Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Mon Apr 22, 2019 7:42 am
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.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Mon Apr 22, 2019 10:56 amAge wrote: ↑Mon Apr 22, 2019 9:22 amFrom 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.
Yes, today's model has gone beyond the original theory and so it could be possible to have multiple 'bangs', etc. I'm trying to do here what you wanted on having less assumptions. Let's try to reconstruct the history of science on this before the Big Bang or Steady State theories as known.
Okay.
The history that you provided so far, which we have been LOOKING AT, is revealing some great insights into WHERE these ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS, which some human beings have and continue to hold onto, actually came from.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Mon Apr 22, 2019 10:56 am
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.
It is now being more carefully said by many that we are speaking of the "observable Universe though in the past people didn't even know that galaxies were anything but fuzzy-looking stars until Hubble, who is also the one to observe the evidence for expansion.
So,
what IS the actual evidence for 'expansion'? AND, what EXACTLY IS supposedly EXPANDING?
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Mon Apr 22, 2019 10:56 am To distinguish between the observable universe and any actual WHOLE, I prefer the term "Totality" to encompass this. This would just be the label of anything and everything whether we know it or not. Some prefer to use the word "Cosmos" as it doesn't have that "uni-" part that asserts only ONE and the "-verse" which some may confuse with the act of speaking (as in 'verses').
Okay, if that is what you prefer, then let us use them. So, is the 'observable universe' expanding or is Totality expanding?
If it is one but NOT the other, then how is this possible?
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Mon Apr 22, 2019 10:56 amWe don't NEED to know the literal facts of the Cosmos but it helps us find unified theories of the large as well as small so that we can use it for actual technology or simply out of speculative interest. Totality to me is actually more literally in favor of your 'assume nothing' concern. In fact, it could be true that absolutely everything exists but just separated into distinct universes and why you can at least trust that your thinking still applies to the whole (Totality).
I am NOT SURE what is with the 'trust' 'your thinking' 'applies' mean to the whole.
From what I have observed the VIEW I have now is Totality is infinite and eternal, and if there are separate and distinct different 'universes', whatever they may be, which you will have to define, since you made them this way, and if there are these now separate and distinctly different areas/regions of Totality, then what do you propose could possibly separate them?
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 10:56 am
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".
You are jumping way ahead here. If you want to not assume anything, ignore the Black holes for now.
Okay but why ignore them?
Is it said that it is a fact that light can NOT escape from a black hole. Is this correct or not?
Also, if you NOT wanting to LOOK AT and/or discuss what I have been just been POINTING OUT, then that is one thing. But there is NO jumping ahead here, which I can SEE. I do, however, OBSERVE a reluctance to LOOK AT these things I am pointing out and SHOWING.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Mon Apr 22, 2019 7:42 am
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, ...
This IS what I've done. But if you understand the meanings of 'assuming nothing', it also MEANS to assume
absolutely everything possible as well, until you can prove otherwise.
In a sense I agree.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Mon Apr 22, 2019 10:56 amI think this is what you need to try to understand. Just as zero times anything is still zero OR that dividing by zero leads to an infinity confusion,
To whom?
Where is the actual confusion in that?
Also, if you give up on TRYING TO use the only thing that you have, which you believe/hope backs up and supports your ALREADY held BELIEF, then we can start moving forward and away from being stuck here where we are.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Mon Apr 22, 2019 10:56 amassuming nothing is indifferent to assuming absolutely everything. I don't disagree with your meaning. I already went through this phase you are going through in questioning this myself as have others within science and philosophy since ancient times to today.
If it was only a phase that you went through, then does that mean you have come out of it, and now have started ASSUMING things again?
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Mon Apr 22, 2019 10:56 amReality by each of us is 'subjective' and can only be convened among other beings to agree or disagree whether we share the same views. But we still don't KNOW this. We 'assume' this.
This may be what 'you' ASSUME but it is NOT what I assume at all.
To me, 'reality' is KNOWN, just like Truth is KNOWN. These came about from NOT ASSUMING nor BELIEVING any thing. The 'subjective' and/or 'objective' nature of ALL of this is a discussion another time, possibly in another thread, but you seem to be drifting away from the answer question at hand here. That is; Is Totality actually expanding or not?
You have used some "olbers paradox" to make a point. I asked some clarifying questions regarding that. But as usual these questions are NOT being answered.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Mon Apr 22, 2019 10:56 am Otherwise, you have to assume that I don't exist except in your mind.
Now, you are taking this so far off track that it will really start becoming harder to bring it back.
For your information, and once again, I do NOT 'HAVE TO' assume any thing. If 'you' want to talk about 'I' existing or NOT, then you will have to explain and answer the question Who am 'I'? Are you up to that yet? And, if you want to continue down this seeming never-ending distracting and off track path, please explain EXACTLY what the 'Mind' IS?
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Mon Apr 22, 2019 10:56 am And further, can you NOT assume your own existence?
So, you bring up some thing that has just about NOTHING WHATSOEVER about what we WERE discussing, and then ask say things as ridiculous as this.
I will TRY TO bring this back. Is Totality expanding or not?
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Mon Apr 22, 2019 10:56 am I already agree to your meaning but the area of "epistemology" (knowledge) and "ontology" (reality) have begun with these questions and something distinct to discuss then the Universe. If you want to open or read likely many threads on 'assumption' open up a distinct thread on this question alone as we cannot get past your concern here alone.
You CAN ASSUME whatever you like. I am obviously NOT stopping you nor do I even want to. I just found it much more helpful in SEEING the Truth of things.
What do you think/assume/believe IS expanding EXACTLY?
