Einstein on the train

[Age]

The so called evidence which you talk about in your book clearly SHOWS that parts of the Universe is contracting while
parts are expanding Now how is that even logically possible if we are to take the Universe to mean ALL THERE IS

The Universe is a dynamic system that is in a constant state of motion so is not something fixed and static

Yes agreed.

WHY would you say such a thing to Me, especially in regards to what I have continually said about this.

The definition of it as ALL THERE IS is still absolutely true even though it is expanding beyond light speed

But if the Universe is at parts contracting while at parts expanding, supposedly "beyond light speed", WHERE EXACTLY are the different parts? And, WHAT or HOW are those different parts distinguished separately?

Also, IF light diminishes over distance, then HOW would human beings KNOW what is out past what they can observe?

HOW could human beings EVER KNOW the "outer", "boundary", "limit", or what ever else you human beings want to call the SUPPOSED "edge" of the Universe, which is APPARENTLY the outer part of the Universe, which is the ALLEGED expanding "front"?

You human beings can NOT even observe to that point, so HOW could you EVER KNOW IF there is any thing beyond that?

If an "edge" has NOT yet been observed, then WHY jump to the conclusion and/or say that the Universe IS expanding?

The so called "expansion" being observed is only a minuscule fraction of the Universe Itself.

There is NO actual evidence that the Universe, Itself, is expanding, especially when the same people say that the Universe is contracting.

[surreptitious57]

Cosmic inflation and the red shift of galaxies is evidence of expansion though it is very small
The acceleration rate produced by the cosmological constant is I0 - 8 centimetres per second

[surreptitious57]

Physical matter moves around FREELY due to the space in between and around
matter interacting with each other creating absolutely EVERY thing the way that it is

Physical matter does not move around freely at all
It is restricted by gravity - electromagnetism - strong nuclear force - weak nuclear force - general relativity - dark energy - mass
For it to move around freely none of these could exist - only an absolute vacuum - but this is not a standard feature of spacetime

ALL matter is FREE to move because of the space around it Is that better ?

No not really because that statement does not actually reference any of the restrictions
The movement of matter is restricted by forces acting upon it is the best way to say this

[Age]

Physical matter does not move around freely at all
It is restricted by gravity - electromagnetism - strong nuclear force - weak nuclear force - general relativity - dark energy - mass
For it to move around freely none of these could exist - only an absolute vacuum - but this is not a standard feature of spacetime

ALL matter is FREE to move because of the space around it Is that better ?

No not really because that statement does not actually reference any of the restrictions
The movement of matter is restricted by forces acting upon it is the best way to say this

The restrictions do NOT have to be necessarily known, nor be made aware of, to understand the fact that physical particles of 'matter' are FREE to move about because of non-matter 'space'. There is a freedom, and also restrictions (which you talk about here). But to point out the two most fundamental things of the Universe, which SHOWS that the Universe is infinite and eternal, all that NEEDS to be KNOWN is that 'matter' and 'space' co-exist ALWAYS. 'Space' ALLOWS physical matter to move about, contract, and/or expand.

Physical matter may contract or expand, but the Universe, Itself, can NOT. The Universe is eternal and infinite in Nature.

[Scott Mayers]

ALL matter is FREE to move because of the space around it Is that better ?

No not really because that statement does not actually reference any of the restrictions
The movement of matter is restricted by forces acting upon it is the best way to say this

The restrictions do NOT have to be necessarily known, nor be made aware of, to understand the fact that physical particles of 'matter' are FREE to move about because of non-matter 'space'. There is a freedom, and also restrictions (which you talk about here). But to point out the two most fundamental things of the Universe, which SHOWS that the Universe is infinite and eternal, all that NEEDS to be KNOWN is that 'matter' and 'space' co-exist ALWAYS. 'Space' ALLOWS physical matter to move about, contract, and/or expand.

Physical matter may contract or expand, but the Universe, Itself, can NOT. The Universe is eternal and infinite in Nature.

Although you've already dissed me for attempting to try to help make sense of you fairly before, I'll present a diagram of mine used elsewhere to show what I think you mean. The following image is identical IN MEANING to an expanding spacial universe:

A paradox of Expansion.41...png

This treats the space (or background of matter and energy) as conserved as 'ONE unit'. As time progresses, for 'space' to have meaning as 'expanding', this is indifferent to treating space as fixed and for 'matter' to be everywhere shrinking eternally. As such, this perception MAY show what you might be thinking: that if space is allowed to come from nowhere, then something is non-conserved. You might then agree to either a 'static' interpretation of the universe, OR an infinite expansion of both space and time in sync, as a 'steady state' interpretation. The 'steady state' type would keep the relative matter/energy and space constant IN DENSITY, such that AS expansion of space may occur, matter and energy equally 'expands' to remain conserved as a whole.

Does this at least help express your own interpretation? You don't have to pick any particular interpretation about what IS in fact the case. This illustration at least shows that using a Big Bang interpretation seems off balance and contradictory or cheating when it treats space contradictory as both being something and nothing. By cherry picking when 'real' versus 'non-real' meanings of space, I have a contention with the BB theory precisely for this allowance of selective freedom.

[Age]

No not really because that statement does not actually reference any of the restrictions
The movement of matter is restricted by forces acting upon it is the best way to say this

The restrictions do NOT have to be necessarily known, nor be made aware of, to understand the fact that physical particles of 'matter' are FREE to move about because of non-matter 'space'. There is a freedom, and also restrictions (which you talk about here). But to point out the two most fundamental things of the Universe, which SHOWS that the Universe is infinite and eternal, all that NEEDS to be KNOWN is that 'matter' and 'space' co-exist ALWAYS. 'Space' ALLOWS physical matter to move about, contract, and/or expand.

Physical matter may contract or expand, but the Universe, Itself, can NOT. The Universe is eternal and infinite in Nature.

Although you've already dissed me for attempting to try to help make sense of you fairly before,

What do 'you' mean by I have ALREADY 'dissed' you?

If you think/feel that I have already disrespected you and/or criticized you, then show WHERE and explain WHY, then we can LOOK AT it, and then we can discuss. Until then I have NO clue as to what you are referring to here.

Also, HOW exactly does one 'attempt to TRY TO help make sense of "another" fairly?

I find just asking clarifying question/s DOES help in making sense of, or understanding, "another".

Do you have examples of what exactly is involved when 'attempting to try to help make sense of another fairly'?

I'll present a diagram of mine used elsewhere to show what I think you mean. The following image is identical IN MEANING to an expanding spacial universe:

IF you think I mean that there is an expanding spacial Universe, then what you think I mean is totally WRONG.

To me the Universe can NOT expand because It is infinite. Therefore I MEAN the Universe can NOT expand, spatially nor any other way. Surely that was NEVER that hard to understand.

A paradox of Expansion.41...png

This treats the space (or background of matter and energy) as conserved as 'ONE unit'. As time progresses, for 'space' to have meaning as 'expanding', this is indifferent to treating space as fixed and for 'matter' to be everywhere shrinking eternally. As such, this perception MAY show what you might be thinking: that if space is allowed to come from nowhere, then something is non-conserved. You might then agree to either a 'static' interpretation of the universe, OR an infinite expansion of both space and time in sync, as a 'steady state' interpretation. The 'steady state' type would keep the relative matter/energy and space constant IN DENSITY, such that AS expansion of space may occur, matter and energy equally 'expands' to remain conserved as a whole.

I am very slow and simple and really I do NOT have a clue what you are saying here. Maybe you are saying what I am saying, and maybe you are NOT. I really do NOT know.

But how about I explain what I MEAN, very SIMPLY.

If there are stars/planets/objects/matter beyond what human beings can observe, human beings will NEVER know.
How far space extends for, past observable objects, human beings will NEVER know.
If there is an end/boundary/limit/wall to space, then how thick/far does that end/boundary/limit/wall extend? AND,
What is then on the "other side" of that end/boundary/limit/wall human beings will NEVER know.

The only end/boundary/limit/wall to space, IS physical matter itself.
As long as there is space AND physical matter, then the sum of those things IS ALL-THERE-IS.
ALL-THERE-IS is, sometimes, defined as the Universe, Itself.
Physical matter and space co-exist.
Either one can exist on its own "infinitely" and "eternally" BUT either of them could NOT HAVE existed because the other could NOT have come about, from the ONE thing.
If both co-exist, then NEVER can one just exist.
Both co-exist.
'Space' AND 'matter' co-exist.
The Universe is made up of these two basic fundamental things.
Space and matter co-exist infinitely and eternally.
Therefore, the Universe IS infinite (in "space") and eternal (in "time").
(Although, and for a much later discussion, contradictory 'space' AND 'time' do NOT actually exist at all.)

Does this at least help express your own interpretation?

As far as I can tell, NOT one bit.

You don't have to pick any particular interpretation about what IS in fact the case. This illustration at least shows that using a Big Bang interpretation seems off balance and contradictory or cheating when it treats space contradictory as both being something and nothing. By cherry picking when 'real' versus 'non-real' meanings of space, I have a contention with the BB theory precisely for this allowance of selective freedom.

Honestly, I have NO idea what the illustration shows nor means.

Quite simply, the Universe exists NOW, ALWAYS, in different shape and form.

The reason why the Universe CAN change in shape and form, and IS, in CONSTANT-change is because the Universe consists of two very basic fundamental things, they are; 'matter' AND 'space, around matter'.

The space, around matter, ALLOWS matter to move about FREELY, which ALLOWS the Universe to ALWAYS be in a CONSTANT state of CHANGE.

Think about IF ALL particles of matter contracted into an infinite compression of matter.

Now for this infinite compression of single matter (singularity) to expand, then what would be NEEDED would be SPACE for it to expand. Therefore, even if some people want to BELIEVE that there was a "beginning", with a "big bang", then what was NEEDED, BEFORE that, so called, "bang", would be 'matter' and 'space'.
If ALL pieces of matter were compressed down into one singular piece of matter, then that, combined with the NECESSARY space, would BE the Universe, Itself, just in ANOTHER shape or form.

IF the Universe IS made up of the two fundamental things of 'space' AND 'matter', then the Universe MUST exist infinite AND eternal. Just ALWAYS in a different shape and form.

The Universe could NOT be any different.

Unless, OF COURSE, otherwise can be SHOWN.


By the way if you really do WANT TO KNOW what I MEAN, then just ask me clarifying questions in regards to the what I say/the words I use.

For all I know YOUR interpretation of what the Universe is and how the Universe works might be completely True whereas MY interpretation might be completely False, and/or BOTH of "our" interpretations are partly True and partly False. Really I do NOT care.

From the thoughts inside this body, those thoughts appear to be true and correct. (That is NOT to say that they are, however.) And, for all intention and purpose I really do NOT care what the Universe is, nor how It works, I have NO really interest in that, I am just EXPRESSING the VIEWS/THOUGHTS, which are within this body.

As I have NO real interest in this subject I have NO real interest in clarifying what you are saying nor what your illustration SHOWS. This is NOT to dismiss 'you' but just to say I have NO real interest in wanting to understand what you are showing here. I, however, am more than happy to clarify and explain better, and in much more detail, what is being expressed here, from my point-of-view.

[Scott Mayers]

Although you've already dissed me for attempting to try to help make sense of you fairly before,

What do 'you' mean by I have ALREADY 'dissed' you?

If you think/feel that I have already disrespected you and/or criticized you, then show WHERE and explain WHY, then we can LOOK AT it, and then we can discuss. Until then I have NO clue as to what you are referring to here.

Also, HOW exactly does one 'attempt to TRY TO help make sense of "another" fairly?

I find just asking clarifying question/s DOES help in making sense of, or understanding, "another".

Do you have examples of what exactly is involved when 'attempting to try to help make sense of another fairly'?

Okay, when I attempted in this very thread to 'defend' what I thought you were criticizing, you completely dumped on me for asserting what I said was completely wrong and why I opened the last post with this caveat. I don't care if you 'think' I don't understand your concern but am being 'fair' to presume you make sense by charity. But....

I'll present a diagram of mine used elsewhere to show what I think you mean. The following image is identical IN MEANING to an expanding spacial universe:

IF you think I mean that there is an expanding spacial Universe, then what you think I mean is totally WRONG.

To me the Universe can NOT expand because It is infinite. Therefore I MEAN the Universe can NOT expand, spatially nor any other way. Surely that was NEVER that hard to understand.

...proves that the problem you have is in not understanding what you read of others. I expressed that you meant this possibility with extreme clarity and you still just told me here just the opposite.

The image I presented precisely demonstrates the problem you perceive as argued by alternate theories to the Big Bang. My preference is for a 'steady state' version which allows for expansion but then requires matter and energy to be constantly created. Your view disagrees with steady change of space and matter but because you think the quantity of space and matter/energy is constant, and is called the "STATIC" universe interpretation. My illustration just incidentally provides one possible reason for your own doubt about the Big Bang. In essence, we AGREE that something is conserved about space and matter. We only happen to disagree to whether it is or is not 'static'.

If you are wanting to prove your own case by example, my illustration should give you justice. If space and matter is constant, then the average DENSITY is at least the same everywhere and so that image I provided only shows WHY the Big Bang version is contradictory. It agrees with your position as rational, even if it may be wrong too.

A paradox of Expansion.41...png

This treats the space (or background of matter and energy) as conserved as 'ONE unit'. As time progresses, for 'space' to have meaning as 'expanding', this is indifferent to treating space as fixed and for 'matter' to be everywhere shrinking eternally. As such, this perception MAY show what you might be thinking: that if space is allowed to come from nowhere, then something is non-conserved. You might then agree to either a 'static' interpretation of the universe, OR an infinite expansion of both space and time in sync, as a 'steady state' interpretation. The 'steady state' type would keep the relative matter/energy and space constant IN DENSITY, such that AS expansion of space may occur, matter and energy equally 'expands' to remain conserved as a whole.

I am very slow and simple and really I do NOT have a clue what you are saying here. Maybe you are saying what I am saying, and maybe you are NOT. I really do NOT know.

But how about I explain what I MEAN, very SIMPLY.

If there are stars/planets/objects/matter beyond what human beings can observe, human beings will NEVER know.
How far space extends for, past observable objects, human beings will NEVER know.
If there is an end/boundary/limit/wall to space, then how thick/far does that end/boundary/limit/wall extend? AND,
What is then on the "other side" of that end/boundary/limit/wall human beings will NEVER know.

The only end/boundary/limit/wall to space, IS physical matter itself.
As long as there is space AND physical matter, then the sum of those things IS ALL-THERE-IS.
ALL-THERE-IS is, sometimes, defined as the Universe, Itself.
Physical matter and space co-exist.
Either one can exist on its own "infinitely" and "eternally" BUT either of them could NOT HAVE existed because the other could NOT have come about, from the ONE thing.
If both co-exist, then NEVER can one just exist.
Both co-exist.
'Space' AND 'matter' co-exist.
The Universe is made up of these two basic fundamental things.
Space and matter co-exist infinitely and eternally.
Therefore, the Universe IS infinite (in "space") and eternal (in "time").
(Although, and for a much later discussion, contradictory 'space' AND 'time' do NOT actually exist at all.)

Does this at least help express your own interpretation?

As far as I can tell, NOT one bit.

You don't have to pick any particular interpretation about what IS in fact the case. This illustration at least shows that using a Big Bang interpretation seems off balance and contradictory or cheating when it treats space contradictory as both being something and nothing. By cherry picking when 'real' versus 'non-real' meanings of space, I have a contention with the BB theory precisely for this allowance of selective freedom.

Honestly, I have NO idea what the illustration shows nor means.

Quite simply, the Universe exists NOW, ALWAYS, in different shape and form.

The reason why the Universe CAN change in shape and form, and IS, in CONSTANT-change is because the Universe consists of two very basic fundamental things, they are; 'matter' AND 'space, around matter'.

The space, around matter, ALLOWS matter to move about FREELY, which ALLOWS the Universe to ALWAYS be in a CONSTANT state of CHANGE.

Think about IF ALL particles of matter contracted into an infinite compression of matter.

Now for this infinite compression of single matter (singularity) to expand, then what would be NEEDED would be SPACE for it to expand. Therefore, even if some people want to BELIEVE that there was a "beginning", with a "big bang", then what was NEEDED, BEFORE that, so called, "bang", would be 'matter' and 'space'.
If ALL pieces of matter were compressed down into one singular piece of matter, then that, combined with the NECESSARY space, would BE the Universe, Itself, just in ANOTHER shape or form.

IF the Universe IS made up of the two fundamental things of 'space' AND 'matter', then the Universe MUST exist infinite AND eternal. Just ALWAYS in a different shape and form.

The Universe could NOT be any different.

Unless, OF COURSE, otherwise can be SHOWN.


By the way if you really do WANT TO KNOW what I MEAN, then just ask me clarifying questions in regards to the what I say/the words I use.

For all I know YOUR interpretation of what the Universe is and how the Universe works might be completely True whereas MY interpretation might be completely False, and/or BOTH of "our" interpretations are partly True and partly False. Really I do NOT care.

From the thoughts inside this body, those thoughts appear to be true and correct. (That is NOT to say that they are, however.) And, for all intention and purpose I really do NOT care what the Universe is, nor how It works, I have NO really interest in that, I am just EXPRESSING the VIEWS/THOUGHTS, which are within this body.

As I have NO real interest in this subject I have NO real interest in clarifying what you are saying nor what your illustration SHOWS. This is NOT to dismiss 'you' but just to say I have NO real interest in wanting to understand what you are showing here. I, however, am more than happy to clarify and explain better, and in much more detail, what is being expressed here, from my point-of-view.

I was 'defending' a probable case you hold TO Will in terms I believe he would understand, not you personally. I actually DO understand what you mean and am actually giving a different argument for why. I still disagree with your concern but about Will's book but thought that it should at least help HIM make sense of your argument by how others HAVE held the same disagreement. And given the fact that I differ on Will's preference for the Big Bang theory, I still think his book is incredibly worthy of an explanation WITH the way he presented it because he isn't arguing WHETHER the Big Bang is or is not true but arguing FROM the perspective of explanation about the universe without disrespecting the present paradigm, correct or not. And his explanation is more unique by combining Cosmology to Atomic Physics in a clearer way that HELPS make sense of the two extremes that even within physics is not often agreed upon universally.

As for your last paragraph above, you cannot expect others to read into your own confusion if you are not willing to try yourself to be LESS confused by some magical appeal.

You appear to be saying that it is okay that you don't need to TRY to understand (because you are 'simple') but expect others to FORCE you to understand with the onus on them alone, if they are the wiser experts. There is nothing more anyone can say to you without some magic capacity to MAKE you understand without a need for getting you to work at trying to make sense of what you yourself admit to not understanding. The logic is DEEPER than you personally expect of others to provide you with by your simultaneous expectation of it to be SHALLOWLY understood. If you doubt the water is deeper than your angles AND ALSO doubt those who venture further out as correct for speaking about the water being deeper than your ankles, who is the one at fault when you yourself REFUSE to go out there when they are trying to show you it IS DEEP? What fear do you have if you KNOW the water is shallow everywhere to venture out?

[uwot]

Physical matter and space co-exist.

This is the view that Leucippus and Democritus first put forward 2500 years ago. It seems obvious and there is a certain logic to it, and in fact for most practical physics that is what appears in the equations. The thing is, no theoretical physicist that I am aware of believes it is true. The evidence is overwhelming that some version of quantum field theory is correct. It's always handy to have a Nobel Laureate argue for you:


"Robert B. Laughlin, Nobel Laureate in Physics, endowed chair in physics, Stanford University, had this to say about ether in contemporary theoretical physics:

It is ironic that Einstein's most creative work, the general theory of relativity, should boil down to conceptualizing space as a medium when his original premise [in special relativity] was that no such medium existed [..] The word 'ether' has extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to relativity. This is unfortunate because, stripped of these connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about the vacuum. . . . Relativity actually says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of matter pervading the universe, only that any such matter must have relativistic symmetry. [..] It turns out that such matter exists. About the time relativity was becoming accepted, studies of radioactivity began showing that the empty vacuum of space had spectroscopic structure similar to that of ordinary quantum solids and fluids. Subsequent studies with large particle accelerators have now led us to understand that space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian emptiness. It is filled with 'stuff' that is normally transparent but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a part. The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories

IF the Universe IS made up of the two fundamental things of 'space' AND 'matter', then the Universe MUST exist infinite AND eternal. Just ALWAYS in a different shape and form.

The Universe could NOT be any different.

Unless, OF COURSE, otherwise can be SHOWN.

Well, note where it says "confirmed every day by experiment". It is hard work keeping up with what physicists are doing, and even then as Scott Mayers points out, it is possible to interpret the same data in different ways. But if experiments have been done that conclusively demonstrate that a two and a half thousand year old theory is wrong, then it really is time to move on. However sensible and logical your theory seems to you Age, I'm afraid it simply isn't true.

[Age]

Although you've already dissed me for attempting to try to help make sense of you fairly before,

What do 'you' mean by I have ALREADY 'dissed' you?

If you think/feel that I have already disrespected you and/or criticized you, then show WHERE and explain WHY, then we can LOOK AT it, and then we can discuss. Until then I have NO clue as to what you are referring to here.

Also, HOW exactly does one 'attempt to TRY TO help make sense of "another" fairly?

I find just asking clarifying question/s DOES help in making sense of, or understanding, "another".

Do you have examples of what exactly is involved when 'attempting to try to help make sense of another fairly'?

Okay, when I attempted in this very thread to 'defend' what I thought you were criticizing, you completely dumped on me for asserting what I said was completely wrong and why I opened the last post with this caveat.

Okay. If that is what you thought, then that would be very understandable.

If you like and/or want to 'defend' me, then that is fine. However, if what I was ACTUALLY saying was defended, then that is one thing, but, if what is THOUGHT to be what I am saying was defended, then that is another thing, which I will just clear up. This 'clearing up' is what I did. If you saw this as "dumping" on you, (whatever "dumping" actually means), and you see that as being a negative thing, then full apologies. I did NOT mean to "dump" on you. Clear communication and clarity of what I was ACTUALLY saying was all that I was intending to do.

I don't care if you 'think' I don't understand your concern but am being 'fair' to presume you make sense by charity.

I do NOT understand this. WHY would you even want to PRESUME I make sense by charity or any other means.

Either what I say makes sense to you or it does NOT.

But....

I'll present a diagram of mine used elsewhere to show what I think you mean. The following image is identical IN MEANING to an expanding spacial universe:

IF you think I mean that there is an expanding spacial Universe, then what you think I mean is totally WRONG.

To me the Universe can NOT expand because It is infinite. Therefore I MEAN the Universe can NOT expand, spatially nor any other way. Surely that was NEVER that hard to understand.

...proves that the problem you have is in not understanding what you read of others. I expressed that you meant this possibility with extreme clarity and you still just told me here just the opposite.

What do you 'think' my VIEW is; The Universe is expanding, or, is NOT expanding?

Clear that up for us here now, then we can LOOK AT it, and then discuss this.

The image I presented precisely demonstrates the problem you perceive as argued by alternate theories to the Big Bang.

The image you presented might precisely demonstrate "the problem" as argued by alternate theories to the big bang. But I do NOT see any "problem" at all here, regarding this.

What "problem" do you 'think' that I "perceive?

There is NO "problem" I SEE regarding the Universe, Itself.

To me if some thing has NOT been argued validly and soundly, then it really has NOT been argued at all. As such an 'alternative theory' is NOT really argued, that is; until it is unfalsifiable, of which "a theory" then just becomes thee Truth.

By the way I much prefer to just LOOK AT the Truth instead of at "theories".

Progressing and moving on happens much quicker, simpler, and easier that way.

My preference is for a 'steady state' version

My preference is for thee Real and True version, only.

which allows for expansion

I do NOT see an expansion.

HOW could an infinite Universe expand anyway?

but then requires matter and energy to be constantly created.

WHERE is the "required" matter and energy being "constantly created" FROM, EXACTLY?

Your view disagrees with steady change of space and matter

I am NOT sure whether my view disagrees with 'steady change of space of matter' or not.

What does 'steady change of space and matter' ACTUALLY mean, or entail?

but because you think the quantity of space and matter/energy is constant,

But I NEVER thought that at all.

I, however, might think that if, and when, I were to think about this. But until then I NEVER thought the quantity of space and matter/energy is constant at all.

and is called the "STATIC" universe interpretation.

Fair enough. Not sure what any of this has to do with me.

What I SEE is a DYNAMIC Universe.

My illustration just incidentally provides one possible reason for your own doubt about the Big Bang.

But WHO says I have any doubt about the big bang?

WHERE in my writings did you come to assume, think, or believe that I have my own doubt about the big bang?

I do NOT doubt that a bang, of some particular size, about whatever time frame ago, happened. I also do NOT doubt that this "bang", which is suggested to be a relatively "big" bang, occurred at all. I have NO reason to doubt this. A so called "big bang" does NOT interfere at all with what I see as being an infinite, eternal Universe.

In essence, we AGREE that something is conserved about space and matter.

Do "we"?

I have NEVER even considered any thing in regards to conservation about space and matter previously. So, HOW would you, and do you, KNOW "we" AGREE that something is conserved about space and matter?

We only happen to disagree to whether it is or is not 'static'.

Again, do "we"?

By the way, what is "it" EXACTLY that 'you' say "we" are in disagreement about whether "it" is 'static' or not.

I AGREE that the Universe is in a process of constant-change. So, what is "it" that you agree with?

If you are wanting to prove your own case by example, my illustration should give you justice.

But I do NOT even understand your own illustration.

Your illustration might or might NOT give so called "justice" to what I view. But I just view what I view. If that view is right or wrong is another matter.

If the Universe is NOT infinite and eternal, and NOT dynamic and constantly-changing, then I will remain OPEN to SEEING that. Until then the view that I have now SEES an infinite-eternal Universe in constant-change.

If you would like to explain your illustration, then feel free. But my view stands on its own. What I SEE does NOT need an "illustration" to give it justice. That is what is wrong with ALL "illustrations", they can NOT capture the real and True actual picture of things. Only that view can be SEEN from direct observation.

If space and matter is constant,

What does 'space and matter is constant' actually mean to you?

Besides the fact that I have NOT yet seen this, to even consider this, I do NOT even know what this means yet, from your perspective.

then the average DENSITY is at least the same everywhere and so that image I provided only shows WHY the Big Bang version is contradictory.

What does the 'average DENSITY' mean, to you?

The "average" DENSITY of WHAT, EXACTLY?

HOW do you propose the big bang "version" is contradictory? Contradictory to 'WHAT', exactly? WHY do you propose the big bang "version" is contradictory?

And, what do you mean big bang "version" anyway? What other "versions" are there?

I just SEE the parts of the so called "big bang", which could be true, and how they could fit in perfectly with what the actual and real Truth IS.

It agrees with your position as rational, even if it may be wrong too.

If "it" here applies to "that" image, which is YOUR illustration, then because I do NOT understand "that" image, then "it" may or may NOT agree with my position as "rational". I would have NO clue of knowing that at all. Until I know and understand what the image implies, then knowing if it is a good representation of the actual real Truth I would never know.

If, however, "it" applies to some thing else, then so be it.

A paradox of Expansion.41...png

This treats the space (or background of matter and energy) as conserved as 'ONE unit'. As time progresses, for 'space' to have meaning as 'expanding', this is indifferent to treating space as fixed and for 'matter' to be everywhere shrinking eternally. As such, this perception MAY show what you might be thinking: that if space is allowed to come from nowhere, then something is non-conserved. You might then agree to either a 'static' interpretation of the universe, OR an infinite expansion of both space and time in sync, as a 'steady state' interpretation. The 'steady state' type would keep the relative matter/energy and space constant IN DENSITY, such that AS expansion of space may occur, matter and energy equally 'expands' to remain conserved as a whole.

I am very slow and simple and really I do NOT have a clue what you are saying here. Maybe you are saying what I am saying, and maybe you are NOT. I really do NOT know.

But how about I explain what I MEAN, very SIMPLY.

If there are stars/planets/objects/matter beyond what human beings can observe, human beings will NEVER know.
How far space extends for, past observable objects, human beings will NEVER know.
If there is an end/boundary/limit/wall to space, then how thick/far does that end/boundary/limit/wall extend? AND,
What is then on the "other side" of that end/boundary/limit/wall human beings will NEVER know.

The only end/boundary/limit/wall to space, IS physical matter itself.
As long as there is space AND physical matter, then the sum of those things IS ALL-THERE-IS.
ALL-THERE-IS is, sometimes, defined as the Universe, Itself.
Physical matter and space co-exist.
Either one can exist on its own "infinitely" and "eternally" BUT either of them could NOT HAVE existed because the other could NOT have come about, from the ONE thing.
If both co-exist, then NEVER can one just exist.
Both co-exist.
'Space' AND 'matter' co-exist.
The Universe is made up of these two basic fundamental things.
Space and matter co-exist infinitely and eternally.
Therefore, the Universe IS infinite (in "space") and eternal (in "time").
(Although, and for a much later discussion, contradictory 'space' AND 'time' do NOT actually exist at all.)

Does this at least help express your own interpretation?

As far as I can tell, NOT one bit.

You don't have to pick any particular interpretation about what IS in fact the case. This illustration at least shows that using a Big Bang interpretation seems off balance and contradictory or cheating when it treats space contradictory as both being something and nothing. By cherry picking when 'real' versus 'non-real' meanings of space, I have a contention with the BB theory precisely for this allowance of selective freedom.

Honestly, I have NO idea what the illustration shows nor means.

Quite simply, the Universe exists NOW, ALWAYS, in different shape and form.

The reason why the Universe CAN change in shape and form, and IS, in CONSTANT-change is because the Universe consists of two very basic fundamental things, they are; 'matter' AND 'space, around matter'.

The space, around matter, ALLOWS matter to move about FREELY, which ALLOWS the Universe to ALWAYS be in a CONSTANT state of CHANGE.

Think about IF ALL particles of matter contracted into an infinite compression of matter.

Now for this infinite compression of single matter (singularity) to expand, then what would be NEEDED would be SPACE for it to expand. Therefore, even if some people want to BELIEVE that there was a "beginning", with a "big bang", then what was NEEDED, BEFORE that, so called, "bang", would be 'matter' and 'space'.
If ALL pieces of matter were compressed down into one singular piece of matter, then that, combined with the NECESSARY space, would BE the Universe, Itself, just in ANOTHER shape or form.

IF the Universe IS made up of the two fundamental things of 'space' AND 'matter', then the Universe MUST exist infinite AND eternal. Just ALWAYS in a different shape and form.

The Universe could NOT be any different.

Unless, OF COURSE, otherwise can be SHOWN.


By the way if you really do WANT TO KNOW what I MEAN, then just ask me clarifying questions in regards to the what I say/the words I use.

For all I know YOUR interpretation of what the Universe is and how the Universe works might be completely True whereas MY interpretation might be completely False, and/or BOTH of "our" interpretations are partly True and partly False. Really I do NOT care.

From the thoughts inside this body, those thoughts appear to be true and correct. (That is NOT to say that they are, however.) And, for all intention and purpose I really do NOT care what the Universe is, nor how It works, I have NO really interest in that, I am just EXPRESSING the VIEWS/THOUGHTS, which are within this body.

As I have NO real interest in this subject I have NO real interest in clarifying what you are saying nor what your illustration SHOWS. This is NOT to dismiss 'you' but just to say I have NO real interest in wanting to understand what you are showing here. I, however, am more than happy to clarify and explain better, and in much more detail, what is being expressed here, from my point-of-view.

I was 'defending' a probable case you hold TO Will in terms I believe he would understand, not you personally. I actually DO understand what you mean and am actually giving a different argument for why. I still disagree with your concern but about Will's book but thought that it should at least help HIM make sense of your argument by how others HAVE held the same disagreement. And given the fact that I differ on Will's preference for the Big Bang theory, I still think his book is incredibly worthy of an explanation WITH the way he presented it because he isn't arguing WHETHER the Big Bang is or is not true but arguing FROM the perspective of explanation about the universe without disrespecting the present paradigm, correct or not. And his explanation is more unique by combining Cosmology to Atomic Physics in a clearer way that HELPS make sense of the two extremes that even within physics is not often agreed upon universally.

If that is what you saw, and think, then great.

As for your last paragraph above, you cannot expect others to read into your own confusion if you are not willing to try yourself to be LESS confused by some magical appeal.

I am NOT sure why the 'magical' word was brought in here.

WHAT do you think/believe that I need to be LESS confused about EXACTLY?

Also, I do NOT expect "others" to read into my own writings, which on most accounts are very confusing anyway. I am TRYING/EXPERIMENTING with words here, to SEE what occurs.

You appear to be saying that it is okay that you don't need to TRY to understand (because you are 'simple')

That is NOT what I was saying. I was just saying that I am slow and simple, and therefore I do NOT understand what you were saying, in that quote, which I was responding to.

Also, I thought I made it quite clear that I do NOT 'TRY TO' understand because I have NO real interest in this. If I am simple or NOT has NO bearing on what interests or not I have.

but expect others to FORCE you to understand with the onus on them alone, if they are the wiser experts.

I also do NOT expect "others" to FORCE me to understand any thing.

I think you have completely, or if not, then just about completely misconstrued what I was saying here.

All I was saying was;
That I am to slow and simple to understand what you wrote.
That I have NO real interest in this subject to ask you for full clarification. And,
If any one wants clarification from me about what I am saying, then I more than happy, and willing, to provide that information in far more detail.

There is nothing more anyone can say to you without some magic capacity to MAKE you understand without a need for getting you to work at trying to make sense of what you yourself admit to not understanding.

If I have NO real interest in what you or any one else is saying, then I, just have NO real interest. End of story.

The logic is DEEPER

The "logic" of WHAT, EXACTLY, is DEEPER?

than you personally expect of others to provide you with by your simultaneous expectation of it to be SHALLOWLY understood.

You are losing me again. I am NOT understanding this, again.

If you doubt the water is deeper than your angles AND ALSO doubt those who venture further out as correct for speaking about the water being deeper than your ankles, who is the one at fault when you yourself REFUSE to go out there when they are trying to show you it IS DEEP?

I do NOT even know what this is in reference to, let alone understanding this.

What fear do you have if you KNOW the water is shallow everywhere to venture out?

WHEN and WHY did the word 'water' come into a discussion about the Universe, Itself, and how It is fundamentally made up of the two things of space and matter?

Also I do NOT have any fear, whether I KNOW the water is deep or shallow.

What is the 'shallow' in reference to EXACTLY, by the way?

[Age]

Physical matter and space co-exist.

This is the view that Leucippus and Democritus first put forward 2500 years ago. It seems obvious and there is a certain logic to it, and in fact for most practical physics that is what appears in the equations. The thing is, no theoretical physicist that I am aware of believes it is true. The evidence is overwhelming that some version of quantum field theory is correct. It's always handy to have a Nobel Laureate argue for you:


"Robert B. Laughlin, Nobel Laureate in Physics, endowed chair in physics, Stanford University, had this to say about ether in contemporary theoretical physics:

It is ironic that Einstein's most creative work, the general theory of relativity, should boil down to conceptualizing space as a medium when his original premise [in special relativity] was that no such medium existed [..] The word 'ether' has extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to relativity. This is unfortunate because, stripped of these connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about the vacuum. . . . Relativity actually says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of matter pervading the universe, only that any such matter must have relativistic symmetry. [..] It turns out that such matter exists. About the time relativity was becoming accepted, studies of radioactivity began showing that the empty vacuum of space had spectroscopic structure similar to that of ordinary quantum solids and fluids. Subsequent studies with large particle accelerators have now led us to understand that space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian emptiness. It is filled with 'stuff' that is normally transparent but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a part. The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories

IF the Universe IS made up of the two fundamental things of 'space' AND 'matter', then the Universe MUST exist infinite AND eternal. Just ALWAYS in a different shape and form.

The Universe could NOT be any different.

Unless, OF COURSE, otherwise can be SHOWN.

Well, note where it says "confirmed every day by experiment".

Was that the 'modern concept of the vacuum of space' and how 'that' is a 'relativistic either', which was "confirmed every day by experiment", which you wanted noted?

And the only reason WHY they do NOT call it this is because "it is taboo"?

It was once also "taboo" to say that the earth revolved around the sun. But just because you human beings are NOT allowed to call some thing for what it really is, just because it is seen to be "taboo", does NOT make any thing the Truth.

It is hard work keeping up with what physicists are doing,

How hard is it really to read written words?

and even then as Scott Mayers points out, it is possible to interpret the same data in different ways.

That is just how the brain, with its belief-system, works.

But if experiments have been done that conclusively demonstrate that a two and a half thousand year old theory is wrong, then it really is time to move on.

But do experiments, which have been done, conclusively demonstrate that there is NOT matter and NOT space between matter?

However sensible and logical your theory seems to you Age, I'm afraid it simply isn't true.

If what I am saying is NOT true, then so be it. And, are you ABSOLUTELY SURE that what I am saying is NOT true?

By the way, WHY did you bring the words "empty" and "ether" into what I am TALKING ABOUT anyway?

Those two words really do NOT have much at all to do with what I have been SAYING here about 'space'.

IF there is NO space, or distance, between matter, then HOW could the "image" of separateness appear?

You can keep on LOOKING FOR that "beginning", which you BELIEVE is True, if you so wish.

You can also keep on LOOKING FOR what dark matter is, but when you are staring at it, it should be as obvious what it is as whether there was a beginning or not.

You can also bring in as many people, with as many credentials, as you like to, and let them do what you call "argue for you", and YOUR position, but that does NOT mean that they KNOW more than what a very simple child could KNOW.

In fact the ones with the so called "credentials" could actually be "to smart" for their own good.

If you really wanted to LOOK AT and SEE the Truth of things, then we could go into LOOKING AT and DISCUSSING what some person said in that quote you provided here. Just let me know if this is what you want to do.

[uwot]

It is hard work keeping up with what physicists are doing,

How hard is it really to read written words?

You tell me. What have you read recently?

and even then as Scott Mayers points out, it is possible to interpret the same data in different ways.

That is just how the brain, with its belief-system, works.

Why then do you insist that the way your brain works is uniquely qualified to determine THE TUTH?

If what I am saying is NOT true, then so be it. And, are you ABSOLUTELY SURE that what I am saying is NOT true?

Yes.

In fact the ones with the so called "credentials" could actually be "to smart" for their own good.

That's a bit like saying that a sprinter runs too fast. The thing about "credentials" is that the ones who have them are familiar with the results of experiments-they actually know how the world works because they have seen it and have taken the trouble to account for that, rather than just say any old bollocks that makes sense to them.

If you really wanted to LOOK AT and SEE the Truth of things, then we could go into LOOKING AT and DISCUSSING what some person said in that quote you provided here.

You don't "SEE the Truth of things" without actually looking.

Just let me know if this is what you want to do.

Should be a laugh-let's do it.

[Age]

It is hard work keeping up with what physicists are doing,

How hard is it really to read written words?

You tell me. What have you read recently?

Only what is on here in this forum.

But what has me telling you what I have read recently got to do with the question; How hard is it really to read written words?

and even then as Scott Mayers points out, it is possible to interpret the same data in different ways.

That is just how the brain, with its belief-system, works.

Why then do you insist that the way your brain works is uniquely qualified to determine THE TUTH?

But I have NEVER insisted that at all.

In fact the very opposite is True.

If what I am saying is NOT true, then so be it. And, are you ABSOLUTELY SURE that what I am saying is NOT true?

Yes.

So, you are ABSOLUTELY SURE that the Universe is NOT made up matter and space.

So be it.

Have you ever considered that your definition of 'space' and 'matter' could be different than mine?

In fact the ones with the so called "credentials" could actually be "to smart" for their own good.

That's a bit like saying that a sprinter runs too fast.

If the sprinter was running to fast that they hit a wall, for example, then yes that would be like saying that.

But what I said is NOTHING really like what you said here.

The thing about "credentials" is that the ones who have them are familiar with the results of experiments-they actually know how the world works because they have seen it and have taken the trouble to account for that, rather than just say any old bollocks that makes sense to them.[/quote]

Just like the ones with "credentials" were the ones saying that the sun revolved around the earth. Those ones also were the ones that were looked up to and were the only ones that everyone was expected to listen also.

When there is EVIDENCE that there is NO matter and space, then that is what I will LOOK AT.

Until then, from the EVIDENCE I observe, and from the results of experiments I have SEEN, the Universe is fundamentally made up of matter and space, which co-exist and are in constant-change. If you BELIEVE that this is bollocks, then that is perfectly fine with me.

If you really wanted to LOOK AT and SEE the Truth of things, then we could go into LOOKING AT and DISCUSSING what some person said in that quote you provided here.

You don't "SEE the Truth of things" without actually looking.

What is this supposed to mean?

I am the one who has been saying; If you want to SEE the Truth of things, then just LOOK AT what IS.

Remember it is you who is using "models" of what some people only propose or theorize about what is and suggesting to LOOK AT those ones, which you AGREE WITH. Looking at them will NEVER SHOW what the real and actual Truth IS.

Disregarding what the actual Truth is because you have a strongly held BELIEF, like you do, will NOT let you SEE the Truth of things.

Just let me know if this is what you want to do.

Should be a laugh-let's do it.

WHY "should it be a laugh"? Do you BELIEVE you KNOW what the outcome will be?

"Robert B. Laughlin, Nobel Laureate in Physics, endowed chair in physics, Stanford University, had this to say about ether in contemporary theoretical physics:

It is ironic that Einstein's most creative work, the general theory of relativity, should boil down to conceptualizing space as a medium when his original premise [in special relativity] was that no such medium existed [..] The word 'ether' has extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to relativity. This is unfortunate because, stripped of these connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about the vacuum. . . . Relativity actually says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of matter pervading the universe, only that any such matter must have relativistic symmetry. [..] It turns out that such matter exists. About the time relativity was becoming accepted, studies of radioactivity began showing that the empty vacuum of space had spectroscopic structure similar to that of ordinary quantum solids and fluids. Subsequent studies with large particle accelerators have now led us to understand that space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian emptiness. It is filled with 'stuff' that is normally transparent but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a part. The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo."

WHY is the assumption that einstein's work "should" 'boil down' to 'conceptualizing space' as a "medium"?

If einstein's "original" premise [in special relativity] was that no such 'medium' existed, then WHO is suggesting that einstein's work "should" 'boil down' to conceptualizing such a thing?

WHY would any one START to conceptualize such a thing especially if the "original" premise was obviously suggesting to NOT even start to conceptualize such a thing?

Do you want me to list ALL of what I see are inconsistencies, flaws, faults, assumptions, beliefs, et cetera BEFORE I even start on the questioning for clarification of ALL this quote? Or, do you want to just start on three questions first?

You said that this should be a laugh and to lets do it. I do NOT want to do any thing to take it away from the laugh, which you see will play out here, so just let me know which way you want to do this.

[uwot]

Just like the ones with "credentials" were the ones saying that the sun revolved around the earth. Those ones also were the ones that were looked up to and were the only ones that everyone was expected to listen also.

Not really. Scientists and philosophers were aware of different models, those of Philolaus, Aristarchus, Martianus Capella, Tycho Brahe and of course Copernicus being examples. By and large scientists understood that Ptolemy's was a useful device rather than an accurate model of the universe. It was the clergy, whose scientific credentials are less impressive, who insisted that Earth is the focus of god's attention.

When there is EVIDENCE that there is NO matter and space, then that is what I will LOOK AT.

This would be the place to look: https://home.cern/science/engineering/powering-cern
You might find this more digestible: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=at-mgqQq9Ds
And of course there is my book: https://willybouwman.blogspot.com

Until then, from the EVIDENCE I observe, and from the results of experiments I have SEEN...

What are the experiments you have seen?

[Age]

Just like the ones with "credentials" were the ones saying that the sun revolved around the earth. Those ones also were the ones that were looked up to and were the only ones that everyone was expected to listen also.

Not really. Scientists and philosophers were aware of different models, those of Philolaus, Aristarchus, Martianus Capella, Tycho Brahe and of course Copernicus being examples.

"Not really"? Were you there at those times?

The so called "scientists" and "philosophers" BELIEVED the same as the "others" did. That was UNTIL a new truth was brought to light. This has NOT changed throughout human history.

If you really BELIEVE that "scientists" and "philosophers" were aware of different models BEFORE different models were even thought up, then really?

OF COURSE people were aware of things AFTER they come into existence. But BEFORE that what is True is obvious.

By and large scientists understood that Ptolemy's was a useful device rather than an accurate model of the universe.

TRYING TO suggest that "by and large scientists" understood some thing BEFORE the actual facts were brought to light just SHOWS, to me anyway, how much you are LOOKING from an influenced perspective.

Do the "scientists" of today, when this is written, understand the "ACCURATE" model of the Universe?

If yes, then great. What is the ACCURATE model of the Universe?
If no, then how did "scientists" understand the ACCURATE model of the Universe all those years ago but not now, when this is written.

It was the clergy, whose scientific credentials are less impressive, who insisted that Earth is the focus of god's attention.

Are you really TRYING TO suggest that it was ONLY "clergy" who insisted that the earth was at the center of the Universe?

Until the earth was NOT the center of the Universe was BELIEVED to be true, the exact opposite was being said and insisted by ALL "scientists".

By the way, that was my POINT.

At those times those were the people with "credentials" who were the most most looked up to. Just like in the times when this is written, those with "credentials" are the most looked up to people, but just like those BEFORE are labeled as being "less impressive" so will those with "credentials" today, also be seen as being less impressive, in times to come. That is when NEW "truths" come to light.

The BELIEF that the Universe began, with a "big bang", will be seen as in the same light as the BELIEF that the earth is at the center of the Universe and the BELIEF that the earth is flat, is SEEN as today, when this is written.

Just like you laugh at people with "credentials" in the past, for their views, so to will the people with "credentials", which you look up to and admire, will also be laughed at for the obviously ridiculous views that they have.

When there is EVIDENCE that there is NO matter and space, then that is what I will LOOK AT.

This would be the place to look: https://home.cern/science/engineering/powering-cern
You might find this more digestible: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=at-mgqQq9Ds
And of course there is my book: https://willybouwman.blogspot.com

NONE of these three links explain anything at all about how there is NO matter and/or space in the Universe.

Do you have any actual EVIDENCE that the Universe is NOT made up matter and/or space?

If you do, please provide it. I certainly would like to SEE it.

Until then, from the EVIDENCE I observe, and from the results of experiments I have SEEN...

What are the experiments you have seen?

Matter move.

Obviously without a distance/space between particles of matter, particles of matter could NOT move. If particles of matter could NOT move, then there would only be ONE thing. There are more than one. The Universe IS made up of the two things of matter AND space.

If you have NOT observed the VERY NATURAL occurrence of matter move, then that is fine. But if you KNOW there is matter, then WHAT do you propose separates matter, from matter?

You can BELIEVE that the Universe BEGAN, and that there is NO matter and/or space for as long as you like. But you are NEVER going to discover, learn, nor SEE the Truth of things with that BELIEF.

[uwot]

"Not really"? Were you there at those times?

No, bit I did my Master's dissertation on medieval cosmology, so I've got a pretty good idea of what philosophers and scientists actually wrote and believed.