Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Wanderer101]

I am new to this forum and I have some nagging questions that I would like to see someone with some knowledge and expertise attempt to answer concerning the strange statements and articles that I read about. Science especially physics nowadays seems stranger by the minute with many stories coming out in the news that seem to me to be completely nonsensical. Hopefully people here can help clear up some of this confusion.

I will kick off the discussion off with a story that really makes me wonder how in the heck they came up with this conclusion.

I am not allowed to post a link yet but this is the title of the article.

'The light of the universe's first fireworks': Amazing new pictures of the moments following the Big Bang

Basically I don’t understand how we could be looking at light from the big bang. Weren’t we part of the big bang and would not the light that came from the big bang precede us out into space. It seems to me that there is something wrong with what this article and what scientists are saying. I can accept that we are looking at light that is 13.7 billion years old. It just does not make sense that what we are looking at is from a time just after the Big Bang. How did we, located here in this part of the Universe, get separated by and ahead of the original light emitted by the Big Bang by 13.7 billion light years? Would that not mean we were traveling faster than the speed of light to get ahead of the initial light created by the expansion? Somehow we would have to travel faster than light to get a big separation from the big bang which would then require the first light emitted from the event to catch up with us 13.7 billion years later. This seems a bit paradoxical. How did we jump ahead of the initial light that came out of the big bang? Can anyone help with this?

[A Poster He or I]

If you buy into General Relativity which predicts the Big Bang, then the expansion of the universe is fourth-dimensional. That means that from our third-dimensional vantage point, anywhere you look is at the vanguard of the ongoing expansion, and the center of the universe (the point from which everything expanded) is right at hand in front of us, but displaced 13.7 billion years into the past. So we are the initial light (just as you thought yourself), just 13.7 billion years older. We are not "ahead" of that light spatially. We are ahead of it temporally: that is, displaced from it in time 13.7 billion years. So all we have to do is look at anything that is far enough away in any direction for its light to have taken 13.7 billion years to reach us from its current position, that is, from a degree of spatial displacement created by 13.7 billion years of 4th-dimensional expansion. If we can see it, then we can be confident we are looking at it while it is still very close (4th-dimensionally speaking) to the center of expansion.

As to why we should not have always been able to see 13.7 billion years' worth of travelling light, the Big Bang model was modified in the 1980s to include an "inflationary" period of expansion in the first second of its existence that occurred much, much faster than light. (Such expansion does not violate Special Relativity's light-speed limit because it is an expansion of space-time, not in space-time). This inflation is admittedly a very ad hoc assumption but it does wonders for explaining empirically observed particulars of the cosmos that otherwise could not be supported by a Big Bang model, including how there could still be light in the universe that hasn't reached us yet.

[Wanderer101]

A Poster He or I

Thanks for your reply. I do buy into General Relativity, so I am with you so far. You lose me a bit on the fourth dimensional expansion. As I am envisioning a 3 dimensional expansion of space and debris from the big bang. You know just like a conventional explosion. I know that is very simplified vision. There are other phases I am leaving out for simplicity sake. The point is what I imagine is some debris going our way and some debris going in the opposite direction. Once again for simplicity sake all of it going away from the origin. It seems to me that the light that is recording the actual big bang goes out in all directions much faster and can never be seen again as it has passed us and is somewhere in deep space. Sorry this is difficult for me to explain. In my mind the light from the galaxy that we see 13.7 billion light years away has taken that long to get to us to see because it left from a location 13.7 billion years separated from us. That galaxy was already 13.7 billion years separate from us distance wise. So it had to leave that far, far away galaxy and travel across space to us. So my point is that at 13.7 billion years ago we already were 13.7 billion light years separated in distance. To me that means the Universe should be a lot older than 13.7 billion light years.

Oh my god this is confusing to state. The way I see it, it took much more than 13.7 billion years for us and the other far away galaxy to separate. Then after we got that far apart, the light from that end of the galaxy traveled to this end to be seen now.

