Expansion

Use this forum to discuss the philosophy of science. Philosophy of science deals with the assumptions, foundations, and implications of science.
Post Reply
Obvious Leo
Posts: 2501
Joined: April 28th, 2013, 10:03 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Omar Khayyam
Location: Australia

Re: Expansion

Post by Obvious Leo »

Wilson wrote:One way of thinking about space, in the sense of spacetime, is that it is not possible for anything to ever go outside the space of our universe. Shoot a laser beam in any direction at all, and it can never leave the universe. In the early universe, it would have been theoretically possible, I believe, for an exploding star to send out light in all directions, and after a finite time, some of that light that didn't encounter an obstacle would return to an observer on what's left of that star. The theoretical observer would see his earlier self, very faintly. This is, I assume, due to the effect of gravity curving spacetime. At this point, you could send out a beam of light and even if it didn't run into something it wouldn't return, because space is expanding at a speed faster than light.
It's nice to see a few of the more obvious absurdities of the spacetime paradigm summed up in such a succinct little paragraph. Shoot your laser beam in any direction you choose and space will simply expand at the speed of light to make sure it can't escape the universe. Hmmm!?? Gravity curves spacetime right back on itself so that the observer observes his earlier self. Hmmm!?? The space between widely separated galaxies is expanding at a speed faster than lightspeed, whereas it expands at a lesser speed for those which are closer together. Hmmm!??

These are just a sample few of the embedded inconsistencies which a spatial universe casts up and physics is utterly unable to resolve them. These notions can only be expressed in the language of mathematics, which is an infinitely versatile tool which can be used to model any pre-existing paradigm. However if the pre-existing paradigm is a dodgy one, then the equations which are devised to model it are nothing more than nerds playing clever games. The 26 dimensions (at last count) of M theory are an excellent case in point. Just because the sums look pretty this doesn't mean we live in a 26 dimensional universe and luckily even the M theorists themselves are not willing to suggest that we do. Maths can only be used to model a paradigm of reality, not to define the paradigm itself. In the case of spacetime this important qualification seems to have been overlooked.

Regards Leo
Wilson
Posts: 1500
Joined: December 22nd, 2013, 4:57 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eric Hoffer
Location: California, US

Re: Expansion

Post by Wilson »

Obvious Leo wrote:It's nice to see a few of the more obvious absurdities of the spacetime paradigm summed up in such a succinct little paragraph. Shoot your laser beam in any direction you choose and space will simply expand at the speed of light to make sure it can't escape the universe. Hmmm!??Gravity curves spacetime right back on itself so that the observer observes his earlier self. Hmmm!?? The space between widely separated galaxies is expanding at a speed faster than lightspeed, whereas it expands at a lesser speed for those which are closer together. Hmmm!??
Not what I said at all. It's similar to what would happen if you were approaching a big black hole and shot a laser beam just to its left side. If conditions were right I believe the black hole would curve space - or, if you prefer would deflect the light beam - so that it loops around and if it was massive enough the light would come back at you from the right side of the black hole. In the early universe, which presumably had as much mass in a small volume as we now have in a large volume, light would have been deflected enough to return to whatever sent it. Seeing his own image would be a bit of a stretch, admittedly; you'd need a hell of a lens.

Of course that's hard for me (or anyone) to visualize, because our minds evolved in a three-spatial-dimensional world. I'm sure you're familiar with the balloon analogy, where if one of the two-dimensional creatures shot off a light beam, it would circle around and if the balloon was small enough, his little two-dimensional eye would see it a while later. With a powerful enough two-dimensional telescope, he would be able to observe his earlier self. The analogy is that if we sent out a light beam in any direction from our three dimensional world, and spacetime was small enough, it would eventually come back to us.

I know you don't buy the spacetime concept, but I would suggest a little modesty in your certainty. Just because you and I and everyone else cannot visualize that extra dimension - just because it seems a little crazy - doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. I readily admit my struggles to get half a handle on the concepts. But what you need to remember is that certain aspects of the physical world, including quantum electrodynamics, don't make a lot of common sense, either.
These are just a sample few of the embedded inconsistencies which a spatial universe casts up and physics is utterly unable to resolve them. These notions can only be expressed in the language of mathematics, which is an infinitely versatile tool which can be used to model any pre-existing paradigm. However if the pre-existing paradigm is a dodgy one, then the equations which are devised to model it are nothing more than nerds playing clever games. The 26 dimensions (at last count) of M theory are an excellent case in point. Just because the sums look pretty this doesn't mean we live in a 26 dimensional universe and luckily even the M theorists themselves are not willing to suggest that we do. Maths can only be used to model a paradigm of reality, not to define the paradigm itself. In the case of spacetime this important qualification seems to have been overlooked.
I agree with you about M theory and string theories in general, by the way. They are mathematical theories that seem to give results compatible with a lot of observed characteristics about elementary particles and such but that doesn't mean that they are correct. Even if they were, unlikely that there will ever be proof one way or the other. On the other hand, you and I don't have the mathematical chops to fully grasp those concepts (if even the polymaths do, really) so I'm not 100% confident in that point of view. Just doesn't quite pass the smell test for me. Some absolutely brilliant mathematicians are hard at work at that stuff, kudos to the intellectual firepower necessary to do what they do, way beyond me - but smart people are often mistaken.
Obvious Leo
Posts: 2501
Joined: April 28th, 2013, 10:03 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Omar Khayyam
Location: Australia

