The Nature of Reality

[beecee]

2 hours ago, Ragingmoron said:

T=0 does not equate to the instant of the Big Bang. 

t=0 means "zero time" In essesnce, it shows that space and time are dependent on each other, and that the BB did not occur in time or space (as we know them) but that time and space (as we know them) evolved at the BB. 

2 hours ago, Ragingmoron said:

"Before" the Big Bang is an infinite progression of higher and higher energy physics, culminating in what can be described mathematically as a single point of infinite energy density and colloquially as a place of infinite light absent darkness. 

  There was no "before the BB" 

4 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

This is a meaningless concept - the BB represents a singularity in (classical) spacetime, so it is a region that is geodesically incomplete. If you were able to “stand” at the BB, all spatial distances would be zero, and no matter what kind of manoeuvre you performed, it would always take you only to the future. Asking what is before the BB is like asking what is north of the North Pole - it’s simply meaningless, because there are no past-oriented world lines there, just as there is no ‘north’ in any direction when standing directly on the pole.

Also, once you account for quantum effects, a strong case can be made that smooth and classical spacetime breaks down long before you even reach the BB, so here too the concept of ‘before the BB’ is meaningless.

Plus of course the the singularity as defined by infinite concepts has been generally rejected, rather simply a singularity as defined by the lack of coverage by our current laws and GR.

Speculate as much as you like, but that's all it is...speculation.

Edited December 16, 2021 by beecee

[Ragingmoron]

44 minutes ago, beecee said:

t=0 means "zero time" In essesnce, it shows that space and time are dependent on each other, and that the BB did not occur in time or space (as we know them) but that time and space (as we know them) evolved at the BB. 

  There was no "before the BB" 

Plus of course the the singularity as defined by infinite concepts has been generally rejected, rather simply a singularity as defined by the lack of coverage by our current laws and GR.

Speculate as much as you like, but that's all it is...speculation.

"*Of course* the Singularity as defined by infinite concepts has been generally rejected..."

You betray your own bias. The idea that the Singularity is exactly what it appears to be is apparently not even worth your consideration. I am not speculating. As a matter of fact, to state that the Universe is infinite is the only assertion that can ever be made without speculating. All evidence points directly to the fact that, as I have stated, all information exists relative to the Singularity.

5 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

This is a meaningless concept - the BB represents a singularity in (classical) spacetime, so it is a region that is geodesically incomplete. If you were able to “stand” at the BB, all spatial distances would be zero, and no matter what kind of manoeuvre you performed, it would always take you only to the future. Asking what is before the BB is like asking what is north of the North Pole - it’s simply meaningless, because there are no past-oriented world lines there, just as there is no ‘north’ in any direction when standing directly on the pole.

Also, once you account for quantum effects, a strong case can be made that smooth and classical spacetime breaks down long before you even reach the BB, so here too the concept of ‘before the BB’ is meaningless.

Hypothetical: if you were to "stand" at the bb, and had a biological optical mechanism capable of perceiving light at wavelengths of 1 quintillionth of 1 quintillionth of a nanometer, what would you see?

Edited December 16, 2021 by Ragingmoron

[beecee]

2 hours ago, Ragingmoron said:

"*Of course* the Singularity as defined by infinite concepts has been generally rejected..."

You betray your own bias.

No bias, just the BB cosmology, instead of your WAG's. 

2 hours ago, Ragingmoron said:

The idea that the Singularity is exactly what it appears to be is apparently not even worth your consideration. I am not speculating.

Of course you are...that's why you are in speculations. 

2 hours ago, Ragingmoron said:

As a matter of fact, to state that the Universe is infinite is the only assertion that can ever be made without speculating. All evidence points directly to the fact that, as I have stated, all information exists relative to the Singularity.

Actually wrong again. We cannot as yet say the universe is finite or infinite, other then quite a bit bigger then our observable universe.

https://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Space_Science/Is_the_Universe_finite_or_infinite_An_interview_with_Joseph_Silk

https://www.scienceabc.com/nature/universe/is-the-universe-infinite.html

"There remains no clear or definitive evidence that the universe is either finite or infinite, although there are some intriguing arguments and proposed theories on both sides. The great thing about this mystery, however, is that due to the nature of the universe, we may never be able to truly know the answer!"

Although you are speculating within the speculation forum, the rules state that you are still required to offer evidence to support your claims or reputable references.

[swansont]

9 hours ago, Ragingmoron said:

I completely agree. My point is that observational and experimental evidence demonstrates the fundamental nature of reality, and you can't talk about "evidence" on the one hand and ignore the mathematical nature of the Singularity on the other. Relativity has passed every test ever thrown at it, so why shouldn't we think the Singularity is anything but what it appears to be?