I agree that every where we look is a picture of the ongoing expansion. It does not make sense to me that everywhere we look is center of the Universe. That is not sensible to my mind. How can everywhere we look be the center of an explosion? That is one really big center. I think a lot of people must have the same difficulty seeing what you are describing. Probably most people think like I think about this.

So how did we get ahead of the original or early light from the big bang temporally speaking?

I am sure this next statement is at the crux of my difficulty in understanding this problem.

If we can see it, then we can be confident we are looking at it while it is still very close (4th-dimensionally speaking) to the center of expansion.

I do not see the time as being attached to this expansion. I see the time as independent from the expansion. I see it ticking universally for all items in the expansion from the moment of the explosion, and I see the space and debris just spreading apart from the center.

Please explain in more detail the 4th dimensional expansion concept.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

I don't believe there was light during the first parts of the Big Bang. In the universe, light generally comes from nuclear reactions. The idea of a Big Bang is sort of misnomer, particularly since it was originally meant as a criticism. For one thing, the universe doesn't exactly have a size, so when we say it is expanding in the sense of the Big Bang we mean simply that it is getting less dense, which of course leads to expansion-like effects from the relative perspective from any real reference point.

With that said, one thing to keep in mind is that when you look into the night sky you are actually looking at a picture of the past. If you take a picture through a telescope of a galaxy 10 billion light-years away, you are actually looking at how that galaxy looked 10 billion years ago. You have a picture of the universe from 10 billion years ago.

[A Poster He or I]

Please explain in more detail the 4th dimensional expansion concept.

Arthur Eddington's famous balloon-universe analogy is very helpful here. If you're not familiar with it, I'll describe it. Imagine that the outer surface of a child's rubber balloon is our universe. Accepting that, notice that this universe is a universe of only 2 dimensions, length and width. It lacks any 3rd dimension (height or depth). We as beings of this universe perceive space to be only 2-dimensional because our entire experience of space is confined to the surface of this balloon. We have complete 360 degrees freedom of movement to go anywhere in this universe but there is no "up" or "down," so we are confined to the plane of a circle, not the volume of a sphere.

What is very important to appreciate is that we have no perception whatsoever that the skin of the balloon (i.e., our universe) is CURVED. Why not? Because the direction of curvature is in the direction of the 3rd dimension (i.e., at right angles to the plane of the balloon's surface), and we can't see the 3rd dimension being able to perceive only the skin of the balloon from the vantage point of the skin of the balloon. (similar to how real humans can't perceive the curvature of the Earth being confined to its "flat" surface, though that is for different reasons).

Now imagine that the child unties the knot sealing his balloon and starts blowing into it to make it larger. As the whole balloon expands, the inhabitants on its outer skin perceive that everything in the universe is moving away from everything else in the universe. This expansion is following a predictable pattern, but the pattern defies explanation because the farther away an object is from an observer, the faster it is moving away from the observer, and it doesn't matter who or where the observer is; the effect is the same for all observers.

The balloon skin inhabitants cry out, "This cannot be! How can an object move away from me at speed X, but be moving away at only half that speed for somebody who is closer to it? SOMEWHERE in the universe there must be an unmoving point from which all movement can be measured in an absolute way instead of this big mess of relative perceptions!"

There is no answer until the inhabitants realize that the unmoving point of absolute reference which they seek is OUTSIDE their universe, existing as a point in a purely hypothetical higher dimension (the 3rd dimension) such that every point in space (the balloon skin) exists in direct relation to this point only as a hypothetical structure which they name a "hyper-circle," a 3-dimensional circle that cannot be visualized, only mathematically modeled, with the absolute point of reference being the center of this hyper-circle. (We know it as a sphere, of course, and can fully visualize it). Eventually, the balloon-skin inhabitants realize that this point is not outside their universe after all; rather their whole universe is much more than just the hyper-circle surface where they live: it includes an entirely imperceivable dimension that can generate such a hypercircle, with its own mechanics which directly affect the evolution of the perceivable universe.

