Philosophy Discussion Forums

PE

Sorry, I missed the quotation marks in my post. What I was doing was refuting the assumption "the Universe is young".

The Hubble "Deep Field" Observations are calling for 15 billion years of age. There we are, At 15 billion years and they still show mature galaxies. According to the BBT wo shouldn't see any thing other than a bright spot there, or maybe a black spot. Or maybe nothing at all.

Olbers Paradox describes what an Infinite universe must look like. Ours does look just like that when the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation and the "red shift" are accounted for. His paradox has been used as a proof of a finite universe but in the last couple of hundred years our observations show that what are necessary observations in an infinite universe are exactly what we observe. His tools just wern't quite good enough.

Frankly IMHO the Deep Field observations should have killed the BBT deader than philogiston but it didn't. Pretty soon the Big Bangers are going to have to come up with another version of "The Immaculate Conception of the Universe".

A BBT could work. However it doesn't look like it ever happened. This is also a good time for Occams Razor. If we could focus on the CMBR I'll bet we find some more stars out there. What else Forever----- HT, M.

Hi Mechsmith,

Last time I checked, the age of the universe was given at 13.77 billion years. Now they're saying it's 15 billion years old. What's a billion or so years?

Anytime a consensus of scientists say there's a (specific) age to the universe, that's saying to me the universe has a finite age. Should I hold my breath for the announcement that the universe has an infinite age? We can debate this some more, but I think we put out all the arguments we can and all we can do is await further discoveries.

What do you think?

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote:To PA,

Now is now, but not back then. Back then are only memories and records (such as teen years and fossils e.g.) which are distinct from now. This is why dictionaries and encyclopedias have these terms defined as being distinct from one another.

You haven't responded to what I've written in my 2nd paragraph.

PhilX

If one considers that back then is really "now", only in a different form, then one begins to consider the possibility that we have always been here in the present moment, in one form or another. The universe did not begin, since it has always been here and now. You may feel that you have only been here since you were born and will disappear once you die, and in a sense you are right, but in another sense you are wrong, because it is not possible to pinpoint the exact time of your existence. Before conception, you were a separate sperm and an egg, before that you existed in four people, both grandparent on both sides. Your existence stretches back in an unbroken stream, to the beginningless beginning. In other words, you were not born, but have always been here. However, you were not always here in the current form that you are now, so if you are attached to your current form, you will have trouble letting it go, when the time comes, and the time will surely come. Like they say, we should not take life too seriously, because no one gets out alive.

Responding to PA.

First you start considering. Then you had this to say:

"The universe did not begin, since it has always been here and now." Are you saying the universe is infinite in age?

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote:Hamasen said:

"As the beginning of this universe would necessitate some temporal scale external to the universe, which would also imply a beginning for that scale (assuming, as you said, that time can't be infinite which is synonymous with no beginning?), and so on and so on (infinite regression of begginings) meaning 'absolute time' (external to all 'universes') had no beginning...."

Why would a temporal time scale be "external" to our universe? How can that be if our universe means everything?

Because of the inherent definition of beginning:

"the point in time or space at which something starts."

So then extrapolating this to time it would be:

The point in time or space at which time began.

So then on what timescale is that point located? If you say no timescale then there can't be a point at which it begins as there isn't any scale to frame it on.

If you say there was a timescale then it would imply the timescale stretched before the beginning such that the other timescale can begin in it.

Hi again PhilX

All I can say is you ought to go have a look. The observations are there for everybody to see. The conclusions that we make are all our own.

But when I see a mature galaxy out where no galaxy could be if the BB works then there is something wrong. So far I have found my eyes quite reliable. Of course we must take into our observations as to the nature and behavior of light.

I paraphrase consensus. If 100 people are wrong they are still wrong. One fact is all that should be necessary. The modifications that have had to be made to the BBT should have put somebody to wondering several years ago.

Happy thoughts, M

I don't see why the Universe has to be finite or infinite. Perhaps it's both: finite material universes arising within an infinite nonmaterial Universe, that is, "nonmaterial" in the sense that it's nature is imperceptible to us - like Consciousness in that we can witness it's effects but not what is producing the effects.

Felix wrote:I don't see why the Universe has to be finite or infinite. Perhaps it's both: finite material universes arising within an infinite nonmaterial Universe, that is, "nonmaterial" in the sense that it's nature is imperceptible to us - like Consciousness in that we can witness it's effects but not what is producing the effects.

Are you describing a multiverse Felix?

