The Expanding Universe -- Why and How We Know It Is Expanding

How does science work? And what's all this about quantum mechanics?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
Logik
Posts: 4048
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: The Expanding Universe -- Why and How We Know It Is Expanding

Post by Logik » Thu Apr 25, 2019 6:30 pm

surreptitious57 wrote:
Thu Apr 25, 2019 6:25 pm
I. Is there a beginning to the Universe Itself ?
2. WHERE did the ASSUMPTION / BELIEF that there is even a beginning come from ?
3. Is the Universe infinite or finite ?
4. Is the Universe eternal or not ?
5. What could be a boundary / end point to a finite universe ?
6. What could start / begin a Universe ?
Then what do you know about the Universe? Is there any positive claim about the Universe that you are happy to make?

Even in a probabilistic framework it seems to me that you would be uneasy saying "It's more likely that not that the universe had a beginning."

Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent. --Wittgenstein.

surreptitious57
Posts: 2985
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: The Expanding Universe -- Why and How We Know It Is Expanding

Post by surreptitious57 » Thu Apr 25, 2019 6:37 pm

Age wrote:
So a completely mysterious force ( something like a God ) is responsible for the expansion of space ( the Universe ) Now is this an irrefutable
fact or Is it just some thing expressed to explain some thing NOT yet understood nor known ?

Saying God is the mysterious force responsible for everything is ALSO an expression to explain that what is NOT yet understood nor known
Saying Dark energy is the mysterious force responsible for the Universe is to me just as ridiculous a statement as the previous one is
Dark energy is a placeholder to describe this mysterious phenomenon so it is just a temporary label
When it is discovered what it is it will probably be given a more suitable name but for now it will do

Dark energy actually exists as the red shift of galaxies demonstrates and also the space within galaxies
God may exist but there is no evidence for him so comparing the two is actually what is ridiculous here

User avatar
Cerveny
Posts: 558
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2010 9:35 pm
Location: Czech Republic
Contact:

Re: The Expanding Universe -- Why and How We Know It Is Expanding

Post by Cerveny » Thu Apr 25, 2019 8:34 pm

1. Is there a beginning to the Universe, Itself? Yes, everything has a beginning
2. WHERE did the ASSUMPTION/BELIEF that there is even a beginning come from? From the Logic
3. Is the Universe infinite or finite? Finite, everything is finite
4. Is the Universe eternal or not? Not, nothing is ethernal
5. What could be a boundary/end point to a finite universe? Presenly is the time of Now
6. What could start/begin a Universe? Winter is coming? From God?
7. How could space expand? Nowise, it grows

surreptitious57
Posts: 2985
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: The Expanding Universe -- Why and How We Know It Is Expanding

Post by surreptitious57 » Thu Apr 25, 2019 9:20 pm

How rigorous is the logic that says the Universe began ?
How do you know that the Universe is not past infinite ?
Does Special Relativity not falsify the notion of an eternal now with no past / future ?
What is the difference between a Universe that expands and a Universe that grows ?

User avatar
Cerveny
Posts: 558
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2010 9:35 pm
Location: Czech Republic
Contact:

Re: The Expanding Universe -- Why and How We Know It Is Expanding

Post by Cerveny » Thu Apr 25, 2019 9:43 pm

surreptitious57 wrote:
Thu Apr 25, 2019 9:20 pm
How rigorous is the logic that says the Universe began ?
How do you know that the Universe is not past infinite ?
Does Special Relativity not falsify the notion of an eternal now with no past / future ?
What is the difference between a Universe that expands and a Universe that grows ?
If something lasts infinitely long (without external influence) it stays constant or periodical
Forget Special relativity it is a nonsense
In case of growing, the internal structure (cells) of Universe stays the same

Scott Mayers
Posts: 1392
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Location: Saskatoon, SK, Canada

Re: The Expanding Universe -- Why and How We Know It Is Expanding

Post by Scott Mayers » Fri Apr 26, 2019 4:09 am

Age wrote:
Thu Apr 25, 2019 6:15 am
gaffo wrote:
Thu Apr 25, 2019 5:00 am
Age wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 9:22 am

WHERE is the actual "evidence" that the Universe is expanding?
Redshift via Edwin Hubble early 1920's.
But if some stars/galaxies are blueshift, then how does that then conclude that the Universe, Itself, is expanding?

If galaxies are moving closer to us, as you just said andromeda is, then some could say that that, combined with the other blueshift galaxies/stars, is evidence that the Universe, Itself, is NOT expanding.

If redshift is evidence for an expanding Universe, then what is evidenced by blueshift?
The degree of expansion is far less than that of gravity upon local stars or galaxies. The blue shifts are about the closer stars and galaxies which you cannot notice of the effects of expansion without looking at galaxies at a distance that is greater than the maximum effect of gravity of galaxies. The evidence of red-shifting is from things beyond that point which amounts mostly to just our own 'cluster' of galaxies. But you can see the shifting of galaxies further out also clumping gravitationally by those specifically moving perpendicular to our perspective. I thought Willy showed this effect using Saturn as a local example of this whereby one SIDE of the planet is relatively shifted blue because that side is moving towards us while the red is shifted as the planet is moving away on the opposite side.

Scott Mayers
Posts: 1392
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Location: Saskatoon, SK, Canada

Re: The Expanding Universe -- Why and How We Know It Is Expanding

Post by Scott Mayers » Fri Apr 26, 2019 5:51 am

Age wrote:
Thu Apr 25, 2019 8:01 am
Scott Mayers wrote:
Wed Apr 24, 2019 12:36 pm
@Age,

Sorry again for not answering quicker. I'm not online as much in the last few days but WILL try to respond to as much as I can as long as you are not in a hurry. You write a lot to respond to and I need time to get through them bit by bit.

I'll jump first to respond to the point of linking you to the "Cosmological Principle" earlier. [I actually agree to your point about redirecting to links. I felt it was sufficient and clear of one to explain matters I did not need to rewrite.] But...

The principle is an "assumption" of convention for science. Because science is only a group project, people have to agree to a minimal set of conditions before moving forward.
And one of those conditions, before moving forward, could be let us just LOOK AT 'that' what it IS that we have observed and seen, only, BEFORE we make any 'assumption' at all, always.
And you are 'assuming' that this hasn't been done. See how it is impossible to evade assumptions?

And if you are still at odds with this, I ask HOW could you know anything beyond your own personal experience without assuming? When/if you watch the news on television, do you become an absolute skeptic by thinking what you are 'observing' is just as equally just a fake program made in your television set that creates an illusion THAT other people exist? I'm asking the same question I put to you before about how you 'assume' me being real when all you see (I 'presume') are words on the screen you are reading this from?

Your intended questions ARE correctly asked. But I think you are in a 'phase' of thinking because that even myself went through a long time ago. You admitted to being 'simple' (which I 'assume' doesn't mean you are mentally defective, by charity.)

Just be patient when you insist direct observation prior to anyone trying to explain HOW you can first ask questions yourself. If you only lived in a large city, for instance, you could not see the actual Milky Way Galaxy that others can clearly observe out in the middle of a dark field outside of town. So when you demand some prior evidence to observe, it first requires determining where you are to understand why you cannot look up to see such a phenomena that others living in the countryside might take for granted with their own inability to 'assume' what is true of those living in some city.
Age wrote:
Scott Mayers wrote:
Wed Apr 24, 2019 12:36 pm
The principles are just conventions that require assuming first that what we live in the SAME world that we have to assume is consistent universally.
But "we" do NOT have to assume that at all.

In fact, if we DID assume that, then this may effect the way we LOOK AT 'that' what we have observed and seen. We may, after all, start "interpreting" 'that', what has actually been observed and seen, through a distorted vision, and then SEE things that are NOT really and actually the Truth of things.
Yes "we" do, if we are trying to relate to each other our subjective realities. I just gave a good example of how a city-dweller cannot observe the same way as one living out in the country. If both of us are arguing something that hides our knowledge of where we EACH come from, both will just go past one another arguing about something that is just an accident of perspective. Thus, you too also have to recognize that you have some prior set of observations that make you think that it is ONLY me who is 'presuming' because you are presuming that I AM assuming something of you that I am not.