From there, the balloon-skin inhabitants realize that since their perceivable universe is expanding, it must have once been smaller, even all the way down to that singular point of reference at the beginning of time. A brilliant scientist says, "Listen! Since we know the universe's rate of expansion, we know the age of the universe. Since we also know the speed of light, we know that when we look out into the universe we are looking into the past, and the further we look, the further into the past we see. In principle if we look far away enough, we will be looking at an object as it looked right after the universe was created. In other words, an object as it exists very close to point of creation when the whole universe was tiny."

The scientist realizes that the point of space right in front of his nose, and indeed every point of the balloon skin, shares this feature of having been right there at that point of creation once...and indeed STILL IS right there at that point of creation when viewed from so far away that it takes the age of the universe for the light of the point in front of his nose to reach the viewer.

With this balloon analogy understood, extrapolate up to our own reality. Our entire universe of 3 spatial dimensions is curved in the imperceivable direction of the fourth dimension. of our own reality, according to General Relativity. (Actually, we do perceive a manifestation of this 4th dimension as the passage of time, but lets not go there right now). Our "real" universe then is a hyper-sphere, just as the balloon-skin people figured out their universe was a hyper-circle (in other words, a sphere). (NOTE: this is one possible configuration for our universe; General Relativity allows others, but let's keep it simple here).

So to answer some of your questions:

It seems to me that the light that is recording the actual big bang goes out in all directions much faster and can never be seen again as it has passed us and is somewhere in deep space.

No, we are riding along with it, everywhere.

In my mind the light from the galaxy that we see 13.7 billion light years away has taken that long to get to us to see because it left from a location 13.7 billion years separated from us. That galaxy was already 13.7 billion years separate from us distance wise. So it had to leave that far, far away galaxy and travel across space to us. So my point is that at 13.7 billion years ago we already were 13.7 billion light years separated in distance. To me that means the Universe should be a lot older than 13.7 billion light years.

No. If an inflationary period occurred a fraction of a second after creation, when it was over, the universe was then big enough such that the light leaving an object on the other side of a hyper-sphere universe could never bridge the distance created by the inflationary period because that light is travelling only at light-speed which is almost matched by the speed of the current (non-inflationary) expansion. In other words that light will still take 13.7 billion years to reach us even though when it was released, we (at our corresponding point in the then-newborn universe) were only a little distance away.

I agree that every where we look is a picture of the ongoing expansion. It does not make sense to me that everywhere we look is center of the Universe. That is not sensible to my mind. How can everywhere we look be the center of an explosion?

Read my answer to your last question, then come back to read this answer: We are only separated from that initial explosion point by TIME, not by space (in terms of 3-dimensional-only space).

So how did we get ahead of the original or early light from the big bang temporally speaking?

We didn't. We're still there. All around us is the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, discovered in 1964, the residue of the Big Bang that didn't go on to form material objects.

I do not see the time as being attached to this expansion. I see the time as independent from the expansion. I see it ticking universally for all items in the expansion from the moment of the explosion, and I see the space and debris just spreading apart from the center.

No, let go of that view. This is one of the most critical realizations of General Relativity and Einstein's genius: Time is just another dimension of 4-dimensional space. Although I personally find it more useful to think of it as: Time is just the manifestation in 3-dimensional space of that additional 4th-dimensional direction of 4-dimensional space. Put in those terms, the expansion of our universe is in the TIME direction. This then has secondary effects on the 3-dimensional separation of things, moving them apart in terms of lengths, widths, and heights (our 3 spatial dimensions). You might also check out post #28 of the old thread "Time: A spatial dimension" which is in this same Philosophy of Science forum, to understand this idea a little better.

-- Updated Fri Jun 08, 2012 2:57 pm to add the following --

By the way, Scott is right about the Big Bang being dark. Photons would have been bound to quarks until energy levels dropped enough to allow them to break free and illuminate the universe. So it is impossible to see the initial phases of the Big bang visually no matter how far we can look into the past.

[Wanderer101]

Scott

Thank you for the comment . What you say seems reasonable to me. So I will accept it without further discussion there was no free photons at the very beginning.

Poster

Wow I think I would give you a merit badge or something for the great effort that you put into your explanation. Thank you very much for that very detailed response. I have read it over several times in order to get better comprehension. I think that I am getting it. I will test myself tomorrow and make a few statements in reply to ensure, that I have understood what you have said. I have read many articles about the expanding Universe and thanks to you I think I understand the model they are using now. Still though there are some potential bugs in this scheme that do not reconsile with what I have read in some of these articles. Anyway in the morning I will write a response and see if I can clear up the nagging defects I see in this expansion model.

-- Updated June 9th, 2012, 2:03 pm to add the following --

Poster Okay after reading your post many times I think I understand what you are saying. So let’s test my knowledge before we proceed to test the big bang model. I see certain problems with this model that you have clearly and intelligently described.

The universe is expanding in a way that is 4 dimensionally described by your model. Therefore space has a curvature in addition to the 3 dimensional expansion. Space is both stretching as it expands and where there is gravity it possesses a curvature. The universe expands much like a balloon with a thick skin as there are not just stars and galaxies on the 2 dimensional surface. There are galaxies within the balloon as well. All galaxies clusters are basically moving away from each other. External galaxies are receding in such a way that their recessional speeds are proportional to the distance they are away from us. (Hubble’s law) This expansion is an observation that is explained well by a uniform expansion. Initially in Hubble’s time this is what has been observed.

To me it seems that it’s not so much that the galaxies are moving apart from their motion it is as if the space is spreading out between them. Just like it does on the balloon as it expands. Is this what your model is saying? Is space spreading apart causing the separation?

The Big Bang theory states from what I read that the Universe started from one very small point. With the Universe defined as everything there is, so I guess that there is nothing outside of it. So according to your model somehow when the bang happened that would be the time when space and time both started. In this model it seems as if there was nothing before the big bang started. I don’t know if I can believe that or not.

Actually if I have the modern day concepts correct then my paradoxes have not gone away. If anything they have gotten worse. Well, that is good as this is what this discussion is all about. There better be some paradoxes here or this discussion is going to go nowhere. Let me know if I have the basic concept correct then I will go into what I see wrong with the big bang model.

[A Poster He or I]

To me it seems that it’s not so much that the galaxies are moving apart from their motion it is as if the space is spreading out between them. Just like it does on the balloon as it expands. Is this what your model is saying? Is space spreading apart causing the separation?

From a 3-dimensional view of space, yes, the spreading of space is causing the separation. From a 4-dimensional view of space-time, the inertia of the initial Big Bang is causing the separation by driving space-time "timeward" away from the original explosion. It's also worth understanding that General Relativity doesn't speculate on what exactly is spreading (materially speaking). Space is simply a mathematical continuum in GR that can spread forever, so the balloon analogy of a "thick skin being pulled thinner" isn't right. You have to switch to quantum theory to model the mechanics of what's happening to space at any point in space.

The Big Bang theory states from what I read that the Universe started from one very small point. With the Universe defined as everything there is, so I guess that there is nothing outside of it. So according to your model somehow when the bang happened that would be the time when space and time both started. In this model it seems as if there was nothing before the big bang started. I don’t know if I can believe that or not.

In my opinion, all that can be stated is that space and time began with the Big Bang, and what was "before" the Big Bang and what is "outside" space-time now are both outside the domain of science at this point in the evolution of science. I also believe that the word "before" and "outside" have no meaning in this context. However, I do NOT mean to imply therefrom that nothing existed in any regard until the Big Bang. I merely mean to imply that science has no way to model it. If you are comfortable believing that something existed, you should be happy and free to do so. Metaphysics is a legitimate human cognitive activity, after all. Personally, I'll only caution that metaphysical speculation about these matters that claims science as supporting its speculation is disingenuous to make any such claim.

(Note: It may be valuable to know that science cannot even get to the moment of the Big Bang, much less before. The first 10^-43 seconds after Creation is known as the Planck Era and is inpenetrable by existing scientific theories. However, there are hypotheses supported by mathematics consistent with current theories that allow for the actual moment of the Big Bang to be bypassed altogether, implying that the universe was not created but has always existed.).

