Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Wed Mar 13, 2019 9:36 pm
To place an unknown barrier between the singularity only acts to pretend it still exists and yet maintain keeping it hidden.
Oh, there is no "barrier," to be sure.
But the BB is traditionally interpreted two ways: one is as the first big explosion that allegedly created the universe. But that one isn't the ultimate beginning, because it depends on the already-existence of basic elements capable of "explosion." The other way is to mistake it for the ultimate start of the whole universe, including any basic elements. That would be what we ought to call "the Singularity."
We'd be best to keep them totally distinct. But I'm not suggesting a "barrier" is necessary to do that. We just need to understand that the BB isn't a cosmic-origins theory...and when it used as one, it's merely question-begging.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Mar 13, 2019 4:44 pm
When the supposed 'final nail to the coffin' of the Steady State theory was based on a mere interpretation of the Cosmic Background Radiation as 'supporting' the Big Bang model with the added assertion that the Steady State model simply had no explanation for it, this KIND of reasoning suffices to raise suspicion.
I'm not sure why. An infinite-cyclical model does not accord with observable science -- like, as you say, the Red Shift Effect (or even basic entropy). All proposed models for an infinite universe are merely mathematical-conceptual proposals of empirically-unverifiable character. Thus the rejection of the cyclical models seems very reasonable to me. I don't think we need to suppose any great and dark conspiracy behind that.
The 'conspiracy' is precisely the kind that assures most politicians everywhere require being tied to some religious background in order to get elected.
Oh, I find that highly doubtful. Are you suggesting that "being religious" is more likely to get people elected these days? There are an awful lot of counter-examples to that right now. In fact, having any firm "religious" convictions or background is likely to wreck your chances. People with very flexible morals are the ones getting elected right now...at least in North America and in the UK for sure.
That is, it is conventional understanding that if you want funding and support by or for people, the political minimal expectation is to not piss off the religious people's expectations. If science held strong to a theory that threatened religion, it also threatens the foundation of 'faith' in anything and so would not be promoted in most areas.
Oh, I think that's very evidently not so. There is very little (if any) religious influence in science funding these days...at least anywhere I know of. Most Western governments are functionally secular, and almost all the universities are. But maybe you live in a place where that's not so?
Even media dependence on advertising prefers the 'faithful' thinkers as do politicians in times of desired actions calling upon their faith.
I'd really have to say that's all imposture. Every head of state may gesture occasionally in the "religious" direction. Maybe they show up for a "prayer breakfast," or occasionally throw in a "God bless," but in practice they don't make policy based on it. If they do, the press calls them out on it pretty fast.
You don't need a formal handshake of 'conspirators' to conspire.
Actually, for a "conspiracy" you pretty much do.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Mar 13, 2019 4:44 pm
...we have only one of two possible general classes of theories to explain the observation as trusted: (1) Those theories interpreting a actual Singularity in space-time or (2) Those theories expressing only the appearance such that the apparent 'singularity' is an approaching limit via our perspective.
You'll have to explain that second one to me. I'm not sure I'm understanding you there.
The second class of theories are those that only treat the singularity as an illusion....and necessarily so.
Why is that "necessary"?
The first class types literally believe the evidence points to a real singularity in time and space. That is why they assert a unique age of the universe to be 14 Billion years old. The error is in treating time from our perspective of space further out as 'constant' by our local standards. The Steady State theory would hold that as you look further into space, just as it is "expanding" as a measure, you require "expanding" time as well. Note that space/time is also a rate as speed is. So to Steady State theories, 'c' has to be treated constant. When you look to what appears to have a larger space, the time in that apparent space has to be 'stretched' as well or you cheat as to Zeno's paradoxes do. [Zeno's paradoxes of movement, the wall, and Achilles race, all only fail because no actual matter nor space is ever non-moving and the wall and goal posts of Achilles race have a stop in space and time but still have known space and time beyond those points. If the wall was actually the 'end' of the universe, say, we could never 'touch' it because we are bound to be of that space. Similarly, for any singularity-based theory that treats the apparent point as 'real', would require knowing THAT there is more space and/or time before it.
Sounds similar to Hawking's theory in "A Brief History..." But that's been demonstrated untenable, I understand. The mathematics won't work with real numbers.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Mar 13, 2019 4:44 pm
Yes, all linear models would require a start-point.
No they don't. Maybe this is why you thought the other theories were essentially cyclical? The 'starting' point would be an illusion just as the boundary limitations set by a maximum observable universe is fixed to the nature of a fixed speed of light, or, on the atomic level, that we cannot actually have a point with a temperature of 0 K. These kinds of points are "assymptotes". The BB treats the point as real and is dependent upon it. Moving the supposed actual bang AFTER that point is meant to justify placing a fixed amount of material energy in a presumed finite space. AT the singularity no space would mean no matter. So the added convenience of pushing the 'bang' forward is to account for at least
some space to hold that special magical amount of matter.
Hawking's theory?
It's essentially cyclical, because it posits an eternally-existing universe, with cycles of some sort of BB and "Big Crunch." The problems with this remain, though. One is that the amount of matter in the universe has exceeded escape velocity already, relative to everything else. There isn't nearly enough density of matter in the universe to produce any "Big Crunch" anymore.
Or have I missed your point somewhere here?
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Mar 13, 2019 4:44 pm
But for that to be true requires at least either space beyond that point to exist OR time beyond that point to exist, or both, which then simply defaults to assuming an infinite universe.
Well I think, no, actually. If "space" and "time" had any origin, it was simultaneous, and at the moment of the start of the universe, along with "matter." For this would be the way it would work: "matter" (i.e. substances of at least two different kinds) would appear, and at the same time the distance ("space") between those (at least) two distinct particles, and also an interval between the two (i.e. "time") The whole triad would appear at precisely the same instant: and there would be no possibility of speaking of "matter," let alone "space" or "time" having existed prior to that Singularity.
And this is the 'magical' thinking that Hoyle's response referred to. Why would there be a SPECIAL quantity of matter and/or energy be extant?
I don't follow. There's nothing "magical" here: the three are logically entailed. That's pretty "unmagical," as descriptions go. It's hardly even surprising.
The special pleading that there is required going from no space and time to an immediate quantified jump to a minimal space with a fixed amount of energy. It's a DISCRETE jump, not continuous. This brings in a 'god' feature to the theory because it isn't even observably possible to assert.
Oh, I see. No, it's a straightforward deduction, based on the assumption that ordinary cause-and-effect chains, and things like normal entropy, have been in play since the beginning of the universe. That may not be a provable assumption, but it's certainly the most reasonable one -- unless new data comes in to show that it's not. Until that time, we'd be best to stay with it, I think.