's a bit of a costy stage though to use costy equipment and resources for the purpose of mystifying reality.

I know, the universe we realy live in is less exciting, then the one created with the imagination of many scientists, but happy for me and all of us, it's the one one can realy live in.

There's no existence in a vacuum bubble, you know, no matter how hard it expands!!


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: heusdens on 2002-11-27 17:04 ]</font>

Silas
2002-Nov-27, 11:12 PM
On 2002-11-27 17:02, heusdens wrote:
3) The question is without meaning, we can't go further back then let's say 10 to the power minus 43 seconds or so.


What's wrong with this answer? For most of us, it's completely honest. What happened "before" the Big Bang? I don't know.

("Tell me where all lost years are...")

The evidence strongly suggests that the cosmos was once small and hot, and that it is still expanding from that point. Is it a fatal objection that we don't know exactly what happened to prepare that small, hot cosmos for expansion?

You speak of a steady state cosmos in which all that "is" has "always been." But how? How does such a thing come into existence? The question of causation is a thorn in *everyone's* cosmology. Do you really want to cope with the theoretical difficulties of a cosmos that is arbitrarily old?

Is it older than 10^30 years?
Is it older than 10^400 years?
Is it older than 10^2200 years?

("Can you hear me now? Good.")

Silas

heusdens
2002-Nov-27, 11:31 PM
On 2002-11-27 18:12, Silas wrote:


On 2002-11-27 17:02, heusdens wrote:
3) The question is without meaning, we can't go further back then let's say 10 to the power minus 43 seconds or so.


What's wrong with this answer? For most of us, it's completely honest. What happened "before" the Big Bang? I don't know.


Well, what's wrong with the Big Bang is that it's not an answer to anything. It merely is a rewriting of the Creation myth, using mathematical formulas, but it does not contain any real answer.

Why do we have science, if they can't come up with a better answer as religion?

What is wrong there, is that you seem to impose that there is a theoretical limit to our knowledge. Well there isn't. There are practicle impossibilities, like we can never look infinitely far into space and so.



The evidence strongly suggests that the cosmos was once small and hot, and that it is still expanding from that point. Is it a fatal objection that we don't know exactly what happened to prepare that small, hot cosmos for expansion?
[/queote]

What evidence? If there is no cosmological expansion in the first place, then there is no doppler-redshift either. I only see redshift. That of course calls for an answer, and there is an answer to that one.

But even if a good and satisfactory answer can not yet be given, it doesn't require us to believe in magic, or does it?

[quote]
You speak of a steady state cosmos in which all that "is" has "always been." But how? How does such a thing come into existence? The question of causation is a thorn in *everyone's* cosmology. Do you really want to cope with the theoretical difficulties of a cosmos that is arbitrarily old?

Is it older than 10^30 years?
Is it older than 10^400 years?
Is it older than 10^2200 years?

("Can you hear me now? Good.")

Silas



Go do your math class again, and ask how big infinity is. It's bigger then any number you can ever imagine.

And I never spoke of Steady State cosmos, I have given it a proper name, it should be called "COOL INFINITE SEMI STEADY UNIVERSE".

It's cool, cause it never was in it't totallity in a extreme state that BB cosmology believed the cosmos was.
It's infinite, cause every finite cosmos would collapse on itself due to gravity (remember?)
It's semi steady, cause the cosmos evolves and goes on doing that forever and ever. It contracts everywhere on every scale, yet it stays in the same proportions (doesn't reduce to a single point in space/time with infinite matter density, oh no!)

And it's an universe, cause there is nothing outside the universe, it's completely self-contained.

D J
2002-Nov-27, 11:40 PM
On 2002-11-27 18:12, Silas wrote:


On 2002-11-27 17:02, heusdens wrote:
3) The question is without meaning, we can't go further back then let's say 10 to the power minus 43 seconds or so.


What's wrong with this answer? For most of us, it's completely honest. What happened "before" the Big Bang? I don't know.

("Tell me where all lost years are...")

The evidence strongly suggests that the cosmos was once small and hot, and that it is still expanding from that point. Is it a fatal objection that we don't know exactly what happened to prepare that small, hot cosmos for expansion?

You speak of a steady state cosmos in which all that "is" has "always been." But how? How does such a thing come into existence? The question of causation is a thorn in *everyone's* cosmology. Do you really want to cope with the theoretical difficulties of a cosmos that is arbitrarily old?

Is it older than 10^30 years?
Is it older than 10^400 years?
Is it older than 10^2200 years?

("Can you hear me now? Good.")

Silas


I find it amazing that the BB believers can conceive that the cosmos was once small and hot(So, have always existed in another form), and that it is still expanding from that point.
But could not accept any other possibility.
Working entirely from observation, Arp sketches a picture of an eternal, infinite, stable universe which continually "unfolds from many points within itself."

Quote:
"Narlikar showed in 1977 (Annals of Physics, 107, 325) that if one re-writes the basic equation of relativity in a more general form, one obtains a simple solution in which the masses of objects increase with time: a particle's mass is proportional to the square of the time since its creation. This suggests that a particle's mass depends on the amount of the universe with which the particle can interact. The part of the universe with which a particle can interact is a sphere centered on the particle, which grows at the speed of light from the particle's beginning.

Narlikar's variable mass theory is supported by the astronomical evidence in more detail than can be retold here. Furthermore, it preserves all the successes of general relativity, and it leaves behind relativity's two most glaring flaws: singularities and curved space."
http://www.quackgrass.com/roots/arp.html

Example of variable mass:Quasars became BLAC Objects and later became Galaxies.Life itself is an example of variable mass.

heusdens
2002-Nov-28, 12:14 AM
On 2002-11-27 18:40, Orion38 wrote:


On 2002-11-27 18:12, Silas wrote:


On 2002-11-27 17:02, heusdens wrote:
3) The question is without meaning, we can't go further back then let's say 10 to the power minus 43 seconds or so.


What's wrong with this answer? For most of us, it's completely honest. What happened "before" the Big Bang? I don't know.

("Tell me where all lost years are...")

The evidence strongly suggests that the cosmos was once small and hot, and that it is still expanding from that point. Is it a fatal objection that we don't know exactly what happened to prepare that small, hot cosmos for expansion?

You speak of a steady state cosmos in which all that "is" has "always been." But how? How does such a thing come into existence? The question of causation is a thorn in *everyone's* cosmology. Do you really want to cope with the theoretical difficulties of a cosmos that is arbitrarily old?

Is it older than 10^30 years?
Is it older than 10^400 years?
Is it older than 10^2200 years?

("Can you hear me now? Good.")

Silas


I find it amazing that the BB believers can conceive that the cosmos was once small and hot(So, have always existed in another form), and that it is still expanding from that point.
But could not accept any other possibility.
Working entirely from observation, Arp sketches a picture of an eternal, infinite, stable universe which continually "unfolds from many points within itself."

Quote:
"Narlikar showed in 1977 (Annals of Physics, 107, 325) that if one re-writes the basic equation of relativity in a more general form, one obtains a simple solution in which the masses of objects increase with time: a particle's mass is proportional to the square of the time since its creation. This suggests that a particle's mass depends on the amount of the universe with which the particle can interact. The part of the universe with which a particle can interact is a sphere centered on the particle, which grows at the speed of light from the particle's beginning.

Narlikar's variable mass theory is supported by the astronomical evidence in more detail than can be retold here. Furthermore, it preserves all the successes of general relativity, and it leaves behind relativity's two most glaring flaws: singularities and curved space."
http://www.quackgrass.com/roots/arp.html

Example of variable mass:Quasars became BLAC Objects and later became Galaxies.Life itself is an example of variable mass.




I never heard this theory.

But doesn't it follow from this theory, that the classification of stars is wrong?

If we look far away, in the past, this theory assumes that the proton mass was different then as it is now and here.

Some physical properties must have been different then as now.

And you still cheat in some way, cause you assume "creation ex nihilo" to happen.

And please tell me, what is the use of replacing the BB myth, or any other myth, with a new myth?


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: heusdens on 2002-11-27 19:31 ]</font>

heusdens
2002-Nov-28, 12:25 AM
On 2002-11-27 18:12, Silas wrote:
The question of causation is a thorn in *everyone's* cosmology. Do you really want to cope with the theoretical difficulties of a cosmos that is arbitrarily old?

Is it older than 10^30 years?
Is it older than 10^400 years?
Is it older than 10^2200 years?

("Can you hear me now? Good.")

Silas



Is this a point you make from philosophical grounds, theological grounds or psychological grounds?

What difference does it make as how old the universe is?

We cannot see unlimited far, so we would not ever have to realize it would be infinitely big and old.

It does not change anything for us here and now, the universe is how we observe it to be.

The BB theory is just a silly way of looking at it, and instead of trying to find a reasonable answer, it mystifies and denies the answers which we already found.

(it was known long before the CMBR was detected, that the sky would be full of light, it was even known it was a blackbody spectrum at 2,8 K!)

overrated
2002-Nov-28, 12:57 AM
The BB theory is just a silly way of looking at it, and instead of trying to find a reasonable answer, it mystifies and denies the answers which we already found.


That's a cop out. The people who subscribe to the Big Bang theory don't do so out of weakmindedness or religious fanatacism... they do it because of the evidence they have witnessed.

It's really disingenuous (not to mention insulting) to suggest that professional scientists are for some reason dodging a "reasonable answer" when studying cosmology.

D J
2002-Nov-28, 01:01 AM
heusdens wrote,
Quote:
I never heard this theory.

But doesn't it follow from this theory, that the classification of stars is wrong?

If we look far away, in the past, this theory assumes that the proton mass was different then as it is now and here.
__________________
Assuming that theory is right ,yes.
Example of variable mass:Quasars became BLAC Objects and later became Galaxies.

Quote:
And you still cheat in some way, cause you assume "creation ex nihilo" to happen.
__________________
Solution here:
http://www.etheric.com/GalacticCenter/Gravity.html

Subquantum Kinetics
http://www.etheric.com/LaVioletteBooks/ether.html

Quote:
And please tell me, what is the use of replacing the BB myth, or any other myth, with a new myth?
______________________
I prefer the word speculation.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Orion38 on 2002-11-27 20:04 ]</font>

heusdens
2002-Nov-28, 01:05 AM
On 2002-11-27 19:57, overrated wrote:


The BB theory is just a silly way of looking at it, and instead of trying to find a reasonable answer, it mystifies and denies the answers which we already found.


That's a cop out. The people who subscribe to the Big Bang theory don't do so out of weakmindedness or religious fanatacism... they do it because of the evidence they have witnessed.

It's really disingenuous (not to mention insulting) to suggest that professional scientists are for some reason dodging a "reasonable answer" when studying cosmology.



Ok.

Well and I agree on that, as most cosmology (which is observing the cosmos, in first instance), stands apart from the BB theory as such.

But for sure, the BB theory as a whole, is deceptive. It was "invented" by a belgian priest George LeMaitre, and I pretty much doubt if relgion didn't have something to do with that.

heusdens
2002-Nov-28, 01:15 AM
On 2002-11-27 20:01, Orion38 wrote:
heusdens wrote,
Quote:
I never heard this theory.

But doesn't it follow from this theory, that the classification of stars is wrong?

If we look far away, in the past, this theory assumes that the proton mass was different then as it is now and here.
__________________
Assuming that theory is right ,yes.
Example of variable mass:Quasars became BLAC Objects and later became Galaxies.


Yes, but you know what I was aiming at.
We use star categories, for which we know how their mass and luminosity coincide, and use them for measurement.
So, if you adopt the theory, you cannot at the same time accept the star classification to be valid also for far away galaxies, and so all your distance measurements go blurr.


Quote:
And you still cheat in some way, cause you assume "creation ex nihilo" to happen.
__________________
Solution here:
http://www.etheric.com/GalacticCenter/Gravity.html

Subquantum Kinetics
http://www.etheric.com/LaVioletteBooks/ether.html


Right! Like I said!
And even more etherics and obscure things there!



Quote:
And please tell me, what is the use of replacing the BB myth, or any other myth, with a new myth?
______________________
I prefer the word speculation.



What's in a name?

xriso
2002-Nov-28, 01:40 AM
On 2002-11-27 18:31, heusdens wrote:

Well, what's wrong with the Big Bang is that it's not an answer to anything. It merely is a rewriting of the Creation myth, using mathematical formulas, but it does not contain any real answer.

Why do we have science, if they can't come up with a better answer as religion?



That's rather illogical. Perhaps this is how you derived that conclusion:

We have religion predicting a beginning, and science predicting a beginning. Well OBVIOUSLY religion is wrong (:roll:), so there must be no beginning (:roll:), so science must be wrong when it predicts a beginning.