[Wanderer101]

Poster

Once again thanks for the great follow up explanations. I think that I am fairly up to date with current theories on the topic. Although there are a few things that are still a little fuzzy. For instance what exactly is a “mathematical continuum” how does that work exactly. I thought that math was just something that we invented to help us describe things in the Universe. Math does not make things happen. The Universe has physical laws that make things happen. I think that the math just describes the process and therefore it is not the actual process. Just my simplistic idea, but it works for me. Are you saying that we now believe that math somehow is the cause of everything we see?

I guess now the thing to do is to list what I think that the paradoxes are. The problems that I see with this current model from what I have read about in articles. 1. I see a problem with the space concept. As you have said that space according to scientists is not a material object. This seems contradictory as according to scientists space is spreading. If space is not a material object of some sort what is spreading? It has also been stated that space is curved. I am no General Relativity expert by any means but once again how does a non-existent object curve?

2. According to our current theory all of the galaxies at the edge of the Universe should be spreading away from each other in a nice even manner. On the contrary they are clustering and strangely these clusters are moving is specific directions as if they are being pulled toward something.


3. The current theory states we are looking back in time. So theoretically we are looking at the early Universe. Many of the galaxies that are at the edge of the Universe are old galaxies filled with old red giant stars. This certainly seems to be saying that perhaps my model makes more sense. We should not be seeing old stars in the early Universe.

4. Quasars are also located at the edge of the Universe. A quasar is also an older object. It appears to be a galaxy at the end of its life cycle as a super massive black hole is in the process swallowing up the rest of its surrounding galaxy. This fact also seems to imply that the stuff at the edge of the galaxy is old not new. This seems to agree with my simplistic but sensible theory rather than the current model.


5. I have often wondered whether the CMB could just be simply explained as coming from all the stars in the Universe as a whole. I found a small article that says, the microwave “background” makes more sense as the limiting temperature of space heated by starlight than as the remnant of a fireball. This was their explanation not mine. I am in no way smart enough to come up with this. This explanation seems more sensible to me. The expression “the temperature of space” is the title of chapter 13 of Sir Arthur Eddington’s famous 1926 work, Eddington calculated the minimum temperature anybody in space would cool to, given that it is immersed in the radiation of distant starlight. With no adjustable parameters, he obtained 3°K (later refined to 2.8°K), essentially the same as the observed, so-called “background”, temperature. A similar calculation, although with less certain accuracy, applies to the limiting temperature of intergalactic space because of the radiation of galaxy light. So the intergalactic matter is like a “fog”, and would therefore provide a simpler explanation for the microwave radiation, including its blackbody-shaped spectrum. I like this explanation because it is simpler and more sensible.

6. I also read somewhere that the ages of globular clusters appear older than the universe. This is another indication that the Universe is older than we think.

7. The most distant galaxies in the Hubble Deep Field show evidence of advanced evolution. Here is some more evidence that I read about which supports the notion that the galaxies at the edge are older not younger star systems. The Big Bang requires that stars, quasars and galaxies in the early universe be “primitive”, meaning mostly metal-free, because it requires many generations of supernovae to build up metal content in stars. But the latest evidence suggests lots of metal in the “earliest” quasars and galaxies. Moreover, we now have evidence for numerous ordinary galaxies in what the Big Bang expected to be the “dark age” of evolution of the universe, when the light of the few primitive galaxies in existence would be blocked from view by hydrogen clouds.

In light of all these observations that seem contrary to our current model I am forced to conclude that our current model is most likely incorrect.

[A Poster He or I]

what exactly is a “mathematical continuum” how does that work exactly.

A continuum is anything that is infinitely divisible. A mathematical continuum is any mathematical description that allows values to be assigned at any point in an implicit series (so for example, real numbers become a continuum once you include the transcendental numbers). Quantum theory demonstrates that continua are not actually possible in nature, due to the Uncertainty Principle. But General Relativity is a so-called classical theory (i.e., it doesn't incorporate Planck's Constant so it holds no inherent uncertainty within the theory), so General Relativity is free to model space and time as if they are infinitely elastic--that is, they will not break down when stretched to infinity or broken down into constituent pieces, no matter how small.

