Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Mon Apr 22, 2019 7:42 am
Age wrote: ↑Sun Apr 21, 2019 8:03 am
What EXACTLY do you think my view IS?
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Sun Apr 21, 2019 3:36 amYou cannot hold the Big Bang interpretation AND a Static one simultaneously.
WHY can you NOT hold a big bang interpretation AND a static one simultaneously? The two are very compatible to me.
And this is why you are severely contradictory. The Big Bang was named precisely because it presumed a sudden instantaneous entry (beginning) of all matter and space in the Universe as a "BANG!".
Okay, fair enough. IF that is WHY you can NOT hold them both simultaneously, then that explains it.
WHENEVER the words "big bang" are used in relation to the Universe, then they ONLY refer to an "ORIGIN" to the Universe. Is this correct?
If yes, then I OBVIOUSLY do NOT hold the big bang interpretation AT ALL.
From what I have observed, there was a bang, and relatively to us on earth it was a pretty big one too. However, from what I SEE, this was only one of possibly many bangs, which could happen, relatively, quite frequently. That bang, to me, however, may well have been where the singularity of ALL matter was, or where the singularity of some matter was. But when that singularity went bang, then that matter expanded. This bang explanation is VERY compatible with and can be held simultaneously with an infinite and eternal Universe. If, HOWEVER, any one wants to ASSUME and suggest that that WAS the origin, as in cause/creation, of ALL matter and space, then that is a completely separate and different issue. Doing that would put the PRE-SUMPTION before the actual and real FACT.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Mon Apr 22, 2019 7:42 amBoth The Big Bang and Steady State theories are 'expansion' theories based upon the evidence and interpretation of an expanding universe.
But WHERE is the "evidence", which affected the "interpretation, that the Universe is expanding.
WHERE is the actual "evidence" that the Universe is expanding? And what do you mean by "expansion" theories based upon the evidence and interpretation of an "expanding universe". WHAT came first? Evidence that the Universe, Itself, is expanding, OR, theories that the Universe, Itself, is expanding?
The MORE I LOOK into this the MORE I can SEE how so easily and simply human beings have become so confused about what IS the actual and real Truth.
Of course when things go off with a bang, they expand, this is obviously True, and which can be clearly seen when LOOKING back during the past 14 billion or so years. But this expansion, as I explained previously, in relative size and time could be ALL happening within a soccer ball that has been forgotten about and laying in some "kids" backyard, thus has not moved for the last 14 billion or so years. (When it is found it could be said things will be shaken up).
But just because the observable universe LOOKS like and/or IS expanding, this has NOTHING whatsoever to do with what the Universe, Itself, COULD BE like.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Mon Apr 22, 2019 7:42 amBut let's stick with the Obler's paradox for the moment.
Okay.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Mon Apr 22, 2019 7:42 am The nature of the explanation provided by the Wikipedia link explains this clearly. The paradox is resolved IF space expanded.
But there was NO paradox in the beginning, none that i could see anyway. Just because some people ASSUME that the Universe would be completely lit up if the Universe is infinite, then that does NOT mean that this would, or could, actually happen.
The very FACT that black holes exist AND the very FACT that light does diminish over distance, (contrary to the BELIEF of some) could well, literally, SHOW HOW the WHOLE Universe could NOT be evenly lit up.
Another FACT that could well SHOW that this ASSUMPTION that the Universe "should be" as bright as day ALWAYS could be WRONG is that there may well be NO stars at all beyond a certain point at or past the observable universe anyway. ALL matter after all could well have been in the singularity that went of with a bang, which was just ALL of the matter that once was expanding but then contracted back onto itself, "once again".
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Mon Apr 22, 2019 7:42 am It's not the best evidence but as the first in line of this type of thinking, it was what introduced the idea of an expansion possibility.
So, you are telling me, that the "idea" of an "expansion possibility" could well be made on some thing that does NOT even resemble any sort of truth to begin with. Well that helps in explaining more and a lot.
As I keep saying it is BEST to NOT ASSUME any thing at all, and considering the olber's ASSUMPTION was the first in line of this type of ASSUMPTION thinking, then this is further proof of just WHY human beings are PREVENTED from SEEING the actual and real Truth of things.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Mon Apr 22, 2019 7:42 amNOW, had you presumed that ONLY what we observe in our particular space is all there is and no more, this would be 'finite', something that might potentially resolve the paradox
But I do NOT like to PRESUME any thing, for the actual EVIDENCE that has been produced by PRESUMING things BEFORE the actual and real Truth and FACTS are SEEN and KNOWN.
Even even IF what is observed where ALL-THERE-IS the OBVIOUS FACT that there is space (distance) around objects, and that the furthermost of ALL objects still HAS space out PAST IT, which OBVIOUSLY could NOT have a limit to it SHOWS that the Universe is STILL 'infinite', and NOT 'finite' at all.
IF there NEEDS to be a resolution to the "paradox", then the "paradox" NEEDS to be proven as being even somewhat True to begin with. A version of the "olbers-paradox", which I have read, BEGINS:
IF stars are distributed evenly throughout an infinite universe, the sky should be as bright by night as by day, since more distant stars would be fainter but more numerous.
Now, is this an unambiguous FACT, which can NOT be refuted?
If no, then there is NOTHING to "resolve" YET.
If yes, then WHAT EVIDENCE IS THERE that stars are distributed evenly throughout an infinite Universe? And, if distance dims light, then WHY would distant stars, although more numerous, be "evenly" distributed AND necessarily effect what is seen in the observable universe by human beings on earth?
Light, after all, can only come from it's own source (stars) or be reflected off of a non bright object, so if there are not evenly distributed stars nor not evenly distributed reflecting objects, within the observable distance of light, which there is NOT, then light would NOT necessarily be dispersed and distributed evenly EVERY where throughout an infinite Universe. Black holes will certainly put a stop to that, right?
If this is correct, then the PRESUMPTION in the "paradox" is NOT even accurate, to begin with, and should be disregarded instead of being accepted as being true.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Mon Apr 22, 2019 7:42 ambut is contrary to your prior stance of an infinite universe. There are other possibilities the paradox may be resolved but I only thought to introduce this as the first 'why' some had inferred the Universe as expanding.
Surely some are NOT just "inferring" the Universe is expanding just based on that obviously illogical so called "paradox" and because some one ASSUMED UP the idea that there was a bang that create all matter and space?
By the way the observable matter expanding from a singularity that went bang is NOT at all contrary to my VIEW that there is an infinite Universe at all. If anything the two are more compatible now, then they were before. But this is ONLY if and when the bang about 14 or so billions of years ago is NOT ASSUMED nor PRESUMED to be the beginning nor origin of Everything-ALL matter and space.
This can all be explained very simply and easily in more detail if any one is really interested.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Mon Apr 22, 2019 7:42 amI'll have to read on to see what you guys discussed as I've missed a day or so. Maybe you already got past this?