I was reading the Bible, and it said that humans originated after plants did. "Why do we have science, if they can't come up with a better answer as religion?"

Well, creation stories aren't the only ones out there. In some religions, the universe is said to be a steady state, endless past, endless future, universe. "Why do we have science, if they can't come up with a better answer as religion?"

The Big Bang does answer questions, like "What was the universe like 14 Gyr ago?", or "Why do we observe X and not Y?". It IS a scientific theory after all.



What is wrong there, is that you seem to impose that there is a theoretical limit to our knowledge. Well there isn't. There are practicle impossibilities, like we can never look infinitely far into space and so.


Let me give an example of a pure limit on our knowledge: the wavefunction of an electron. In Quantum Mechanics all we can measure are expectation values that are boiled out of the wavefunction, and there is no way to measure the wavefunction directly. Yet the wavefunction is (predictively at least) a real physical thing.




And it's an universe, cause there is nothing outside the universe, it's completely self-contained.



You know as well as I do that that's silly reasoning. We call the physical reality we are contained in "the universe". Don't change definitions and say "Oh, well `universe' ALSO means everything, and thus physical reality is everything".


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: xriso on 2002-11-27 20:41 ]</font>

D J
2002-Nov-28, 02:01 AM
heusdens wrote:
Quote:
Yes, but you know what I was aiming at.
We use star categories, for which we know how their mass and luminosity coincide, and use them for measurement.
So, if you adopt the theory, you cannot at the same time accept the star classification to be valid also for far away galaxies, and so all your distance measurements go blurr.
_________________
Absolutely see:
http://www.electric-cosmos.org/arp.htm

Quote:
Right! Like I said!
And even more etherics and obscure things there!
__________
Study it more.

Quote:
What's in a name?
__________
Speculative
1. pertaining to, of the nature of, or characterized by speculation, contemplation, conjecture, or abstract reasoning: a speculative approach.
2. theoretical, rather than practical: speculative conclusions.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Orion38 on 2002-11-27 21:04 ]</font>

heusdens
2002-Nov-28, 02:18 AM
On 2002-11-27 20:40, xriso wrote:


On 2002-11-27 18:31, heusdens wrote:

Well, what's wrong with the Big Bang is that it's not an answer to anything. It merely is a rewriting of the Creation myth, using mathematical formulas, but it does not contain any real answer.

Why do we have science, if they can't come up with a better answer as religion?



That's rather illogical. Perhaps this is how you derived that conclusion:

We have religion predicting a beginning, and science predicting a beginning. Well OBVIOUSLY religion is wrong (:roll:), so there must be no beginning (:roll:), so science must be wrong when it predicts a beginning.

I was reading the Bible, and it said that humans originated after plants did. "Why do we have science, if they can't come up with a better answer as religion?"

Well, creation stories aren't the only ones out there. In some religions, the universe is said to be a steady state, endless past, endless future, universe. "Why do we have science, if they can't come up with a better answer as religion?"

The Big Bang does answer questions, like "What was the universe like 14 Gyr ago?", or "Why do we observe X and not Y?". It IS a scientific theory after all.


Ok. You deserve some point for this.

Indeed science tells us, that not everything which exists, was created in one instant ex nihilo. Neither for the human being, nor plants, etc. That's a good starting point here.

We have the concept that nothing can be created out of nothing, so everything that exist, must have been in existence always.

And more, we know that every state the universe ever was in and ever will be in, has a previous state and a next state.

Well that means, that this "Big Bang" state, was very peculiar cause you can't have a previous state there, if this "Big Bang" state was the beginning.

Why should the universe have evolved from such a peculiar "one time only" (and maybe even impossible) state, and not simply be, evolving, transforming, etc, like it can do all the time, without begin or end?

The thing is however, the cosmologists don't stop there and say, well everything we can know is up to 10 to the power minus 43 seconds, but they configure about the "state of existence" which came "prior" (although we cannot possibly say this in the case of in which we use it here, which is "before time began") to the "big bang".

There is a lot involved there, and it simply won't stop either, you just have to follow this theorie evolving, about M theory and branes and such, they go on creating a whole "super natural" world on top/beyond/prior (or how can we call it) the existing universe to get out of the mess they brought us in.

Look, if you talk like some scientist do, who simply refrain to this unknowable (at least not from direct observations) universe or brane world, one may ask, what they are doing just there.
It can "explain" everything (everything that is not working in our world, for some reason, can then be "fixed" by just assuming an influence from this world, leaks through, as some scientists think that gravity might go through branes).

That eventually will lead to the destruction of science. Cause once you accept that, almost anything can be dealt with, which could not be dealt using normal physics.

The model I was refraining to, the infinite universe, without begin or end, is a bit more simple, and don't assume things which can't be proofed, seen or measured, and you don't have to assume abnormal behaviour of matter (like the quantum fluctuation and vacuum bubble). It's based on reasonable assumptions.
The only component worth criticizing is just that the extent of the universe is infinite, and we cannot deal with infiniteness. It would not be possible to imagine that, because our brains are limited in size.
But apart from that aspect, it is just assuming the universe to be "normal" at all times and all places.

You might even call this a "dull" and non-interesting universe, but that then is something I can't change, and besides life itself is full of surprises, even when we are bound to live on a miniscule planet.

I haven't heard or seen any real evidence that this model is impossible. Even the 2nd law of thermodynamics can't be hold against it, at least not in my understanding of what this law is all about.



What is wrong there, is that you seem to impose that there is a theoretical limit to our knowledge. Well there isn't. There are practicle impossibilities, like we can never look infinitely far into space and so.


Let me give an example of a pure limit on our knowledge: the wavefunction of an electron. In Quantum Mechanics all we can measure are expectation values that are boiled out of the wavefunction, and there is no way to measure the wavefunction directly. Yet the wavefunction is (predictively at least) a real physical thing.


Yes, you just say that observing is the act of interfering with the thing observed.
That is where our knowledge about the thing observed comes from in the first place.
How else could we observe things at this level?
What would it bring us to think about what would the quantum state of something be, if we did not mess it up in order to observe it?

And, of course, limits in observations always exist, and therefore also in knowledge. What happens 10 billions of light years away on some planet, we might never find out. etc.

But we *can* know what the universe is like, and can proof the BB theory to be wrong.
It's not meant to say that BB theory was useless, it increased our knowledge of the universe tremendously. Don't get me wrong there! Like Newton's law of gravity was wrong, and replaced with GR, noone will ever say that Newtons' law was a tremendous achievement of science, and lead to many breakthroughs in knowlede.




And it's an universe, cause there is nothing outside the universe, it's completely self-contained.

You know as well as I do that that's silly reasoning. We call the physical reality we are contained in "the universe". Don't change definitions and say "Oh, well `universe' ALSO means everything, and thus physical reality is everything".


Material existence in eternal motion is the primary form of existence, from which all other things are made. Even the secondary things, like our minds, and all that it contains..

And for sure... physical existence is not everything, there is a place for the mind also, it needs a place to fool around ...

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: heusdens on 2002-11-27 21:22 ]</font>

JS Princeton
2002-Nov-28, 02:23 AM
On 2002-11-27 12:57, heusdens wrote:

Please critice MY MODEL and not something else, which contains the same nonsense as the BB theory.


You don't have a model. You have no coherent explanation for a majority of observations, you have no rigor, and all you base your ideas on are feelings. I also, if I may be frank, don't think you're smart enough to claim you have a scientific model.



For your convenience, I gave it a proper name. It's called by the name "COOL INFINITE SEMI STEADY STATE".


For your convenience I'll rename it "HEUSDEN'S CRACKPOT IDEA" which is just as good.



It's totally different then QSS or any other model.


Publish and tell us how.

JS Princeton
2002-Nov-28, 02:27 AM
On 2002-11-27 14:15, heusdens wrote:
Yeah, you know. For some people (calling themselves scientists) this is a way of living, creating illusions, and creating everything from nothing...


The more you post, heusdens, the more crankish you sound. The scientific community is making a living creating illusions and everything from nothing? What kind of fantasy world do you live in? How out-of-touch can you possibly be? It's probably best you get off the internet where you'll find friends like Orion and Agora to feed your paranoia. You three will end up in some sort of anti-conventionality haze like Marmet spouting angry lies whenever you feel like it just because you are so angry at the conspiratorial scientists.

I'm sorry if this is harsh, but I think it needs to be said.

JS Princeton
2002-Nov-28, 02:29 AM
On 2002-11-27 12:50, heusdens wrote:

Everything IS contracting, like I explained in my model. But it is not contracting on itself as a WHOLE, but only in finite extents of the infinite.


You cannot talk about the "WHOLE" doing anything if you go out to infinity. It is inherently unknowable except as a boundary condition (you can't have any electric fields there at infinity or masses, for instance)

JS Princeton
2002-Nov-28, 02:31 AM
We KNOW what the universe as a self-contained entity is like, it's INFINITE, and that's the only way it can be.

That is the most religious statement I have heard yet from you, heusdens. You are a religious fanatic in terms of "KNOWING" with absolute certainty your idea is correct. I will not be able to convince you otherwise because you're just as headstrong and stubborn as the creationist fools.

JS Princeton
2002-Nov-28, 02:33 AM
On 2002-11-27 14:45, AgoraBasta wrote:
heusdens,

Don't forget you are arguing against religious fanatism. That's a frustrating task, in general...


Agora should know. He himself is a fanatic believer that the scientific establishment's endorsement of the big bang is the tool of the devil (or at least insidious creationists). /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

D J
2002-Nov-28, 02:37 AM
On 2002-11-27 21:27, JS Princeton wrote:
It's probably best you get off the internet where you'll find friends like Orion and Agora to feed your paranoia. You three will end up in some sort of anti-conventionality haze like Marmet spouting angry lies whenever you feel like it just because you are so angry at the conspiratorial scientists.

I'm sorry if this is harsh, but I think it needs to be said.

Well,we see JS Princeton at is best returning home after a frustrating day at work.Maybe we will finish burning in hell because we question the validity of the BB theory.I think you must change your work and became a Preacher of the Big Bang religion.

JS Princeton
2002-Nov-28, 02:37 AM
On 2002-11-27 14:55, heusdens wrote:

Ha, ha ha....

Yes, the hight priests of cosmology with their inflating vacuum bubbles, who brainwash the whole of the world community with their genuine orthodox nonsense big bang model, are not easy to deal with, that's for sure.

You cannot even punch a hole in their vacuum bubble, cause nothing is in there....



If I may, this is the most arrogant schmaltz I have seen from you. You aren't half as smart as the majority of cosmologists out there and can't even understand what they are writing half the time so you simply decide their position is untenable because it's hard for you to accept in your gut. It has been clear you haven't taken the time to familiarize yourself with basic physics and don't care to do so because you're more interested in philosophy of science than science itself. That's fine, but criticizing cosmologists doing their job is like the feminist who declares "E=mc^2" a masculine equation. It's just a ludicrous argument and just plain superstition, in my book.

JS Princeton
2002-Nov-28, 02:40 AM
How did you stick your thermometer in this past universe?



Sunyaev-Zeldovich effect for one. Also dynamical measurements of gas clouds can give you some insight.

heusdens
2002-Nov-28, 02:40 AM
On 2002-11-27 21:23, JS Princeton wrote:


On 2002-11-27 12:57, heusdens wrote:

Please critice MY MODEL and not something else, which contains the same nonsense as the BB theory.


You don't have a model. You have no coherent explanation for a majority of observations, you have no rigor, and all you base your ideas on are feelings. I also, if I may be frank, don't think you're smart enough to claim you have a scientific model.



For your convenience, I gave it a proper name. It's called by the name "COOL INFINITE SEMI STEADY STATE".


For your convenience I'll rename it "HEUSDEN'S CRACKPOT IDEA" which is just as good.



It's totally different then QSS or any other model.


Publish and tell us how.


I thought I already told in what way it was different from QSS. QSS is an expanding model and is based on "creation ex nihilo". Both of which don't occur in my model.

In this "crackpot" idea of mine, the only things that happen on the larger time and space scales, are what gravity does, namely contraction, causing things like stars to form. And the thing that *for sure* don't occur are things like "expanding space" like the Big Bang model says.
It's just a weird idea, that was introduced to solve a problem of the previous model, that was contracting. And since on the larger scales, nothing can withstand the force of gravity, it was supposed that introducing expansion was the only possible things to fic the model. But this "fix" caused more trouble then it solved.
It should have been solved by stating that the universe couldn't possibly be said to be finite in size, and therefore needed to be infinite in size. But that was an too athaeist view of the universe, and there fore a "holy hand" (in the form of some Belgian priest, G. LeMaitre) interfered, and now the BB theory is even embraced by the vatican (what more proof do you need to have?).

But if you are happy with it, go along with it, and I wish you good luck.

I have my own ideas, and so has everybody else, as long as they are not brainwashed by the BB theory.

JS Princeton
2002-Nov-28, 02:46 AM
On 2002-11-27 17:02, heusdens wrote:
the CMBR is not from the Big Bang, but from light sources far away, and were disturbed in such a way that we see a blackbody spectrum of around 2,7 K.
In fact, using Olbers` paradox, it was already calculated that all the light of all the infinite stars and luminous objects in the infinite universe, and which would have interactions with the matter that is in every part of the universe (it ain't a plain vacuum) would radiate at 3 K (later even calculated to be 2,8 K) at a blackbody spectrum. And this was calculated a long time BEFORE it was even measured!


Another post, another lie. In fact, the integrated starlight cannot have a blackbody curve and can only in the best of all scenarios that advocates for the infinite models could come with is a BB curve to an error of about 20%. Since we see a BB curve to an error of 1 part in 10^4 we know that this is not the source of CMBR. And steady staters have admitted it. And you should have read it in Ned Wright's pages if you really are reading everything you can.



Gamow, on the basis of the BB hypothese, didn't came further then an estimate of 50 K.


Who cares what the progenitors of theories get? They invariably get it off. Hubble was off, Einstein was off (in the estimation of gravitational lensing by the sun), Copernicus was off. This is a non-issue.



So, the CMBR is the remnants of the infinite number of stars and luminous objects in the infinite universe.


Proven false above. Begin again, Finnegan.



But I know why the Big Bang theory is there, without it, a lot of cosmologist and particle physicist would loose their job.


You go back on your word there. The evidence is there for the Big Bang and you know it. Stop being so belligerent and selective in your presentation.

ljbrs
2002-Nov-28, 02:48 AM
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


On 2002-11-27 21:27, JS Princeton wrote:
It's probably best you get off the internet where you'll find friends like Orion and Agora to feed your paranoia. You three will end up in some sort of anti-conventionality haze like Marmet spouting angry lies whenever you feel like it just because you are so angry at the conspiratorial scientists.

I'm sorry if this is harsh, but I think it needs to be said.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Well,we see JS Princeton at is best returning home after a frustrating day at work.Maybe we will finish burning in hell because we question the validity of the BB theory.I think you must change your work and became a Preacher of the Big Bang religion.


JS Princeton was being kind. He is attempting to help the rest of us who are trying to learn about science without any anti-scientific drivel wearing us down.

ljbrs /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

JS Princeton
2002-Nov-28, 02:49 AM
Orion wrote:
I find it amazing that the BB believers can conceive that the cosmos was once small and hot(So, have always existed in another form), and that it is still expanding from that point.


You now misinterpret the Big Bang. The universe is expanding everywhere, not from one point.

JS Princeton
2002-Nov-28, 02:51 AM
On 2002-11-27 19:25, heusdens wrote:

What difference does it make as how old the universe is?


Well for one, we have an upper bound on large scale structure. How do you get that in an infinite universe? You have avoided this question before, so I suspect you have no answer.

JS Princeton
2002-Nov-28, 02:55 AM
On 2002-11-27 20:05, heusdens wrote:

It was "invented" by a belgian priest George LeMaitre, and I pretty much doubt if relgion didn't have something to do with that.



He was also a freemason and a member of the Illuminati. His illegitimate children are now placed in the highest echelons of the industries, academic institutions, and governments of the world. All to advance the evil Big Bang lies that cause us to believe in creation ex nihilio so we'll become a complacent populace and they'll implant these false memory chips in our brains, but not my brain because I've got these special anti-priest/anti-Big Bang helmets I fashioned out of cardboard and aluminum....

JS Princeton
2002-Nov-28, 02:57 AM
On 2002-11-27 21:01, Orion38 wrote:

Quote:
Right! Like I said!
And even more etherics and obscure things there!
__________
Study it more.


Yes, please do, and then explain it to Orion who has a hard time understanding it himself (even though he takes it as gospel).

JS Princeton
2002-Nov-28, 03:08 AM
The model I was refraining to, the infinite universe, without begin or end, is a bit more simple, and don't assume things which can't be proofed, seen or measured, and you don't have to assume abnormal behaviour of matter (like the quantum fluctuation and vacuum bubble). It's based on reasonable assumptions.


Except it has observational consequences:

1) we need to know why we can't see any structure that is larger than what we see? If we had an infinite amount of time, we should have all kinds of structure on larger and larger scales. The universe should be fractal in nature on all scales. It is not, as seen from current survey data.

2) why is there an anisotropy of baryons? Where is all the anti-matter? The Big Bang does have an abundance answer for the symmetry breaking, do you?

3) what about cosmic abundances of light elements? Did God make the universe that way?

4) What is this redshift? Is it gravitational? (debunked) Is it electric? (no mechanism has been worked out that makes any sense to me) Is it something else? What?

Oh wait, maybe its Doppler. That is, after all, the easiest explanation. Oh, but you just want Ockham's razor to apply where you like it too. Fine, I can live with that, but don't go telling me that your idea is more simple than the Big Bang.

4) What is the CMB? Nope, not integrated starlight. Go ahead and read Ned Wright's page again.

5) Why does the Big Bang get so much right?

That should be enough for you to chew on.

[/quote]
But we *can* know what the universe is like, and can proof the BB theory to be wrong.
[/quote]

By falsification through observation. Not through simply dismissing it because your stomach turned a somersault.


Like Newton's law of gravity was wrong, and replaced with GR, noone will ever say that Newtons' law was a tremendous achievement of science, and lead to many breakthroughs in knowlede.

Newton's law of gravity was basically right. The Big Bang is also basically right.

heusdens
2002-Nov-28, 03:08 AM
On 2002-11-27 21:37, JS Princeton wrote:


On 2002-11-27 14:55, heusdens wrote:

Ha, ha ha....

Yes, the hight priests of cosmology with their inflating vacuum bubbles, who brainwash the whole of the world community with their genuine orthodox nonsense big bang model, are not easy to deal with, that's for sure.

You cannot even punch a hole in their vacuum bubble, cause nothing is in there....



If I may, this is the most arrogant schmaltz I have seen from you. You aren't half as smart as the majority of cosmologists out there and can't even understand what they are writing half the time so you simply decide their position is untenable because it's hard for you to accept in your gut. It has been clear you haven't taken the time to familiarize yourself with basic physics and don't care to do so because you're more interested in philosophy of science than science itself. That's fine, but criticizing cosmologists doing their job is like the feminist who declares "E=mc^2" a masculine equation. It's just a ludicrous argument and just plain superstition, in my book.


I think most of the cosmologists do a good job, and do their observations quite well. No problem with that.

The way however how this all is being interpreted and framed into the BB theory, is another story.

The issue wether "E=mc2" is a masculine theory, is of course relative

/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

(practical joke!)

I do admit I am more familiar with the philosphy of science, then science itself.
It's from that point of view I criticize science, cause they present me a philosophical view of the universe, which I know can't be correct.

Most scientists (unless real believers of course) will most probably admit that, but are not allowed to refrain too much from this theory. Anyone realy doing so, will most probably loose his/her job.

There is a historical approach to this, cause in many previous societies, astronomers and scientists and priests belonged to the same societal class (like in Egypt, Babylonia, etc.); science and religion at that time could easily be intermixed.

The ruling class of this society, aren't interested in too mundane interpretations of science, it should be out of the realms of ordinary people.

What formerly was the role of the religion, is now taken over by science, and the view science has on the cosmos, is now "unified" with religion. The former position kept by religion, was not holdable in a society in which science had a dominating role.

But this knowledge also was a threat to the ruling class, therefore it's an outcome that science now evolves into mystifying science, and keep it out of the hands of ordinary people. A majority of people in THIS world doesn't even have access to proper education!
And in most "civilized" parts of the world, education and esp. higher education is more and more returned to the privilege of higher class, and kept away from the common people.

Nevertheless, that what science does, must be paid for by the ordinary working and tax paying people, so they are most entitled to know, what they are doing.

So, part of my criticism I think I am entitled to make. I am not saying that the way science evolves is useless all together, and I am not even stating that the BB theory shouldn't be there, in itself it is a good theory and is a significant progress over other theories and models. Although at some time, it needs to be replaced of course.

What I do criticize is the easy acceptance of interpretations of the phyisical reality, and where phyisics comes into the hands of those who find it usefull for their religious based ideas.
And we find those ideas in many variations in ideas like quantum physics, which seem to serve the idea that no objective truth exists, it's all in the observers mind, etc.

You know what I am aiming at.

I hope you can understand, at least.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: heusdens on 2002-11-27 22:17 ]</font>

D J
2002-Nov-28, 03:10 AM
On 2002-11-27 21:57, JS Princeton wrote:


On 2002-11-27 21:01, Orion38 wrote:

Quote:
Right! Like I said!
And even more etherics and obscure things there!
__________
Study it more.


Yes, please do, and then explain it to Orion who has a hard time understanding it himself (even though he takes it as gospel).

JS you are over reacting here,slow down or you will have a heart attack.You surely dont realise what you have just writing.HO! LA!! LA!!!

Donnie B.
2002-Nov-28, 03:11 AM
JS Princeton, congrats on becoming a Bad Grad. And thanks, generally. Your posts are, at times, like a tall glass of icewater in the desert.

JS Princeton
2002-Nov-28, 03:17 AM
On 2002-11-27 22:08, heusdens wrote:

What I do criticize is the easy acceptance of interpretations of the phyisical reality, and where phyisics comes into the hands of those who find it usefull for their religious based ideas.
And we find those ideas in many variations in ideas like quantum physics, which seem to serve the idea that no objective truth exists, it's all in the observers mind.

You know what I am aiming at.

I hope you can understand, at least.



Now you're talking. There's a few people who are not familiar with the intricasies of quantum mechanics who manifestly declare that the observer is the most important thing in science meaning that everything is subjective. You are right in criticizing taking this idea to the extreme. It is, however, incorrect to assume that we can every really get to 100% certainty anything. Open minds are important to have, but if you are too open minded you will end up drowning in an inability to do any meaningful progress. Science and technological progress depends, to paraphrase Edison, on 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration. We all get excited by the inspiration but often fail to get down to the perspiration. I'm probably guilty of this too /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

Donnie B.
2002-Nov-28, 03:21 AM
On 2002-11-27 19:25, heusdens wrote:
We cannot see unlimited far, so we would not ever have to realize it would be infinitely big and old.

You have said this, or something similar, several times in this thread.

Why do you think this? It seems to me that if the universe really is infinitely old and infinitely large, we should be able to see objects of arbitrary ages, rather than only 14Gy or so.

BBC explains this quite simply -- we don't see anything older because stars hadn't formed yet. So what prevents the Hubble Deep Field from showing us 20 billion year old starlight? Or 200 billion, or 2 billion billion?

D J
2002-Nov-28, 03:23 AM
On 2002-11-27 22:17, JS Princeton wrote:
[quote]
We all get excited by the inspiration but often fail to get down to the perspiration. I'm probably guilty of this too /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

Its good than you finally admit that you are just an human too.And I see than you have recovered your smile.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Orion38 on 2002-11-27 22:27 ]</font>

heusdens
2002-Nov-28, 03:29 AM
On 2002-11-27 21:51, JS Princeton wrote:


On 2002-11-27 19:25, heusdens wrote:

What difference does it make as how old the universe is?


Well for one, we have an upper bound on large scale structure. How do you get that in an infinite universe? You have avoided this question before, so I suspect you have no answer.


What is the upper bound on large scale structure? The size of the Great Wall?
That we *can't see* all of the structure of the universe, doesn't mean there aren't higher scale structures.
And if we would be able to see the things we can not ever see, and it showed up that no larger structures exist, for sure that is something to wonder about, and ask the question of: why?

To this time issue I was merely referring as to say, it has no mundane consequences of how old the universe is. For all practical purposes an age of 16 billion years (plus or minus 4 billion years) is all we will ever care about.

However, we know the universe to have existed before that time also, but I am pretty sure the species that lived in the universe at that time, must have guessed also that age of the universe was 16 billions years (give or take 4 billion years).

heusdens
2002-Nov-28, 03:35 AM
On 2002-11-27 22:21, Donnie B. wrote:


On 2002-11-27 19:25, heusdens wrote:
We cannot see unlimited far, so we would not ever have to realize it would be infinitely big and old.