I already agree with you on assumptions. I pointed out though that to be perfectly non-assuming, you have to LACK assuming that absolutely everything is true anywhere and everywhere. Thus I could hold you accountable to proving the theories wrong rather than expect others to posit why or how something is true in the first place. That would be dumb of both of us to expect. The example of Obler's paradox is just a philosophical introduction to the problem, just as it helps justify what others were thinking that first motivated them to observe with better accuracy.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Wed Apr 24, 2019 12:36 pm
This means that we need to separate subjective beliefs about reality, such as religious Cosmological origin stories from the activity of observing the skies.
1. WHY have ANY "BELIEF" to start with?
2. If there is NO "BELIEF" nor "ASSUMPTION", then there is nothing to separate, nor even a "need" to do any such thing.
3. WHY remove SOME "stories" but leave other ones behind?
You are singing to the choir. You come to the same conclusions as I do and why I said what I just said above.
Scott Mayers wrote: The general Cosmological Principle is that we are not in any 'special' place such that the physics here is the same everywhere in this Universe. We ran into problems in previous times of believing that Earth was the center of the Universe and that the Universe itself was 'made' FOR us specifically.
If people STILL believe or disbelieve either, then they will STILL continue to run into, what you call, "problems".
Scott Mayers wrote:
Wed Apr 24, 2019 12:36 pm
So this is just a set of statements that say first and foremost that the universe is perceptibly the same no matter where you are in SPACE and that the distribution is assumed to be the same.
The distribution of 'what' EXACTLY is ASSUMED to be the same?
The reason I gave you the link was precisely because it explains this without my need to repeat it. I don't expect you to trust nor follow all of what the link explained as it also 'assumes' some people will also be intellectuals sufficient to understanding all they've written there. But is has some general explanations that might help that would be redundant of me to state.

But here goes: the 'distribution' is called 'homogeneous' similar to how the word is used in chemistry to refer to mixtures of distinct things IN a whole. So a chemist will describe a mixture 'homogeneous' when you can see distinct parts of the mixture but distributed evenly through the mixture. For instance, concrete is a 'homogeneous' mixture of gravel and cement. They mix these in that big truck you see to make it 'homogeneous.' That is, it spreads the larger distinct gravel rocks in the cement. A non-homogeneous mixture of this would 'separate' the distribution, like having all the gravel only concentrated at the bottom with the top side only cement.

So the 'distribution' part of the assumption is that we assume that the stars and galaxies are distributed approximately over the spread of the whole space in the universe. This description is not absolutely precise when you take only a part of space because stars and galaxies cluster. But the EFFECT of stepping back to look at the whole would make space with the stars/galaxies seem spread out in the same way gas would tend to fill all the space of some container on AVERAGE (called, 'entropy')
Scott Mayers wrote:
Wed Apr 24, 2019 12:36 pm
The Steady State theorists felt this was not sufficient and opts to add that TIME as also something we have to add to make the principle of assumption more complete. We thus, cannot assume that in time NOR space that reality was different than our local capacity to understand things. If not, we could include the religious miracles believed about the past, for instance. If we place Adam and Eve as our literal first humans with some God that created us in a time where magic was 'normal', then this kind of thinking would defeat the universality of the study of science.
The study of the Universe has been and is continually being defeated by all of these BELIEFS (believing and NOT believing in and of things) that are currently being held, which are also being passed onto "others" to either BELIEVE or NOT BELIEVE.

ALL of the truths AND falsehoods within ALL of these "stories" about adam and eve, God, created human beings, steady states, static Universe, multiple universes, one beginning Universe, evolution, et cetera, et cetera CAN already bee SEEN and KNOWN, almost instantly. But this can NOT happen if one already BELIEVES or ASSUMES that they ALREADY KNOW what thee Truth IS.

So, the first thing to do is to speak our differences FIRST to determine what we all MINIMALLY agree to. Those 'minimal' things we agree to are the conventions of 'assumptions' needed first before you actively search together. The more variable opinions involved, the smaller the set of assumptions that are needed to which EACH at least agrees to. But, if no one can get past one person who might assert that you cannot 'assume' anything more strictly, that person needs to define the minimal means needed to qualify them in agreement. If none can be found, then the whole group cannot move forward without ousting that person's participation.

The argument that I give about the fact that "assuming nothing" is identical to "assuming everything", is what I am trying to appeal to you so that you can accept 'assumptions' as a convention. If not, there is no possible way to prove to you anything and the whole effort would be fruitless to try.

Again, ASSUME ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. ARE you 'assuming' are are you "lacking an assumption" if you did this? If you think you are 'lacking ANY assumption', this has to mean you are still 'assuming' something.

I use this kind of argument (for my own purposes of 'theorizing') that Totality itself CAN have an 'origin' but would require being ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in its 'origin'. This is because IF absolutely nothing WERE a reality, then it would be ONE TRUTH. But 'ONE' is greater than 'NOTHING'. Thus, this 'contradiction' requires accepting that IF reality had an origin, it COULD BE TRUE that reality is caused by contradiction itself. That if you accept absolutely nothing to have no possible means to 'cause' anything, you would just be denying that it could be 'ABSOLUTE'. If it is NOT the case, then TOTALITY HAS to hold all infinite possibilities in it, including things that locally appear to be untrue.

So to presume absolutely nothing LEADS to assuming absolutely everything! This is fine for me and quite revealing. It suggests that all of reality can be infinite but BOUND such that all that is 'false' is just what is 'not true' of some PART of Totality. To open your mind to the possibilities then at least makes it reasonable to 'presume' some minimal set of facts because it IS true of something somewhere.

You cannot NOT 'assume' while limiting it to some conditional assumption about assuming itself. So, when scientists got together, they AGREED to CONVENE a set of minimal things that everyone could at least agree to is 'true', even if it may not be, because we have no other choice other than to NOT DO ANYTHING at all. If 'scientists' thought this, there would NOT be science at all as an activity we share. We'd all have to figure things out by ourselves without ever trusting anything but our own senses alone. "Science" is a word derived from a Greek word meaning, 'to see'. The INSTITUTE of 'science' was an invention of groups of people agreeing to ONLY USE our collective SENSES to begin with, go step by step from observations to try to determine common patterns which we use 'theories' to explain. These then act as tentative stories to be used to combine what we observe into a 'formula' of explaining the patterns we see.

Scott Mayers wrote:
Wed Apr 24, 2019 12:36 pm
Because evolution is understood as a 'fact', some think that the Big Bang CAN still possibly be determined to have a different past than it is now. This enables the Big Bang to be viable.
If I recall correctly it was you who stated the big bang means that it was the beginning. So, what do you mean by the big bang CAN still possibly be determined to have a different past than it is now? What "past" is it "now"?
You are not understanding the word 'evolution'. The Big Bang Theory assumes that there IS a different reality at different times, such as that AT or NEAR the origin of the singularity, everything was all fit into a point in some place, something that we do NOT see possible to see locally nor could reproduce in some lab. This means that the theory proposes a time when things were NOT the same as they appear today. This then means that they don't believe in the Cosmological Principle IF IT INCLUDED TIME. How else could you have some 'bang' of something into existence from nothing if they had no 'original' cause.

What they hold as 'evidence' is to things that they observe as proof of a time when the universe was extremely hot everywhere. This is what that 'cosmic background radiation' evidence is claimed to be proving. I disagree and even the term "cosmic background radiation" is begging of implying meaning to the interpretation of observation.

So obviously I too think there is a problem of 'assumptions' going on. So you are NOT in strange company on this thought.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Wed Apr 24, 2019 12:36 pm
I personally think that this was a politically intentional convention because it still allows all science we study for most purposes to be valid regardless of any actual Cosmic origin 'stories'.
This is twice you have mentioned here in this post about studying 'science'.

Do human beings actually study science, or, do human beings actually study 'things', through a scientific process, which could be known as 'science'?

Is 'science' the systematic study of things, or do people study 'science'?
I actually just answered it above. But to repeat, "science" is from an old Greek term for "seeing" and where we get the word, "sense" and "scene" from, among other words. [the spelling comes later than the way they sounded originally, by the way.] Science is then the natural philosophy that deals with OBSERVATION that begins with sensing things and describing them WITHOUT PRESUMED INTERPRETATION. Can you see that this agrees with your own intended concern?
Scott Mayers wrote:
Wed Apr 24, 2019 12:36 pm
Since science, as an institute involves the need to raise money and political supports, if you include the Perfect Cosmological Principle (that's what the Steady State Theory added of time), that there is little room for ANY religious origin story.
WHY?
Most of the traditional religions are all 'origin' defined. The "Genesis" means the genetic origins of reality. As such, a Steady State theory or any other 'infinity' theory defaults assumptions that completely removes the foundation of most religions without adaptation. A Steady State theory, for instance, would interpret matter as originating everywhere all the time. This would explain that 'dark matter'. The same goes for 'expansion': this would be explained by that 'dark energy'. While these aren't sufficient to EXPLAIN anything in only a few sentences, the point is that if you piss off the vast majority of religious thinkers who VOTE for the politicians who, in turn, are the ones who may FUND things like N.A.S.A., you would NOT get the support of the people to elect those politicians who support a science that goes AGAINST the electorate's primary beliefs.

It was, after all, religious origin stories, which has helped lead so many human beings to now still having the ASSUMPTION, and the BELIEF, that there was even a beginning to the Universe. LOOKING AT the Truth about WHERE the origin ASSUMPTION and BELIEF came from, then UNDERSTANDING WHY that ASSUMPTION and BELIEF still remains within some human beings helps to SHOW what the actual and real Truth IS.
Absolutely EVERY thing needs to be LOOKED AT and questioned IF the Truth is what people are LOOKING FOR.

"Making" room for some stories and NOT others does NOT help in discovering the actual Truth of things.
And you demonstrate here that absolutely everything HAS to be assumed when assuming nothing. But we still require also interpreting this to mean that, IF you assume everything, THEN at least ANYTHING you presume as a starting point suffices. That we need to assume at least a minimal set of things for 'science', is to demarcate (means, 'of marked separation') philosophy and ideas that are religious or non-sensed things [thus called, nonsense] are ruled out. The assumptions do this. They are needed to at least agree to what things we will permit as 'evidence' by basing them on things we observe....along with the logic and processes (also negotiated at conventions of people voting).

Scott Mayers wrote:
Wed Apr 24, 2019 12:36 pm
This tends to piss people off and make them NOT want their personal, corporate, religious, or governments to fund the effort as well.
To SEE what the Truth IS does NOT take money. TRYING TO raise money, is just another attempt at "justification" for greed, just to fill one's own pockets is NOT needed at all.
All institutes involving people have abuse and tend to evolve into authoritarian if not checked. We needed money to go to the moon by tax payers support. This can be done, and is being done, outside of government. But then it is from private corporations of those who also want to profit from their efforts by exploiting those same taxpayers to require paying for it at raised expenses NOT voted on. For instance, the research on chemistry by private industry turns into discoveries that they then use to make drugs. When they have the power to also hold this research as their own, they won't voluntarily SHARE their 'science' and why we need governments to participate directly or indirectly regardless.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Wed Apr 24, 2019 12:36 pm
Belief still has a role in moral conventions and as long as it is deemed less important to worry about, such as what is or is not true about the Universe as a whole, then allowing for flexibility of science in these areas concerning historical facts about it should not be as big a concern. I disagree but think this may be why the Perfect Cosmological Principle and the Steady State theory is preferentially undesired by many.
The REASON WHY these things are NOT preferred or undesired IS because they do NOT fit in with the BIG picture, which is thee Truth of things.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Wed Apr 24, 2019 12:36 pm
So, I'll leave on this point for now and get back to you later on the rest.
Sure. I don't disagree.

Scott Mayers
Posts: 1392
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Location: Saskatoon, SK, Canada

Re: The Expanding Universe -- Why and How We Know It Is Expanding

Post by Scott Mayers » Fri Apr 26, 2019 6:12 am

I tried to open a series of threads on 'walls' of reality to try to discuss much of this topic. Since they are not followed, I'll reintroduce one factor that needs to be understood about expanding. Since it seems odd to think of how something can come from nothing (or from less then nothing?), we need to look at certain real paradoxes that demonstrate how you can infer some things that on its surface doesn't seem resolvable without inferring some things that at first seem strange.

Obvious in example, is to the fact that we live on a spherical globe. Even a kid today can stop to ask how any evidence of this can be TRUSTED when we don't seem to make sense of us being on some ball where parts are upside down relative to other parts. [and why we still get 'The Flat Earth" believers today]

Ask what one point in space and time is. That is, begin with ANY volume of space and time that we all can experience and then imagine what it would be like to cut it into smaller pieces? For time, imagine cutting it down bit by bit in INTERVALS; for space, these are volumes of smaller and smaller intervals. When we imagine doing this all the way to a point in space and/or time, we have nothing and no time. How could this occur unless there existed some interval in time and space that is NEVER nothing? But if they are never nothing, how can we experience a jump from one side of the interval to the other without some means of space to 'accelerate'. Imagine for instance, a jump from 0 km/h to 50 km/h. Speed is a derived expression of both space and time. If we don't jump from 0 to 50 km/hr, we require some continuous degrees of speed in between that gradually go from that zero to that speed.

But in any interval, the question still exists, no matter how small. So how does something go from ANY point in time or space to any other point if there is not 'accelerating' factor?

I'll stop here as to start the dialogue. But this should at least make it more reasonable to imagine how we require inferring acceleration as some factor for any change to occur. For space and the things in it, this means that at even any point in space and time, there is MORE content to it than just merely nothing. THIS suggests a logic potential reason to think space as 'expanding'. It has 'content' in even a zero-sized interval or nothing should move.

Age
Posts: 2113
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: The Expanding Universe -- Why and How We Know It Is Expanding

Post by Age » Fri Apr 26, 2019 6:59 am

Logik wrote:
Thu Apr 25, 2019 5:48 pm
Age wrote:
Thu Apr 25, 2019 8:21 am
The word 'overall' has a connotation of, literally, over ALL of the Universe.
Because variance
Who cares?

I do NOT.

NOT much at all do with the clarifying question was asking. And, it certainly does NOT answer the question.
Logik wrote:
Thu Apr 25, 2019 5:48 pm
Overall, humans have become much taller in the last 500 years. But some are still 1.5 meters tall.
So, by providing the above example about some human beings, are you now suggesting, that 'overall, some parts of the Universe are NOT expanding. But some are, or the Universe, Itself, is, still expanding?

If yes, the what is your explanation of HOW this is even possible? Which is exactly what I referencing to. So, we are STILL back at the same question I was asking previously, which is the post that you are replying to here.

If, however, if you are not suggesting that the Universe is expanding, then WHY did you give an example of the use of the word 'overall' in the sense of some human beings?

Human beings, obviously, are separated things. So, although, overall, human beings can grow/expand or shrink/contract in size over centuries, individuals can do the opposite. But again this is because they are SEPARATE individual. Whereas, we are talking about thee Universe here. The Universe, Itself, IF expanding is NOT separated from a part of Its Self, namely: "local gravitational effects", "local regions", et cetera. These things are, OBVIOUSLY, a part of the 'BIG picture' (the Universe) and NOT separate from the BIG picture.

If you THINK/ASSUME/BELIEVE that the Universe, Itself, is expanding but a relatively "local" to earth part of the Universe is NOT expanding, and instead doing the exact opposite, then please explain HOW is this even possible, to you?

The fact may well be a part of one thing is shrinking while the rest of it is expanding, but without an explanation of HOW this could actually happen, then it is NOT some thing I can SEE. I can only see what IS and/or what COULD BE, I can NOT see 'what is not'.

Again this is NOT to say that it is NOT possible, but I can only SEE that it is possible and NOT see HOW it is possible, yet.

With your help in understanding, then I can see MORE and NEW.

So, HOW could ALL-THERE-IS/Everything/the Universe, expand but some parts of It contract instead?

Age
Posts: 2113
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: The Expanding Universe -- Why and How We Know It Is Expanding

Post by Age » Fri Apr 26, 2019 8:00 am

surreptitious57 wrote:
Thu Apr 25, 2019 6:25 pm
Age wrote:
What IS the actual and real Truth to the questions:

I. Is there a beginning to the Universe Itself ?
2. WHERE did the ASSUMPTION / BELIEF that there is even a beginning come from ?
3. Is the Universe infinite or finite ?
4. Is the Universe eternal or not ?
5. What could be a boundary / end point to a finite universe ?
6. What could start / begin a Universe ?
7. How could space expand ?

If you do NOT yet KNOW the actual and real Truth to any or ALL of these plus plenty of other questions then I suggest STOP
ASSUMING and / or BELIEVING that you do KNOW the answers. The only ones you are FOOLING are your SELF

IF you can answer some but NOT ALL of these questions but you can NOT fit them ALL into One sound and valid OBVIOUSLY
CRYSTAL CLEAR picture then I suggest that JUST MAYBE the answers you have are NOT the real and true ANSWERS at all
They could well be the actual True and Right ANSWERS but you will NEVER know until you are LOOKING AT and SEEING
the WHOLE and True BIG picture of things
I - I dont know if there is a beginning to the Universe
Perfect response. Thank you.

SEE how quickly, simply and easy the actual and real Truth of things CAN be KNOWN. The Truth, after all, lays deep within us ALL.
surreptitious57 wrote:
Thu Apr 25, 2019 6:25 pm
2 - The belief that the Universe had a beginning came from religion
And that ASSUMPTION and/or BELIEF STILL REMAINS to this day, when this is written, within some human beings.
surreptitious57 wrote:
Thu Apr 25, 2019 6:25 pm
3 - I dont know if the Universe is infinite or finite
4 - I dont know if the Universe is eternal or not eternal
5 - I dont know what a boundary / end point would look like
ALL PERFECT and Truly OPEN and Honest answers again.
surreptitious57 wrote:
Thu Apr 25, 2019 6:25 pm
6 - A Big Bang or quantum expansion could start a Universe
God COULD start a Universe.

A child playing with a box of matches COULD start a Universe.

A singularity COULD start a Universe.

Absolutely ANY thing COULD start a Universe, but WHY even make up such an ASSUMPTION as there was a start to the Universe to "begin" with?

Why start LOOKING FOR what COULD do some thing, which may NOT have EVER even be a fact, in the beginning?

WHY just carry on ASSUMING/BELIEVING some thing that was, after all, just a religious BELIEF to "begin" with?
surreptitious57 wrote:
Thu Apr 25, 2019 6:25 pm
7 - Space could expand through inflation or dark energy or repulsive gravity
And again absolutely ANY thing COULD happen, but without ANY reasonable explanation of HOW 'it' COULD happen, then WHY even LOOK AT that? WHY NOT just LOOK AT what IS and/or what COULD BE, which COULD reasonably happen/be possible, instead? WHY LOOK AT things, which NO explanation HAS BEEN given YET. This, to me, just seems to be a continuation of the BELIEF that the Universe began, and so human beings have been TRYING their very hardest to SEE things that follow on with this ASSUMPTION and BELIEF. To me, the idea of 'space' expanding is just another ATTEMPT to back up and support a very old BELIEF.

Also TRYING TO find things to explain that what is essentially just a BELIEF and/or ASSUMPTION does NOT help.

How about the facts are LOOKED AT first, and instead. Is 'space' actually expanding? Is the Universe actually expanding? What is the difference between the two when expressed like this? What is 'space'? What is 'the Universe'? et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

You human beings, after all, are STILL squabbling over things like does 'time' exist? Is there 'space'? Does 'space' expand? Without EVER actually LOOKING AT what the Truth IS.
surreptitious57 wrote:
Thu Apr 25, 2019 6:25 pm
As you can see I have only managed to answer three of those questions and one of them was number 2
But that is NOT what I SAW at all. What I SAW was you answered ALL of them from a Truly OPEN and Honest perspective.
surreptitious57 wrote:
Thu Apr 25, 2019 6:25 pm
Which doesnt really belong there as its not actually a scientific question - unlike the others which are
But the more that is LOOKED AT, from the Truly OPEN and Honest perspective, then more of the actual Truth of things become revealed.

The WHOLE reason some people still "SEE" that the Universe began is because of the "legacy" left over from the religious BELIEF that the Universe actually began, in the first place.

Get rid of the ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS, then the Truth is far easier SEEN.
surreptitious57 wrote:
Thu Apr 25, 2019 6:25 pm
The two questions I answered were more speculative than definitive
Okay.
surreptitious57 wrote:
Thu Apr 25, 2019 6:25 pm
Which is say there is probably not a single absolute answer to them
But WHY say there is 'probably' NOT a 'single' absolute answer to them?

Surely there would be a single absolute answer to those questions? Surely through physics they have only been created one way, evolved one way, and exist one way. But just because you, or human beings themselves, have NOT yet found these answers that in NO way is an indication, 'probable' or NOT, about if there is a single absolute answer to these questions or not. Basing a 'probability' on any thing other than just what human beings have been thinking about and have so far discovered over a relatively very few short couple of thousand years or so will NOT provide any accuracy to your view here.
surreptitious57 wrote:
Thu Apr 25, 2019 6:25 pm
So that leaves two answers out of a possible six so there is not much assuming going on here
But there was a LOT of ASSUMING going on.

NOT one clarifying question was ask to me to clarify what I was actually talking about. Therefore, you were, obviously, ASSUMING what I was talking about or suggesting.
surreptitious57 wrote:
Thu Apr 25, 2019 6:25 pm
Four of those questions I have not made any assumptions about at all as you can clearly see
Which four are they?

You did, after all, NOT clarify what I was referring to EXACTLY, AND, if you do NOT clarify with "another" about what it IS that they are asking/saying, then what are you actually doing?

Could you be ASSUMING?

After all, is that NOT what ALL human beings do when they are listening to and/or reader "another's" words? That is; ASSUMING what they are saying?

(If any one is thinking well "you" do that also, just remember I have NEVER said I do NOT ASSUME, If I recall correctly, I have only EVER said I do NOT like to ASSUME, and have said what I do NOT do is have BELIEFS, except for one.)

Scott Mayers
Posts: 1392
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Location: Saskatoon, SK, Canada

Re: The Expanding Universe -- Why and How We Know It Is Expanding

Post by Scott Mayers » Fri Apr 26, 2019 8:44 am

@Age
You wrote:(If any one is thinking well "you" do that also, just remember I have NEVER said I do NOT ASSUME, If I recall correctly, I have only EVER said I do NOT like to ASSUME, and have said what I do NOT do is have BELIEFS, except for one.)
I welcome your change knowing that you are responding to me as one of those who KNOW you asserted this. However, if you assert that you never said that you never 'liked' to assume, you are feigning different accent on the term, "like", post hoc, as though you accepted assumptions as a necessary process of thought. You would have 'cleared' this up before rather than waste all the time you had on dismissing anyone from stating any assumptions. Assumptions are necessary and something you and I have spent a lot of time arguing. Had you asserted that you agreed but disliked the specific assumptions, you would have said so.

Please look at the last post above if you want to move on. There I am assuming only each of our own capacity to exist in time and space along with some simple logic. That is a counter argument to the mere logical assumption that space cannot expand as a default. If space does not expand, all things would at best be at one specific speed only. But for different speeds to exist, acceleration requires connecting one speed to another. This 'acceleration' then can allow for something to 'speed up' from a real zero speed anywhere. But you can then extend the same argument of acceleration in a 'fixed' space in the same way as velocity (speed in one direction). Acceleration would require some interval such that at some relative time = 0, the speed is one thing and the end of the interval (any interval greater than zero), the speed requires to be different at some time after time = 0.

Reduce this 'time interval' to zero. AT that point of no time, how can the speed without time be the DIFFERENT TO any other point? This requires having information OF that point that allows an instantaneous speed that differs at different places. If this isn't convincing, WHICH speed is AT any one point when you reduce the interval to zero? Is it the rate of earlier point as the latter time gets smaller and smaller toward it? Or is the rate the second speed as it approaches the first? You could propose that both are true. But then you have the contradiction that something with no time can be both zero speed AND some other absolute speed greater than zero.

This definitively proves that there is at least something probable to spacial expansion because these paradoxes are perfectly unresolved without an acceleration of space.

Age
Posts: 2113
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: The Expanding Universe -- Why and How We Know It Is Expanding

Post by Age » Fri Apr 26, 2019 9:17 am

surreptitious57 wrote:
Thu Apr 25, 2019 6:37 pm
Age wrote:
So a completely mysterious force ( something like a God ) is responsible for the expansion of space ( the Universe ) Now is this an irrefutable
fact or Is it just some thing expressed to explain some thing NOT yet understood nor known ?

Saying God is the mysterious force responsible for everything is ALSO an expression to explain that what is NOT yet understood nor known
Saying Dark energy is the mysterious force responsible for the Universe is to me just as ridiculous a statement as the previous one is
Dark energy is a placeholder to describe this mysterious phenomenon so it is just a temporary label
'God' COULD also be said to be just a "placeholder" to describe this mysterious phenomenon (sometimes known as the Universe, Itself) so it is just a "temporary" label.

At least the Universe can be somewhat described/defined. But how do you describe/define 'dark energy'? And, what is this 'mysterious phenomenon' which you speak of here now EXACTLY?

It appears we now have two 'placeholders' to describe now two unknown things.

Also, why is the label 'dark energy' only a temporary one?

If you are TRYING TO suggest here that there is an 'energy' causing 'space to expand', then how about it first be proven that 'space' IS ACTUALLY EXPANDING.

IS 'space' actually expanding?

If yes, then what IS 'space' EXACTLY? And HOW could 'that' expand?
If no, then how about we leave all of these "temporary" "placeholder/s" for "mysterious phenomenans" alone for the time being?
surreptitious57 wrote:
Thu Apr 25, 2019 6:37 pm
When it is discovered what it is it will probably be given a more suitable name but for now it will do
And when it is discovered what 'God' IS it may or may not be given a more suitable name also, but for now it will do, FOR SOME, anyway.
surreptitious57 wrote:
Thu Apr 25, 2019 6:37 pm
Dark energy actually exists as the red shift of galaxies demonstrates and also the space within galaxies
What does the redshift of galaxies ACTUALLY demonstrate, to you?

And, what does the blueshift of galaxies ACTUALLY demonstrate, to you?

By the way the red/blue shift on their own may NOT actually demonstrate what you and "others" think/believe they do.

The Truth is these red/blue shifts may ACTUALLY demonstrate some thing else entirely, but yours and "others" interpretations of what the red/blue shift is have led you to SEE some thing that is NOT actually happening/being demonstrated at all. Just some thing to think about.
surreptitious57 wrote:
Thu Apr 25, 2019 6:37 pm
God may exist but there is no evidence for him so comparing the two is actually what is ridiculous here
Thinking and calling 'God' a "him" is just about one of the most ridiculous things that I have heard of, that is for about the last 2000 years of so.

Some might say that dark energy may also exist but there is NO evidence for that completely unknown and even explainable thing also, so there may even be far more comparison to the two, which some have not yet recognized and seen or do not want to recognize and SEE.

I better just check, do you have ANY ACTUAL EVIDENCE for dark matter and/or of expansion of 'space' itself?

1. Is either an 'expansion of space' and a 'start to the Universe' a fact or an assumption?

If 'expansion of space' is a fact, then so be it.
If 'start of Universe' is a fact, then so be it.

If, however, one is a fact and the other is an assumption, then there is NO comparison.
But, if they are BOTH assumptions, then there is NOT much difference when actually comparing them.

2. Is dark energy an ATTEMPT at an explanation of the ASSUMED or FACT 'expansion of space', and, is God an ATTEMPT at an explanation of the ASSUMED or FACT 'start of the Universe'?

Again, there is quite a resemblance here when actually comparing the two. BOTH are "temporary" 'placeholders' or 'labels' used to explain 'that', which causes/creates that which is ASSUMED to happen or is in fact an actual FACT, which has NOT actually been verified YET.

So, to some, there is quite a lot in common when comparing the two. When the comparison is ACTUALLY DONE, then MORE can be SEEN, and thus MORE comes-to-light. Even if some do NOT see this, or like to see this.

Age
Posts: 2113
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: The Expanding Universe -- Why and How We Know It Is Expanding

Post by Age » Fri Apr 26, 2019 9:29 am

Cerveny wrote:
Thu Apr 25, 2019 8:34 pm
1. Is there a beginning to the Universe, Itself? Yes, everything has a beginning
Where is the evidence for this?
Cerveny wrote:
Thu Apr 25, 2019 8:34 pm
2. WHERE did the ASSUMPTION/BELIEF that there is even a beginning come from? From the Logic
What is 'the logic'?

And/or did you mean some thing more like 'From the logic of ...'?
Cerveny wrote:
Thu Apr 25, 2019 8:34 pm
3. Is the Universe infinite or finite? Finite, everything is finite
Please provide the evidence for this.
Cerveny wrote:
Thu Apr 25, 2019 8:34 pm
4. Is the Universe eternal or not? Not, nothing is ethernal
Again, evidence would be much appreciated.
Cerveny wrote:
Thu Apr 25, 2019 8:34 pm
5. What could be a boundary/end point to a finite universe? Presenly is the time of Now
So, according to your "logic" the boundary/end point of a finite sizable universe is "now", is this correct?

If yes, then when I LOOK OUT into space I do NOT see the boundary of and for the distance of the Universe is "now". So, could you clear this up for me?
If no, to the first question, then what is the boundary/end point for the size of a limited/finite universe?
Cerveny wrote:
Thu Apr 25, 2019 8:34 pm
6. What could start/begin a Universe? Winter is coming? From God?
Could you elaborate on or clarify these two at all?
Cerveny wrote:
Thu Apr 25, 2019 8:34 pm
7. How could space expand? Nowise, it grows
What do you mean by 'grow'?

And, what is 'space', which is said to grow?

Age
Posts: 2113
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: The Expanding Universe -- Why and How We Know It Is Expanding

Post by Age » Fri Apr 26, 2019 10:05 am

Scott Mayers wrote:
Fri Apr 26, 2019 4:09 am
Age wrote:
Thu Apr 25, 2019 6:15 am
gaffo wrote:
Thu Apr 25, 2019 5:00 am


Redshift via Edwin Hubble early 1920's.
But if some stars/galaxies are blueshift, then how does that then conclude that the Universe, Itself, is expanding?

If galaxies are moving closer to us, as you just said andromeda is, then some could say that that, combined with the other blueshift galaxies/stars, is evidence that the Universe, Itself, is NOT expanding.

If redshift is evidence for an expanding Universe, then what is evidenced by blueshift?
The degree of expansion is far less than that of gravity upon local stars or galaxies.
What do you mean by the 'degree of expansion is far less than'?

Do you mean that gravity upon local stars or galaxies is contracting faster than the 'degree of' expansion, which is supposedly happening away from the local stars or galaxies?

Or, some thing else?
Scott Mayers wrote:
Fri Apr 26, 2019 4:09 am
The blue shifts are about the closer stars and galaxies which you cannot notice of the effects of expansion without looking at galaxies at a distance that is greater than the maximum effect of gravity of galaxies.
But what about the blue shift on the more distant galaxies? What do they demonstrate and/or what is interpreted on the blue shift of them?
Scott Mayers wrote:
Fri Apr 26, 2019 4:09 am
The evidence of red-shifting is from things beyond that point which amounts mostly to just our own 'cluster' of galaxies.
This is what I find confusing here in this thread and in the other thread 'einstein on the train'.

Now, is 'red-shifting' evidence for the distance of galaxies compared to us, or, the evidence for the direction in which a galaxy is supposedly traveling, compared to us?

The 'evidence' for red-shifting is either for both of them or for one of them. If it is for one of them, which one is it?
Scott Mayers wrote:
Fri Apr 26, 2019 4:09 am
But you can see the shifting of galaxies further out also clumping gravitationally by those specifically moving perpendicular to our perspective.
What exactly is 'moving perpendicular' to our perspective?
Scott Mayers wrote:
Fri Apr 26, 2019 4:09 am
I thought Willy showed this effect using Saturn as a local example of this whereby one SIDE of the planet is relatively shifted blue because that side is moving towards us while the red is shifted as the planet is moving away on the opposite side.
And that is exactly what I wanted to point out. The observed red-shift of distant galaxies might just be one side of the galaxy's spin, which is moving away, relative to us, AND, the blue-shift in those distant galaxies could just be the side of the galaxy which is moving towards us?

There is also the question of could the blue-shift and red-shift seen in distant galaxies be caused by how like the earth moves around the sun not in a perfect circle but sometimes in a towards direction and at other times in an away direction? (There is a word for this movement).

There are also other questions/explanations about what could be happening, which I have been waiting to ask but have just already somewhat answered/explained with your 'gravitational clumping' response, but I will leave them for another time anyway. (Memo for me relative time appearance).

Age
Posts: 2113
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: The Expanding Universe -- Why and How We Know It Is Expanding

Post by Age » Fri Apr 26, 2019 1:20 pm

Scott Mayers wrote:
Fri Apr 26, 2019 5:51 am
Age wrote:
Thu Apr 25, 2019 8:01 am
Scott Mayers wrote:
Wed Apr 24, 2019 12:36 pm
@Age,

Sorry again for not answering quicker. I'm not online as much in the last few days but WILL try to respond to as much as I can as long as you are not in a hurry. You write a lot to respond to and I need time to get through them bit by bit.

I'll jump first to respond to the point of linking you to the "Cosmological Principle" earlier. [I actually agree to your point about redirecting to links. I felt it was sufficient and clear of one to explain matters I did not need to rewrite.] But...

The principle is an "assumption" of convention for science. Because science is only a group project, people have to agree to a minimal set of conditions before moving forward.
And one of those conditions, before moving forward, could be let us just LOOK AT 'that' what it IS that we have observed and seen, only, BEFORE we make any 'assumption' at all, always.
And you are 'assuming' that this hasn't been done.
Do you KNOW of ANY adult human being who has NEVER assumed some thing EVER, and thus been Truly OPEN ALWAYS?

If no, then it is NOT some thing that really NEEDS to be ASSUMED.
If yes, then please provide the label that was placed onto that human being who NEVER assumed ALWAYS.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Fri Apr 26, 2019 5:51 am
See how it is impossible to evade assumptions?
NO.

Even by your remark here, which is obviously being proposed as the absolute 100% certain Truth of things by the way, counters the point you are making. You are countering your own point. If it is, as you are proposing it is here, IMPOSSIBLE to evade assumptions, then I would NOT have to ASSUME that human beings have NOT just LOOKED AT things without ever making any 'assumption' at all ALWAYS, because it would just be a FACT, which could NOT be refuted anyway, according to you.

Now, however, it is very easy to evade assumptions. That is; when you recognize that they are arising.

Recognizing when assumptions are arising, in order to evade then, ALWAYS may not be as easy, BUT it is still POSSIBLE.

Scott Mayers wrote:
Fri Apr 26, 2019 5:51 am
And if you are still at odds with this, I ask HOW could you know anything beyond your own personal experience without assuming?
At first glance, through 'trust'.

If you were to trust another human being enough, then you would NOT have to ASSUME that what they are relaying to you is the Truth or not.

Scott Mayers wrote:
Fri Apr 26, 2019 5:51 am
When/if you watch the news on television, do you become an absolute skeptic by thinking what you are 'observing' is just as equally just a fake program made in your television set that creates an illusion THAT other people exist?
No I do NOT think this.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Fri Apr 26, 2019 5:51 am
I'm asking the same question I put to you before about how you 'assume' me being real when all you see (I 'presume') are words on the screen you are reading this from?
WHEN and WHEREABOUTS did you put this same question to 'me'?

But to answer this question now, But I do NOT 'assume' you to be real.

I have a view of what the 'you' is, and from that view, what I see on the screen backs up, supports, and verifies further this view of what the 'you' IS, when combined with the other views I have, especially concerning that question; Who am 'I'?
Scott Mayers wrote:
Fri Apr 26, 2019 5:51 am
Your intended questions ARE correctly asked. But I think you are in a 'phase' of thinking because that even myself went through a long time ago.
There have been a few of 'you' in this forum who have a tendency to SEE that I am like them in this regard to 'what they have gone through, and come out of' now I am going through that "stage of life" also.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Fri Apr 26, 2019 5:51 am
You admitted to being 'simple' (which I 'assume' doesn't mean you are mentally defective, by charity.)
That ALL depends on who you are asking, to some here, I could NOT be any more 'mentally defective'.

But to me, all of 'you' are 'mentally defective'. Now, BEFORE the ASSUMING starts, the one writing this is also one of 'you'. If any of us were NOT 'mentally defective' in one way or another, then we would be able to THINK in a way that we would be able to KNOW EVERY thing 100% accurately and correctly. Now, for this one, this 'you', where these words are coming from does NOT even know how to express at all, 'that', which is wanted to be expressed clearly, accurately, and correctly. I would call that very 'mentally defective'.

But if we were to just LOOK AT the word 'simple' on its own and NOT TRYING TO relate it to the derogatory term of 'being mentally defective'. Yes I am extremely 'simple' as I just tend to LOOK AT things from a very SIMPLE perspective, without TRYING TO make things complex nor hard.

For example when I LOOK OUT into what is generally known as 'space', with the physical eyes and with the conceptual ability to SEE past just that what is seen with the eyes. I SEE that there is NO boundary nor limit to that 'space'. NO matter what I have done to TRY and observe a limit/boundary I just can NOT see one. And, when I have asked for clarification of what that boundary/limit COULD ACTUALLY BE, NO reasonable answer has been given. In fact I do NOT recall ANY answer being given, in this forum anyway.

But this inability to SEE a limit/boundary might just be because I LOOK AT things, from this very simple perspective. But when I do TRY TO put a limit/boundary of the non-visible thing of 'space' itself I just can NOT seem to do it. Even when I have imagined a 'wall' as a limit/boundary, then either that wall is infinitely 'thick' or there is another side to it, which again contains 'space', which I then can NOT see a limit/boundary to it. If I conceptualize up another limit/boundary/wall, then I just keep repeating the same, that is; either an infinitely thick wall or a thickness of some size with some thing on the other side. And, if the Universe is ALL-THERE-IS, then that is still part of the Universe, no matter what is is. This is just one example of my SIMPLICITY.

Scott Mayers wrote:
Fri Apr 26, 2019 5:51 am
Just be patient when you insist direct observation prior to anyone trying to explain HOW you can first ask questions yourself.] If you only lived in a large city, for instance, you could not see the actual Milky Way Galaxy that others can clearly observe out in the middle of a dark field outside of town.
It would have to be a fairly bright city but yes if the actual milky way galaxy could NOT be seen with the physical eyes, from that position, then that galaxy could NOT be seen, with the physical eyes, from that position.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Fri Apr 26, 2019 5:51 am
So when you demand some prior evidence to observe, it first requires determining where you are to understand why you cannot look up to see such a phenomena that others living in the countryside might take for granted with their own inability to 'assume' what is true of those living in some city.
You might be ASSUMING a case of 'being simple', which is NOT what is NOT the actual case.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Fri Apr 26, 2019 5:51 am
Age wrote:
Scott Mayers wrote:
Wed Apr 24, 2019 12:36 pm
The principles are just conventions that require assuming first that what we live in the SAME world that we have to assume is consistent universally.
But "we" do NOT have to assume that at all.

In fact, if we DID assume that, then this may effect the way we LOOK AT 'that' what we have observed and seen. We may, after all, start "interpreting" 'that', what has actually been observed and seen, through a distorted vision, and then SEE things that are NOT really and actually the Truth of things.
Yes "we" do, if we are trying to relate to each other our subjective realities.
If you BELIEVE 'you' do, then you go right on ahead and ASSUME absolutely any thing you like. But do NOT put I into the category of 'we'.

I do NOT have to ASSUME such a thing and, at the moment, I am NOT assuming such a thing.

For instance, what do you mean by 'SAME world', which you say "we" HAVE TO ASSUME is 'consistent universally'?

How MANY 'worlds' do you think/assume there are?

'We' CAN still relate our views, without ASSUMPTIONS. You are after all, relating your subjective views, and I am interpreting them without the assumption that "we" live in the SAME world nor I am assuming that that "world", which I am NOT yet aware of, is 'consistent universally'.

What do you mean by 'consistent universally'?

SEE by asking clarifying questions I am NOT assuming any thing, yet.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Fri Apr 26, 2019 5:51 am
I just gave a good example of how a city-dweller cannot observe the same way as one living out in the country. If both of us are arguing something that hides our knowledge of where we EACH come from, both will just go past one another arguing about something that is just an accident of perspective.
I think it was I who said the words we use, even internally, have far more power over "us", human beings, actually realize yet.

I think it was I who also talked about how without KNOWING what the other is actually meaning through the words they are using, then confusion can all to quickly set in.

Was it you who I asked, If I do NOT want to 'argue' with you, then what do I actually mean?
Scott Mayers wrote:
Fri Apr 26, 2019 5:51 am
Thus, you too also have to recognize that you have some prior set of observations that make you think that it is ONLY me who is 'presuming' because you are presuming that I AM assuming something of you that I am not.
WHEN and if I did that, then that is EXACTLY what I have been asking to be POINTED OUT to me.

Because ASSUMPTIONS and PRESUMPTIONS can creep in far to easily I WANT mine to be POINTED OUT and SHOWN to me, so that I can improve on expressing my views. So, WHERE exactly did I do this?

I already agree with you on assumptions. I pointed out though that to be perfectly non-assuming, you have to LACK assuming that absolutely everything is true anywhere and everywhere.[/quote]

Any thing wrong with doing this?
Scott Mayers wrote:
Fri Apr 26, 2019 5:51 am
Thus I could hold you accountable to proving the theories wrong rather than expect others to posit why or how something is true in the first place.
But I can NOT even get past the 'IF you just STOP ASSUMING and BELIEVING, then what IS actual True and Right can be SEEN and KNOWN' stage of communicating, without being informed that I am a moron and such like. Let alone moving onto SHOWING the 'WHY and HOW the "theories" ARE actually WRONG' stage.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Fri Apr 26, 2019 5:51 am
That would be dumb of both of us to expect.


But WHY are you ASSUMING and/or BELIEVING this?
Scott Mayers wrote:
Fri Apr 26, 2019 5:51 am
The example of Obler's paradox is just a philosophical introduction to the problem, just as it helps justify what others were thinking that first motivated them to observe with better accuracy.
BUT did it HELP them to observe with better accuracy?

By the way what is the actual "problem" you SEE, as I do NOT SEE any problem here whatsoever.

Scott Mayers wrote:
Fri Apr 26, 2019 5:51 am
Scott Mayers wrote:
Wed Apr 24, 2019 12:36 pm
This means that we need to separate subjective beliefs about reality, such as religious Cosmological origin stories from the activity of observing the skies.
1. WHY have ANY "BELIEF" to start with?
2. If there is NO "BELIEF" nor "ASSUMPTION", then there is nothing to separate, nor even a "need" to do any such thing.
3. WHY remove SOME "stories" but leave other ones behind?
You are singing to the choir. You come to the same conclusions as I do and why I said what I just said above.
But you said, in the above, that 'you NEED to separate 'subjective beliefs about reality' when observing the skies, right?

If yes, then HOW do you KNOW what are 'subjective beliefs about reality' YET, especially considering when what you are doing is just 'observing' TO DISCOVER what the actual and real Truth IS (or what you call "reality").

If you are going to separate what you BELIEVE is NOT true BEFORE you start 'observing', then that means that you have already ASSUMED what is NOT true, which could be just based on your own 'subjective BELIEFS about reality', which OBVIOUSLY could be completely and utterly WRONG or partly WRONG?
Scott Mayers wrote: The general Cosmological Principle is that we are not in any 'special' place such that the physics here is the same everywhere in this Universe. We ran into problems in previous times of believing that Earth was the center of the Universe and that the Universe itself was 'made' FOR us specifically.
If people STILL believe or disbelieve either, then they will STILL continue to run into, what you call, "problems".
Scott Mayers wrote:
Fri Apr 26, 2019 5:51 am


The reason I gave you the link was precisely because it explains this without my need to repeat it.
If you can express your VIEW that 'no matter where "you" are in SPACE and that the distribution is ASSUMED to be the same' but you can NOT just write if the distribution is of SPACE or of some thing else, then so be it. I did NOT think that it would a particular hard question to answer.

So, you KNEW in ADVANCE what I was going to ask you about this distribution IN SPACE, did you?

And you wanted me to read reams of writings to just clarify that if the distribution IN SPACE, which you then afterwards was going to talk about was IN RELATION the word SPACE that you just used or was in relation to some thing else, is this correct?
Scott Mayers wrote:
Fri Apr 26, 2019 5:51 am
I don't expect you to trust nor follow all of what the link explained as it also 'assumes' some people will also be intellectuals sufficient to understanding all they've written there. But is has some general explanations that might help that would be redundant of me to state.
Do you KNOW that you have used far more words to say, and imply that I am NOT intellectual enough to understand that which is written in scientific literature, which if you want to know the Truth of I TOTALLY AGREE WITH YOU, but anyway if you can NOT just write which probably could have been written in a 3rd or less of the amount of words that you have used so far, then so be it. Carry on the way you are.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Fri Apr 26, 2019 5:51 am
But here goes:
Oh look at this.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Fri Apr 26, 2019 5:51 am
the 'distribution' is called 'homogeneous' similar to how the word is used in chemistry to refer to mixtures of distinct things IN a whole. So a chemist will describe a mixture 'homogeneous' when you can see distinct parts of the mixture but distributed evenly through the mixture. For instance, concrete is a 'homogeneous' mixture of gravel and cement. They mix these in that big truck you see to make it 'homogeneous.' That is, it spreads the larger distinct gravel rocks in the cement. A non-homogeneous mixture of this would 'separate' the distribution, like having all the gravel only concentrated at the bottom with the top side only cement.
You have still NOT answered the distribution of WHAT EXACTLY?

So the 'distribution' part of the assumption is that we assume that the stars and galaxies are distributed approximately over the spread of the whole space in the universe.[/quote]

There you go, all you had to do was name two things; stars AND galaxies. So, it would have taken you far less than a 3rd of what you had already written
Scott Mayers wrote:
Fri Apr 26, 2019 5:51 am
This description is not absolutely precise when you take only a part of space because stars and galaxies cluster.
When you say 'space' what did you mean?

Or, are you also going to get seemingly very frustrated with this very simple question as well?

By the way I could read ALL the so called "scientific" literature ever written on this subject, but then speak to a person, just like you, and you use a word in different way then "others" do, which can be clearly SEEN happens quite to frequently.

You seem to use the word 'space' instead of the word 'Universe', but I could be mistaken, and i did NOT want to ASSUME any thing here.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Fri Apr 26, 2019 5:51 am
But the EFFECT of stepping back to look at the whole would make space with the stars/galaxies seem spread out in the same way gas would tend to fill all the space of some container on AVERAGE (called, 'entropy')
By the way if the description is NOT absolutely precise, then WHY NOT just say some thing like; There is an apparent evenly spread of matter distributed in the observable universe, or some thing like that. Instead of just saying 'distribution' as though it was actually true and correct?

Also, what "gas" does in a container does NOT really have much to do with what "matter" does in a MAYBE contained OR uncontained Universe.

Scott Mayers wrote:
Fri Apr 26, 2019 5:51 am


The study of the Universe has been and is continually being defeated by all of these BELIEFS (believing and NOT believing in and of things) that are currently being held, which are also being passed onto "others" to either BELIEVE or NOT BELIEVE.

ALL of the truths AND falsehoods within ALL of these "stories" about adam and eve, God, created human beings, steady states, static Universe, multiple universes, one beginning Universe, evolution, et cetera, et cetera CAN already bee SEEN and KNOWN, almost instantly. But this can NOT happen if one already BELIEVES or ASSUMES that they ALREADY KNOW what thee Truth IS.

So, the first thing to do is to speak our differences FIRST to determine what we all MINIMALLY agree to. Those 'minimal' things we agree to are the conventions of 'assumptions' needed first before you actively search together.
I do NOT see them as 'minimal' as you might be ASSUMING that the Universe began and/or finite, or any thing else.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Fri Apr 26, 2019 5:51 am
The more variable opinions involved, the smaller the set of assumptions that are needed to which EACH at least agrees to. But, if no one can get past one person who might assert that you cannot 'assume' anything more strictly, that person needs to define the minimal means needed to qualify them in agreement.
At a minimum NO assumptions and NO beliefs, and then JUST LOOK AT what IS.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Fri Apr 26, 2019 5:51 am
If none can be found, then the whole group cannot move forward without ousting that person's participation.
Is this sort of like "ousting" that person's participation, who was saying the sun does NOT go around the earth, BECAUSE that person's participation was NOT fitting in with the ALREADY held ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS?
Scott Mayers wrote:
Fri Apr 26, 2019 5:51 am
The argument that I give about the fact that "assuming nothing" is identical to "assuming everything", is what I am trying to appeal to you so that you can accept 'assumptions' as a convention.
IF you really and Truly BELIEVE that ASSUMPTIONS are NECESSARY, then 'what' ASSUMPTIONS exactly do you WANT me have and strongly HOLD ONTO?

Also, 'assuming nothing' IS NOT any thing at all like 'assuming everything', to me.

For example one, literally, means NO thing is being assumed, whereas the other means that EVERY thing is being ASSUMED.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Fri Apr 26, 2019 5:51 am
If not, there is no possible way to prove to you anything and the whole effort would be fruitless to try.
But that is an extremely WRONG assumption to be making. But considering you are basing of a supposed "fact", which you are TRYING TO "argue" for, then it is very simple and easy to CLEARLY SEE WHY you made up such an ASSUMPTION.

You CAN prove many things to me with observable empirical evidence or with sound, valid arguments. Either one is just as good for me.

And, if you idea here, in this forum, is to "PROVE" things, then that is okay with me. But that certainly is NOT what I am here nor what I am LOOKING FOR here,from you nor any one "else".
Scott Mayers wrote:
Fri Apr 26, 2019 5:51 am
Again, ASSUME ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. ARE you 'assuming' are are you "lacking an assumption" if you did this? If you think you are 'lacking ANY assumption', this has to mean you are still 'assuming' something.
But I am NOT 'assuming' any such thing. At the moment as far as I am aware I am NOT assuming any thing at all. This could change, however, before this sentence is even finished, for example.

ASSUMPTIONS CAN arise and subside all the time if One is NOT conscious of what is going on in the thinking within a body.

Because ASSUMPTIONS can so easily "creep" into the thinking and appear in the written words, without even being recognized by the writer, that is WHY I ask to be informed of WHEN my ASSUMPTIONS are noticed, in my words. But ASSUMING that I am ASSUMING and TRYING TO LOOK FOR and FIND "justifications" for that ASSUMPTION, and then writing things like IF you are "assuming" that you are 'lacking ANY assumption' is just NOT doing any thing, other than providing ANOTHER example of just HOW ASSUMPTIONS can and will distort the actual Truth of things.

Scott Mayers wrote:
Fri Apr 26, 2019 5:51 am
I use this kind of argument (for my own purposes of 'theorizing') that Totality itself CAN have an 'origin' but would require being ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in its 'origin'.
Which has absolutely NOTHING to do with what I am ACTUALLY DOING.

This is because IF absolutely nothing WERE a reality, then it would be ONE TRUTH. But 'ONE' is greater than 'NOTHING'. Thus, this 'contradiction' requires accepting that IF reality had an origin, it COULD BE TRUE that reality is caused by contradiction itself. That if you accept absolutely nothing to have no possible means to 'cause' anything, you would just be denying that it could be 'ABSOLUTE'. If it is NOT the case, then TOTALITY HAS to hold all infinite possibilities in it, including things that locally appear to be untrue.[/quote]

So, if you finally come to SEE the absurdity in this and TRYING TO do this, then that is great. But really again NOTHING much at all to do with what I am ACTUALLY DOING.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Fri Apr 26, 2019 5:51 am
So to presume absolutely nothing LEADS to assuming absolutely everything!
But that is IF you were to PRESUME absolutely nothing, which IS NOTHING like what I have ACTUALLY BEEN SAYING.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Fri Apr 26, 2019 5:51 am
This is fine for me and quite revealing. It suggests that all of reality can be infinite but BOUND such that all that is 'false' is just what is 'not true' of some PART of Totality. To open your mind to the possibilities then at least makes it reasonable to 'presume' some minimal set of facts because it IS true of something somewhere.
IF you WANT to PRESUME some 'minimal' so called "facts", then go ahead on DOING THAT. If it makes you feel better and/or helps supports your ASSUMPTIONS, then also that is great if you WANT to continue down that path. But AGAIN really NOTHING at all like what I AM DOING AND SAYING.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Fri Apr 26, 2019 5:51 am
You cannot NOT 'assume' while limiting it to some conditional assumption about assuming itself.
If you say so.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Fri Apr 26, 2019 5:51 am
So, when scientists got together, they AGREED to CONVENE a set of minimal things that everyone could at least agree to is 'true', even if it may not be,
LOL

And they call "religious" people blindsided by their own ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS.

So, are you really telling me/us that when so called "scientists" get together, they AGREE to at least agree on some thing/s to be 'true', even if that thing may well NOT be true at all?

If yes, then I would suggest to them that they are NOT really being scientists AT ALL. But with my credentials I would be very surprised if some even listened to a word i said, and instead just laughed at what I said, and then TRY TO ridicule me.

But as some say, "That is the nature of the beast". "Others" might say that that is just the BELIEF-system at work, which ASSUMING and ASSUMPTIONS are a part of.

If no, however, then what were you telling me/us?
Scott Mayers wrote:
Fri Apr 26, 2019 5:51 am
because we have no other choice other than to NOT DO ANYTHING at all. If 'scientists' thought this, there would NOT be science at all as an activity we share. We'd all have to figure things out by ourselves without ever trusting anything but our own senses alone. "Science" is a word derived from a Greek word meaning, 'to see'.
Like in 'TO SEE'/UNDERSTAND is TO LOOK from the Truly OPEN perspective, which is where what IS actually True and Right can and will be SEEN.

Or, does 'to see' mean some thing completely different, from your perspective?
Scott Mayers wrote:
Fri Apr 26, 2019 5:51 am
The INSTITUTE of 'science' was an invention of groups of people agreeing to ONLY USE our collective SENSES to begin with, go step by step from observations to try to determine common patterns which we use 'theories' to explain. These then act as tentative stories to be used to combine what we observe into a 'formula' of explaining the patterns we see.
And so far these 'groups of people', from what I SEE, are more disagreeing than agreeing.

They can NOT even decide if human beings have an effect on the climate or not, and this is in their own backyard, let alone agreeing on what is happening out past earth.

Scott Mayers wrote:
Fri Apr 26, 2019 5:51 am
Scott Mayers wrote:
Wed Apr 24, 2019 12:36 pm
Because evolution is understood as a 'fact', some think that the Big Bang CAN still possibly be determined to have a different past than it is now. This enables the Big Bang to be viable.
If I recall correctly it was you who stated the big bang means that it was the beginning. So, what do you mean by the big bang CAN still possibly be determined to have a different past than it is now? What "past" is it "now"?
You are not understanding the word 'evolution'.
AND what have you based this such incredible insightful understanding of what thinking and views are within this body?

HOW are you able to enter and obtain such insight into THIS body?

I NEVER used the 'evolution' word, yet you KNOW/ASSUME that I am NOT understanding the word 'evolution'.

This will be good, that is IF it gets answered. But, IF you KNOW that I am NOT understanding the word 'evolution', then HOW am I misunderstanding the word 'evolution'?
Scott Mayers wrote:
Fri Apr 26, 2019 5:51 am
The Big Bang Theory assumes that there IS a different reality at different times, such as that AT or NEAR the origin of the singularity, everything was all fit into a point in some place, something that we do NOT see possible to see locally nor could reproduce in some lab.
I am NOT sure how there could even be a "different" 'reality' at different times. IF what is really happening at any particular time, then that IS what is REALLY happening.

What IS this 'reality', which you refer to a fair bit that somehow COULD EVEN BE "different"?
Scott Mayers wrote:
Fri Apr 26, 2019 5:51 am
This means that the theory proposes a time when things were NOT the same as they appear today.
Besides the fact that you are just telling us what A "theory" proposes, which is NOT answering my clarifying questions, 'things were NOT the same yesterday as they appear today', so I would be pretty confident in saying that that part of the "theory" might actually be True.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Fri Apr 26, 2019 5:51 am
This then means that they don't believe in the Cosmological Principle IF IT INCLUDED TIME.
One sentence you talk about what A "theory" proposes then you talk what "they" do NOT believe in such and such. Who cares about what some people BELIEVE or do NOT BELIEVE, or what some "theory" proposes or does NOT propose. The actual and real Truth, after all, is usually ALWAYS different anyway.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Fri Apr 26, 2019 5:51 am
How else could you have some 'bang' of something into existence from nothing if they had no 'original' cause.
VERY, VERY SIMPLY and EASILY.

The obvious answer to this, you think would ALREADY BE KNOWN, by these so called "scientific" "experts", SURELY.

The actually blindly OBVIOUS ASSUMPTION/BELIEF in your statement is ONE reason WHY this view still even exists in the days of when this is written.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Fri Apr 26, 2019 5:51 am
What they hold as 'evidence' is to things that they observe as proof of a time when the universe was extremely hot everywhere. This is what that 'cosmic background radiation' evidence is claimed to be proving.
Yes, "claiming" to be "proving", AND THEN "holding" onto 'that' "as evidence" just about says it all.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Fri Apr 26, 2019 5:51 am
I disagree and even the term "cosmic background radiation" is begging of implying meaning to the interpretation of observation.
And do you 'disagree' because it is WRONG or because it does NOT 'fit into' you already held ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS?
Scott Mayers wrote:
Fri Apr 26, 2019 5:51 am
So obviously I too think there is a problem of 'assumptions' going on. So you are NOT in strange company on this thought.
But do you also find it amusing and even hilariously when people say that "others" are only ASSUMING, when it is only when the "others" are NOT agreeing with and saying what the person wants them to agree with AND say?

Or, is it JUST Me who SEES this?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest