Light as speed limit?

[Spyman]

First, regardless of the actual mechanism whereby the universe is expanding, the alternative reference frame I described is not incorrect.

Your "alternative reference frame" described as "the universes center of gravity" is incorrect if such a place don't exist, and according to current accepted scientific models there is no known universal gravitational center in space.

(Which is clearly explained in the links I supported.)

 

 

Second, while I appreciate the evidence you offered that supports isotropic and homogeneous expansion, note that there are indeed alternatives that are consistent with these observations that do not rely on the assumptions outlined in the article you copied. Finally I don not dispute that the universe is expanding, nor do I dispute that it is doing so remarkably uniformly.

There might be a lot of alternatives but: "Taken together, the only theory which coherently explains these phenomena relies on space expanding through a change in metric".

(Which is clearly explained in the links I supported.)

 

 

I did however ask for evidence that the rate of this uniform expansion exceeds or once exceeded the speed of light. That question has not yet been addressed.

The evidence is in the model of expansion, if you don't dispute that the Universe is expanding or that it is doing so uniformly, then the only thing left for you is to either show that "the only theory which coherently explains these phenomena" is wrong or to acknowledge the models outcome.

 

If the Universe is expanding then the smoothness of the CMBR is evidence of that the young universe underwent exponential growth.

 

But the best observational evidence of expansion exceeding the speed of light is the measured redshift of distant objects, anything observed with a redshift higher than 2 was receding from Earth faster than the speed of light when those photons were emitted, and we are currently observing a lot of objects with a redshift higher than 2.

 

Inflation

In physical cosmology, cosmic inflation, cosmological inflation or just inflation is the theorized extremely rapid exponential expansion of the early universe by a factor of at least 10⁷⁸ in volume, driven by a negative-pressure vacuum energy density. The inflationary epoch comprises the first part of the electroweak epoch following the grand unification epoch. It lasted from 10⁻³⁶ seconds after the Big Bang to sometime between 10^-33 and 10^-32 seconds. Following the inflationary period, the universe continues to expand.

 

As a direct consequence of this expansion, all of the observable universe originated in a small causally connected region. Inflation answers the classic conundrum of the Big Bang cosmology: why does the universe appear flat, homogeneous and isotropic in accordance with the cosmological principle when one would expect, on the basis of the physics of the Big Bang, a highly curved, heterogeneous universe? Inflation also explains the origin of the large-scale structure of the cosmos. Quantum fluctuations in the microscopic inflationary region, magnified to cosmic size, become the seeds for the growth of structure in the universe (see galaxy formation and evolution and structure formation).

 

Inflation is a concrete mechanism for realizing the cosmological principle which is the basis of the standard model of physical cosmology: it accounts for the homogeneity and isotropy of the observable universe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_(cosmology)

 

 

Highest redshifts

Currently, the objects with the highest known redshifts are galaxies and the objects producing gamma ray bursts. The most reliable redshifts are from spectroscopic data, and the highest confirmed spectroscopic redshift of a galaxy is that of IOK-1, at a redshift z = 6.96, corresponding to just 750 million years after the Big Bang. Slightly less reliable are Lyman-break redshifts, the highest of which is the lensed galaxy A1689-zD1 at a redshift z = 7.6 and the next highest being z = 7.0 while as-yet unconfirmed reports by Ellis R. et al. from a gravitational lens observed in a distant galaxy cluster may indicate a galaxy with a redshift of z = 10.1.

 

The most distant observed gamma ray burst was GRB 090423, which had a redshift of 8.2.

 

The most distant known quasar, CFHQS J2329-0301, is at z = 6.43. The highest known redshift radio galaxy (TN J0924-2201) is at a redshift z = 5.2 and the highest known redshift molecular material is the detection of emission from the CO molecule from the quasar SDSS J1148+5251 at z = 6.42.

 

Extremely red objects (EROs) are astronomical sources of radiation that radiate energy in the red and near infrared part of the electromagnetic spectrum. These may be starburst galaxies that have a high redshift accompanied by reddening from intervening dust, or they could be highly redshifted elliptical galaxies with an older (and therefore redder) stellar population. Objects that are even redder than EROs are termed hyper extremely red objects (HEROs).

 

The Cosmic Microwave Background has a redshift of more than 1,000, corresponding to an age of approximately 379,000 years after the Big Bang and a current comoving distance of more than 46 billion light years. Other high-redshift events predicted by physics but not presently observable are the cosmic neutrino background, from about two seconds after the Big Bang, and first light from the oldest Population III stars, not long after atoms first formed and the CMB ceased to be absorbed almost completely.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift

 

 

The Universe is known to be finite, therefore it would seem that it must have one center of gravity.

The Universe is certainly NOT known to be finite, the observable universe from our vantage point here on Earth is finite but we can obviously not know how big the Universe really are outside of our view. If the Earth is assumed to not be placed in the center of the Universe then the size of the Universe must be larger than what we can currently observe.

 

Universe

Current interpretations of astronomical observations indicate that the age of the Universe is 13.75 ±0.17 billion years, and that the diameter of the observable universe is at least 93 billion light years, or 8.80 × 10²⁶ metres.

 

Since we cannot observe space beyond the limitations of light (or any electromagnetic radiation), it is uncertain whether the size of the Universe is finite or infinite.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe

 

Observable universe

Both popular and professional research articles in cosmology often use the term "Universe" to mean "observable universe". This can be justified on the grounds that we can never know anything by direct experimentation about any part of the Universe that is causally disconnected from us, although many credible theories require a total Universe much larger than the observable universe. No evidence exists to suggest that the boundary of the observable universe corresponds precisely to the physical boundary of the universe (if such a boundary exists); this is exceedingly unlikely in that it would imply that Earth is exactly at the center of the Universe, in violation of the Copernican principle. It is likely that the galaxies within our visible universe represent only a minuscule fraction of the galaxies in the Universe. According to the theory of cosmic inflation and its founder, Alan Guth, the lower bound for the diameter of the entire Universe could be at least in the range of 10²³ to 10²⁶ times as large as the observable universe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe

[Sisyphus]

Also, the universe being finite would not mean that it has a center or edges. It has neither. This won't make sense unless you abandon the image of the universe as an ordinary 3D object. Are you familiar with the "balloon analogy?"

[cypress]

Your "alternative reference frame" described as "the universes center of gravity" is incorrect if such a place don't exist, and according to current accepted scientific models there is no known universal gravitational center in space.

(Which is clearly explained in the links I supported.)

 

Explanations of speculations and facts are two different things would you not agree? Do you have factual demonstrations that clearly show there is no center of gravity to this apparently finite three dimensional universe?

 

There might be a lot of alternatives but: "Taken together, the only theory which coherently explains these phenomena relies on space expanding through a change in metric".

(Which is clearly explained in the links I supported.)

 

The explanations were long on speculation and short on factual support. They relied heavily on the two assumptions you offered in order to differentiate that speculation from alternatives. Without those assumptions, other models are every bit as coherent. why should we accept those assumptions as more reasonable than others? They are after all assumptions, by definition without factual support.

 

The evidence is in the model of expansion, if you don't dispute that the Universe is expanding or that it is doing so uniformly, then the only thing left for you is to either show that "the only theory which coherently explains these phenomena" is wrong or to acknowledge the models outcome.

 

I don't think so, it is also reasonable to argue that the assumptions may be incorrect.

 

If the Universe is expanding then the smoothness of the CMBR is evidence of that the young universe underwent exponential growth.

 

But the best observational evidence of expansion exceeding the speed of light is the measured redshift of distant objects, anything observed with a redshift higher than 2 was receding from Earth faster than the speed of light when those photons were emitted, and we are currently observing a lot of objects with a redshift higher than 2.

 

But once again, this evidence is 100% reliant on the assumptions you previously described. The traditional relativistic doppler red shift adjusted for time dilation derives a red shift higher than 2 at relative velocities less than 80% the speed of light and 10 at about 95% the speed of light. Z's climb into the millions and higher as relative velocities approach, but never reach c. So the evidence is consistent with alternatives that don't rely on the assumptions your models do, but instead rely on physical behaviors that we observe as a regular part of our uniform experience.

 

I may address some of your other arguments later, but for now I am interested in your response to these points.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Also, the universe being finite would not mean that it has a center or edges. It has neither. This won't make sense unless you abandon the image of the universe as an ordinary 3D object. Are you familiar with the "balloon analogy?"

 

I am quite familiar with this speculation and I find it interesting but unnecessarily complicated. Why though should we abandon the image of the universe as being three dimensional with a discontinuity at its boundary when uniform experience and physical observation indicates that it is indeed an ordinary three dimensional object? Why choose a more complicated model than required?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I am quite familiar with this speculation and I find it interesting but unnecessarily complicated. Why though should we abandon the image of the universe as being three dimensional with a discontinuity at its boundary when uniform experience and physical observation indicates that it is indeed an ordinary three dimensional object? Why choose a more complicated model than required?

It could be perfectly 3D but not have a discontinuity at its boundary. I'm not entirely sure how one visualizes that though.

[Spyman]

Do you have factual demonstrations that clearly show there is no center of gravity to this apparently finite three dimensional universe?

I invite you to go back and read my post again, I said: "according to current accepted scientific models there is no known universal gravitational center in space" and that: "The Universe is certainly NOT known to be finite".

 

If I tell you that something is accepted by the science community, all I need to do is support a link to where that is stated. If it is already accepted by the science community then I don't have to prove it for you again, there already exists evidence for the claim.

 

For you on the other hand it is different, if you are going to press any claim that goes against what is accepted by the science community like that there exist a center of gravity for the Universe or that the Universe is finite in size, then you need to start showing us some evidence thereof.

 

 

The explanations were long on speculation and short on factual support. They relied heavily on the two assumptions you offered in order to differentiate that speculation from alternatives. Without those assumptions, other models are every bit as coherent. why should we accept those assumptions as more reasonable than others? They are after all assumptions, by definition without factual support.

Well, the scientific accepted models might of course be wrong and they are likely to be subject to at least minor revisions when our knowledge and technology advance, to fit with new observations and so on, but the fact remains, according to our best knowledge and observations the only models which are able to fully explain what we see includes expanding space by rescaling the metric. There might be a lot of other models but they either lack in scientific evidence or are not able to explain all of these observed phenomenas.

 

You are free to subscribe to any model you feel fit to your faith, but once again, if you are going to put forth any model not accepted by the scientific community then you need to start showing us some evidence thereof.

[cypress]

I invite you to go back and read my post again, I said: "according to current accepted scientific models there is no known universal gravitational center in space" and that: "The Universe is certainly NOT known to be finite".

 

If I tell you that something is accepted by the science community, all I need to do is support a link to where that is stated. If it is already accepted by the science community then I don't have to prove it for you again, there already exists evidence for the claim.

 

Popular speculations are interesting. Even used with some amount of authority, speculations are not sufficient to demonstrate claims that alternatives are incorrect. So what we have is by a popular speculation, making assumptions about expansion mechanisms not understood, we have the distance of far away objects growing faster than the speed of light. But when these assumptions are dropped and instead we us mechanisms known and observed based on our uniform experience today we have those same distances growing at rates well under the speed of light.

 

Since the popular speculation is based on assumption rather than facts, we currently have no way to validate one over the other. Popular opinion is often a poor judge of what is correct.

 

You are free to subscribe to any model you feel fit to your faith, but once again, if you are going to put forth any model not accepted by the scientific community then you need to start showing us some evidence thereof.

 

Ah, but my point was to show that we don't know if the expansion rate exceeds the speed of light, and I did so by reminding you and others that the popular model is based on assumptions that may or may not be correct and lacks sufficient evidence on these key assumptions. The alternative model is based directly on observation and uniform experience, and so far as I know is not contradicted by any evidence.

[Sisyphus]

and so far as I know is not contradicted by any evidence.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by this, given the evidence mentioned in this thread.

[swansont]

I wouldn't characterize expansion as a popular speculation.

[Spyman]

Since the popular speculation is based on assumption rather than facts, we currently have no way to validate one over the other. Popular opinion is often a poor judge of what is correct.

It is getting somewhat tiresome to repeat myself, Louisiana is in United States of America, where you speak english as a naitive language right?

 

Don't you understand this sentence: "Taken together, the only theory which coherently explains these phenomena relies on space expanding through a change in metric" ?

 

1) It clearly states that it is the ONLY one which can explain the observations. Thus it does exist reasons to choose one over the others.

 

2) It is NOT some random popular opinion, it is the model accepted by the scientific community. Their judge does have some more weight.

 

 

The alternative model is based directly on observation and uniform experience, and so far as I know is not contradicted by any evidence.

Well, so far you have NOT told us about any accepted alternative model at all, not even mentioning the very large amount of evidence you would need for your proposed model.

 

It is not enough that it's not contradicted by any evidence, it also need more evidence that supports it, than any current rival theory has. In other words you need to put forth evidence to prove it to be correct.

 

All you have said so far, (if I don't misunderstand your posts), is that our Universe is finite and therefor must have a gravitational center from where objects are moving outwards through space. Which several people already have told you is wrong.

 

 

Ah, but my point was to show that we don't know...

It seems that I was mistaken, I wrongly thought you where here seeking knowledge, so I tried to give the information that was asked. But I also said that: "You are free to subscribe to any model you feel fit to your faith", so I am clearly not interested in trying to convince you against your belief.

 

I have made my points with supported evidence in the links, others who read this thread will be able to read and understand them or ask further questions about details here or in different threads, as they see fit.

Edited June 28, 2010 by Spyman
Spelling

[cypress]

I'm not sure what you mean by this, given the evidence mentioned in this thread.

 

The observations described in the thread and other observations of which I am aware do not contradict alternatives models of the changes occurring in this universe over time. The contradictions mostly occur with the assumptions that go into the various models.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

It is getting somewhat tiresome to repeat myself, Louisiana is in United States of America, where you speak english as a naitive language right?

 

Don't you understand this sentence: "Taken together, the only theory which coherently explains these phenomena relies on space expanding through a change in metric" ?

 

Yes it is an easy statement to make but exceedingly difficult to demonstrate that it is correct unless the assumptions are also "taken together" with the observations. Therefore the assumptions are driving the model, so what. Drop the assumptions and other models are coherent as well.

 

Well, so far you have NOT told us about any accepted alternative model at all, not even mentioning the very large amount of evidence you would need for your proposed model.It is not enough that it's not contradicted by any evidence, it also need more evidence that supports it, than any current rival theory has. In other words you need to put forth evidence to prove it to be correct.

 

My task here is support my claim that Bear's Key assertion that the expansion rate of the universe exceeds the speed of light is uncertain. With your help I have shown that the assertion depends on assumptions that may or may not be correct. I don't see how I have any other obligation. I have no interest in defending alternatives other than to properly note that there indeed are alternatives that don't rely on the same assumptions. I don't have any interest in launching off on critiques of these other models so I don't care to elaborate on them.

 

It seems that I was mistaken, I wrongly thought you where here seeking knowledge, so I tried to give the information that was asked.

 

I was interested in factual support for Bear's Key assertion. What I learned generally was that it is based on assumptions unique to a particular model and evidence that fits more than one model. Thank you for that.

[Spyman]

Drop the assumptions and other models are coherent as well.

False and so far at best only unproven personal opinion.

 

 

there indeed are alternatives that don't rely on the same assumptions.

Handwaving based on rumors until otherwise properly showed.

 

 

it is based on assumptions unique to a particular model and evidence that fits more than one model.

Excuse me, but I won't take your word for it and I seriously doubt anyone else will either.

 

 

Thank you for that.

You are welcome.

[cypress]

False and so far at best only unproven personal opinion.

 

I cannot be both false and unproven. Since false is out of play while unproven remains in play.

 

The observations you summarized are also consistent with uniform expansion of a classical 3 dimensional space of generally uniform density from a observation point near the center.

[Spyman]

The observations you summarized are also consistent with uniform expansion of a classical 3 dimensional space of generally uniform density from a observation point near the center.

So the claims of other alternative coherent models turns out to only be your own unsupported personal opinion, which in fact is also proved to be false.

 

Copernican principle

In physical cosmology, the Copernican principle, named after Nicolaus Copernicus, states that the Earth is not in a central, specially favored position. More recently, the principle has been generalized to the relativistic concept that humans are not privileged observers of the universe.

 

Confirmation

Measurements of the effects of the cosmic microwave background radiation in the dynamics of distant astrophysical systems in 2000 proved the Copernican principle on a cosmological scale. The radiation that pervades the universe was demonstrably warmer at earlier times. Uniform cooling of the cosmic microwave background over billions of years is explainable only if the universe is experiencing a metric expansion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copernican_principle

[cypress]

It's not an established fact that alternate models are proved to be false, and furthermore, while wiki is generally good for basic explanations of ideas, it is hardly a good arbiter of alternative concepts. Forgive me for requiring a better evidence.

 

A traditional three dimensional outward expansion of space/time includes a blast front which is the remnants of the initial explosion of energy and matter and the source of background radiation. This background radiation may cool over time as the front advances outward and its energy is depleted and dissipated by boundary interactions. Thus this model not inconsistent with background radiation that cools over time.

 

While "cooling" over time of background radiation is also consistent with the Cosmological Copernican Principle, it does not confirm or prove it and it is false to claim that it is the only model that explains observations of background radiation and behavior over time. Wiki is not always a good source of objective truth. I am particularly suspicious when wiki text includes exclusive terms like "prove" and "only" to describe speculative theories that are difficult or impossible to confirm through direct observation. Apparent cooling of background radiation is an indirect indicator at best.

Edited July 1, 2010 by cypress
Improved explanation

[Farsight]

It could be perfectly 3D but not have a discontinuity at its boundary. I'm not entirely sure how one visualizes that though.

One way is something like this:

 

 

As you approach a black hole event horizon, you suffer more and more time dilation, which tends to infinity as far as outside observers are concerned. Events occuring in your "proper time" take forever to happen, and never actually happen.

 

The boundary of the finite universe is a form of event horizon, in that there's no space beyond it for light/particles/etc to travel through. Hence there are no events. We can't actually reach this boundary because the universe is expanding faster than light. But imagine for a moment that the universe wasn't expanding, and you could approach the boundary. You might "bounce back" off it, or you might push it out like a thin skin of rubber, or indeed push it out with no resistance at all. But I favour never actually reaching it because every step closer takes a greater and greater duration. It would be like a black hole only inside out. Another way to conceptualize this is to imagine you're swimming through a ball of jelly that gets stiffer and stiffer as you approach the edge. And of course, you're made of jelly.

[Spyman]

It's not an established fact that alternate models are proved to be false...

It is established knowledge by the scientific consensus that alternate models that doesn't include metric expansion can't explain all observed phenomenas. It is also established by the scientific community that we don't know the total size or shape of the Universe, that the Universe don't have any gravitational center, that the Big Bang was not a traditional explosion with a blast front moving through space or that the Earth is not placed in a central specially favored position.

 

I have supported evidence that all this, (above), are the mainstream view according to the scientific community.

(Together with explanations and references thereof.)

 

You have supported nothing...

 

You can disagree all you want but without any reference or links to reputable resources like Wikipedia, all you have is your word, which is not worth much on the internet.

 

 

...while wiki is generally good for basic explanations of ideas, it is hardly a good arbiter of alternative concepts.

You seem to try to discredit Wikipedia, but even if some details might be wrong or missing, the articles themself has refererences to named reliable professional scientists and their individual work in much more detail. If there exists any slightly creditable alternative model at all, it can usually be found in there too.

 

The mainstream models and any other accepted model is constantly tested in accordance with the scientific method and as such they get revised or scrapped with new observational evidence. The only models that survive are those that can withstand the rigorous scrutiny from other scientists and valid repetable tests.

 

Therefor the current mainstream models approved by the scientific consensus have a much higher probability to be correct than any wild guesses pulled straight out of the air by unknown random strangers on the internet.

 

So far you have failed to provide any evidence at all for your "medieval" model.

 

 

Forgive me for requiring a better evidence.

I gave you all the evidence you need with references, if you don't want to read and learn it's your choice. I forgive you but I won't waste time trying to convince you against your belief.

 

 

...it is false to claim that it is the only model that explains observations of background radiation and behavior over time...

Feel free to post a link to any reputable source that claims otherwise.

 

----------

 

Back up your claim that the Universe is finite and has a gravitational center, at which the Earth is placed with a blast front advancing outward.

