Absolute thought

[No Robots]

There is an inherent contradiction in the BB. How is it that, if the universe in its oldest state was also in its smallest state, how can we then say that the further an object is from us, the older it is? I mean, shouldn't the oldest objects we observe also then be the closest?

 

[steve_bank]

Newtonian mechanics and time were considered absolute truth...oops along came relativity and quantum mechanics.

Someone obseved something nobody else did in astonomcal observation that theory could not explain..oops along came 'dark matter'.

Sunlight was absolutely observable with the eye...oops along came the infrared spectrum.

For some science especially cosmology becomes a holy scripture and theology.

I applied science day in and day out, I know science well enough and that the moddels work in that they predict outcomes as applied here on Earth. Whether or not they represent true reality whatever that may be is not knowable.

What is beyond our observational limit in space is not knowable. However I am absolutely sure outside our observable universe is filled with cream cheese surrounded by a bagel. New Yorkstyle of course. Food of the gods that created the universe.

 

[steve_bank]

Newtonian mechanics and time were considered absolute truth...oops along came relativity and quantum mechanics.

Someone obseved something nobody else did in astonomcal observation that theory could not explain..oops along came 'dark matter'.

Sunlight was absolutely observable with the eye...oops along came the infrared spectrum.

For some science especially cosmology becomes a holy scripture and theology.

I applied science day in and day out, I know science well enough and that the moddels work in that they predict outcomes as applied here on Earth. Whether or not they represent true reality whatever that may be is not knowable.

What is beyond our observational limit in space is not knowable. However I am absolutely sure outside our observable universe is filled with cream cheese surrounded by a bagel. New Yorkstyle of course. Food of the gods that created the universe.

 

[Jarhyn]

There is an inherent contradiction in the BB. How is it that, if the universe in its oldest state was also in its smallest state, how can we then say that the further an object is from us, the older it is? I mean, shouldn't the oldest objects we observe also then be the closest?

They are. By "oldest" they mean "seen as if they were just moments after the BB".

The stuff nearest us IS the stuff seen as bb+ 7by

The stuff at the distance of the CMWBR is bb+~nanoseconds

 

[bilby]

There is an inherent contradiction in the BB. How is it that, if the universe in its oldest state was also in its smallest state, how can we then say that the further an object is from us, the older it is? I mean, shouldn't the oldest objects we observe also then be the closest?

The further an object is from us, the older the image of it we see is, because the light has taken longer to get here. So it looks younger than nearby stuff does.

We can't see distant stuff at the age it is now, because the light leaving it now is still over there, and won't get here for a long time.

If the universe was once very small, then its all going to be of a similar age, and no matter what direction we look, we will see stuff of roughly the same age at any given distance.

And that's exactly what we do see.

The Sun is nearby, and looks like the kind of star that would have required a very long time to form - it contains a fair amount of heavy elements, which implies that it formed out of the stuff left over by a previous generation of stars - it's fairly old, at 4.6 billion years or so, but it's also made from stuff that's far older.

Distant objects, like Quasars, look very much like they are part of a much younger universe - because they are.

If you look at an old image, you see a young object.

The oldest photographs of you probably show a young baby - because the further back you look, the younger you were.

Same with the universe - images of distant objects are older images, so we see younger objects.

 

[EricH]

I consider the BB as mathematical philosophy, it can never be experimentally tested.

Hi Steve. I'm not sure I understand what you mean. We have many, many observations that confirm that the universe is expanding, so the theory is well tested in my opinion. I'm trying to understand what you mean by "experimentally tested". Thanks.

Philosophically the BB is a theory that can not be experimentally tested or demonstrated. Garvity and Newtonian mechanics can be demonstrated.

Hi Steve. As I said in my earlier post, we have a lot of observations that tell us that the universe is expanding. The BB Theory models the expansion the universe, and is calibrated to these observations. What kind of empirical testing or demonstration are you asking for? What would an experiment that demonstrates the expansion of the universe following the BB model look like in your mind? Can you please clarify since I don't understand what you are asking for. Thanks.

That the universe may be expanding is an explanation based on observation.

