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

surreptitious57
Posts: 3517
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

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

Post by surreptitious57 » Fri May 10, 2019 2:27 am

Age wrote:
only a proportion of the actual Universe is actually being observed is enough evidence well for me anyway that for human beings to jump to
a conclusion that the Universe IS expanding is REALLY just an ASSUMPTION and / or BELIEF based solely on NO actual real conclusive evidence
Only the observable Universe can be seen to be expanding and nothing else
So no claim can be made about anything which lies beyond that boundary

surreptitious57
Posts: 3517
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

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

Post by surreptitious57 » Fri May 10, 2019 2:39 am

Age wrote:
So if you can observe a sun revolving around a planet that you are standing on is that evidence that that sun revolves around that planet then
It would be in theory but in reality how could a larger object of mass orbit a smaller object of mass
Stars have significantly greater mass than planets and so they naturally attract those smaller bodies

Scott Mayers
Posts: 1403
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 May 10, 2019 4:38 am

Age wrote:
Fri May 10, 2019 12:52 am
Scott Mayers wrote:
Thu May 09, 2019 9:10 am
Age wrote:
Wed May 08, 2019 11:41 pm

The Truth of things is easy to find, anyway, once you discover or learn how to find them.
Besides the lack of recognizing anything 'learned' by you, it is when you add these esoteric like statements with terms that sound as though they've come from some cult that is giving me pause.

This is an example of what concerns me. While you MAY NOT be doing this, I have no reason to ASSUME you are being sincere when you feign Socratic ignorance but then conveniently add these claims. It is a form of rhetoric that suggests one is prying for information of others to exploit them for some uncertain purpose.

I am as 'entertained' to witness it but also not willing to continue with someone who appears mostly capable of learning on their own. With your language background, you appear sufficiently 'well-read' and it begs why you would not have then studied science independently for the degree of interest in these topics as you do.

You also appear to be 'female' in HOW you respond too contrary to the "Ken" you originally claimed to have been. I'm not interested in looking too deep into your words or style but I get an uncertain vibe that something is off and I can't put my finger on it. Regardless, I don't have time to keep investing in something you both claim to be ignorant of AND not ignorant of (That "Truth of things" being so EASY for you to find.)

I don't dislike you and, as I've said before, I could be wrong (as you often add); but I do not want to continue where I think you should be able to figure it out independently and where I don't seem to be gaining ground almost 100% of the time. If it is just me, so be it. I have my own theory to work on and a lot of other things that I can be doing. I know 'expansion' as presented is problematic on a logic level. But this means you have to step back into logic and things like set theory, math, history of science, and more. There is just too much ground to cover prior to speaking on this topic.
To me, the so called expansion of the Universe is just an observed phenomona. The fact that optical illusions exist is enough, for me, to never trust observations alone as being 'evidence' for some thing.

Does no one else find it a coincidence that when observing the Universe that the closer objects are to some individual observers, then the Universe does not appear to be expanding, and that it is only when looking further afield then the said "discovery" that the Universe is expanding, first came about?

This ASSUMPTION fitted in nicely with the other ASSUMPTION and/or BELIEF being held, which was that the Universe "began".

There might be a very simple explanation for these coincidences, which i am yet aware of, and hopefully someone here in this forum will enlighten me to, but from my perspective there seems to a very big correlation between human beings inventing and creating tools so that they can see further out into the Universe, with the idea that the Universe is expanding, coming with ability to observe further out into the Universe. The further human beings are able to look out also, the rate of expansion is said to be increasing as well.

As human beings are able to observer further and further out all the time, coincidently the rate of expansion is said to be increasing all the time as well, so to is the said date of the big bang said to have happened later on, or earlier, depending on which way you look at it this. The date of the big bang changes with the proposed changed rate of expansion, which changes with the distance human beings are able to look and see further afield.

So, the further humans beings look out into the Universe the rate of expansion increases, and therefore the predicated date of the big bang decreases. All of this, I say, is calculated on so called "observed evidence", or in other words an 'optical illusion'.

Obviously the further afield human beings make observations from, then what IS being observed is what WAS happening. And what WAS happening, is obviously NOT necessarily what IS happening, now.

This combined with the FACT that only a proportion of the actual Universe is actually being observed is enough evidence, well for me anyway, that for human beings to jump to a conclusion that 'the Universe IS expanding' is REALLY just an ASSUMPTION and/or BELIEF, based solely on NO actual real conclusive evidence yet, but rather on just actual optical illusion, just like a flat Earth and a sun revolving around the earth are optical illusions also. What is first seen on first glance, or when first LOOKED AT, is NOT necessarily the actual and real Truth of things. This Truth is SEEN and UNDERSTOOD, when what IS LOOKED AT from the Truly OPEN perspective.
Why had you not said this as clearly before? I'm fine with this. It's appropriate to default to this without evidence and it coincides much with my own interpretation. I am not a Big Bang advocate and hold to a Steady State interpretation. What we cannot do is rule out a possible origin. I agree that what we see though is not sufficient for the reasons I've always been arguing: that you require knowing specifically that there IS or ISN'T anything beyond the singularity in order to assert a beginning to our Universe.

There is a lot more against it but I take a further step into what you keep dismissing as rational: that to assume nothing is equivalent to everything being assumable. For Totality, you CAN assume nothing that 'causes' everything. But it has to be 'absolute'. Then each possible world exists as like pixels on monitor screens that exhaustively cover every possible type of image, most of which would make no sensible image whatsoever.

Age
Posts: 3302
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

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

Post by Age » Fri May 10, 2019 6:25 am

surreptitious57 wrote:
Fri May 10, 2019 2:27 am
Age wrote:
only a proportion of the actual Universe is actually being observed is enough evidence well for me anyway that for human beings to jump to
a conclusion that the Universe IS expanding is REALLY just an ASSUMPTION and / or BELIEF based solely on NO actual real conclusive evidence
Only the observable Universe can be seen to be expanding and nothing else
So no claim can be made about anything which lies beyond that boundary
Which is MY VERY POINT.

Age
Posts: 3302
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

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

Post by Age » Fri May 10, 2019 6:40 am

surreptitious57 wrote:
Fri May 10, 2019 2:39 am
Age wrote:
So if you can observe a sun revolving around a planet that you are standing on is that evidence that that sun revolves around that planet then
It would be in theory but in reality how could a larger object of mass orbit a smaller object of mass
But what you KNOW 'now' is NOT what I am questioning.

You stated; 'Evidence' actually has to be capable of observation.

If, and when, before you KNEW that Truth of things, then was the observing of the sun revolving around the earth, which was obviously capable of observation, "evidence" of such?
surreptitious57 wrote:
Fri May 10, 2019 2:39 am
Stars have significantly greater mass than planets and so they naturally attract those smaller bodies
The Universe is significantly greater than some human beings realize. Adult human beings mostly LOOK FROM a significantly limited brain, and so can only SEE a limited perspective of things, but that does NOT make the Universe limited, and expanding, also.

Until human beings come to KNOW certain facts, they have a tendency to only VIEW things, from from what they observe, AND from a VERY limited perspective also.

Facts and KNOWING revel the Truth of things. Not only just what is observed.

surreptitious57
Posts: 3517
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

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

Post by surreptitious57 » Sat May 11, 2019 8:12 am

Age wrote:
the observing of the sun revolving around the earth
The Sun has never revolved around Earth - it was only assumed to be - and this
was based on the entirely false belief that Earth was the centre of the Universe

Age
Posts: 3302
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

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

Post by Age » Sat May 11, 2019 9:21 am

surreptitious57 wrote:
Sat May 11, 2019 8:12 am
Age wrote:
the observing of the sun revolving around the earth
The Sun has never revolved around Earth - it was only assumed to be - and this
was based on the entirely false belief that Earth was the centre of the Universe
So, MORE evidence of WHY it is better to NEVER assume nor believe any thing, that is; if you really do want to find the actual Truth of things.

Also, the observed so called "said/suggested" "evidence" was that the sun revolved around the earth, which is just ANOTHER example of how 'observational evidence' is NOT what should be gauged for as the actual facts of things.

The 'expanding Universe's is also only assumed to be the case, and this is partly based on the entirely false believe that the Universe began.

The 'Universe is expanding' will fall to the way side like 'the sun revolving the earth' did and the 'flat Earth' belief also. Both have been SHOWN to WRONG, just like the expanding Universe theory and belief WILL.

Age
Posts: 3302
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

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

Post by Age » Wed May 15, 2019 2:16 pm

Scott Mayers wrote:
Fri May 10, 2019 4:38 am
Age wrote:
Fri May 10, 2019 12:52 am
Scott Mayers wrote:
Thu May 09, 2019 9:10 am


Besides the lack of recognizing anything 'learned' by you, it is when you add these esoteric like statements with terms that sound as though they've come from some cult that is giving me pause.

This is an example of what concerns me. While you MAY NOT be doing this, I have no reason to ASSUME you are being sincere when you feign Socratic ignorance but then conveniently add these claims. It is a form of rhetoric that suggests one is prying for information of others to exploit them for some uncertain purpose.

I am as 'entertained' to witness it but also not willing to continue with someone who appears mostly capable of learning on their own. With your language background, you appear sufficiently 'well-read' and it begs why you would not have then studied science independently for the degree of interest in these topics as you do.

You also appear to be 'female' in HOW you respond too contrary to the "Ken" you originally claimed to have been. I'm not interested in looking too deep into your words or style but I get an uncertain vibe that something is off and I can't put my finger on it. Regardless, I don't have time to keep investing in something you both claim to be ignorant of AND not ignorant of (That "Truth of things" being so EASY for you to find.)

I don't dislike you and, as I've said before, I could be wrong (as you often add); but I do not want to continue where I think you should be able to figure it out independently and where I don't seem to be gaining ground almost 100% of the time. If it is just me, so be it. I have my own theory to work on and a lot of other things that I can be doing. I know 'expansion' as presented is problematic on a logic level. But this means you have to step back into logic and things like set theory, math, history of science, and more. There is just too much ground to cover prior to speaking on this topic.
To me, the so called expansion of the Universe is just an observed phenomona. The fact that optical illusions exist is enough, for me, to never trust observations alone as being 'evidence' for some thing.

Does no one else find it a coincidence that when observing the Universe that the closer objects are to some individual observers, then the Universe does not appear to be expanding, and that it is only when looking further afield then the said "discovery" that the Universe is expanding, first came about?

This ASSUMPTION fitted in nicely with the other ASSUMPTION and/or BELIEF being held, which was that the Universe "began".

There might be a very simple explanation for these coincidences, which i am yet aware of, and hopefully someone here in this forum will enlighten me to, but from my perspective there seems to a very big correlation between human beings inventing and creating tools so that they can see further out into the Universe, with the idea that the Universe is expanding, coming with ability to observe further out into the Universe. The further human beings are able to look out also, the rate of expansion is said to be increasing as well.

As human beings are able to observer further and further out all the time, coincidently the rate of expansion is said to be increasing all the time as well, so to is the said date of the big bang said to have happened later on, or earlier, depending on which way you look at it this. The date of the big bang changes with the proposed changed rate of expansion, which changes with the distance human beings are able to look and see further afield.

So, the further humans beings look out into the Universe the rate of expansion increases, and therefore the predicated date of the big bang decreases. All of this, I say, is calculated on so called "observed evidence", or in other words an 'optical illusion'.

Obviously the further afield human beings make observations from, then what IS being observed is what WAS happening. And what WAS happening, is obviously NOT necessarily what IS happening, now.

This combined with the FACT that only a proportion of the actual Universe is actually being observed is enough evidence, well for me anyway, that for human beings to jump to a conclusion that 'the Universe IS expanding' is REALLY just an ASSUMPTION and/or BELIEF, based solely on NO actual real conclusive evidence yet, but rather on just actual optical illusion, just like a flat Earth and a sun revolving around the earth are optical illusions also. What is first seen on first glance, or when first LOOKED AT, is NOT necessarily the actual and real Truth of things. This Truth is SEEN and UNDERSTOOD, when what IS LOOKED AT from the Truly OPEN perspective.
Why had you not said this as clearly before?
Because as I have clearly said before, I am slow and simple, and I am just here to learn how to communicate/express myself better. I am NOT here to communicate/express myself better.

Obviously if I knew how to say this clearly before, then I would have. But because I am very slow and simple in learning how to communicate with human beings, and be UNDERSTOOD, it is taking me so long, and so much longer than I wish, to just learn how to write clearly in a way for them.

Also, why I have NOT said this as clearly before is because I have been waiting for people to ask me some CLARIFYING questions. If people do NOT ask me what they want clarified, then how would I KNOW what to say clearly?

I have been saying that EVERY thing I say can be explained very simply and easily, but because EVERY human being LOOKS AT and SEES things differently, then to explain some thing in a very simple and easy way to one person may NOT be in a very simple and easy way for any other person. I can only clarify and explain 'THAT' what a person wants clarified and explained. EVERY person is at different levels or stages of knowing, and learning, and so there is NOT one way to explain things, which could be very easily and simply UNDERSTOOD by EVERY one. Or not one way that I know of YET. But remain OPEN to learning how to better communicate 'that' what I want to express.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Fri May 10, 2019 4:38 am
I'm fine with this. It's appropriate to default to this without evidence and it coincides much with my own interpretation.
You are fine with 'what' exactly?

And, you find it 'appropriate' to default to 'what' exactly also, without evidence?
Scott Mayers wrote:
Fri May 10, 2019 4:38 am
I am not a Big Bang advocate and hold to a Steady State interpretation.
But WHY 'hold' to any thing if you are NOT yet absolutely clear if it is even true, right, and/or correct yet?

I prefer to just LOOK AT what IS, instead of advocating for one thing or another or holding onto any particular thing.

I found the actual and real Truth is held within what IS anyway. Making theories, assumptions, and/or models of what COULD BE, only twists, distorts, detracts, and deflects one's VISION away from what IS actually Real and True. This can be CLEARLY SEEN and OBSERVED throughout this whole forum and throughout whole of human history as well.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Fri May 10, 2019 4:38 am
What we cannot do is rule out a possible origin.
The Truth is 'we' (human beings) can do any thing. Some people rule it out, while some rule it in. What I ask is, WHY rule it in or out EVER?

Until you have absolute irrefutable evidence that either one is a fact WHY NOT just remain OPEN to both and ALL ideas and views?

In fact, even when, and IF, you do find out and KNOW what the actual Truth IS either way, then WHY NOT still just remain completely OPEN?

WHY EVER assume, believe or disbelieve any thing? What actual purpose does doing any of them hold for you?
Scott Mayers wrote:
Fri May 10, 2019 4:38 am
I agree that what we see though is not sufficient for the reasons I've always been arguing: that you require knowing specifically that there IS or ISN'T anything beyond the singularity in order to assert a beginning to our Universe.
And this is where 'logical reasoning' comes into play. Is it a fact that every action causes a reaction, and, that there is cause and effect?

If yes, then obviously there IS some thing beyond the singularity, which also infers that there could NOT be beginning to THE Universe. (The word 'our' implies we have some sort of ownership of the Universe, which 'we' human beings certainly do NOT.)

However, if no, then just use logical reasons and explain how NOT every action causes a reaction and/or how there is NOT cause and effect. Once that is logically explained, then the assumption/belief that there is a beginning to the Universe could be LOOKED AT. Until then from what I have OBSERVED and SEEN and UNDERSTOOD , there is OBVIOUSLY NO beginning and was NO end.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Fri May 10, 2019 4:38 am
There is a lot more against it but I take a further step into what you keep dismissing as rational: that to assume nothing is equivalent to everything being assumable.
But, to me, 'to assume nothing' is nonsensical to begin with. I CAN 'not assume any thing', but I do NOT know how to 'assume nothing'. CAN you see the difference here? I know how to 'not make any assumptions', but I do NOT know how to 'make an assumption of no thing'.

Also, OF COURSE, 'everything being assumable' is possible. Any adult human being COULD assume absolutely any and everything, if they so choose to do that.

I just choose to NOT assume any thing at all. Which to remind you is NOT 'to assume nothing'.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Fri May 10, 2019 4:38 am
For Totality, you CAN assume nothing that 'causes' everything.
Yes I CAN, if I so choose to. I just choose NOT TO. If 'you' choose to assume that, then you are free to do so. But I will just continue to ask WHY do you want to?

How does choosing to assume some thing BEFORE you have any actual evidence and/or facts for 'it' help you in anyway DISCOVERING what the actual and real Truth IS?

Besides the question of; WHY would I want to choose such a thing as absolutely EVERY thing was 'caused' from absolutely NO thing at all? I ALREADY KNOW how, (and why, for that matter), Totality IS 'caused' and 'created' anyway.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Fri May 10, 2019 4:38 am
But it has to be 'absolute'.
What is the 'it', which you are referring to here?
Scott Mayers wrote:
Fri May 10, 2019 4:38 am
Then each possible world exists as like pixels on monitor screens that exhaustively cover every possible type of image, most of which would make no sensible image whatsoever.
But it ALL makes sense, that is; when you KNOW how to LOOK AT the big and whole picture, for what It Truly IS.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest