The Universe can not be a bubble floating in space, because the space outside of that bubble is by definition, part of the Universe.Originally Posted by Sombra
Evidence against standard Big Bang Theory-
http://photoman.bizland.com/bbnh/lernerpaper4.pdf
My definition is simple: the Universe is the sum total of everything that exists. What do you define it as?My argument isn´t self defeating I am trying simply tell you that you have to define very clearly what the meaning of a word is. Your definiton from the word universe can be different from mine, at least it seems that this is the case.
I tried to give you a pecture how I imagine myself the universe. Now I would like that you give an answer how you imagine the universe is build. Afterwards we can discuss which picture fits our experience best, where are perhaps gaps in the other ones worldview eg.
Last edited by Praxus; 11 Jan 06, at 23:58.
Praxus,
the universe is indeed the totality. There is no 'outside' which is nicely explained by the theory that space (and time?) folds back upon itself. I don't however understand how you can use this as a reason for spaces dimensions to be fixed and immutable.
Well first of all I don´t say that the universe is a bubble floating in space because the very concept of space forms part of my bubble.
You still are not giving a a clearer picture of the form of the universe then before .
Therefore it is hard to argue with your point of view up to now you are not giving any.
Regarding the article above it is simply seems to me (and I beg your pardon if I am wrong) hogwash from somebody who tries to sound scientific. It seems that he tries to explain if something moves away from you it must be darker because of the redshift (first time in my life that I heared explain redshift or a consequence of it as a lower number of photons to reach its target) Afterwards he gives obscure examples , throws in a lot of formula (without sense in the given context) and comes to the conclusion this effect isn´t observable?
I'm not claiming there is universal consensus and I wouldn't care if there were. I am claiming that I believe the interpretation of the overwhelming majority of astrophysicists regarding matters related to the expansion of the universe is valid and true. I am supported by many facts.
Again I ask you, what is causing the distant galaxies to move away from our observation point in every direction?
Simply answer the question and we can probably clear much of the discussion up.
-dale
Again words are failing us. When we use the term "outside the Universe", etc., we are really talking about extradimensional domains co-extant with our own, not simply additional three-dimensional space that is somehow "holding" our spacetime/universe.
Easy and substantive refutation of Lerner's ideas here.Evidence against standard Big Bang Theory-
http://photoman.bizland.com/bbnh/lernerpaper4.pdf
I applaud the questioning of accepted-but-controversial cosmological theories, but Lerner's ideas are fairly weak compared to the Big Bang theory.
-dale
I have answered it so many times! The Galaxies are likely moving away from each other, that's it. We don't even know that much, for sure. The red shift may be caused by velocity, but that's only one of the possibilities.
Last edited by Praxus; 12 Jan 06, at 02:47.
Extradimensional domains would be part of the Universe, if they existed.
I never claimed his theory to be true. I was merely pointing to some errors in the Big Bang Theory that he identified.Easy and substantive refutation of Lerner's ideas here.
I applaud the questioning of accepted-but-controversial cosmological theories, but Lerner's ideas are fairly weak compared to the Big Bang theory.
-dale
Big Bang Theory actually claims that space is creatio ex nihilo inbetween Galaxies. This is a big enough philosophical error to disqualify it, right there.
Not to mention the whole "infinitely small" singularity before the big bang.
Last edited by Praxus; 12 Jan 06, at 02:59.
Well if you believe the Red Shift is caused by velocity vectors in our solar system but by something else in the rest of our universe then I can't much help correct you. But let's assume that the Red Shift is the result of the receding distant galaxies as the predominant theory claims.
In that case, what do you think might be causing them to recede? That you have most definitely not answered.
Says who?Extradimensional domains would be part of the Universe, if they existed.
1) Lerner doesn't find "errors" in the Big Bang theory, he simply finds things he doesn't like.I never claimed his theory to be true. I was merely pointing to some errors in the Big Bang Theory that he identified.
Big Bang Theory actually claims that space is creatio ex nihilo inbetween Galaxies. This is a big enough philosophical error to disqualify it, right there.
Not to mention the whole "infinitely small" singularity before the big bang.
