Philosophy Now Forum

uwot wrote: ↑Sun Mar 24, 2019 2:45 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sun Mar 24, 2019 2:27 pmIf you want an answer, you first have to be curious, ask a question.

Okie-dokie. What is the easy explanation for the apparent galactic redshift?

There are two equally plausible ones.

The galaxies are moving further away (universe is expanding)
We are moving further from the galaxies (we are collapsing into the singularity of a Black Hole)

Logik wrote: ↑Sun Mar 24, 2019 3:21 pm

uwot wrote: ↑Sun Mar 24, 2019 2:45 pm What is the easy explanation for the apparent galactic redshift?

There are two equally plausible ones.

The galaxies are moving further away (universe is expanding)
We are moving further from the galaxies (we are collapsing into the singularity of a Black Hole)

Dunno about equally plausible. I can't work out why the planets behave as if the major local source of gravity is the Sun. Why the redshift is apparently greater for more distant galaxies. Why there is no obvious gravitational lensing that a local black hole would surely create. Don't get me wrong; the expansion hypothesis isn't nailed on, but it explains the data reasonably well, without recourse to an apparently undetectable black hole.

uwot wrote: ↑Sun Mar 24, 2019 4:34 pm

Logik wrote: ↑Sun Mar 24, 2019 3:21 pm

uwot wrote: ↑Sun Mar 24, 2019 2:45 pm What is the easy explanation for the apparent galactic redshift?

There are two equally plausible ones.

The galaxies are moving further away (universe is expanding)
We are moving further from the galaxies (we are collapsing into the singularity of a Black Hole)

Dunno about equally plausible. I can't work out why the planets behave as if the major local source of gravity is the Sun. Why the redshift is apparently greater for more distant galaxies. Why there is no obvious gravitational lensing that a local black hole would surely create. Don't get me wrong; the expansion hypothesis isn't nailed on, but it explains the data reasonably well, without recourse to an apparently undetectable black hole.

The biggest gap in the "expansion" hypothesis is ontological. Where does all the spacetime keep coming from?!?!

uwot wrote: ↑Sun Mar 24, 2019 2:45 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sun Mar 24, 2019 2:27 pmIf you want an answer, you first have to be curious, ask a question.

Okie-dokie. What is the easy explanation for the apparent galactic redshift?

To start, Is there only an "apparent" galactic redshift, or is there a real galactic redshift?

Age wrote: ↑Sun Mar 24, 2019 5:09 pm To start, Is there only an "apparent" galactic redshift, or is there a real galactic redshift?

You can't tell the difference.

Logik wrote: ↑Sun Mar 24, 2019 5:13 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sun Mar 24, 2019 5:09 pm To start, Is there only an "apparent" galactic redshift, or is there a real galactic redshift?

You can't tell the difference.

If a person asks a question with the "apparent" word in it, then I ask for clarification, of what they are actually asking.

If "you" have enough patience, then "you" might see that that person is actually able to find the easy explanation that they are seeking, by them self.

Logik wrote: ↑Sun Mar 24, 2019 5:03 pmThe biggest gap in the "expansion" hypothesis is ontological. Where does all the spacetime keep coming from?!?!

Looks like you are lining up an argument from ignorance-No one knows, therefore any alternative explanation is equally plausible. Having said that, I do have an hypothesis which is in the story The whirlpool and the wave, which starts on p15 https://willybouwman.blogspot.com

uwot wrote: ↑Sun Mar 24, 2019 5:24 pm

Logik wrote: ↑Sun Mar 24, 2019 5:03 pmThe biggest gap in the "expansion" hypothesis is ontological. Where does all the spacetime keep coming from?!?!

Looks like you are lining up an argument from ignorance-No one knows, therefore any alternative explanation is equally plausible.

Looks like you've already lined up an argument from 'plausibility' which is a false dichotomy

The plausibility of the alternative hypothesis cannot be calculated. That doesn't mean the alternative is less plausible. It means "we don't know".

