[andreasva (OP)]

Our first thoughts of the world around us was a flat Earth.  Given our understanding back then it was considered very logical, and everyone in the world pretty much considered it a fact.  Sail a ship too far, an you might fall off. 

Then we moved past that, to a geocentric interpretation.  This made better sense, given the sun and moon appeared to be rotating around Earth on a regular predictable basis.  It was a logical conclusion, and everyone pretty much considered this as the new fact.   

Then we move on to our Heliocentric view and beyond, as our understanding broadened and our technology advanced.  Now, everyone pretty much considers this as fact, complete with a big bang that started the ball rolling. 

One thing is clear between all these new levels of understanding.  Extreme resistance was the response.  Galileo was nearly executed for going against common consensus.  With each evolution of our understanding, disproving old dogma becomes ever more difficult.  It's an extreme opposition to new ideas, because the old idea's feel safe, I suppose.  Nobody wants their sense of reality shook.

Another thing is also clear to me.  Our understanding is based on material observations in each case.  And in each case, it made perfect sense given our current understanding of the world around us.  We weren't wrong, we simply didn't have all the facts in each case.   

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?

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.  We even have a space-based measuring system, derived from some sort of space derivative.  Similar to a meter based on matter, but not the same substance.  In this state, we know our space-meter is a static unit of measure.  We also can't see matter, and have no clue what a photon is.

Somehow we've created a technology to observe matter.  We start to notice clumps of matter scattered across the entire universe (galaxies).  We would not see expansion.  What we would see is matter condensing to an ever smaller state, or dissipating.  Remember, our space meter would be static from our perspective.  We could deduce matter was attracted to one another, as these clumps of matter slowly moved towards each other.  We could see that, but expansion, and acceleration of that expansion, would not be observed from our perspective.  We would see matter contracting inward at an accelerated rate, and that would be it.  If we hit the rewind button, we would conclude that the entire universe was once filled with matter.  We wouldn't know how or why, but we would know.  We would probably deduce that matter loses energy over time, and contracts inwards in the process, probably at the inverse square we might guess.  Dark energy wouldn't even be on the table.  Inflation wouldn't be on the table.  A big bang wouldn't be on the table.  This matter popped into existence all at once, and then like a dense fog in the sunrise, slowly dissipated in place.

The simple fact is, if matter was indeed contracting inward uniformly, we wouldn't know it by any of our current methods of detection, because the effect would be uniform.  X would always equal X at any level of contraction.

It does start to explain things in a much simpler light.  If you really give it some deep thought.

I think this is a 50/50 deal.  It could be either way, depending on ones perspective.  One is right though, and the other wrong.  But no one is asking the question.  I admit, it's hard to accept, given what we know.  One thing is fairly certain in my mind though, either way, all the discoveries we've made over the years fit both possible answers.  The only major deviation is a big bang.  But even here, it still parallels what we hypothesize as the beginning.  A universe filled with primordial particles.  We're just missing the little understood singularity part, maybe.  Still could have been a single quantum fluctuation that caused a universe.
 
Which perspective do you believe?

Please think carefully before you reply...   



     

 

[PmbPhy]

Your understandings of some of the things you mentioned above. For example, the statement

... 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?

You wrote

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

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.

None of what you say here

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. 

is true.

This statement

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.

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.

In the statement

What we would see is matter condensing to an ever smaller state, or dissipating.

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. This advice should be followed by everyone who wants to understand science but unfortunately non-scientists always ignore it. But here goes anyway - 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.

[andreasva (OP)]

... 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.

From my statement, you have absolutely no basis to form any opinion.  I have no idea what your objections are, frankly.  We had an epic event which created the universe in an instance that we call the big bang.  The universe underwent a hyper-inflationary period, where space-time expanded outwards nearly instantaneously, and then proceeded to keep expanding at a much slower rate.  And now, we understand that expansion is accelerating from measurements of the redshift.  Something like that anyway.  We inserted the theory of dark energy to explain the acceleration.  It's an inferred repulsive force pushing against galaxies that appears to increase over time. 

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.

I never mentioned scientists or physicists in the statement, you did, although opposition is quite common within the community.  It's healthy skepticism if opposed rationally.

It's not clear what you mean by Our understanding is based on material observations in each case. What exactly is a "material observation"?

Everything that isn't space. 

Is there another kind of observation that you'd like to mention?

No there is not. 

You wrote

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.

When I say we, surely you're smart enough to infer the universe.

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

Never read Peebles, so I can't comment

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.

I agree.

"Both are wrong" is a pretty bold assertion.  I don't know that anyone can claim right or wrong on anything in science.  Sure, 1+1=2 is a fact, but beyond that, who knows for sure what it all means, and how it all began?  Possible there never was a beginning, rather a perceived beginning that can never be reached.  Hawking's was suggesting this before his death, actually. 

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. 

is true.

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.

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.

I didn't assert anything, you did.  I said to use your imagination.  Maybe I should have qualified that with, if possible.  Clearly you are not capable of imagining a different perspective, other than your own, and what you think you understand.  And that's fine with me.  Everyone has limitations.

In this case you seem to have a flawed notion of what space is.

I actually have no idea what it is, because we can't observe space directly.  We do consider it is expanding though.  If you do have some physical evidence that can conclusively demonstrate the physical properties of space, I'm all ears.  I think the entire world would be interested in your theory, actually.  Einstein referred to it as space-time.  Seems like a pretty good answer to me.

What we would see is matter condensing to an ever smaller state, or dissipating.

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??

Everything.  It's the inverse of space. 

The more I read the more its clear that you don't have a clue what you're talking about,

I think that's a bit narrow minded, but I'm okay with your opinion. 

that you're just typing what you think nature is and its all wrong.

Disagree.

I never claimed to be right or wrong, or that anything was right or wrong, you did.

Let me give you some advice.

No thanks.

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.

Once again, I never claimed anyone or anything was right or wrong, you did.  I don't even know if anything I'm suggesting is right or wrong.  But I'm pretty sure there's going to be a few opinions on the subject.

It's pretty simple what I'm trying to explain as simply as possible.   Really, it is.

If you look at the universe from expansions perspective, it's not expanding.  It's a simple inverted perspective.  Space is expanding, and the contents of the universe is traveling outwards right along with it.  It's not that hard to grasp.  Honestly, you're over thinking it.  It simply becomes a difference in ratios between the total volume of the universe compared to the total volume of mass within the universe.  The gap between distant galaxies is widening.  The more universe we gain through expansion, the smaller the ratio of mass to universe.  If we could see an edge to the universe, and were able to compare an atom as a ratio to that edge, we would conclude that mass is smaller at any given moment, compared to the increasing size of the universe. 

Is it really that hard for you to grasp this thought?

Does it mean anything?  I don't know, and neither does anyone frankly.

What I do see is a difference in perspectives.  Matter compared to matter appears to be fairly static in nature.  We have a minimum size somewhere down in a Planck length.  If we compare a Planck length to matter, that length is static, because it is derived from matter or energy.  If we compare a Planck length to expansion, it is not static. Scale becomes a somewhat meaningless concept, or relative perspective of the universe.  It's very similar in nature to a relative perspective of motion.       

Is it really that difficult a concept to imagine?                     

[PmbPhy]

From my statement, you have absolutely no basis to form any opinion.

Wrong. 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[/i].

The rest of your responses are what one expects in this sub forum so I won't bother. I.e. nobody in this subforum can understand that what they believe is wrong or that their new theory is wrong. I only respond to explain where you made mistakes and where you're unclear. 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.

So you're responses are par for the course and as such of no interest to me. And apparently of no interest to anybody else. Especially with misleading subject line.

Lator gator

[andreasva (OP)]

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

I have no idea what you're talking about at this point.  You seem to be inferring that the big bang theory has been debunked, unbeknownst to the rest of the world.  There's a lot of people that would disagree with your claims.  Now if you're talking about what caused it, sure, no one knows a darn thing.  That's common knowledge. 

Let's get one thing very clear though.  I am not claiming anything as fact.  All I said was, a big bang started the ball rolling.  That's not a theory, or some factual claim, or anything of that nature.  It's just a generalized statement in a paragraph.  The universe had a beginning that we call the big bang, according to theory.  What that means is most definitely open to interpretation.  I am not shouting from the roof tops that the big bang is fact.  It's not, because it is a theory.  You seem to be standing from the rooftop shouting the big bang theory is debunked.  The big bang simply refers to a point of origin for our universe, which is considered to be the most reasonable explanation going at the moment.  It defines the perceived age of the universe, theoretically speaking.

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.

Ironically, not once did I ever claim you were wrong.  I said you were unable to grasp an alternative perspective, which is true, according to your responses.  And I never said I was right, which inherently indicates I could definitely be wrong.  I have no problem with being wrong, ever.  I've been wrong a lot more than I've ever been right, and that's a fact.  You seem to make a lot of wrong assumptions, and insert words into my mouth in the process. 

And one last thing.  I never stated this was a theory.  I claimed it was an alternative perspective on what we already know, or think we know as true.  I stated there was a 50/50 chance that either perspective could be correct.  That's it.  I'm not rewriting physics, I'm merely questioning our perspective on the universe.  We have a definite perspective from matter as our focal point, looking outward.  If you look at the inverse of that focal point, what would be seen?  The exact opposite of course. No inflation, no expansion, just matter shrinking, or contracting over time at an accelerated rate.

Really, there's not much to be right or wrong about, other than which perspective is the true perspective to consider.  We've only considered our perspective up to this point, understandably.  Is the inverse perspective valid?  I have no idea.  I can see it pretty clearly though, and it makes me very curious as to whether or not we are defining the universe from the proper perspective.  We're bias to matter.  This perspective is like a mirror image of what we consider now to be correct.               

NASA
According 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.com
The 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.

CERN
In 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.

back at you tator..   

[Bored chemist]

Galileo was nearly executed for going against common consensus.

That's odd. I thought he was nearly executed for bringing the authority of those in power into question.

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.

OK, lets do that.
One property of space is that it is homogeneous.
"space" here in my room is that same as space on the Moon and the same as space in the heart of  the Sun. (The matter present is different, but space is the same.

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".

[opportunity]

I think we're missing the point.

"Flat" is 2-d.

"Flat" according to the holographic principle theorem (google, please) is valid.

[andreasva (OP)]

@Bored chemist

Yes, homogeneous.  There's only 1 space, and the value can be stated as 1 from any point in time, or from any location.  Space is homogeneous.  Apparently it can inflate, according to theory, but the inflation would not alter its homogeneity. 

I struggle with the wording, and maybe contraction is not the best word to use.  I don't mean to imply contracting in the conventional sense of the word.  This is more inflation, versus deflation.  We are potentially bound to a deflating energy state, rather than an inflating universe.  These are precise reciprocal perspectives.  Because we are potentially bound to deflation, our perspective of the universe would be inflation.  Our view of deflation would appear static.  Energy cannot be created nor destroyed.   

This is not about right or wrong.  The only appropriate answer is, I don't know.  And I don't know.  I don't know how you'd even test for this condition.  It would look exactly as it looks now.  Either perspective would be valid to an extent, but the true underlying reality would have a definite true or false value. 

It's really weird to think we might be bound to a deflating state of energy, but it makes a lot of practical sense in explaining the universe.  Energy is dynamic or heterogeneous, and space is static or homogeneous.  It's far more likely that energy is the one deflating, and the inflating perspective of space the mirage or illusion, in my very humble opinion.         

[andreasva (OP)]

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.  Even, "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 what makes is unique.  It's how we learn.     

As Einstein said, "Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited, whereas imagination embraces the entire world, stimulating progress, giving birth to evolution."

[Bored chemist]

That's the beautiful thing about human beings.  We can imagine anything we damn well please

It's also our downfall.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martian_canal

If you make up enough stuff, you start to believe some of it and that leads you astray.

[PmbPhy]

I think we're missing the point.

"Flat" is 2-d.

Wrong. That's only true for Gaussian curvature, not Riemann curvature. In general relativity spacetime
(a 4-d manifold) is either flat or curved depending on whether the Riemann tensor is zero or not, respectively.

When it comes to space itself (a 3-d manifold) it too can be either flat or curved.

Best not to make claims about math you don't know and in GR the math is Riemann geometry and tensor analysis.

[Ve9aPrim3]

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). What the math says is that our senses allow us to perceive only 2 out of 3 spacial dimensions at any given moment. The truth of it is the world is spherical (3D) and travels through time (+1D) just like the rest of us, we just can't perceive all of its sides simultaneously.

Oh and btw, it's the space that flows through time, and everything that exists within spacetime is matter.

[andreasva (OP)]

It's also our downfall.

If you make up enough stuff, you start to believe some of it and that leads you astray.

True enough BC.

I don't think the link you sent had much relevance to your statement though.  Their conclusions were based on observations, which were impaired by the limitations of their technology.  They weren't so much wrong, as much as they were naive in trusting their own eyes.  Plenty of things we get wrong with our own limitations.  Pluto was quite surprising.  Much more dynamic than anyone ever predicted.  We thought it was nothing more than a block of ice, closer to a comet or asteroid.  We still like to take a stab at what something is before we actually know what it is.  No shame in that.  Human nature.  Perceval Lowell definitely stretched the observations beyond anything rational, and appeared to fabricate an entire story.  Probably driven by fame and/or money would be my guess.  I didn't know anything about the canals.  Pretty interesting.  Thanks. 

[andreasva (OP)]

@Ve9aPrim3
I don't know anything about holographic theory, and I don't understand how your reply fits into my post.  Would you mind elaborating somewhat?  In English please.   
thanks...

[Colin2B]

What the math says is that our senses allow us to perceive only 2 out of 3 spacial dimensions at any given moment.

Your distorted ‘maths’ might, but real maths says nothing of the sort.
Our senses (eyes) perceive 3D very clearly, how else do you manage to throw paper balls into the bin, play cricket, baseball, football etc.
Of course if you smoke stuff your senses might mislead you.

[andreasva (OP)]

@Colin2B
I can see what he's saying.  We can't see 360 degrees around an object, physically.  What allows us to make baskets is an understanding of the depth of field, but we're only seeing about 50% of any object within the field at any given time.  We deduce the other 50% with natural predictive abilities.  We know a ball is round, so we naturally predict the full scope of the ball without seeing the full 360%.  Much of what we do is predict, and we really need two eyes to predict field depth accurately.  My dad has macular degeneration in one eye, and has no depth of field anymore.  To him, the world is somewhat 2-D now.  His brain has to reinterpret field depth using one eye.  He also has Parkinson's and Alzheimer's, which is about as bad as it can get for a human being.  I can't comment on the math, however.  I do consider that light comes in at straight lines from any given object.  That's how we gauge the world around us, with straight lines from point A to point B.  Visually speaking.                         

[Colin2B]

@Colin2B
I can see what he's saying.  We can't see 360 degrees around an object, physically. 

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.
We clearly percieve height, width and distance to an object. Obviously, anyone who lacks binocular vision will be unable to percieve the depth dimension.
It’s true that light travels in straight lines and if you work out those lines you can see how depth perception works and allows us to see more of an object than a single eye would - effectively  looking around the side - you can show this by looking at a cube and alternately closing one eye, then opening it and closing the other.

[PmbPhy]

Depends on how you look at it.

No. It doesn't depend on how you look at it by any stretch of the imagination. When physicists use terms like curvature when speaking about cosmology or general relativity it has one and only one meaning and as such is objective and by no means subjective whatsoever.

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).

That's only true for humans. Not true otherwise. E.g. images coming from objects reveal their 3-d nature. In fact its why we have two eyes. People who only have one eye have a lack of depth perception. With two eyes we can detect three dimensions.

What the math says is that our senses allow us to perceive only 2 out of 3 spacial dimensions at any given moment.

In this forum we discuss physics. Not the limitations of humans.

Oh and btw, it's the space that flows through time, and everything that exists within spacetime is matter.

Quite wrong. Where on earth do you get such notions from? Wherever you get them I suggest steering clear of them if you want to understand physics as well as physicists do.

[andreasva (OP)]

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.  Thought there was something i wasn't understanding about dimensions.  Seems more like he is talking about displaying a 3d image on a 2d surface or something, which is more of a 3d simulation on a computer monitor. 

[Colin2B]

I don't understand what he is suggesting in that case. 

Not sure he does either. He has a habit of posting meaningless strings of symbols and claiming they are some great insight. He also claims to have a very high IQ, but doesn’t show any sign of being able to use it.