Edited July 5, 2010 by Spyman

[cypress]

No, sorry scientific consensus of an idea based on assumptions that cannot be validated does not constitute a fact.

 

It may be a minor point to some, but in context of my original claim in this post that Bear's Key assertion that distances between objects in the universe are increasing faster than [2 times] the speed of light and thus the universe is expanding at a rate greater than the speed of light is supported by supposition as opposed to fact.

 

It is not relevant to the argument that these ideas are mainstream or popular. The question is, is it factually correct and the answer is we don't know.

 

You complain that I have supported nothing, but I have offered alternate ideas that are consistent with observation that have a different set of invalidated assumptions that also happen not to be a popular just now. I have meet the requirement of what is needed to support my contention that Bear's Key assertions are not established fact. The alternatives are readily available on the web as is copious documentation supporting the reality of these assumptions and the myriad of unanswered questions confirming the status of "scientific consensus" as speculation.

 

You took exception to my claim but you have not shown that the consensus model is factually accurate, a necessary condition for you to back you claim that I am wrong. In summary, we don't know just as I said in the beginning.

[Spyman]

No, sorry scientific consensus of an idea based on assumptions that cannot be validated does not constitute a fact.

Word twisting, this is what I said which everyone clearly can see in my post #41 above:

 

"It is established knowledge by the scientific consensus that alternate models that doesn't include metric expansion can't explain all observed phenomenas. It is also established by the scientific community that we don't know the total size or shape of the Universe, that the Universe don't have any gravitational center, that the Big Bang was not a traditional explosion with a blast front moving through space or that the Earth is not placed in a central specially favored position.

 

I have supported evidence that all this, (above), are the mainstream view according to the scientific community.

(Together with explanations and references thereof.)"

 

Do you dispute the accuracy of the claims made by the scientific consensus?

 

 

It is not relevant to the argument that these ideas are mainstream or popular.

This is clearly very false, you are twisting words again and trying to hide the real argument. It is very relevant to the argument if ideas are accepted by the scientific community or not. I already told you in post #34 that this is NOT some random popular opinion, it is the model accepted by the scientific community. Their judge does have some more weight and I even tried to explain it further in my post #41 above:

 

"The mainstream models and any other accepted model is constantly tested in accordance with the scientific method and as such they get revised or scrapped with new observational evidence. The only models that survive are those that can withstand the rigorous scrutiny from other scientists and valid repetable tests.

 

Therefor the current mainstream models approved by the scientific consensus have a much higher probability to be correct than any wild guesses pulled straight out of the air by unknown random strangers on the internet."

 

If you are on some strange crusade against the scientific consensus or the scientific method and want to contest their credibility I suggest you start another thread for that purpose. This thread is in the subforum "Sciences" and "Physics" where scientific fact and mainstream physics rule.

 

 

The question is, is it factually correct and the answer is we don't know.

You can repeat this how many times you want but it will still not be true, I have showed you the scientific answer. Everything is not known and some parts might be wrong but "Taken together, the only theory which coherently explains these phenomena relies on space expanding through a change in metric" does not mean that we are in the dark and not knowing anything. It does NOT mean that we don't know, it means that we have some evidence and some knowledge and when adding everything up these points towards an scientific explanation. The explanation might even turn out wrong later when more observations and discoveries turns up. But right now, at the present it is the summary of what we actually do know, it is the factually correct scientific explanation.

 

 

You complain that I have supported nothing, but I have offered alternate ideas that are consistent with observation that have a different set of invalidated assumptions that also happen not to be a popular just now.

No you have NOT, I clearly asked you for any reference or evidence at all in post #41 above, which you have not provided.

 

All you have suggested is ONE model, that also happens to be your own private pet idea which clearly goes against mainstream science. I repeat:

 

Back up your claim that the Universe is finite and has a gravitational center, at which the Earth is placed with a blast front advancing outward.

 

Once again, You have supported NOTHING other than your own words.

 

 

I have meet the requirement of what is needed to support my contention that Bear's Key assertions are not established fact.

You may have meet your own requirements, but in my view all you have done is rambling.

 

 

The alternatives are readily available on the web...

And yet you fail to provide any links to these "alternatives readily available on the web"...

 

 

...copious documentation supporting the reality of these assumptions and the myriad of unanswered questions confirming the status of "scientific consensus" as speculation.

Questioning the scientific consensus is outside the scope of this thread and best fit in its own thread, in some other subforum.

 

 

You took exception to my claim but you have not shown that the consensus model is factually accurate, a necessary condition for you to back you claim that I am wrong.

Back in post #30 I said:

 

"If I tell you that something is accepted by the science community, all I need to do is support a link to where that is stated. If it is already accepted by the science community then I don't have to prove it for you again, there already exists evidence for the claim."

 

Do you dispute my claim that what I have supported are the scientific consensus?

 

 

In summary, we don't know just as I said in the beginning.

I summary you are just babbling without any support at all.

[swansont]

No, sorry scientific consensus of an idea based on assumptions that cannot be validated does not constitute a fact.

 

…

 

It is not relevant to the argument that these ideas are mainstream or popular. The question is, is it factually correct and the answer is we don't know.

 

You might as well chuck all of science, then. Because we make models and compare our observations to models, and you seem to be pointing out that there is no independent confirmation other than comparing to the models.

 

But that's how science works. You can go down that path of you wish, but then you have to say "we don't know" to just about everything if you want to maintain intellectual honesty.

[cypress]

Word twisting, this is what I said which everyone clearly can see in my post #41 above:

 

snip...

 

I have supported evidence that all this, (above), are the mainstream view according to the scientific community.

(Together with explanations and references thereof.)[/i]"

 

Do you dispute the accuracy of the claims made by the scientific consensus?

 

It's not word twisting. You are talking at cross purposes. I don't think you care to address my claim directly. You seem more interested in a different aspect of the argument that I don't dispute.

 

To answer your question, we cannot assess the accuracy of the claims made by the scientific community on these points because the accuracy of the claims that one model is consistent while others are not, depend entirely on the assumptions being made and we cannot validate assumptions. They are by definition without evidence.

 

 

"The mainstream models and any other accepted model is constantly tested in accordance with the scientific method and as such they get revised or scrapped with new observational evidence. The only models that survive are those that can withstand the rigorous scrutiny from other scientists and valid repetable tests.

 

Assumptions cannot be tested and since Bear's Key claim depended on the assumptions along with the claim that alternate ideas are wrong (Change the assumptions and the discontinuities with the alternates go away). The point is that it is not wrong, rather it is unknown.

 

 

If you are on some strange crusade against the scientific consensus or the scientific method and want to contest their credibility I suggest you start another thread for that purpose. This thread is in the subforum "Sciences" and "Physics" where scientific fact and mainstream physics rule.

 

No, I'm just supporting the reasons why I took exception to bear's key claim about the expansion rate of the universe.

 

You can repeat this how many times you want but it will still not be true, I have showed you the scientific answer.

 

It is true that Bear's Key expansion rate is dependent on assumptions and therefore we don' know if it is correct or not.

 

 

All you have suggested is ONE model, that also happens to be your own private pet idea which clearly goes against mainstream science. I repeat:

 

Back up your claim that the Universe is finite and has a gravitational center, at which the Earth is placed with a blast front advancing outward.

 

Once again, You have supported NOTHING other than your own words.

 

Just as your favored model is dependent on assumptions, so too are the alternatives. It is pointless to argue which one is superior. The debate will deteriorate to which assumptions people favor. for my purpose, it is sufficient that there are alternatives and they are also held together by assumption.

 

Please go back and see my original post and try to stay focused on the purpose of it.

[Spyman]

To answer your question, we cannot assess the accuracy of the claims made by the scientific community on these points because the accuracy of the claims that one model is consistent while others are not, depend entirely on the assumptions being made and we cannot validate assumptions. They are by definition without evidence.

In other words you are disputing the scientific consensus, because they have choosen a model over the alternatives based on assumptions, observations and knowledge.

 

 

Assumptions cannot be tested and since Bear's Key claim depended on the assumptions along with the claim that alternate ideas are wrong (Change the assumptions and the discontinuities with the alternates go away). The point is that it is not wrong, rather it is unknown.

A lot of things will always remain unknown, if no assumptions is allowed to stand then like swansont said you can toss all science and knowledge.

 

 

No, I'm just supporting the reasons why I took exception to bear's key claim about the expansion rate of the universe.

If you accept the scientific consensus then I suggest you take the scientific answer and be content with it.

 

 

It is true that Bear's Key expansion rate is dependent on assumptions and therefore we don' know if it is correct or not.

The factually correct scientific explanation has been given to you.

 

If you want to dispute any of the assumptions, observations or knowledge that is included in the conclusion made by the scientific community, I suggest you start to specify your arguments against it and support it with reputable references for any evidence you will use.

 

 

Just as your favored model is dependent on assumptions, so too are the alternatives. It is pointless to argue which one is superior. The debate will deteriorate to which assumptions people favor. for my purpose, it is sufficient that there are alternatives and they are also held together by assumption.

You have yet to show that there exists any valid alternatives and when you do, (actually if, which I doubt), the debate will be about which one has most evidence supporting it, not whatever people favor.

 

 

Please go back and see my original post...

Ok, let's do that:

The universe already expanded faster than light during/after the Big Bang. It continues to expand today.

 

It doesn't expand by movement, rather it's because new space is created everywhere, therefore even now stars recede from one another.

General relativity theory precludes the possibility of particles traveling faster than C, thus expansion in every direction from a constant reference frame is disallowed.

Please back up your claim that General Relativity prevents space from expanding faster than light speed.

(or do you have a different Theory of Relativity than the scientific community?)

 

 

...and try to stay focused on the purpose of it.

Your first purpose seems to be to use incorrect knowledge of the Theory of General Relativity to argue that The Bear's Key was wrong. But by doing so you also accepted that the underlying assumtions that goes into General Relativity are correct.

 

Your purpose after that is not so clear, the entire discussion that followed from your initial post seems to be focused on the purpose for you to avoid admitting that you were wrong from the beginning.

 

 

Once again, You have failed to provide ANYTHING other than your own words.

Edited July 9, 2010 by Spyman
Adding more replies and Spelling

[swansont]

To answer your question, we cannot assess the accuracy of the claims made by the scientific community on these points because the accuracy of the claims that one model is consistent while others are not, depend entirely on the assumptions being made and we cannot validate assumptions. They are by definition without evidence.

 

What are the assumptions you keep talking about? There's the model, and there is data. The model explains past data, and predicts future data. The data are used to test the model. The model passes the test.

[cypress]

I didn't see anything in Spyman's newest post that has not already been discussed. The expansion rates cited by Bear Key are indeed based on assumptions. It is not established by fact and therefore my statement that the expansion rates remain unclear is correct. Spyman is unable to demonstrate that my claim is wrong and prefers to discuss non issues about the relative merits of alternatives. I have no obligation to present a superior idea as it is sufficient for my claim to show that my claim as stated is accurate since it does not include any statement about the accuracy or superiority of alternatives.

 

What are the assumptions you keep talking about? There's the model, and there is data. The model explains past data, and predicts future data. The data are used to test the model. The model passes the test.

 

One assumption is that the universe appears uniform regardless of the observation point from within the universe. Another is that our observation point is not fundamentally different than any other.

 

The model has evolved over time to fit the data and will continue to do so. It is not a coincidence that the model fits since it is molded to fit. Nothing wrong with tweaking a model, but let's not over sell it as if it were perfect out of the box and perfectly fits every new piece of data ever obtained. You and I both know there remain a number of unresolved issues.

 

Contrary to Spyman's accusations, my purpose is not to tear down this model. It is simply to remind less informed readers that these ideas including the one Bear's Key offered are ideas and may or may not be correct. The model of the universe is not fully understood and it does not make sense to pretend it is.

[Spyman]

I didn't see anything in Spyman's newest post that has not already been discussed. The expansion rates cited by Bear Key are indeed based on assumptions. It is not established by fact and therefore my statement that the expansion rates remain unclear is correct. Spyman is unable to demonstrate that my claim is wrong and prefers to discuss non issues about the relative merits of alternatives. I have no obligation to present a superior idea as it is sufficient for my claim to show that my claim as stated is accurate since it does not include any statement about the accuracy or superiority of alternatives.

You are trying to change the argument, nobody has claimed that any scientific models are 100 percent foolproof.

 

This is what I said in post #30: "the scientific accepted models might of course be wrong and they are likely to be subject to at least minor revisions when our knowledge and technology advance, to fit with new observations and so on"

 

I have already agreed that the scientific model can be wrong and even that it is likely to need changes.

 

 

Contrary to Spyman's accusations, my purpose is not to tear down this model. It is simply to remind less informed readers that these ideas including the one Bear's Key offered are ideas and may or may not be correct. The model of the universe is not fully understood and it does not make sense to pretend it is.

This is not the argument either, I have never claimed that you try to tear down specific models.

 

This is what I said in post #46: "In other words you are disputing the scientific consensus, because they have choosen a model over the alternatives based on assumptions, observations and knowledge"

 

My interpretation is that you do try to miscredit judgements by the scientific consensus.

 

 

The main argument is whether the science community are correct when they have considered all available assumptions, observations and knowledge and came to this conclusion: "Taken together, the only theory which coherently explains these phenomena relies on space expanding through a change in metric".

 

You have made several repeted claims throughout the thread, that there exists alternatives, other serious valid competing models, which is false and goes against the scientific consensus.

 

Secondly you claim that we can't validate assumtions, but the assumtions that goes into a model are tested together with the models and if a model past the test then the assumptions also have.

 

Thirdly you seem to think that the scientific consensus don't rely on the scientific method and are instead some cind of popularity contest based on peoples opinions which is very wrong.

 

----------

 

You have also made a whole slew of other claims that are clearly false and of which you have not yet provided any evidence or admitted that you were wrong thereof:

General relativity theory precludes the possibility of particles traveling faster than C, thus expansion in every direction from a constant reference frame is disallowed.

Wrong, according to the theory of General Relativity.

 

The mass of the universe is of course traveling outward much slower than the radiation wave front and this expansion of mass is generally taken to be the referred to as the expansion of the universe.

Wrong, according to the theory of Big Bang.

 

So it is not incorrect to describe an alternate reference frame whereby matter near the boundary is moving outward relative to the universes center of gravity.

Wrong, according to scientific consensus there is no known universal gravitational center in space.

 

The Universe is known to be finite, therefore it would seem that it must have one center of gravity.

Wrong, the Universes shape or size is certainly not known according to scientific consensus.

 

The observations you summarized are also consistent with uniform expansion of a classical 3 dimensional space of generally uniform density from a observation point near the center.

Wrong, according to the Copernican principle we are not privileged observers.

 

A traditional three dimensional outward expansion of space/time includes a blast front which is the remnants of the initial explosion of energy and matter and the source of background radiation.

Wrong, according to the theory of Big Bang.

 

----------

 

In summary, you are disputing the scientific consensus on several important cosmological points and have clearly tried to undermine its credibility by suggesting choosen assumptions and models are not tested but instead depends on opinions and popularity.

 

And to all of this crap, you have supported the mighty evidence of your empty words...

(In contrary to the massive evidence behind scientific consensus.)

 

Conclusion: Your claims are not to be trusted and you have failed to provide any evidence at all for your case.

Edited July 12, 2010 by Spyman
Bad wording

[cypress]

You have made several repeted claims throughout the thread, that there exists alternatives, other serious valid competing models, which is false and goes against the scientific consensus.

 

Anyone searching the web will find numerous theories of the universe and arguments including numerous admitted problems and difficulties of the model you prefer. Some are interesting, some are absurd, but more than one are in play. You make yourself sound ignorant when you claim there is only one valid model. Alternate Cosmology or More Models

 

Secondly you claim that we can't validate assumtions, but the assumtions that goes into a model are tested together with the models and if a model past the test then the assumptions also have.

 

That's right assumptions remain assumptions even if the model mimics observation. Models can reproduce empirical data for a time even if assumptions are wrong. Garbage in garbage out.

 

Thirdly you seem to think that the scientific consensus don't rely on the scientific method and are instead some cind of popularity contest based on peoples opinions which is very wrong.

 

This does not accurately represent my view. I do note that consensus in science is nearly meaningless. Here is what Michael Critchton said about consensus science back in 2003:

 

I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.

 

Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world.

 

In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.

 

In addition, let me remind you that the track record of the consensus is nothing to be proud of. Let’s review a few cases.

 

In past centuries, the greatest killer of women was fever following childbirth. One woman in six died of this fever.

 

In 1795, Alexander Gordon of Aberdeen suggested that the fevers were infectious processes, and he was able to cure them. The consensus said no.

 

In 1843, Oliver Wendell Holmes claimed puerperal fever was contagious, and presented compelling evidence. The consensus said no.

 

In 1849, Semmelweiss demonstrated that sanitary techniques virtually eliminated puerperal fever in hospitals under his management. The consensus said he was a Jew, ignored him, and dismissed him from his post. There was in fact no agreement on puerperal fever until the start of the twentieth century. Thus the consensus took one hundred and twenty five years to arrive at the right conclusion despite the efforts of the prominent “skeptics” around the world, skeptics who were demeaned and ignored. And despite the constant ongoing deaths of women.

 

There is no shortage of other examples. In the 1920s in America, tens of thousands of people, mostly poor, were dying of a disease called pellagra. The consensus of scientists said it was infectious, and what was necessary was to find the “pellagra germ.” The US government asked a brilliant young investigator, Dr. Joseph Goldberger, to find the cause. Goldberger concluded that diet was the crucial factor. The consensus remained wedded to the germ theory.

 

Goldberger demonstrated that he could induce the disease through diet. He demonstrated that the disease was not infectious by injecting the blood of a pellagra patient into himself, and his assistant. They and other volunteers swabbed their noses with swabs from pellagra patients, and swallowed capsules containing scabs from pellagra rashes in what were called “Goldberger’s filth parties.” Nobody contracted pellagra.

 

The consensus continued to disagree with him. There was, in addition, a social factor-southern States disliked the idea of poor diet as the cause, because it meant that social reform was required. They continued to deny it until the 1920s. Result-despite a twentieth century epidemic, the consensus took years to see the light.

 

Probably every schoolchild notices that South America and Africa seem to fit together rather snugly, and Alfred Wegener proposed, in 1912, that the continents had in fact drifted apart. The consensus sneered at continental drift for fifty years. The theory was most vigorously denied by the great names of geology-until 1961, when it began to seem as if the sea floors were spreading. The result: it took the consensus fifty years to acknowledge what any schoolchild sees.

 

And shall we go on? The examples can be multiplied endlessly. Jenner and smallpox, Pasteur and germ theory. Saccharine, margarine, repressed memory, fiber and colon cancer, hormone replacement therapy. The list of consensus errors goes on and on.

 

Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough.

 

Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.

 

You have also made a whole slew of other claims that are clearly false and of which you have not yet provided any evidence or admitted that you were wrong thereof:

 

Wrong, according to the theory of General Relativity.

Wrong, according to the theory of Big Bang.

 

I disagree. I have made no claim that contradicts either theory unless you include the expansion mode in the Big Bang theory. Perhaps you are misinterpreting my words.

 

Wrong, according to scientific consensus there is no known universal gravitational center in space.

 

As I indicated before, scientific consensus is often wrong and may well be wrong about the nature of the big bang expansion.

 

Wrong, the Universes shape or size is certainly not known according to scientific consensus.

 

And again you misinterpret my words. I do not believe we know with any precision the size or shape of the universe. I note again your over reliance on the consensus also.

 

Wrong, according to the Copernican principle we are not privileged observers.

 

The Copernican principle as applied to cosmology is an assumption and may well be false.

 

Conclusion: Your claims are not to be trusted and you have failed to provide any evidence at all for your case.

 

And yet through it all, it remains a true statement that we do not know if any distance between two objects in this universe is growing faster than twice the speed of light. This is the claim you think should not be trusted and yet you have no hope of showing that I am wrong. The balance of my claims you have managed to mangle and misstate. Yet my statement requires no evidence because the claim that distances are growing faster relies on assumptions that cannot currently be validated. The best you have to imply I am wrong is scientific consensus but I have shown why we might want to be suspicious of consensus in science.

 

I'm done here. Bear's Key assertion is uncertain and may well be incorrect. You are overselling consensus. Good bye Spyman.