2) The Big Bang theory does not claim that space is being created out of nothing in between galaxies. The Big Bang theory claims that the space the galaxies are moving through is expanding. Two different concepts. You are hardly in a position to question a theory you do not understand.
3) All singularities are "infinitely small" because they each are a "zero dimensional point" - that's what makes them singularities and not "specks". Again I suggest you have a poor understanding of the topic and again I suggest checking out the authors I mentioned in my post above. I particularly recommend Gribbin, as he is an author with a great talent for explaining really weird sh*t in words a layman can understand.
Finally I will mention that if you want to raise questions about our understanding of cosmology, "attacking" the Red Shift is barking up the wrong tree - light does what light does. Gravity is the place to ask questions. The whole concepts of Dark Matter and Dark Energy are largely founded on the need to explain why certain large scale gravitic effects are evidenced in the presence of apparently insufficient mass. As such, the ideas of matter we cannot see and energy we cannot detect are relatively decent explanations, but as my old Astronomy 451 professor casually mentioned to us one fine morning in 1988, why assume that G is a constant over time?
-dale
If you cut a piece of rope in half, then take that half, and cut that once more in half and so on; no matter how many times you do it, the smallest piece you have will always have a finite length. Similarly, no matter how far you travel into space, you will always be a finite distance from the earth. Infinities can not exist in reality. No ammount of rationalizing can change a basic philosophic truth.
Me. See my definition of the Universe - "The Totality of Existence". So anything that exists, certainly falls under that.Says who?
Sir, you really don't know what you are talking about. Read a book. Please. Any book. Or take a class.
-dale
Praxus, have you ever taken calculus? It should answer your concerns about infinity.
Anyway, your definition of Universe and the scientist's definition of Universe are slightly different. That's fine, except you're arguing about properties of the sceintific as opposed to philosophical universe and your talking about their universe using your definitions.
Asking somebody to show where the universe is expanding into is like asking somebody to draw a four or five dimensional vector. The human mind simply can't visualize it.
"Its true, we add insult to injury, but... you add the injury"
-Jon Stewart to Bill O'Reilly
Praxus you are a good example why in the end the "philosophic truth" of the old greeks failed to explain nature / universe and the rest.
Problem here is that you are going from YOUR understanding what is space and declare the ultimate truth. Unfortunatly you are simply ignoring evidence that your simple view of 3 dimensional space is only part of the reality we are living in.
Examples for this kind of failure have been Aristotiles, the Phytotagoräer etc. they all declared some basic truths which were though evident to them that they never ever challenged them. Aristtiles : A heavy object falls faster then a light comes to my mind..
In the end philosophic debate came down to a senseless word exchange and a game for the mind which is quite sad.
That's whole bunch of bull. Draw a circle. And your rope example falls apart real fast once you realize that there comes a point where the thing stops being a rope and start being molecules and atoms.
Chimo
This is exactly why you can never catch a turtle.
Praxus,
At various times in this debate you have asserted:
1. The Universe has no boundaries (space-wise, time-wise, knowledge-wise?); it encompasses all that exists.
2. Infinity is not physically realistic.
Seems to me that 1 and 2 are incompatible. If the Universe is unbounded, it has to be infinite, even in the philosophical sense of the word. If it is bounded, but merely very large, there exists something that is not part of the Universe and therefore, there is "space" for the Universe to expand to. In the philosophical sense, if we incorporate the "knowledge" we gain tomorrow or a million years hence into the definition of Universe, then our "knowledge" "boundary" has "expanded" to incorporate those additions.
The other side to this story is, if we accept that the Universe is unbounded and infinite, then the impact of any additions or deletions to it cannot be be measured, therefore it would be wrong to assert that the Universe cannot expand. Just as it would be wrong to assert that the Universe can and does expand. From a mathematical, a physical or a philosophical standpoint, the observer is ill-equipped to make that judgement either way.
I believe this confusion comes from a mixing of viewpoints - the scientific definition of "expansion" is sought to be refuted by a philosophical construction of "boundaries".
Last edited by Anoop C; 12 Jan 06, at 17:19.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
Share this thread with friends: