The universe expands ...

[SpheresOfBalance]

Hello Hjarloprillar, (prill? Nikos? How do you do? My name is Will, but in this place, you can call me anything you like.) In fairness to SpheresOfBalance, what he said was:

I worked with the US DOD for 16 years, specifically utilizing both Doppler Shift and Electromagnetic Energy emission and detection for various purposes.

I am not aware that SpheresOfBalance has ever claimed that the DOD has any interest in cosmology. I’ve no idea whether SpheresOfBalance worked for the DOD, but I have no reason to doubt it and I certainly wouldn’t call him a liar on the basis of something he didn’t say.


and SpheresOfBalance:

It does not 'necessarily' suggest any such thing. To say that it may suggest, is acceptable.

That's very gracious of you, but I really don't understand why a sentence heavy with conditionals needs another one.

You and I both know that the word "suggest" conjures up a more positive expectation than "may" does. Look up the definition, if you doubt it. There are several definitions, some are more neutral, but then it's synonyms go so far as to "indicate," one cannot say that this, so called, red shift "indicates" expansion. This it the problem with choosing a word that has multiple definitions, or maybe a more purposeful agenda, was the reason for the inclusion of such a word. I see that while, what you say is true, as to conditionals, the use of 'may,' in this case, speaks more on the truth of the matter, than with it's exclusion. Of course you could have totally reworded the statement without either word. For instance "...it would seem to indicate...," which would be more, in keeping with the truth, of the matter.

P.S. I have to commend you on your honesty, as to that which you have said to Prill, and how you've proceeded in this debate, your integrity seems to be far greater than most here, though we are all guilty of projecting our egos, a little to prominently. Kudos my friend!

[Godfree]

I must correct you here , the universe is expanding , because according to the theory it isn't there already , that no space , or time , exist before the bang , so the theory does indeed suggest no space outside what the bang just created , so use your brain , the universe isn't expanding onto itself ,,!!!

Can you quote any cosmologist who states categorically that there was nothing before the Big Bang? Lawrence Krauss has written a book on the possibility, for example, but no respected scientist insists on the truth of something he or she cannot see. You are attacking your own strawman, only nutters claim to know what happened before the Big Bang. The rest of us understand that we are working with a hypothesis that is subject to change in the light of new evidence.

Also , photon decay being the cause of the red shift ,
nothing goes forever , not light, radio waves , nothing goes forever , so light slowly decays ,
what if this is the cause of the red shift, and the expansion idea is wishful thinking ,,??

The thing is we can observe red shift (and blue shift) in things that we know the relative speed of, the planets in our solar system being an example. There isn't the same support for photon decay. The expansion idea is not wishful thinking; it is the conclusion drawn by the vast majority of working cosmologists, most of whom have no religious axe to grind.
You seem determined to undermine christian fundamentalists. Well go get 'em tiger, but for goodness sake, don't talk such utter bollocks or they will dismiss you as an idiot.[/quote

You appear to be clinging to the bbt as a concept but not the detail ,
your not interested it would seem in the idea that the universe is infinite ,
because according to the bbt the universe is finite ,?
so lets break it down into individual questions,
Do you believe the universe is finite ,
if your answer is yes please explain how there can be an edge or end to space ,??
Do you believe there was a beginning ,?
if so what caused it to begin , ie , if there was nothing what was the something made out of ,?
just these few questions to my mind make a joke of the bbt ,,!!!

[tillingborn]

You appear to be clinging to the bbt as a concept but not the detail ,

I wouldn't say I was clinging. It is true that I think the most efficient way to build a world view is to start with what you can see and explain that with reference to other things that you can see. That is what Thales did two and a half thousand years ago; by doing so he liberated the human mind from sweet, but silly fantasies about gods and set the course for philosophy and science that has resulted in us putting people on the moon and building Large Hadron Colliders.
Another key principle is Occam's Razor, usually given as "Do not multiply entities beyond necessity." It basically means you need a really good reason to believe in something that you cannot see; for instance: god or infinity.
The Big Bang Theory, actually that is worth repeating: Theory. I could make it bold, increase the font size, colour it red, but I'm not sure it would make any difference, would anything convince you that I understand that it is a theory? Anyway, the Big Bang Theory, I believe, is the best explanation that we currently have for the empirical data as reported, I presume reliably, by the scientific community. If a better one comes along it will be a surprise, but nature is full of surprises.
I think what you and I mean by detail is different, because to me the details are still being worked on.

your not interested it would seem in the idea that the universe is infinite ,

For all I know the universe is infinite, which would be interesting. The point is though, the bit we can see is finite. The old argument against an infinite universe, apart from the fact that it would collapse under gravity, is that every point in the sky would contain a source of light that had had forever to get here. The sky would therefore be brilliantly lit day and night. Your solution is the tired photon hypothesis; it differs from the red shift due to motion in that while the latter can be demonstrated under laboratory conditions, there is no equivalent demonstration for photons getting tired. One of your arguments in favour of this idea is that nothing goes on forever, which is odd coming from someone who insists the universe goes on forever. Other than that, the only argument is circular and worthless.

because according to the bbt the universe is finite ,?

Once again Godfree, no it doesn't. This is you making things up. The Big Bang Theory is the hypothesis that all the matter in the visible universe started at one point. It is consistent with various versions of string theory that postulate eternal 'branes' and it is consistent with different multiverse conjectures. I take your point about multiverse being an oxymoron, the universe as you say, is by definition everything that exists and there can only be one everything, but the idea is that what we call our universe, the bit we can see, is but one small piece of a much larger reality that we cannot see. A bit like you demand is the case. The thing is, we can't see.

so lets break it down into individual questions,
Do you believe the universe is finite ,

I have no idea.

if your answer is yes please explain how there can be an edge or end to space ,??

It isn't, so I don't feel compelled to answer that one.

Do you believe there was a beginning ,?

Again, I don't know. Since I do believe that the universe is expanding, subject to revision in the light of new data, it does seem plausible that the stuff we can see started expanding at a particular point in time. The simplest assumption is that nothing blew itself to bits. I agree it's unsatisfactory and that other explanations are desirable, but to just make stuff up, like insisting on tired photons without any evidence, is no better than saying it was god what done it.

if so what caused it to begin , ie , if there was nothing what was the something made out of ,?

I have no idea whether or not there was nothing and therefore no idea what made it go bang.

just these few questions to my mind make a joke of the bbt ,,!!!

Those few questions are not directly linked to the Big Bang Theory, you are tilting at windmills. The difference between science and religion is that science is big enough to admit it doesn't have all the answers, you are making the same mistake as religious nutters by insisting that you do.

[SpheresOfBalance]

You appear to be clinging to the bbt as a concept but not the detail ,

I wouldn't say I was clinging. It is true that I think the most efficient way to build a world view is to start with what you can see and explain that with reference to other things that you can see.
So if you see an expanding universe due to, so called, red shift, you are taking a leap of faith like that required by religion, as you then speak of that which we cannot see, because the only truthful thing we can say, due to our current visual horizon (limited vision of indeterminate size, relative to the full extent of the whole universe) is that it appears that the galaxies in our particular area, of the indeterminate whole of the universe, are opening their relative positions, which is not necessarily indicative of anything beyond what we can see.

That is what Thales did two and a half thousand years ago; by doing so he liberated the human mind from sweet, but silly fantasies about gods and set the course for philosophy and science that has resulted in us putting people on the moon and building Large Hadron Colliders.
Non-inquisitor, as it does not necessarily follow, that your leap of faith, from our limited perspective, that the universe is expanding, is aligned with Thales and the Scientific communities moon visitation or Hadron Colliders.

Another key principle is Occam's Razor, usually given as "Do not multiply entities beyond necessity." It basically means you need a really good reason to believe in something that you cannot see; for instance: god or infinity.
Or that the whole of the universe follows the example, 'believed' to be seen, in a 'limited' window of opportunity.

The Big Bang Theory, actually that is worth repeating: Theory. I could make it bold, increase the font size, colour it red, but I'm not sure it would make any difference, would anything convince you that I understand that it is a theory? Anyway, the Big Bang Theory, I believe, is the best explanation that we currently have for the empirical data as reported, I presume reliably, by the scientific community. If a better one comes along it will be a surprise, but nature is full of surprises.
No, seemingly, in truth you are merely parroting the mouth of authority, because you are incapable of thinking for yourself. If they say it's so, well it must be the best possible explanation, as you recount much like a dictating machine, I could do that, If I so choose.

I think what you and I mean by detail is different, because to me the details are still being worked on.
Then why take that leap of faith, oh yeah I forgot, because the mouth of authority did, of course. Do you ever get tired of those attached strings? Oh yes that's right, again I almost forgot, it's so you can believe you've actually done something, in the shadows of those whom believe they have, or maybe they haven't. lol

your not interested it would seem in the idea that the universe is infinite ,

For all I know the universe is infinite, which would be interesting. The point is though, the bit we can see is finite.
Incorrect, in truth, it is our vision that is finite, not the bit.

The old argument against an infinite universe, apart from the fact that it would collapse under gravity,
Not necessarily so, as the whole of the universe would have objects or clusters of objects being constantly pulled by an infinite amount of objects, omnidirectionally, such that movement of any particular object/group would only be a function of the greater mass of another object/group, as stars are created and go nova. A function of constant birth, death and rebirth, of differing quantities of constituents.

is that every point in the sky would contain a source of light that had had forever to get here.
Incorrect two different things, that the universe is infinite, yes, that the galaxies/stars are infinite, not necessarily, but there is more to consider.

The sky would therefore be brilliantly lit day and night. Your solution is the tired photon hypothesis;
You are incorrect: Electromagnetic Energy can either be REFLECTED, SCATTERED, RAREFIED or ABSORBED!In addition, have you not heard of one of the breakthroughs as seen by those that operated the Hubble, telescope. They focused in on a section of space that up until that time was believed to be devoid of anything, stars or otherwise, and to their surprise after some time of integration they saw a vast number of additional galaxies that they had never seen before. If I'm not mistaken it had something to do with human vision not being able to integrate points of light smaller that our rods are, but once magnified, it's another story. Also one has to remember that a star emits light from the circumference of it's surface, omnidirectionally, the number of the radians of light is directly proportional to it's diameter, thus with greater distance these radians become wider apart, such that light from a particular star, at a very great distance, would miss our planet entirely at any given point in time, that is if they weren't rarefied, scattered, reflected or absorbed along the way. NO there is no way the heavens would be nothing but light if the universe was infinite. Think about it, how big in diameter does our star, the sun, appear? Now compare it's relative visual size to one of the stars out there, that they say, dwarfs ours, simple! There could be stars everythere and humans would never see them.

it differs from the red shift due to motion in that while the latter can be demonstrated under laboratory conditions, there is no equivalent demonstration for photons getting tired.
Bullshit! The MTR of RADAR! Which is a small portion of the Electromagnetic Spectrum, which is what we're talking about, and it's range is subject to being REFLECTED, SCATTERED, RAREFIED, and ABSORBED! And lets not forget the power of the emitting source. Why does starlight seem to twinkle?

One of your arguments in favour of this idea is that nothing goes on forever, which is odd coming from someone who insists the universe goes on forever. Other than that, the only argument is circular and worthless.
It depends on how you see the universe. If one sees that the word space and universe are synonymous, well doesn't that change things?

I'm not going to go through all the rest of this to pick out all the assumptions, instead I shall leave you with this: About a year ago I watched a PBS documentary on cosmology. one of the speakers was Michio Kaku, an American theoretical physicist, the Henry Semat Professor of Theoretical Physics at the City College of New York, a futurist, and a communicator and popularizer of science. He has written several books about physics and related topics; he has made frequent appearances on radio, television, and film; and he writes extensive online blogs and articles. He has written two New York Times Best Sellers, Physics of the Impossible (2008) and Physics of the Future (2011), anyway during the documentary he said that the newest thing in physics was so counter-intuitive to what had been believed up until that point, that it turned physics up side down, such that many physicists were turning to the belief of a creator. Now who the hell are you and I. Really? Maybe you missed that documentary, an update? I didn't.

My point is that you speak with certainty as you grab snippets from what the authorities have said in the 'past,' and yet here is one you apparently missed, as you demean those that believe in a creator. I see that it's OK to speak of those things that you have decided to mimic, and denounce those that either you have missed or disapprove of, but at least be honest and deliver it as the conjecture that it is. No man knows, pure and simple, and a fool, that man be, that strokes himself, while delivering another's work of possibility, as if it's the only one, and he deserves kudos, for living in that other's shadow, as if by parroting he's said anything of significance.

