I may perceive an object using my retina capable of perceiving certain wavelengths of light but someone else may view the same object using ultrasound. To both observers the object is "real" but both are under illusion of perceiving that object in their subjective view.
OK. So you seem to be saying that the thing which our various different types of perception have in common - the object - is the thing you regard as "real". By this standard, isn't the concept of mass real? Mass certainly qualifies as something that is common to various different forms of perception.
If various sentient beings (e.g. me, my friend and my pet bat) have various different perceptions then it is very useful, I find, to assume that there is a real object which is the cause of those various perceptions and which explains the patterns and similarities between them.
Likewise, the concept of mass is very useful, I've found, for explaining various common features of all kinds of perceptions. Haven't you found it useful? If so, why not regard mass as real? I recommend it. It helps me to do things like buying potatoes.
I refer to your judgement in this respect but if you should continue to monitor the red shift, you perhaps will not only notice stretching of light but continued increase in that stretching as acceleration. However I'm happy to concede in this regard.
Yes, although one of the features of our observations of the large scale universe is that they are necessarily a near-instantaneous snapshot due to the shortness of human life. So we can't practically compare the red-shift now to what it was a significant time ago. But this is a side issue. I gather there are other more indirect inferences from observations like red-shift that are taken to indicate whether the expansion of the universe is accelerating or not.
Well, If you think about that statement you will realize the tendency of matter to convert to kinetic energy. Logically this implies conversion of mass as in E=mc^2 to kinetic energy of exponential increase in volume (hence c^2)
I don't know what you mean by "exponential increase in volume" here. The constant c2
in that famous equation is essentially just a way of converting between units that are commonly used to measure mass (e.g. kgs) and units that are commonly used to measure energy (e.g. Joules). A bit like converting between metres and yards. I don't see what volume or exponential relationships have to do with this. Incidentally, the mass of elementary particles is frequently quoted using units of energy. For example, the rest mass of an electron (its mass when it is not moving relative to the thing which is measuring the mass) is 511000 electron Volts (eVs). eV is a unit of energy.
I also don't know what you mean by "tendency to convert to kinetic energy". There are laws of physics which have been fairly successful in describing the relationship between mass and energy in various interactions. What do you mean by a tendency?
Well, let me ask you now... Your understanding of BB is simply the description of the expansion of the universe? Because then I don't think we need BB, observation of red shift would suffice.
I don't know a great deal about it, but I think the Big Bang Theory starts with the observed expansion of the universe and infers that it must have been in a much denser state in the past. There are then various associated theories as to how in a state of extreme density the 4 fundamental forces of nature were in some way unified in a form of symmetry that was broken during the very early stages of expansion. Stuff like that. As far as I'm aware, I don't think the BB Theory in itself says anything about how or whether all this mass/energy came into existence.
Well, I'm perplexed in my ignorance. I hear people regurgitate the same thing over and over...we use mass to explain energy... and energy is mass... Do you feel empowered in your understanding of either one?
If by "empowered" you mean that I think this knowledge could be put to some use, then yes. Maybe not by me personally, but a knowledge of the modern laws of physics, including QM, have, for example, allowed us to be talking to each other now using computers. To pick an example that is more specific to what we've been discussing: a knowledge of the existence of electrons and positrons and their interactions allowed somebody to invent the PET (Positron Emission Tomography) scanner. Very useful in medicine, I've heard.
All knowledge and different perspectives are useful. However, similar is true for religion where there is a threat to all thought being suspended in bliss of ignorance in belief in "knowing" that prevents to seek other perceptions of reality. There is a reason that GR was proposed hundred years ago and we're nowhere close in resolving the conflict with Quantum Mechanics. Just a thought that perhaps it's time...
It certainly seems to be true that the effort to unite General Relativity with Quantum Mechanics is taking quite a long time. I guess it must be very difficult! But if you think it's time the problem was solved, solve it! Or if you think the difficulties are caused by some kind of deep misunderstanding (as some people on this forum have done) let us know what you think has been misunderstood.
"When the seagulls follow the trawler, it is because they think sardines will be thrown into the sea." - Eric Cantona.