Stargazer Posted May 3, 2018 Posted May 3, 2018 I enjoyed giving this topic that title (harking back to Fermat's Last Theorem). Although in the case of Fermat, it wasn't really his last theorem, just one that was discovered mentioned by a notation in one of his books, after his death). Well, Steven Hawking says this (from the article in The Telegraph😞 "Stephen Hawking has revealed from beyond the grave his final scientific theory - that the universe is a hologram... The new theory embraces the strange concept that the universe is like a vast and complex hologram. In other words, 3D reality is an illusion, and that the apparently "solid" world around us - and the dimension of time - is projected from information stored on a flat 2D surface... Applied to inflation, the newly published theory suggests that time and "the beginning" of the universe arose holographically from an unknowable state outside the Big Bang." I think one would be advised to read the paper itself, rather than trying to take too much at face value from the article in The Telegraph. However, it might be a bit dense, and beyond the background of many, if not most people. I wish the article had included a link to the paper. As it turns out, The Register article on the same subject does include a link to the paper, including this comment: "The paper looked at one of the enduring challenges Hawking created for himself – how to resolve the conflict between how Albert Einstein's models of the universe work (gravity, for example, at the very large scale), and how quantum mechanics works at the smallest scale." The idea that the universe is a hologram is quite intriguing. It does tend to provide some support to my own theory, which is that the universe is completely imaginary, and we are all interacting with an elaborate virtual reality construct that God set up to test and educate His children. Because, why would God really need to create an actual universe when He could just as well as create a virtual universe? It would be a lot less complex, and a lot more manageable. When it comes to the paper itself, I'm sure we'll all just "get it" once we have read it through. I dare you to comprehend the abstract: Quote Abstract The usual theory of inflation breaks down in eternal inflation. We derive a dual description of eternal inflation in terms of a deformed Euclidean CFT located at the threshold of eternal inflation. The partition function gives the amplitude of different geometries of the threshold surface in the no-boundary state. Its local and global behavior in dual toy models shows that the amplitude is low for surfaces which are not nearly conformal to the round three-sphere and essentially zero for surfaces with negative curvature. Based on this we conjecture that the exit from eternal inflation does not produce an infinite fractal-like multiverse, but is finite and reasonably smooth. 2
The Nehor Posted May 3, 2018 Posted May 3, 2018 Creating a perfect virtual reality with real life like fidelity. would be at least as complex as creating the real thing. This also does not support the idea that existence is a simulation. Holographic cosmology is a way of describing reality, not positing that it is illusion and not real reality. The danger of using this kind of terminology is that, while it helps explain, once it goes out to popular science it is routinely misunderstood and mined for shock value to create better internet click bait. The big push here is unification, the holy Grail of physics searching for a theory that melds quantum theory with classical physics.
RevTestament Posted May 3, 2018 Posted May 3, 2018 45 minutes ago, Stargazer said: I enjoyed giving this topic that title (harking back to Fermat's Last Theorem). Although in the case of Fermat, it wasn't really his last theorem, just one that was discovered mentioned by a notation in one of his books, after his death). Well, Steven Hawking says this (from the article in The Telegraph😞 "Stephen Hawking has revealed from beyond the grave his final scientific theory - that the universe is a hologram... The new theory embraces the strange concept that the universe is like a vast and complex hologram. In other words, 3D reality is an illusion, and that the apparently "solid" world around us - and the dimension of time - is projected from information stored on a flat 2D surface... Applied to inflation, the newly published theory suggests that time and "the beginning" of the universe arose holographically from an unknowable state outside the Big Bang." I think one would be advised to read the paper itself, rather than trying to take too much at face value from the article in The Telegraph. However, it might be a bit dense, and beyond the background of many, if not most people. I wish the article had included a link to the paper. As it turns out, The Register article on the same subject does include a link to the paper, including this comment: "The paper looked at one of the enduring challenges Hawking created for himself – how to resolve the conflict between how Albert Einstein's models of the universe work (gravity, for example, at the very large scale), and how quantum mechanics works at the smallest scale." The idea that the universe is a hologram is quite intriguing. It does tend to provide some support to my own theory, which is that the universe is completely imaginary, and we are all interacting with an elaborate virtual reality construct that God set up to test and educate His children. Because, why would God really need to create an actual universe when He could just as well as create a virtual universe? It would be a lot less complex, and a lot more manageable. When it comes to the paper itself, I'm sure we'll all just "get it" once we have read it through. I dare you to comprehend the abstract: Conjecturing about the Universe is fun. However, I am personally not much of a Hawking fan. I am beginning to suspect that the universe is more of a boring static Euclidean structure. The big bang theory is actually a brain child of a Catholic priest - no wonder Catholics like it, and stick it in Genesis. The main hinge of the big bang theory is that light from far away galaxies is redshifted. Generally, the further they are, and the more magnification needed to see them, the more red-shifted they are. From this it was deduced that like the Doppler effect, these galaxies are all moving away from us - and the furthest ones at the fastest clip. However, what if light just redshifts with distance? In fact when the galaxies are put on a graph with axes of distance and amount of red shift, the two correlate in a nice linear way. In other words no matter which way we look, the distance of the galaxy correlates to its red shift