You have said this, or something similar, several times in this thread.

Why do you think this? It seems to me that if the universe really is infinitely old and infinitely large, we should be able to see objects of arbitrary ages, rather than only 14Gy or so.

BBC explains this quite simply -- we don't see anything older because stars hadn't formed yet. So what prevents the Hubble Deep Field from showing us 20 billion year old starlight? Or 200 billion, or 2 billion billion?



The light needs to travel from there in all directions through a vast amount of non-empty space. Ever wonderd how much light from one place gets emitted, and how much of that could be catched here?

What is left of the light are what we see as CMBR.

So, at least this means to me, that there are two competitive (from distinc views/models of the universe) reasons which can be given.
One on the basis of the BB theory (nothing had formed then yet).
The other, because the light emitted is to weak after such a travel to be catched on earth.

Donnie B.
2002-Nov-28, 03:57 AM
On 2002-11-27 22:35, heusdens wrote:
The light needs to travel from there in all directions through a vast amount of non-empty space. Ever wonderd how much light from one place gets emitted, and how much of that could be catched here?

What is left of the light are what we see as CMBR.

The light from a distant object that we see here only has to travel in this direction, not every direction. There are many astronomical objects that form jets, or are otherwise brighter in some directions than others. Yet we see nothing beyond the 14Gy (or so) limit. Back to that point, we see galaxies and quasars. Earlier, nothing but the extremely uniform CMB. Why the sudden transition from precisely-located objects to utterly diffuse 3K? Why no intermediate objects that are just "dim and fuzzy" -- far enough away that we don't see them as point sources, but not fully integrated into the background? The lack of such intermediate objects suggests a rather sharp boundary, which seems inconsistent with your model (as I understand it).



So, at least this means to me, that there are two competitive (from distinc views/models of the universe) reasons which can be given.
One on the basis of the BB theory (nothing had formed then yet).
The other, because the light emitted is to weak after such a travel to be catched on earth.

But there's nothing in your model that explains this weakness, except the inverse-square law. That doesn't provide for a sharp transition. Instead, we should see dimmer, more distant objects everywhere we look. And we should most definitely see a lot of "lumpiness" in the CMB, if it's formed by light from more-distant point-source objects.

Think about it in terms of temperature. We see extremely hot objects right out to 14Gy, then nothing but the very cold CMB. If we can't see more-distant point sources, why don't we see a range of cooler, more diffuse regions, produced by "partially integrated" objects at distances ranging beyond 14Gy? And what mechanism is doing this integration?

heusdens
2002-Nov-28, 04:13 AM
On 2002-11-27 22:08, JS Princeton wrote:



The model I was refraining to, the infinite universe, without begin or end, is a bit more simple, and don't assume things which can't be proofed, seen or measured, and you don't have to assume abnormal behaviour of matter (like the quantum fluctuation and vacuum bubble). It's based on reasonable assumptions.


Except it has observational consequences:

1) we need to know why we can't see any structure that is larger than what we see? If we had an infinite amount of time, we should have all kinds of structure on larger and larger scales. The universe should be fractal in nature on all scales. It is not, as seen from current survey data.


It might turn out to be, once we solved the distorted images caused by dark matter interventions.

The structure of space (as far as one can interpret those computer animated/composed pictures) already looks like me to have such structure, it looks kinda like foam.

But perhaps that is the remnant of the vacuum bubbles?



2) why is there an anisotropy of baryons? Where is all the anti-matter? The Big Bang does have an abundance answer for the symmetry breaking, do you?


Well the very existence of the universe itself is breaking symmetrie, cause no negative existence exists.

I don't think this is too much of an issue, cause a perfect balance between matter and anti-matter is not something that could be a lasting universe in either case.

I don't think the BB theory solved this properly either. Is it realy proofed that there are slight differences in the way matter and anti-matter react?



3) what about cosmic abundances of light elements? Did God make the universe that way?


What happens to elements above iron? They decay! (by themselves)

It's an interesting question though, the voids are some kind of cosmic recycling mechanism.

The universe is a self-contained entity, and wasn't created, so mechanisms within the universe are responsible for that.

If no known mechanism for that can be found, then that would constitute some proof, the model would be incorrect, cause it could not be self-contained or self-sustained. But negative proof of something is hard to give.

This however is an issue that needs to be answered, I fully agree.



4) What is this redshift? Is it gravitational? (debunked) Is it electric? (no mechanism has been worked out that makes any sense to me) Is it something else? What?


If it is not cosmological, then the only cause can be matter interactions.

I did not yet work out a suitable mechanism myself, so this is an open question then. And none of the given mechanisms and proposals seems to be given any credit... so

Point for you.



Oh wait, maybe its Doppler. That is, after all, the easiest explanation. Oh, but you just want Ockham's razor to apply where you like it too. Fine, I can live with that, but don't go telling me that your idea is more simple than the Big Bang.


The doppler explenation has two flavours:
- cosmological doppler (space expansion)
- "normal" doppler (object and observer are not at rest wrt. each other)

The cosmological doppler redshift, would not fit my model. "normal" doppler redshift, would not be suitable to explain the redshift-distance relation.



4) What is the CMB? Nope, not integrated starlight. Go ahead and read Ned Wright's page again.


It's the only possible explenation, if one considers at the same time the light-matter interactions from all the intervening matter that exist in space.



5) Why does the Big Bang get so much right?

That should be enough for you to chew on.


Cause it best fits the observations.

This is understandable from the point of view, that by its very nature, the Big Bang theory lends itself better for "falsification" then the alternative I presented.

(BB theory says the universe is of finite age and predicts a finite limit to observations because of this; an infinite universe can not be directly falsified)


If we could choose from two theories, who are equally fit, this would be the way to proceed, don't you think?

Btw. we can and should understand also that the theory behind this "falsification" thing, is itself a theory that can't be falsified.



But we *can* know what the universe is like, and can proof the BB theory to be wrong.


By falsification through observation. Not through simply dismissing it because your stomach turned a somersault.


I agree on that. Ultimately we must relend on the theory that explains the observations.
If no possible explenation can be given for the observations (esp. the redshift and CMBR) then there is no alternative.

We can be in trouble though. It is know from theoretical grounds that there are "truths" which can't be proven. We have the risk we don't find a truth because it can't be proven.

And even if the BB theory is declared as the winner, it might be, BB theory isn't the truth, but which can't be proven.

But that is just the way it is.



Like Newton's law of gravity was wrong, and replaced with GR, noone will ever say that Newtons' law was a tremendous achievement of science, and lead to many breakthroughs in knowlede.

Newton's law of gravity was basically right. The Big Bang is also basically right.


As far as we can see, that is right.

I never disagreed on that one.

The question is however, if the only proponent for a self-contained universe, an infinite large eternal universe, is not holdable, is that one must conclude some very weird things.

Either, we are part of a super-natural "thing" which creates a universe like ours (and probably did that more often).

Or, there is no past history before this Big Bang thing went off, it's a "one time only" experience, and WE HAPPEN TO BE IN IT.

In either case, something truly amazing!

Enough for ALL of US to chew on, I suppose!

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: heusdens on 2002-11-27 23:22 ]</font>

JS Princeton
2002-Nov-28, 04:32 AM
On 2002-11-27 22:11, Donnie B. wrote:
JS Princeton, congrats on becoming a Bad Grad. And thanks, generally. Your posts are, at times, like a tall glass of icewater in the desert.


Thanks, Donnie B. I have liked many of your posts too.

JS Princeton
2002-Nov-28, 04:41 AM
On 2002-11-27 22:29, heusdens wrote:

What is the upper bound on large scale structure? The size of the Great Wall?
That we *can't see* all of the structure of the universe, doesn't mean there aren't higher scale structures.

Well, it's actually larger than the Great Wall (on the size of the largest superclusters), but we're talking scales, so that will do. Now, granted this is a huge scale and until very recently we didn't have a view beyond this. Now we do (up to a magnitude more) and what do we see? Homogeneity and isotropy! There is no more hierarchy of scales even though there should be if there is an infinite universe. We need to see more structure than we do, and we don't. This is measured through something called "correlation functions" which do the analysis of exactly what structures should look like and on what scales. Beyond superclusters there is no correlation. This literally means there is no more structure up to redshifts of literally 6 or even 7! We're not talking about walks in the park here. You would have to have a hierarchy through those scales to have an infinite universe of infinite time. There is no hierarchy: there is no infinite universe of infinite time.



And if we would be able to see the things we can not ever see, and it showed up that no larger structures exist, for sure that is something to wonder about, and ask the question of: why?


The answer can only be that you have expansion and contraction... yikes! BIG BANG! (runs screaming!)



To this time issue I was merely referring as to say, it has no mundane consequences of how old the universe is. For all practical purposes an age of 16 billion years (plus or minus 4 billion years) is all we will ever care about.


Right, and within that we have a scale of maybe 10 maybe 100 megaparsecs where structure stops (Maybe if your EXTREMELY lucky, I might give you a gigaparsec, but only if you're good.) All the way down to literaly the atom we have structure. Above that none. Therein lies the problem. The universe should be clumpy and not smooth for an infinite universe that just sits around lollygaggin'.



However, we know the universe to have existed before that time also, but I am pretty sure the species that lived in the universe at that time, must have guessed also that age of the universe was 16 billions years (give or take 4 billion years).


I suppose you can support this with something other than your gut?

JS Princeton
2002-Nov-28, 04:49 AM
On 2002-11-27 22:35, heusdens wrote:

[quote]
The light needs to travel from there in all directions through a vast amount of non-empty space. Ever wonderd how much light from one place gets emitted, and how much of that could be catched here?


You're missing the point. Who cares if the object is far away. Remember, you don't have any expansion so the object should be old. Take, for example, globular clusters that are orbitting our galaxy. They are of the order of 10-12 billion years old. If the universe were infinite we should see some that are older, say 20-30 billion years old... 100-220 billion years old, etc. We should see old objects. Where are they? How did they get so far away from us? Why is the universe around us so young? I mean everything: white dwarfs (which can last a long time), cool main sequence stars, old galaxies, all are dated independently of cosmology to be younger than the age of the universe we get from cosmological considerations. They give us a lower bound for the age of the universe. Now isn't it cruel that your universe of infinite extent just decided to put young objects in your neighborhood? I mean it would take one (1) (uno) (singleton) object that was older than the universe to falsify the theory. None (0) (zilch) (nada) have been found.




What is left of the light are what we see as CMBR.



Cannot be. Integrated starlight is not a blackbody (I feel like a broken record.)



So, at least this means to me, that there are two competitive (from distinc views/models of the universe) reasons which can be given.
One on the basis of the BB theory (nothing had formed then yet).


Except you consistently fail to demonstrate this. Your model fails all kinds of tests.



The other, because the light emitted is to weak after such a travel to be catched on earth.


This is just totally non-physical. What does "emitted is to weak after such travel to be catched on earth." even mean? It is nonsense. Give me light and I'll catch it for you, I don't care how "weak" it is.

JS Princeton
2002-Nov-28, 05:21 AM
On 2002-11-27 23:13, heusdens wrote:

It might turn out to be, once we solved the distorted images caused by dark matter interventions.



What on earth does this even refer to?



The structure of space (as far as one can interpret those computer animated/composed pictures) already looks like me to have such structure, it looks kinda like foam.

Yes, and those foam "bubbles" are the largest structures there are. You don't get bigger than that... this is the problem I'm trying to bring home to you.



But perhaps that is the remnant of the vacuum bubbles?


Actually, the bubbles are remnants from fluctuations before inflation that get frozen out and expanded during the intense period of inflation, according to current theory. This is all confirmed using CMB anisotropy data.
Read about at MAP site.





Well the very existence of the universe itself is breaking symmetrie, cause no negative existence exists.



That's a truism for any universe model. You need to go deeper. How was an anisotropy introduced? Shouldn't your gut tell you that there should be an equal number of anti-particles and particles? After all, EVERY process in physics conserves the number of anti-particles and particles!



I don't think this is too much of an issue, cause a perfect balance between matter and anti-matter is not something that could be a lasting universe in either case.


Yes, but the INTRODUCTION of this is an issue. Where did it come from if the universe is infinite? Did it just happen that way? Who sets this condition? Must be God because you don't have any other mechanism. The Big Bang deals with Symmetry Breaking processes (specifically there are some CP and CPT violations that are important at various scales) that give us good models for the abundance of baryonic matter in the universe today and the photons that you see in the CMB come from the annihilation of most of the matter/antimatter that's nearly (but not quite) in equal amounts. The "not quite" amount becomes all the visible matter in the universe: you, me, and the Andromeda Galaxy.



