Bang/Crunch Revisited

[Michael Mooney]

modest;270902]You're not following. It has never been the case that big bang theory was described as stuff exploding out into space. It has never been "traditional Bang/Crunch cosmology". The very first rendition of big bang cosmology was Friedmann's and Lemaître's in the 1920's which is pretty-much indistinguishable from the theory today. No exploding stuff moving out into empty space.

 

Your "you're not following" assumes a body of established scientific knowledge which I just don't get.

An alternative, which you just don't get, is that "stuff exploding out into empty space" is correct and "expanding space" is a misconception.

I said:

Again, all this banging and crunching requires a theater of activity, a volume to expand/explode into and back again. Since there can be no "end of space" (no wall or boundary but in man's finite mind) space must be infinite, not a finite, expandable, contractable entity. The "stuff in space" does the exploding and imploding, not "space itself.)

 

You gave no critical feedback about what you see wrong with the above. Rather you do the science version of bible thumping, citing textbook science. Do you understand that there can be no "end of space" as above... that it *must* be infinite, no matter what lies beyond our cosmic event horizon? I think not. That which is already infine emptiness does not expand or contract, tho the stuff in space can be observed to be moving as described by the Big Bang theory... and the Big crunch has not been ruled out.

 

There is nothing special about inflation as far as expanding space. Big bang theory requires the metric expansion of space today just as it did during inflation. The only significant difference is the speed at which space expanded.

 

As Doctordick has pointed out many times, as have I, you and the staff here (and others) assume that space expands and contracts and ignore the possibility that space is the infinite emptiness in which all cosmic "stuff" exists and moves... expanding outward as our visible cosmos is doing, and maybe eventually contracting again, crunching and then banging again.

For instance, you simply ignore my objection to this assumption as presented in the Wiki "Bang/Crunch" link above, as follows:

 

You will notice the standard phrasing right up front, to which I object on the above ontological grounds: "...metric expansion of space..."

... which you here repeat above as if it were indisputable.

The universe is isotropic.

 

I know. If you bothered to read (or review) the cosmology I have presented in this thread and elsewhere, you would see that I have repeatedly endorsed the isotropic nature of the observable cosmos... and explained how this is consistent with the cosmology I have presented.

There can be no respectful conversation if you keep repeating stuff I have already addressed in detail as if I am not even aware that the universe is isotropic. (Ref: The mini-cosmos as an atom in proportion to the "rubber" of the maxi-cosmic expanding balloon membrane... deep within the membrane. Looks homogeneous in all directions. Yes it does. )

Yes, I can tell it doesn't make sense to you.

 

If it makes sense to you, please explain what space is other than the emptiness in which observable phenomena exist and move around.

Do you understand what Thomson and Jastrow were saying in the "sensible science" link above? It appears not.

 

The universe is isotropic. Read the first 3 paragraphs of this link:

 

Robertson-Walker Metric

Yup. It assumes "curvature of space" and the ontological existence of "Space Time" as an entity.... etc, etc. I have always and still do consider this a false assumption, albeit, the standardized "body of knowledge" accepted by mainstream science today.

Do you even acknowledge that the ontology of spacetime including space as curving/expanding and time as dilating, etc... both *entities* comprising a "fabric"...is still debateble not established beyond all doubt?

 

It's not that modern cosmology *now* rejects the model. What you are describing has never been a working model. It has always been a misconception. You'll find it corrected on every "common misconceptions about the big bang" website... and I've given you links to several over this issue.

 

If space is not an entity (or time) then the cosmology I have presented makes sense, and the stuff of cosmos is presently expanding out into empty space, which is infinite volume in which all stuff exists and moves... not "space itself" as some "thing" which curves and expands.

 

I will search out what I have called the "traditional" bang/crunch cosmology, which is now called a "misconception," and share it here when found.

 

It's expanding distance. I've told you that a dozen times. Cosmological distances expand over time in a manner roughly proportional to the distance itself. It's Hubble's law.

 

I have said dozens of times that, as objects move further apart (as we observe on cosmic scale, the distance between them obviously increases, yet this does not mean that an entity "space" is expanding. Can you understand the difference?

