Thinking Straight About Curved Space

[Scott Mayers]

"this same theory must also be deducible from metaphysical first principles by using the ordinary tools of formal logic" this is exactly medieval scholasticism.

No it isn't and I make this point quite emphatically in my philosophy. I maintain that philosophy without science is just as useless as science without philosophy. I regard them as inseparable.

But what metaphysical first principles are acceptable?

This is a very tricky question which yields no easy answer. In my philosophy I maintain that Simplicity is Truth and thus assume only two such axioms.

1. The universe is everything that exists

2. All effects must be preceded by a cause.

I regard these axioms as not further reducible, i.e they cannot be logically derived from more fundamental first principles because they ARE fundamental first principles. My entire philosophy can be derived by logical deduction from only these two metaphysical first principles along with the normal scientific methodology of inductive inference from observation.

Why not begin with nothing itself?

I argue to show that (a), a nothing exists. Since we are living observers, we default to (b) at least something is real.

For (a), all that is required is to give meaning to anything we understand as nothing and which provides use for us using it. One example is the 'empty pocket' I referred to above. We know that such a thing as no quantity (a zero amount) represents real meaning to an infinite set of things [If you have nothing in your pocket, you also have no elephants in your pocket, no cars in your pocket, no ideas in your pocket, ....to infinity.] This demonstrates that at least nothing is a possibility to the origin of our totality (or your universe).

As a real entity, then we can supplant nothing as a premise. It would also act as a conclusion in that not even logic pre-exists. But whatever this 'nothingness' could be, we know that (b) assures us of at least one thing real. So in such an intellectual experiment (using observation here), we have to accept that if nothing exists, it begs that it is also ONE thing true about totality ('universe' to you). Thus it is true that even assuming one implies the other. If totality only contained this, then one pure nothing and one pure something are equivalent AND yet somehow not. (?) This contradiction is resolved by totality as a difference of perspective only. These different perspectives are what I refer to as dimensions.

One such 'dimension' is the ordering of each (whether it be a nothing to a something OR a something to a nothing). To you, this is like your ordering due to 'causation'. But 'causation' implies 'time'. 'Time' is just one unique kind of ordering though and can be derived later. [It might take us 'time' to draw a picture. But unless we are watching the artist do the drawing, it is best to assume the apparent picture without time. In fact, one such time is prior to the moment the artist even begins....a blank page.]

[Obvious Leo]

Scott. If you imagine that I have any interest in pursuing a conversation with somebody who wants to refute the first law of thermodynamics then I'm afraid you've picked the wrong bloke. Try Larry Krauss.

[Scott Mayers]

Scott. If you imagine that I have any interest in pursuing a conversation with somebody who wants to refute the first law of thermodynamics then I'm afraid you've picked the wrong bloke. Try Larry Krauss.

Laws of thermodynamics are not even applicable here!! Explain yourself how you feel this applies?

[Obvious Leo]

Why not begin with nothing itself?

My understanding is that this topic was dealing in concepts relating to physics. If I've misunderstood your meaning I apologise and simply ask you to explain the above question. Why not begin WHAT with nothing? Please bear in mind that "ex nihilo nihil fit" is one of the most ancient and uncontroversial concepts in metaphysics and I have better things to do with my time than argue the toss with somebody who wishes to dispute it.

[nix]

Why are you holding back? What IS THIS PARTICULAR STEADY STATE HYPOTHESIS you are only indirectly referring to but not stating?

Why can no such distribution of frequencies exist following any Steady-State type model? You accept the SS as being able to recognize isotropy but seem to be implying it asserts some contradiction in homogeneity?

I suggest one such possibility for black body radiation AND its spread: potential matter in between that both creates the black body effect from something prior to it AND (if nature somewhere else suggests any uneven distribution expected), such matter would also smear the distinction of the sources spreading the appearance out just as clouds can disperse light evenly across the sky without being able to interpret the distinct location of the sun. This is just one thought on the top of my head.
?[/b]

Steady state hypothesis: The universe is expanding but not from a big bang event. Consequently it has been expanding as it is now, for an infinite time before now. To allow for a non zero matter density of this universe matter must somehow constantly come into being with the expansion.

You still haven't understood the argument about the CMBR!

You say of me: "You accept the SS as being able to recognize isotropy but seem to be implying it asserts some contradiction in homogeneity?" I imply no such thing! The CMBR is isotropic (same in all directions) and homogeneous (same throughout all of space). It is because of this and the fact that all of space is expanding that we cannot get a correct prediction from the SS hypothesis, of the distribution of frequencies which is observed here on earth. This is because whatever the local distribution of frequencies is emitted at any point in space, we will observe those frequencies red shifted by an amount which depends on the distance of that point from us. So what we would see here on earth is the sum of all the contributions from all points in space, the different red shifts of the locally emited spectra from different points destroy the possibility of seeing a simple distribution (the blackbody distribution) which we actually observe. The distinction of SS and BB generation of the CMBR is that in the SS the radiation has its origin at every point in space and at every time (it is still being emitted) but in BB it originates at one particular time in the evolution of the universe and hence it originates from one distance from us not from every distance as in the SS model.

Your suggestion quoted above will give homogeneous and isotropic background but it will still have the wrong frequency distribution because of the different red shifts on radiation from different distances.

[Obvious Leo]

the fact that all of space is expanding

Nix. As you know my opinion of the expanding space matches my opinion of the curved space but I'll ask this question anyway just to stir up a bit of shit.

Is space expanding at the same rate throughout the universe?

[nix]

No theory is required to supply prediction beyond its scope. ....
What kind of evidence could possibly disprove the Big Bang theory?

This is absolutely wrong if you mean that the theory doesn't have to make predictions of phenomena that are different from those that led to its formulation. Any such theory that only gives us back what we put into it is worthless!

If the universe did indeed have a big bang then no possible evidence could disprove the big bang theory! We could subject the theory to more and more tests of predictions ( if we were ingenious enough to think of such tests) and the theory would pass each test.

You blithely dismiss the argument about cosmic abundance of the elements. Perhaps you didn't understand it: It goes as follows:

There is observed to be vastly more Helium in the universe than expected on the basis of burning of hydrogen in even the hottest stars observable anywhere. The observed Hydrogen -Helium ratio can only be explained if at some time the universe had a much ,much higher temperature. This is immediately contrary to the SS hypothesis, but is consistent with the BB model. From known nuclear reaction rates it is possible to calculate the sort of temperatures needed to explain the ratio and these are consistent with the Temperature of the early BB calculated from the CMBR (i.e. before it was massively red shifted because of its origin's distance from us)

[nix]

the fact that all of space is expanding

Nix. As you know my opinion of the expanding space matches my opinion of the curved space but I'll ask this question anyway just to stir up a bit of shit.

Is space expanding at the same rate throughout the universe?

The speed of the expansion looks to us as if it increases the further away from us (Hubble's law). But that doesn't mean the expansion rate is not the same throughout the universe as the following consideration shows:

Imagine a cubic lattice (lots of same size cubes packed through space with the vertices noted as points defining a coordinate system). The nearest neighbour distances are all d (say) at some initial time. We now apply a scale factor, a, to the whole lattice.
Nearest neighbours are all now a.d apart. So a uniform expansion has occurred. But if we were sitting on a particular grid point we would see all the other gird points receding from us and the amount they receded would depend on the distance from us (just as in the Hubble law)

[Obvious Leo]

So space is expanding at the same speed between here and the moon as it is between Pluto and Alpha Centuari, for instance? Have I got that right?

[nix]

So space is expanding at the same speed between here and the moon as it is between Pluto and Alpha Centuari, for instance? Have I got that right?

Yes but because the distance to the moon is so small compared to Alpha Centuari the actual change in distance could never be measured! The best laser ranging experiments which measure the distance to the moon are accurate to about 1cm in 1/4 million miles, but eny expansion effect is way below this.

[Obvious Leo]

So space is expanding at the same speed between here and the moon as it is between Pluto and Alpha Centuari, for instance? Have I got that right?

Yes but because the distance to the moon is so small compared to Alpha Centuari the actual change in distance could never be measured! The best laser ranging experiments which measure the distance to the moon are accurate to about 1cm in 1/4 million miles, but eny expansion effect is way below this.

It sounds like crap to me because the moon is in fact moving away from the earth at a rate of 4cm per year but I'll let it go because I've got a harder one for you.

What about the space between the Milky Way and the Andromeda Galaxy. Is that expanding at the same rate as well?

[nix]

So space is expanding at the same speed between here and the moon as it is between Pluto and Alpha Centuari, for instance? Have I got that right?