I don't think the BB theory solved this properly either. Is it realy proofed that there are slight differences in the way matter and anti-matter react?


I outlined them above, but yes, the Big Bang has been very successful in providing a window into solving this question of this basic asymmetry.




What happens to elements above iron? They decay! (by themselves)



Uranium, you mean.



It's an interesting question though, the voids are some kind of cosmic recycling mechanism.


You don't understand what I'm getting at. We know, for example, that there is too much Helium in the cosmic voids to be accounted for by stellar processes alone. This helium abundance is just too large. Even if you had an infinite amount of stars working for an infinite amount of time, the ratio of hydrogen to helium (in an infinite mass universe) would be wrong. This means you need to just have and excess of helium in the universe. Since you don't have an initial time, you don't have any place from which the helium comes. Therefore you are stuck. The helium just is. Just like matter just is. You say that this somehow gets rid of creation ex nihilio but really all you've done is refuse to answer the question. "The universe is that way because it is that way," is the only answer you can give.

Compare this to the Big Bang. What does the Big Bang say? It says at one time the universe was hot and dense and there was no such thing as hydrogen or helium, that it was all one big soup. Then as things began to expand and cool, we had something called primal nucleosynthesis. Processes that were in equilibrium (creation and annihilation of helium and deuterium, etc.) fell out of equilibrium which means that some side is preferentially favored and you end up with a certain amount of product and a certain amount of reactant depending on the thermodynamics of the situation. The thermodynamics of the situation are free parameters that are dependent on the exact character of the expanding universe. We get the right abundances for the models we consider from the CMB and from simply deriving a Hubble Constant from looking at recessional velocities. This is one of the triumphs of the Big Bang model. It predicts the abundances of the light elements that are too numerous for them to be made in stars.



The universe is a self-contained entity, and wasn't created, so mechanisms within the universe are responsible for that.


Yes indeed, but you need a mechanism. You need a mechanism that creates stuff but can't create anything because it is "self-contained" and has always been. Uh oh, I think God just built a rock He couldn't move.



If no known mechanism for that can be found, then that would constitute some proof, the model would be incorrect, cause it could not be self-contained or self-sustained. But negative proof of something is hard to give.


This is an important thing you are obligated to either find or explain why the Big Bang gets it right while you flounder.



This however is an issue that needs to be answered, I fully agree.


I think you should get on it, pronto.



If it is not cosmological, then the only cause can be matter interactions.


Okay, color me clueless because I haven't seen any presented, have you? John K.'s got one about the Compton Effect, but it's been found to be full of errors in earlier posts.



The doppler explenation has two flavours:
- cosmological doppler (space expansion)
- "normal" doppler (object and observer are not at rest wrt. each other)

The cosmological doppler redshift, would not fit my model. "normal" doppler redshift, would not be suitable to explain the redshift-distance relation.


Nice. So now you need to explain why everything is flying apart from each other if space itself isn't expanding? What makes galaxies and clusters resist gravity on large scales but come together on smaller ones? Don't be shy, speak up!



It's the only possible explenation, if one considers at the same time the light-matter interactions from all the intervening matter that exist in space.


So then, you've just disproved your theory. If it's the ONLY explanation, and the explanation cannot conform to the data observed then the model must be wrong. Unless you have a better idea, I think this allows us to dismiss any Steady State where the CMB has to come from integrated starlight. Wow, things aren't looking good for your idea, heusdens.



Cause it best fits the observations.


Exactly, and why do scientists use the best fits? Because they are the ones that are the best predictors of future observations. And that's the name of the game. And that's why you have your Big Bang.



This is understandable from the point of view, that by its very nature, the Big Bang theory lends itself better for "falsification" then the alternative I presented.


This is right. Your alternative presents some major observational stumbling blocks I cannot get past. It just doesn't explain what the Big Bang explains and requires too many coincidences and non-explanations to work. Not to mention it just plain cannot explain current observations of things like the reionization epochs of the universe, the lyman alpha forest observations, the Gunn Peterson Troughs. Oh, there are so many things you cannot do with your idea that we can do with the Big Bang.



(BB theory says the universe is of finite age and predicts a finite limit to observations because of this; an infinite universe can not be directly falsified)


That's similar to saying God cannot be falsified. It is true, but practically useless statement as far as science is concerned. (No offense to the scientific theists, it's simply an example!)



If we could choose from two theories, who are equally fit, this would be the way to proceed, don't you think?


Yes, that would be nice. Too theories that show things to be true equally well.

Listen, heusdens, I speak with astronomers who are uncomfortable with the Big Bang for the very reasons you are. They don't dismiss it, though, because they know that there is just too much evidence in favor of it. As I've said in other posts, some people are uncomfortable with all objects falling at the same rate of speed. It just doesn't seem right to them. What would you say to that person who says that it simply must not be that way because the universe wouldn't be consistent if different objects behaved the same way. After all, different objects are DIFFERENT! They should behave differently! You see, that's a specious argument because we have no basis for insisting that's the way reality should be, we have only our gut instincts which is what you are operating on.



I agree on that. Ultimately we must relend on the theory that explains the observations.
If no possible explenation can be given for the observations (esp. the redshift and CMBR) then there is no alternative.


Don't forget nucleosynthesis. As I said, those three things are the pillars of the big bang theory. They are the three observational evidences which have forced theorists to be less creative than they would like to be.



We can be in trouble though. It is know from theoretical grounds that there are "truths" which can't be proven. We have the risk we don't find a truth because it can't be proven.


And we may all be characters in a dream of a cosmic moron who is going to wake up at any moment. Leave the existential angst behind and join us in trying to proceed the best way we know how.



And even if the BB theory is declared as the winner, it might be, BB theory isn't the truth, but which can't be proven.


One might as well say the same thing about everything ever presented as "fact".



The question is however, if the only proponent for a self-contained universe, an infinite large eternal universe, is not holdable, is that one must conclude some very weird things.

Either, we are part of a super-natural "thing" which creates a universe like ours (and probably did that more often).

Or, there is no past history before this Big Bang thing went off, it's a "one time only" experience, and WE HAPPEN TO BE IN IT.

In either case, something truly amazing!


Yes, there are more possiblities than that, but you get the drift, nature is amazing.

D J
2002-Nov-28, 05:30 AM
JS Princeton wrote,
Quote:
There is no more hierarchy of scales even though there should be if there is an infinite universe. We need to see more structure than we do, and we don't.
______________________
The reason depend on the life span of the stars in a cluster.
The life cycle of a star depends upon its mass. High mass stars are much brighter than low mass stars, thus they rapidly burn through their supply of hydrogen fuel. A star like the Sun has enough fuel in its core to burn at its current brightness for approximately 9 billion years. A star that is twice as massive as the Sun will burn through its fuel supply in only 800 million years. A 10 solar mass star, a star that is 10 times more massive than the Sun, burns nearly a thousand times brighter and has only a 20 million year fuel supply. Conversely, a star that is half as massive as the Sun burns slowly enough for its fuel to last more than 20 billion years.

All of the stars in a globular cluster formed at roughly the same time, thus they can serve as cosmic clocks. If a globular cluster is more than 10 million years old, then all of its hydrogen burning stars will be less massive than 10 solar masses. This implies that no individual hydrogen burning star will be more than 1000 times brighter than the Sun. If a globular cluster is more than 2 billion years old, then there will be no hydrogen-burning star more massive than 2 solar masses.

The oldest globular clusters contain only stars less massive than 0.7 solar masses. These low mass stars are much dimmer than the Sun. This observation suggests that the oldest globular clusters are between 11 and 18 billion years old. The uncertainty in this estimate is due to the difficulty in determining the exact distance to a globular cluster (hence, an uncertainty in the brightness (and mass) of the stars in the cluster). Another source of uncertainty in this estimate lies in our ignorance of some of the finer details of stellar evolution.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Orion38 on 2002-11-28 00:34 ]</font>

JS Princeton
2002-Nov-28, 05:52 AM
Orion -- this is a good overview of globular clusters, but this says not a thing about large scale structure which doesn't care about stars (or their ages) at all, but rather about objects becoming gravitationally atttracted to each other.

D J
2002-Nov-28, 06:11 AM
On 2002-11-28 00:52, JS Princeton wrote:
Orion -- this is a good overview of globular clusters, but this says not a thing about large scale structure which doesn't care about stars (or their ages) at all, but rather about objects becoming gravitationally atttracted to each other.

OK,I`ll risk an hypothesis.The ultimate large scale structure is what we perceive to be the universe.
And there are probably an infinity of those "islands universes" forming the real universe.We cannot see them now because we dont have the equipment to do so.The superbubble theory.

informant
2002-Nov-28, 10:46 AM
heusdens wrote:


First if you think of the universe of something self-contained (everything that exist, is part of the universe, and nothing is outside it)…

The problem is that I don’t. And neither do most people.
Is that so hard to understand?


The answer is then. Well since "nothing" can't exist, everything that does exist, must exist, and since everything that exists, is ever changing, moving, transforming, adapting, evolving, becoming, decaying, etc. the universe goes on and on and on and on (etc. etc. etc. etc.) INDEFINATELY

LOL. You know, this reminds me of the old ontological argument for the existence of God (“Since God is perfect by definition, then it must exist, or it wouldn’t be perfect.” Yeah, right.) – which has been debunked by many philosophers since the Middle Ages.

Note: I’ve read your posts before and enjoyed reading them, heusdens, but on this matter I think you are just prejudiced.

JS Princeton
2002-Nov-28, 12:20 PM
On 2002-11-28 01:11, Orion38 wrote:
OK,I`ll risk an hypothesis.The ultimate large scale structure is what we perceive to be the universe.
And there are probably an infinity of those "islands universes" forming the real universe.We cannot see them now because we dont have the equipment to do so.The superbubble theory.


This doesn't answer the concern. There needs to be a hierarchy of scales. Think about the structure that one sees on the lower levels: galaxy to cluster to supercluster and so forth. Now if you want the observable universe to be the next largest "structure" then problem number one is that it is homogeneous and isotropic so it isn't structure at all and problem number two is that there is no intermediately scaled structure for the hierarchy. So you see, even if you are right, Orion, this does not provide an answer that would explain observations if we assume the universe to be infinitely old.

heusdens
2002-Nov-28, 07:06 PM
On 2002-11-28 05:46, informant wrote:
heusdens wrote:


First if you think of the universe of something self-contained (everything that exist, is part of the universe, and nothing is outside it)…

The problem is that I don’t. And neither do most people.
Is that so hard to understand?


Well, the universe has already many definitions. It can be the cosmos, as far as we can observe it, or the cosmos, as far as we theoretically assume it is (within the same 4D space frame that is).

We don't know however if that is "all there is". Since we have to deal with this "Big Bang" issue, if we like it or not, is is very likely we must conclude that some "higher order" kind of universe must exist, which 'caused' our universe to come into existence. Like for instance that what is proposed and theorized as so-called 'brane' worlds.

What we need to know of course, and want to find out, is what the totallity of all things is, in which everything that exists is included and is therefore 'self-contained'. And we also need a proper term or definition of it.

My argument was that such a 'self-contained' 'super'universe must be infinitely large in all extends.
I know we have a slight language and definition problem here, I don't know a proper word for this, and used the term 'universe' instead.

Anyone a suggestion for a proper term?
('brane-world' or 'brane-universe' I think would not be a candidate, it would only describe an 'upper-layer' of our world, and be connected to a particular theory, describing it; perhaps something like Hyperversum? Omniversum?)

I hope I clearified this now..



The answer is then. Well since "nothing" can't exist, everything that does exist, must exist, and since everything that exists, is ever changing, moving, transforming, adapting, evolving, becoming, decaying, etc. the universe goes on and on and on and on (etc. etc. etc. etc.) INDEFINATELY

LOL. You know, this reminds me of the old ontological argument for the existence of God (“Since God is perfect by definition, then it must exist, or it wouldn’t be perfect.” Yeah, right.) – which has been debunked by many philosophers since the Middle Ages.


I don't think the arguments are comparable.
But if you have a debunker for this, then I would be thankfull.

I have read a whole discussion thread on some other forum about a concept of "0" or "ZERO" that was used as "EVERYTHING".

My argument just would be that by the mere definiton of "nothing" it is definately meaning that it is not something that exists.
Maybe for that reason you could call it a tautology.



Note: I’ve read your posts before and enjoyed reading them, heusdens, but on this matter I think you are just prejudiced.


In what way?

It's mere a notion I think most people have that 'something' cannot come out of existence from 'nothing'. So, you would call all these people prejudiced?
And if physicist in their calculations use the concept of 'mass-energy' conservation, are they also prejudiced?
Is it also a prejudice that all things on earth, when no force is acting on them, are falling to earth.

