# Steady State Universe - Philosophical Implications



## Space Smith (Aug 18, 2007)

Steady State Universe - Philosophical Implications.

There is evidence that the Big Bang is wrong. Eg Red Shift is caused by "tired light" - basically photons are being deenergised by colliding with other atomic particle. Anyway. I haven't posted so much as to debate that but....

If the "Steady State" is the correct model then the "eternal return" possibility of the "Big Bang" goes out the window doesn't it ?

The Steady State model would mean that the Universe is infinite as well as eternal "both ways" along the time arrow.

With such _huge swathes _of space/time, somewhere in the Universe someone else is writing this message on a plant like ours and every other feature identical. There will of course be _huge number _of similar people on similiar worlds doing nearly the same thing. It boggles the mind 

So how can we somehow get to grips with issues regarding the human soul in this endless infinite universe ?


----------



## j d worthington (Aug 18, 2007)

Welcome to the Chronicles, Space Smith!

Well, first... all the evidence I've seen tends to indicate modifications in the standard model of the Big Bang; I've seen no indication of it being replaced by anything, let alone a return to the Steady State model. If you could provide some links, or citations, to recent work on this, I'd be very interested, as it would indeed have vast implications....

Also, your example of numerous others writing, etc., would indicate a form of such recurrence itself, would it not?

As for your final question... well, that depends on what you mean by "the human soul". If you mean it in the traditional sense, I'm afraid I'd have to say there is no evidence such a thing exists. If you mean it in its more metaphorical sense, how does this differ from one involving a "big bang"? Either way, the human race is such an infinitely tiny part of the whole, that it becomes negligible, of importance only to itself (at least, until we encounter some other sentient, intelligent, probably technologically-advanced species) -- or at least, to the species limited to this planet. Thus, I don't really see how the difference in model alters that particular question at all....


----------



## matisamd (Aug 19, 2007)

as i understand it the unified theories of string theory are the current most advance accepted knowledge we have in out understanding, and scifi shows like sg1 and even tng are joyfully funny with there application of those understandings. and AFAICS the multiple dimension theory ie ware every possibillity exists for every possible action of every atom helps explain time travel, which is also part of the posibilty of string which says time travel is possible by the creation of a warm hole then sending one end of as near light speed and bring it back means you have a time portal to the past , i dont know if a warm hole would be unidirectional making it a portal to the future but hey. because you get to grips with yuor soul with tools at yuor disposal and if there insufficiant be part of the porgres and invent anew ones.

when you say old light are you talking about when electrons jump energy levels and give off diff frequencies of light ? 


But yuor last question i sum up as the more we learn and look back the more we must realise we probably dont understand everything infact we probably understand almost nothing yet feel so empowered by tht which we under stand.

basically i dont beleave in heaven i dont beleave we just end i beleave when we die or what our soul is, is somthing we really really dont understand, but! like the first series of any show that may continue 10 seasons more the first series tells you basically the whole story, what i mean by that is look to the simple we do understand ie no matter how corny it is or why we do it or what we gain by being loving to everyone and trying to see good in each other is the best we can do, think like sg1 episode 200 said, as i am not able to put it into words better currently. If you saw the show. if not go watch the last 5 minutes they put it so well.

disclaimer all my knowledge is second hand from other sources like tv book etc and are all very unrealiable as anything done by epople is, also i made it worse like chinese whispers


----------



## Space Smith (Aug 19, 2007)

Thanks for the replies. From what I can gather the following writer, with an electrical engineering background is saying that cosmologists and "stringers" have lost "contact" with core science. (Can't put my hand on the book in question or author at the moment- but will later). "Science" proceeds by specialists in one discipline considering other disciplines. The author state that string theory doesn't meet meet the requirements of falsifiable experiment and is therefore  an exercise in intellectual m*********** (my words)


The Big Bang I believe is predicated on everything moving apart. The further it is away, the faster its moving, hence the greater the "Red Shift". The traditional Big Bang argument being that light (considered as a wave) is being stretched to he "redder end" of the spectrum.


The "tired light" theory is a photon that every x light years collides with a particle. The author mentions that empirical evidence for red shift according to the Big Bang modellers is becoming or is (?) not supportive. Indeed the BBers partially adopting "tired light" to explain certain anomalies. 

I claim no great expertise in "science" (obtained a 2:2 in maths/physics many years ago). There are political forces involved with funding issues. People are making a living out of the Big Bang !  (As someone who knows more than many how deceitful the rulers of this world are this is something of the variety of small potatoes    )


WRT to the human soul. I suppose the birth and life of a human being could be mirrored by the Big Bang and Big Crunch. A sense of being born , dying and rebirth. The Steady State suggests "material eternity" with no parallels with what we regard as life cycles of humans, trees, planets, stars galaxies etc It's hard to get a "fix" on - not that we should. The universe doesn't owe us nice analogies to explain our existence 


(Finally looks like a forum with some intelligent people on it ! Good to be here   )


----------



## chrispenycate (Aug 19, 2007)

A steady-state, non- expanding universe might well be spacially infinite would be an aging system; if it started with only hydrogen it would ultimately die due to lack of energy; oh some consiserable time hence, but to a mathematician "infinity" is not merely a very large number, it is boundlessness. The Hoyle "continuous creation" model allowed for expansion (yes, something which is infinite can expand; it just doesn't get any bigger) with constant density, which allows for eternity as well.
But "red shift cannot be explained away by collisions, which would reduce the energy but would not shift spectral lines. It could be explained away by a continuous change in the speed of light, or one or two other fundamental physical constants over long periods of time (after all, the lightfrom some of the further observed objects is several billion years old, and if a physical constant was different when it was generated, this could well give a shifted spectrum).
Or the gravitational field of the universe slowly diminishing.
Or light itself losing energy over time

But none of these bode well for a universe which is expected to last forever.


----------



## Space Smith (Aug 19, 2007)

chrispenycate said:


> A steady-state, non- expanding universe might well be spacially infinite would be an aging system; if it started with only hydrogen it would ultimately die due to lack of energy;



Not necessarily. The second law heat death scenario is not proven. The Universe would have already died IF it is steady state and eternal...I think we are still learning about the mass energy thing.




chrispenycate said:


> oh some consiserable time hence, but to a mathematician "infinity" is not merely a very large number, it is boundlessness.


And of course there's different types of inifinity. 



chrispenycate said:


> The Hoyle "continuous creation" model allowed for expansion (yes, something which is infinite can expand; it just doesn't get any bigger) with constant density, which allows for eternity as well.


hmmm not sure what you mean here..." bigger" needs a frame of reference ?





chrispenycate said:


> But "red shift cannot be explained away by collisions, which would reduce the energy but would not shift spectral lines. It could be explained away by a continuous change in the speed of light, or one or two other fundamental physical constants over long periods of time (after all, the lightfrom some of the further observed objects is several billion years old, and if a physical constant was different when it was generated, this could well give a shifted spectrum).
> Or the gravitational field of the universe slowly diminishing.
> Or light itself losing energy over time



Damn. Will have to go back and remind myself of spectral line stuff.

Will also arm myself with book when I can find it 
There's something to do with the cosmological constant being derived from physical constants that could only apply to the universe as it is now. The author says that this would be extremely unlikely - sorry about being vague...and he ties this in with "tired light"



chrispenycate said:


> But none of these bode well for a universe which is expected to last forever.



"bode well" suggests a preference   (and I wonder if there might be subjective reasons for preferring the Big Bang model ? "I am the Alpha and The Omega sayeth the Lord "etc)


----------



## HardScienceFan (Aug 20, 2007)

A genuine redshift anomaly seems to exist, one that would cause a re-think about cosmological issues if the data are accepted. Let’s look at this for just a moment. As we look out into space, the light from galaxies is shifted towards the red end of the spectrum. The further out we look, the redder the light becomes. The measure of this redshifting of light is given by the quantity z, which is defined as the change in wavelength of a given spectral line divided by the laboratory standard wavelength for that same spectral line. Each atom has its own characteristic set of spectral lines, so we know when that characteristic set of lines is shifted further down towards the red end of the spectrum. This much was noted in the early 1920’s. Around 1929, Hubble noted that the more distant the galaxy was, the greater was the value of the redshift, z. Thus was born the redshift/distance relationship. It came to be accepted as a working hypothesis that z might be a kind of Doppler shift of light because of universal expansion. In the same way that the siren of a police car drops in pitch when it races away from you, so it was reasoned that the redshifting of light might represent the distant galaxies racing away from us with greater velocities the further out they were. The pure number z, then was multiplied by the value of lightspeed in order to change z to a velocity. However, Hubble was discontent with this interpretation. Even as recently as the mid 1960’s Paul Couderc of the Paris Observatory expressed misgivings about the situation and mentioned that a number of astronomers felt likewise. In other words, accepting z as a pure number was one thing; expressing it as a measure of universal expansion was something else.

   [FONT=&quot]Two new samples of QSOs have been constructed from recent surveys to test the hypothesis that the
redshift distribution of bright QSOs is periodic in log(1 + z). The first of these comprises 57 different
redshifts among all known close pairs or multiple QSOs, with image separations ¡Â 10¡Ç¡Ç, and the second
consists of 39 QSOs selected through their X-ray emission and their proximity to bright comparatively
nearby active galaxies. The redshift distributions of the samples are found to exhibit distinct peaks with
a periodic separation of ¡&SHY; 0.089 in log(1+z) identical to that claimed in earlier samples but now extended
out to higher redshift peaks z = 2.63, 3.45 and 4.47, predicted by the formula but never seen before. The
periodicity is also seen in a third sample, the 78 QSOs of the 3C and 3CR catalogues. It is present in
these three datasets at an overall significance level 10-5 - 10-6, and appears not to be explicable by
spectroscopic or similar selection effects.
[/FONT]
you're talking about this, among other things?


----------



## Space Smith (Aug 20, 2007)

HardScienceFan said:


> [FONT=&quot]Two new samples of QSOs have been constructed from recent surveys to test the hypothesis that the
> redshift distribution of bright QSOs is periodic in log(1 + z). The first of these comprises 57 different
> redshifts among all known close pairs or multiple QSOs, with image separations ¡Â 10¡Ç¡Ç, and the second
> consists of 39 QSOs selected through their X-ray emission and their proximity to bright comparatively
> ...



Well. Not in that much detail  , which is way beyond me or my inclination to study it 

HardScienceFan. A question. What is your best guess at what sort of universe we live in, based on all you know ?


----------



## HardScienceFan (Aug 20, 2007)

well i guess i opened the trap for myself there.