Yes but because the distance to the moon is so small compared to Alpha Centuari the actual change in distance could never be measured! The best laser ranging experiments which measure the distance to the moon are accurate to about 1cm in 1/4 million miles, but eny expansion effect is way below this.

It sounds like crap to me because the moon is in fact moving away from the earth at a rate of 4cm per year but I'll let it go because I've got a harder one for you.

What about the space between the Milky Way and the Andromeda Galaxy. Is that expanding at the same rate as well?

Yes the 4cm motion of the moon is not due to the hubble expansion of space it is due to tidal friction, (The moon gains angular momentum as the tides slow earth's rotation and so the moon is moving out to larger orbits). The moon is moving relative to the commoving hubble coordinate frame whose expansion is not detectable on tiny scales of the earth -moon distance.

The Hubble expansion of space will give the observed red shift vs distance relation for galaxies and other objects which are stationary with respect to the commoving coordinate frame (in our example of the lattice, that lattice of points is the co moving coordinate frame which is continuously expanding at a constant rate as in my example, i.e. scale factor a(t) ~ Ht. Any galaxy that has additional motion with respect to the co moving coordinate frame will deviate from the hubble law relation by a small amount and this also is observed.

[Scott Mayers]

Why are you holding back? What IS THIS PARTICULAR STEADY STATE HYPOTHESIS you are only indirectly referring to but not stating?

Why can no such distribution of frequencies exist following any Steady-State type model? You accept the SS as being able to recognize isotropy but seem to be implying it asserts some contradiction in homogeneity?

I suggest one such possibility for black body radiation AND its spread: potential matter in between that both creates the black body effect from something prior to it AND (if nature somewhere else suggests any uneven distribution expected), such matter would also smear the distinction of the sources spreading the appearance out just as clouds can disperse light evenly across the sky without being able to interpret the distinct location of the sun. This is just one thought on the top of my head.
?[/b]

Steady state hypothesis: The universe is expanding but not from a big bang event. Consequently it has been expanding as it is now, for an infinite time before now. To allow for a non zero matter density of this universe matter must somehow constantly come into being with the expansion.

You still haven't understood the argument about the CMBR!

You say of me: "You accept the SS as being able to recognize isotropy but seem to be implying it asserts some contradiction in homogeneity?" I imply no such thing! The CMBR is isotropic (same in all directions) and homogeneous (same throughout all of space). It is because of this and the fact that all of space is expanding that we cannot get a correct prediction from the SS hypothesis, of the distribution of frequencies which is observed here on earth. This is because whatever the local distribution of frequencies is emitted at any point in space, we will observe those frequencies red shifted by an amount which depends on the distance of that point from us. So what we would see here on earth is the sum of all the contributions from all points in space, the different red shifts of the locally emited spectra from different points destroy the possibility of seeing a simple distribution (the blackbody distribution) which we actually observe. The distinction of SS and BB generation of the CMBR is that in the SS the radiation has its origin at every point in space and at every time (it is still being emitted) but in BB it originates at one particular time in the evolution of the universe and hence it originates from one distance from us not from every distance as in the SS model.

Your suggestion quoted above will give homogeneous and isotropic background but it will still have the wrong frequency distribution because of the different red shifts on radiation from different distances.

As I see it, you interpret that it is essential that if SS is correct, it MUST have directly confirming evidence of energy as space expands. Yet, while others in the old SS tradition may or may not have believed this [I don't know them all], my theory necessarily requires that spacial expansion should NOT be able to measure any energy as 'energy' is a function of matter first!! That is, what information comes from space as it expands is non-energetic by our definition of "energy" at first.

I used to originally explain what this phenomena is as a form of "energy" that has no mass. Yet this I now believe only confuses people. A better way to define it is that what comes from the expansion of space is mere information (of its spacial addition) that can only come into existence in the form of vector lines that lack breadth as strings and have no means to convey any kind of material existence outside of it as being informational spaces. Space here is still a something but we cannot directly find any 'force' component without these lines contacting one another in a unique and highly less occasion to contradict. This is ONLY when or where such arbitrary lines hit head on head to cause these 'strings' of information to require resorting to allowing a spin factor. These 'spin' factors create curved lines which are precisely WHAT matter IS with respect to the rest of space.