So, I think it's not a prejudice but is something we all know.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: heusdens on 2002-11-28 20:31 ]</font>

ljbrs
2002-Nov-28, 11:09 PM
For the Steady State Folks:

Ideas about cosmology changed radically in the middle to late 1990's, when it became public knowledge that the Universe was ACCELERATING in its expansion (before that time thought to be DECELERATING). This was published (Saul Perlmutter, et al.) in LETTERS, 1 January 1998 issue of NATURE, and was announced as being the *Discovery of the Year* (James Glanz) in the 18 December 1998 issue of SCIENCE. The standard candles were Type 1a supernovae which are thought to *go supernova* at 1.44 Solar masses (the Chandrasekhar Limit). Cosmology has not been the same since. This brought in the topic of *dark energy* (a/k/a Lambda, Quintessence) as the cause of the accelerated expansion.

Steady State Cosmology no longer seems to be in contention.

ljbrs /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_cry.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

JS Princeton
2002-Nov-30, 07:13 AM
The real nail in the coffin for Steady State was the fact they had no explanation for the CMB that made any sense. The most brilliant minds couldn't get a blackbody out of it, no matter how hard they tried. When COBE data came back everybody gasped. It was just all so clear that what we are looking at is one event that occurred at exactly the same instant in time everywhere in the universe. Steady State couldn't cope with that. The real hardcore anti-Big Bangers (like Agora) tried to make arguments that the CMB might be a local phenomenon so that it might end up in all parts of the sky that way. Of course, then there needs to be some eplanation for why it's so coincidentally right in all of the Big Bang models and why the Sunyaev-Zeldovich effect happens etc. There are basically no steady-staters that are left in the mainstream field, which is something you couldn't say even 15 years ago. They just have lost their teeth.

Silas
2002-Nov-30, 11:23 PM
On 2002-11-28 14:06, heusdens wrote:
I have read a whole discussion thread on some other forum about a concept of "0" or "ZERO" that was used as "EVERYTHING".


Grin! I get email now and then from people with theories like that. My favorite was a guy who had discovered (on his own) the arithmetical trick of "casting out nines," and thought it was so profound that it made all other number systems meaningless. He had written a forty-page treatise "proving" that "nine" is the perfect number.

On a more productive note, you might enjoy "Surreal Numbers," a novel by Donald Knuth. It has been described as the only meaningful mathematical innovation that has ever been published in the form of a novel. Knuth builds up a system of constructing numbers using the empty set. Twice.

I am not belittling you or your views. (For one thing, you've been polite, and I'll happily discuss ideas, even those with which I disagree, with gentle-folk.)

And, ultimately, there *aren't* any answers for your questions. If "time" as we understand it is just a dimension that has space-like properties, then is the universe (cosmos, multiverse, all-that-is, or whatever else we can name it) embedded in something larger...or not?

Some people have suggested that black holes, being "pinched off" from a universe, cause a new universe to come into existence. Scientific American had some lovely (speculative!) graphical depictions of the implications of "daughter universes."

Silas

heusdens
2002-Dec-01, 12:14 AM
On 2002-11-30 18:23, Silas wrote:

Grin! I get email now and then from people with theories like that. My favorite was a guy who had discovered (on his own) the arithmetical trick of "casting out nines," and thought it was so profound that it made all other number systems meaningless. He had written a forty-page treatise "proving" that "nine" is the perfect number.

On a more productive note, you might enjoy "Surreal Numbers," a novel by Donald Knuth. It has been described as the only meaningful mathematical innovation that has ever been published in the form of a novel. Knuth builds up a system of constructing numbers using the empty set. Twice.

I am not belittling you or your views. (For one thing, you've been polite, and I'll happily discuss ideas, even those with which I disagree, with gentle-folk.)

And, ultimately, there *aren't* any answers for your questions. If "time" as we understand it is just a dimension that has space-like properties, then is the universe (cosmos, multiverse, all-that-is, or whatever else we can name it) embedded in something larger...or not?

Some people have suggested that black holes, being "pinched off" from a universe, cause a new universe to come into existence. Scientific American had some lovely (speculative!) graphical depictions of the implications of "daughter universes."

Silas



Well, that is what my argument was about, there are too many wild ideas to be found in ideas about science.

Some implications of the Big Bang, tend to that opinion, not Big Bang theory itself, as it rests on stable ground.

One of the things worth to mention is for example the idea of infinity. Some people tend to argue there must have been a "beginning of time", since if time itself would be infinite, would contradict the fact that between the infinite past and now, there is an infinite amount of time, which would be impossible.
But this very argument is wrong, since when dealing with infinity, in their proof about the inconceivability of infinity, they state as if there was a beginning. But the very nature of an infinity, simply means, there isn't a beginning to begin with. So, stating that infinity is impossible, because you cannot go from the begin to now (an infinite amount of time), is simply nonsense. In the infinity of time, there is no such thing as a beginning.

Something different is, that everything we know of, weather in the microscopic world or the macroscopic world, aren't eternal things.
Every living being has a begin and an end.
The same holds true for planets, starts, galaxies, etc.
Ultimately, also the universe as we know it now, has a begin and an end.
But that was not a beginning of time, it just is the notion that the universe changed from one state, to another state or material form. What exactly is the case, we still can't figure out.
But it would be dillusive to say, the universe started out of a state of "nothingness". That is an "ill" and illusive concept.
Let us take one other example. When did I myself start? I know I have not lived forever, so there was a definite begin of "me". It was a finite amount back in the past. When does human life and consciousness start? Right after the conception, or when the first cells divide? After 3 months? When I am born? This is something one cannot tell for sure, and it depends on how one defines human living and consciousness.

Likewise it is a entangling question as to ask when did the universe begin. It might be considered, since we will probably never realy able to directly observe any other universe as our own, that we might never tell. So, that means, as to our understanding that there might have well been "nothing" before our universe was born.

But judged on all other examples nature provide, this would be something silly to say. Why would our universe be an unique feature of nature? And why would the universe be unique in the sense that, like everything else, it has a start and an end, but which is in the end just a part of the process we call Nature, of which we may never see it in all it's totallity. Since for our limited life span and limited dimensions, the understanding of the universe itself, is already a big puzzle and beyond doubt, thinks take place on such huge and enormous scales, that we cannot use ordinary thinking. It might take another thousand years before we can understand what goes on in the universe, and what kind of boundaries (if any at all) do exist.

While on one hand everything IN nature has a definite begin and end (although we must no see this as abrupt and distinctive features, but it consists of several steps, containing gradual changes, as also abrupt changes), this does not mean that there is a begin or end to Nature itself, and the processes that Nature encompasses.

For Nature, the life of a universe is not something realy different then the life of a biological organism.
But the difference is that a biologist can tell something about evolution and how it took place, by studying many animals and plants from different species.

A cosmologist, has to deal with only one universe, and can study it only in a tiny fraction of it's entire (supposedly finite) lifetime. That is not much for telling anything significant about the object of the study, wether it is unique, wether it has a begin or an end, etc. And we can only study from within the object to study, since we are part of it, but can't look at it from outside, and study the biotope and natural conditions.

That makes things real hard and difficult indeed!

ljbrs
2002-Dec-01, 01:26 AM
That's fine, but criticizing cosmologists doing their job is like the feminist who declares "E=mc^2" a masculine equation. It's just a ludicrous argument and just plain superstition, in my book.

Those types of women seem to be pretty ignorant and/or stupid. Truly intelligent and knowledgeable women would think otherwise (hopefully).

ljbrs /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_frown.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

heusdens
2002-Dec-01, 02:01 AM
On 2002-11-30 18:23, Silas wrote:

And, ultimately, there *aren't* any answers for your questions. If "time" as we understand it is just a dimension that has space-like properties, then is the universe (cosmos, multiverse, all-that-is, or whatever else we can name it) embedded in something larger...or not?



It depends on what you are willing to accept as an anwer. In my mind / view almost all questions in this respect have already been dealt with.

Questions as to or wether the universe has a beginning, have been asked a million times already. But people don't realize they ask the same kind of question, and think that something totally new has come under the horizon.

The question of wether the universe has a beginning, has been answered already.
I can show you a philosophical text, dealing with the question, and giving a satisfactory answer to it.

The development of our equipment and techniques and methods for reasoning about these issues, have been tremendously improved. But even so, the nature of our questions are not realy different as they were say a hundred years from now.

Everything we are observing, can be thought of as natural processes. And everything has a distinct beginning or end. That goes for every length and time scale.

In this respect, the universe is not different then a planet, or a microbe. They al exist for a certain amount of time, they develop, and decay.

But the way people adress the question, gives it a mystique property.

What we have to take in mind is that everything that exists, is part of the process called Nature. As such, this proces has no begin or end.
Their might be or better one can safely assume there is a begin and also an end to the universe. But this is not the same as saying that Nature has a begin and end.

Neither as the world ends, if all of humanity goes extinct, so does Nature not go extinct, when this universe collapses, or whatever it end might be like.
The problem is just that we can never realy testify this, cause the timeline of the universe is beyond any observable horizon, and also we are faced with the problem that the universe is the only entity of which we can only observe one, and which we can only observe from inside and without its context, because we are part of it. Any other entity that nature develops, can be observed in multitudes and from outside and within it's context: we can see the context of the formation, developing process and decaying process, and can distinguish the entity from it's surroundings. The surroundings of the universe we will most probably never be able to observe directly.

For a biologist it is doable to conclude that living organism have been formed and shaped due to natural processes, which are better understood as the evolutionary process. We have come to that conclusion by studying many different species, on a historical large scale.

But one can imagine that the job of developing the theory of evolution would be almost impossible to do, if a biologist could study only one specific lifeform, in a very narrow time limit.

Although the universe can be studied on a significant scale (we observe that it has been expanding, for instance, and we can look far way back in the past), we cannot realy see it's development in any significant timescale as realtime behaviour.

This despite the fact that we can see it in many time ereas at once. It's like studying at a dog for instance, and see it's tail just after it was born, the back and legs, after 6 months, the body after a year, and the head after 1 year, and that all in one image for one second, and with a varying lenght scale. We don't know what the head looked like in earlier phases, or what the tail looks like now. In fact, the object we study is different, we see entities which are basically the same, so a cell of a dog would be a better anology.

Any other entity can be more or less studied in it's development, it's formation, developing and decaying processes, and in the context of the environment with which it interacts.

The cosmos however, we can only see from inside in a stage long after it's formation on a very minimal timescale, and we know absolutely nothing about anything directly outside it, or the causes for it's formation, nor will we ever be able to study any other universe then our own.

To conclude that the universe is as much a part of nature as any other natural entity, one cannot do from observational evidence, but only on the basis of abstracting from other parts of nature, and the knowledge we have about their developing processes.

To me, to avoid weird questions, one should distinguish the process (called Nature), from the entity (called Universe).

The Universe can have (has) a definitive beginning and end, whereas the process of Nature goes on endlessly, and can produce an infinite number of universes.

So, for me the question of a beginning, is not a puzzle, we should be convinced that a universe can only exist, given a pre-existing Nature, because it would be the only reasonable answer, and be based on all our other knowledge of Nature.

Even if it turns out, this conclusion can never realy be testified on direct observable facts. But even without that, and even when we may be ever wondering of what the Universe is all about, we should avoid trying to mystify the issue.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: heusdens on 2002-11-30 21:40 ]</font>

Silas
2002-Dec-01, 03:25 AM
On 2002-11-30 21:01, heusdens wrote:
Questions as to or wether the universe has a beginning, have been asked a million times already.


Yep. And I have a suspicion that there are as many different answers as there are different people asking the question!



The question of wether the universe has a beginning, has been answered already.
I can show you a philosophical text, dealing with the question, and giving a satisfactory answer to it.


I'd very much enjoy seeing it. Either here, or (if it isn't too big) via private email.

I don't know the answer, and I have doubts that it is an issue that can be answered, either scientifically or philosophically.

Given any set, our minds automatically wonder: what is outside that set? Formal set theory uses the notion of the "universe." But, again, we immediately wonder if it it truly universal, or if there is something outside.

Our language allows us to describe "infinites" and "absolutes." But these are only linguistic artifacts. For instance, we often define "God" as "The most powerful entity conceivable." But I can conceive of "God" and then say, "But entity 'X' which is more powerful than 'God' by a factor of fifty."

If our universe has existed "forever," then you have to cope with that kind of linguistic absurdity.



The development of our equipment and techniques and methods for reasoning about these issues, have been tremendously improved.


