Champagne bubble cosmology vs Big Bang (split)

[kristalris]

I would take all positions of galaxies indeed with the correction astronomers make I guess on the time traveled by the SOL.

 

I'm working on a same sort of sketch, with your point A in the center of a cartwheel. A singularity from which the bubbles stem. If you let several start at the same time on every axes and they accelerate you can draw (virtual) circles through the dots at t1, t2 etc every time exponentially further away: i.e. a 2D picture of the law of Hubble in 2D.

 

Now this isn't what we observe. For that we need to go to the say t2 position on the y axes. There we again make a spoke wheel this time however as our observation lines (the bubbles (galaxies) still coming from A). The bubbles that started with us are then on the circle and are observed to recede. Yet are also accelerating away from us along the x axes at the level of t2 on the y axes. This is what we observe in our larger or smaller observational circle (that doesn't include A) from view point t2.

 

By moving point A further down on the y axes the circle will more and more straighten out. and become more flat. Not the bubble of t2 but t3 (or what ever higher number) will be to the right of us with an acceleration away from us closely resembling Hubble. This we observe via red-shift.

 

However the residing we observe of seeing what we might think when assuming more than one bang is a t2 yet is a t3 bubble both slowly lagging behind. This lagging is not observed via red-shift but via the place it holds in our sky. That fits that observation => ONLY that fits both observations and the OP providing they measured all axis and the curvature fits the 1% margin.

 

The further away A and the larger A is the more parallel the spokes will become. A simple model then for what we observe in our visible circle (our visible universe).

 

So what we need to do is get all observations on the same denominator within that visible circle so to speak.

 

We also know that our bubbles are traveling trough a field (Higgs or what ever) and interact in part with that field in a "same stuffness" something from nothing way.

 

We also observe that the field is best seen in a Euclidean way and the bubbles are best described in a non- Euclidean way. We also observe a curved space around our bubbles. Having them suck the same stuff in creating gravity nicely fits this model via the same existing model of GR (for bubbles) and SR (for light). Edit further more having bubbles also leaves an unchanged (Higgs etc? We know there is at least a Higgs field in need of stretching when we hold a Big Bang cake view) field for else how come that stays the same and also GR stays the same, and not stretch or fade away?

 

What we in our integral intuitive inductive model also need to incorporate is the observational machine "brain" and the interaction of that machine with other not quite similar brains (or personalities).

 

You can build this one denominator view out in the same open-minded naive way until all known observations fit in our observational circle and later on 3D sphere.

 

Only after that you determine what is the most simple way of doing that. This is where Occam is to be applied and not later (or sooner for that matter). And only after that do we start extrapolating, further modeling, and guessing and testing via more rigorous checking in the non naive deductive way.

 

Edit 2 the fact that we can't ascertain where the big bang/ bangs are coming from on basis of the radiation can have several explanations, like if you're submerged in water in the dark it is difficult to know what is top and what is bottom. In this case we know, we are moving up along the y axes, and so are the rest of the observable bubbles in our observable circle ergo the other way is down.

Edited January 20, 2014 by kristalris

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

Staff have removed a number of posts from this thread into this one as they had started to go a bit off topic. kristalris, this hijack began with you and it would be much appreciated if you could refrain from this in the future.

 

To everyone, please keep the bubble cosmology stuff out of the other thread from here on and contain the conversation to this one.

[kristalris]

That it got a bit off topic okay, and I'll show that the discussion isn't speculative.

 

Apart from that, part of the discussion is still in the old thread. No worries I'll react to some of it in a general way:

 

The expanding space cake with raisins when one takes any raisin in the center of it as long as the sphere around that raisin isn't outside the cake is an excellent analogy of the Law of Hubble as I understand it. Being 3D as such superior to the 2D balloon surface. The reason of preference in both cases I guess is the general idea that we can observe no center in the universe and that most cosmologists believe the cosmos to be flat as far as we can observe.

 

What I'm saying with the Champagne bubble analogy is that you can see the Law of Hubble in a different way namely that the raisins in the cake move in all directions, like non expanding bubbles from the observer. I don't see why this doesn't fit the mathematics of the law of Hubble. The problem lies not with that law but with other observations. Namely it then requires having a center in the universe, which hasn't been observed.

 

Now if we only take the Law of Hubble sec, then both the cake and the bubbles are on paradigm par. Same mathematics, same evidence only two different ways of looking at it. They then stand in science equally side by side. Both just as good.

 

Then looking at further evidence should show one being better than the other still doesn't make one speculative and the other not so.

 

There are but three pieces of further evidence as far as I know: 1. the fact that radiation of the Big Bang / beginning is all around us and 2. the measurement of a flat universe within 1% margin of accuracy as depicted in the first OP and 3. the observed lagging behind of raisins (i.e. galaxies) to the sides of our galaxy.

 

 

Because it isn't possible to reconcile the observed movement in point 3 of all raisins in the cake to our sides falling away with the Big Bang, when the latter is seen as something that happened everywhere. It can't be explained to gravity because that should then effect our galaxy as well and we observe that it doesn't. This already falsifies the position that there is no center in our universe. This is even more so because it is possible to at least dream up a way to reconcile point 1 with having a center in our universe via having many sources of radiation below us when given that we are moving at the points where the bubbles originate. That this is then speculative is immaterial because point 3 has already falsified the position that there is no center. The speculation bars the counter of non falsification so to speak. And further more the measurement of flatness needs to be shown to have been done in all axes and that bubbles requires more curve than fits 1 % accuracy. That too doesn't bar the falsification.

 

The argument of the comunis opinio of cosmologists held in such a way as to state all equal or other views speculative is an argument of authority. In science and even in cosmology and physics several conflicting views can stand side by side without calling all but one speculative. The bubbles BTW is based on the same mathematics as the cake.

[michel123456]

It is not Bubble Cosmology, it is Champagne Cosmology.

 

Otherwise one could ask: Is Hubble bubble?

Edited January 21, 2014 by michel123456

[swansont]

Now if we only take the Law of Hubble sec, then both the cake and the bubbles are on paradigm par. Same mathematics, same evidence only two different ways of looking at it. They then stand in science equally side by side. Both just as good.

Sure, as long as you ignore a shortcoming that has been pointed out — that this analogy requires the formation to be spread out in time, which is not part of the big bang. So as long as you define "just as good" to mean "doesn't represent the model as well" you're good.

 

 

Then looking at further evidence should show one being better than the other still doesn't make one speculative and the other not so.

 

There are but three pieces of further evidence as far as I know: 1. the fact that radiation of the Big Bang / beginning is all around us and 2. the measurement of a flat universe within 1% margin of accuracy as depicted in the first OP and 3. the observed lagging behind of raisins (i.e. galaxies) to the sides of our galaxy.

 

"observed lagging behind" ?

 

Because it isn't possible to reconcile the observed movement in point 3 of all raisins in the cake to our sides falling away with the Big Bang, when the latter is seen as something that happened everywhere. It can't be explained to gravity because that should then effect our galaxy as well and we observe that it doesn't. This already falsifies the position that there is no center in our universe. This is even more so because it is possible to at least dream up a way to reconcile point 1 with having a center in our universe via having many sources of radiation below us when given that we are moving at the points where the bubbles originate. That this is then speculative is immaterial because point 3 has already falsified the position that there is no center. The speculation bars the counter of non falsification so to speak. And further more the measurement of flatness needs to be shown to have been done in all axes and that bubbles requires more curve than fits 1 % accuracy. That too doesn't bar the falsification.

An analogy can't falsify anything. You need a model that you can confirm, which has a center, before you can speak of that.

 

 

The argument of the comunis opinio of cosmologists held in such a way as to state all equal or other views speculative is an argument of authority. In science and even in cosmology and physics several conflicting views can stand side by side without calling all but one speculative. The bubbles BTW is based on the same mathematics as the cake.

They are not the same, as I have pointed out. The underlying math, should it exist, would thus not be the same.

[kristalris]

 

 

"observed lagging behind" ?

 

 

An analogy can't falsify anything. You need a model that you can confirm, which has a center, before you can speak of that.

 

 

From the Wikipedia page I gave earlier I read this part as showing an observed anomaly with Hubble that can't be corrected with gravity or any other correction. I see now that it can also read it to mean that there is no such anomaly observed.

 

 

The Local Group (a cluster of gravitationally bound galaxies containing, among others, the Milky Way and the Andromeda Galaxy) is part of a supercluster called the Local Supercluster, centered near the Virgo Cluster: although they are moving away from each other at 967 km/s as part of the Hubble flow, this velocity is less than would be expected given the 16.8 million pc distance due to the gravitational attraction between the Local Group and the Virgo Cluster.^[133]

 

Edit: had this of course been an anomaly that fits bubbles: i.e. curvature then that would of knocked the flat universe for six. Now the discussion remains open either way for we simply then can't get good enough measurements to cleanse the issue. Bubbles probably needs a whopping sphere from which the bubbles emerge. Easily perceived as flat.

 

 

Quote

 

 

 

They are not the same, as I have pointed out. The underlying math, should it exist, would thus not be the same.

 

End qoute

 

 

This I don't understand. Hubble only describes what we observe out of our bubble / raisin (?). Whether due to the cake expanding or the bubbles / raisins moving what could be the mathematical difference? Also the corrections of time would in both instances be the same. It should be the same from every observed bubble or raisin.

 

The only difference is that it is inconceivable that all bubbles stem from the bubble from which others are then observed: hence the need for curvature. The cake scenario doesn't have that problem. That doesn't in itself provide any advantage. If there are no observations / data to cleanse it either way both scenario's are equal. Neither or both Big Bang and bubbles scenario are then speculative. The one with the more math or support by cosmologists doesn't thus become more probable. The one that best fits an integral scenario best incorporating all known data does that, math or no math. That is the ground work that is to be done.

Edited January 21, 2014 by kristalris

[swansont]

Yes, there is a local effect due to gravity in addition to the expansion.

 

You still seem to be confusing the spherical shape with the flatness of the recent measurement. The flatness is indicative of the geometry used to describe the universe, not the shape itself. If you conflate the two, then there's no way to have a discussion.

[kristalris]

Yes, there is a local effect due to gravity in addition to the expansion.

 

You still seem to be confusing the spherical shape with the flatness of the recent measurement. The flatness is indicative of the geometry used to describe the universe, not the shape itself. If you conflate the two, then there's no way to have a discussion.

Thanks, I think I've finally arrived. A curved geometry (= 2D) would thus entail that which ever way I go 3D I'll always come back where I started if I were to travel in a straight line.

 

Okay the universe with bubbles is then indeed IMO best described as being flat geometry.

 

That then leaves us with the question how to best describe what we do have on data concerning what we already have observed, in order to see if the observed law of Hubble is due to the galaxies accelerating themselves (my position) or due to expansion of the space in between (Big Bang).

 

IMO the best (even only correct) way of doing that is naively taking all observations in their purist essence i.e. most simple form and roughly combine them to see what pictures / analogies spring to mind in comparison thus to everything we think we know. Working thus with pictures and thought experiments attempting to bring all observations on one denominator. So not at all trying in this inductive faze to get better predictions, but at first simply try to organize it all in one or more integral pictures with what we have so far. Because if there is one set of basic/ simple rules and constants at the heart of it, the deterministic part of it as the mathematics of that should shine through at all levels. (As does ying and yang, statistics, normal distribution etc. etc.) So must then an elegant picture arise, that should point the way as where to start looking further. No speculation thus, and no predictions as yet either. Just laying the ground work.

[swansont]

Thanks, I think I've finally arrived. A curved geometry (= 2D) would thus entail that which ever way I go 3D I'll always come back where I started if I were to travel in a straight line.

If you are looking at 2D, you can't move in 3D. You've already decided you're looking at 2D. Also, whether you return to where you started depends on the type of curvature.

[Spyman]

It is not Bubble Cosmology, it is Champagne Cosmology.

Champagne Cosmology -> after a few drinks you think you can solve the true reality of the universe.

( The only drawback is when the ideas really start to flow, it is nearly impossible to properly document the great discoveries you make.)

[kristalris]

Champagne Cosmology -> after a few drinks you think you can solve the true reality of the universe.

( The only drawback is when the ideas really start to flow, it is nearly impossible to properly document the great discoveries you make.)

Oh well that's also possible without drinks. And, I'm not claiming to have solved it, or that I can.

 

What I am claiming is that the bubble scenario is consistent with having a spiraling galaxy and that the cake scenario isn't. The first is easy to envisage the later impossible. If not please show me.

 

What I am claiming is that the bubble scenario is consistent with having large cosmological structures such as the great wall and that the cake scenario isn't. If the later is, please show me.

 

The cake scenario is in fact belief in magic given an infinite (or even not infinite) universe filled with something at the BB suddenly everywhere expanding. Then you say it is what we observe. Well no it isn't for there still is a possible common sense explanation of bubbles. (Edit: taking an infinite universe filled with something all over the place expanding, means logically that then our volume of observable universe has infinitely thick walls. That can't expand. So then the universe must be finite and like a cake needs a boundary. Is the Higgs field from before or after the BB? If you don't know how then so shore it's a cake scenario? If Higgs was there than the expansion going > c is impossible to understand, for we have never observed even light doing that other than a photon being able to hold c in a curve. If Higgs formed after the BB you also exceed c and then even locally. It has to form prior to the rest following. Not very elegant. having a stable universe with bubbles is much and much more simple eleviating these problems.)

 

The "show us the math" ploy is like looking at the water streaming upwards from Escher and saying - rightly so - that you've got the math's proving that. I without further math's say that the math's are correct concerning the height of the respective towers (in effect nicking your math's) , yet the conclusion that the water streams upwards is wrong. Asking you to join me in your minds eye walking to the side of set structure seeing then in an axiomatic way that water streaming upwards simply can't be. And, I provide you with an alternate simple common sense scenario. The later in no way evidently at odds with anything known to science.

 

The more so that if one assumes as I do - and I guess you too - that there are a few basic deterministic starting points of it all that logically interact in a way that will ultimately fit a set of simple mathematical formulas like E = mc2 then one should expect these formulas to shine through, as they do at the scale we look at it. (Analogies like: Normal distribution, yin and yang all over the place etc. Nowhere something from nothing, except with illusionists and people believing in magic etc.) Well then don't expect magic on the large scale. I'm only pointing out that there is a simple common sense scenario that hasn't been look at - at all. Ergo first try and integrate what you've got and only then venture in detail or start extrapolating mathematics.

Edited January 22, 2014 by kristalris

[swansont]

What I am claiming is that the bubble scenario is consistent with having a spiraling galaxy and that the cake scenario isn't. The first is easy to envisage the later impossible. If not please show me.

That's easy. It's not meant to.

 

 

What I am claiming is that the bubble scenario is consistent with having large cosmological structures such as the great wall and that the cake scenario isn't. If the later is, please show me.

 

 

Ditto.

 

The cake scenario is in fact belief in magic given an infinite (or even not infinite) universe filled with something at the BB suddenly everywhere expanding. Then you say it is what we observe. Well no it isn't for there still is a possible common sense explanation of bubbles. (Edit: taking an infinite universe filled with something all over the place expanding, means logically that then our volume of observable universe has infinitely thick walls. That can't expand. So then the universe must be finite and like a cake needs a boundary. Is the Higgs field from before or after the BB? If you don't know how then so shore it's a cake scenario?)

You're comparing apples and oranges. The cake or balloon analogy is a representation of one aspect of the big bang: expansion, and how it would look the same from any vantage point, i.e. how you can't say there is a center just because everything is receding.

 

I don't know what you mean by infinitely thick walls. That's not part of any model of which I am aware.

 

The "show us the math" ploy is like looking at the water streaming upwards from Escher and saying - rightly so - that you've got the math's proving that. I without further math's say that the math's are correct concerning the height of the respective towers (in effect nicking your math's) , yet the conclusion that the water streams upwards is wrong. Asking you to join me in your minds eye walking to the side of set structure seeing then in an axiomatic way that water streaming upwards simply can't be. And, I provide you with an alternate simple common sense scenario. The later in no way evidently at odds with anything known to science.

This is precisely backwards. It's easy to fool yourself with diagrams and analogies, because they lack rigor. There are innumerable people who think an overbalanced wheel will give them unlimited energy, because it's so easy to imagine, so easy to draw and so easy to just write down "there will always be more mass on one side". But you work it out rigorously and you can show it will never work. Same thing here. You need a rigorous model, which means math. No math and the only people who will pay any attention to you are a few overly optimistic souls on a discussion board. But you won't get any traction anywhere else, because math is not a "ploy".

 

 

The more so that if one assumes as I do - and I guess you too - that there are a few basic deterministic starting points of it all that logically interact in a way that will ultimately fit a set of simple mathematical formulas like E = mc2 then one should expect these formulas to shine through, as they do at the scale we look at it. (Analogies like: Normal distribution, yin and yang all over the place etc. Nowhere something from nothing, except with illusionists and people believing in magic etc.) Well then don't expect magic on the large scale. I'm only pointing out that there is a simple common sense scenario that hasn't been look at - at all. Ergo first try and integrate what you've got and only then venture in detail or start extrapolating mathematics.

 

There are plenty of things that aren't intuitive in science and yet they are the best description of how nature behaves. Common sense is overrated; nature is under no obligation to be easily understood by us.

[Greg H.]

I'm only pointing out that there is a simple common sense scenario that hasn't been look at - at all.

Common sense is actually a pretty terrible way to do science. It works reasonably well on scales (time, speed, distance) that we're familiar with, but when you start getting into relativistic effects or quantum mechanics, common sense often deviates significantly from the way the universe really works.

 

I mean, let's be frank - would you accept that as it moved faster and faster, an object gets more massive, while also getting shorter in the lengthwise direction? Those effects, experimentally proven, violate any sort of common notions of how the world worked when they were first proposed.

 

That's (one reason) why scientists are so rigorous about the math - despite our perceptions and our intuitions, math shows us what should happen, regardless of how much sense the answer makes.

Edited January 22, 2014 by Greg H.

[michel123456]

Common sense is actually a pretty terrible way to do science. It works reasonably well on scales (time, speed, distance) that we're familiar with, but when you start getting into relativistic effects or quantum mechanics, common sense often deviates significantly from the way the universe really works.

 

I mean, let's be frank - would you accept that as it moved faster and faster, an object gets more massive, while also getting shorter in the lengthwise direction? Those effects, experimentally proven, violate any sort of common notions of how the world worked when they were first proposed.

 

That's (one reason) why scientists are so rigorous about the math - despite our perceptions and our intuitions, math shows us what should happen, regardless of how much sense the answer makes.

Let be frank, I still don't accept that.

What i accept is that an observer at rest observing a fast moving object will observe the object getting more massive and shorter.

[Greg H.]

Let be frank, I still don't accept that.

What i accept is that an observer at rest observing a fast moving object will observe the object getting more massive and shorter.

Your correction is noted, and appreciated, but the central point remains.