 

We know that classical descriptions fail at small scales. That’s the mathematical nature of singularities. GR is a classical theory.

[Ragingmoron]

1 hour ago, beecee said:

No bias, just the BB cosmology, instead of your WAG's. 

Of course you are...that's why you are in speculations. 

Actually wrong again. We cannot as yet say the universe is finite or infinite, other then quite a bit bigger then our observable universe.

https://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Space_Science/Is_the_Universe_finite_or_infinite_An_interview_with_Joseph_Silk

https://www.scienceabc.com/nature/universe/is-the-universe-infinite.html

"There remains no clear or definitive evidence that the universe is either finite or infinite, although there are some intriguing arguments and proposed theories on both sides. The great thing about this mystery, however, is that due to the nature of the universe, we may never be able to truly know the answer!"

Although you are speculating within the speculation forum, the rules state that you are still required to offer evidence to support your claims or reputable references.

My perspective is that there is clear and definitive evidence, and that that evidence is conveniently ignored. I have offered evidence to support my claims. Everything is infinite, this is demonstrable. If you are holding a box, you go "I can measure this box; it is 1 cubic meter, therefore "obviously" the box is finite." But nobody ever stops to ask themselves what a meter really is, or what it actually tells you about reality. 

1 hour ago, swansont said:

We know that classical descriptions fail at small scales. That’s the mathematical nature of singularities. GR is a classical theory.

The mathematical nature of the Singularity, is that it is an infinite progression of energy. It can't literally be concentrated at a single point, a point is a figment of our imagination. It is a useful tool, relatively speaking, for the sake of conceptualization, but it isn't real. 

[swansont]

7 minutes ago, Ragingmoron said:

The mathematical nature of the Singularity, is that it is an infinite progression of energy. It can't literally be concentrated at a single point, a point is a figment of our imagination. It is a useful tool, relatively speaking, for the sake of conceptualization, but it isn't real. 

Physics isn’t in the business of telling us about reality. It tells us how nature behaves. If it actually describes reality that’s a happy accident, because how do you test for that? If your experiment is at the highest precision you can achieve, there’s no way to discern an underlying behavior. There’s always a “black box” and we can’t see inside.

[Ragingmoron]

11 minutes ago, swansont said:

Physics isn’t in the business of telling us about reality. It tells us how nature behaves. If it actually describes reality that’s a happy accident, because how do you test for that? If your experiment is at the highest precision you can achieve, there’s no way to discern an underlying behavior. There’s always a “black box” and we can’t see inside.

I can't see China, but using logic to evaluate evidence at my disposal, I have determined it is there.

[studiot]

53 minutes ago, Ragingmoron said:

The mathematical nature of the Singularity, is that it is an infinite progression of energy.

I've seen nothing yet to make me think you understand those quite difficult concepts you are throwing about.

Energy
Infinity
Singularity

They all have very particular meanings in Science that are similar to but much more restricted than in general English.

 

Please also take note of this excellent statement by swansont. +1

 

11 hours ago, swansont said:

Logic is not a substitute for evidence, and evidence is interpreted via models that allow for comparison and prediction. It’s not enough to just be logical. Newtonian/Galilean physics, for example, is logical, but it doesn’t match experiment, so at best it’s an approximation 

 

You can do whatever helps you to gain insight, but relativity would not have been accepted without experimental confirmation. 

 

 

 

Edited December 16, 2021 by studiot
spelling

[exchemist]

24 minutes ago, Ragingmoron said:

I can't see China, but using logic to evaluate evidence at my disposal, I have determined it is there.

So what, though? The subtleties of nature are not anything like determining the existence of a country.

If you had been a Newtonian physicist, you would have used logic and evidence to "determine" that the kinetic energy of a moving body is 1/2 mv². And you would, a couple of centuries later, have been shown that that was not the case. If you had been J J Thomson, at the turn of the c.20th, you would have used logic and evidence to "determine" that the atom had a structure like that of a plum pudding - only to find out a decade or so later, that that was entirely misconceived.

Science has been burnt often enough in history by such changes in understanding that it avoids speaking of truth or reality where a theory is concerned, but only of models that predict the behaviour of nature. These models aim, in that limited sense, to represent physical reality, but they are potentially imperfect, not definitive and always subject to change in the light of new evidence.

So it's not really at all like whether a country exists or not.   

[Ragingmoron]

2 minutes ago, exchemist said:

So what, though? The subtleties of nature are not anything like determining the existence of a country.

If you had been a Newtonian physicist, you would have used logic and evidence to "determine" that the kinetic energy of a moving body is 1/2 mv². And you would, a couple of centuries later, have been shown that that was not the case. If you had been J J Thomson, at the turn of the c.20th, you would have used logic and evidence to "determine" that the atom had a structure like that of a plum pudding - only to find out a decade or so later, that that was entirely misconceived.

Science has been burnt often enough in history by such changes in understanding that it avoids speaking of truth or reality where a theory is concerned, but only of models that predict the behaviour of nature. These models aim, in that limited sense, to represent physical reality, but they are potentially imperfect, not definitive and always subject to change in the light of new evidence.

So it's not really at all like whether a country exists or not.   

You're right. My point was intended simply to be that seeing is not believing.

[exchemist]

1 minute ago, Ragingmoron said:

You're right. My point was intended simply to be that seeing is not believing.

Really? It seemed to be the opposite: you have not seen China and yet you do believe it exists.

But OK, if seeing is not believing, I'm not sure how that can be applied to the discussion in this thread. The singularity that can be extrapolated from the Big Bang theory is only a conjecture anyway, based on  physics that we have reason to think may not have applied in that regime. It is not supported by any evidence. So seeing does not come into it. And nor does believing. 

[Ragingmoron]

24 minutes ago, studiot said:

I've seen nothing yet to make me think you understand those quite difficult concepts you are throwing about.

Energy
Infinity
Singularity

They all have very particular meanings in Science that are similar to but much more restricted than in general English.

 

Please also take note of this excellent statement by swansont. +1

 

 

 

 

When you measure anything, you are imposing your definition of reality which you were taught and assume to be adequate. It isn't, not if you intend to seek truth. Fitness beats truth. Language and math have utility, but they do not and cannot define anything. There is only one truth: the universe is infinite. Nothing else can be proven. Nothing else can be known for sure. Someday, if humanity survives what is coming, our descendants will evolve systems for dealing with reality that far exceed the relatively minute capacity of English and base-10 mathematics to ascertain and process information. Even they will have infinite room for improvement.

4 minutes ago, exchemist said:

Really? It seemed to be the opposite: you have not seen China and yet you do believe it exists.

But OK, if seeing is not believing, I'm not sure how that can be applied to the discussion in this thread. The singularity that can be extrapolated from the Big Bang theory is only a conjecture anyway, based on  physics that we have reason to think may not have applied in that regime. It is not supported by any evidence. So seeing does not come into it. And nor does believing. 

"Seeing is not believing". In other words, I don't have to see China to believe it is there. 

Dark energy is the most conclusive evidence in terms of scientific evidence indicating the existence of the Singularity. As we move away from a state of infinite frequency towards a state of infinite wavelength, the universe appears to expand. All cause is relative to infinite effect, and all effect is relative to infinite cause. There is no "if, then..." There is only Murphy's law.

[swansont]

2 hours ago, Ragingmoron said:

I can't see China, but using logic to evaluate evidence at my disposal, I have determined it is there.

Which field physics does this fall under?

1 hour ago, Ragingmoron said:

When you measure anything, you are imposing your definition of reality which you were taught and assume to be adequate. It isn't, not if you intend to seek truth. Fitness beats truth. Language and math have utility, but they do not and cannot define anything. There is only one truth: the universe is infinite. Nothing else can be proven. Nothing else can be known for sure. Someday, if humanity survives what is coming, our descendants will evolve systems for dealing with reality that far exceed the relatively minute capacity of English and base-10 mathematics to ascertain and process information. Even they will have infinite room for improvement.

Your definitions are related to models, not reality. If it’s truth you seek, Dr. Tyree's philosophy class is right down the hall. 

And you need to provide evidence of an infinite universe.

 

[exchemist]

3 hours ago, Ragingmoron said:

 

"Seeing is not believing". In other words, I don't have to see China to believe it is there. 

Dark energy is the most conclusive evidence in terms of scientific evidence indicating the existence of the Singularity. As we move away from a state of infinite frequency towards a state of infinite wavelength, the universe appears to expand. All cause is relative to infinite effect, and all effect is relative to infinite cause. There is no "if, then..." There is only Murphy's law.

Hmm, I'm afraid this doesn't seem to mean very much.  "All cause is relative to infinite effect"?  Eh?

And what is an "infinite cause", when it's at home?

This sort of guff reminds me of Chopraesque woo. Whatever it is you are asserting, it seems unmoored in evidence and nothing to do with science. 

 

Edited December 16, 2021 by exchemist

[beecee]

8 hours ago, Ragingmoron said:

My perspective is that there is clear and definitive evidence, and that that evidence is conveniently ignored. I have offered evidence to support my claims. Everything is infinite, this is demonstrable. If you are holding a box, you go "I can measure this box; it is 1 cubic meter, therefore "obviously" the box is finite." But nobody ever stops to ask themselves what a meter really is, or what it actually tells you about reality. 

The mathematical nature of the Singularity, is that it is an infinite progression of energy. It can't literally be concentrated at a single point, a point is a figment of our imagination. It is a useful tool, relatively speaking, for the sake of conceptualization, but it isn't real. 

Your perspective is actually wishful thinking, brought on to support some sort of agenda that was relevent from your first post. You have no evidence other then rhetoric and in some cases rhetorical gobblydook. 

 

7 hours ago, studiot said:

I've seen nothing yet to make me think you understand those quite difficult concepts you are throwing about.

Energy
Infinity
Singularity

They all have very particular meanings in Science that are similar to but much more restricted than in general English.

 

Please also take note of this excellent statement by swansont. +1

+1 

7 hours ago, Ragingmoron said:

Dark energy is the most conclusive evidence in terms of scientific evidence indicating the existence of the Singularity. As we move away from a state of infinite frequency towards a state of infinite wavelength, the universe appears to expand. All cause is relative to infinite effect, and all effect is relative to infinite cause. There is no "if, then..." There is only Murphy's law.

A good example of what studiot was inferring. DE simply is a place mat for whatever it is that makes the universe accelerate in its expansion rate. In science (as oppossed to supernatural and paranormal nonsense) It is better to have questions that can't be answered at any particular time, rather then answers that can't be questioned., as per your many conclusive statements throughout this thread.

Edited December 16, 2021 by beecee

[Ragingmoron]

11 hours ago, swansont said:

Which field physics does this fall under?

Your definitions are related to models, not reality. If it’s truth you seek, Dr. Tyree's philosophy class is right down the hall. 

And you need to provide evidence of an infinite universe.

 

I have provided evidence. Just because that evidence, to you, is apparently meaningless, doesn't mean it isn't evidence. 

9 hours ago, exchemist said:

Hmm, I'm afraid this doesn't seem to mean very much.  "All cause is relative to infinite effect"?  Eh?

And what is an "infinite cause", when it's at home?

This sort of guff reminds me of Chopraesque woo. Whatever it is you are asserting, it seems unmoored in evidence and nothing to do with science. 

 

"What is "infinite cause" when it's at home?"

The Singularity... That pesky phenomenon everyone seems to think they have full justification to ignore, but can't give any good reason why.

5 hours ago, beecee said:

Your perspective is actually wishful thinking, brought on to support some sort of agenda that was relevent from your first post. You have no evidence other then rhetoric and in some cases rhetorical gobblydook. 

 

+1 

A good example of what studiot was inferring. DE simply is a place mat for whatever it is that makes the universe accelerate in its expansion rate. In science (as oppossed to supernatural and paranormal nonsense) It is better to have questions that can't be answered at any particular time, rather then answers that can't be questioned., as per your many conclusive statements throughout this thread.

Look, if you want to state my theory is just wishful thinking, that is your right. But you haven't actually addressed the evidence I have provided in any way other than to simply dismiss it out of hand, as if you are *obviously* justified in doing so, and I should simply understand that.

I do get what you are saying. However, if an idea explains many phenomenon that have previously been unexplained, and there appears to be no logical counter-argument (I know... The burden is on me to provide evidence, even though I have been this whole time) isn't it possible that there is something to it? I guess I'm just curious because I feel I have come up with a reasonable explanation for one of the biggest mysteries in physics, and from my perspective I am not being questioned or pressured in a productive manner... It is more like nobody wants to even consider I could be right, like you all would rather focus on your perception that I haven't proven anything and ignore the content almost completely.

[beecee]

4 minutes ago, Ragingmoron said:

I have provided evidence. Just because that evidence, to you, is apparently meaningless, doesn't mean it isn't evidence. 

No you havn't...you have provided rhetoric, unsupported WAG's, unevidenced, and most probably going on your other posts,  agenda driven.

10 minutes ago, Ragingmoron said:

The Singularity... That pesky phenomenon everyone seems to think they have full justification to ignore, but can't give any good reason why.

You mean all those pesky knowledegble cosmologists/astronomers/physicists, that are able to understand that while GR predicts singularities as defined by infinite density and spacetime curvature, it also fails us at those levels? Yep, the singularity as defined by the lack of application of our laws and GR, certainly at this time exist.

Scientists and the scientific method, (you should look that up) understand that sometimes questions have no known answer, at any one particular time, but reject your apparent  answers that you believe cannot be questioned.

[Markus Hanke]

16 minutes ago, Ragingmoron said:

The Singularity... That pesky phenomenon everyone seems to think they have full justification to ignore, but can't give any good reason why.

The notion of a singularity is based on General Relativity, which is a purely classical model of gravity. Unfortunately, what happened at and immediately after the BB wasn’t classical - you need a model of quantum gravity for it, which we don’t yet have. 

However, even if there is a singularity, no physical infinities would occur, because none of the quantities you mention is meaningfully defined there; T=0 isn’t even part of the spacetime manifold. This is why it is defined as a region of geodesic incompleteness.

18 hours ago, Ragingmoron said:

Hypothetical: if you were to "stand" at the bb, and had a biological optical mechanism capable of perceiving light at wavelengths of 1 quintillionth of 1 quintillionth of a nanometer, what would you see?

You wouldn’t see anything at all; it would be completely dark.

25 minutes ago, Ragingmoron said:

Look, if you want to state my theory is just wishful thinking, that is your right. But you haven't actually addressed the evidence I have provided in any way other than to simply dismiss it out of hand

I’m sorry, but I fail to see any of this. What “theory” are you talking about, exactly? What alleged mystery does it address? What evidence are you referring to? 

[beecee]

18 minutes ago, Ragingmoron said:

Look, if you want to state my theory is just wishful thinking, that is your right. But you haven't actually addressed the evidence I have provided in any way other than to simply dismiss it out of hand, as if you are *obviously* justified in doing so, and I should simply understand that.

Others have addressed your "reasonings", which certainly is not evidence as you have been informed. I am not a scientist, and would rather question what I see as gobblydook. Whether you understand it or not is no skin off my nose, but the forum does require evidence.

21 minutes ago, Ragingmoron said:

I do get what you are saying. However, if an idea explains many phenomenon that have previously been unexplained, and there appears to be no logical counter-argument (I know... The burden is on me to provide evidence, even though I have been this whole time) isn't it possible that there is something to it? I guess I'm just curious because I feel I have come up with a reasonable explanation for one of the biggest mysteries in physics, and from my perspective I am not being questioned or pressured in a productive manner... It is more like nobody wants to even consider I could be right, like you all would rather focus on your perception that I haven't proven anything and ignore the content almost completely.

OK, let's focus on your following rhetorical statement.....(which I believed I answered correctly) 

8 minutes ago, beecee said:

Dark energy is the most conclusive evidence in terms of scientific evidence indicating the existence of the Singularity. As we move away from a state of infinite frequency towards a state of infinite wavelength, the universe appears to expand. All cause is relative to infinite effect, and all effect is relative to infinite cause

Please show me evidence, not just words, reputable links, observational data, experimental results etc, that support your unquestionable answer that DE indicates the existence of a singularity as defined by infinite quantities?

[Ragingmoron]

6 minutes ago, beecee said:

No you havn't...you have provided rhetoric, unsupported WAG's, unevidenced, and most probably going on your other posts,  agenda driven.

You mean all those pesky knowledegble cosmologists/astronomers/physicists, that are able to understand that while GR predicts singularities as defined by infinite density and spacetime curvature, it also fails us at those levels? Yep, the singularity as defined by the lack of application of our laws and GR, certainly at this time exist.

Scientists and the scientific method, (you should look that up) understand that sometimes questions have no known answer, at any one particular time, but reject your apparent  answers that you believe cannot be questioned.

BUT OF COURSE RELATIVITY FAILS US BEFORE THE SINGULARITY. ITS A SINGULARITY TO UNDERSTAND IT YOU NEED INFINITE OBSERVATIONAL AND INFORMATION PROCESSING CAPACITY, I.E. INFINITE ENERGY. 

The Singularity at the dawn of time is energy compressed into an infinitely dense point. The Singularity at the heart of a black hole is energy stretched towards an infinitely dense point. When light crosses the event horizon, it redshifts to infinity (spaghettification, anyone?). If you trace a beam of light back in time towards the Big Bang, it blueshifts to infinity (time-reversal symmetry, anyone?). Gravity itself is the tension between the Light and the Darkness. That is why you don't understand Dark Energy. You can quantify it mathematically, but it is the result of unseen forces.

8 minutes ago, Markus Hanke said:

The notion of a singularity is based on General Relativity, which is a purely classical model of gravity. Unfortunately, what happened at and immediately after the BB wasn’t classical - you need a model of quantum gravity for it, which we don’t yet have. 

However, even if there is a singularity, no physical infinities would occur, because none of the quantities you mention is meaningfully defined there; T=0 isn’t even part of the spacetime manifold. This is why it is defined as a region of geodesic incompleteness.

You wouldn’t see anything at all; it would be completely dark.

I’m sorry, but I fail to see any of this. What “theory” are you talking about, exactly? What alleged mystery does it address? What evidence are you referring to? 

The mystery of the nature of reality. The question "how did the Universe begin" was always the wrong question, which is why people have such a difficult time grappling with the solution: when you observe cause and effect, and assume that is how objective reality functions because *obviously*... You can't even ask the right question. What is the nature of reality? The nature of reality is that all things result from an infinite past (in space and time), reside in the infinite present (in space and time), and effect the infinite future (in space and time). The Singularity doesn't just reside at the dawn of time or at the heart of a black hole, it resides in all things. The nature of math, the nature of language, and experimental and observational evidence all point to this understanding.

14 minutes ago, Markus Hanke said:

 

However, even if there is a singularity, no physical infinities would occur, because none of the quantities you mention is meaningfully defined there; T=0 isn’t even part of the spacetime manifold. This is why it is defined as a region of geodesic incompleteness.

You wouldn’t see anything at all; it would be completely dark. 

No physical infinities would occur *relative to observation*. That is the problem. We think we can impose our observations on reality, when in reality it is the other way around.

As far as the hypothetical regarding the Big Bang goes, you need the capacity to observe higher energy light to observe the moments before the Big Bang. What appears to be an unfathomable small point to you and me, is revealed as a vast expanse by ultra high energy light. Light at a wavelength of 10^-999,999,999,999,999,999 nanometers would reveal all kinds of fascinating physics preceding the Big Bang, but even that would hit a wall. You would perceive a far older "Big Bang" preceded in its own right by even higher energy physics, on and on to infinity.

[beecee]

4 minutes ago, Ragingmoron said:

BUT OF COURSE RELATIVITY FAILS US BEFORE THE SINGULARITY. ITS A SINGULARITY TO UNDERSTAND IT YOU NEED INFINITE OBSERVATIONAL AND INFORMATION PROCESSING CAPACITY, I.E. INFINITE ENERGY. 

Take it easy, you seem to be getting excited! I can do know better answering that, then to quote Marcus as follows.....

12 minutes ago, Markus Hanke said:

The notion of a singularity is based on General Relativity, which is a purely classical model of gravity. Unfortunately, what happened at and immediately after the BB wasn’t classical - you need a model of quantum gravity for it, which we don’t yet have. 

 

7 minutes ago, Ragingmoron said:

The Singularity at the dawn of time is energy compressed into an infinitely dense point. 

No, we cannot be certain of that: Please read previous answer.

7 minutes ago, Ragingmoron said:

The Singularity at the heart of a black hole is energy stretched towards an infinitely dense point.

No, we cannot be certain of that. See above.

9 minutes ago, Ragingmoron said:

When light crosses the event horizon, it redshifts to infinity 

It is redshifted beyond the capabilities of all our instruments. And of course when that limitation is reached, it appears frozen just this side of the EH, and we never see it cross that horizon into oblivion. eg: If we were viewing an intrepid astronaut, that is what we would see...or alternatively never see. But take another frame or reference, (like the astronaut) and he certainly crosses and is spaghettified and broken down into his most fundamental particles.

14 minutes ago, Ragingmoron said:

If you trace a beam of light back in time towards the Big Bang, it blueshifts to infinity (time-reversal symmetry, anyone?).

Try 380,000 years post BB...before that the universe was opaque. At present we see the CMBR at 2.7K. Not sure what any of this has to do with your still unsupported claims.

23 minutes ago, Ragingmoron said:

Gravity itself is the tension between the Light and the Darkness. That is why you don't understand Dark Energy. You can quantify it mathematically, but it is the result of unseen forces.

That is absurd, and gobblydook. Gravity is geometry, spacetime curvature. DE is the place mat for the unknown force accelerating the expansion of the universe over the largest scales. That's why scientists call it dark...same applies to DM.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_universe

https://wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_tests_cmb.html

https://www.amnh.org/learn-teach/curriculum-collections/cosmic-horizons-book/cosmic-microwave-background-radiation

[Ragingmoron]

2 minutes ago, beecee said:

 

No, we cannot be certain of that: Please read previous answer.

No, we cannot be certain of that. See above.