with the exception of the closest galaxies. Does that mean we are in the center of the universe? or does light just tend to red shift with extreme distances? Fritz Zwicky proposed that the redshift was caused by the photons losing energy as they passed through the matter and/or forces in intergalactic space. If so, the Big Bang model meets a quick demise. Indeed, we may simply not understand all the properties of light. In fact light has been shown not to have a constant speed, so even the E=MC(squared) formula may break down. When light passes through certain matter at temperatures of absolute 0, scientists have shown that light even stops. So as light passes through space, it may be affected by gravity, "dark matter" in space, or other phenomena or forces we do not completely understand, to cause it to redshift. The Big Bang model has run into other problems too, causing theories such as dark energy to pop up to explain why the furthest galaxies seem to be "accelerating" away from us. But if this is a simple misunderstanding of the redshift, then these problems go away with the demise of the Big Bang theory. Further, some galaxies are not where they "should" be given their apparent redshift. In other words they aren't traveling fast enough to have been born in the "big bang." For God to have created all this as a simple construct of our minds is a bit much for me to handle. I believe our scriptures that He has created many worlds, and that they are actual places we could visit. Our scriptures talk about matter as something real that even spirits are made of. In other words spirits are a form of energy stored in some form of matter. Anyway, that's my story, and I'm sticking to it - to copy another long-time forum poster.
longview Posted May 3, 2018 Posted May 3, 2018 1 hour ago, RevTestament said: In fact when the galaxies are put on a graph with axes of distance and amount of red shift, the two correlate in a nice linear way. In other words no matter which way we look, the distance of the galaxy correlates to its red shift with the exception of the closest galaxies. Does that mean we are in the center of the universe? or does light just tend to red shift with extreme distances? Fritz Zwicky proposed that the redshift was caused by the photons losing energy as they passed through the matter and/or forces in intergalactic space. If so, the Big Bang model meets a quick demise. This has been my conjecture for the past few years. Thank you for finding such great references!
RevTestament Posted May 3, 2018 Posted May 3, 2018 (edited) 58 minutes ago, longview said: This has been my conjecture for the past few years. Thank you for finding such great references! Although Eric Lerner may not be a known astrophysicist, he published more evidence about this recently in the Royal Astronomical Society Journal of Oxford. This paper has been gaining a lot of attention. The abstract and link to pdf is here: https://academic.oup.com/mnras/advance-article/doi/10.1093/mnras/sty728/4951333?guestAccessKey=97d03104-9d3e-40a7-a7f2-55e905b84a9a Basically data about the observed brightness of the galaxies and their radii are incompatible with the published size-evolution predictions based upon an expanding universe. The more closely we examine the various data, the less an expanding universe model works. Really, it seems the only thing the Big Bang model has going for it is the observed redshift. But if that is explained by other phenomena or properties, then the Big Bang hypothesis will probably die. Energy and matter would just be regurgitated in a somewhat static Euclidean universe indefinitely without a known beginning nor end. Other recent mathematical models have also come up with this result - one by two Indian physicists comes to mind. I think physicists are beginning to look elsewhere because of the problems and observed contradictions the Big Bang model presents. Edited May 3, 2018 by RevTestament 1
Stargazer Posted May 4, 2018 Author Posted May 4, 2018 (edited) 8 hours ago, RevTestament said: Conjecturing about the Universe is fun. However, I am personally not much of a Hawking fan. I am beginning to suspect that the universe is more of a boring static Euclidean structure. The big bang theory is actually a brain child of a Catholic priest - no wonder Catholics like it, and stick it in Genesis. Just because a Catholic priest thought of it, that makes it wrong or suspect? I suppose that since a Catholic priest, Gregor Mendel, was the founder of genetic science, that makes it doubtful or incorrect? And... where in Genesis is the Big Bang? OK, whatever. My question to you is this: what is a Euclidean structure? I know what Euclidean space is (look out the window and there it is). How does the Big Bang invalidate Euclidean space, or vice versa? Quote The main hinge of the big bang theory is that light from far away galaxies is redshifted. Generally, the further they are, and the more magnification needed to see them, the more red-shifted they are. From this it was deduced that like the Doppler effect, these galaxies are all moving away from us - and the furthest ones at the fastest clip. However, what if light just redshifts with distance? In fact when the galaxies are put on a graph with axes of distance and amount of red shift, the two correlate in a nice linear way. In other words no matter which way we look, the distance of the galaxy correlates to its red shift with the exception of the closest galaxies. Does that mean we are in the center of the universe? or does light just tend to red shift with extreme distances? Fritz Zwicky proposed that the redshift was caused by the photons losing energy as they passed through the matter and/or forces in intergalactic space. If so, the Big Bang model meets a quick demise. Zwicky's "tired light" proposal has been debunked. He was correct that there was a discrepancy between the redshift values and observed distances, which he noted in 1926. Thirty years later Walter Baade found that they had been measuring the distances incorrectly -- the "standard candle" of the Cepheid Variable stars had been inaccurate, but was corrected by Baade, and now the values correspond as expected. As for being at the center of the Universe (or of the Big Bang), of course we're not, but that is not the explanation for the redshift. The light is redshifted due to the expansion of the universe itself, not because of everything flying away from us. Note that the Andromeda galaxy (M31) and ours are actually on a collision course, so there is a bit of a blueshift in that case. That's how we know that the two are moving closer -- as far as I know, they are the only two with such a blueshift. If "tired light" were valid (and not even Zwicky