Re: Expansion

Post by Obvious Leo »

Wilson wrote:If conditions were right I believe the black hole would curve space
Many others share your belief so you're not alone is assuming that physics is a faith-based discipline. In order to be regarded as an empirical science physics has got a long way to go with curved space, starting with a definition of space and culminating in a mechanism by which it can exhibit all these remarkable properties. They've been trying hard for over a hundred years but have precious little to show for their efforts thus far.

Regards Leo
Wilson
Posts: 1500
Joined: December 22nd, 2013, 4:57 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eric Hoffer
Location: California, US

Re: Expansion

Post by Wilson »

You do agree, Leo, that light from a distant star that passes close to a massive body - such as measured in a solar eclipse - gets deflected, right?
Obvious Leo
Posts: 2501
Joined: April 28th, 2013, 10:03 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Omar Khayyam
Location: Australia

Re: Expansion

Post by Obvious Leo »

Wilson wrote:You do agree, Leo, that light from a distant star that passes close to a massive body - such as measured in a solar eclipse - gets deflected, right?
Most certainly. This is the phenomenon known as gravitational lensing and it has been verified countless times. However it lends itself to a far simpler explanation than curved space. It is well known that everything slows down in the presence of a massive body, including light. This is because gravity slows down the speed of passing time, as shown in GR. Obviously light cannot travel faster than time so relative to a distant observer the beam of light slows down under the influence of the gravitational mass. The observer in a relational space observes this as bent light but the observer in a physical space is left only with a non-mechanical action at a distance. Q. If empty space has no physical properties how is it assumed to physically bend light? Answer. It doesn't. The bent light is a construct of the observer.

Regards Leo

-- Updated June 9th, 2014, 8:29 pm to add the following --

It might be worth remembering that throughout his life Einstein continued to maintain that spacetime should only be regarded as a mathematical tool and not as a physical description of the real world. I'm just simply taking the man at his word.

Regards Leo
Wilson
Posts: 1500
Joined: December 22nd, 2013, 4:57 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eric Hoffer
Location: California, US

Re: Expansion

Post by Wilson »

I agree that spacetime is something of an analogy - but space? Depending on your definition of it, space is as real as Coca-Cola.
Obvious Leo
Posts: 2501
Joined: April 28th, 2013, 10:03 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Omar Khayyam
Location: Australia

Re: Expansion

Post by Obvious Leo »

That's where we're going to have to agree to differ, Wilson. I live in a much simpler universe than you do where 3 dimensional space exists only in my own head. This is what Plato, Omar, Kant, and a host of other philosophers have been telling us all along and who am I to contradict these ancient sages? Furthermore every psychologist and neuroscientist worthy of the name is in firm lockstep with the philosophers and they even have a rough idea of exactly how the brain constructs its own mental 3D map. I have a more ready familiarity with the biological sciences than I do with the physical ones but I'd still prefer to recommend a proper neuroscience text rather than go into the details of this myself. However the notion is completely uncontroversial and it is also well known that homo sapiens is not even particularly good at this mental 3D mapping. The peregrine falcon is often assumed to be the best but almost all bird species are far better at it than us and the raptors always win the chocolates when these things are tested. It's not hard to see how the evolution of this feature would have a far greater survival value for a bird than it would for a mammal but some of the smaller herbivorous mammals would also leave us for dead. Even within our own species this ability is by no means uniform and experiments have consistently shown us for decades that men are considerably more spatially adept than women. When we consider our own evolutionary history this should come as no surprise.

