Flowing Toward Oblivion

[Steve Dekorte]

Flowing Toward Oblivion? - ScienceNOW

[G. S. Carnivals]

I recommend reading the authoritative book The Lights in the Sky Are Stars in the Drift by Fredric Brown and Michael Swanwick.

[Russell Nash]

Quote Originally Posted by Steve Dekorte

Flowing Toward Oblivion? - ScienceNOW

From it: "The theory goes that during this time, called inflation, space itself expanded at a rate much, much faster than the speed of light."

I'm going to ask you all a few questions.

1) Inflation. Is it a theory or a proven fact?

2) Is the Universe expanding? Can you prove it?

3) Does light travel through empty space, i.e. nothingness?

Now, my viewpoint:

1) Inflation is a theory. If we accept the theory of Big Bang, then we have to explain how this Universe we see today is so uniform. Inflation theory explains that. But, What caused inflation? Nobody knows. What is the particle or field responsible for this inflation? Nobody knows. So, are you asking me to believe you without further proof. Doesn't sound too scientific to me. It looks like a faith, where no proof is necessary.

2) If you see old family photographs, did your head expand in the last 20 years? No. Perhaps, did our solar system expand in the last 400 years, since Tycho Brahe? No. Do atomic radius expand? No. Then, where do astronomers see this expansion? Between galaxies. The Universe is expanding between galaxies only. Why is it being so selective? Nobody knows. But, is there any proof that the Universe is expanding at all? Yes, and no. Yes, there is something called redshift, one might say, but it hasn't been proved that the reason for this redshift is an expansion. Redshift had several explanations, none plausible. There are more implausible explanations, one of them is the tired light model.

Tired light - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tired_light

"Zwicky suggested that photons might slowly lose energy as they travel vast distances through a static universe by interaction with matter or other photons, or by some novel physical mechanism."

And, of course, because this mechanism was not found yet, the tired light model is discarded. See this, nothing was found that is responsible for the inflation, no cause, no field, no particle, however, in this case, this model was not discarded. Another example that Science is becoming a faith and is biased.

3) If empty space is nothingness, How can light bend it? How can light travel through it? Well, by the law of inertia.

From the article: "... the universe underwent a brief period that defied current physical laws."

Are we assuming that the universe defied certain laws but the law of inertia remained always the same? Does the Universe have preferences too? If there is a possibility, even accepting the Big bang model, that the law of inertia might be created a posteriori, after the beginning of Universe, Why the Universe keeps moving (before the law of inertia was "created")? Or the law of inertia was somehow coexisting with the point-like Universe?

[Robin Davies]

Quote Originally Posted by Russell Nash

I'm going to ask you all a few questions. 1) Inflation. Is it a theory or a proven fact? 2) Is the Universe expanding? Can you prove it?

You seem to see science in a very black-and-white way. Surely nothing can be proved with 100% certainty. The best we can do is produce theories which seem to fit the facts. Some theories (like the theory of evolution or the theory of plate tectonics) are supported by so much evidence that it seems justified to conclude that they are, say, 99% likely to be correct. The big bang theory is probably less firmly based but most physicists seem to think it fits the facts best. I don't have sufficient knowledge to say if that judgement is soundly based or not.

[Russell Nash]

Quote Originally Posted by Robin Davies

Quote Originally Posted by Russell Nash I'm going to ask you all a few questions. 1) Inflation. Is it a theory or a proven fact? 2) Is the Universe expanding? Can you prove it? You seem to see science in a very black-and-white way. Surely nothing can be proved with 100% certainty. The best we can do is produce theories which seem to fit the facts. Some theories (like the theory of evolution or the theory of plate tectonics) are supported by so much evidence that it seems justified to conclude that they are, say, 99% likely to be correct. The big bang theory is probably less firmly based but most physicists seem to think it fits the facts best. I don't have sufficient knowledge to say if that judgement is soundly based or not.