I believe, though am not certain, that gravity itself is a likely cause of these infinite (straight) lines that conflict with curved lines and so just happens to be a more realistic phenomena that demonstrates the reality of this information that gets added everywhere at every point. It is NOT "energy" directly until it affects what matter (as curved lines) that exists once some of these lines contradict.

I was trying not to divulge some of this extension of my theory here and nor is this sufficient for this thread but feel that perhaps if you or others can recognize how this can evolve, it might make you question your own bias against a Steady State type model. You cannot interpret my form of SS model here as requiring white body radiation in the least as the initial 'information' that enters as spacial expansion cannot directly mean anything UNLESS matter is derived first from it.

[Scott Mayers]

Why not begin with nothing itself?

My understanding is that this topic was dealing in concepts relating to physics. If I've misunderstood your meaning I apologise and simply ask you to explain the above question. Why not begin WHAT with nothing? Please bear in mind that "ex nihilo nihil fit" is one of the most ancient and uncontroversial concepts in metaphysics and I have better things to do with my time than argue the toss with somebody who wishes to dispute it.

If it was so uncontroversial, I'm confused at your unwillingness to accept it as the foundation of reason to begin with? This is necessary prior to solving all of physics, not simply a metaphysical piece of non-sense.

You propose some meaninglessness to space but trade an even worse proposition with regards to time. Time is a derivative of space and only 'appears' real to our local inability to see all of totality objectively. You also propose "laws" (though you simultaneously deny they are such) such as this 'time' and causation. But what is your own rationality unless you defer to a Deistic entity that commands 'time', 'causation', and perhaps, 'order'? In my model, the key to a non-Deistic, non-theistic reality requires even "laws" requiring force to become. In my model, when we assume no limits to what nothing itself could mean, it begs of totality as containing all that is 'locally real' as well as all that is not. This is why in my theory, consistency and inconsistency both exist as it doesn't bias one for the other. It is like an infinite set of data as information that exists 'out there' to which some sets form consistent realities while others do not. The ones that do not are never able to be interpreted as being 'consistent' simply because they are 'inconsistent'.

I use the analogy of puzzle pieces to which all information is a piece and all combinations of such pieces are worlds or universes of their own. But many such pictures that can be formed of them do not create sensible pictures. If they did, they could only be defaulted to being meaningful or consistent. Since we are a product of consistent reality, this suggests that totality creates some pictures that evolutionarily connect similar consistencies together for consistent worlds. It doesn't mean that the 'dead' worlds don't exist just as in evolution we don't deny that more species that ever live today don't imply that there were no species that ever went extinct. In fact, as Darwin demonstrated, there is more death in nature than there is to those that survive and that such death is just as necessary to what ends up surviving. In kind, a totality only makes sense if it has as many infinite worlds that make any consistent world be viable. To think otherwise is to digress into the pre-Darwinian and religious beliefs about causation that reduces to fatalism.

[Scott Mayers]

No theory is required to supply prediction beyond its scope. ....
What kind of evidence could possibly disprove the Big Bang theory?

This is absolutely wrong if you mean that the theory doesn't have to make predictions of phenomena that are different from those that led to its formulation. Any such theory that only gives us back what we put into it is worthless!

If the universe did indeed have a big bang then no possible evidence could disprove the big bang theory! We could subject the theory to more and more tests of predictions ( if we were ingenious enough to think of such tests) and the theory would pass each test.

You blithely dismiss the argument about cosmic abundance of the elements. Perhaps you didn't understand it: It goes as follows:

There is observed to be vastly more Helium in the universe than expected on the basis of burning of hydrogen in even the hottest stars observable anywhere. The observed Hydrogen -Helium ratio can only be explained if at some time the universe had a much ,much higher temperature. This is immediately contrary to the SS hypothesis, but is consistent with the BB model. From known nuclear reaction rates it is possible to calculate the sort of temperatures needed to explain the ratio and these are consistent with the Temperature of the early BB calculated from the CMBR (i.e. before it was massively red shifted because of its origin's distance from us)

Your (or others) error here is to presume any measure of a fixed quantity that your determine exists for the mere observing from one biased location in space. I can't see you from here. So when I look around, am I supposed to only infer what exists from my own biased perspective? You arrogantly dismiss this rationale when you interpret what we from Earth alone are able to interpret about reality is ALL that there is. How conveniently solipsistic!