Immanuel Can wrote: ↑
Wed Mar 13, 2019 4:44 pm
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑
Wed Mar 13, 2019 3:14 pm
Unfortunately, if I am correct about what the OP is asserting, the LOGIC alone suffices to remove the Big Bang theory and with priority to any discounting of its alternative Steady State model. It IS
political because of this very factor.
I suggest it doesn't. Even if right, the BB theory is not really an answer to the question of final causes. It allows a prior question: "What was the cause of the BB?" This puts us on an infinite-regress pattern of causes.
We can simplify the field very easily. There are only two options: either the universe itself had a cause, or it had none. If it's the former, time is linear. If it's the latter, only a cyclical model of time will eliminate the original singularity.
So the problem simplifies as: "Is time linear or cyclical?"
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.
Given we have the evidence that space expands,
That's another "given" that argues against any circular model.
...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 Big Bang model falls in the first type (contrary to how many today re-interpret this by stealing some factors of the second class types). The second class are those, such as a Steady State model that treats both components of space and time to require converging IN SYNC with any 'origins'.
For the first class, you require a presumption that both space and time begin at that point literally.
Yes, all linear models would require a start-point.
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.
For either options, this is non-observable in principle.
And "in fact," as well. There were neither human observers nor instruments at that moment. So we are thrown on the strategy of projecting backward from present facts, or we're all in the dark.
Thus the theories of type-1 are non-scientific for violating the rule of empirical evidence of its existence. At that point alone, the Big Bang model is both logically AND scientifically invalidated at the get go.
Well, as I say, the BB is not the Singularity. They have to be distinct events, since even BB theorists believe there were entities like hydrogen, carbon and quark-gluon plasma floating around in a previously-existing universe, so that the BB had some substance with which to work. Nobody actually thinks the BB catalyzed or "invented" itself.
The BB had to happen much later than the Singularity. And about that, there's no rational dispute. So even if we dismiss the BB, that does not help us eliminate the necessity of the Singularity.
For the Steady State types, "steady" refers to the presumption of time and space to remain 'steady' with respect to each other via observable standards. It initiates the principle that all things in time and space have the same physics held steady.
You'll have to parse that out a bit for me in detail. Certain matter and energy haven't "stayed steady" in any observable way. Time hasn't "stayed steady" either. And entropy...well, the one thing that's NOT is "steady," except relatively, at the rate the decline happens.
We at least cannot speak of altered physics unless we abandon faith in our local sense of observations. If, for instance, I cannot see things go faster than the speed of light locally, than even IF physics at other times of the past had such realities, we cannot borrow from what we cannot observe or it is not science we are practicing.
Okay, but you need to recognize that this is entirely suppositional
, not proved. IF we assume
that what we see now is the only way things could ever possibly be, then your further hypothesis might be safe. But what actual reason have we for thinking that the way this universe is is the only way a really-existing thing could ever be? What's our empirical proof that the empirical is all there is and has ever been? (You see the circularity of that, I'm sure.)
Since time and space are in sync with one another,
Well, yes, but only because they are interdependent concepts
, not because they are (anthropomorphically or otherwise) "working together."
...any appearance of it converging is identical to the problem of perception of parallel lines converging to a point at a distance. Thus the logic doesn't rule out Steady State theory AND allows for both the apparent point to have space and time distinctly before OR after, should only space or time distinctly 'ends' there.
You've lost me there. Can you help me out? I don't get that reasoning yet.
Thus, the Big Bang theory HAS to be political.
Why is that the necessary conclusion? As I say, the BB isn't a description of ultimate origins -- the Singularity concept is, and in a linear timescale. So I can't see what "political" implications it has for anyone to back the BB as if it were the final answer. And I really don't think anybody (at least, not anybody who understands the issues) is backing it that way. But you may know different people than I do.
However, I don't think it HAS to be political at all. It could well be that whoever is backing it is doing so because they're a) misunderstanding it, b) not knowing any alternatives, c) listening to somebody else who told them to believe it, or d) just confused. I doubt there's any co-ordinated political effort to foist a BB-Singularity confusion on the general public, even if that may happen sometimes.