[kristalris]

Common sense is actually a pretty terrible way to do science. It works reasonably well on scales (time, speed, distance) that we're familiar with, but when you start getting into relativistic effects or quantum mechanics, common sense often deviates significantly from the way the universe really works.

 

I mean, let's be frank - would you accept that as it moved faster and faster, an object gets more massive, while also getting shorter in the lengthwise direction? Those effects, experimentally proven, violate any sort of common notions of how the world worked when they were first proposed.

 

That's (one reason) why scientists are so rigorous about the math - despite our perceptions and our intuitions, math shows us what should happen, regardless of how much sense the answer makes.

Ah no, when you have a common sense alternate that is just as good then the Lex parsimony prescribes you use common sense as a law of science.

 

Your SR length contraction example also shows this: if you walk past a bus using six steps and the same bus goes past and that only takes one, would you say the bus has length contracted? Guess not. You can see two light beams passing each other as a Doppler effect as well. Same mathematics yet different way of looking at it. A more simple and thus in science prescribed way.

 

That even then in an area where we know what we are doing SR is IMO a law of physics, one of the best we humans ever had. No qualms with that. It is a specific area where we know what we are doing. Looking at it differently doesn't change that.

 

Point is when we are talking area's where we know that we don't know, what it is we are looking at, different rules should apply. Like solving a crime scene and only rigorously looking at only part of the evidence say only checking the DNA at the door in a (cake) scenario that matches suspect John, ignoring the fact that he has a valid alibi and only working on trying to convict him. Whereas there is an alternate (bubbles) scenario with possible DNA on the broken window with blood on it, yet saying not to want to investigate that. I.e. in the inductive faze you MUST look at all the relevant evidence and check ALL relevant scenario's. The latter is inherently intuitive / creative. (Most scientists would agree BTW) You must integrate it properly. After that you differentiate and rigorously check in the deductive faze. Subsequently you integrate it all again. Leaving one scenario out is a basic error in reasoning that is not remedied by however rigorous you did the DNA on scenario one. A recipe for disaster. In a crime scene as in science.

That's easy. It's not meant to.

 

EQ

 

Incorrectly so. It is supposed to. We observe a galaxy spiraling. You ignore that and only look at part of the "crime scene" and say everything in between the galaxies is expanding and assume that this has no effect on the galaxies. No idea why they spiral. Having them fly through a (Higgs maybe? (irony)) field in a bubble scenario immediately provides an extremely elegant suspect for a solution. Begging for investigation.

 

 

Q

 

Ditto.

 

EQ

 

Ditto

 

Q

 

You're comparing apples and oranges. The cake or balloon analogy is a representation of one aspect of the big bang: expansion, and how it would look the same from any vantage point, i.e. how you can't say there is a center just because everything is receding.

 

I don't know what you mean by infinitely thick walls. That's not part of any model of which I am aware.

 

EQ

 

You can only say that there is no obvious / observed center of the cake. If it is not infinite even if it is pretzel shaped it has a center. If it is an infinite cake it simply is impossible to expand because it would have to expand into itself. Indeed apples and oranges. You need to compare them on an identical denominator of fruit. Two apples and three oranges is five fruit. Not just rigorously staring at part issues. How do all the apples and oranges puzzle pieces fit together in a broad sense?

 

Q

 

This is precisely backwards. It's easy to fool yourself with diagrams and analogies, because they lack rigor. There are innumerable people who think an overbalanced wheel will give them unlimited energy, because it's so easy to imagine, so easy to draw and so easy to just write down "there will always be more mass on one side". But you work it out rigorously and you can show it will never work. Same thing here. You need a rigorous model, which means math. No math and the only people who will pay any attention to you are a few overly optimistic souls on a discussion board. But you won't get any traction anywhere else, because math is not a "ploy".

 

EQ

 

Yes you must try and get a rigorous mathematical model. That is not the issue. The issue is the way to get there. You want to run before you can even walk, just because you can run on part issues.

 

Q

 

 

 

There are plenty of things that aren't intuitive in science and yet they are the best description of how nature behaves. Common sense is overrated; nature is under no obligation to be easily understood by us.

With this I agree. And what I'm saying doesn't conflict with that. Yet you underestimate common sense. And the fact that it is based on a fundamental law of science the Lex parsimony.

Edited January 22, 2014 by kristalris

[ACG52]

kristalris relies on 'common sense' because he has no scientific knowledge to base anything he says on.

[kristalris]

kristalris relies on 'common sense' because he has no scientific knowledge to base anything he says on.

Ah, our great scientist posts. BTW are you a scientist or a biologist?

 

Common sense is broadly held to be the basis of science, and I do have a lot of knowledge and experience in the field of evidence and law especially crime and indeed am doing science on that topic, old boy. And you, what is your claimed authority now you bring it up?