believed it in later in his life), then how could the blueshift be explained? Where would the extra energy come from? Quote Indeed, we may simply not understand all the properties of light. In fact light has been shown not to have a constant speed, so even the E=MC(squared) formula may break down. E=mc2 does not break down because light can move at a slower speed than 186,000 mps. Why would it? Do you even know what E=mc2 means? I could quote Inigo Montoya to you on this. By the way, the term "speed of light" is rather misleading. More accurately, 186,000 m/s (or 300,000 km/s) is not the "speed of light"; it is just the fastest velocity possible in the universe, and light is the only thing that can go that fast. You could call that speed the Universal Speed Limit. In a perfect vacuum light will always travel at that speed, but it slows down temporarily when passing through various transparent materials. I say temporarily, because after exiting those materials it resumes the speed limit. But even this is oversimplified. Have a read through the article on the speed of light in Wikipedia, especially the section on light through a medium. There's some really cool stuff in there. Quote When light passes through certain matter at temperatures of absolute 0, scientists have shown that light even stops. No it doesn't. If you read the article I linked to above, you will find that it doesn't stop, it is stored in the medium until it is re-emitted as light. "However, the popular description of light being "stopped" in these experiments refers only to light being stored in the excited states of atoms, then re-emitted at an arbitrarily later time, as stimulated by a second laser pulse. During the time it had "stopped," it had ceased to be light." Quote So as light passes through space, it may be affected by gravity, "dark matter" in space, or other phenomena or forces we do not completely understand, to cause it to redshift. As noted above, it is not redshifted in response to gravity. Gravity does bend light's path -- Einstein and others predicted this, and it was shown to the true in the solar eclipse of 1919. Your astronomer Zwicky first proposed that galaxies (being extremely massy) would act as gravitational lenses, and this was demonstrated to be true just a few years after his death. But gravity would only temporarily slow light down -- if at all, since the "speed of gravity" itself is the "speed of light". Quote The Big Bang model has run into other problems too, causing theories such as dark energy to pop up to explain why the furthest galaxies seem to be "accelerating" away from us. But if this is a simple misunderstanding of the redshift, then these problems go away with the demise of the Big Bang theory. Further, some galaxies are not where they "should" be given their apparent redshift. In other words they aren't traveling fast enough to have been born in the "big bang." Well, how fast should they be traveling? What's the discrepancy? And as noted above, the expansion of the universe is not the same thing as an explosion. It is more like the way a raisin loaf expands when baked. The raisins are initially close together, but as the loaf is baked, the raisins (without being under any propulsive force) gradually move apart. Dark matter was proposed to explain how it is possible for spiral galaxies to rotate the way they rotate -- because there isn't enough matter in them to provide the gravity necessary to keep them in spiral shape. Nowhere near enough. In fact, a galaxy would have to be made up of much more dark matter than light or ordinary matter for things to work the way they appear to work. This does not debunk or degrade the Big Bang, however. I think you're referencing the so-called Great Attractor, and the fact that the expansion of the universe appears to be accelerating. Neither of these interesting facts debunks the Big Bang. The Big Bang model explains a lot. The theory is probably not complete, but just because there are oddities that it doesn't explain -- yet -- does not mean that it isn't broadly correct. Quote For God to have created all this as a simple construct of our minds is a bit much for me to handle. Yeah, well, I am not seriously proposing it -- it's just a thought experiment. Quote I believe our scriptures that He has created many worlds, and that they are actual places we could visit. Our scriptures talk about matter as something real that even spirits are made of. In other words spirits are a form of energy stored in some form of matter. But what is matter? We don't really know, even if we're surrounded by it. Protons and neutrons each consist of three quarks, two down and one up (for the neutron), and two up and one down (for the proton). And what the hell is a quark? Who knows? We sure don't. The fact is pure and simple: we don't understand matter, though we can measure it and test its properties. I think that our spirits are still in the presence of God, but that our consciousnesses / intelligences are entrained in a quantum state embedded in our physical bodies (specifically inside our brain), at least until our missions in the flesh and in the spirit world are completed and we are resurrected. Quote Anyway, that's my story, and I'm sticking to it - to copy another long-time forum poster. I think you better do some more reading. One of the great things about the Big Bang is that it conforms exactly to what the scriptures claim. The Steady State Theory (the alternative to the Big Bang) requires that the universe has always been like this, and it will always be like this, because there is no end and no beginning. If God is who we believe he is, and his work and glory is the raising up of more of him (i.e. you and I), so we can go forth and do what he does, then the Big Bang is absolutely necessary. Otherwise there's nowhere for you and I to go, if we get exalted. In short, if the universe has always been here, then God cannot have created it, can he? You get caught in a contradiction in that case. But it's not necessary to understand this. The most important thing to understand is that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and through your faith in him, your repentance and obedience his resurrection and atonement makes it possible for you to be forgiven of your sins and live the life that God lives. Edited May 4, 2018 by Stargazer
Stargazer Posted May 4, 2018 Author Posted May 4, 2018 6 hours ago, longview said: This has been my conjecture for the past few years. Thank you for finding such great references! Except that Zwicky based his proposal on the incorrect values for distance that had been calculated from an erroneous understanding of Cepheid variable stars -- that was corrected in 1956.
Stargazer Posted May 4, 2018 Author Posted May 4, 2018 (edited) 6 hours ago, RevTestament said: Although Eric Lerner may not be a known astrophysicist, he published more evidence about this recently in the Royal Astronomical Society Journal of Oxford. This paper has been gaining a lot of attention. The abstract and link to pdf is here: https://academic.oup.com/mnras/advance-article/doi/10.1093/mnras/sty728/4951333?guestAccessKey=97d03104-9d3e-40a7-a7f2-55e905b84a9a Basically data about the observed brightness of the galaxies and their radii are incompatible with the published size-evolution predictions based upon an expanding universe. The more closely we examine the various data, the less an expanding universe model works. Really, it seems the only thing the Big Bang model has going for it is the observed redshift. But if that is explained by other phenomena or properties, then the Big Bang hypothesis will probably die. Energy and matter would just be regurgitated in a somewhat static Euclidean universe indefinitely without a known beginning nor end. Other recent mathematical models have also come up with this result - one by two Indian physicists comes to mind. I think physicists are beginning to look elsewhere because of the problems and observed contradictions the Big Bang model presents. Every theory must be validated against actual observations, and insofar as those observations are accurate, the theory will be modified until eventually the observations match the theory and we will have a basic truth. If the Big Bang is debunked then there will suddenly be things that we formerly understood, by virtue of it, that will be hanging in the wind waiting for something to explain them. The Big Bang is no different from any other theory. It explains a lot, but it is not perfect. I expect that there will be more refinements and corrections as time goes by. But as for Euclidean steady state, that is most certainly not feasible -- for reasons I stated above, if nothing else. Do you understand why the universe cannot remain in a steady state forever? This is because eventually all the heat in the universe will have dissipated into empty space, and there will be nothing left but coldness, hovering just above absolute zero, everywhere and forever (in a few quadrillion years or so). There is no steady state. Even if God continually creates the universe, and new matter and energy is always coming into it, it is still not in a steady state. And by the way, if God is continually bringing new matter and energy into it, this would quite neatly explain the universe's expansion, even if the Big Bang, per se, isn't really a Bang. Edited May 4, 2018 by Stargazer
Maidservant Posted May 4, 2018 Posted May 4, 2018 One of my favorite scriptures, which hints at not yet understood physics. D&C 101:23 "And prepare for the revelation which is to come, when the veil of the covering of my temple, in my tabernacle, which hideth the earth, shall be taken off, and all flesh shall see me together. " I am satisfied for myself (at least until I learn more and other) that the present world we are participating in IS a media; that is, we are currently participating IN the temple film/endowment, thinking about it from the point of view of our "previous life" (we are still having that life, btw, we never left--we just got hooked up/in) and where we entered our Father's temple, in order to be baptized and to receive our priesthood robes. Think about the current (inworld) film/temple and 'upgrade' it a thousand times or so, and you get what I mean as far as this being a media. And it is not more intricate to make, not any more intricate than it is intricate to make a movie all out of pixels, and yet have an apple, a table, and a human being in that movie--all made of pixels. It simpler than one thinks. I went to Disney last week, and my gosh, they had smellivision. I thought it would be harder to add another sense into our current media (we have visual and audio currently; and motion), but no, here we are at the beginning of smell. Our bodies are the dashboards of this media. Choices we make are the 0 and 1s of the program. It is completely interactive, and also kind of like those Choose Your Own Adventure books we had in the 80s. I would not call this an illusion, as it is very real because it is what we are doing here and now--we are who we are, with real consequences. What is illusory about it is that it seems "solid", but that is a property of sensation and signal as received in the body, or the parameters in the body (not even received, rather internally generated based on our choices and perceptions). I heard someone give the parable that the 'screen' is what is solid, but the 'movie' is what we are in, but not solid. But when you are in the middle of watching the movie, you don't normally perceive the screen, although it's always there and you could. Still working through it, but that's how far I've gotten so far. Consider also the physics of this verse. D&C 93:35 The elements are the tabernacle of God. 1
The Nehor Posted May 4, 2018 Posted May 4, 2018 13 hours ago, RevTestament said: Conjecturing about the Universe is fun. However, I am personally not much of a Hawking fan. I am beginning to suspect that the universe is more of a boring static Euclidean structure. The big bang theory is actually a brain child of a Catholic priest - no wonder Catholics like it, and stick it in Genesis. The main hinge of the big bang theory is that light from far away galaxies is redshifted. Generally, the further they are, and the more magnification needed to see them, the more red-shifted they are. From this it was deduced that like the Doppler effect, these galaxies are all moving away from us - and the furthest ones at the fastest clip. However, what if light just redshifts with distance? In fact when the galaxies are put on a graph with axes of distance and amount of red shift, the two correlate in a nice linear way. In other words no matter which way we look, the distance of the galaxy correlates to its red shift with the exception of the closest galaxies. Does that mean we are in the center of the universe? or does light just tend to red shift with extreme distances? Fritz Zwicky proposed that the redshift was caused by the photons losing energy as they passed through the matter and/or forces in intergalactic space. If so, the Big Bang model meets a quick demise. Indeed, we may simply not understand all the properties of light. In fact light has been shown not to have a constant speed, so even the E=MC(squared) formula may break down. When light passes through certain matter at temperatures of absolute 0, scientists have shown that light even stops. So as light passes through space, it may be affected by gravity, "dark matter" in space, or other phenomena or forces we do not completely understand, to cause it to redshift. The Big Bang model has run into other problems too, causing theories such as dark energy to pop up to explain why the furthest galaxies seem to be "accelerating" away from us. But if this is a simple misunderstanding of the redshift, then these problems go away with the demise of the Big Bang theory. Further, some galaxies are not where they "should" be given their apparent redshift. In other words they aren't traveling fast enough to have been born in the "big bang." For God to have created all this as a simple construct of our minds is a bit much for me to handle. I believe our scriptures that He has created many worlds, and that they are actual places we could visit. Our scriptures talk about matter as something real that even spirits are made of. In other words spirits are a form of energy stored in some form of matter. Anyway, that's my story, and I'm sticking to it - to copy another long-time forum poster. And while we are at it I am not sure phrenology was given a fair evaluation.
longview Posted May 4, 2018 Posted May 4, 2018 4 hours ago, Stargazer said: Except that Zwicky based his proposal on the incorrect values for distance that had been calculated from an erroneous understanding of Cepheid variable stars -- that was corrected in 1956. I had not heard of Zwicky. However, I think it very reasonable to consider photon decay will definitely lead to lower energy at a steady rate. Hence the redshifting as a function of distance, not of expanding universe. 1
The Nehor Posted May 4, 2018 Posted May 4, 2018 13 minutes ago, longview said: I had not heard of Zwicky. However, I think it very reasonable to consider photon decay will definitely lead to lower energy at a steady rate. Hence the redshifting as a function of distance, not of expanding universe. The evidence suggests otherwise.
6EQUJ5 Posted May 4, 2018 Posted May 4, 2018 16 hours ago, Stargazer said: When it comes to the paper itself, I'm sure we'll all just "get it" once we have read it through. I dare you to comprehend the abstract: Do a quick YouTube search for "Kent Hovind." He makes some rude cracks about Mormons once or twice, but the information he presents is incredible. 1
longview Posted May 4, 2018 Posted May 4, 2018 4 hours ago, Stargazer said: Do you understand why the universe cannot remain in a steady state forever? This is because eventually all the heat in the universe will have dissipated into empty space, and there will be nothing left but coldness, hovering just above absolute zero, everywhere and forever (in a few quadrillion years or so). There is no steady state. Even if God continually creates the universe, and new matter and energy is always coming into it, it is still not in a steady state. And by the way, if God is continually bringing new matter and energy into it, this would quite neatly explain the universe's expansion, even if the Big Bang, per se, isn't really a Bang. I believe there are more dimensions than we are able to perceive. The electromagnetic spectrum has fluctuating magnetic and electrical components: when one is at the max, the other is at zero, back and forth. Implying something extra is occurring in the underlying dimensions. Some theorists posit up to 24 dimensions. Which could enable continual recycling of various forms of energy between dimensions. It has been said Black Holes could be transforming matter into other forms of energy in other dimensions. Consider this scripture: D&C 88:7 Which truth shineth. This is the light of Christ. As also he is in the sun, and the light of the sun, and the power thereof by which it was made. Could the material universe be based on spirit energy? 1
longview Posted May 4, 2018 Posted May 4, 2018 10 minutes ago, The Nehor said: The evidence suggests otherwise. How do you mean? There are scientists that posit photon decay. They will need to determine the decay rate and lifespan of the photon with further investigation.
RevTestament Posted May 4, 2018 Posted May 4, 2018 8 hours ago, The Nehor said: And while we are at it I am not sure phrenology was given a fair evaluation. If you want to measure brain sizes, have at it. I'll just require that you publish them.
RevTestament Posted May 4, 2018 Posted May 4, 2018 13 hours ago, Stargazer said: Just because a Catholic priest thought of it, that makes it wrong or suspect? I suppose that since a Catholic priest, Gregor Mendel, was the founder of genetic science, that makes it doubtful or incorrect? And... where in Genesis is the Big Bang? I didn't say it was wrong. I basically said there are reasons it is suspect. It didn't really have to do with the guy being Catholic, but I was commenting that may be why Catholics seem to like the idea so much. It infers a beginning from "nothing" which is their usual idea of creation 'ex nihilo.' But I hasten to point out that not even the Big Bang theory proposes a creation from nothing. According to it, all matter now in the universe was in a singularity - which is not nothing. Quote My question to you is this: what is a Euclidean structure? I know what Euclidean space is (look out the window and there it is). How does the Big Bang invalidate Euclidean space, or vice versa? My comment was further explained in my second post where I commented that I believe the universe is a "somewhat static Euclidean universe indefinitely." I made no comment about "Euclidean space." That seems to be coming from your interpretation of what I said. What I mean by that is that the I believe the universe is not expanding at an accelerating rate. Since that seems to be your favored model, I will let you defend it if you can. Quote Zwicky's "tired light" proposal has been debunked. He was correct that there was a discrepancy between the redshift values and observed distances, which he noted in 1926. Thirty years later Walter Baade found that they had been measuring the distances incorrectly -- the "standard candle" of the Cepheid Variable stars had been inaccurate, but was corrected by Baade, and now the values correspond as expected. I agree aspects of Zwicky's theory have been corrected. However, I believe the main thrust of his idea - that the redshift occurs because something happens to the photons over time - is still quite possible. Merely dismissing the idea by saying his "tired light" theory was debunked is not really accurate. Light is a form of radiation, and radiation is a "form" of entropy. Quote As for being at the center of the Universe (or of the Big Bang), of course we're not, but that is not the explanation for the redshift. The light is redshifted due to the expansion of the universe itself, not because of everything flying away from us. Note that the Andromeda galaxy (M31) and ours are actually on a collision course, so there is a bit of a blueshift in that case. That's how we know that the two are moving closer -- as far as I know, they are the only two with such a blueshift. If "tired light" were valid (and not even Zwicky believed it in later in his life), then how could the blueshift be explained? Where would the extra energy come from? I believe that actually a number of galaxies in our local group are blueshifted. I am not invalidating blueshift and redshift. I believe blueshift does occur like the doppler effect. However, with time, it may degrade to a redshift. Why is it that the only objects in the universe which are blue shifted are in our local group? If I am correct, then the light from these galaxies has not experienced enough "decay" to redshift, but given more time, ie distance, it would start to redshift. According to the law of entropy, this actually makes some sense. Light cannot last forever, but will decay or lose energy. Planck derived an equation for the entropy of an arbitrary light beam (of given spectral intensity and geometric dispersion). Quote As noted above, it is not redshifted in response to gravity. Gravity does bend light's path -- Einstein and others predicted this, and it was shown to the true in the solar eclipse of 1919. Your astronomer Zwicky first proposed that galaxies (being extremely massy) would act as gravitational lenses, and this was demonstrated to be true just a few years after his death. But gravity would only temporarily slow light down -- if at all, since the "speed of gravity" itself is the "speed of light". I accept that to date gravity has not been found to redshift light. However, as you note it has been found to affect light. However, I suspect some other property or mechanism to be the main factor. Something that occurs as a function of time/distance rather than gravity. Quote Dark matter was proposed to explain how it is possible for spiral galaxies to rotate the way they rotate -- because there isn't enough matter in them to provide the gravity necessary to keep them in spiral shape. Nowhere near enough. In fact, a galaxy would have to be made up of much more dark matter than light or ordinary matter for things to work the way they appear to work. This does not debunk or degrade the Big Bang, however. I think you're referencing the so-called Great Attractor, and the fact that the expansion of the universe appears to be accelerating. Neither of these interesting facts debunks the Big Bang. I did not discuss dark matter. Are you not familiar with the theory that dark energy might be responsible for the seemingly accelerating rate at which the universe is expanding according to the redshift/big bang theory? It seems to me to be mere conjecture necessary to bolster the Big Bang theory. Why else would the rate of expansion be accelerating? It's a problem without a known solution, but which is caused by the interpretation of redshift data. A different interpretation of the redshift data, could eliminate this "problem," and serve to debunk the Big Bang theory. Quote The Big Bang model explains a lot. The theory is probably not complete, but just because there are oddities that it doesn't explain -- yet -- does not mean that it isn't broadly correct. The Big Bang theory is definitely not complete. There are a good number of things about it which don't add up - for instance its accelerating expansion. However, I haven't claimed it is wrong, although I have my strong doubts about it, and like I