THoR

Been advised to move to another forum. My challenge to the conventional wisdom seems to be disturbing the participants. I always thought simple basic logic was necessary to valid scientific inquiry. How silly of me. That must be philosophy - or metaphysics.

Read it. He has a great facility for crunching numbers but I am not impressed by his interpretation. Even Newton theorized that unless a static universe expanded at a certain rate it would contract under the influence of gravity. That would be true in a FINITE universe, but in an infinite universe that is homogeneous and isotropic it is NOT true. If there is a distribution of mass/energy beyond our cosmological horizon there would be no crunch. It's YOUR team that remains somewhat undecided whether the universe is flat, hyperbolic, spherical, open, closed or shaped like a pretzel. Finite but unbounded seems to be popular. Per the Friedmann model, the universe is not infinite in space, but it doesn't have any boundary. Gravity bends space around onto itself, making it like the surface of a sphere. If a traveler keeps traveling in one direction on its surface he will never reach a barrier, but will eventually come back to where he started. If this is the case then from any point 'A' there must exist another point 'B' within a finite distance such that the motion of point 'B' in ANY direction will not increase the distance between the two. Excuse my skepticism, but I see no evidence that such is the case. In a mathematical model you can embed 3D space into a higher dimensional manifold (why stop at 10 or 11) by definition, but would any higher dimension have a physical significance. If the cosmos were expanding INTO WHAT?) at the speed of light, a traveler would, again, never be able to reach a boundary. Proposing it doesn't make it so. Time is nothing more than a measurement. A comparison of two (or more) relative rates of change. Even with expansion, at any frozen instant in time point 'A' must have a companion point 'B' within a finite distance such that the (unfrozen) motion of point 'B' in ANY direction will not increase the distance between the two. BB theory requires the red shift to be the result of expansion - else something somewhere is exceeding the cosmic speed limit and the model breaks down. Extreme hypothetics (dark energy/matter) are required to shore it up and those hypothetics are now fully a part of the contemporary wisdom. The validity of any falsely premised theory can be proven by the use of additional false premises and calculations reverse engineered to force the correct results. If the universe began. If existence IS the result of cause and effect/creation/process then it MUST be finite - else it would have had to expand at an infinite rate or for an infinite time. Fortunately such is not the case. The fact that before something can change or be changed it must exist means cause and effect is a function of existence, not the reverse. The universe is not temporal, it did not begin, existence is not a function of time. Funny, nobody has made any effort to rebut this simple axiom. Infinite means without limit. Expand means to increase a limit. Doesn't seem to jibe. If something must exist in order to change or be changed then change is a function of existence, not the reverse. Albeit it has become overly glorified by Uncle Al, time is simply a measurement - a comparison or rates of change. If someone wants to describe BigBang as a cosmic hurricane - a local event - I'd have no problem with it, but it certainly didn't give birth to an infinite universe. My grandparents knew a time when man had not yet mastered powered flight. My grandchildren have never known a time when the artifacts of man weren't embedded on the moon. I, too, am very thankful that I was born into this era...and disturbed when science fails to recognize one simple incontrovertible axiom (see above) that would lead it in a better direction than multiple universes and extra dimensions.

Contemporary Science vs. Common Sense It's really rather simple. The cosmos is both eternal and infinite. That infinitesimal portion we can detect with our puny technology may seem quirky but the answer isn't to throw out logic and the most basic laws of physics. We boast of our 'Modern Technology' much like the pundits of the 15th century...and even earlier when they tried to capture all knowledge in a single library. We are basically cows trying to learn calculus...unfortunately most of the students will assume room tempurature before achieving any rudimentary form of understanding. I want to conduct an experiment...on the nature of light...but the source has to be a known quantity, the light has to become 14 Billion years old and have traveled trillions of miles. I'm 63 years old and seriously doubt I will be around to see the result. All the megabrains since the 1930's have glommed onto Hubble's faux pas and expended a vast amount of money, time an effort trying to find the age of something eternal and the size of something infinite. The cosmos has no size or age. The waste of time and effort perpetrated by organized science puts to shame the wasted efforts of organized religion to decipher the nature and wishes of an omnipotent and omniscient deity that doesn't exist. Damn shame.

It's not the data I dispute it is the interpretation. First a little logic: Before something can change, before something can act or be acted upon, it must exist. This is a rather simple axiom, logically self-evident since any who might dissent must believe in things that don't exist. Existence in the absence of change is possible, change in the absence of existence is not. The fact that existence is required in order for change to occur explicitly means cause and effect is a function of (derived from) the phenomenon of existence. This is a No Brainer. Existence is not a function of time/change/cause and effect, and since it is not temporal in nature the cosmos didn't "BEGIN". Any version of BigBang would have led to an entrophy death an eternity ago - even the cyclical model. If light is comprised of massless photons which would not be retrieved by the forces of gravity, then unless the Universe is entirely coated with a layer of black holes like a chocolate dipped ice cream cone, each "Big Crunch" would still have been plagued by an energy leak that would lead to a much slower - but ultimately inevitable - entropy death conclusion. And it would have happened an eternity ago.

I have done some reading. 40 years worth and it depends on whose version you wish to quote - there are all flavors. Cite me ANY BB model that envisions an INfinite amount of material or an INfinite volume in the Universe. They cite the expansion model as proof of the expansion model. It reeks of self serving reverse engineering. Do YOUR homework. And think for yourself instead of parroting the conventional lore. It wasn't that long ago that scholars of your caliber were debating over how many angels could dance on the head of a pin. Obviously you have no specifics to discuss, so I guess a general denegration is the best you could do. If the known universe - no, lets say a volume of the known universe taken to a power of septemdecillion - were to expand by only a billionth of a micron each billion eons, the universe would have suffered entrophy death an eternity ago. Existence didn't begin. It is not a function of cause and effect.

Sorry, but contemporary cosmology and particle physics have both stepped off the 'deep end' and it has led to a serious loss of credibility with observers both within and outside of the realm of academia. There are serious flaws within those standard models, not so much with questionable data but with the interpretation of that information. Academia seems to have thrown logic and many of the laws of physics out the window, and it did so at the expense of its own credibility. The laws of physics seem to break down at singularity for a very good reason - they are barking up the wrong tree. Before something can change, before something can act or be acted upon, it must exist. This is a rather simple axiom, logically self-evident since any who might dissent must believe in things that don't exist. Existence in the absence of change is possible, change in the absence of existence is not. The fact that existence is required in order for change to occur explicitly means cause and effect is a function of (derived from) the phenomenon of existence - NOT the reverse Existence is not temporal in nature - the existence of the cosmos was not the result of cause and effect. Everything in the cosmos may constantly change, but that same everything has always existed in one form or another. If the Universe is "everything that exists", and if, as some cosmologists predict, it is comprised of a finite amount of substance expanding into an unbounded volume, then the most popular cosmological model would certainly have suffered an entropy death an eternity ago. Even a cyclical Big Bang scenario wouldn't save a finite cosmos. If light is comprised of massless photons which could not be retrieved by the forces of gravity, then unless the Universe is entirely coated with a layer of black holes like a chocolate dipped ice cream cone, each "Big Crunch" would still have been plagued by an energy leak that would lead to a much slower - but ultimately inevitable - entropy death conclusion. The phenomenon of existence is founded upon a principle, not a process or event: Contemporary Science vs. Common Sense .

Before something can change, before something can act or be acted upon, it must exist. This is a rather simple axiom, logically self-evident since any who might dissent must believe in things that don't exist. Existence in the absence of change is possible, change in the absence of existence is not. The fact that existence is required in order for change to occur explicitly means cause and effect is a function of (derived from) the phenomenon of existence, not the reverse. Existence is not temporal in nature - it is not the result of cause and effect, so the cosmos had no beginning. Everything in the cosmos may constantly change, but that same everything has always existed in one form or another. If the Universe is "everything that exists", and if, as some cosmologists predict, it is comprised of a finite amount of substance expanding into an unbounded volume, then the most popular cosmological model would certainly have suffered an entropy death an eternity ago. Even a cyclical Big Bang scenario wouldn't save a finite cosmos. If light is comprised of massless photons which could not be retrieved by the forces of gravity, then unless the Universe is entirely coated with a layer of black holes like a chocolate dipped ice cream cone, each "Big Crunch" would have been plagued by an energy leak that would have led to a much slower - but ultimately inevitable - entropy death conclusion. The phenomenon of existence is explained by a principle, not a process or event. Contemporary Science vs. Common Sense

It is called synergy. When two or more things act in concert to produce an enhanced result. OR Emergent properties - in which two or more things act in concert to produce a result that could not be achieved separetely. There is, my friend, a huge difference between ACTING AS a unit and BEING a unit. A group of soldiers that acts as a unit is still more than a single soldier. And ultimately, what else is Notre Dame but a collection of particles? But I am only presuming - putting words into your mouth without washing them first. Please explain your observations above in more detail. Metempsychosis is just one of my aberrations. I also have a terrible condition called Weisenheimers Choreia - a dyskinesias of the mind that affects the muscle movement of the mouth. Sarcasm is one of the early symptoms. Eventually, victims begin to blither and then run for public office. ITS NOT A PRETTY SIGHT!!

