Scott Mayers wrote:I was talking about the fact that the 'strongest' initial claim of 'support' for the Big Bang to this day is still Hubble expansion. This presumption ignores the Steady State theory OR any others when it is sold as relevant when it isn't.
I'm not sure what you mean. The evidence is that the spectra of all distant galaxies are red shifted. Specifically the unique pattern of absorption lines associated with particular elements, is found at longer wavelengths of the electromagnetic spectrum, the further away a galaxy is. That is the data. As I said, you can make up any story that pleases you to explain the facts; the big bang theory is one such story. What makes it a good story is that it is based on the Doppler effect, a simple and demonstrable phenomenon that anyone who has heard a fire engine go past, at speed, siren blaring, will be familiar with.
Scott Mayers wrote:It is as though I assert a 'theory' about the source of someone entering my house with some claim like, "Since the person came through my front door, this is the most astounding evidence that SUPPORTS my theory that they just came from their home prior to that."
In itself, the big bang theory doesn't say anything about what went bang or where it came from. It is simply the extrapolation from the fact of red shift, which makes the universe look as if it is getting bigger, to the likelihood that this is actually happening.
The Hubble expansion IS the reference of Doppler shift. You just redressed this by focusing on the meaning as though I hadn't understood. See Hubble Expansionl
. Pick whatever name you want. This IS what I was referring to.
On the second comment, you just restated the claim I'm contentious with as being "true". The extrapolation is NOT uniquely supportive of the Big Bang
, as it also supports Steady State or other possibilities
. This is what I'm troubled with. The continuous repeating that the Big Bang is justified on this evidence is false.
If (Hubble Expansion or insert your own words) is true, The BB may be true.
If The BB is NOT true, Hubble expansion is still true REGARDLESS.
This is ALSO true of the Steady State. Replace "The SS" in place of "The BB" above and that is true also.
HOWEVER, if (Hubble Expansion) is NOT true, then The BB nor The SS are true.
Both theories require Hubble Expansion but the extrapolation of this expansion that this means is NOT sufficient to justify either theory.
Scott Mayers wrote:The form of arguments used to support the Big Bang versions were to presume a type of "evolution" because of how it is suitable in kind to Biological Evolution.
I'm not aware of any cosmologist equating the big bang with evolution.
All are (or should) already know this. That near the singularity should ANYTHING appear different necessarily implies that the Universe then looked and was different. If it was 'steady', then a 'bang' would not exist. That in the BB model all matter/energy was in a different form to which we do not presently witness IS a claim of our universe to evolve, an egoistic interpretation of how humans evolved AND still favor the minimal of most major religions leaving the question of their 'god' removed from concern. They just have to assert faith that God had to have at least "initiated" reality in a Deistic interpretation.
Scott Mayers wrote:Zeno wasn't being stupid as it may appear. It was as obvious to him that Achilles would catch up to the tortoise or that a flying arrow IS in fact 'moving', etcetera.
Zeno was a follower of Parmenides, who argued that movement is an illusion. Basically his argument was that 'being is'. It is one of only two things which are absolutely certain (the other is that there is experience), because if it were not true, we wouldn't be here to be certain about it, and even though Kant himself said there is no such thing as an analytic a posterior truth, that's pretty much what it is. Having established that there is something, he reasoned that there is not nothing, which is fair enough. However, he then made the leap to 'there is no nothing anywhere'. So in effect reality is solid and nothing can move, because in order to move something has to move into an empty space, but there isn't any; therefore movement is impossible. It is that position that Zeno's paradoxes were designed to support. Plato wrote a dialogue named after and in honour of Parmenides. It is an account of a meeting between the young Socrates with Parmenides an Zeno. In it Socrates says: “You affirm unity, he denies plurality. And so you deceive the world into believing that you are saying different things, when really you are saying much the same.” So yes, Zeno was being as stupid as it appears.[/quote]
Plato's reference of this discussion with Socrates is Plato's creation that may or may not reflect whether this was true or not. It is also not the only source of Zeno as Aristotle, not writing in an indirect fictional dialect, discusses also. There is no extant works of Zeno nor many of the pre-Socratic philosophers.
Zeno's paradoxes, regardless of whether he was or was not even true is not the point. To what was stated and argued through those times on were understood as valid and their rationale was NOT immature or irrational. No one, including Zeno, would actually deem their empirical reality as actually non-existent. As such, the intent of the paradoxes represented appropriate concern with regards to motion. They asked that if you COULD freeze an arrow thrown in the air at some point in time, what would or should it 'look' like? They pre-anticipated what Calculus means of a derivative, an instantaneous measure of velocity when an interval of time "approaches" zero. The argument was that if one could freeze such an arrow in motion, it is NO different than to 'freeze' it in any inertial frame, like that it should be just sitting on the ground, for instance.
And this is why I raised how you can measure a square using infinites.
With regard to the stuff about infinities, as David Hilbert showed, they are ten a penny, but they don't have much practical use. While you can divide a mathematical square all you want, you can't infinitely divide anything 'real'.
That's an odd interpretation by Hilbert considering his intent was to found all reasoning ON logical 'apriori' grounds. Your interpretation, if he said this, is about the FACT of matter to be at least quantized (at least as an atom, considering Quantum Mechanics was not yet developed.) That you cannot literally cut some "matter" made into a square, is irrelevant. Time is "continuous", not discrete. Nor could you literally take a square of a time/space plane and assert even evidence of the possibility of it being "discrete", and not continuous. That is, there is no such meaning to a 'unit' interval in time nor space that could be considered the 'smallest' other than zero itself. This is because any admittance of such begs how one could define that interval indistinguishable from being absolutely ONE thing without a smaller part of it....making this indistinguishable to NOT being an 'interval' at all, but a perfect point in space.
Scott Mayers wrote:Now to the Cosmic Background. I had only recently learned (and am still catching up) with the rational justifications behind this.
Penzias and Wilson, having tried everything, including wiping bird droppings off the large horn antenna, to get rid of the hum it was recording finally accepted that they were witnessing a genuine phenomenon. I forget the details, but people were starting to look for evidence of CBR, Penzias and Wilson's findings came out and someone said that's CBR. As I remember, P and W were awarded the Noble Prize.
I don't give a crap of the 'human story' of such supposed discovery. The discovery of a phenomena is not in itself the interpretation of what that phenomena IS. Certainly anyone older than us has seen the sun before we were born. Does this qualify their 'discovery' as authoritatively correct upon our elder's interpretation? Does 'seeing' the sun, itself tell you WHAT the sun is other than the description of that. The depth of this 'story' seems just more of a reason to question what the significance of the discovery is because it is drawing a red herring across our 'hunt' to distract us from questioning the interpretation as they want us to. This reasoning given is like one arguing why one should convict someone accused as 'guilty' simply based on the fact of the horrid crime they are being accused of, not the interpretation of the evidence itself.
Scott Mayers wrote:That is, there literally is 'blaspheming' policy against even raising doubt lately. If you don't believe this, go to a science forum site and witness how those even representing remote doubt are considered as nutcases without being extremely cautious!
Well, the thing is, forums of every type are replete with frustrated nutcases who aren't taken seriously anywhere else. Some of them get very upset when challenged.
Sure. What's your point? Given any group of people speaking, do you assume they must all agree to comply to the same belief in a forum? If they all agree, what's the function of the forum except to tell jokes or something else trivial? And how do you define who is or is not a 'nutcase'? If you were a 'nutcase' yourself, would you still be qualified by those you accuse of being such yourself as requiring to disprove your own irrationality,... oh sorry, I meant your...'sanity'?