Information asymmetry is the enemy of "plausible reasoning". And event horizons are information firewalls.

Age wrote: ↑Sun Mar 24, 2019 5:09 pmIs there only an "apparent" galactic redshift, or is there a real galactic redshift?

It is demonstrably the case (which I would call a 'fact') that the smaller a galaxy appears, the redder it also appears. One explanation is that they appear smaller, because they are more distant, and they appear redder because they are moving away faster. This is demonstrated in The Belgian Priest and the tiny dot, which starts on p6 https://willybouwman.blogspot.com It is conceivable that there is a better explanation, but whatever your idea is, if it doesn't account for the observational data, sorry me old China, but it's wrong.

Logik wrote: ↑Sun Mar 24, 2019 5:29 pmLooks like you've already lined up an argument from 'knowledge'

If you mean 'observed data' then yeah, but note that I refer to the arguments as 'stories'.

Logik wrote: ↑Sun Mar 24, 2019 5:29 pmThe plausibility of the alternative hypothesis cannot be calculated. Because we don't know what happens inside black holes.

It COULD be more plausible, IF we got ANY data from inside a black hole.

True. And when that data arrives, any hypotheses will be adjusted accordingly.

Logik wrote: ↑Sun Mar 24, 2019 5:29 pmInformation asymmetry is the enemy of "plausible reasoning"

Ah, the utility of Occam's Razor.

uwot wrote: ↑Sun Mar 24, 2019 5:35 pm Ah, the utility of Occam's Razor.

The universe owes you no simple explanations. It gets to be as complex as it wants to be!

Why have you CHOSEN Occam's razor instead of Hickam's dictum?

It is a choice no scientist can justify beyond "pragmatic necessity".

Ah. I see you have edited.

Logik wrote: ↑Sun Mar 24, 2019 5:29 pmAnd event horizons are information firewalls.

Right. So you can make up any old bollocks about what goes on inside.

uwot wrote: ↑Sun Mar 24, 2019 5:38 pm Right. So you can make up any old bollocks about what goes on inside.

Well, look - seeming as gravity is the elephant in the room for General Relativity and QM, and seeming as black holes are the biggest of gravity elephants I am merely recognizing the incompleteness of our knowledge and the bias of our data sample.

I am not making anything up. I am pointing out that there is a huge body of mass, impervious to any sampling which corresponds to our gap in scientific understanding.

And you know you only need one black swan...

Logik wrote: ↑Sun Mar 24, 2019 5:42 pmI am not making anything up. I am pointing out that there is a huge body of mass that may be a black swan for our current pet theory.

Maybe, but it seems to me that it would require a black hole that has very selective gravitational effects, as I stated above:

uwot wrote: ↑Sun Mar 24, 2019 4:34 pm I can't work out why the planets behave as if the major local source of gravity is the Sun. Why the redshift is apparently greater for more distant galaxies. Why there is no obvious gravitational lensing that a local black hole would surely create. Don't get me wrong; the expansion hypothesis isn't nailed on, but it explains the data reasonably well, without recourse to an apparently undetectable black hole.

Why have you CHOSEN not to acknowledge that?

uwot wrote: ↑Sun Mar 24, 2019 5:50 pm I can't work out why the planets behave as if the major local source of gravity is the Sun. Why the redshift is apparently greater for more distant galaxies. Why there is no obvious gravitational lensing that a local black hole would surely create. Don't get me wrong; the expansion hypothesis isn't nailed on, but it explains the data reasonably well, without recourse to an apparently undetectable black hole.
Why have you CHOSEN not to acknowledge that?

Because it follows from our current model of/bias in understanding.

Which is simply based on the fundamental human ideal of consistency or universalism.

I don't even know if any of the "laws" of physics apply inside a black hole.
I don't even know if any of the "laws" of physics apply to the galaxy next door!

Everything is interpreted from our local perspective.

And my skepticism is born from information theory. I know what "consensus" means. It's basically real-time measurement triangulation.

Three experiments/measurements.
Three locations.
Same time (literally - synchronous)
Same result.