We come to understand the truth when we continually evaluate new material and discard that which doesn't hold water. Most of the citizens of academia must publish or perish and all too often reason is sacrificed to the angry gods of tenure. What's wrong with "long ago"? They used to think Earth was the center of the universe. AND THEY WERE RIGHT. * From the center of Earth extend equidistant lines to infinity throughout the infinite range of polar coordinates. * You have inscribed a sphere that theoretically encompasses the universe * Earth is at the center of the sphere (Unfortunately you can do the same for any point in space, so all points in the universe are its center - lol - but they weren't WRONG.

Been there. Done that - long ago. Spent hours with the AMA journal and stacks of research papers. It was like looking thru the wrong end of a telescope. (I was rather interested in one article that measured the effect of alcohol on the wingbeat of a hummingbird - now I know why I can't fly.) You can crank the handle of a generator and produce an electric current. You can also hook that generator up to an electric current and the handle will move. The existence of biochemical reactions around a source of animation would be expected. It's not MY logic. It is simple math and elementary deduction. Ridiculing what you cannot refute only underscores the weakness of your argument.

Unless you can elucidate us with a 3rd possibility it must be a true dichotomy. I see...what you can't see or measure doesn't matter. How sad. Deductive reasoning can be quite enlightening. Actually I once thought as you do and was quite comfortable with it. My hypothesis is not something I wished to be the case, it is the only reasonable deduction given the canons of logic. Every cell in your corpse is replaced several times within your lifetime. Are YOU still YOU? Agreed. In fact a million years ago, you had never experienced human life in our present terrestrial environment. Although I would tend to think that every action/reaction experience leaves a trace, a minute but indelible change in the condition of your being - life being no exception...much as every motion that preceeds your present position has a cumulative effect on your final location. Yes, I do so miss my antennae - and how do they expect us to balance ourserves without a prehensile tail. And feathers used to be so much FUN. The choices still remain: Either you are a composite or you are not. If you are a composite, then in order to have a single identity with a single set of experiences either a collection must generate a separate supervening entity (1+1=3) or it must magically merge into a single entity (1+1=1).

It is easy (but ineffective) to refute an idea by demeaning it rather than by contesting its logic. The hypothesis is quite simple: There are only two logical choices. Either you believe you are a composite - a collection of fundamental particles - or you believe you are a single entity - one fundamental particle. If you believe the former, then there are only two subsequently logical choices: You must either believe a composite generates a supervening entity that is a single, separate existence (1+1=3) or that a composite magically transforms into a single existence instead of a collection of existences (1+1=1). You have not contested that reasoning by presenting any logic of your own, so I presume you cannot. I am not waving my hands or chanting abracadabra. The evidence is not empirically available because "modern" science is not sophisticated enough to claim with any certainty to have discovered even a single particle that can be deemed undoubtedly fundamental. The substance of the argument is the rather obvious inference of the logic presented. Some things are inherently logical. 1=1. Any hypothesis to the contrary is magical thinking.

Yes, how silly of me not to realize that once upon a time there was an after that had no before. You are mired in the ancient fable that deems existence to be the result of cause and effect (creation). That is backwards thinking - literally - cause and effect is a function of existence. Existence is the source, not the result of, cause and effect. You can have existence without change, but not change without existence. Consciousness as we know it in our live state is derived from an existence wearing a body. The corpse affects thought and level of cognition. There may or may not be cognition in death state - it would not likely be anything we would recognize while alive - possibly nothing more than instinct or reflex. It is easy (but ineffective) to refute an idea by demeaning it than by contesting its logic. It is just a step away from an ad hominem rebuttal and it doesn't make for a good discussion. There is only one truth. And it will still be true whether or not it is ever acknowledged.