The Myth of the Big Bang

Philosophy Forums Science, Technology, and Math
41

I’ll weigh in, I’m against BBT, here’s why…

First, the notion of expanding and contracting space, contradicts my experience of space, the space between me and objects doesn’t expand and contract.

Second, how can all objects seem like they’re moving away from us (all objects emit redshifts as opposed to blueshifts), when we know sometimes, somethings such as galaxies, stars, planets, moons, astroids, comets and meteors are moving toward us? The redshifts must be deceptive, or objects like the sun, moon and stars would never get closer to us.

Third, if iall objects are moving away from us, how do we know we’re not the center of the universe? How do we know objects would seem like they’re moving away from us no matter where we were in the universe, if we haven’t been to other parts of the universe? From my understanding, science may not have evidence against geocentrism, it assumes acentrism on purely (pseudo)philosophical, speculative grounds. They say to themselves - what are the odds of us being special… we can’t be special"? That’s like saying, what are the odds of me winning the lottery? Since it’s 1 out of a million, if I won, everyone must have won, how can I be so lucky? Perhpas the universe operates like the lottery, maybe some planets just get “lucky”, and a lot of material dances around them and is pushed/pulled from them, or pushed/pulled to them. Maybe all that material floating around out there, isn’t so massive, maybe it’s small. I think science may be biased against specialism. if the evidence suggests specialism, we should go with it until further evidence presents itself and suggests otherwise.

Can we trust astronomers? Could some of them, or all of them, have an agenda?

42

Occam’s Razor doesn’t apply here. The OR is for choosing which of two fully accepted theory perspectives to use and it declares to use the simpler of the two true perspectives. You don’t use the OR to determine which possibility is more likely, merely which of two equally correct perspectives to demarcate as the common ontological truth with which to continue research. Both perspectives have to be known to be equally true in order to bring the OR into the game.

Again, that could be due to an increase in regional dark matter from particulate disintegration or merely that they are losing their energy. But it is hard to believe that they can measure a significant decrease over such a short period of time.

43

See my post just prior to the last.

Yes, that caught my eye as well. It seems evidence of manufacturing “evidence” by speculation.

Two concerns involved in that;

  1. Occam’s Razor is what chose heliocentricism over geocentricism. It wasn’t a matter of which was true, but merely which is to be used for further research. You pick the simpler model to use. Both are considered equally true (or were at the time).

  2. The problem of an agenda is a serious issue, not because they plan and scheme so much as a natural selection process of any large group. Imagine it being the Catholic Church doing all of the research. It wouldn’t matter if the Pope had an agenda concerning manipulating the minds of the people, because in order to get into the Vatican in order to be heard, one must already agree with the basis of Catholic belief. Thus there is only one mindset allowed to be heard.

Science has the same problem. In order to get accepted (to get a job) and be allowed to publish, one must already agree to the foundation beliefs. They are naturally ego-protective and thus ego-blinded to alternated theories. They don’t have to be actually trying to deceive anyone or conspire. They will cause deception merely by insisting on the acceptance of foundational theories that have only been demonstrated to be “probably true” at some earlier time (hundreds of years earlier in some cases). Truth now must be discovered outside of Science, but still maintaining the basic scientific method of verification.

44

James

I don’t know about Ockham’s razor.

Seems to me, it’s biased for simplicity and against complexity.

Simplicity/complexity has nothing to do with truth, internal/external consistency/inconsistency has everything to do with turth. SImpler theories may be easier to understand. However, simpler theories may or may not be more consistent than more complex ones. We should strech our individual and collective understanding of the cosmos to their limits. If a more complex theory is nearly incomprehensible, than I could see going with the simpler theory, so long as they’re equally, logically sound… temporarily that is.

You’ve sparked my curiosity, I’ll have to look into this further.

I don’t like monopolies, religious or otherwise. There ought to be a plurality of epistemologies and metaphysics, and a plurality of inviduals and institutions employing those epistemologies and metaphysics, competing for the individual’s adherence in a free market.

You’re asserting science is no longer capable of adapting its beliefs and assumptions to novel information, that it can’t change it’s fundamental beliefs and assumptions about the world.
I myself am unsure, I’ve not done sufficient research to comment.

45
  1. 2 = 1+1
  2. 2 = ((4^2) - 12 )^.5
  3. 2 = the average IQ of a terrorist

Because all are equally true, Occam’ Razor says to choose (1), “simplify the equation void of discarding any truth”.

But if you had;

  1. π = 3
  2. π = 3.14
  3. π = circumference/diameter

Occam’s Razor doesn’t actually apply because they are not equally true.

Science is being used as the new religion thus the ontology that is being used has too much vested interest to appear fundamentally flawed in any way. You are literally not allowed to question quantum physics. You can test that merely by going to Physics Forums and asserting that you have a theory that disputes some QM principle. I merely mentioned that I had one in the middle of another discussion because I was asked, not even discussing anything about it, and got banned for life and post deleted - “heresy”.

46

Sounds a bit like the lowest common denominator to me, 8 to 2 becomes 4 to 1.