Regards Leo
Xris
Posts: 5963
Joined: December 27th, 2010, 11:37 am
Location: Cornwall UK

Re: Expansion

Post by Xris »

Wilson wrote:One way of thinking about space, in the sense of spacetime, is that it is not possible for anything to ever go outside the space of our universe. Shoot a laser beam in any direction at all, and it can never leave the universe. In the early universe, it would have been theoretically possible, I believe, for an exploding star to send out light in all directions, and after a finite time, some of that light that didn't encounter an obstacle would return to an observer on what's left of that star. The theoretical observer would see his earlier self, very faintly. This is, I assume, due to the effect of gravity curving spacetime. At this point, you could send out a beam of light and even if it didn't run into something it wouldn't return, because space is expanding at a speed faster than light.
You are referring to the original BBT that has even been discounted by those who believe in expansion.Any EM radiation has to be a relation between points of mass, you can not simply shine a light into a void that has no responding point of contact. The idea that the universe is or ever has been a closed confined space does not accept the fact that nothing is an impossible concept. The BBT fails in every respect. The BBT and the new revised theories refuse to accept their impossibilities. Our understanding of the universe has been seriously delayed because of this dogmatic attachment to the BBT.
GaianDave51
Posts: 116
Joined: March 22nd, 2014, 2:45 am
Favorite Philosopher: Yogi Berra
Location: Massachusetts, USA

Re: Expansion

Post by GaianDave51 »

In post no. 11, Obvious Leo said,
They do not describe the real world but the observed world.
.

Obvious, please share with us your view concerning how the real world and the observed world differ.
Obvious Leo
Posts: 2501
Joined: April 28th, 2013, 10:03 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Omar Khayyam
Location: Australia

Re: Expansion

Post by Obvious Leo »

GaianDave51 wrote:Obvious, please share with us your view concerning how the real world and the observed world differ.
Sure. The real world is what is happening RIGHT NOW. The observed world is a hologram constructed entirely within the consciousness of the observer. Plato would call these the two worlds of Ideals and Forms, whereas Kant would say exactly the same thing in a different form of language. He speaks of noumenal and phenomenal reality. Neither Plato nor Kant were privy to the discoveries of modern physics but both were a lot more switched on to the implications of metaphysics than the nerds who presume to explain the universe to us nowadays. These ancient sages who the nerds regard with such dismissive contempt understood the significance of the observer. The information which the observer uses to construct his hologram is information from events which lie in his past, since common sense tells us that we can't observe something until after it's happened. Therefore the events which the observer is observing are events which no longer exist, and since the speed of light is finite the information which the observer receives from these no-longer-existent events is necessarily obsolete by the time he receives it. In our everyday lives this is not too much of a problem because the speed of light is bloody fast and therefore the information we receive from nearby ex-events is reasonably current. Thus we can map for ourselves an excellent facsimile of the world around us as it exists in real time, whilst accepting that our hologram is only a close approximation. We assume that the moon is still there because our information about it is only a second or so out of date. However, to quote Douglas Adams, the universe is big, very big. Thus we can make no such assumption about a distant star whose light has taken a billion years to reach us. On such a scale our hologram is a very shaky edifice on which to construct our map of the cosmos, because a lot of things can happen to a star in the course of a billion years.

Regards Leo

-- Updated June 18th, 2014, 8:33 pm to add the following --

This is the simplest argument for the non-existence of a 3 dimensional space. If the hologram which the observer constructs is of an event which no longer exists then the co-ordinate system which he creates to construct it can have no ontological validity either. Ergo 3D space is a man-made confection and spacetime goes out the window with it. This is the central plank of my irreverently named Philosophy of the Bloody Obvious.

Regards Leo
Mechsmith
Posts: 210
Joined: October 27th, 2013, 5:09 pm

Re: Expansion

Post by Mechsmith »

It's Obvious? I have been trying to get my head around the Hubble "Deep Field" observations, and your thoughts on the "Expansion" which may simply be either ficticious or an optical illusion and indeed is only holographic at best.

If the universe or space (defined as the distance between objects) is expanding how is it possible for the "Deep Field" observations to be made at all :?:

To Wit- The operators of the Hubble Telescope claim to be seeing light that was emitted some fifteen billion years ago. Fifteen billion years ago the visable universe wouls have been only a billion light years in radius (at best). What I am wondering is how the the light that was emitted only a billion years ago is now seen to be coming from fifteen billion light years distance. :?

If Expansion is a fact why is the region seen by the "Deep Field" so similar to the nearby universe. I would suspect that things would be a lot younger and closer together than seems to be the case.

Perhaps it needs another thread pertaining more to the observations or perhaps somebody can explain it to a barmaid :?:

I also worry about smell tests when there is that much money kicking around :?
Obvious Leo
Posts: 2501
Joined: April 28th, 2013, 10:03 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Omar Khayyam
Location: Australia

Re: Expansion

Post by Obvious Leo »

Optical illusion might be a bit too strong but that we spatialise events in time strikes me as a far simpler explanation for our observation of expanding space than any of the alternatives on offer. I've read an awful lot of physics books over the journey, as well as an awful lot of philosophy books, but I'm yet to find an explanation for how a non-physical entity can supposedly have physical properties. I thought god had that market well sewn up but if your geek tried pulling a stunt like that in Plato's academy he'd have been sold into slavery. Naturally curved space is every bit as nonsensical as expanding space so the geeks have frittered away a king's ransom of the taxpayer's dough in chasing down the farcical paradigm of spacetime. The holographic paradigm even allows GR to then explain how the apparent expansion appears to be accelerating, without recourse to the untestable "dark energy" hypothesis, as well as the wholly inexplicable cosmological constant. It gets rid of every other mathematical constant in physics at the same time and it also explains gravitational lensing, "quantum" entanglement, wave/particle duality, and a host of other mysteries.
Mechsmith wrote:To Wit- The operators of the Hubble Telescope claim to be seeing light that was emitted some fifteen billion years ago. Fifteen billion years ago the visable universe wouls have been only a billion light years in radius (at best). What I am wondering is how the the light that was emitted only a billion years ago is now seen to be coming from fifteen billion light years distance. :?
They'll have to stop smoking that stuff and I'm afraid that's all there is to it. The current cycle of our universe is only 13.8 billion years old and it had no visible light until about 13.4 billion years ago. If they're seeing light that is 15 billion years old then they should stick to light beer in strict moderation.
Mechsmith wrote: perhaps somebody can explain it to a barmaid :?:
I can explain it easily enough to Einstein's barmaid but all bets are off when it comes to Einstein's acolytes because they've formed themselves into a priesthood of believers bound to a single canonical doctrine.
Mechsmith wrote:I also worry about smell tests when there is that much money kicking around :?
I've smelt a rat for forty years and it was Einstein himself who told me where to find the cadaver. After the publication of GR he took pains to insist that the spacetime paradigm was merely a mathematical representation of reality and not reality itself. No doubt there's a good living to be made by pretending otherwise but you'd reckon that after a hundred years somebody might be getting a bit suspicious that the entire science of physics has ventured down a cul-de-sac.

Regards Leo

-- Updated June 19th, 2014, 12:39 am to add the following --

It's all a bit too late now because the Holy Roman Inquisition is no longer open for business but with the benefit of hindsight I reckon Hermann Minkowski should have been burnt at the stake. What a cockhead he was!!

Regards Leo
Stormcloud
Posts: 661
Joined: July 24th, 2013, 6:20 am

Re: Expansion

Post by Stormcloud »

If you get rid of all the theoretical/hypothetical clutter from your head you may just find some space. Leo, do you have an obsession with alcohol/dope? You seem to bring it up randomly. Oi! Oi! Oi!
Mechsmith
Posts: 210
Joined: October 27th, 2013, 5:09 pm

Re: Expansion

Post by Mechsmith »

Quote-They'll have to stop smoking that stuff and I'm afraid that's all there is to it. The current cycle of our universe is only 13.8 billion years old and it had no visible light until about 13.4 billion years ago. If they're seeing light that is 15 billion years old then they should stick to light beer in strict moderation.-end quote

Leo, I thought I was being rather generous with the "Optical Illusion" bit. The point that I was trying to figure out was that if the universe has cycles, which I doubt, then how come the universe some thirteen or fifteen billion years out looks pretty much the same as the nearby universe does :?: I kind of figured out that somebody with more smarts than I would have noticed this and come up with some sort of theory, no matter how cockamaniac it might be, to explain why.

I am a bit disapointed though. Your age of the universe is a theory, not a fact. It is mostly substanciated by the optical illusion of the "Red Shift" and the resulting Hubble Constant. But since the finite universe is a fact then I am going to go get the pot of gold under the end of the next rainbow. I'll split it with you when I get it :lol: Just send me a check for the postal service.



Hasn't ennybody figured out that a big bang-expanding universe would have been a bit smaller thirteen or fifteen billion years ago :?: So if the telescope is looking out there is no way light thirteen billion light years distant could be seen period. The emitting object hadn't hardly got there yet. I don't understand something or somebody's fibbing :x (Even Money) Thirteen billion years ago the universe (assuming a big bang) was only a billion or two light years in radius.

I am afraid that many of our scientists would be better employed in a rice paddy :evil: We already have enough politicians :!:
Obvious Leo
Posts: 2501
Joined: April 28th, 2013, 10:03 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Omar Khayyam
Location: Australia

Re: Expansion

Post by Obvious Leo »

Stormcloud. I try to keep my mind free of clutter and do so by chucking out everything that doesn't make sense. We Aussies are a pragmatic culture dedicated to the principle that if it sounds like crap it more than likely is. However you gravely underestimate me if you think I can't prove every word I say because my philosophy has been my life's work and is entirely based on diligent scholarship. It yields simple common sense explanations for every unexplained conundrum in physics and it also yields testable predictions which conflict with those made under the spacetime paradigm. If you want to take issue with any specific points I raise I urge you do so but I caution you that you'll need a comprehensive command of the facts because mine is now a mature philosophy which leaves no angle unexplored.

On the other hand if you simply want to cast aspersions on my character you're simply wasting your breath because I couldn't give a toss.

Regards Leo
Post Reply

Return to “Philosophy of Science”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021