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Mon Apr 22, 2019 10:56 am
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?
A "paradox" is "any APPARENT contradiction of reality".
That is from your, subjective, perspective. From my, subjective, perspective 'paradox' means a seemingly absurd or contradictory statement or proposition which when investigated does prove to be well founded or true.
So, which one do you propose is the, objective, and ACTUAL and REAL Truth?
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Mon Apr 22, 2019 10:56 amRelative to reality, realty already knows itself apart from our perception of it alone. The paradox is derived from Greek for meaning any more than one real truth when expecting something unique OR beyond what we know that seems confusing by its appearance.
Agreed.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Mon Apr 22, 2019 10:56 amIt is only an apparent fact assuming you look and notice something is in conflict with other things you know. Some here might presume you a 'paradox'
as you might them for finding something contradicting but WITHOUT resolution. (I'm just making fun, only)
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Mon Apr 22, 2019 10:56 am
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.
The 'paradox' is one unless one understands the problem AND some resolution to it. Obler's paradox is an argument about the assumption IF a 'static' universe exists and the argument expressing that light would be seen everywhere if that is in fact the proper reality. The original paradox also existed when no one knew that light had a fixed speed. So the original paradox was also about expressing a question without assuming light had a fixed speed.
So what?
Now, it was either a 'paradox' or an 'argument'. Decide on which one, and then get back to me.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Mon Apr 22, 2019 7:42 amAfter it was determined that light was limited, the question was then extended to be about why light should not fall through all spots without initial concern about absorption. Then, when absorption was thought of, this too was overthrown as a possibility because energy then was 'assumed' conserved. The point is that this is a historical paradox that only HINTS at something wrong under consideration of other assumptions UNTIL a new fact is revealed to repair it. If that one is corrected and another factor comes to light that reinstates it, it again needs another factor to resolve that. This paradox is NOT the significant factor of expansion and was treated as skeptical as you are now. So just take this puzzle as just the first step in making you question things as the history of science does in expressing it.
I am not sure what you are getting at here.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Mon Apr 22, 2019 7:42 am
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.
You are asking some of the same questions that the scientists have asked. The distribution is an 'assumption'. This is part of what is called the "
Cosmological Principle" and is the appropriate question to deal with here.
Usually when people put links to "others" writings, that means they do NOT KNOW how to just express it simply and easily, themselves, which might be because they do NOT understand it themselves.
I asked three very basic simple clarifying questions regarding this supposedly Totality would be lit up like day ALL the time proposition. They are;
1. If light diminishes with distance, then could that explain WHY the "sky" is NOT lit up like daytime all the time nor evenly spread out EVERY where?
2. If light can NOT escape black holes, then there could that by WHY there are patches/spots of "sky" that are NOT lit up like daytime all the time and evenly spread out EVERY where?
3. If there are NOT objects distribute evenly EVERY where, from which light could be reflected, then could that explain WHY the "sky" is NOT lit up all the time and evenly EVERY where? (Or maybe there are objects which are blocking light from being reached on earth, which is causing NOT a lit up like daytime "sky" all of the time?)
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Mon Apr 22, 2019 7:42 amI don't know what you mean by "This can all be explained very simply and easily in more detail if any one is really interested."
This means that if any one is Really and Truly interested, then they would be asking clarifying questions to me to SEE if I can actually do what I am proposing I can do.
If some is Really and Truly interested, then that means they are Truly curious to SEE and DISCOVER if there is actually some thing new or more that could actually be discovered and/or learned, and NOT ASSUMING nor BELIEVING that they ALREADY have the answers.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Mon Apr 22, 2019 7:42 amYou said this before and seem to be stating that you have a theory with perfect closure.
If you have been taking NOTICE I have been stating it with such confidence that I have been stating that it is NOT even a theory at all, but rather a Truth that brings closure to and of the theory of Everything and the Unified theory, as well as answering ALL of the meaningful questions in Life.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Mon Apr 22, 2019 7:42 am If so, that's fine. But why mention it if you aren't actually intending to speak it?
But WHY do YOU ASSUME that I am am NOT actually intending to speak it?
I can NOT just provide answers to questions that are NOT asked.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Mon Apr 22, 2019 7:42 amYou then at a point before said after I questioned you on this that you had no theory nor interest.
Did I say I had NO interest or NO 'real' interest in this? (with 'this' being just if the Universe (or Totality for you) is infinite or not). 'This' is just a small part of what I am Truly interest in.
And, a 'theory' is just more or less a supposition, idea, belief without proof, assumption, or hypothesis about what COULD BE. So, I have NO theory, but what I do have are VIEWS of
what IS.
What IS is the Truth of things, which is REVEALED, discovered and/or learned IN
what IT IS that is in agreement with and by ALL.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Mon Apr 22, 2019 7:42 am Again, if you still hold this, why say it at all?
Can you now SEE just how much your ASSUMPTION of what I meant IS ACTUALLY completely different from what I ACTUALLY MEANT?
This is WHAT HAPPENS when things are ASSUMED.
Now instead of HOLDING ONTO this ASSUMPTION, and LOOKING AT and SEEING my writings from this ASSUMED perspective, and instead just asked me a clarifying questions in the beginning like: Do you have a theory with perfect closure? And, Do you really have no theory nor interest? Then ALL of this would have cleared up way much earlier and the Truth would have been KNOWN much earlier also.
Finding/discovering the Truth of things really is that simple, easy, and quick.
The Truth about simple things like whether Totality is infinite or finite, eternal or beginning, et cetera can also be discovered, found, or learned in the exact same very simple, easy, and quick was as well. That is IF any one is Truly interested in KNOWING them.