I know we have our disagreements, Michael. But, I think that what I'm about to recommend would help tremendously. With the best intentions I offer this. Read the whole tutorial:

 

There is really no point if I must accept from the beginning the "fact" ((treated as such anyway) that space is an expanding entity, etc., and that time is a local phenomenon, different for each observer, etc.

 

ichael

[Michael Mooney]

Boerseun;270923]Michael, I think one of your biggest problems with the current understanding of the Big Bang is that you envision the universe to be a bubble with a defined border.

You misunderstand what I envision. To define terms: I call "the universe" all there is, both known and unknown. I have said repeatedly that there can be no boundary *to space*, as it *must be infinite. I see the *observable cosmos" as one tiny sphere of visibility deep within a metaphorical "balloon membrane" of an expanding "maxi-cosmos." The only limit here is the limit of visibility, sometimes called the "cosmic event horizon"... how far we can see out into this micro-cosmic sphere within the expanding maxi-sphere.

Yes, the universe has a border. But that border exist in time, not in space. If it was ten minutes after the Big Bang, you'd have a border to the universe of ten minutes - but you will never, try as you might, reach that border - because it's ten minutes in time. You will have to outfly light to get there - which is impossible. This "edge" of the universe is expanding away from you at the speed of light, and with the space between you and the border expanding as well, the furthest reaches will expand away from you at what would appear to you to be faster than the speed of light.

 

I know you disagree with me about time (event duration) and believe that an absolute universal NOW is impossible. We have beat that one to death, so lets not repeat the debate. Naturally, our cosmic event horizon is limited by lightspeed, which has, of course a "time element" to its velocity.

You are *assuming* that "space is expanding" while I "see" stuff expanding outward *into empty space.* Nothing travels faster than light.

There is no way for you to reach it

.

I'm not positing "reaching" anything... as above.

It's not a "balloon" with a "border" or "edge" in space.

Neither you nor I nor anyone knows what lies beyond the cosmic event horizon (CEH). I "see" (say "envision" for your context of meaning) the CEH as one small sphere of visibility within a maxi-cosmic expanding balloon membrane, as I just posted to Modest above. Do not tell me what does and does not exist.

(The galaxies, etc. are the "molecules" in this metaphore, and stars are atoms.) We can not even "see" out of the "rubber of the whole balloon membrane.

The space in which we exist is bordered in time.

 

Suggest you read my comments on time near the end of the old "What is Time" thread.

http://hypography.com/forums/philosophy-of-science/3650-what-is-time-58.html#post249111

 

I am not going to keep repeating how treating time as an entity is a misconception.... nor space (read "empty space"... 'cept where "things" exist.)

 

I don't know how else to explain this to you. But I can clearly see where your problem lies.

 

It is obvious that there is no possibility in your mind that I don't have a problem and that you do... following the textbook reification of time and space as you do. I disagree. Let's leave it at that. There is no chance for agreement here.

 

Michael

[maddog]

An alternative, which you just don't get, is that "stuff exploding out into empty space" is correct and "expanding space" is a misconception.

You're beating a dead horse to dust. It's already dead. I would like to move on. No

matter how many times you repeat "expanding space" being a misconception over your

proffered "empty space" to which "stuff" "explodes" out to, does not make it true. You say

it once; there is dialogue and a result. This is no longer a discussion. This is preaching

to the masses about a better belief system and you are the prophet. I and others here

have said, "fine. OK for you. I am not buying what you're selling". Why do we have to

go over it again. It was over 800 posts in the other thread without a result. Why do it

again now here. Please cease and desist. Enough. I'm bored with your rhetoric. You

have added nothing in the way of content.

You gave no critical feedback about what you see wrong with the above. Rather you do the science version of bible thumping, citing textbook science. Do you understand that there can be no "end of space" as above... that it *must* be infinite, no matter what lies beyond our cosmic event horizon? I think not. That which is already infine emptiness does not expand or contract, tho the stuff in space can be observed to be moving as described by the Big Bang theory... and the Big crunch has not been ruled out.

This really is in the "eye of the beholder". From mine, Modest and the others point of

view, it you who is doing the "thumping" with little to back you up with other than what

you think is the "truth".

... that space expands and contracts and ignore the possibility that space is the infinite emptiness in which all cosmic "stuff" exists and moves... expanding outward as our visible cosmos is doing, and maybe eventually contracting again, crunching and then banging again.

