Philosophy Discussion Forums

Stephen Hawking, Lawrence Krauss, Sean M. Carroll, Victor Stenger, Michio Kaku, Alan Guth, Alex Vilenkin, Robert A.J. Matthews, Frank Wilczek

This is a list of scientists who support the Big Bang Theory. My statements accurately convey their positions about the supposed "beginning" of the universe. However, since there is no actual beginning to the universe, and the Big Bang Theory is false, obviously there is little point to mention these scientists, as you should already be familiar with the basics of the Big Bang Theory.

Yes I know those scientists and others too that support the BBT.

[...] Let me add that the best you can do is say the universe is infinite and then say you're the sole authority on that without giving proof for the alleged time infinity of the universe means you haven't shown anything and just going on your word isn't sufficient.

[...]

PhilX

It seems to me that PE is humble enough to respect the work with those who know FAR more about the topic than he does - or that you and I know.

To ignore those more knowledgeable than you and operate as though discoveries were never made smacks of intellectual laziness and hubris. There are countless mysteries to which we can apply our philosophical chops that are not at odd with well-understood phenomenological dynamics.

Do you deny that the Universe is expanding? If you believe Hubble's redshift observations were correct and that the Universe is expanding, then what do you suggest was its smallest size before it started to expand?

Philosophy is not about who knows most. Philosophy is about who knows least.

I know that I know nothing.

Sure scientists and priests claim to know a lot, but do they? No, much of what they "know" is hubris, rhetoric, and faulty logic. Reason stays in the realm of philosophy, not science, and not religion.

If you need other men to do your thinking for you, then join a science forum, or a christian forum. Why do you come here, or to any philosophy forum, when your mind is dependent on others to do your thinking, for you? That is an obscene proposition. And who are you to judge knowledge? What is knowledge, do you even know? Define knowledge, to me, if you can. Then explain to me how you judge whether one man is more 'knowledgeable' than another. Is it simple memorization of historical facts and truisms? Is it rote education? Is it a diploma on your wall?

I am a thinker, and I do my own thinking, thank you.


No, the universe did not begin. No, the universe is not expanding. What is 'expanding', is human awareness and consciousness, with direct relation to our technological enterprises. As humanity explores the depths of space more and more, our consciousness will continue to rise. Thus far, "science" confuses human perception with "the universe". The universe is not moving. Instead, what is moving, is human consciousness as a totality.

For example, the internet is unprecedented in world history. This expands human consciousness. We are now more aware of our own world, as well as new lengths outward into space. Then to say that "the universe is expanding" is a contrary proposition to make, in light of the obvious. I tend to choose common sense, over the fantastical, fictional, and ridiculous.

I repeat, NO, the universe is not expanding. It has NO beginning.

Because the universe is infinite.

Both a scientist and a laboratory say the universe may not be infinite (in time) after all.

Here's the link: http://www.redorbit.com/news/space/1112 ... ll-021913/ (so far I haven't found any scientists who say otherwise).

Wizard wrote:The universe is not expanding. What is 'expanding', is human awareness and consciousness, with direct relation to our technological enterprises. As humanity explores the depths of space more and more, our consciousness will continue to rise. Thus far, "science" confuses human perception with "the universe". The universe is not moving. Instead, what is moving, is human consciousness as a totality.

For example, the internet is unprecedented in world history. This expands human consciousness. We are now more aware of our own world, as well as new lengths outward into space. Then to say that "the universe is expanding" is a contrary proposition to make, in light of the obvious. I tend to choose common sense, over the fantastical, fictional, and ridiculous.

I repeat, NO, the universe is not expanding. It has NO beginning.

Because the universe is infinite.

Wiz, no offence, but I'll take the view of experts who have studied the field for decades over your assertions. The fact that human consciousness is expanding doesn't change the other, observed situation that the universe is physically expanding. Our consciousness growth is another situation altogether and does not affect the physical positions of massive objects.

Motion is physics. I suppose one could lay down a solipsist argument that physical reality is an illusion and that motion does not exist, but that strikes me as a game, sophistry, a means of "being on top" rather than acceding intellectual authority to specialists in their fields. To insinuate that deep contemplation and respect for science are antithetical is a false dichotomy.

Do you also argue that the Earth is flat, or that it does not rotate around the Sun or that the Sun resides in a galaxy?

[…]

PE, Referring to your post #17. Olbers Paradox can be resolved simply by assuming that the stars are not eternal. This would make our visible sky look as it does now with the stars that are in our background "red shifted" to the remarkably uniform Cosmic Microwave Background. Naturally I would assume that given infinity there would be a greater number of stars burned out or simply too far away for the energies to reach us as they would be dissipated through out the vagaries of space-time.

Every thing that we can actually observe is subject to the mechanical limitations of electromagnetic radiation. One of these limitations is that all EMR will lose energies when subject to a gravitational field. It can also gain energies whilst traveling in the same directions as a gravitational field. However the "red shift" is also subject to our notions of time.

The "Harvard Tower" experiments showed this. They can (or about three years ago) be easily googled.

There were also some experiments done with time in relation to a gravitational field. Two syncronized clocks were set up in the Empire State building and their differences noted. There was a difference shown between the ground floor and the clock at the upper reaches. These are called "The Empire State Building" experiments. Again easily found on the net.

Kind of fun to find this stuff out. The conclusions however can be our own.

Mechsmith,

You stated that Olber's paradox can be resolved by assuming that the stars are not eternal. Actually that's not Olber's paradox. Olber's paradox doesn't concern itself with the life of a star, rather it deals with the fact that the night sky isn't uniformly bright which would happen if there were an infinite number of stars in the sky (here's a link: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/R ... lbers.html).

I'm going to look up what you were talking about. I was already aware of the experiment where atomic clocks were put on airplanes flying in opposite directions which helped to confirm GR. The Empire State building experiment has probably become possible due to advancements in the sensitivity of the clocks.

Thanks for your post, PhilX

PS You and others may find it interesting that Edgar Allen Poe's name is associated with Olber's paradox.

I take the appearance of the night sky as pretty close to uniformly bright but with light that has been "red shifted" to the microwave spectrum. I suspect that if it were possible the EMR would red shift all the way through the radio spectrum eventually.

Another little piece of evidence on the infinity side for me was the look at the "Hubble Deep Field" which seems to show that even in a dark part of the sky there is a very similar appearance to our local area.

I think, as being merely human, we have some difficulty imagining just how big an infinity is or how long eternity.

There is an automated red shift observatory on the net. However my math skills were insufficient to the task of mating red shifts to distance, especially considering that there are several ways to red shift light but fewer ways to blue shift it.

I have found out though, much to my dismay, that the Virginia and Florida State Police are quite able to measure "blue shifts" and relate it to relative speeds.

Greta wrote:Wiz, no offence, but I'll take the view of experts who have studied the field for decades over your assertions.

Just because you study in a field for decades, does not make you an "expert". Science is your authority, not mine.

Greta wrote:The fact that human consciousness is expanding doesn't change the other, observed situation that the universe is physically expanding. Our consciousness growth is another situation altogether and does not affect the physical positions of massive objects.

This is wrong. Without the theory of general relativity, and other scientific laws, you have no idea the "physical position" of such things as stars, galaxies, and planets.

In fact their existence in space-time has direct correlation, even causation, of the physical laws humanity accepts and takes as truth. Otherwise you could not even begin to measure, or imagine, such distances.

I will become as much an authority of science as of philosophy. What is science except experimentation and testing hypotheses?

Greta wrote:Motion is physics. I suppose one could lay down a solipsist argument that physical reality is an illusion and that motion does not exist, but that strikes me as a game, sophistry, a means of "being on top" rather than acceding intellectual authority to specialists in their fields. To insinuate that deep contemplation and respect for science are antithetical is a false dichotomy.

Do you also argue that the Earth is flat, or that it does not rotate around the Sun or that the Sun resides in a galaxy?

The Earth is spherical in shape. The Earth does not revolve around the Sun, but, another massive object that science currently is ignorant of. The Earth and Sun do reside in what we name the Milky Way Galaxy.

The universe has always been, because the present moment has always been and within this present moment, we may observe the universe. Since all forms in the universe are constantly changing, it gives the illusion of time passing. However, in reality, there has only ever been the present moment. Forms will change, a universe may come and go, but nothing ever happens outside of the present moment. Everything that has been, still is, although perhaps in a different form. And everything that will be, is already contained in the present moment.

PhilX re post 55 and 56. I checked your link-----but---

Since the number of stars close enough to us to have any effect must necessarily be finite and mortal, and the energies that we observe must be red shifted past our observational abilities then Olbers Paradox probably doesn't account for our night sky. It's simply not possible for EMR of any sort to travel as far as would be required for us to observe it.

Search-- Amazon-books-The Big Bang Never Happened. Eric Lerner: A startling refutation of the dominant theory of the origin of the universe.

He posits that there are some structures that are gravitationally bound that are too large to have happened in such a young universe.

As to the formation of galaxies he builds them out of plasma (simply super heated gas) With sufficient heat and pressure he can build a galaxy. He finds sufficient heat and pressure within the galaxy itself. This is merely one stage in the evolution of a galaxy. He further posits that the Universe is probably Infinite, eternal, and evolving according to the laws of physics and quantum mechanics.

I have heard that a good mechanic can do a good job given enough tools and time. In our galaxy there are enough tools to rebuild it. They are simply the laws of physics, quantum mechanics, and time. Occams Razor precludes the singularity, a Creator or a beginning.

also search-- Amazon-books- "The Static Universe" (Exploding the myth of Cosmic Expansion) I haven't read this one yet but I am afraid it's coming. Best, M

Wizard wrote:

Greta wrote:Wiz, no offence, but I'll take the view of experts who have studied the field for decades over your assertions.

Just because you study in a field for decades, does not make you an "expert". Science is your authority, not mine.

Greta wrote:The fact that human consciousness is expanding doesn't change the other, observed situation that the universe is physically expanding. Our consciousness growth is another situation altogether and does not affect the physical positions of massive objects.

This is wrong. Without the theory of general relativity, and other scientific laws, you have no idea the "physical position" of such things as stars, galaxies, and planets.

In fact their existence in space-time has direct correlation, even causation, of the physical laws humanity accepts and takes as truth. Otherwise you could not even begin to measure, or imagine, such distances.

I will become as much an authority of science as of philosophy. What is science except experimentation and testing hypotheses?

Greta wrote:Motion is physics. I suppose one could lay down a solipsist argument that physical reality is an illusion and that motion does not exist, but that strikes me as a game, sophistry, a means of "being on top" rather than acceding intellectual authority to specialists in their fields. To insinuate that deep contemplation and respect for science are antithetical is a false dichotomy.

Do you also argue that the Earth is flat, or that it does not rotate around the Sun or that the Sun resides in a galaxy?

The Earth is spherical in shape. The Earth does not revolve around the Sun, but, another massive object that science currently is ignorant of. The Earth and Sun do reside in what we name the Milky Way Galaxy.

Wizard, please explain why you believe that the Universe is not expanding. What is your rationale? How do you explain redshift effects found in Hubble's deep field exploration that suggests that the Universe is not only expanding but the expansion rate is increasing?

This is pivotal because expansion suggests the possible future heat death of the Universe as it pulls apart. If the Universe can die then that would suggest a beginning, so far best postulated as the Big Bang, followed by inflation - 13.8 billion years ago.

The mutiverse theory makes intuitive sense to me and, given the relativity of time and the chance that many other "universes" exist (which may just be areas in "the bulk" that contain galactic clusters), it would seem that time began for us 13.8 billions years ago but was already present throughout the other areas of the bulk (aka "universes"), that contain matter. However, their time is not relevant to us because it's inaccessible.

I hope we can stay strictly on the topic in this exchange - I don't want to waste another hour fashioning a long response that is moderated out.

Greta wrote:Wizard, please explain why you believe that the Universe is not expanding. What is your rationale? How do you explain redshift effects found in Hubble's deep field exploration that suggests that the Universe is not only expanding but the expansion rate is increasing?

This is pivotal because expansion suggests the possible future heat death of the Universe as it pulls apart. If the Universe can die then that would suggest a beginning, so far best postulated as the Big Bang, followed by inflation - 13.8 billion years ago.

My counterargument is simple & repetitive; I've used this before on other forums. If "the universe" is expanding then all of it must be expanding, including space-time on earth, including your own bedroom. Therefore the "space" in between your walls are expanding, maybe by nano-meters. This is the necessary conclusion of the Big Bang and expanding universe theory.

So you measure the distance between your bedroom walls, let's say 20 feet. In a year or two, this measurement should be 20 feet + 2 nano inches, or something to that effect. Because the whole universe is expanding.

Now here comes the big problem for Big Bang, expanding universe, religious pseudo science fundamentalist activists (call them "Science Priests"). If the space-time between the walls in your bedroom is expanding then why not also the dimensions of the yard stick you used to measure that space? The yard stick, or the nano-inches, the device itself used to measure distance, must also be expanding.

Because the measuring device is also a "part of the universe", is it not? Science cannot resolve this paradox.

So science must use logical fallacies to backtrack. How do I know? Because I've been around very intelligent philosophers & scientists for over a decade. I've heard all the arguments, all the rationales, all the justifications, all the fallacies. And science is just plain wrong. In order to solve this paradox, scientist priests must use another logical paradox.

The measuring device is "not part of the universe". Whichever tools are used to measure space-time, are not "part of the universe" which they're measuring. This is an obvious paradox. But this is what science must postulate, to save the Big Bang Theory.

It's easier just to come with me, to my postulation, that the universe is infinite, endless, and either is not, or cannot ever become measured by human instrumentation.

My position is common sense and most reasonable.

The philosophy position is superior to both science and religion.

Greta wrote:The mutiverse theory makes intuitive sense to me and, given the relativity of time and the chance that many other "universes" exist (which may just be areas in "the bulk" that contain galactic clusters), it would seem that time began for us 13.8 billions years ago but was already present throughout the other areas of the bulk (aka "universes"), that contain matter. However, their time is not relevant to us because it's inaccessible.

Wizard wrote: My counterargument is simple & repetitive; I've used this before on other forums. If "the universe" is expanding then all of it must be expanding, including space-time on earth, including your own bedroom. Therefore the "space" in between your walls are expanding, maybe by nano-meters. This is the necessary conclusion of the Big Bang and expanding universe theory.

So you measure the distance between your bedroom walls, let's say 20 feet. In a year or two, this measurement should be 20 feet + 2 nano inches, or something to that effect. Because the whole universe is expanding.

Now here comes the big problem for Big Bang, expanding universe, religious pseudo science fundamentalist activists (call them "Science Priests"). If the space-time between the walls in your bedroom is expanding then why not also the dimensions of the yard stick you used to measure that space? The yard stick, or the nano-inches, the device itself used to measure distance, must also be expanding.

Because the measuring device is also a "part of the universe", is it not? Science cannot resolve this paradox.

So science must use logical fallacies to backtrack. How do I know? Because I've been around very intelligent philosophers & scientists for over a decade. I've heard all the arguments, all the rationales, all the justifications, all the fallacies. And science is just plain wrong. In order to solve this paradox, scientist priests must use another logical paradox.

The measuring device is "not part of the universe". Whichever tools are used to measure space-time, are not "part of the universe" which they're measuring. This is an obvious paradox. But this is what science must postulate, to save the Big Bang Theory.

It's easier just to come with me, to my postulation, that the universe is infinite, endless, and either is not, or cannot ever become measured by human instrumentation.

My position is common sense and most reasonable.

The philosophy position is superior to both science and religion.

If everything IN the universe is expanding in the same proportion as the Universe itself wouldn't that presuppose that the Universe remains forever static in its relative distances for ANYTHING contained within it...or have I missed something? If everything expands at the same rate the distances between them would be thoroughly unnoticeable because their distances would be maintained and therefore static which according to observation is not the case.

To my mind anything so perfectly in equilibrium not only counters everything we experience or observe in nature, it is not even philosophically feasible.