It is redshifted beyond the capabilities of all our instruments. And of course when that limitation is reached, it appears frozen just this side of the EH, and we never see it cross that horizon into oblivion. eg: If we were viewing an intrepid astronaut, that is what we would see...or alternatively never see. But take another frame or reference, (like the astronaut) and he certainly crosses and is spaghettified and broken down into his most fundamental particles.

Try 380,000 years post BB...before that the universe was opaque. At present we see the CMBR at 2.7K. Not sure what any of this has to do with your still unsupported claims.

That is absurd, and gobblydook. Gravity is geometry, spacetime curvature. DE is the place mat for the unknown force accelerating the expansion of the universe over the largest scales. That's why scientists call it dark...same applies to DM.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_universe

https://wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_tests_cmb.html

https://www.amnh.org/learn-teach/curriculum-collections/cosmic-horizons-book/cosmic-microwave-background-radiation

"We can't be certain of that."

We actually can be certain of that. 

However, even if you contend we can't, it doesn't change the fact that if it is true, this explains gravity perfectly, in a way GR and quantum mechanics can't on their own. The question is not "why is the universe expanding" it is "why does the universe appear to expand"? Appearances are not reality. 

Imagine a capsule containing molten plasma, rocketed into space. Upon leaving the atmosphere, a small door on the side of the capsule is opened. What happens? The imbalance of energy between the capsule's interior and the vacuum of space results in a transfer of energy from the capsule to the vacuum. Imagine the same thing on an infinite scale. 

The pure vacuum (what scientists mistakenly refer to as the "heat death of the universe" which never occurs relative to observation) opposed to the pure singularity (infinite energy in a "place" of zero darkness) results in a transfer of energy from one to the other. But since there is infinite energy to "begin" with, there is always more where that came from. 

[beecee]

9 minutes ago, Ragingmoron said:

"We can't be certain of that."

We actually can be certain of that. 

However, even if you contend we can't, it doesn't change the fact that if it is true, this explains gravity perfectly, in a way GR and quantum mechanics can't on their own. The question is not "why is the universe expanding" it is "why does the universe appear to expand"? Appearances are not reality. 

More unsupported claims. Or perhaps if I am wrong, we'll see you in Stockholm next November? 😁

10 minutes ago, Ragingmoron said:

The pure vacuum (what scientists mistakenly refer to as the "heat death of the universe" which never occurs relative to observation) opposed to the pure singularity (infinite energy in a "place" of zero darkness) results in a transfer of energy from one to the other. But since there is infinite energy to "begin" with, there is always more where that came from. 

More crap. The "Heat Death" of the universe is simply one hypothetical among a few. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_of_the_universe

"The heat death of the universe (also known as the Big Chill or Big Freeze)^[1] is a hypothesis on the ultimate fate of the universe, which suggests the universe would evolve to a state of no thermodynamic free energy and would therefore be unable to sustain processes that increase entropy. Heat death does not imply any particular absolute temperature; it only requires that temperature differences or other processes may no longer be exploited to perform work. In the language of physics, this is when the universe reaches thermodynamic equilibrium."

 

Opposing views[edit]

"Max Planck wrote that the phrase "entropy of the universe" has no meaning because it admits of no accurate definition.^[28][29] More recently, Walter Grandy writes: "It is rather presumptuous to speak of the entropy of a universe about which we still understand so little, and we wonder how one might define thermodynamic entropy for a universe and its major constituents that have never been in equilibrium in their entire existence."^[30] According to Tisza: "If an isolated system is not in equilibrium, we cannot associate an entropy with it."^[31] Buchdahl writes of "the entirely unjustifiable assumption that the universe can be treated as a closed thermodynamic system".^[32] According to Gallavotti: "... there is no universally accepted notion of entropy for systems out of equilibrium, even when in a stationary state."^[33] Discussing the question of entropy for non-equilibrium states in general, Lieb and Yngvason express their opinion as follows: "Despite the fact that most physicists believe in such a nonequilibrium entropy, it has so far proved impossible to define it in a clearly satisfactory way."^[34] In Landsberg's opinion: "The third misconception is that thermodynamics, and in particular, the concept of entropy, can without further enquiry be applied to the whole universe. ... These questions have a certain fascination, but the answers are speculations, and lie beyond the scope of this book

 

more at link...............