47

I suppose their reasoning is, unless you’re a qualified expert, say a biologist, and can prove you’re a biologist, you have no right to offer an alternative theory on biology. You can question their theories like - I don’t understand what x biologist said, or why he said it, but you can’t disagree with x biologist, nor offer an alternative theory, because you’re not sufficiently educated. I don’t agree with this, because the layman can devout a significant percentage of his time to studying biology. If he’s fairly intelligent and thoughtful, there could be merit in his critiques and alternative theories. Additionally, some fields like psychology are more accessible and less esoteric than others like quantum mechanics. The majority of us will never be able to interact with quantum particles directly, but we all possess a mind and interact with other minds on a daily basis (some more than others). Einstein said science is the refinement of everday thinking, and Freud said Nietzsche had already said much of what he though their was to say on psychological matters, despite Nietzsche being a loner for much of his life. Furthermore, there are institutions outside of academia that do scientific or scientific like research. Lastly, there’s alternative epistemologies out there, and although I’m quite fond of empirical science, others like philosophical rationalism have their merits, and they should all have to compete with one another, freely. I’m all for the separation of science and state.

Also, doing nohing else but parroting the “experts” kind of defeats the purpose of the forum. Sure, the experts can and probably should be consulted, especially on more esotertic (more as in - we don’t have access to direct sources of information, less as in - x subject is highly technical) subjects like quantum mechanics and astronomy, as opposed to aesthetics, ethics, psychology, sociology and the like. If I merely wanted to hear what the “experts” have to say, I’d be reading a book or an encyclopedia, I come here to hear, and be heard.

48

More directly related to this topic, Science currently doesn’t admit to knowing why light travels at the particular speed that it does.
But I do know why. I can logically prove my case, but there can be no falsifiable demonstration of that isolated concern (from anyone). But in order to merely be heard, not only would I have to gain accreditation in physics (even though the proof actually has nothing to do with physics, it is pure logic), but my conclusion as well as any associated effects of my argument would have to have socio-political approval.

It is much like Congress. It doesn’t matter how sane your idea might be. What matters is that you have gathered enough other people storming Congress with threats of political or economic violence against their congressmen, else no one in Congress cares.

It isn’t an issue of seeking rationality or truth. It is an issue of being the biggest, baddest ass on the planet, not to be argued against.

That is what happens when you lose your Constitutional government, laws, truth, rationality, all don’t matter. It becomes merely a contest of brute force and cleverness (Judeo-Nazism).

49

A related article (although I am not a Larson advocate);
Quasar Paradox;

I added the link to the 6 Dimensions of Spacetime.

The point in the article is that a great many speculations go into so many scientific conclusions which then often get used as the premises of additional argumentation and justifications. In reasoning, it is critical to understand from what point assumptions are being made, else ridiculous conclusions can become apparently obvious.

50

This is just false. Occam’s Razor deals with hypotheses. There is no requirement for those hypotheses to be “fully accepted” [whatever that means] or deemed equally true.

51

My hypothesis of what it meant made fewer assumptions. :sunglasses:

52

No it didn’t because you introduced dark matter. You multiplied entities beyond necessity.

53

Numquam ponenda est pluralitas sine necessitate [Plurality must never be posited without necessity].

I was talking about what Occam’s Razor meant.

You can’t take a simpler explanation merely because it is simpler even if it isn’t accurate.

54

They assume that the universe sprang out of nothingness and exploded.
In my simplest form, I “assume” that it was already there.

Which has fewer assumptions?

55

2 things:

  1. If we knew which was most accurate, we wouldn’t need Occam’s Razor. What we are looking for is the simplest explanation that explains what we need it to. Expansion theory beats yours out on that front.

  2. Additional assumptions are justified by explanatory power. The theory that the universe was always here doesn’t explain why we observe what seems to be expansion. Also, that the universe was always here isn’t the extent of your theory.

56

  1. What we “need it to do” is be accurate.

  2. How simple the explanation is depends entirely upon what question is being asked.

Why something appears the way it does is a different question than how did it get the way it is.

If you ASSUME that it exploded from nothing, then Doppler shift is the easy simple explanation for the appearance of red-shift.

If you ASSUME (actually know) that it didn’t explode from nothing, then Doppler shift is insufficient to explain the appearance of red-shift.

The question is, “why do we observe red-shifting?” So it is a question concerning accuracy of hypothesis, not simplest explanation - “Occam’s Razor doesn’t apply”.

If you merely want the simplest explanation, “God does it.”

57

We’re done.

58

…and by the way, I didn’t introduce “dark matter”. They did so as to explain the rate of expansion.
I merely mentioned “what they call dark matter” (even though already said in a different terms) to explain any observed variations that might be noticed. Dark matter is merely higher density affectance or mass field than would be expected from merely the bodies observed. The Affectance field (which includes both mass and charge fields) is what the light must travel through.

59

C’mon dude, I didn’t mean you introduced the concept to the world. You introduced it as part of the explanation of why we observe redshift, and this discussion.

60

That is what I was talking about too.

What the light is going through all that time is what they call “dark matter/energy”. Dark matter/energy has no borders or boundaries, even less so than a cloud. The mass/gravity effect only grows substantial enough to notice when the density of that dark energy is high (that is the part they were trying to use to explain why the universe expands at the rate they calculate), but the light actually has to traverse all levels of such a field from the lowest, almost pure 100% nothingness, to the highest density, including actual particulate matter. So when I was talking about what the light had to go through, I was already talking about the dark matter. I just don’t normally call it that. It is “Affectance”, which includes both mass/gravity and charge/magnetic fields.