Expanding or contracting space does require space being finite. See models created by

Wheeler in the 50s. Even Hoyle in 70s (one of his last lectures) considered a Steady State

model where space could contract or expand.

I know. If you bothered to read (or review) the cosmology I have presented in this thread and elsewhere, you would see that I have repeatedly endorsed the isotropic nature of the observable cosmos... and explained how this is consistent with the cosmology I have presented.

IMHO Modest probably rose that objection due to your suggestion of universal jets causing

the Big Bang. Those are kinda' directional. B) B)

If it makes sense to you, please explain what space is other than the emptiness in which observable phenomena exist and move around.

Do you understand what Thomson and Jastrow were saying in the "sensible science" link above? It appears not.

We have done this already. Repeatedly. You have repeatedly disagreed. Why go over it

again.

It assumes "curvature of space" and the ontological existence of "Space Time" as an entity....

It is you who call "spacetime" an entity. I do not see it as such. So stop attempting to make

me swallow that one. It is not to me.

I have always and still do consider this a false assumption, albeit, the standardized "body of knowledge" accepted by mainstream science today.

Fine with me. To you it is false. I can accept that.

Do you even acknowledge that the ontology of spacetime including space as curving/expanding and time as dilating, etc... both *entities* comprising a "fabric"...is still debateble not established beyond all doubt?

That manifolds are deformable, that a diffeomorphism can be set to describe the deforming,

that Differentiable Geometry defines the differential form, is definitely no longer debatable.

Sad that you dismiss this out of hand because you dismiss all mathematics.

If space is not an entity (or time) then the cosmology I have presented makes sense, and the stuff of cosmos is presently expanding out into empty space, which is infinite volume in which all stuff exists and moves... not "space itself" as some "thing" which curves and expands.

The cosmology you describe does NOT make sense (except to you).

There is really no point if I must accept from the beginning the "fact" ((treated as such anyway) that space is an expanding entity, etc., and that time is a local phenomenon, different for each observer, etc.

Great! Then lets drop it. B)

 

maddog

[maddog]

It is obvious that there is no possibility in your mind that I don't have a problem and that you do... following the textbook reification of time and space as you do. I disagree. Let's leave it at that. There is no chance for agreement here.

It is definitely obvious that you and I (along with others) are in disagreement on this (and

other) issues. I would agree with you that it is best to leave it at that. I am also resigned

that there is no change for eventual agreement on this subject.

 

maddog

[modest]

Michael, your cosmic balloon thing didn't work because it did not translate to isotropic observation. The molecules in the surface of a rubber balloon don't expand isotropically in 3 dimensions from any point on or in the surface. It's a simple and demonstrable fact. You likened the molecules of the balloon to galaxies. Galaxies move isotropically and the rubber molecules in the surface of a balloon don't. It's falsified.

 

~modest

[Michael Mooney]

Maddog:

"Expanding or contracting space does require space being finite."

 

IMHO Modest probably rose that objection due to your suggestion of universal jets causing

the Big Bang. Those are kinda' directional."

 

You are missing the scale of how I "envision" this cosmology. If the latest "bang" was actually a jet of plasma which cooled into the expanding cosmos we know today, we would be deep within atmosphere of those jets, now condensed into the matter of our present *visible* cosmos. (See my scale explained recently of our CEH being like in scale to an atom deep within the rubber of an expanding balloon membrane. (I keep repeating because you and others... like modest... show no sign of comprehending the cosmology I "envision.)

 

"We have done this already. Repeatedly. You have repeatedly disagreed. Why go over it"

 

Why? is because Modest says that I am not "following"... assuming textbook science is undoubtedly correct, and I am misinformed or too stupid to "get it" (his constant innuendo.)

So, like for every repetition of the textbook version in the "spacetime" thread, I echo the challenge to the mainstream and ask, "What exactly is space as someting that can curve and expand?... ie.e, the ontology of space as an entity... which question always goes over your head and was *never* addressed in the the above thread.

 

"It is you who call "spacetime" an entity. I do not see it as such. So stop attempting to make

me swallow that one. It is not to me."

