0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
... a big bang that started the ball rolling.
Clearly we are expanding now, and our expansion appears to be accelerating, right?
And clearly, we started with a bang, and a damn big one at that, right?
The familiar name for this picture, the "big bang" cosmological model, is unfortunate because it suggests we are identifying an event that triggered the expansion of the universe, and it may also suggest the event was an explosion localized in space. Both are wrong. .... If there were an instant, at a "big bang," when our universe started expanding, it is not in the cosmology as now accepted, because no one has thought of a way to adduce objective physical evidence that such an event really happened.
Like I said, we observe the universe through material, or matter. That is our perspective, and always has been throughout the history of discovery. And one by one, what we thought was real came crashing down, and we had to accept a new sense of reality.
Let's use our imagination for a moment, and consider we are some sort of space-based creature. Everything about our makeup is pure space, including the instruments we use to detect the universe around us.
What we would see is matter condensing to an ever smaller state, or dissipating.
... a big bang that started the ball rolling. is wrong. There is no such event in the big bang theory. Its pretty much a common misconception in fact. This is all clearly explained in Principles of Physical Cosmology by Peebles on page 4.
The "extreme resistance" you mentioned regarding Galileo was from the church, not from within the science community. And your assertion Nobody wants their sense of reality shook. is quite wrong when it comes to physicists. Nothing is more exciting than to find out that what you accepted as being true is not true or is different than you thought it was. That's when real progress is made and that's quite exciting.
It's not clear what you mean by Our understanding is based on material observations in each case. What exactly is a "material observation"?
Is there another kind of observation that you'd like to mention?
Clearly we are expanding now, and our expansion appears to be accelerating, right? Wrong. "We" are not expanding. The universe is expanding. We are not the universe. We just live here.
And clearly, we started with a bang, and a damn big one at that, right?Wrong. There is no evidence that there was ever an event. Remember I mentioned the text by Peebles? He writes on page 4
makes no sense. Asserting that something is made of space is meaningless. And there's no such thing as "pure space" either. Space is merely where things are, nothing more and nothing less. To speak of things being made up of space has no meaning whatsoever to it. Just because it makes sense to you in no way implies that it really makes sense.
In this case you seem to have a flawed notion of what space is.
you made no attempt whatsoever to say what it is you're referring to. What is it that you're claiming is condensing? What matter are you talking about??
The more I read the more its clear that you don't have a clue what you're talking about,
that you're just typing what you think nature is and its all wrong.
Let me give you some advice.
Before you try to come up with a new theory because you think the current one is wrong - learn the theory first. You can't claim that a theory is wrong when you don't understand the theory. People who become scientists know this all too well. That's why we spend years studying science.
From my statement, you have absolutely no basis to form any opinion.
You stated in no uncertain terms that a big bang that started the ball rolling. which is wrong. And that is not something that can be considered an opinion, that's a fact. I.e. there is nothing in cosmology which indicates that "a big bang .. started the ball rolling
That you object and claim I'm wrong is to be expected since nobody here has ever admitted that they [might be wrong or that they didn't know the physics correctly.
NASAAccording to NASA, after inflation the growth of the universe continued, but at a slower rate. As space expanded, the universe cooled and matter formed. One second after the Big Bang, the universe was filled with neutrons, protons, electrons, anti-electrons, photons and neutrinos.Jun 16, 2017
space.comThe Big Bang Theory is the leading explanation about how the universe began. At its simplest, it says the universe as we know it started with a small singularity, then inflated over the next 13.8 billion years to the cosmos that we know today.
CERNIn the first moments after the Big Bang, the universe was extremely hot and dense. As the universe cooled, conditions became just right to give rise to the building blocks of matter – the quarks and electrons of which we are all made. A few millionths of a second later, quarks aggregated to produce protons and neutrons. Within minutes, these protons and neutrons combined into nuclei. As the universe continued to expand and cool, things began to happen more slowly. It took 380,000 years for electrons to be trapped in orbits around nuclei, forming the first atoms. These were mainly helium and hydrogen, which are still by far the most abundant elements in the universe. 1.6 million years later, gravity began to form stars and galaxies from clouds of gas. Heavier atoms such as carbon, oxygen and iron, have since been continuously produced in the hearts of stars and catapulted throughout the universe in spectacular stellar explosions called supernovae.But stars and galaxies do not tell the whole story. Astronomical and physical calculations suggest that the visible universe is only a tiny amount (4%) of what the universe is actually made of. A very large fraction of the universe, in fact 26%, is made of an unknown type of matter called "dark matter". Unlike stars and galaxies, dark matter does not emit any light or electromagnetic radiation of any kind, so that we can detect it only through its gravitational effects. An even more mysterious form of energy called “dark energy” accounts for about 70% of the mass-energy content of the universe. Even less is known about it than dark matter. This idea stems from the observation that all galaxies seems to be receding from each other at an accelerating pace, implying that some invisible extra energy is at work.
Galileo was nearly executed for going against common consensus.
So, space has no "structure".So you can't build things from it.In particular, you can't build "some sort of space-based creature." for whom" Everything about our makeup is pure space, including the instruments we use to detect the universe around us".
That's the beautiful thing about human beings. We can imagine anything we damn well please
I think we're missing the point."Flat" is 2-d.
It's also our downfall.If you make up enough stuff, you start to believe some of it and that leads you astray.
What the math says is that our senses allow us to perceive only 2 out of 3 spacial dimensions at any given moment.
@Colin2BI can see what he's saying. We can't see 360 degrees around an object, physically.
Depends on how you look at it.
From a virtual perspective in 3D space (as we perceive things with our senses) the Earth as seen from space would appear to be a flat disk (2D) floating in time (+1D).
Oh and btw, it's the space that flows through time, and everything that exists within spacetime is matter.
I was replying to his very specific, but incorrect, statement that we can “perceive only 2 out of 3 spacial dimensions at any given moment”. That’s not the same as being able to see all sides of an object.
I don't understand what he is suggesting in that case.