Uh,I'm here so much,i can't get any reading done.
I grew up  reading Coleman,Gamow,Asimov,Hoyle
Hard to shake that heritage

I'm with the 'expanders'

*Too little cosmology on the net,that's the problem*


----------



## chrispenycate (Aug 20, 2007)

> "bode well" suggests a preference  (and I wonder if there might be subjective reasons for preferring the Big Bang model ? "I am the Alpha and The Omega sayeth the Lord "etc)



Yes, the "big bang" universe does contain elements of "let there be light", doesn't it? How about postulating a wider field (which can only be called a "universe", since the word implies all matter, energy and spacetime that exists, ever has existed or ever will exist; but this is many orders of magnitude more complex than the space we consider a universe) within which physical laws are not rigid, but quantum effects predominate. Continuously this will be producing "sub-universes" with fixed sheaves of invariable physical laws. Not "thousands per second" as time intervals are undefinable. Most (almost all. 99.9…% to an incredible number of decimal places) of these are unstable, most of the rest are uninteresting. It is not an extention of the anthropic principle that we live in one where the physical constants allow life, and does not require a benevolent intelligence; merely, that in another configuration, we wouldn't have been asking the question.
In the overall picture, since conservation of mass, energy, momentum are not laws, merely suggestions taken up in the space we happen to inhabit, since the arrow of entropy can point any way, even pink or angry, there is no need for beginnings or endings, and it could power a subset eternally, pulling out excess mass through black holes and pumping in undifferentiated matter to maintain the balance between hydrogen and the heavier elements eternally; but evidence obtaine by observing very distant (and thus a long way back in time) suggests that the system is evolutive, that the afformentioned ratio is changing, that the universe is aging….
Still, these observations are anything but definitive – the observed universe is a big place (although not, in big bang terms, infinite, still big enough to be quite daunting.
Uh oh - a client who wants me to print out the scores for some children's songs, seven to eleven.
Change of style.


----------



## Space Smith (Aug 20, 2007)

We all agree on something . The Universe is BIG 

Or is it ?


----------



## j d worthington (Aug 20, 2007)

Well... that depends on what you're using as a comparison. Compared to another universe (I know, Chris will argue with me on this one, and technically he's right... but this usage has come to be accepted for non-technical purposes, so I'll risk his bonking me on the head....) then it depends.... (And even this is arguable; cf. Heinlein's "Waldo", for instance.)

However, in comparison to us... "big" just doesn't cover it.....


----------



## Space Smith (Aug 21, 2007)

j. d. worthington said:


> Well... that depends on what you're using as a comparison. Compared to another universe (I know, Chris will argue with me on this one, and technically he's right... but this usage has come to be accepted for non-technical purposes, so I'll risk his bonking me on the head....) then it depends.... (And even this is arguable; cf. Heinlein's "Waldo", for instance.)
> 
> However, in comparison to us... "big" just doesn't cover it.....



BIG is bigger than big 

Yes . A comparison. 

Its not an original thought but...: This universe is the equivalent of a subatomic  particle say in a kitchen sink. Lots of "universes" on our scale make up another scale of universe. 

Iterate that process up to a point....then consider the largest in that chain of iterations may be a sub atomic particle in the crumb of a biscuit I have just eaten. Circular if you know what I mean.

_At a complete and utter tangent. I nearly asked a woman out this morning. It crossed my mind that the pleasures of such a transient undertaking - whether it lasted a night or thirty years - make one not give much thought to life the universe and everything and that. Is it just single males or men fed up with their wives consider such impracticalities and uneconomic thinking of "life the universe and everything" ? 
_


----------



## j d worthington (Aug 21, 2007)

Nope. It's human beings in general.... Just take a look at history.......


----------



## gully_foyle (Aug 22, 2007)

I used to read alot of Fred Hoyle, so I thought the idea of a steady state universe had its charms. And he had a few theories to explain expansion, particularly that space is being created in situ, thus pushing apart the space already created (bad explanation, I know).

But, the steady state universe requires just one universe, that has been and will always be. It doesn't leave much room for variation of the physical laws that govern the universe. Consequently I like the concept of a series of universes, that we go through an evolutionary process and that each new cycle creates a new set of laws, potentially improved on the old ones, that keep the universe together, and makes it such a nice place for us to live in.

wrt The human soul, I think our souls are pretty much tied into the universe anyway, regardless of whether it was a big bang, a steady state or god's desire for a bit of lighting.


----------



## Space Smith (Aug 22, 2007)

gully_foyle said:


> I used to read alot of Fred Hoyle, so I thought the idea of a steady state universe had its charms. And he had a few theories to explain expansion, particularly that space is being created in situ, thus pushing apart the space already created (bad explanation, I know).



Yes I have a book of his.



gully_foyle said:


> But, the steady state universe requires just one universe, that has been and will always be. It doesn't leave much room for variation of the physical laws that govern the universe. Consequently I like the concept of a series of universes, that we go through an evolutionary process and that each new cycle creates a new set of laws, potentially improved on the old ones, that keep the universe together, and makes it such a nice place for us to live in.


Subjective, but understandable. I don't know whether there's reason to believe the universe improves or is just a playground for "God" to experience through matter. There's an astrotheological saying that goes something like "As above, so below". If God's "mission" is to "enjoy" then so should we 



gully_foyle said:


> wrt The human soul, I think our souls are pretty much tied into the universe anyway, regardless of whether it was a big bang, a steady state or god's desire for a bit of lighting.



Yes I agree 100%.


----------



## Theleb K (Aug 22, 2007)

my thoughts, for what _they_ are worth in the grand scheme of things, I've just alluded to on another thread.  That is, quoting an old text,_ "...Nature contains Nature, Nature encompasses Nature..." 

_ie. in order to understand something new in nature you have to look at what's around you already.  This doesn't shed light everywhere, clearly, BUT from this viewpoint, I don't see too many 'precedents' in nature for infinity so the idea of an infinite or an infinitely expanding Universe doesn't sit well with me.
There may be alot of grains of sand on the beach, or alot of blades of grass in the field but, if we can be bothered to count,  the number is finite at a fixed moment in time...

This may be more philosphical than scientific but I am not a scientist!


----------



## Space Smith (Aug 23, 2007)

Theleb K said:


> This may be more philosphical than scientific but I am not a scientist!



It is often a conceit amongst "scientists" that they feel specially equipped to pontificate about "scientific things". (Whereas I am very conceited and feel free to pontificate on everything that takes my fancy   )Everyone is free to speculate. I know a "scientist" on another forum who is one of the most stupid people to have navigated cyber space. 

It seems to me that many "scientists" are "bought". Dependent on whatever the prevailing paradigm there is in their field to attract funding. Coming up with new stuff can displace people from their work. There's my "rant" 

Yes. Looking around you. That's good. Being in the moment. Fixed on the Self as we go about our business   (if only it were that simple   )


----------



## HardScienceFan (Aug 23, 2007)

an element of truth in what you say,Smithy.
the scientific world does have its fads,and dogmas even


----------



## Interference (Aug 23, 2007)

If something can happen once, why not twice?  If twice, why not twenty-seven times?  If twenty-seven, why not an infinite number?

What caused the Big Bang?

Irrelevant.

What started the Universe?

Was it an isolated incident?

Were the ingrediants for this initiation available elsewhere?

Were other suitable ingredients available instead?

It this the first Universe?

Might the existence of the Original Universe be responsible for the creation of others?

In an infinity of Universes, need they all be subject to the same Universal Laws?

Did any or all Universes begin with a 'bang'?  Or none??

What part did multi-dimensional space play in the formation of the Original Universe?

If I tickle my toe, why does my ear tingle? (just to add at least one question I'd have a chance of answering myself  )


----------



## Theleb K (Aug 23, 2007)

Ok, infinity keeps cropping up here and it makes me make this face - .  Why?  To my (small and somewhat addled) mind, infinity or "the infinite" is a nonsense that mathmeticians use instead of saying, "actually, we just don't know," or "Hmm, our equations just break down round about here..."

For example, take the old maths riddle of infinite distance between an arrow  and its target ie.  when you keep halving the distance that an arrow has to travel after leaving a bow you find that it never actually reaches the target! 

Now, everyone knows that this is cobblers.  If, in reality, you shoot an arrow accurately at a target lying in range of the bow and nothing intervenes to alter its course it will hit it!  If the sums do not recognise this then there must be something missing from the equation...

Look at it another way.   Consider a statement that we've all heard at some point or other: "Space is infinite."

How can it be???   If space was infinite than none of us would be here; there'd be no room, only space in the locations where each of us _is._

As I said, I'm no scientist and I don't have the answers, but I know something woolly when I hear it (no sheep puns please!)


----------



## Ursa major (Aug 24, 2007)

Thinking back too many decades to a maths lesson in Wolverhampton....

Wasn't the business about halving the distance each time a way of working out which of two arrows (one travelling twice the distance, but at twice the velocity, of the other) reached the target first?  (The answer being the slower, because it was always just ahead of the faster, if I remember correctly.)  No one doubted that both would hit the target.  (Well, I didn't, I think!  Or was it a dream....)


----------



## Space Smith (Aug 24, 2007)

I once read, or partially read because it became increasingly difficult for me, a great book called "Infinity and The Mind" by a fella called Rudy Rucker.

He said there were three kinds of infinity:
1/Physical
2/Mathematical
3/ Philosophical/God type inifinity stuff

1/ His physical infinities included mulit dimensional, "quantum splitting", inifinite big bang/big crunch scenarios and so on

2/ Mathematical. Consider the series of numbers
1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 (the so called "natural" numbers)

then consider the square numbers 1,4,9,16,25 etc

Both go on for ever and are infinite series. But the first infinite series is somehow "bigger"

Then you get the rational numbers and irrational with scope for further degrees of infinity.

There's a well known scenario whereby you get sent to hell but every year the devil says you get out if you choose the number he's thinking of. If that  number is a natural number, no matter how large, eventually starting at 1 in the first year and 2 in the second year, you can count yourself out of hell. But for other number series, what if the devil has nominated 2.23465788999 etc etc and you never get there because you are still calling out 1.88989797 etc etc Well  Don't know if anyones the wiser but infinity comes in different "sizes"


3/ We've said a little about the "God stuff" on threads above. The question should be Is the universe conscious ? I would say "yes". Because I am God (in the local sense) .  The individual Self and the universal Self are One 
Those "denying" "God" may actually be affirming their "godhead" by living life on their own terms. It becomes one of perspective/semantics and so on...I believe there is continued consciousness after death and there's evidence of that. This to me establishes a sort of consciousness that isn't dependent on coarse matter.

(Connected with other bodily existence, some claim astral projective powers. Something I have attempted but with no real success, except for a very minor almost comical experience. The reason I've thrown this idea in is that "those claiming" AP experiences say there is an "astral limit" on how far one can project. A curious limitation considering the seeming supernaturalness of astrally projecting -if true also an indication that as has been said recently, spirit and matter coexist.A consideration that was at the back of mind when I first started the thread)


----------



## Delvo (Aug 24, 2007)

Theleb K said:


> To my (small and somewhat addled) mind, infinity or "the infinite" is a nonsense that mathmeticians use instead of saying, "actually, we just don't know," or "Hmm, our equations just break down round about here..."


It isn't. It just needs to be used in the right places, and you're using bad examples that try to use it in the wrong places.



Theleb K said:


> For example, take the old maths riddle of infinite distance between an arrow and its target... If, in reality, you shoot an arrow accurately at a target lying in range of the bow and nothing intervenes to alter its course it will hit it!


If the target's an infinite distance away, then by definition it's not within range, so it doesn't meet one of the requirements you gave us yourself for the arrow to hit it. By declaring a finite distance to be a requirement in order for the arrow to hit it, you've just proven yourself that it will NOT hit a target at an infinite distance.



Theleb K said:


> when you keep halving the distance that an arrow has to travel after leaving a bow you find that it never actually reaches the target!


Well, half of infinity is just infinity. (If the half were a finite number, then the whole would just be a bigger finite number, not infinity.) So there's really no such thing as travelling half of infinity; you'd have to travel infinity just to get to the halfway point!

What you're really describing with the halves is a target at a finite distance away, not infinite. And in that case...



Theleb K said:


> If, in reality, you shoot an arrow accurately at a target lying in range of the bow and nothing intervenes to alter its course it will hit it!  If the sums do not recognise this then there must be something missing from the equation...


Or you're using the wrong equation.

There are at least two ways to describe what's wrong here. They're really the same thing, but worded differently.

1. Arrow flight doesn't go by halves like that, so you're using the wrong procedure (incorrect data or inapplicable equation) to predict what it will do. Garbage in, garbage out.

2. By describing a hypothetical arrow that does fly by halves like that, you've introduced another factor that you didn't announce that you were introducing: you're slowing the arrow down. When you said the arrow would hit the target, you were assuming inertia applied, but when the arrow is slowed down (infinitely slowed down, actually), inertia no longer applies. The way you described the arrow's movement simply blocks its path just as surely as putting up a physical barrier in the way would have done so.

Either way, you were trying to use one situation's rules in what you had defined to be a different situation that would need different rules.



Theleb K said:


> Consider a statement that we've all heard at some point or other: "Space is infinite."


Not necessarily; it might not be, but I'll play along...



Theleb K said:


> How can it be???   If space was infinite than none of us would be here; there'd be no room, only space in the locations where each of us _is._


I don't get why you think this. It's like saying that because the number line runs out to infinity somewhere way out there to the right,, it can't have the numbers 2 and 948.1 on it.


----------



## mosaix (Aug 25, 2007)

Nice post Delvo.


----------



## Theleb K (Aug 28, 2007)

Hmm, some intersting stuff here...  I think perhaps SS summed it up best by making the distinction  between "mathematical" and "physical" infinity.

We can all accept that the sequence 1,2,3,4,5 etc.. is at least potentially infinite.  Equally, whatever world view you hold, ultimately you have to come to grips with the problem of infinity (God, universe whatever) _However _a "physical" infinity is a bit harder to pin down isn't it?  

Our (or at least my) experience shows us a universe of finite things which natural processes bring into being and then alter at a steady or variable rate into something else upon which the same or different processes also act.  I don't think it is unreasonable to expect the universe as a whole to behave any differently, or to put it another way - what evidence is there that it should?

On this basis, and setting the infinity issue aside for a moment, I don't like either the Steady State or the Constant Expansion theories... but who knows?


----------



## Space Smith (Aug 30, 2007)

Ah found it !

This was the book I read recently that mostly prompted my line of thinking, leading to the original post:
_
"*From the Back Cover*
 Is the Universe really expanding? When the Big Bang Theory was first conceived it looked good - but since then, result after result has gone against the theory. Instead of rejecting the model, as we are told 'real Science' should do, mainstream scientists have continued to invent patch after patch in a bid to save it - but in doing so, the theory has lost its experimental support. __What the author has done here is to go back to the beginning and start again. He follows the history of the Big Bang and the characters involved - explaining at every step how it was done. _
_He then introduces 'Ashmore's Paradox' and shows that after all these years of searching for the Hubble constant, all they ended up with was something any schoolchild could have found by recalling three very common physical constants from their calculator memory! _
_Lyndon explains that redshift - originally thought to show that the Universe is expanding, is just an effect caused by photons travelling through space and losing energy to electrons. From this, he goes on to explain the CMB and other observations normally associated with an expanding Universe. "_

Amazon.com: Big Bang Blasted: Books: Lyndon Ashmore


----------



## HardScienceFan (Aug 30, 2007)

are the cosmologists' minds really expanding?


----------



## Space Smith (Aug 30, 2007)

HardScienceFan said:


> are the cosmologists' minds really expanding?





Just to reiterate the old saying "As above, so below", I reckon the "task" that a transient being living "three score and ten" has in contemplating "Life The Universe An Everything" is some how wrapped up with the universe's fate itself. (A clumsy attempt to explain my thinking)

Cosmologists ? Well. I wonder how up to date they are with theoretical physics and how much they are theologians rather than empiricists ?


----------



## Jackolsman (Sep 2, 2007)

Cosmology is a difficult field because it is _mostly_ theoretical.  To be a cosmologist and not to be up-to-date on theoretical physics seems to be an absurd contradiction.

I am very caught up in this topic at the moment, though I am getting really tired by now.  I've read a couple books about hyperspace theory, wormholes, the universe and the multiverse.  I am looking forward to posting some ideas here that I have come across.


----------



## Spartan27 (Oct 5, 2007)

Interesting topic of discussion, in my humble opinion theology is science cause science cannot explain the human belief system. Maybe one day science and the fundamental elements of theology and why we "believe in something" can exist together in harmony.


ooopss....I just woke up.


----------



## Phil Janes (Oct 5, 2007)

Cosmology is a word scientists use to elevate their own religions to a status outside of what the government is prohibited from giving financial support. In the USA, the socalled "standard model" is the religious establishment. Heretical views of cosmology are banned from universities, government grants and bublication in peer reviews. 

All cosmologies, including Big Bang, are religious in nature and do not belong in scientific texts.


----------



## j d worthington (Oct 6, 2007)

Spartan27 said:


> Interesting topic of discussion, in my humble opinion theology is science cause science cannot explain the human belief system. Maybe one day science and the fundamental elements of theology and why we "believe in something" can exist together in harmony.


 
Actually, science has come very close to explaining it very well... and has done so for at least a century and a half. Read some of the anthropological books on the subject.

As for cosmology being a religion... no, as cosmology is based on observable evidence. Religion requires a belief; science requires evidence on which to base a model -- which itself is always open to change depending on new evidence. Yes, individual scientists are prone to their own hobby horses, but science itself -- the scientific method -- is designed to make short shrift of those which aren't supported by evidence, as one of the designs of that method is to constantly question and try to disprove (or falsify) any given theory or hypothesis.

Which, in turn, is the reason why such things as the Big Bang replaced the Steady State model... because the evidence mounted in favor of the Bang. Should the evidence mount in favor of a return of Steady State, then that will once again have preference... or if evidence mounts in favor of a new model, that will eventually become the standard. So far, the Big Bang isn't being seriously questioned as a whole, though certain aspects of it are indeed undergoing change (the idea that there were multiple big bangs, for instance, instead of only one... which ties in with certain aspect of particle physics as well).

Just as more mountains of evidence continue to pile up in support of a modified version of Darwinian evolution, while there is _no_ evidence to support the idea of "intelligent design" or "creationism". But it is a modified version that is constantly undergoing "fine-tuning" on the details, because it is based on _evidence_, not what one wants or doesn't choose to believe. The same is true with cosmological theory; without the evidence to back it up, it is at best an hypothesis; but nothing is allowed to become an unassailable position in science, as one of the basic tenets of any scientific model is that it is falsifiable; present the evidence to challenge it, and let it be peer-reviewed, tested, argued over, and retested. That is how science works, even in its most basic tenets. Religion argues from a belief outward, not from evidence.


----------



## Phil Janes (Oct 6, 2007)

Thanks for the sincere reply, J.D.

I agree that much of the standard model is supported by evidence. I think it is unfortunate that Big Bang is widely accepted as part of the standard model. The evidence that the universe is expanding today should not be seen as evidence that it started from a singularity 13.7 billion years ago. That is extrapolation _ad absurdium._ 

Furthermore, Big Bang is based on the religious assumption that the universe is finite. Arguments that the universe had to be finite seemed, for a while, to be persuasive, and new arguments to the contrary are simply ignored. The question is considered a closed argument by the Big Bangers, who have closed their minds to the issue. 

When we speculate beyond the bounds of proof, we get into the realm of cosmology, which has always been a matter of religion. The penalty for heresy in Galleleo's day was more severe, but the high priests of todays established religion still have the power to impoverish those who dare question Big Bang.


----------



## Sephiroth (Oct 6, 2007)

It's _not _extrapolation _ad absurdium_, it's supported by solid theoretical evidence.  Yes, the theory might be wrong, once we get the opportunity to test it, but it is _not _idle speculation.  And the reasons for it are far more profound than _'the universe is expanding today, therefore...'_

And the Big Bang is not based on any religious assumption, nor does it even assume, necessarily, that what we traditionally refer to as the 'universe' is even all there is.  

It's currently the best-accepted theory because _all of the mathematical and physical scientific evidence _points to its being true.  The theory, furthermore, _*is subject to change*_ every time we discover something new.  

In what way, pray tell, is such a theory religious?  Something is not either _'the truth'_, or _'religious belief'_.  Some things are our best _informed guess_ at the truth.  These are _not _religious beliefs!!!!!!!!

Regarding infinities, in response to what someone said earlier: there are more than one kind of mathematical infinity, and they _can _be added and subtracted, multiplied and divided.  The mathematics of it is way beyond me (see Georg Cantor), but it's an important part of the complex differential calculus with which cosmologists work, without which many of the theories would be non-remormalisable.


----------



## j d worthington (Oct 7, 2007)

And, ultimately, that's what it comes down to. The Big Bang certainly didn't get immediate acceptance. The evidence had to mount for several decades before it was (very reluctantly, in many cases) accepted -- because the steady-state model was much more in line with the inherited nineteenth-century positivist thinking that denied a beginning or end to the universe -- if one can call the Big Bang and entropic decay such, which is debatable -- and therefore the idea that the universe apparently had a beginning (which, again, is a questionable view, as there are many theories about what lies behind the Big Bang (or set of) that don't necessarily posit a true "beginning", simply a different state (or field) of energy that we're only just beginning to get a glimpse of).

This is the same as with Einsteinian physics, which was very reluctantly accepted by the established authorities, because it seemingly made hash out of several long-accepted ideas in physics; when the truth is it modified them... it did not replace them. In the end, it's the evidence that decided on the acceptance of the Big Bang model, and so far, that model remains supported (though, again, as is so common with our growing understanding of how the universe works, modified) by the evidence.

This can by no definition be called "religion", as a religion does not rely on any form of verifiable, testable, or falsifiable evidence:



> *NOUN:*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The only one of these that even comes vaguely close is #4, and even that is highly debatable, as (in light of all the surrounding definitions and connotations) it would tend to be related to a spiritual or mystical, rather than scientific idea, which relies on constantly being tested against new evidence, not to mention the very tendency of scientific inquiry _to try to_ _prove an idea wrong_....

The word "religion" gets thrown around far too easily these days, and used where it really has no application; which is not all that surprising, as we really do have a tendency toward serious malapropism in modern culture....


----------



## Michael01 (Oct 8, 2007)

I'd have to agree that cosmology (the Big Bang) is definitely not a religion, and certainly not "idle speculation." Oh, I've heard stories that some idividual scientists will argue their convictions as vehemently as any religious person but, as both j.d. and Sephiroth explained, science itself - the _scientific method_ - isn't meant to be that way. If the Big Bang theory doesn't agree with the evidence, it will be trashed (however reluctantly) just as the steady state theory was. This kind of thing does not happen within particular religions (although some sects might break away from older ones and form new religions - this is not the same in any way; new theories will still be developed using the _scientific method_, which doesn't change).

On the other hand, science_ is_ a _belief system_, and - like religion - it is based on certain assumptions that can't be proven. One of the assumptions is that we can trust our senses, or our brains' interpretation of sensory perception, etc. Empirical evidence is part of the foundation for the scientific method, and if it turns out that we really cannot trust our senses, then that would mean it is a false belief ... and, well, that's something that sort of makes my mind do twisties.

In any case, I'm pretty well convinced that we can trust our senses (at least to a degree). Sure, philospically speaking, that wall in front of me might be an illusion, but it still hurts when I walk into it!

So I think science is pretty much on the right track, although I do not discount certain ideas expressed by spiritual beliefs.

There is still the issue that other belief systems _are_ (you might as well say) banned from public schools in America. That is regrettable to some degree, but honestly I'd rather teach my child about religion myself anyway - rather than have the government decide which religion he should learn.


----------



## Phil Janes (Oct 10, 2007)

> Sephiroth: “It's _not _extrapolation _ad absurdium_,...”


It is absurd to extrapolate 13.7 billion years into the past—to 10-42 second after the alleged big bang—when there is so much we do not understand about the present! 

The standard model dismisses the question, “What causes gravity,” by pontificating that, “Gravity is a fully understood mathematical property of space. Gravity is therefore commanded to obey Newton’s simplistic formula at all distances and at all times.” Hell! We haven’t actually settled the questions of the speed and the range of gravity. Even within standard model congregations, there are those who think gravity propagates at _c_, while others still cling to Einstein’s assumption that gravity’s reach is instantaneous at all distances–--within the finite universe. 


> Sephiroth: “It's currently the best-accepted theory because _all of the mathematical and physical scientific evidence _points to its being true. The theory, furthermore, *is subject to change* every time we discover something new.”


When they discovered that the spin of galaxies exceeds the standard model’s speed limit, did they doubt Newton’s sacred formula for one second? No; they ordered the galaxies to increase there mass by 90% on penalty of excommunication from the universe. 

That missing 90% of the mass is also necessary to protect the Church’s teachings about the age and size of the universe. Einstein calculated the total mass necessary to make the universe gravitationally open or closed; that calculation is mathematically impeccable, but its validity depends on a perfect understanding of gravity and the assumption that there is no mass outside of our own finite 4D space-time continuum. 

True; there _was_ some debate over whether the universe could be infinite—Olber’s paradox [link to Wikipedia not allowed], for example. Unfortunately, the Finitists prematurely declared victory in that debate. Due to the great success of Einstein’s special relativity, the gang rallied round their poster boy and became politically powerful enough to shut down every heretical cry from the wilderness. Thus, the standard model club became the religious establishment. 


> Sephiroth: “In what way, pray tell, is such a theory religious?...”


The standard model is religious in the sense that it holds its own beliefs to be sacred. The universe must comply with the formulas, rather than formulas being called into question. It is religious in the sense that its founders decided the outcome of the finite-or-infinite debate without hearing the final arguments. The whole subject of cosmology is religious in the sense that it seeks answers that can never be proven. Every major and minor religion has its own cosmology, which it defends assiduously. In the middle ages, heretics were burned at the stake; today, they are denied government grants and employment by institutions that receive government grants; they are banned from publication in peer-review journals and are only published in rags that specialize in alien abductions; they are ridiculed as crackpots and barred from the establishment’s social functions. Pretending to have proven ones own version of cosmology upon unproven assumptions cannot elevate that cosmology to the status of science. It is only thru political clout that the standard model has become the religious establishment of the scientific community. 

I have my own infinite-universe cosmology, and yes, I do admit that it is as much religion as science. If my tiny “church” enjoyed a tiny fraction of the government funding that now goes into developing the liturgy of Big Bang, I bet I could deliver some new scientific discoveries. No, I will never ask the government to fund my cosmological studies; that would violate the 1st Amendment. But, where my cosmology offers alternative solutions to scientific puzzles, perhaps those matters should get some of the crumbs that fall from Big Bang’s communion plate. 


> Sephiroth: “Regarding infinities, in response to what someone said earlier: there are more than one kind of mathematical infinity, and they _can _be added and subtracted, multiplied and divided.”


Yes! Infinity is not a number; it is a catchall term for any and all quantities that are too great to be represented by numbers. I believe in a fractal universe. A fractal is an infinite space, but only a fraction of that space exists. Existence is an infinity of actuality within a greater infinity of possibility. And there is an infinity of degrees of existence—from each and every person’s imagination to our collective experience, and from all possible futures to that which is the universally agreed-upon past. 



> J.D.: “The word "religion" gets thrown around far too easily these days, and used where it really has no application; which is not all that surprising, as we really do have a tendency toward serious malapropism in modern culture....”


“Theory” is another word that is often used malapropriately. A theory must be testable. Big Bang is a model, not a theory. There seems to be a great rush toward discovering a “theory of everything”. I sometimes refer to my own model as a TOE; I immediately clarify that I mean my model suggests a theory to explain just about anything physical. When I recognize a flaw in my model (and, yes, I am still open minded enough to recognize an occasional flaw), I say that I have stubbed my TOE. 