PhilX

PhilX, Maybe but not necessarily, could be one material finite universe perpetually "reincarnating," i.e., dying and being born over and over again within the nonmaterial womb.

Felix wrote:I don't see why the Universe has to be finite or infinite. Perhaps it's both: finite material universes arising within an infinite nonmaterial Universe, that is, "nonmaterial" in the sense that it's nature is imperceptible to us - like Consciousness in that we can witness it's effects but not what is producing the effects.

Perhaps this is a better descriptor for what I meant too.

It's not that this current universe (with its laws and components) didn't have a beginning, but rather 'absolute' time did not have a beginning.

Absolute time being time which includes all events in the totality of existence (be it existent things in our universe or other universes ).

The time used to calculate the age of the universe is in reference to the start of the big bang.

There was still the infinite singularity prior to the bang which (according to hawking) did not pass in time or space (hence why he had to utilize an 'imaginary timescale' to posit/position the beginning of our universe.

In essence, this is compatible with any multiverse theories, cyclic universe theories, etc. The 'absolute time' being that which encompasses the start of our universe and all other universes (as the multiverse itself can't have a beginning, it's scale is dimensionless.

Philosophy Explorer wrote:Responding to PA.

First you start considering. Then you had this to say:

"The universe did not begin, since it has always been here and now." Are you saying the universe is infinite in age?

PhilX

If something did not begin, then I suppose you could call it ageless. Everything within the present moment is in a constant state of motion and constantly changing forms. The universe is ageless and may change into an infinite number of forms. Regardless of what form the present moment takes, there is nothing here, that was not already here in a different form. Before the Big Bang, the universe was simply in a different form.

Mechsmith Wrote: Re: When did the universe begin? Post Number:#211 Yesterday, 7:31 pm

“Olbers Paradox describes what an Infinite universe must look like. Ours does look just like that when the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation and the "red shift" are accounted for.”

Wayne wrote;

Olbers Paradox is pure Hog Wash, Theory.

Does accounted for mean that we know the cause of Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation and the "red shift’, well you are incorrect; we know that Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation and the "red shift’ exist but the cause is nothing more than Theory.

You guys are going to have to stop confusing Theory with Fact!

-- Updated September 13th, 2014, 2:45 pm to add the following --

Mechsmith Wrote: Re: When did the universe begin? Post Number:#211 Yesterday, 7:31 pm

“Olbers Paradox describes what an Infinite universe must look like. Ours does look just like that when the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation and the "red shift" are accounted for.”

Wayne wrote;

Olbers Paradox is pure Hog Wash, Theory.

Does, “accounted for”, mean that we know the cause of Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation and the "red shift’, well you are incorrect; we know that Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation and the "red shift’ exist but the cause is nothing more than Theory.

You guys are going to have to stop confusing Theory with Fact!

You can not Discus the Age of the Universe without first determining whether or no the Universe had a Beginning.

If the Universe is Eternal there is no Age to the Universe.

If the Universe had a beginning, you will have to ask the question when was the Universe Created, what existed prior to the Creation of the Universe, What is a Singularity.

In Man’s World of Reality a Creation is considered to be an original product of the Mind, which would mean that the Creation of the Universe began as an original product of some person’s Mind, God perhaps.

A Creation however is not limited to being born of God, a Creation is simply not born of ordinary, natural means, which of course is to say that a Creation is not born of Cause and Effect, has no single direct material cause; a Creation being born of a particular State or Condition, is born of a Happening, a Phenomenon.

Wayne, The "red shift" exists. Thats a fact. One way to make light shift is to expose light to gravity. The theory part is wondering why the shift occurs, and then assigning a value to it.

Olbers paradox isn't hogwash. It's an attempt to show that the universe had a beginning by imagining what an infinite universe must look like, and then to reconcile that with observations. That is where the theory part comes in.

Personally my theory is that the Universe is probably (note probably) infinite. The evidence shows me that the Universe is much larger than allowed by the BBT (a theory on how the Universe came to be).

It's not much of a stretch to assume that the stars are basically similar to the sun and the Milky Way. It's not too much of a stretch to assume that light from a star acts like sunlight or a flashlight for that matter. It also isn't too much of a stretch to assume relativity theories describe the way light acts under certain conditions. These conditions are obstruction, relative movement (Doppler), and gravitational-time.

Since I can make a flashlight "red shift" and "blue shift" with nothing but gravity I don't think it's too much of a stretch to assume that gravity is responsible for at least some of the observed "red shift".

Since relative motion, obstructions, and gravity all play a part to make the fact of the red shift it's not too much to assume that the CMBR is simply the red shift carried ont a few billion more years. Like about 30 or so

This means that a Big Bang, or a creation event, or a singularity must have occurred much more than 15 billion years ago. So far I have found no evidence that a creation event with respect to the universe ever happened. Perhaps there is one out there but the evidence for one about 13.7 or 15 billion years ago is sorely lacking.

Beliefs are possible, hypotheses are good, theories are handy, but facts are best. One fact is that gravity will cause a red shift. No more complicated than the apple falls from the tree. Theory is how it falls. Gravity is the name of that theory. Another theory is that invisible turtles push it down. Take your pick. Show that it's possible. Thats all!

Happy thoughts, M.

Mechsmith thank you for your response.

To say that the Universe is Probably Infinite speaks nothing of Fact.

Is not Red shift used a evidence of an expanding Universe; how so if we do not know the cause.

I have no argument with the fact that red shift exists.

It is not to much a stretch of the Imagination to assume that an assumption does not speak of facts.

The salvation of Mankind is born of Speculation, conjecture, Theory but one should not go beyond the Pale making Theory a Reality, Fact.

True, it is not too much of a stretch to assume that gravity is responsible for at least some of the observed "red shift", Theoretically Speaking.

Theoretically speaking Gravity is a Theory, gravitation being another subject.

Fact! Infinite simply means that the infinite is simply immeasurable.

The creators of the Big Bang Theory, not only did not Know, but refused to express an opinion as to what existed, if anything, before the Big Bang.

The Theorist got one thing correct, a Singularity has no relative, numerical value, exists as an Infinitely Finite Immeasurable Individuality; the problem with the Big Bang is that an Infinitely Finite Immeasurable Individual Singularity is also Indivisible.

As far as Olber’s Paradox goes, you can not imagine what the Infinite Universe looked like prior to the moment of Creation and then to reconcile that with observations. there was no Infinite Universe prior to the moment of Creation; Something did exist prior to the Moment of the Creation of the uncaused cause, the First Singularity to have relative, a numerical value of One-1, before the Creation of “the Reality of First Cause; “In the Beginning there was only Darkness upon the Deep, an Infinitely Large Black Whole.

The Infinite existing as both a Microcosm and a Macrocosm, existing as the Whole of Reality, from Top to Bottom.

The word Universe is used to define the whole of Reality, which does not speak of what, or if anything, that existed prior to the Beginning of Space-Time; take note that I did not say before the beginning of Time or the beginning of Space; there being a Time that Time and Space were not relative; like before the Beginning of the Universe, Space-Time Space-Time is an affect of the motion of an object having been displaced, having angular momentum, velocity of speed and direction, causing motion in Space-Time to be circular; some theorizing that Motion is the cause of Gravity, Gravitation.

-- Updated September 14th, 2014, 12:20 pm to add the following --

When I see a mature galaxy out where no galaxy could be if the BB works then I say that the Universe is growing not expanding, believing the Creative Process once begun to be Eternal.

Prior to the Beginning Time, Space and Motion each having no relative, numerical value existed as an undifferentiated Singularity.

"the point in time or space at which the Universe began, started, was when Time and Space became relative, the Moment the First Singularity to have relative, a numerical value of One-1, the uncaused cause, the Reality of First Cause was created.

Hi Wayne, to your points,

Some of the the red shift could be caused by gravity, some by obstructions, some by relative motion, and some by the differing speeds of time between emitter and observer. Without assigning a value to each of these causes it is impossible for us to determine if the Universe is expanding.

Olbers Paradox describes what an infinite universe should look like. A star at every sightline, and very high temperatures. We do find a star at every sightline when you take the CMBR into account. We do find very high temperatures in black holes. Quite possibly enough energies to raise the temperatures considerably.

Personally I don't think that there ever was a Big Bang or a singularity. You don't need one to build the Universe that we see today. There is no evidence that a Big Bang or singularity ever happened.

What I object to is people taking the BBT as a fact and then trying to find an age of the universe derived from the "Expansion" when the expansion is probably only an optical illusion due to simple understandable causes. Unfortunetly there are several of them. At least one of them is capable of "blue shifting" light also.

A rainbow is an optical illusion caused by the simple understandable refraction of light. No pot of gold

If you wish to pursue this further google the following subjects.

"The Big Bang Never Happened" (website and book)

The "Hubble Deep Field Observatory"

The "Harvard Tower Experiments"

color,wavelength,chart

red shift

electromagnetic,wavelength, chart

relativity