An Accountants theory of the universe and spirituality

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, Layers said:

Thanks for mentioning. The link gives no information. It seems to a login protected site, if there is anything in it. 

The page gives an abstract, and the link to the article gives you the option to download a friendly PDF on the right side (and other formats). 

Quote

The general relativistic (GR) interpretation of the redshifts of distant galaxies, as the expansion of the universe, is widely accepted. However this interpretation leads to several concepts that are widely misunderstood. Since the expansion of the universe is the basis of the big bang model, these misunderstandings are fundamental. Popular science books written by astrophysicists, astrophysics textbooks and to some extent professional astronomical literature addressing the expansion of the Universe, contain misleading, or easily misinterpreted, statements concerning recession velocities, horizons and the “observable universe”. Probably the most common misconceptions surround the expansion of the Universe at distances beyond which Hubble’s law (vrec = HD: recession velocity = Hubble’s constant × distance) predicts recession velocities faster than the speed of light [Appendix B: 1–8], despite efforts to clarify the issue (Murdoch 1977, Harrison 1981, Silverman 1986, Stuckey 1992, Ellis & Rothman 1993, Harrison 1993, Kiang 1997, Davis & Lineweaver 2000, Kiang 2001, Gudmundsson and Bj¨ornsson 2002). Misconceptions include misleading comments about the observability of objects receding faster than light [App. B: 9–13].

 

[beecee]

 

 

I see this as describing the mathematical singularity, which at this stage most cosmologists do not accept exists in reality. Rather they see the quantum/Planck level where our theories and laws do not apply as being more realistic as far as BB and BH singularities go.

 

Quote

However, l feel that the implication of quantum fluctations leading to primordial singularity = that fluctuations arose ex nihilo, otherwise they wouldn't be purely random, and so they would be qualified with some word, not just "quantum fluctuations". Therefore l believe if the singularity itself isn't nothingness, then what gave birth to it is, and l can therefore be justified in arguing that as the starting point of the BBT.

Which is what I meant by defining what "nothing truly is". Perhaaaaps the quantum foam is as close to nothing that in reality exists and that nothing is eternal and infinte.

Quote

As for evidence that the universe is finite vs. infinite, it is impossible for it to be infinite in the BBT as l conceive of the BBT, (you are free to undermine my concept of it in your reply, in fact l think it'd be necessary to do so) - evidence or no, but can you counterargue what l wrote on how it has to be finite not infinite?

All I can do is refer you back to the link I gave and the fact that the BB applies to the observable universe. Here's another answer......https://www.quora.com/How-can-the-universe-be-infinite-if-it-began-with-the-big-bang                                                                                

"This is going to come as a shock to you, but the physics community does not believe in the Big Bang and it does not believe that there was a ”singularity”.

The term Big Bang is misleading, and was in fact invented by the British astronomer Fred Hoyle to mock the idea of the universe exploding from a “singularity” (he believed in a steady state universe, which exists forever, more or less unchanged).

Our best theories of the early universe say that there was a time when our visible universe was incredibly small, hot and dense. That’s it. You could extrapolate back from that and say “Well, looking at this graph of the size of the universe, it crosses the zero line at this time, therefore it must have come from nothing, or a point of zero size, which we call a singularity.”, but you would be mistaken in doing so. Lots of people have made this mistake, and the name also helps to create the commonly held misconception that there was a big explosion where previously there was nothing.

I could do the same for your mass, as a foetus: I’d say “Well, looking at this graph, we can see the mass of the foetus crossing the zero line at this time here - therefore, the foetus came from a singularity!”. But, you didn’t come from nothing. There was a single fertilized cell, which we know about, and then before that, something happened, but we don’t know exactly what. (And we don’t really want to know, thanks, that’s between your mom and dad).

The current leading theory states that the universe expanded incredibly rapidly in a very very short space of time, due to a process called cosmic inflation. This theory made some predictions which have since been borne out, eg by some features of the cosmic background radiation, and so it’s a strong, widely accepted theory. That begs the question “Well, what inflated?”, and that is a good question. We’re not quite sure. But, it seems that there was something there before, that dumped a great deal of energy (for some reason), and that triggered a short runaway expansion of a small part of space into the much much larger part of space which made up the very early universe. Then, the inflation chain reaction stopped, and the universe continued to expand just due to the fact that it was incredibly hot and dense, and that’s what hot and dense things do if they’re not contained.

Personally, i think we could cure a lot of public misunderstanding if we ditched the phrase “The Big Bang” and replaced it with “The Big Stretch”.

Regarding infinity - you're right: if it is infinite now it must have been infinite then too: you can't transition from finite to infinite. All we know about is our finite part of the Big Kahuna. We don't know if the Big Kahuna is infinite. It might be."

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

The underlined part at the end, supports the premise of the first article I believe.

 

 

 

 

 

Sorry in my haste I stuffed up the last post and some of what I was trying to say...let me try again....

22 minutes ago, Brokenhearted said:

Now, as for what the UCLA article is describing, let me state that the Big Bang theory can go back to primordial singularity, not just the specific time post-singularity you have offered.

Yep, correct, only back to t+10-43 seconds. If we can formulate a verifiable QGT, then that should take us back to t=0

Quote

As for the dimensions of a singularity, l believe its spatial dimensions to be zero. Fair point that it also has infinite gravity, so it is a thing, not nothing.

I see this as describing the mathematical singularity, which at this stage most cosmologists do not accept exists in reality. Rather they see the quantum/Planck level where our theories and laws do not apply as being more realistic as far as BB and BH singularities go.

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

 

 

OK, that's better, sorry for the stuff up.

Edited August 28, 2018 by beecee

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

A hijack of this discussion has been split off to the trash.