I thought that math was just something that we invented to help us describe things in the Universe.

Exactly correct.

Math does not make things happen. The Universe has physical laws that make things happen. I think that the math just describes the process and therefore it is not the actual process. Just my simplistic idea, but it works for me. Are you saying that we now believe that math somehow is the cause of everything we see?

Physics does not know what makes things happen. Rather physics follows a chain of cause-and-effect phenomena, from specific phenomena common to our perceptions down to more general causative effects, then down further to even more fundamental phenomena, modeling the cause-and-effect chain the whole way via mathematics. So physics is a descriptive science, cataloguing the dynamics of phenomena. The "correctness" or "thoroughness" of these mathematical descriptions (i.e., theories) is generally considered in terms of how consistent and accurate they are when applied appropriately, plus their predictive power of outcomes not yet encountered.

It is true that many scientists, science educators, commentators on science, and Realist philosophers speak of consistent and accurate theories as is they are actual descriptions of reality in an ontological sense. Personally, I find this very unfortunate, but I understand why it happens, human nature being what it is. The history of science, including physics, makes it rather clear that such an attitude is hubris, given that every theory has eventually been either (1) subsumed and generalized by more comprehensive theory, (2) found to be limited in its application in ways not originally perceived, or (3) scrapped as no longer useful.

Philosophically, I am not a Realist, therefore your statement "The Universe has physical laws that make things happen" is not valid to me. Physical laws are human inventions projected upon the universe. I do not deny that the universe may have an ultimate ontological "status" of some kind, but what I really believe is that human cognition, as it models ever-the-more fundamental phenomena in the attempt to reach an objectively true description of nature, will discover the task to always be just out of reach as it is ultimately an attempt by cognition to model cognition.

I've read through your enumerated criticisms. Unfortunately, given the particulars you mention, I do not feel I can responsibly evaluate your criticisms unless I read the original source materials with their citations. I'm sorry.

[Wanderer101]

Hi Poster,

Thanks again for your very thoughtful responses.

A continuum is anything that is infinitely divisible. A mathematical continuum is any mathematical description that allows values to be assigned at any point in an implicit series (so for example, real numbers become a continuum once you include the transcendental numbers). Quantum theory demonstrates that continua are not actually possible in nature, due to the Uncertainty Principle. But General Relativity is a so-called classical theory (i.e., it doesn't incorporate Planck's Constant so it holds no inherent uncertainty within the theory), so General Relativity is free to model space and time as if they are infinitely elastic--that is, they will not break down when stretched to infinity or broken down into constituent pieces, no matter how small.

Hey look at that I figured out how to use the quote function.

I am no expert on Quantum Mechanics as it just seems so complicated and strange. It is mentioned a lot in articles I read. I spend most of my time reading and walking along the sea shore. This is where I get my ideas about things. I basically look up at the sky at night and wonder about the Universe. I guess I am a beach bum with a job.

Anyway, I have given some thought to what you said above and I will apply my simplistic philosophy to what you said. It seems as if scientist’s of today are using the math of the very small to try and describe something that is very large. Ultimately I don’t think that will end well. I do believe that space whatever it is, is continuous, that seems simple and sensible. I believe it is similar to what George Lucas calls the Force and some other eastern religions refer to as some sort of a connected substance. I know, not very scientific but I think that they are intuitively onto something.

Physics does not know what makes things happen. Rather physics follows a chain of cause-and-effect phenomena, from specific phenomena common to our perceptions down to more general causative effects, then down further to even more fundamental phenomena, modelling the cause-and-effect chain the whole way via mathematics. So physics is a descriptive science, cataloguing the dynamics of phenomena. The "correctness" or "thoroughness" of these mathematical descriptions (i.e., theories) is generally considered in terms of how consistent and accurate they are when applied appropriately, plus their predictive power of outcomes not yet encountered.

That first sentence really surprises me. Physics does not know what causes things to happen. You must be referring to QM type of physics, as conventional physics can describe cause and effect without a problem. So, recapping in layman’s terms, physics (the QM type) says that since we can’t really see what is going on at the very small level of particles we use math along with indirect observations and experiments to describe this phenomena.