 

Why is it that you constantly jump into the debates between Modest and myself as if you were he? Is Maddog the "bad cop" persona for Modest? (Kidding, but so it seems.)

I have forever said that "spacetime" is a "fabrication" a "reification"... nothing really... "The Emporer's New Clothes." (And I'm not smart enough to see the fabric!!)

The opposite of that is giving "it" properties like malleability (curvature, shape, dynamics like expandability, etc,)... properties of an entity. If you don't understand the issue here between the epistemology of empirical science (and its assumptions) and the ontology of what actually exists, please read up before offering further criticism.

 

"Fine with me. To you it is false. I can accept that."

 

It is also false to all scientist who, for a few years now, have attended the annual conference on "The Ontology of Spacetime" in the critical camp, as am I. (Remember the link which you "discovered" which I posted much earlier in the locked thread?... Of course you never admit a mistake, as with the recent Hawking quote where you insisted in puting words in his mouth. Glad to cut and paste his quote and yours again if you want to argue this point.)

 

"That manifolds are deformable, that a diffeomorphism can be set to describe the deforming,

that Differentiable Geometry defines the differential form, is definitely no longer debatable.

Sad that you dismiss this out of hand because you dismiss all mathematics."

 

Huh? Check out the debate on the ontology of spacetime for yourself, and then clarify what you are getting at above... please.

 

"The cosmology you describe does NOT make sense (except to you)."

 

Really? Did you even read the quoted material above from the "sensible science" site I quoted above. Modest seems to be successfully ignoring it too.

 

"Great! Then lets drop it"

 

It would be great if you would drop the constant harassment if you are not interested in the debate, or are absolutely sure that space bends, expands, etc.,...and that time is a different local environment for every point of observation... as a component of the "spacetime fabric."

 

Michael

[Michael Mooney]

Michael, your cosmic balloon thing didn't work because it did not translate to isotropic observation. The molecules in the surface of a rubber balloon don't expand isotropically in 3 dimensions from any point on or in the surface. It's a simple and demonstrable fact. You likened the molecules of the balloon to galaxies. Galaxies move isotropically and the rubber molecules in the surface of a balloon don't. It's falsified.

 

~modest

You missed my point posted immediately after your illustration in which "our cosmic sphere of visibility" (my quote) was almost as large in diameter as the "baloon membrane thickness."

 

Please re-read. If our little mini-cosmos is the size of an atom relative to the balloon membrane thickness and deeply embedded within that membrane... one minuscule bubble within the whole balloon membrane... then the differential rates of "membrane expansion" between its inside and outside would either not effect our little atom-cosmos or its effect could never be detected... as we can't even com close to seeing the outer or inner "surfaces" of the expanding mega-cosmic "Baloon."

 

And just because it might be a stretch for your (and other's) imagnation... and with no evidence for it whatsoever (like "membranes" and "singularities") does not mean that it is false. Perhaps not "falsifiable" but also not certainly false, as you maintain.

 

And our little atom-cosmos would... to the above scale... look isotropic and homogeneous, as we observe.

 

Michael

[Erasmus00]

And our little atom-cosmos would... to the above scale... look isotropic and homogeneous, as we observe.

 

No, it wouldn't. It doesn't matter how small you make the "little atom" region relative to the inner and outer region, its not going to be homogeneous. Not matter how small you divide it, there is still a special direction. It might be close, but there will be small differences- and we know the universe (or at least our little corner) is homogeneous to a remarkable precision. Try to play with it experimentally any way you like.

 

The only exception is if its SO small you can't see "neighboring atoms" at all- then its trivially homogeneous.

[Boerseun]

Michael, here's the gist:

 

Nobody knows what "space" is, yet its all around us. Your problem lies in the definition thereof.

 

Yet, keeping our ignorance in mind, space certainly behaves different than the "absolute nothingness" you envision.

 

The behaviour of what we call "space" can be described mathematically to very high precision, whether we know what it is or not.

 

The "bending" of space-time around massive objects like stars and galaxies have been predicted, and the proved via observation. The theories hold, to remarkable precision. The observer's time changes with relative motion through space. This has been proven. There is some sort of a connection there, which we can describe perfectly mathematically, but might have trouble envisioning.