This is why "science" (per se) only deals with issues that *can* be examined instrumentally.

We don't *know* what happened before (or outside of) the Big Bang. We can't address it. We don't have the tools.

All we can do (in the scientific rule-book) is deal with the things that we *can* observe, measure, deduce, and determine.

Seriously: I am with you. I wonder what happened "before before." I wonder about the question of my own existence and my own role as the only observer of the cosmos than I can know. All of us, at some time in our life, have to wonder: Am I truly the center of the universe?

But these questions don't open themselves to any *approach* to an answer. Plato's allegory of the cave is delightful, but how do you test it?

In the 1200's AD, people discovered a strange kind of quartz crystal, known as Icelanding Spar Crystal. It has the lovely property of double refraction. I have a cube of it on my desk. If I put it on top of a newspaper, I see two images. For nearly 700 years, no one knew why. Science (so to speak) simply ignored it. There was no way to approach the riddle, and thus the riddle was put on the back burner (if you will forgive me for mixing metaphors.)

In the late 1700's, someone noticed that the crystal passed only one image of light reflected from a distant window. He pioneered the science of polarized light.

Maybe, some day, some time, someone will find a scientific way to address the questions of cosmological origins. Until then, we can only ignore the riddle. We must. We have no way to address it.

Saying, "I don't know" is *NEVER* a sin.

Silas

heusdens
2002-Dec-01, 04:11 AM
On 2002-11-30 22:25, Silas wrote:
I'd very much enjoy seeing it. Either here, or (if it isn't too big) via private email.

I don't know the answer, and I have doubts that it is an issue that can be answered, either scientifically or philosophically.

Given any set, our minds automatically wonder: what is outside that set? Formal set theory uses the notion of the "universe." But, again, we immediately wonder if it it truly universal, or if there is something outside.

Our language allows us to describe "infinites" and "absolutes." But these are only linguistic artifacts. For instance, we often define "God" as "The most powerful entity conceivable." But I can conceive of "God" and then say, "But entity 'X' which is more powerful than 'God' by a factor of fifty."

If our universe has existed "forever," then you have to cope with that kind of linguistic absurdity.


Well, I have struggled with the issue a lot, and like many others, took the wrong approach.

As can be witnessed here in my posts, I stumbled first in trying to encompass the Universe as "everything that exists". Which makes it quite evidently, there could not possibly be a beginning.
Yet, the very overwhelming facts and evidence for the Big Bang, forced me to look on the issue from a different perspective.

The perspective I now choose, makes a distinction between the process of Nature, and the entities that have formed as a consequence of the process of Nature.

In this way, a Universe isn't realy different from a star, a microbe, a galaxy, or whatever. It's an entity like any other entity that Nature has developed, which means that is is limited in spacial and material extent, and has a begin and end.

We are only limited in this way, that we live inside it, and are infinitesimally small in comparance to the entity we observe, and see it on an infinitesimal small time scale, and never can directly observe it's "outside".

It's like studying the evolution theory from a perspective of an observer smaller then a bloodcell within an animal.
Yet, we are equipped with every possible means of observation to know something about it's development, and even from the world outside of the animal.



This is why "science" (per se) only deals with issues that *can* be examined instrumentally.

We don't *know* what happened before (or outside of) the Big Bang. We can't address it. We don't have the tools.

All we can do (in the scientific rule-book) is deal with the things that we *can* observe, measure, deduce, and determine.


I agree with you that it takes a huge leap in understanding to conclude the things I said here. But we don't do that on unreasonable grounds, there is a lot of observational evidence. It can be safely concluded that the universe had a begin.

If we don't want to wander back in mysticism, there is no alternative then to conclude that the Universe is not everything that exists, but is "just another entity" formed and shaped by Nature.

We don't know yet of what processes started the Big Bang, and it might be that on that field, nothing conclusive can be said.
If I read about the new inflation theory, and esp. the open inflation and chaotic inflation theory, I think this is a step in the right direction, cause it points out in the direction of the neverending Natural process that shapes and forms an universe.

It can contain many details that are wrong, but if I am not mistaken, they are approaching it from the right direction, and IMHO even more fruitfull as M theory or Instanton theory.



Seriously: I am with you. I wonder what happened "before before." I wonder about the question of my own existence and my own role as the only observer of the cosmos than I can know. All of us, at some time in our life, have to wonder: Am I truly the center of the universe?

But these questions don't open themselves to any *approach* to an answer. Plato's allegory of the cave is delightful, but how do you test it?

In the 1200's AD, people discovered a strange kind of quartz crystal, known as Icelanding Spar Crystal. It has the lovely property of double refraction. I have a cube of it on my desk. If I put it on top of a newspaper, I see two images. For nearly 700 years, no one knew why. Science (so to speak) simply ignored it. There was no way to approach the riddle, and thus the riddle was put on the back burner (if you will forgive me for mixing metaphors.)

In the late 1700's, someone noticed that the crystal passed only one image of light reflected from a distant window. He pioneered the science of polarized light.

Maybe, some day, some time, someone will find a scientific way to address the questions of cosmological origins. Until then, we can only ignore the riddle. We must. We have no way to address it.

Saying, "I don't know" is *NEVER* a sin.

Silas



Neither is coming up with a viable theory, which might proof wrong, or is untestable.

I know, the proof for such a theory, based on solid grounds, and not just assumptions based on abstractions of every other aspect of nature we can know about, is not within handreach soon and maybe never.

For the time coming, just theoretical models can come up, wich may be indirectly tested.

But from a historic viewpoint, one can see that in every phase of scientific development, we have always placed significance to a certain specific place of us humans, within the universe.

Now it might turn out, even our universe is not something unique, but Nature creates them "on the fly" in an neverending process.

If I am not wrong, that is what is the case.

But it can be stated that such a theory, will have to deal with much absurd reasoning.
For whatever reason, people tend to hold the perspective that the universe is something realy unique.

heusdens
2002-Dec-01, 04:30 AM
On 2002-11-30 22:25, Silas wrote:
I'd very much enjoy seeing it. Either here, or (if it isn't too big) via private email.

I don't know the answer, and I have doubts that it is an issue that can be answered, either scientifically or philosophically.



The following is a paragraph of the book 'Anti-Duhring' of Friedrich Engels (aka "Dialectics of Nature"), in which he criticizes the philosophy of Herr Duhring, who thought he had a theory of about everything ("world schematism"). It's written about 130 years ago, but as to the issue of "a beginning" still up to date, and it tackles this issue delicately.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
V.
PHILOSOPHY OF NATURE.
TIME AND SPACE
We now come to philosophy of nature. Here again Herr Dühring has every cause for dissatisfaction with his predecessors.


Natural philosophy "sank so low that it became an arid, spurious doggerel founded on ignorance", and "fell to the prostituted philosophistics of a Schelling and his like, rigging themselves out in the priesthood of the Absolute and hoodwinking the public". Fatigue has saved us from these "deformities"; but up to now it has only given place to "instability"; "and as far as the public at large is concerned, it is well known that the disappearance of a great charlatan is often only the opportunity for a lesser but commercially more experienced successor to put out again, under another signboard; the products of his predecessor". Natural scientists themselves feel little "inclination to make excursions into the realm of world-encompassing ideas", and consequently jump to "wild and hasty conclusions" in the theoretical sphere {D. Ph. 56-57}.

The need for deliverance is therefore urgent, and by a stroke of good luck Herr Dühring is at hand.
In order properly to appreciate the revelations which now follow on the development of the world in time and its limitations in space, we must turn back again to certain passages in "world schematism" {15}.

Infinity -- which Hegel calls bad infinity -- is attributed to being also in accordance with Hegel (Encyclopaedia, § 93), and then this infinity is investigated.


"The clearest form of an infinity which can be conceived without contradiction is the unlimited accumulation of numbers in a numerical series {18} ... As we can add yet another unit to any number, without ever exhausting the possibility of further numbers, so also to every state of being a further state succeeds, and infinity consists in the unlimited begetting of these states. This exactly conceived infinity has consequently only one single basic form with one single direction. For although it is immaterial to our thought whether or not it conceives an opposite direction in the accumulation of states, this retrogressing infinity is nevertheless only a rashly constructed thought-image. indeed, since this infinity would have to be traversed in reality in the reverse direction, it would in each of its states have an infinite succession of numbers behind itself. But this would involve the impermissible contradiction of a counted infinite numerical series, and so it is contrary to reason to postulate any second direction in infinity" {19}.

The first conclusion drawn from this conception of infinity is that the chain of causes and effects in the world must at some time have had a beginning:

"an infinite number of causes which assumedly already have lined up next to one another is inconceivable, just because it presupposes that the uncountable has been counted" {37}.

And thus a final cause is proved.
The second conclusion is


"the law of definite number: the accumulation of identities of any actual species of independent things is only conceivable as forming a definite number". Not only must the number of celestial bodies existing at any point of time be in itself definite, but so must also the total number of all, even the tiniest independent particles of matter existing in the world. This latter requisite is the real reason why no composition can be conceived without atoms. All actual division has always a definite limit, and must have it if the contradiction of the counted uncountable is to be avoided. For the same reason, not only must the number of the earth's revolutions round the sun up to the present time be a definite number, even though it cannot be stated, but all periodical processes of nature must have had some beginning, and all differentiation, all the multifariousness of nature which appears in succession must have its roots in one self-equal state. This state may, without involving a contradiction, have existed from eternity; but even this idea would be excluded if time in itself were composed of real parts and were not, on the contrary, merely arbitrarily divided up by our minds owing to the variety of conceivable possibilities. The case is quite different with the real, and in itself distinguished content of time; this real filling of time with distinguishable facts and the forms of being of this sphere belong, precisely because of their distinguishability, to the realm of the countable {64-65}. If we imagine a state in which no change occurs and which in its self-equality provides no differences of succession whatever, the more specialised idea of time transforms itself into the more general idea of being. What the accumulation of empty duration would mean is quite unimaginable {70}.

Thus far Herr Dühring, and he is not a little edified by the significance of these revelations. At first he hopes that they will "at least not be regarded as paltry truths" {64}; but later we find:

"Recall to your mind the extremely simple methods by which we helped forward the concepts of infinity and their critique to a hitherto unknown import... the elements of the universal conception of space and time, which have been given such simple form by the sharpening and deepening now effected" {427-28}.

We helped forward! The deepening and sharpening now effected! Who are "we", and when is this "now"? Who is deepening and sharpening?

"Thesis: The world has a beginning in time, and with regard to space is also limited. -- Proof: For if it is assumed that the world has no beginning in time, then an eternity must have elapsed up to every given point of time, and consequently an infinite series of successive states of things must have passed away in the world. The infinity of a series, however, consists precisely in this, that it can never be completed by means of a successive synthesis. Hence an infinite elapsed series of worlds is impossible, and consequently a beginning of the world is a necessary condition of its existence. And this was the first thing to be proved. -- With regard to the second, if the opposite is again assumed, then the world must be an infinite given total of co-existent things. Now we cannot conceive the dimensions of a quantum, which is not given within certain limits of an intuition, in any other way than by means of the synthesis of its parts, and can conceive the total of such a quantum only by means of a completed synthesis, or by the repeated addition of a unit to itself. Accordingly, to conceive the world, which fills all spaces, as a whole, the successive synthesis of the parts of an infinite world would have to be looked upon as completed; that is, an infinite time would have to be regarded as elapsed in the enumeration of all co-existing things. This is impossible. For this reason an infinite aggregate of actual things cannot be regarded as a given whole nor, therefore, as given at the same time. Hence it follows that the world is not infinite, as regards extension in space, but enclosed in limits. And this was the second thing" (to be proved).

These sentences are copied word for word from a well-known book which first appeared in 1781 and is called: Kritik der reinen Vernunft by Immanuel Kant, where all and sundry can read them, in the first part, Second Division, Book II, Chapter II, Section II: The First Antinomy of Pure Reason. So that Herr Dühring's fame rests solely on his having tacked on the name -- Law of Definite Number -- to an idea expressed by Kant, and on having made the discovery that there was once a time when as yet there was no time, though there was a world. As regards all the rest, that is, anything in Herr Dühring's exegesis which has some meaning, "We" -- is Immanuel Kant, and the "now" is only ninety-five years ago. Certainly "extremely simple"! Remarkable "hitherto unknown import"!
Kant, however, does not at all claim that the above propositions are established by his proof. On the contrary; on the opposite page he states and proves the reverse: that the world has no beginning in time and no end in space; and it is precisely in this that he finds the antinomy, the insoluble contradiction, that the one is just as demonstrable as the other. People of smaller calibre might perhaps fuel a little doubt here on account of "a Kant" having found an insoluble difficulty. But not so our valiant fabricator of "from the ground up original conclusions and views" {D. Ph. 525}; he indefatigably copies down as much of Kant's antinomy as suits his purpose, and throws the rest aside.