have said, I am suspecting that the universe is more of a fairly static Euclidean universe with no discernible beginning. Quote But what is matter? We don't really know, even if we're surrounded by it. Protons and neutrons each consist of three quarks, two down and one up (for the neutron), and two up and one down (for the proton). And what the hell is a quark? Who knows? We sure don't. The fact is pure and simple: we don't understand matter, though we can measure it and test its properties. Which brings me to my whole point. If we don't fully understand matter, it seems we may not fully understand light. The Big Bang model essentially assumes that our most common interpretation of redshift is correct. Quote I think you better do some more reading. Which I have done. Which is why I have begun to have more doubts about the Big Bang model. The more I have read, the more issues I have found with it, and the more "patches" to the theory it seems astrophysicists have been applying to try to make it work, ie dark energy, etc. Quote One of the great things about the Big Bang is that it conforms exactly to what the scriptures claim. The Steady State Theory (the alternative to the Big Bang) requires that the universe has always been like this, and it will always be like this, because there is no end and no beginning. If God is who we believe he is, and his work and glory is the raising up of more of him (i.e. you and I), so we can go forth and do what he does, then the Big Bang is absolutely necessary. Here, I think we get to the nitty gritty of why you are defending the Big Bang so strongly, and seem to be willing to make assumptions about what I have said. I disagree with you. I don't read the Big Bang as a perfect interpretation of scripture. Indeed, in the beginning there was no earth with form. A strict reading would seem the earth was formed before the universe. The scriptures do not talk about the creation of the universe in my interpretation. They talk about the beginning of the earth - that it was formed from "the waters." Every star we see with our eyes is in our galaxy - our "heavens." We know our galaxy too came into being. The scriptures just do not talk about the creation of "the universe." That is an interpretation which I believe I was trying to comment on with my comment about why Catholics like the Big Bang theory. In other words I interpret "the beginning" in Genesis as the beginning of this earth - not the universe. You bring up the Steady State theory as if I proposed it. I did not. I currently believe in a "somewhat static Euclidean universe" with an indefinite beginning and end. I have made no claims that it will not die. You are imposing that on me. I am aware of the law of entropy. However, in a universe with no bounds, it is essentially mathematically equivalent to a closed system. In a closed system the law of entropy would not apply. Energy is preserved. In any case in the Big Bang theory there is also an indeterminate end to the universe - and essentially an indeterminate beginning as apparently something existed before the last Big Bang. Quote Otherwise there's nowhere for you and I to go, if we get exalted. In short, if the universe has always been here, then God cannot have created it, can he? You get caught in a contradiction in that case. Sure there is someplace for us to go just as the scriptures say. Those who are exalted will go to rule with Him in the new earth and heavens He will create - the regeneration. Our scriptures seem to indicate God did not create matter. He reforms it, since it is simply stored energy. That is the way he "created" the earth. Perhaps a more accurate meaning is to form. He formed the earth from "the waters." He formed man from dust. Scriptures simply do not indicate that He formed the universe from nothing. You need to be disabused of that notion. It seems to be fueling your defense of the Big Bang model - which I repeat, is itself not a creation from nothing.
snowflake Posted May 4, 2018 Posted May 4, 2018 On 5/3/2018 at 8:58 AM, Stargazer said: I enjoyed giving this topic that title (harking back to Fermat's Last Theorem). Although in the case of Fermat, it wasn't really his last theorem, just one that was discovered mentioned by a notation in one of his books, after his death). Well, Steven Hawking says this (from the article in The Telegraph😞 "Stephen Hawking has revealed from beyond the grave his final scientific theory - that the universe is a hologram... The new theory embraces the strange concept that the universe is like a vast and complex hologram. In other words, 3D reality is an illusion, and that the apparently "solid" world around us - and the dimension of time - is projected from information stored on a flat 2D surface... Applied to inflation, the newly published theory suggests that time and "the beginning" of the universe arose holographically from an unknowable state outside the Big Bang." I think one would be advised to read the paper itself, rather than trying to take too much at face value from the article in The Telegraph. However, it might be a bit dense, and beyond the background of many, if not most people. I wish the article had included a link to the paper. As it turns out, The Register article on the same subject does include a link to the paper, including this comment: "The paper looked at one of the enduring challenges Hawking created for himself – how to resolve the conflict between how Albert Einstein's models of the universe work (gravity, for example, at the very large scale), and how quantum mechanics works at the smallest scale." The idea that the universe is a hologram is quite intriguing. It does tend to provide some support to my own theory, which is that the universe is completely imaginary, and we are all interacting with an elaborate virtual reality construct that God set up to test and educate His children. Because, why would God really need to create an actual universe when He could just as well as create a virtual universe? It would be a lot less complex, and a lot more manageable. When it comes to the paper itself, I'm sure we'll all just "get it" once we have read it through. I dare you to comprehend the abstract: Stargazer, here is an excellent presentation I think you would enjoy.....by my man Chuck Missler.