 

You can propose what you like space to be, yet you have to understand that the metric expansion of space is an observational fact - there are objects at the furthest reaches of the universe receding from us at faster than the speed of light, for instance. This only, and I have to stress the only bit, makes sense if space itself is expanding, allowing objects to travel faster than light relative to us, but slower than light relative to the space it's going through.

 

Enumerating those objects traveling faster than the speed of light away from us, it turns out that this metric expansion of space is happening in the same direction the galaxies seem to be flying away from us. Which brings the curious explanation to the fore that the galaxies aren't as much traveling away from us due to the force of a helluva big explosion, rather, they're being carried along by the expansion of space. But be that as it may, in both situations the result is the same if you play it backwards - a common origin for both space and matter.

 

You're free to define space as and how you want. But just make sure that your description thereof caters for the observed phenomena.

 

If you're hell-bent on not understanding this, it certainly is your prerogative. But please cease and desist from trying to convince us about it and then getting all personal about "good cop/bad cop" scenarios amongst those in disagreement, if you can't come up with a viable alternative.

 

Like you, I'm also getting fed up with regurgitating the same points over and over again. The irony of your complaining about it, however, is killing me.

[modest]

If our little mini-cosmos is the size of an atom relative to the balloon membrane thickness and deeply embedded within that membrane...

 

An atom in the surface of a balloon doesn't expand. Our visible cosmos does expand. It's falsified. Embedding a 3D sphere in the rubber surface of a balloon is just not going to work as a model of a 3D isotropically expanding cosmos, no matter what size you pretend it is. The motion is fundamentally different. You can't make it similar by changing the scale.

 

~modest

[maddog]

You are missing the scale of how I "envision" this cosmology.

I don't think so. Of course since you don't mention the scale, how can we corroborate.

If the latest "bang" was actually a jet of plasma which cooled into the expanding cosmos we know today, we would be deep within atmosphere of those jets, now condensed into the matter of our present *visible* cosmos.

Were the "Big Bang" to be from a jet, the CMBR would indicate an anisotropy such that

an indicated direction would be inferred. Since it has not. No jet. :shrug:

(I keep repeating because you and others... like modest... show no sign of comprehending the cosmology I "envision.)

You keep repeating, 'cause you like to see yourself in print...

Why? is because Modest says that I am not "following"... assuming textbook science is undoubtedly correct, and I am misinformed or too stupid to "get it" (his constant innuendo.)

Your words, not mine. I would agree with, it would be nice to say you are "misinformed".

So, like for every repetition of the textbook version in the "spacetime" thread, I echo the challenge to the mainstream and ask, "What exactly is space as someting that can curve and expand?... ie.e, the ontology of space as an entity... which question always goes over your head and was *never* addressed in the the above thread.

And likewise, we echo back how inaccurate such statements are. No progress. Suffice it

to say that we agree to disagree might be better wouldn't it and move on. I am for that.

You know a quote from Einstein might be appropriate here. [paraphrased of course]

"Doing something over and over while expecting different results is tantamount to

insanity !" :hihi: :xparty: :hyper: :shrug:

Why is it that you constantly jump into the debates between Modest and myself as if you were he? Is Maddog the "bad cop" persona for Modest? (Kidding, but so it seems.)

Since when did this thread get to be "special real estate" between you and Modest. You

make a claim which I take exception to and I respond. Attacking the usefulness of

Differential Geometry is something I take personal (that which supports allowing the

relaxation of Euclid's 5th postulate, etc; Of course then there is Topology, but that is

another story altogether ...)

I have forever said that "spacetime" is a "fabrication" a "reification"... nothing really... "The Emporer's New Clothes." (And I'm not smart enough to see the fabric!!)

We have heard [repeatedly]. The story is getting "old" now. Like a worn-out shoe.

The opposite of that is giving "it" properties like malleability (curvature, shape, dynamics like expandability, etc,)... properties of an entity. If you don't understand the issue here between the epistemology of empirical science (and its assumptions) and the ontology of what actually exists, please read up before offering further criticism.

This is where I go "mad" is you wish to ascribe "entity" to "space" and "time" like they

have "consciousness". How wacko is that. The property of "entity" is not required to

create a curvature to space. This is a feature of Differential Geometry. Look up the wiki

on Differential Forms, Radius of Curvature. Easy to compute the value. Of course you

reject all mathematics, so what is the point of that.

