socrat44 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 02, 2021 4:55 am
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Thu Sep 02, 2021 2:45 am
socrat44 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 02, 2021 2:08 am
I try to carefully write and why I included the explanation that you either missed or need to review with more care.
But for clarity, Energy is a measure of a quantity of change in position of some mass. It is a 'derived' concept that uses MASS and SPACE as its dependant concepts. E = mc^2 has 'm' as the mass' and 'c', a velocity constant that is itself derived of distance
(== space) and time
(==space in a different dimension). This establishes energy as necessarily requiring SPACE and TIME to define it.
Since Mass is just 'matter', and matter both occupies SPACE as well as convertible by E = mc^2 to energy, then, all our physical descriptors are absolutely dependent upon the existence of SPACE and TIME apriori
. You cannot thus HAVE a fixed quantity of energy and matter PRIOR to the existence of both space and time.
Is this clearer on this question for you?
I understood your opinion as:
if there are matter and energy then there should be
a frame of reference where they should exist
(am i wrong?)
More correctly, I used the definitions of matter/energy to show that the concept of a Big Bang singularity lack meaning and makes it at best a 'virtual' point. And further given that the MEANING of the concept of "Big Bang" versus "Steady State" is about AT MINIMAL, whether the actual appearance of 'converging space' as you go back in time to a point is REAL or simply VIRTUAL. The Steady State proponents labled the real singularity interpretation as 'Big Bang' because it implies an instantaneous BANG of a fixed (and thus, 'special') quantity of matter/energy (which is defined necessarily as derived by the term, "space") into existence. It requires not merely SOME finite acceleration from nothing to something but an INFINITE acceleration.
Modern post-interpretation of Steady State in any medium extant today sells it as ONLY about whether the distant space represents a 'hot' origin versus 'cold'. While Hoyle and other proponents of the past may have asserted this, it would not be DEFINING of the theory and so not essential to even assert or deny whether there were or are points that are 'hotly dense'. It CAN, for instance, be true that a local part of space from our vantage point BE 'hot' but the significant feature of distinction is about whether the point is literally real or not.
Because it cannot LOGICALLY be possible for a singularity as such, then ANY approach to such an apparent point has to be PRE-establish whether the point IS real BEFORE one can assert the appearance of ANY evidence that could interpret distant space phenomena as representing actual heat or not. That is, it is UNSCIENTIFIC to declare an interpretation of Big Bang as valid when it cannot LOGICALLY determine whether the singularity is or is not real. As such, it defaults to a mere 'appearance'.
An interpretation of the CMBR as representing a literal space that was 'hot' is premature for instance because it PRETENDS that the Big Bang is 'logically true' in order for that interpretion of the phenomena to be acceptable. But the Big Bang is ILLOGICAL on the FOUNDATION of reasoning where the Steady State is not. As such, one requires seeking an interpretation based ONLY upon what is defaulted to NOT break the LOGIC. And this means we have to seek an interpretation of the phenomena as BASED upon a time when
things were the same as things appear true locally to us WITH PRIORITY!
That the Big Bang faulters on logic suffices to discredit it from the start. But yet, it has been granted an exception to logic as though it has NOT been logically dismissed DEDUCTIVELY. Yet, the provisional declaration of the CMBR as MEANING heat at a mere 4 degrees Kelvin when such temperatures anywhere can NEVER be literally measured as 0 K, is odd given that it SHOULD be the case that we measure an average 'heat' signature that is at best 'close to' 0 K and is most likely REGARDLESS of the theory about singularities. And this is a mere INDUCTION. IF something is disproven DEDUCTIVELY, no amount of post INDUCTION could re-allow it as 'measureably' possible later. YET, the Steady State, though NOT logically dismissed deductively as the Big Bang, it has been deemed 'disproven' on MERE 'INDUCTIVE' assumptions and some POST-theoretical claims about what the temperature 'should' be. It has been declared (but not proven) that some presumed IMPLICATION of Steady State theory 'predicts' something specific about temperature. So, if Hoyle, who happens to be one of the founders of the suggested Steady State theory, were to propose, say, that the temperature may be 3.3 degrees, his credit to such extra possible presumptions do not require he has to be CORRECT in his 'guess'. He doesn't 'OWN' the Steady State reality should it exist and so if he is wrong about some extraneous factors that could be incorrect, how does it imply that the theory itself is wrong? This is like discrediting some famous science theory if he happened to have turned out to be a pediphile independently.
Regardless, Steady State is formally logical while the Big Bang is a magical interpretation proven illogical deductively. Big Bang, whether the universe was or was not hot in the past, cannot save that theory. Also, even if Steady State is/was/will-be proven false for whatever reason deductively later, it still doesn't leave whatever theory left behind as true and more valid when it is already dislodged on logical grounds. This is the rationale of the religious: If you cannot disprove the existance of God by some proposed theory, it doesn't permit one to assume it true for lacking some other hard proof of causation. So when I hear someone assert that Steady State has NO explanation for some observed phenomena, it doesn't mean any left over proposed alternative that IS popular suffices just because it happens to propose some 'fit' in a part of its conjected story. If it is NOT Steady State, it would still NOT be the Big Bang's magical, "...and then all of a sudden God popped X quantity of energy and a 'space' that is somehow treated less 'real' than matter or energy.
Space is itself energy or we could not even see ANYTHING through it! If it lacks energy, you cannot observe such points (Such points CAN exist logically and what may be the 'expansion' when they go from lacking energy to having it. The DENSITY of energy is what is constant and conservable meaning that AS space is 'added', it brings with it energy of some constant represented by its 'volume' alone.