The fact that "some theories are supported by so much evidence that it seems justified to conclude that they are, say, 99% likely to be correct", doesn't imply that other theories, such as Big Bang model, are 100%, 99%, or 3% correct. But you already know that, right? Inductivism can't be applied here.

"...but most physicists seem to think it fits the facts best." Can you possibly list the name of a few physicists who disagree with the Big Bang model? Of course, you can list just a few, right? Why do you think that some physicists disagree? Bohemians? Rebels? Or perhaps they have their valid reasons?

By the way, do you, Robin Davies, see the Universe expanding at all...?

-------

Please, read

An Open Letter to the Scientific Community

[Russell Nash]

April 9, 2010

Discovery that quasars don't show time dilation mystifies astronomers

"There’s also a possibility that the explanation could be even more far-reaching, such as that the universe is not expanding and that the big bang theory is wrong. Or, quasars may not be located at the distances indicated by their redshifts, although this suggestion has previously been discredited."

[Robin Davies]

Quote Originally Posted by Russell Nash

The fact that "some theories are supported by so much evidence that it seems justified to conclude that they are, say, 99% likely to be correct", doesn't imply that other theories, such as Big Bang model, are 100%, 99%, or 3% correct.

I didn't say that.

Quote

"...but most physicists seem to think it fits the facts best." Can you possibly list the name of a few physicists who disagree with the Big Bang model? Of course, you can list just a few, right? Why do you think that some physicists disagree? Bohemians? Rebels? Or perhaps they have their valid reasons?

I've already admitted I don't know enough about the subject to assess the conflicting views - and you can find a scientist who disagrees with any particular theory you care to name. Wouldn't these messages be better posted on a physics forum where people with more background knowledge can discuss the issue? I've got no problem with your doubts about the Big Bang. You may be right. I'm just arguing with your constant demands to "prove it" when nothing can be absolutely, definitively proven.

Quote

By the way, do you, Robin Davies, see the Universe expanding at all...?

No.
Do you see the continents moving?
Do you think they are?

[Russell Nash]

Quote Originally Posted by Robin Davies

Do you see the continents moving? Do you think they are?

In fact, yes, I do. The plates are moving at a speed of 1 to 10cm per year. That's a proven fact (the movement of continents), not theory. Very few (if any) doubt this assumption.

The problem with the Big Bang theory is that we don't see the Universe expanding, but by measuring the so called cosmological redshift. However, we don't see it expanding. This is probably the main problem with the Big Bang model. The Universe is expanding... into what?

Quote Originally Posted by Robin Davies

Wouldn't these messages be better posted on a physics forum where people with more background knowledge can discuss the issue?

Yes. definitely. But, I didn't start this thread. I just made a comment. Unfortunately, I mostly use the internet to get information from billions of webpages. By saying this I mean that I do not participate in any other online group (rarely). Scientists do not want to answer basic questions, and even though I did ask, it was a waste of time. For example, to answer my question: What is the Universe expanding into? Most probably, Stephen Hawking would answer: the answer to that question has no scientific relevance, it belongs to metaphysics. So, after a long time of asking, I got tired of these silly answers.

One more thing, I have nothing against the Big Bang model. It could be right. The evidence seems to support it. Bust most of this model is based on patches, assumptions that can't possibly be proved anytime soon. You probably know me, I would like to see more discussion, more logical thinking, than saying: yes, no.

[Robin Davies]

Quote Originally Posted by Russell Nash

Quote Originally Posted by Robin Davies Do you see the continents moving? Do you think they are? In fact, yes, I do. The plates are moving at a speed of 1 to 10cm per year. That's a proven fact (the movement of continents), not theory. Very few (if any) doubt this assumption. The problem with the Big Bang theory is that we don't see the Universe expanding, but by measuring the so called cosmological redshift. However, we don't see it expanding. This is probably the main problem with the Big Bang model. The Universe is expanding... into what?

You don't see the continents moving either. Their movement is inferred (partly) from the pattern of stripes in the rocks on either side of the oceanic ridges which were laid down during periods when the earth's magnetic field is believed to have flipped.
Both the Big Bang theory and the theory of continental drift are based not on visible movement but on inferences from other observations. The weight and quality of evidence for the former may be considerably less than that for the latter but my point is that neither is conclusively proven and neither is just a belief based on faith. There is a continuum of theories from the very likely to the very unlikely, not a black-and-white cutoff between "proven" and "just a belief".
As for the expansion of the universe, if the universe is defined as everything then it doesn't seem particularly "silly" that one can't meaningfully say what the universe is expanding into. It's possible to ask grammatically correct questions which don't have meaningful answers, like "Where was I before I was born?" or "Where does a circle end?"

[Russell Nash]

Quote Originally Posted by Robin Davies

You don't see the continents moving either. Their movement is inferred (partly) from the pattern of stripes in the rocks on either side of the oceanic ridges which were laid down during periods when the earth's magnetic field is believed to have flipped. Both the Big Bang theory and the theory of continental drift are based not on visible movement but on inferences from other observations. The weight and quality of evidence for the former may be considerably less than that for the latter but my point is that neither is conclusively proven and neither is just a belief based on faith. There is a continuum of theories from the very likely to the very unlikely, not a black-and-white cutoff between "proven" and "just a belief". As for the expansion of the universe, if the universe is defined as everything then it doesn't seem particularly "silly" that one can't meaningfully say what the universe is expanding into. It's possible to ask grammatically correct questions which don't have meaningful answers, like "Where was I before I was born?" or "Where does a circle end?"

Well, when I said that we see the continents moving, I precisely wanted to say that. We inferred this conclusion from abundant data. In the second case, the Big Bang model is mostly patches, we don't infer anything from data. We manipulate data to fit observation, in most cases nothing can't even be verified. Example: "We agree that if there was a Big Bang, 13.7 billion years ago, there is not much time for the Universe to be so vast, or to develop immensely huge cosmical structures (walls, voids, etc.). Therefore, we propose that after the Big Bang there was a period that we called inflation, and so on. We patched it. But then, years later, not deduced from the theory, we found that the Universe is expanding at an accelerating race (accepting that the cosmological redshift is due to this expansion), then we propose another mysterious entity: dark energy. We patched it again. Finally, 80 years after being proposed we can't find any vestige of dark matter, monopoles, etc., well we say, we don't have the technology to see them. This all could be true. But, where is the proof, evidence, or clues, that allow scientists to consider that the model is true, and reflects reality? 1. We have to accept the Big bang model, mostly based on the cosmological redshift, 2) When this proved to be not enough, in 1980, we added the inflation theory, 3) When this was proved not to be enough, we added dark energy, and 4) When we can't find these mysterious particles we complain about technology, budget, etc. It all might be true. But, the evidence that Big Bang believers claim to be so, is pure speculation; inflation, dark energy, dark matter, etc., etc., fits data, because they are ad hoc hypothesis precisely created to fit data."

By the way, the 2.7 K temperature was predicted by the Steady State model, and not but the Big Bang model. In 1950s, the Big Bang followers predicted, 7 K.

History of 2.7 K Temperature Prior to Penzias and Wilson

"...As we have seen, Finlay-Freundlich (1954b) mentioned that Gamow had derived the value of 7 K for intergalactic space in 1953."

Why does Big Bang model sounds more credible than other models? Evidence...? There is not much evidence. Although I understand that the other models are also weak, or incorrect too. However, that doesn't mean that Big Bang model is right. It has become more a creed, than Science. Speculation, not true evidence.

In fact, to propose that the Universe is expanding, implies that it is expanding into something. The idea that it expands, into nothingness is absurd, unless we explain what we mean by that. Nothingness is not, so the Universe can't expand into nothingness. If it expands, it expands into something. Or does anybody understand it in a different way?