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

ACG52 and kristalris, please try and stay respectful of one another. ACG52, if you don't have anything productive to say, just don't post.

 

...BTW are you a scientist or a biologist?

 

 

 

Because biologists aren't scientists?

[kristalris]

Because it might appear that I've fully tried to trash the cake scenario, I haven't.

 

The pure observation is the law of Hubble and the observations when it all as far as we can see came into being i.e. the Big Bang.

 

The thought that there is no center is an interpretation / assumption of the evidence, nothing more. What is meant by a center must then also be clear of the infinite universe (per definition as none or all places, part of the multi verse (has due to the lex parsimony a center: any universe) our visible universe? The correct scientific position is that we have no discernible center in our universe or at all. That doesn't mean that there isn't one.

 

The only in light of all the evidence feasible cake scenario is one with a boundary that doesn't have to coincide with our visible universe. That must than have a center.

 

The invisible dough that Big Banged itself into existence all across our visible universe is thus a galloping unicorn. I've no problem with that because the entire SM is filled with former unseen unicorns. This invisible dough then should have transformed into what then? Higgs field? How that then? lets assume then Higgs was there prior to the Big Bang. Okay, then having a center should have an effect on the way the cake is formed. Otherwise it exerts no internal pressure whilst expanding. If it does then the center should be discernible with accurate measurement if possible.

!

Moderator Note

ACG52 and kristalris, please try and stay respectful of one another. ACG52, if you don't have anything productive to say, just don't post.

 

 

Because biologists aren't scientists?

No, not all biologists are scientists. Some are. Biology is a science. Just asking if he is a biologist and or a scientist i.e. someone who works in science.

[Spyman]

 

Champagne Cosmology -> after a few drinks you think you can solve the true reality of the universe.

( The only drawback is when the ideas really start to flow, it is nearly impossible to properly document the great discoveries you make.)

Oh well that's also possible without drinks. And, I'm not claiming to have solved it, or that I can.

 

I am sorry, that was meant to be a funny joke on the "Champagne" part and not intended to be personal nor aimed at you.

 

For the rest of your posts, you seem to misinterpret both the metaphor of the bread & the balloon analogies and have some misconceptions about the Big Bang theory that clouds your judgement of modern cosmology. The Big Bang theory is not about an explosion in the center of space flinging objects apart, (like bubbles in champagne), instead it is about a change in the scale of our metric system. You should examine the implications of a metric expansion and how it would differentiate from objects physically moving outward from a center.

 

"The metric expansion of space is the increase of the distance between two distant parts of the universe with time. It is an intrinsic expansion whereby the scale of space itself is changed. That is, a metric expansion is defined by an increase in distance between parts of the universe even without those parts being displaced from their initial locations. This is a different kind of motion than that usually described in kinematics and it also differs from other examples of expansions and explosions in that, as far as observations can ascertain, it is a property of the entirety of the universe rather than a phenomenon that can be contained and observed from the outside."

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

 

You might also want to take a closer look at the current observational evidence in favor for a metric expansion without a center, it appears to be much more robust than what your latest post indicate.

 

"Observational evidence

Theoretical cosmologists developing models of the universe have drawn upon a small number of reasonable assumptions in their work. These workings have led to models in which the metric expansion of space is a likely feature of the universe. Chief among the underlying principles that result in models including metric expansion as a feature are:

• the Cosmological Principle which demands that the universe looks the same way in all directions (isotropic) and has roughly the same smooth mixture of material (homogeneous).
• the Copernican Principle which demands that no place in the universe is preferred (that is, the universe has no "starting point").

Scientists have tested carefully whether these assumptions are valid and borne out by observation. Observational cosmologists have discovered evidence - very strong in some cases - that supports these assumptions, and as a result, metric expansion of space is considered by cosmologists to be an observed feature on the basis that although we cannot see it directly, scientists have tested the properties of the universe and observation provides compelling confirmation. Sources of this confidence and confirmation include:

• Hubble demonstrated that all galaxies and distant astronomical objects were moving away from us, as predicted by a universal expansion. Using the redshift of their electromagnetic spectra to determine the distance and speed of remote objects in space, he showed that all objects are moving away from us, and that their speed is proportional to their distance, a feature of metric expansion. Further studies have since shown the expansion to be extremely isotropic and homogeneous, that is, it does not seem to have a special point as a "center", but appears universal and independent of any fixed central point.
• In studies of large-scale structure of the cosmos taken from redshift surveys a so-called "End of Greatness" was discovered at the largest scales of the universe. Until these scales were surveyed, the universe appeared "lumpy" with clumps of galaxy clusters and superclusters and filaments which were anything but isotropic and homogeneous. This lumpiness disappears into a smooth distribution of galaxies at the largest scales.
• The isotropic distribution across the sky of distant gamma-ray bursts and supernovae is another confirmation of the Cosmological Principle.
• The Copernican Principle was not truly tested on a cosmological scale until measurements of the effects of the cosmic microwave background radiation on the dynamics of distant astrophysical systems were made. A group of astronomers at the European Southern Observatory noticed, by measuring the temperature of a distant intergalactic cloud in thermal equilibrium with the cosmic microwave background, that the radiation from the Big Bang was demonstrably warmer at earlier times. Uniform cooling of the cosmic microwave background over billions of years is strong and direct observational evidence for metric expansion.

Taken together, these phenomena overwhelmingly support models that rely on space expanding through a change in metric. Interestingly, it was not until the discovery in the year 2000 of direct observational evidence for the changing temperature of the cosmic microwave background that more bizarre constructions could be ruled out. Until that time, it was based purely on an assumption that the universe did not behave as one with the Milky Way sitting at the middle of a fixed-metric with a universal explosion of galaxies in all directions (as seen in, for example, an early model proposed by Milne). Yet before this evidence, many rejected the Milne viewpoint based on the mediocrity principle.

 

The spatial and temporal universality of physical laws was until very recently taken as a fundamental philosophical assumption that is now tested to the observational limits of time and space.

"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space#Observational_evidence

[swansont]

Ah no, when you have a common sense alternate that is just as good then the Lex parsimony prescribes you use common sense as a law of science.

 

We're stuck on you demonstrating that the alternative is just as good. All we have thus far is your say-so, and that's not nearly enough.

 

Point is when we are talking area's where we know that we don't know, what it is we are looking at, different rules should apply. Like solving a crime scene and only rigorously looking at only part of the evidence say only checking the DNA at the door in a (cake) scenario that matches suspect John, ignoring the fact that he has a valid alibi and only working on trying to convict him. Whereas there is an alternate (bubbles) scenario with possible DNA on the broken window with blood on it, yet saying not to want to investigate that. I.e. in the inductive faze you MUST look at all the relevant evidence and check ALL relevant scenario's. The latter is inherently intuitive / creative. (Most scientists would agree BTW) You must integrate it properly. After that you differentiate and rigorously check in the deductive faze. Subsequently you integrate it all again. Leaving one scenario out is a basic error in reasoning that is not remedied by however rigorous you did the DNA on scenario one. A recipe for disaster. In a crime scene as in science.

How about expending more effort actually developing a model, and less with bad analogies of analogies?

Because it might appear that I've fully tried to trash the cake scenario, I haven't.

 

The pure observation is the law of Hubble and the observations when it all as far as we can see came into being i.e. the Big Bang.

 

The thought that there is no center is an interpretation / assumption of the evidence, nothing more.

Yes. And the cake/balloon analogies are simply easily-imagined explanations of this aspect of the big bang.

 

What is meant by a center must then also be clear of the infinite universe (per definition as none or all places, part of the multi verse (has due to the lex parsimony a center: any universe) our visible universe? The correct scientific position is that we have no discernible center in our universe or at all. That doesn't mean that there isn't one.

And, if one wants to claim there is a center, one must have a model and show how the evidence fits the model, in such a way that this is falsifiable.

 

The only in light of all the evidence feasible cake scenario is one with a boundary that doesn't have to coincide with our visible universe. That must than have a center.

 

No, the analogy only refers to the interior of the cake.

 

The invisible dough that Big Banged itself into existence all across our visible universe is thus a galloping unicorn. I've no problem with that because the entire SM is filled with former unseen unicorns. This invisible dough then should have transformed into what then? Higgs field? How that then? lets assume then Higgs was there prior to the Big Bang. Okay, then having a center should have an effect on the way the cake is formed. Otherwise it exerts no internal pressure whilst expanding. If it does then the center should be discernible with accurate measurement if possible.

You keep mentioning the Higgs, but the Higgs is not part of cosmology at all.

[kristalris]

Thank you Spyman.

 

I wasn't aware of several points you put forward in the link to metric expansion of space. I'll give it some more study.

 

After reading through it all my first reaction is: how shore, and based on what evidence, are we that light outside any gravitational field travels in an absolutely straight line?

 

And second: how shore, and based on what evidence, are we that light doesn't very slowly red-shift outside any gravitational field?

 

If namely light doesn't move in a straight line you get a very constant lens-ing at great distances.I.e it might appear larger and closer than it actually is.

 

And if it over great time also very constantly red-shifts in a for us measurable way it seems to have greater speed than actually was present at the time the light was sent.

 

Both effects could be due to the Higgs field BTW. We know there is a Higgs field that effects everything else in an at the moment measurable way, so why not photons as well? Assuming there is no interaction given the counter intuitive readings and measurements based on assumptions that hold true at relatively short distances but don't the further you go. Akin the flat earth concept.