The question comes to mind is do you think that we will ever be able to know what is actually happening at this level of reality? Has mankind given up trying to actually know what is going on in the microscopic realm?

It is true that many scientists, science educators, commentators on science, and Realist philosophers speak of consistent and accurate theories as is they are actual descriptions of reality in an ontological sense. Personally, I find this very unfortunate, but I understand why it happens, human nature being what it is. The history of science, including physics, makes it rather clear that such an attitude is hubris, given that every theory has eventually been either (1) subsumed and generalized by more comprehensive theory, (2) found to be limited in its application in ways not originally perceived, or (3) scrapped as no longer useful.

Philosophically, I am not a Realist, therefore your statement "The Universe has physical laws that make things happen" is not valid to me. Physical laws are human inventions projected upon the universe. I do not deny that the universe may have an ultimate ontological "status" of some kind, but what I really believe is that human cognition, as it models ever-the-more fundamental phenomena in the attempt to reach an objectively true description of nature, will discover the task to always be just out of reach as it is ultimately an attempt by cognition to model cognition.

I had to read these 2 paragraphs several times to get what you were saying. Actually I think that this is probably a good answer to what I just asked above. From reading these two paragraphs I believe your answer to my first question would be “no”. We will not ever be able to know what is really happening in the sub-atomic realm. As for the other question has mankind given up? I think that some people have and some people have not given up. I am pulling for the people that are trying to solve the ultimate mystery of how everything works.

So you are not a realist. I guess I would classify myself as a realist. Realism fits my keep everything simple philosophy. I think the Universe is a simple thing and we have just made it appear to be complicated.

is ultimately an attempt by cognition to model cognition.

This statement fragment is very interesting can you please expand on this. What do you mean exactly?

I've read through your enumerated criticisms. Unfortunately, given the particulars you mention, I do not feel I can responsibly evaluate your criticisms unless I read the original source materials with their citations. I'm sorry.

No problem. I will try and see if I can find these articles again. I read these articles over the past 2 years or so and I have lost track of them. They are out there somewhere I will search the Internet and see if I can get them for you to analyze. Thanks again for your very intelligent and though provoking responses.

I found one article. Problem is this blog thing wont let me post the link until I have been a member 3 days and have 10 posts. Ugh.. I will manually try and post it so that it does not reject it.

Okay that did not work. So let me suggest

Located on dailygalaxy . commercial... an article called "Dark Flow" Discovered at Edge of the Universe: Hundreds of Millions of Stars Racing Towards a Cosmic Hotspot

I read this article again. Its very exciting. They see these galaxies rushing toward something. They don't think its a Black Hole. I think it is a black hole as that is the only reasonable explanation. I think that it is a Black Hole that is so large that it has an event horizon that is hundreds of light years wide. Its the simplest most logical explanation in my mind.

I will add more articles if I can find them.

Found another one! Giant 13-Billion-Year-Old Galaxy Found at Very Edge of Universe located at the on the same website. Seems to me super giant black holes should not existed at the very beginning to the Universe.

Found another one!

"Universe shows 'imprints' of events that took place BEFORE the Big Bang, say scientists"

dailymail co uk located on the dailymail website. Search for the phrase above. This one is really interesting. They thnk that there were giant black holes bumping together before the bigbang happened. Amazing stuff if true. So i guess there may heve been something that existed before the big bang. This definitely fits into a theory where the Universe is osccilating expanding then collapsing in an endless cycle.

[Xris]

They are rushing towards the core of the TORUS. Expansion as it should have been observed and was seen not to be, had to invent the dark stuff to be a viable concept. There is movement but if the balloon analogy is correct why are galaxies colliding? A few suspect observations and false concepts have invented the biggest bang.

[Wanderer101]

Found another article. This one was hard to relocate. This one shows that there are old stars and galaxies out at the far end of the Universe from us. Since I can't post a link do a search for this phrase - "Investigating an enigma at the edge of the universe" Its a good thing I remembered these articles. I really think that the big bang model we are using is completely wrong.

-- Updated June 11th, 2012, 2:30 pm to add the following --

Good point xris! That is one that I havd not thought of. Why are galaxies colliding? This certainly does not fit into the expanding space concept. It does fit into more of a expanding explosion of material objects concept, where gravity kicks in eventually and causes collisions.

[Xris]

Found another article. This one was hard to relocate. This one shows that there are old stars and galaxies out at the far end of the Universe from us. Since I can't post a link do a search for this phrase - "Investigating an enigma at the edge of the universe" Its a good thing I remembered these articles. I really think that the big bang model we are using is completely wrong.

-- Updated June 11th, 2012, 2:30 pm to add the following --

Good point xris! That is one that I havd not thought of. Why are galaxies colliding? This certainly does not fit into the expanding space concept. It does fit into more of a expanding explosion of material objects concept, where gravity kicks in eventually and causes collisions.

I often wonder if we really comprehend the size and shape of the universe. We observe movement and make assumptions. Those assumptions gather disciples and the assumptions becoming embedded as facts. Dispute them at your peril. The BB advocate secret police are everywhere.

[A Poster He or I]

With Xris entering the discussion I will be bowing out. Enjoyable discussion on this subject cannot be expected with his participation. Before parting, I will respond in a very broad and general way to your concerns given that I recognize the type of articles you are referring to, now that you have given me examples.

The Big Bang and General Relativity are aging theories. More and more data accrues over time that challenges these theories' abilities to integrate that data. If history has any lesson, it is a matter of time before both theories will be subsumed within more generalized theory which contextualizes and limits both theories into a more useful perspective, just as happened to Ptolemy's geocentric universe, Newton, Maxwell, Rutherford, et al. There is the new science of complexity, born in the 1960s, which someday may formally model how the macroscopic world emerges out of the quantum foam, which current quantum mechanics can't do very well.

No layman should believe that the Big Bang is an actual, accurate description of what really happened to generate our universe. My own intuition suggests to me that the expansion of the universe is far, far more complex than the straightforward model that the Big Bang offers, because my intuition suggests General Relativity is too simplistic. But to declare the Big Bang wrong because it can't universally model reality is simply illustrative of a misunderstanding of science, in my opinion. Science is performed with the assumption of the truth of the Big Bang because the Big Bang is the best scientific model available. In other words it is most responsible for scientific methodology to work from the Big Bang premise because to do otherwise jeopardizes the ability to interpret results scientifically. One is free to speculate and hypothesize and experiment without any such assumption, of course, but most often this is not going to qualify as good science. (Bill Gaede's hypotheses are an example of this).

There is bad science of course. Theories about phlogiston, Vulcan, and vitalism were eventually discarded because they proved scientifically unuseful. But it is valuable to realize that good scientific models are rarely proved wrong: they just get contextualized into a limited scope of usage, rather than the universal application that we often initially credit them with. One can still navigate by the stars successfully using Ptolemy's Epicycles. How could we do that if Ptolemy is wrong? He isn't wrong in any absolute ontological or even epistemological way: his idea of a geocentric universe simply turned out to not be very useful once human experience got broader and broader and a more comprehensive model came along to model that advanced experience. But if a scientist finds it useful to describe the universe's behavior in terms of the earth at its physical center, then Ptolemy will be revived (note: the probability of this is very low; my point is that it cannot be excluded simply on principle).

If you declare the Big Bang to be wrong, just be aware that your assessment must look outside of scientific reasoning for its validity.

[Xris]

I like it, I am not going to debate with xris but I will fire a few shots before I go. Well either go or stay but dont imagine you have the right to make statements without entering into debate. Gaede has nothing to do with my objections to the BB. I had them long before he came to my attention. Many cosmologist will only consider anything that collaborates their academic security while there are others,brave souls, will question the concept of the BB. This cosy world has been dented, as you are hinting at, but the full disclosure is too painful to accept. So the charade continues and the BB will be dragged out for nearly every philosophical or astronomic reason. Lets desert our logic and drive to find the truth, sit back and enjoy the lecture on how we all arrived from an illogical singularity.