It is also false to all scientist who, for a few years now, have attended the annual conference on "The Ontology of Spacetime" in the critical camp, as am I. (Remember the link which you "discovered" which I posted much earlier in the locked thread?... Of course you never admit a mistake, as with the recent Hawking quote where you insisted in puting words in his mouth. Glad to cut and paste his quote and yours again if you want to argue this point.)

False ? :eek: False to what "all scientist". Another one of your unfounded claims. I remember

the link (I found it on Google Books; I added it my library). What mistake ? You can cut

and paste his [Hawking] quote all you like. Of course what "independent" "proof" do I

have he made it ? None that I would fully believe coming from you given the credibility

you have presented here.

Huh? Check out the debate on the ontology of spacetime for yourself, and then clarify what you are getting at above... please.

I was there with you all along the way. As much as it was painful to be. :hihi:

Excuse my ranting. The maddog Irish in me comes out when you go "wacky" on me.

Extolling the virtues of upholding Euclid's 5th Postulate is utter garbage. It's a POSTULATE.

You have accept it proceed or not. Thus a choice is made. You have made yours. I have

made mine (actually my choice is to allow either in or out). This allows for other Geometries

the that of Euclid. Thus the birth of Differential Geometry, Topology, Algebraic Topology,

Homology, -- need I go on... :shrug:

Really? Did you even read the quoted material above from the "sensible science" site I quoted above. Modest seems to be successfully ignoring it too.

I read what you said, flipped through your links, scanned through some of the xArkiv

papers you linked. Your words didn't jive with the links. So no, I don't understand what

you are getting at.

It would be great if you would drop the constant harassment if you are not interested in the debate, or are absolutely sure that space bends, expands, etc.,...and that time is a different local environment for every point of observation... as a component of the "spacetime fabric."

Now let me get this straight: You want me to stop posting here in this thread unless I

agree with you. :doh: Excuse me! I don't that is going to happen. You have some wacky

ideas about space, time, etc. For me it is OK for you to believe these ideas. I can accept

that. You can even speak them in this forum if you wish. When you do, you invite me or

anyone to engage you in their discussion as to viability, accuracy, completeness, etc.

Engage you I am. You see it as harassment ??? :eek_big: :shrug: Oh well. I am exercising my

freedom of speech as much as you are. Within the guidelines of course. Where is the

Harassment ?

 

maddog

[Pluto]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzzz

 

Hello Michael I tend to agree with what you say.

 

Keep at it.

 

Please add more support papers.

[Michael Mooney]

Erasmus:

The only exception is if its SO small you can't see "neighboring atoms" at all- then its trivially homogeneous.

 

I have already described this envisioned mini-cosmos (on scale of an atom deep within the "rubber membrane") as the cosmos we can see, i.e., the sphere of visibility often called our "cosmic event horizon." So, clearly, if you had read and understood the above, you would realize that, in this model, we obviously can not see "neighboring atoms" as they would be beyond our event horizon of visibility.

I keep repeating because what I say is not comprehended the first time nor often after several repetitions.

 

So I "see" two scales of expansion... the mini "atom" (with its bang/crunch perpetual cycle) and a maxi "balloon" cosmos, which science will never observe by presently available means. So, no, it is not "falsifiable" but it is what I have "seen" anyway. It does make more sense than "turtles all the way down and all the way up, "however. (Ref: Wilber's cosmology of holons... tongue in cheek of course.)

BTW, I like science based on observable/detectable phenomena, like objects, radiation, plasma, etc in dynamic action *in space.* Space is not such a phenomena, tho I totally understand it as a "metric" with three coordinates... 3-D space... and of course "it takes time for things to happen... tho time is not a "local environment" different for each point of observation.

 

Imaginary dimensions and singularities and cosmos magically appearing out of nothing is not, in my opinion, science.... or it is the leading edge of envisioning prior to evidence in support... like what I "see."

This to others here... a one post fits all approach...

And yes there are others who question the ontology of space and time and, of course, spacetime. *Please* don't make me repeat those links. Closer to home, ask Doctordick what he thinks of "spacetime" if you didn't read his commentaries on it in other threads. Seems he has the math to explain what is observable without "spacetime"... if anyone here can follow it. (Not I!)

 

Life is very busy now for me. Will pop in on occassion.

Michael

[modest]

I have already described this envisioned mini-cosmos (on scale of an atom deep within the "rubber membrane") as the cosmos we can see, i.e., the sphere of visibility often called our "cosmic event horizon." So, clearly, if you had read and understood the above, you would realize that, in this model, we obviously can not see "neighboring atoms" as they would be beyond our event horizon of visibility. I keep repeating because what I say is not comprehended the first time nor often after several repetitions.

You've also likened galaxies and their motion to rubber molecules:

all galaxies and 'stuff' we can see are spreading apart exactly as we can observe just like rubber molecules in all directions.

When your posts contradict one another on an issue there's no point in crying about having to repeat yourself on the issue.

 

So, no, it is not "falsifiable"...

 

Correct. It explains nothing and there is no reason to think it is consistent with what we know of the observable universe.

 

I've moved this thread to alternative theories. If the claims of the opening post lead to no quantifiable science then it may be moved to strange claims.

 

~modest

[Erasmus00]

I have already described this envisioned mini-cosmos (on scale of an atom deep within the "rubber membrane") as the cosmos we can see, i.e., the sphere of visibility often called our "cosmic event horizon." So, clearly, if you had read and understood the above, you would realize that, in this model, we obviously can not see "neighboring atoms" as they would be beyond our event horizon of visibility.

I keep repeating because what I say is not comprehended the first time nor often after several repetitions.

 

You aren't comprehending my meaning- only if our galaxy were the only one we could see would your model result in homogeneity. HOWEVER, its only trivially so (BECAUSE WE CAN'T SEE ANYTHING). However, we can see many galaxies- which means your model is falsified- your model has a preferred direction, end of story.

[Boerseun]

I have already described this envisioned mini-cosmos (on scale of an atom deep within the "rubber membrane") as the cosmos we can see, i.e., the sphere of visibility often called our "cosmic event horizon." So, clearly, if you had read and understood the above, you would realize that, in this model, we obviously can not see "neighboring atoms" as they would be beyond our event horizon of visibility.

I keep repeating because what I say is not comprehended the first time nor often after several repetitions.

You can keep repeating it till you're blue in the face. The analogy is invalid, as we repeatedly explained to you.

So I "see" two scales of expansion... the mini "atom" (with its bang/crunch perpetual cycle) and a maxi "balloon" cosmos, which science will never observe by presently available means. So, no, it is not "falsifiable" but it is what I have "seen" anyway.

Your magical "visions" have absolutely no bearing on reality whatsoever. There does not seem to be any way to explain to you how ludicrous your proposal of allowing "Visions" as scientific evidence is. From an objective, empirical point of view, those are the ramblings of a nut. Unfortunately for your argument, science endeavours to be objective and empirical. Hence your entire proposal is chucked out the back door, based on the rules of evidence alone. Please attempt, at least, to comprehend this.

It does make more sense than "turtles all the way down and all the way up, "however. (Ref: Wilber's cosmology of holons... tongue in cheek of course.)

It does not, in fact. Both are based on zero evidence. Both dip into the pool of metaphysics, a matter on which Hypography, and Science in general, has exactly zero opinion. This is a Science site.

BTW, I like science based on observable/detectable phenomena, like objects, radiation, plasma, etc in dynamic action *in space.* Space is not such a phenomena, tho I totally understand it as a "metric" with three coordinates... 3-D space... and of course "it takes time for things to happen... tho time is not a "local environment" different for each point of observation.

 

Imaginary dimensions and singularities and cosmos magically appearing out of nothing is not, in my opinion, science.... or it is the leading edge of envisioning prior to evidence in support... like what I "see."

I have now repeated the evidence towards the existence of the expansion of space quite a few times. If you are pissed of about the tone of my posts, please go and do a study on the expansion of space and how that carries the galaxies along. Somebody else will explain it to you in a book, somebody who has no preconceptions about your "magical visions" and "spiritual" claptrap. It will be a completely objective explanation to you, based on empirical evidence. You will find it in any library. Look for "An Introduction to Astronomy" or "Astronomy for Dummies". The Astro101 stuff should be sufficient, and it seems you could do with a read. These are the basics, Michael. And you've got it very, very wrong. And we're getting tired of having to repeat points that you either don't seem to read, or merely ignore because it doesn't support your personal theory of everything. This behaviour, by the way, is the typical behaviour of an internet forum troll, and one which we are getting very fed up with. READ the replies to your posts, and TRY TO UNDERSTAND why you're missing the point. If we have to keep repeating ourselves towards you, then this thread serves no purpose at all, except maybe to exercise our typing skills and develop an advanced form of hypertension.

 

READ THE POSTS.

This to others here... a one post fits all approach...

And yes there are others who question the ontology of space and time and, of course, spacetime. *Please* don't make me repeat those links.

Why, then, is it that we have to rehash the same points over and over to you? Don't you "get" it, or are you merely being obtuse?

 

Michael, please see this as a formal warning. We don't have to keep doing this. This thread, and most others where you engaged in, only carried on for how long they did because we are such awesomely nice guys, and we want to give everybody his time on the soapbox. But when that guy doesn't want to get off his soapbox, and willfully ignores what others have to say, then our patience wears thin.

 

We have now reached that point.

[Michael Mooney]

First, I must apologize for my mixed metaphors in various posts. One metaphor has the "rubber molecules of the big balloon" ("maxi-cosmos") as galaxies and its atoms as stars, as Modest pointed out.. This was to illustrate that the "balloon" I *envision* was actual "stuff" moving in an outward trajectory, (the rubber, not "space itself expanding.")

Then, in order to compare the scale of the cosmos we can observe to the "big balloon" I made our sphere of visibility an "atom" within the rubber of the balloon. (This both before and after Modest's Illustration with a sphere nearly the diameter of the balloon's membrane thickness.

 

In any case, of course what we can see is isotropic and everything is observed to be moving away from everything else... whether or not our cosmic event horizon is deep within a larger scale expanding cosmos... which we will never "see" by conventional means.

 

We will never see the proposed "strings" of which "membranes" are said to be made, either, but somehow that is ok with the scientific community while "the atom-cosmos within the Greater Balloon" is here considered "wacko" fantasy born of "magical vision" ... inappropriate to science. As I've repeated ad nauseam , I am not claiming that my visions are more valid than ordinary "envisioning" but no less valid either until the evidence supports one version over the other.

I am still waiting for the verdict on "clashing membranes" as the real and true origin of the cosmos. Likewise the Original Singularity where everything was packed into a "point of zero volume" before the Bang, and It came into existence by the ultimate cosmic magic.

 

"Inquiring minds" like mine must speculate on where it all came from... as I don't believe in magic. (Visions are not magic... nor is telepathy or "action at a distance" throug an as yet unknown medium.)

If not some version of an oscillating (cyclical... bang/crunch) cosmos... what then?? (Like my spacetime thread... the original inquiry/ challenge of this thread remains unanswered.)

 

In reply to Boerseun's :

You can propose what you like space to be, yet you have to understand that the metric expansion of space is an observational fact - there are objects at the furthest reaches of the universe receding from us at faster than the speed of light, for instance. This only, and I have to stress the only bit, makes sense if space itself is expanding, allowing objects to travel faster than light relative to us, but slower than light relative to the space it's going through.

....

 

First, as I have said, I understand space as a "metric" with three coordinates (volume) and that all movement through space takes time (has duration.) But I ask you again, Boerseun, what is it that science says is expanding? Ontologically, what is space, that it can expand as distinct from stuff *in space* moving away from other stuff... resulting in "more space" between them?

 

Now, regarding your belief and the scientific evidence for the claim that

metric expansion of space is an observational fact

...

 

Please Google the "redshift controversy" (I've just reviewed several sites on it) and post your critique.

 

(See Arp's book "Quasars, Redshifts, and Controversies," "Interstellar Media,"( Berkeley) and " Seeing Red: Redshifts, Cosmology and Academic Science.")

 

Then, please share your take on the ongoing controversy over the ontology of spacetime. I shared several links on this in the "spacetime thread... which I certainly would not want to *repeat* here.

No, the "expansion of space" is not an "observational fact" but is in fact still a very controversial concept.

Michael