Quote:
On 2002-11-25 09:14, JS Princeton wrote:
Your last post had only three problems that I could see.
1) You assume that a physical theory should consider its existential import. This is, in fact, an impossible desire. Every theory we have is an approximation of reality. Some approximations are better than others, but all of them that we use tell us something the way the world works. This is the same thing with an empty universe. To one first approximation model, the universe IS empty. Therefore it is instructive to consider what the universe is like as empty space and time. The universe couldn't care less if you or I existed and the consideration of whether or not I'd be able to think about these issues if the universe was empty is a moot point. I don't care if no one is around to ponder the unponderable... that's not the question I'm answering at that point. The only question I'm answering is the question of how does an empty universe behave, and we know how to answer this question.
|
The point I made was made on philosophical grounds. You outline that nature has no trouble in having empty space, and for sure we can calculate it's behaviour. These are however abstractions from reality, which have their merits in understanding how reality works.
But yet, what scientists, cosmologist, physicist, do want to know is, what the real world is like. Ultimately we want to explain reality as we observe and can measure it.
That is, it also needs to consider the fact that the material conditions were such and such that made life possible and conscious beings. When it comes to theories about the existence/beginning of the universe, this argument is taking into consideration. We might be interested in what possibly could constitue and form a universe, but in the end we want to know how the universe we live in was formed. So, I think in the end, this point has to be taken into consideration, but this does not exclude that in searching for that, one makes use of abstractions of less meaningfull, and more simple models of reality, to understand the whole picture.
Quote:
|
2) You want to assume that the universe has to be without cause and unending. There are ways to work this idea into the Big Bang model, however, there is no evidence yet to say whether you are right or wrong. You state this idea as though it were fact when it is in fact a belief. Just be careful about mixing those in the future.
|
You are right about that. But this is kind of incorperated into the scientific development, because to find new truths one has to look over the horizon of what is currently explored. And where knowledge is not helpfull anymore one falls back on belief or assumptions on philosophical grounds. I think it is quite natural, and without it, we would not have shifted the horizon of our knowledge. What is was proclaiming isn't much original, thousands of scientists and philosophers must have said this before me, and either they had proof about it. Take for instance non-euclidian geometry, which was taken into consideration in mathematics, without there being any observational evidence for such a geometry in the real world, etc.
Quote:
|
3) Your "alternative" redshift model isn't an alternative that is viable. That's because there just isn't a mechanism that has been outlined that behaves in the way we need. I am glad people have abandoned tired light, but actually tired light makes more sense than this plasma interaction business. I can understand the mechanism for tired light, even though it doesn't occur. I have yet to see a good explanation for how the intergalactic plasma would take every wavelength photon and monotonically shift it to another location in the spectrum by scattering or absorption/reemission. This is completely ignored by the advocates of the idea, I can only assume because they have no idea how it can be done either.
|
I was just questioning this, and wondered how good the explenation the BB theory had given was. One needs to carefully study every detail and every aspect, in first instance without taking care about the whole picture. Else the theory becomes a bit self-predictive, and becomes ignorant of any critique. And yes, there is also a lot of critique that is rather senseless, but still there remains a lot of issues on which the BB theory does not come up with good predictions, or contradictionary predictions.
So, in my view, there is still a lot missing. It's a mistake to state that we can never adopt an alternative explenation for any part of the BB theory, for the reason that this can only be done, when a complete new theory is established, which can explain all the observed facts that the BB theory more or less explains. All major advances in science have come from criticizing existing theories, and carefully examining all the involved predictions and observations, and look beyond the current horizon of knowledge.
Scientidic development must be open minded. Not in a roughfull way, as to not care about the existing knowledge, and replace it with something else ad hoc of course. But one has to take care not to be too convinced about the BB theory, and which could lead to possibly missing a part of reality, that would be better described by a new theory.
So, in other words, BB theory has its merits so far in describing the reality of the universe, and even when we are convinced about that, one needs to take into consideration other alternatives carefully, to not miss something important, that could lead to new insights in reality.
Quote:
|
Well, we have a mechanism that is independently confirmed by many different means and remains the only decent explanation for observed phenomenon. Everybody admits that the Doppler Effect would cause the redshifts in the way we see them, but for some reason not one of the "alternative" modellers cares to grapple with the simple thought that such could be the mechanism. This is simply a case of arrogant denial, not wanting to concede that the scientific community can come up with the answer to the question. Get with the program!
|
To question the currently adopted redshift mechanism, and look at alternative models, might look unfruitfull for those who already been there, but I didn't do that, so I am still questioning, why such a mechanism other then doppler-redhsift couldn't exist.
It may look silly, but for me it isn't.
It's a bit arrogant to state, before taking it into consideration and carefully study it, that such a thing could not be the case.
Well, maybe this has already been done and been dealt with, and has been studied carefully before excluding this possiblity.
Quote:
It may be that in the future there will be a replacement for the Big Bang. However, what will drive it is not a problem with the redshift-distance relation. It will be from an unsolved area of the paradigm. The explanations will fall into place from the reinterpretation. This is how we replace paradigms. Einstein considers the fact that spacetime curvature could cause gravity, but realizes that his theory has to conform to Newtonian observations of mechanistic gravity and should explain some of the problems at the forefront of gravitational dynamics. The model you present, heusdens, does something entirely different. It says that a new paradigm must be out there, it must look like this, here's some unrelated information that sort of looks like what I'm talking about, now how can you believe in the Big Bang?
And you expect me to be convinced by such an argument?
|
The BB theory isn't a belief, it's our best guess about how the universe was formed.
New research and scientific development can cause BB theory to be replaced, which I state on mere theoretical grounds, because scientific development has always been this way.
Even when cosmology and theoretical physics shows us now the big picture in a convincing way and with more detail then ever before, still up to today, we don't have the slightest idea what for example gravity is.
We can just wonder what the outcomes will be of new scientific advances in the field of cosmology and physics.