That the universe is expanding is an observation, not an explanation. The scientific model that describes this expansion is called the BB Theory. We have observed that the universe is expanding, and created a model that can simulate this expansion called the BB Theory. I think you are putting the cart before the horse here.

We don't (yet) know what triggered this expansion. I think you are confusing BB Theory, the scientific model of the expansion of the universe, with the unknown initial conditions. They are not the same thing.

Ancient Zog observing the sky interpreted observation to conclude the inverse revolved around the Earth....cosmologists observe what is observable from our infinitesimally small point in space and conclude a number of things.

To me the BB is mathematical philosophical speculation.

You don't think the universe is expanding? What evidence do you have to support your belief? Do you believe that our observations are flawed?

By the way, science is philosophy, a methodological search for the truth.

I generally don't take any science to be absolute in that it represents true reality.

I agree. So how do YOU go about distinguishing "true reality" devoid of scientific methodology? I am curious to know.

 

[bilby]

Philosophically the BB is a theory that can not be experimentally tested or demonstrated.

Nonsense. We can test and demonstrate it by the time honoured method we scientists call "looking at it".

In history, we can't "go back and take a look" to see what actually happened. If we want to know the exact disposition of ships in the Spanish Armada, we need to hope that a witness wrote it down, hope that the record survived, and trust that the witness wasn't mistaken or lying or making shit up.

This fact about history leads creationists to say shit like "You weren't there, you didn't see it, how do you know that's what happened?".

But they are making a huge blunder. The past isn't invisible to us because it's a long time ago; It's invisible to us because it's too localised and too nearby. An observer 435 lightyears away, with a sufficiently impressive telescope, could see the exact positions of the Spanish ships, as they changed, in real time, as a matter of direct observation different in no important way from the observations that a contemporary observer in the English Channel in 1588 could have made.

The Big Bang is currently visible to us, actually occurring, in real time; We are there, and we can see it, and we can know what happened.

We just need sufficiently impressive observing equipment. Because it's all happening (yes, happening, present tense) several billion lightyears away.

Cosmologists, unlike historians, can see back in time.

 

[steve_bank]

Like I said it is a philosophical view.

I can crea mathematical electric circuits that can be simulated that can never be psychically constructed. A parallel inductor capacitor resonant circuitwithout any restance will mathematically osscilate forever when excited. It can not be physically constructed, it violates the Laws Of Thermodynamics.

The BB is a sophisticated mathematical model that can appear to fit observation, but that does not mean it actually fits reality.

Wjen fittng a curve to empirical data the curve matches the datat because it is constructed to do so. In a sense the BB is a large scale 'curve fit'. It matches observation because it is designed to.

There were mathematical cosmologies based on Earth as the center of the universe. It predicted maotions of planets and starts, but was incorrect based on better observations.

You are flying around in your space ship and see a sign.

' Warning, you are approaching the edge of the universe. Reduce speed to below the expansion rate of the universe.'

 

[EricH]

I consider the BB as mathematical philosophy, it can never be experimentally tested.

Hi Steve. I'm not sure I understand what you mean. We have many, many observations that confirm that the universe is expanding, so the theory is well tested in my opinion. I'm trying to understand what you mean by "experimentally tested". Thanks.

Also, hello and welcome!

Thank you Jarhyn. Were you in the Marine Corps? I ask because your name sounds very similar to the term Jarhead that some people use to refer to Marines. If yes, Semper Fi from a fellow Marine.

The thing is, it's really difficult to test universal expansion in short time-frames because it would require going far enough away, coming straight back, and observing delta-v to return is greater than delta-v to go, and the margins in that calculation have to be extremely tight in the kinds of distances and time-frames humans can actually achieve so as to test expansion... Or to go far enough away towards a receding point in spacetime and see that it's expanded away from where it was before we got there, requiring more Delta-V than a non-expanding universal round trip.

I have no doubt that we would observe exactly what we would expect, but Steve does.

We have data spanning about 90 years.

The past isn't invisible to us because it's a long time ago; It's invisible to us because it's too localised and too nearby. An observer 435 lightyears away, with a sufficiently impressive telescope, could see the exact positions of the Spanish ships, as they changed, in real time, as a matter of direct observation different in no important way from the observations that a contemporary observer in the English Channel in 1588 could have made.

Beautifully said.

 

[Jarhyn]

Thank you Jarhyn. Were you in the Marine Corps? I ask because your name sounds very similar to the term Jarhead that some people use to refer to Marines. If yes, Semper Fi from a fellow Marine

Army, actually, though the name predates my service.

Since then, I've exited service, and am now happily living as a software engineer, and finally out of the closet as a eunuch.

The name came about as a a repeated modification of Jerin made until I found a permutation that wasn't already claimed on a particular online game, and I just kind of kept using the name because I liked the Persian-esque feel of it.

Apparently it's the name of a Diablo 2 character in the desert region as well, though I picked it without knowing as much.

mathematically osscilate forever when excited. It can not be physically constructed, it violates the Laws Of Thermodynamics.

Someone hasn't done their research on time crystals...

Harmonic lossless oscillation does not violate the laws of thermodynamics.

It's actually been directly observed.

 

[bilby]

Like I said it is a philosophical view.

Like I said, no, it really fucking isn't. It's an actual view, of actual reality.

Albeit of events that are very distant indeed.

 

[EricH]

The BB is a sophisticated mathematical model that can appear to fit observation, but that does not mean it actually fits reality.

Hi Steve. You have deflected my questions twice and refused to provide the clarification I had asked for. At this point I am going to assume that you have some misconceptions about the BB Theory and not respond to your posts any further as I don't think this is a productive conversation.

 

[steve_bank]

Thank you Jarhyn. Were you in the Marine Corps? I ask because your name sounds very similar to the term Jarhead that some people use to refer to Marines. If yes, Semper Fi from a fellow Marine

Army, actually, though the name predates my service.

Since then, I've exited service, and am now happily living as a software engineer, and finally out of the closet as a eunuch.

The name came about as a a repeated modification of Jerin made until I found a permutation that wasn't already claimed on a particular online game, and I just kind of kept using the name because I liked the Persian-esque feel of it.

Apparently it's the name of a Diablo 2 character in the desert region as well, though I picked it without knowing as much.

mathematically osscilate forever when excited. It can not be physically constructed, it violates the Laws Of Thermodynamics.

Someone hasn't done their research on time crystals...

Harmonic lossless oscillation does not violate the laws of thermodynamics.

It's actually been directly observed.

Going back a bit to be honest I doubt you know any more about LOT than you did about control systems.

Depending on where you set the thermodynamic boundary of a system you can make it seem like there is no entropy.

If you add kinetic energy to an object deep in space away from any gravity the kinetic energy will not dis-spate. But if you try to do work with the kinetic energy all of it can not be converted to useful work. An object moving through space is not perpetual motion.

If an oscillator be it a pendulum, crystal, or LC or any kimd of ossilatorlator if there are state chnages than work is done and LOT applies.

Every time I looked at claims like this it turned out the poster did not understand the theory.

Post the equations of state for the device you refer to and explain what they mean.....

 

[steve_bank]

Thank you Jarhyn. Were you in the Marine Corps? I ask because your name sounds very similar to the term Jarhead that some people use to refer to Marines. If yes, Semper Fi from a fellow Marine

Army, actually, though the name predates my service.

Since then, I've exited service, and am now happily living as a software engineer, and finally out of the closet as a eunuch.

The name came about as a a repeated modification of Jerin made until I found a permutation that wasn't already claimed on a particular online game, and I just kind of kept using the name because I liked the Persian-esque feel of it.

Apparently it's the name of a Diablo 2 character in the desert region as well, though I picked it without knowing as much.

mathematically osscilate forever when excited. It can not be physically constructed, it violates the Laws Of Thermodynamics.

Someone hasn't done their research on time crystals...

Harmonic lossless oscillation does not violate the laws of thermodynamics.

It's actually been directly observed.

Going back a bit to be honest I doubt you know any more about LOT than you did about control systems.

Depending on where you set the thermodynamic boundary of a system you can make it seem like there is no entropy.

If you add kinetic energy to an object deep in space away from any gravity the kinetic energy will not dis-spate. But if you try to do work with the kinetic energy all of it can not be converted to useful work. An object moving through space is not perpetual motion.

If an oscillator be it a pendulum, crystal, or LC or any kimd of ossilatorlator if there are state chnages than work is done and LOT applies.

Every time I looked at claims like this it turned out the poster did not understand the theory.

Post the equations of state for the device you refer to and explain what they mean.....

The BB is a sophisticated mathematical model that can appear to fit observation, but that does not mean it actually fits reality.

Hi Steve. You have deflected my questions twice and refused to provide the clarification I had asked for. At this point I am going to assume that you have some misconceptions about the BB Theory and not respond to your posts any further as I don't think this is a productive conversation.

I stated my views on the BB and science in general and the reasons why. I can not expain it differntly, and I will be repeating myself.

 

[bilby]

I stated my views on the BB and science in general and the reasons why. I can not expain it differntly, and I will be repeating myself.

But that's just asserting your opinion. It's not a discussion, and you are basically saying that you're not open to discussion.

Given that this isn't the Internet Infidels Assertion Board, that's not a very reasonable attitude to bring here.

The question is, what do you think about the views of other posters that are being shared here as a response to your assertions; And what is your evidence and reasoning that leads you to stand by your assertions?

If your basis for not changing your mind is that you have good reason to reject the criticisms of others, then we want to hear that good reasoning, so we can learn from your experience and knowledge.

If, on the other hand, your basis for not changing your mind is just that you're ignoring any criticism of your position, then you're wasting everyone's time, including (indeed, particularly) your own; And you are indulging in exactly the kind of unquestioning dogmatism that you appear to deride in theists.

You appear to misunderstand what the Big Bang Theory is, and how it relates to reality. But as you refuse to explain your understanding of what it is, and why that understanding is superior to that of your interlocutors, it's not possible for us to learn from you, or for you to learn from us.

So why are you here at all?

 

[Jarhyn]

Post the equations of state for the device you refer to and explain what they mean.....

Dude, just look up "time crystals". The whole point is that they are quantum state oscillators that draw no energy from the laser that keeps them going.

They are perfect regular structures in time.

You really need to quit trying to dig your way out of that hole.

 

[steve_bank]

Start a thread on science where in your OWN words you descrbe what the device is and how YOU draw your conclusions.

Do that and we can have a discussion. I am not chasing links.

 

[bilby]

Start a thread on science where in your OWN words you descrbe what the device is and how YOU draw your conclusions.

Why would you demand this? If something is true, it's irrelevant whose words are used to describe it; This is a kind of bizarre "Argument from refusing to admit the words of an Authority" fallacy.

Do that and we can have a discussion. I am not chasing links.

A time crystal is a quantum system of particles whose lowest-energy state is one in which the particles are in repetitive motion. The system cannot lose energy to the environment and come to rest because it is already in its quantum ground state. Because of this, the motion of the particles does not really represent kinetic energy like other motion; it has "motion without energy". Time crystals were first proposed theoretically by Frank Wilczek in 2012 as a time-based analogue to common crystals – whereas the atoms in crystals are arranged periodically in space, the atoms in a time crystal are arranged periodically in both space and time.

OK, those aren't my words, but as I can't really improve upon them, they will have to do. I did replace the initial lower case "a" with a capital letter, after I cut and pasted the text from @Jarhyn's link.

 

[Jarhyn]

Start a thread on science where in your OWN words you descrbe what the device is and how YOU draw your conclusions.

Do that and we can have a discussion. I am not chasing links.

It's wikipedia. Don't say obtuse things.

 

[steve_bank]

Don't know why you brought up what you did other than an attempt to find some way to justify your taking cosmology as absolute truth.

My point about LC oscillator circuits was that from my own direct experience fitting curves and building models from empirical data is that a model can be predictive of observation does not mean the model reflects true reality. A simple example is concluding the Earth is the center of the inverse based on eyeball observation.

I am as skeptical of science and interpretations of science as I am of religion.

You are certain that what you will find at our observational limit is what the BB predicts, but there is no way to prove it. I am just as certain our observable universe is surrounded by cream cheese and a bagel.

To the OP title some can believe in science as absolute truth without defining what that is much as theists believe god is absolute truth without defining it.

I don't debate through wiki pages.