The problem itself has a very simple solution. Eternity in time, infinity in space, signify from the start, and in the simple meaning of the words, that there is no end in any direction neither forwards nor backwards, upwards or downwards, to the right or to the left. This infinity is something quite different from that of an infinite series, for the latter always starts from one, with a first term. The inapplicability of this idea of series to our object becomes clear directly we apply it to space. The infinite series, transferred to the sphere of space, is a line drawn from a definite point in a definite direction to infinity. Is the infinity of space expressed in this even in the remotest way? On the contrary, the idea of spatial dimensions involves six lines drawn from this one point in three opposite directions, and consequently we would have six of these dimensions. Kant saw this so clearly that he transferred his numerical series only indirectly, in a roundabout way, to the space relations of the world. Herr Dühring, on the other hand, compels us to accept six dimensions in space, and immediately afterwards can find no words to express his indignation at the mathematical mysticism of Gauss, who would not rest content with the usual three dimensions of space [37] {See D. Ph. 67-68}.

As applied to time, the line or series of units infinite in both directions has a certain figurative meaning. But if we think of time as a series counted from one forward, or as a line starting from a definite point, we imply in advance that time has a beginning: we put forward as a premise precisely what we are to prove. We give the infinity of time a one-sided, halved character; but a one-sided, halved infinity is also a contradiction in itself, the exact opposite of an "infinity conceived without contradiction". We can only get past this contradiction if we assume that the one from which we begin to count the series, the point from which we proceed to measure the line is any one in the series, that it is any one of the points in the line, and that it is a matter of indifference to the line or to the series where we place this one or this point.

But what of the contradiction of "the counted infinite numerical series"? We shall be in a position to examine this more closely as soon as Herr Dühring has performed for us the clever trick of counting it. When he has completed the task of counting from - = (minus infinity) to 0 let him come again. It is certainly obvious that, at whatever point he begins to count, he will leave behind him an infinite series and, with it, the task which he is to fulfil. Let him just reverse his own infinite series 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 ... and try to count from the infinite end back to 1; it would obviously only be attempted by a man who has not the faintest understanding of what the problem is. And again: if Herr Dühring states that the infinite series of elapsed time has been counted, he is thereby stating that time has a beginning; for otherwise he would not have been able to start "counting" at all. Once again, therefore, he puts into the argument, as a premise, the thing that he has to prove.

The idea of an infinite series which has been counted, in other words, the world-encompassing Dühringian law of definite number, is therefore a contradictio in adjecto ["contradiction in definition" -- ed.] contains within itself a contradiction, and in fact an absurd contradiction.

It is clear that an infinity which has an end but no beginning is neither more nor less infinite than that which has a beginning but no end. The slightest dialectical insight should have told Herr Dühring that beginning and end necessarily belong together, like the north pole and the south pole, and that if the end is left out, the beginning just becomes the end -- the one end which the series has; and vice versa. The whole deception would be impossible but for the mathematical usage of working with infinite series. Because in mathematics it is necessary to start from definite, finite terms in order to reach the indefinite, the infinite, all mathematical series, positive or negative, must start from 1, or they cannot be used for calculation. The abstract requirement of a mathematician is, however, far from being a compulsory law for the world of reality.

For that matter, Herr Dühring will never succeed in conceiving real infinity without contradiction. Infinity is a contradiction, and is full of contradictions. From the outset it is a contradiction that an infinity is composed of nothing but finites, and yet this is the case. The limitedness of the material world leads no less to contradictions than its unlimitedness, and every attempt to get over these contradictions leads, as we have seen, to new and worse contradictions. It is just because infinity is a contradiction that it is an infinite process, unrolling endlessly in time and in space. The removal of the contradiction would be the end of infinity. Hegel saw this quite correctly, and for that reason treated with well-merited contempt the gentlemen who subtilised over this contradiction.

Let us pass on. So time had a beginning. What was there before this beginning? The universe, which was then in a self-equal, unchanging state. And as in this state no changes succeed one another, the more specialised idea of time transforms itself into the more general idea of being. In the first place, we are here not in the least concerned with what ideas change in Herr Dühring's head. The subject at issue is not the idea of time, but real time, which Herr Dühring cannot rid himself of so cheaply. In the second place, however much the idea of time may convert itself into the more general idea of being, this does not take us one step further. For the basic forms of all being are space and time, and being out of time is just as gross an absurdity as being out of space. The Hegelian "being past away non-temporally" and the neo-Schellingian "unpremeditatable being" are rational ideas compared with this being out of time. And for this reason Herr Dühring sets to work very cautiously; actually it is of course time, but of such a kind as cannot really be called time, time, indeed, in itself does not consist of real parts, and is only divided up at will by our mind -- only an actual filling of time with distinguishable facts is susceptible of being counted -- what the accumulation of empty duration means is quite unimaginable. What this accumulation is supposed to mean is here beside the point; the question is, whether the world, in the state here assumed, has duration, passes through a duration in time. We have long known that we can get nothing by measuring such a duration without content just as we can get nothing by measuring without aim or purpose in empty space; and Hegel, just because of the weariness of such an effort, calls such an infinity bad. According to Herr Dühring time exists only through change; change in and through time does not exist. Just because time is different from change, is independent of it, it is possible to measure it by change, for measuring always requires something different from the thing to be measured. And time in which no recognisable changes occur is very far removed from not being time; it is rather pure time, unaffected by any foreign admixtures, that is, real time, time as such. In fact, if we want to grasp the idea of time in all its purity, divorced from all alien and extraneous admixtures, we are compelled to put aside, as not being relevant here, all the various events which occur simultaneously or one after another in time, and in this way to form the idea of a time in which nothing happens. In doing this, therefore, we have not let the concept of time be submerged in the general idea of being, but have thereby for the first time arrived at the pure concept of time.

But all these contradictions and impossibilities are only mere child's play compared with the confusion into which Herr Dühring falls with his self-equal initial state of the world. If the world had ever been in a state in which no change whatever was taking place, how could it pass from this state to alteration? The absolutely unchanging, especially when it has been in this state from eternity, cannot possibly get out of such a state by itself and pass over into a state of motion and change. An initial impulse must therefore have come from outside, from outside the universe, an impulse which set it in motion. But as everyone knows, the "initial impulse" is only another expression for God. God and the beyond, which in his world schematism Herr Dühring pretended to have so beautifully dismantled, are both introduced again by him here, sharpened and deepened, into natural philosophy.

Further, Herr Dühring says:


"Where magnitude is attributed to a constant element of being, it will remain unchanged in its determinateness. This holds good ... of matter and mechanical force" {D. Ph. 26}.

The first sentence, it may be noted in passing, is a precious example of Herr Dühring's axiomatic-tautological grandiloquence: where magnitude does not change, it remains the same. Therefore the amount of mechanical force which exists in the world remains the same for all eternity. We will overlook the fact that, in so far as this is correct, Descartes already knew and said it in philosophy nearly three hundred years ago; that in natural science the theory of the conservation of energy has held sway for the last twenty years; and that Herr Dühring, in limiting it to mechanical force, does not in any way improve on it. But where was the mechanical force at the time of the unchanging state? Herr Dühring obstinately refuses to give us any answer to this question.
Where, Herr Dühring, was the eternally self-equal mechanical force at that time, and what did it put in motion? The reply:


"The original state of the universe, or to put it more plainly, of an unchanging existence of matter which comprised no accumulation of changes in time, is a question which can be spurned only by a mind that sees the acme of wisdom in the self-mutilation of its own generative power" {78-79}.

Therefore: either you accept without examination my unchanging original state, or I, Eugen Dühring, the possessor of creative power, will certify you as intellectual eunuchs. That may, of course, deter a good many people. But we, who have already seen some examples of Herr Dühring's generative power, can permit ourselves to leave this genteel abuse unanswered for the moment, and ask once again: But Herr Dühring, if you please, what about that mechanical force?
Herr Dühring at once grows embarrassed.


In actual fact, he stammers, "the absolute identity of that initial extreme state does not in itself provide any principle of transition. But we must remember that at bottom the position is similar with every new link, however small, in the chain of existence with which we are familiar. So that whoever wants to raise difficulties in the fundamental case now under consideration must take care that he does not allow himself to pass them by on less obvious occasions. Moreover, there exists the possibility of interposing successively graduated intermediate stages, and also a bridge of continuity by which it is possible to move backwards and reach the extinction of the process of change. It is true that from a purely conceptual standpoint this continuity does not help us pass the main difficulty, but to us it is the basic form of all regularity and of every known form of transition in general, so that we are entitled to use it also as a medium between that first equilibrium and the disturbance of it. But if we had conceived the so to speak" (!) "motionless equilibrium on the model of the ideas which are accepted without any particular objection" (!) "in our present-day mechanics, there would be no way of explaining how matter could have reached the process of change." Apart from the mechanics of masses there is, however, we are told, also a transformation of mass movement into the movement of extremely small particles, but as to how this takes place -- "for this up to the present we have no general principle at our disposal and consequently we should not be surprised if these processes take place somewhat in the dark" {79-80, 81}.

That is all Herr Dühring has to say. And in fact, we would have to see the acme of wisdom not only in the "self-mutilation of our generative power" {79}, but also in blind, implicit faith, if we allowed ourselves to be put off with these really pitiable rank subterfuges and circumlocutions. Herr Dühring admits that absolute identity cannot of itself effect the transition to change. Nor is there any means whereby absolute equilibrium can of itself pass into motion. What is there, then? Three lame, false arguments.
Firstly: it is just as difficult to show the transition from each link, however small, in the chain of existence with which we are familiar, to the next one. -- Herr Dühring seems to think his readers are infants. The establishment of individual transitions and connections between the tiniest links in the chain of existence is precisely the content of natural science, and when there is a hitch at some point in its work no one, not even Herr Dühring, thinks of explaining prior motion as having arisen out of nothing, but always only as a transfer, transformation or transmission of some previous motion. But here the issue is admittedly one of accepting motion as having arisen out of immobility, that is, out of nothing.

In the second place, we have the "bridge of continuity". From a purely conceptual standpoint, this, to be sure, does not help us over the difficulty, but all the same we are entitled to use it as a medium between immobility and motion. Unfortunately the continuity of immobility consists in not moving; how therefore it is to produce motion remains more mysterious than ever. And however infinitely small the parts into which Herr Dühring minces his transition from complete non-motion to universal motion, and however long the duration he assigns to it, we have not got a ten-thousandth part of a millimetre further. Without an act of creation we can never get from nothing to something, even if the something were as small as a mathematical differential. The bridge of continuity is therefore not even an asses' bridge [37a]; it is passable only for Herr Dühring.

Thirdly: so long as present-day mechanics holds good -- and this science, according to Herr Dühring, is one of the most essential levers for the formation of thought -- it cannot be explained at all how it is possible to pass from immobility to motion. But the mechanical theory of heat shows us that the movement of masses under certain conditions changes into molecular movement (although here too one motion originates from another motion, but never from immobility); and this, Herr Dühring shyly suggests, may possibly furnish a bridge between the strictly static (in equilibrium) and dynamic (in motion). But these processes take place "somewhat in the dark". And it is in the dark that Herr Dühring leaves us sitting.

This is the point we have reached with all his deepening and sharpening -- that we have perpetually gone deeper into ever sharper nonsense, and finally land up where of necessity we had to land up -- "in the dark". But this does not abash Herr Dühring much. Right on the next page he has the effrontery to declare that he has


"been able to provide a real content for the idea of self-equal stability directly from the behaviour of matter and the mechanical forces" {D. Ph. 82}.

And this man describes other people as "charlatans"!
Fortunately, in spite of all this helpless wandering and confusion "in the dark", we are left with one consolation, and this is certainly edifying to the soul:


"The mathematics of the inhabitants of other celestial bodies can rest on no other axioms than our own!" {69}.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: heusdens on 2002-11-30 23:41 ]</font>

informant
2002-Dec-02, 01:24 PM
ljbrs wrote:


That's fine, but criticizing cosmologists doing their job is like the feminist who declares "E=mc^2" a masculine equation. It's just a ludicrous argument and just plain superstition, in my book.


Those types of women seem to be pretty ignorant and/or stupid. Truly intelligent and knowledgeable women would think otherwise (hopefully).

ljbrs

You mean, they would think that E=mc^2 is a feminine equation?... /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif