uwot wrote: ↑Fri Mar 15, 2019 8:27 pm
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Fri Mar 15, 2019 6:32 pmI respect your efforts of expression in your book, but disagree with the Big Bang theory on logical grounds.
Which version of the Big Bang theory do you think is illogical? All the evidence suggests that the universe is expanding. If that is the case, then it follows that it used to be smaller, but where do you draw the line and say the universe was
this big and complex when it started? Bertrand Russell made the point that there is nothing illogical about the proposition that the universe came into being five minutes ago, complete with the holes in his socks. Logic is about the structure of arguments, it simply doesn't apply to the premises.
The expanding universe is still part of the Steady State theory. It is what initially suggested it in contrast to that Big Bang, an "approach" that could never be reached. Funny that some have reinvented this point back INTO the Big Bang when it was a Steady State concept. But it is also the first point to which the theory cannot be 'falsified'.
I recognize the function of validity versus soundness to logic. Logic is a 'machine' though and still just as real if you have exhausted all options in a given fixed set for inputs. [Like that the Universe is either 'originated' in Absolutely Nothing, Something (absolute or relative] or Absolutely infinite.]
uwot wrote: ↑Fri Mar 15, 2019 8:27 pm
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Fri Mar 15, 2019 6:32 pmI believe it has to be political because of how the Steady State was treated unusually.
It is true that Fred Hoyle, who coined the phrase, objected to the 'Big Bang Theory' because it implied a 'moment of creation', and was first proposed by a Catholic priest. But what specific action against steady state theory are you referring to?
It begins on the assumption that time as well as space should be defaulted to appear relatively the same [Perfect Cosmological principle]. That is, given we trust our senses, and all we have initially to investigate reality with 'empirically', we can't allow interpretations to go beyond our capacity or it is not science.
Time also moves with space or the given speed of light would have to have different 'speeds' through time.
v = d/t
You cannot presume that a 0/0 = v let alone an infinite instance of size to the Universe from a singularity. This suffices in two logical ways along with our 'empirical' experience: What should be interpreted at best is that as we look deeper into space, light must travel at faster than local speeds BY OUR PERSPECTIVE, to maintain 'c' as a maximum speed limit. That for every distance per unit time going back also, if there really was a real singularity, it that measure of distance AND time has to be in sync such that the further we look in space, as the apparent velocity increases, it must be interpreted to do so along with a 'stretched' time of that space. You should still not be able to reach that singularity.
Proof that this is being hidden 'politically' is to hold strong to an "age of the Universe". I know some have also added to BB "the age of the observable universe". This along with instantaneous expansion from zero space but fixed time should again close off any arguments supporting the BB. But it didn't. Note too that inflation theory was added only in the 1980s. Also, the space would AT LEAST REQUIRE exponential acceleration yet only gets conveniently noticed in 1999. [It was already not ruled out by Steady State]
uwot wrote: ↑Fri Mar 15, 2019 8:27 pm
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Fri Mar 15, 2019 6:32 pmThe INTERPRETATION of those who maintain the meaning of the CMBR, for instance as an 'empirical' closure to the Steady State theory, is causally 'weak' (via induction and other poor logic linking these) while the Big Bang is NOT allowed to be challenged even on strong deductive grounds.
It is no different to any scientific hypothesis in that regard. Deduction has its place in science, but it is completely subordinate to evidence.
My point is about the interpretation. The excuse that treats the
appearance of a phenomena or radiation at some great distance to be NOT a function of Steady State's theory can't dislodge it as it is claimed. There are other possibilities. Just because some proponents 'predicted' a hot origin doesn't assure this phenomena is equivalent to such.
I also have to point out that objects further out SHOULD be brighter and look different (as quasars) for the point above and so should
appear to indicate a difference of the appearance of them.
uwot wrote: ↑Fri Mar 15, 2019 8:27 pm
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Fri Mar 15, 2019 6:32 pmI can't present my own proofs anywhere without them being successfully deleted or hidden.
So present them here and I personally guarantee that they will not be deleted or hidden.
Thank you. I am. I have introduced parts of it here before already. But my point was about some science forums. (online, that is.)
I'm going to expand on it in a thread I just opened point by point.
The Universe's Wall. If I can establish agreement bit by bit then I might be able to demonstrate this both logically and empirically. Little in the way of new observations are required, ONLY interpretation.
As to logic, besides the example about one such
apriori that can be used above, I expanded upon that before here I believe under some title, like "How 'many' facts are there in Totality". If it wasn't here, I'll reopen a thread as this will be required as well.