> Michael01: “I'd have to agree that cosmology (the Big Bang) is definitely not a religion, ...”


“Cosmology” is not the same as a cosmology. This may be semantic nitpicking, but I said, “All cosmologies, including Big Bang, are religious in nature and do not belong in scientific texts.” (Perhaps I went too far; cosmologies that lead to scientific discovery should be mentioned in scientific texts.) Cosmology is not *A *religion; it is a category of inquiry; each religion, having substituted belief for inquiry, has established its own individual cosmology. In the middle ages, Catholic cosmology forbad Earth to orbit the Sun; the study of cosmology apart from Catholic cosmology was heresy. Big Bang became a religion when its proponents unilaterally shut down the debate over whether the universe is finite or infinite, and their cosmology became the official cosmology of the scientific establishment. 


> Michael01: “...new theories will still be developed using the _scientific method_, which doesn't change....”


New theories that challenge Big Bang have no chance of developing without government funding. Theorists dare not mention or investigate such theories, lest they be blacklisted. 


> Michael01: “... One of the assumptions is that we can trust our senses, or our brains' interpretation of sensory perception, etc....”


Now your diverging into philosophy. “If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it....”, etc., which is being discussed in the thread about consciousness-universe-consciousness. 


> Michael01: “There is still the issue that other belief systems _are_ (you might as well say) banned from public schools in America. That is regrettable to some degree, but honestly I'd rather teach my child about religion myself anyway - rather than have the government decide which religion he should learn.”


I agree that public schools should not give credence to creationism, though perhaps they should be permitted to mention the fact that some valid scientific work has been accomplished by creationists, who believe, “blah, blah, blah...”; unfortunately, this gives creationists a foot in the door, which they will exploit until the courts intervene. The greater problem is that Big Bang theory model is being taught as fact, and all theories and models not in complete agreement with Big Bang are forbidden subjects; a teacher is liable to be fired for mentioning the existence of attempts to explain the cause of gravity. Have you ever heard of Fatio/Lesage [link to Wikipedia not allowed] theory? It’s been around for three centuries; it has obvious flaws, but I believe it is a promising line of thinking. Do you want your kids to graduate with a BS in physics without knowing some people think gravity has a cause—that gravity is not action at a distance without a transmitting particle? (My own model makes several major changes to Fatio/Lesage, but does rely on its underlying logic.) 

P.S.: I’m a bit behind in posting revisions to my model on the net. I’m only on line 5 hours a week, which makes it difficult to set up my own blog. The most up to date version yet posted [link to BUAT not allowed] is archived at Bad Astronomy and Universe Today (BAUT), where it got an icy reception. I’m still praying for someone to make a specific criticism. How does one respond to “... good creative writing...”? If you read what I’ve posted at BAUT, please try to point out a specific inconsistency or absurdity. Do you think I should start a thread, here, about my model? 

PPS: Only my third post, so no links allowed.


----------



## Sephiroth (Oct 11, 2007)

Phil, I'm not arguing that the Standard Model is perfect, and I agree with what you are saying about its failure to account for gravity.  But, there are scientists around the world now who are attempting to go beyond the SM, who recognise that the SM is a framework which, like others in the past, has served the purpose of describing the universe to a far greater degree of accuracy than anything that came before.  Even now people are trying to supersede the Standard Model, whether with 'Braneworld' or 'loop quantum gravity' theories, or something else that I haven't heard of.  If it were a religion, no one would be interested in going beyond it.  

I appreciate the point that the scientific community can be dogmatic, and that a majority can often cling too long to obsolescent systems of understanding, but this social or personal conservatism is observable in all aspects of life, and hardly constitutes a religious belief.  And the fact is that, in science, despite this conservatism, systems of understanding are constantly overturned, reinterpreted, or replaced.  

Given that you have hinted that you are involved in your own, alternative line of research, I can also appreciate the point that you find the current situation frustrating.  If you were to argue that too much funding and attention is devoted to the mainstream theory and not enough to other, less popular but possibly equally fruitful lines of research, then I would agree with you.  But calling it a religion is, for me, resorting to hyperbole.


----------



## Michael01 (Oct 11, 2007)

Phil Janes said:
			
		

> "Cosmology” is not the same as a cosmology.


 
Oops. Quite right. I should have clarified.




			
				Phil Janes said:
			
		

> New theories that challenge Big Bang have no chance of developing without government funding. Theorists dare not mention or investigate such theories, lest they be blacklisted.


 
I'm not so sure about the "blacklisting." It might be true; the way governments work, I wouldn't be surprised. On the other hand, like Sephiroth says, new theories (or at least revisions) _are_ being explored by scientists today - so I'm inclined to think that this "blacklisting" is in no way universal.



			
				Phil Janes said:
			
		

> Now your diverging into philosophy. “If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it....”, etc., which is being discussed in the thread about consciousness-universe-consciousness.


 
Ah, but the origins of the scientific method are in philosophy. Even Newton referred to physics as "natural philosophy."



			
				Phil Janes said:
			
		

> The greater problem is that Big Bang theory model is being taught as fact, and all theories and models not in complete agreement with Big Bang are forbidden subjects; a teacher is liable to be fired for mentioning the existence of attempts to explain the cause of gravity.


 
Well, if this is actually the case, it is quite sad. It is still a _theory_, although it is based on observation and evidence (which can be misinterpreted), and should not be confused with fact. There's just no way to know for certain what occured 14 billion years ago unless we were there (which we weren't).


----------