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bounce

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Crunch

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Rip

 

[Ragingmoron]

20 minutes ago, beecee said:

More unsupported claims. Or perhaps if I am wrong, we'll see you in Stockholm next November? 😁

More crap. The "Heat Death" of the universe is simply one hypothetical among a few. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_of_the_universe

"The heat death of the universe (also known as the Big Chill or Big Freeze)^[1] is a hypothesis on the ultimate fate of the universe, which suggests the universe would evolve to a state of no thermodynamic free energy and would therefore be unable to sustain processes that increase entropy. Heat death does not imply any particular absolute temperature; it only requires that temperature differences or other processes may no longer be exploited to perform work. In the language of physics, this is when the universe reaches thermodynamic equilibrium."

 

Opposing views[edit]

"Max Planck wrote that the phrase "entropy of the universe" has no meaning because it admits of no accurate definition.^[28][29] More recently, Walter Grandy writes: "It is rather presumptuous to speak of the entropy of a universe about which we still understand so little, and we wonder how one might define thermodynamic entropy for a universe and its major constituents that have never been in equilibrium in their entire existence."^[30] According to Tisza: "If an isolated system is not in equilibrium, we cannot associate an entropy with it."^[31] Buchdahl writes of "the entirely unjustifiable assumption that the universe can be treated as a closed thermodynamic system".^[32] According to Gallavotti: "... there is no universally accepted notion of entropy for systems out of equilibrium, even when in a stationary state."^[33] Discussing the question of entropy for non-equilibrium states in general, Lieb and Yngvason express their opinion as follows: "Despite the fact that most physicists believe in such a nonequilibrium entropy, it has so far proved impossible to define it in a clearly satisfactory way."^[34] In Landsberg's opinion: "The third misconception is that thermodynamics, and in particular, the concept of entropy, can without further enquiry be applied to the whole universe. ... These questions have a certain fascination, but the answers are speculations, and lie beyond the scope of this book

 

more at link...............

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bounce

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Crunch

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Rip

 

To suggest the Universe has an "Ultimate Fate" is to impose our own understanding of cause and effect on the Universe itself.

https://www.livescience.com/quantum-gravity-could-scramble-cause-and-effect.html

General relativity says that the mass of a giant object can slow down time. This is well established as true and measurable; an astronaut orbiting Earth will experience time just a smidge faster than his or her twin back on the planet.

What is the basic implication of this understanding? To impose an "age" on the Universe is idiotic. An astronaut orbiting the Earth experiences faster time, but that time still correlates to time on Earth. In other words, there is no Universal time, but there is a Universal present. Some sections of the Universe are older than others, just like an observer orbiting the Earth since its birth would be a different age than the Earth itself. A scientist on Earth can claim logically that the Earth is one age, while the observer would logically make a different claim. Each would be right from a relative point of view, but wrong from an objective point of view. When you acknowledge that the Universe has no discernible age, it leads you to some questions with disconcerting answers if you are a traditionalist. But the bottom line is the objective frame of reference is infinite light opposed to infinite darkness, and everything in between is relative.

[Ragingmoron]

1 hour ago, Ragingmoron said:

The pure vacuum (what scientists mistakenly refer to as the "heat death of the universe" which never occurs relative to observation)

... The way I worded this was mistaken. The way I characterized the heat death of the Universe was inaccurate, and furthermore I know scientists have a diversity of opinions, knowledge, and debate. I also understand that academically trained scientists will be more knowledgeable broadly speaking than I am. That doesn't mean I'm wrong. The nature of language and its indefinite capacity for improvement is relevant to this conversation. The nature of mathematics and its indefinite capacity for improvement is relevant to this conversation. And it still seems to me like the most important evidence of all, the Singularity, is disregarded out of hand for no legitimate reason. Disregarding the Singularity is like disregarding General Relativity. Dark energy, dark matter, and wave-particle duality are all properties of the Singularity. Perhaps I am simply not knowledgeable enough to be persuasive. Perhaps nothing could ever persuade you. It is not that my assertions are unquestionable, it is that the core assertion (the Universe is infinite) and its logical implications, have never encountered legitimate scrutiny in my experience. I see a lot of disregard for the evidence I am providing, but not thoughtful or legitimate critique. 

Relativity can't be proven any more than the Singularity, but relativity is not treated with disregard even though the Singularity is a mathematical consequence of the theory. That's what strikes me as disingenuous, especially when there are no comprehensive solutions for the problems of dark matter, dark energy, and wave-particle duality, all of which can be understood quite simply if you just take the Singularity for what it is and go from there. General Relativity doesn't work on all scales any more than quantum mechanics works on all scales or Newtonian physics works on all scales. Everything is relative, not to the speed of light in a vacuum, but to the Singularity. Infinite variety of scale requires infinite variety of physics. There will always be new physics to discover, no matter what. The Singularity is the unifier, and you can't observe the Singularity any more than a fish can speak Chinese.