Edited January 23, 2014 by kristalris

[swansont]

Both effects could be due to the Higgs field BTW. We know there is a Higgs field that effects everything else in an at the moment measurable way, so why not photons as well? Assuming there is no interaction given the counter intuitive readings and measurements based on assumptions that hold true at relatively short distances but don't the further you go. Akin the flat earth concept.

 

The theory that predicted the Higgs has, as part of it, that the Higgs would not interact with photons. It's not as if you can just ignore parts of theories that don't suit you. This is not a bit of magic, where you can summon the Higgs to create some arbitrary effect.

[kristalris]

 

The theory that predicted the Higgs has, as part of it, that the Higgs would not interact with photons. It's not as if you can just ignore parts of theories that don't suit you. This is not a bit of magic, where you can summon the Higgs to create some arbitrary effect.

Magic indeed. The counter intuitive yet mathematically based theory on not integrated because inherently contradictory part issues you hold true, even though neigh infinitely improbable and the very probable you hold to be magic.

 

In Leyden the old observatory is still used because the photo's taken a hundred years ago can then be compared to the ones made today in the same way. This because the distortion by the optically not so perfect as today lenses give the same distortion.

 

Ergo if you want to observe something you must use the right tool. Cosmologists / physicists etc in science think they use the right tools. Forgetting / ignoring one very important tool: the human brain, and the distortions it creates in the way we perceive data. We know via neurology and psychology a lot about this and it is widely accepted that different personalities come up with different views based on the same data. This is also relative. Most grownups are Einsteins to six year old's. You have fast thinkers and slower thinkers. apart from that at the deepest personality level (under pressure of a threatening problem appearing) 10% are goal orientated creative break the rules fighters, 80% authority orientated stunned inactive hard workers and 10% are relationship orientated who flee as first instinct.

 

One level higher in this important rule of thumb model - in a safe(!) environment - everybody can change more or less well into the other two personalities. This can to a certain extent also be trained. You could say 50% of male female people come from Mars and 50% of male / female people come from Venus.

 

In an unsafe environment where you know that you will get flamed at the stake for saying that the world is not flat but a sphere, only 10% emotionally would dare to do so, but might rationally choose not to. When observing a complicated phenomenon only the quick of mind with sufficient knowledge and experience, will have a sufficient chance of interpreting all the data in a way that leads to solving the problem.

 

History keeps repeating itself in the march of folly (Barbara Tuchman). In fact the brain creates a Bayesian inversion, under pressure 90% of all human populations on average will turn the world upside down in interpreting data in the way they are supposed to by their authoritative peers, peering through the telescope.

 

Because what you are doing is completely irrational. You place a far to high a norm on the issue because that is what the authoritative peers / the book in effect say so.

 

What happens when you place a too high a norm on something? Well let's see: on an absolute norm science has proven nothing at all on anything. On a mathematical norm of proof science only has proven a lot in the field of pure mathematics. On a Rutherford norm physics has proven quite a bit, yet if we go GR / QM etc. it becomes statistical in nature so then science would have proven little on those issues. In law we prove things at very low norms indeed. One such norm is what is BTW incorrectly only named circumstantial evidence. You can do this correctly however. In law the same way as in science. In an area where we know that we don't know the exact answer because all the evidence is not available the norm the judge our brainchild is not to state that the baby is no good because it can't run. To judge which seeds have potential to grow into a wise old oak and which don't you need the creative to look at the data and choose. The others always get it inverted. Yet then claim this is so with the other.

 

Same here: going for Harry Potters tent like interpretation of the data - assuming! - that photons - contrary to everything (!) else we observe - can originate from particles that age, yet themselves don't age (via red-shifting thus even outside gravitational fields). What the formula / mathematical theory of Higgs included or not included is irrelevant because it only deals with a part issue. Namely giving mass to slow particles and not the fast ones like photons. That doesn't mean that assuming that the omnipresent Higgs field might have other effects up its sleeve is belief in magic, like you state. Especially so when your alternate is admittedly counter intuitive on a part issue whereas my alternate is intuitive simple and integral from the extremely small to the extremely large.

 

Proof then based on circumstantial evidence on the correctly applicable norm using the required correct tool of verbal logic. The modeling you require is the job of scientists, not mine.

 

Again I'm not saying that the Higgs field works this way, I'm saying I've proven a concept in science leading to the conclusion that it is science that needs to start looking in the direction this proof points in stead of coming up with evident garbage in mathematical based psychologically explainable distorted interpretations of data based on ludicrous assumptions.

 

It is a law of science the lex parsimony that forces you to put an integral common sense position above your counter intuitive non integral view because it is at the required norm on paradigm par.

 

I know that I won't convince the majority of scientists because to do that I must fit the irrational way their brains force them to interpret this data. It leads to an emotional response like laughter and ridicule, anger irritation etc.. The only thing I can do is point at the irrationality of it. Common sense isn't magic, counter intuitive solutions are when used outside the area where they evidently work. That is always the case when you are trying to solve a mystery.