Stargazer Posted May 4, 2018 Author Posted May 4, 2018 15 hours ago, longview said: I had not heard of Zwicky. However, I think it very reasonable to consider photon decay will definitely lead to lower energy at a steady rate. Hence the redshifting as a function of distance, not of expanding universe. Zwicky and his work was extremely important to the development of astronomical science. But Zwicky's old theory of "tired light" has gone the way of the Phlogiston theory. Nobody except crackpots still hold to it. And if redshifting were a function of distance, then why wouldn't the Andromeda galaxy be just as redshifted as other galaxies that are a similar distance away? It isn't. It's blueshifted -- because our two galaxies are APPROACHING each other. 1
Stargazer Posted May 4, 2018 Author Posted May 4, 2018 (edited) delete Edited May 4, 2018 by Stargazer 1
Stargazer Posted May 4, 2018 Author Posted May 4, 2018 (edited) 15 hours ago, longview said: How do you mean? There are scientists that posit photon decay. They will need to determine the decay rate and lifespan of the photon with further investigation. There is no photon decay. I think you mean "proton decay". There is no experimental evidence for it. Soviet physicist Andrei Sakharov hypothesized about it a long time ago, and although no experimental evidence exists for it (and the proton is considered stable), it maaaaaaaay decay with a half-life of between 1.06 - 1.67 x 10^36 years. That's like 1 with 36 zeroes after it. Or 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times that the present age of the universe. Before that occurs the universe will have long gone into heat-death. And then you run into the fundamental problem with you attempting to advocate for the steady state theory. If protons (or for that matter, photons) will decay -- because if they CAN, they WILL -- then eventually the universe will evaporate into nothingness. Which sinks the steady state theory. OK, edited to add, yes, you said "somewhat steady state", but it's either one or the other. If it's "somewhat" steady state, it's not steady state. You can have proton decay or you can have steady state. You can't have both. So pick one. And, may I ask, what difference does it make to anything you've proposed that there are scientists who posit proton decay? Edited May 4, 2018 by Stargazer 1
Stargazer Posted May 4, 2018 Author Posted May 4, 2018 6 hours ago, RevTestament said: I agree aspects of Zwicky's theory have been corrected. However, I believe the main thrust of his idea - that the redshift occurs because something happens to the photons over time - is still quite possible. Merely dismissing the idea by saying his "tired light" theory was debunked is not really accurate. Light is a form of radiation, and radiation is a "form" of entropy. Too much there for me to respond to right now, except this. Zwicky's entire "tired light" hypothesis holds no water. If you won't believe me, try this: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/tiredlit.htm I was not dismissing it as debunked. The observations and the evidence are all against it. Not because I say so. Because others with WAY more knowledge and understanding say so. Go find someone credible to gainsay it. Rev, you know a good deal about the gospel, and I enjoy your posts on that. But your saying that "radiation is a "form" of entropy" makes it abundantly clear that you are a little confused about physics. Entropy is a property of themodynamic systems (having to do with the degree of disorder in a system) not a kind or form of radiation. Not just apples vs oranges, but apples vs computer chips.
longview Posted May 5, 2018 Posted May 5, 2018 5 hours ago, Stargazer said: And if redshifting were a function of distance, then why wouldn't the Andromeda galaxy be just as redshifted as other galaxies that are a similar distance away? It isn't. It's blueshifted -- because our two galaxies are APPROACHING each other. I do not rule out shifting of blue or red. Of course stellar objects would recede or approach each other. We could have shifting from either relative speeds of objects or aging due to travel over great distances or a combination of both. Nothing material will last forever. The scriptures speak of transformations of planetary bodies or stars as a "rolling" or "unrolling" whatever that means. The CMB (cosmic microwave background) might NOT be a remnant of the Big Bang but could turn out to be the final fading of photons coming from a certain distance away (the radius of the lifespan of a photon). Science has not yet made a final determination.
RevTestament Posted May 5, 2018 Posted May 5, 2018 4 hours ago, Stargazer said: Rev, you know a good deal about the gospel, and I enjoy your posts on that. But your saying that "radiation is a "form" of entropy" makes it abundantly clear that you are a little confused about physics. Entropy is a property of themodynamic systems (having to do with the degree of disorder in a system) not a kind or form of radiation. Not just apples vs oranges, but apples vs computer chips. Thank you. I will admit that I am better at the gospel than physics. However, I am not totally uneducated in physics and astronomy. i realize radiation is not entropy. That is why I put "form" in quotes. Radiation is essentially direct evidence of entropy. It experiences entropy. Here is a paper talking about radiation "containing" entropy as well as energy. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-01622-6 Light is radiation. Radiation experiences entropy.
Recommended Posts