It's just conjecture, theory, hypothesis, as no man yet knows. My argument is not to say what is, just that no man can say what is, as to the whole of the universe, at this current time.

because according to the bbt the universe is finite ,?

Once again Godfree, no it doesn't. This is you making things up. The Big Bang Theory is the hypothesis that all the matter in the visible universe started at one point. It is consistent with various versions of string theory that postulate eternal 'branes' and it is consistent with different multiverse conjectures. I take your point about multiverse being an oxymoron, the universe as you say, is by definition everything that exists and there can only be one everything, but the idea is that what we call our universe, the bit we can see, is but one small piece of a much larger reality that we cannot see. A bit like you demand is the case. The thing is, we can't see.

so lets break it down into individual questions,
Do you believe the universe is finite ,

I have no idea.

if your answer is yes please explain how there can be an edge or end to space ,??

It isn't, so I don't feel compelled to answer that one.

Do you believe there was a beginning ,?

Again, I don't know. Since I do believe that the universe is expanding, subject to revision in the light of new data, it does seem plausible that the stuff we can see started expanding at a particular point in time. The simplest assumption is that nothing blew itself to bits. I agree it's unsatisfactory and that other explanations are desirable, but to just make stuff up, like insisting on tired photons without any evidence, is no better than saying it was god what done it.

if so what caused it to begin , ie , if there was nothing what was the something made out of ,?

I have no idea whether or not there was nothing and therefore no idea what made it go bang.

just these few questions to my mind make a joke of the bbt ,,!!!

Those few questions are not directly linked to the Big Bang Theory, you are tilting at windmills. The difference between science and religion is that science is big enough to admit it doesn't have all the answers, you are making the same mistake as religious nutters by insisting that you do.

[Godfree]

I think what you and I mean by detail is different, because to me the details are still being worked on.

your not interested it would seem in the idea that the universe is infinite ,

For all I know the universe is infinite, which would be interesting. The point is though, the bit we can see is finite. The old argument against an infinite universe, apart from the fact that it would collapse under gravity, is that every point in the sky would contain a source of light that had had forever to get here. The sky would therefore be brilliantly lit day and night. Your solution is the tired photon hypothesis; it differs from the red shift due to motion in that while the latter can be demonstrated under laboratory conditions, there is no equivalent demonstration for photons getting tired. One of your arguments in favour of this idea is that nothing goes on forever, which is odd coming from someone who insists the universe goes on forever. Other than that, the only argument is circular and worthless.

Clearly you are an educated and intelligent individual ,
and yet you have answered ,"I don't know " to many of my questions ,
You don't know what was before the big bang , nor do I ,
what I'm asking for and I hate having to spell things out for people ,
it kind-of suggests they don't have a brain ,
is your best guess ,
Obviously time and matter existed before the little bang ,
it is childish to refuse to contemplate before the bbt ,
because there is so much about the bbt that is guess work ,
You have inferred that I am like a religious person not dealing with the facts ,
Try this one ,
Olbers Paradox ,
The night sky should be full of light from the "infinite" number of stars out there ,
and because it isn't they conclude , "the universe must be finite"
absolute rubbish ,
light decays into radio waves , invisible light before 14 billion light years ,
that is why the night sky is not a blanket of white ,
and yet Olbers Paradox is still quoted as the "Proof" the universe is finite .
so science is slow to admit mistakes ,
I believe , the bbt is wrong , and I'm not alone , there are plenty of people with degree's on the subject ,
who I have got a lot of this from , who agree with my assumption,
You don't know how it all started , if there was a start , etc , good , thats honest ,
nor do I know 100% that can be demonstrated to every bodies satisfaction ,
So whats your best guess ,
The universe is infinite in time and space , there was no beginning ,
The universe is not expanding ,
Religion is the madness that is destroying our world ,,,!!!!!!

[tillingborn]

So if you see an expanding universe due to, so called, red shift, you are taking a leap of faith like that required by religion,

I'll try again:

The Big Bang Theory, actually that is worth repeating: Theory. I could make it bold, increase the font size, colour it red, but I'm not sure it would make any difference, would anything convince you that I understand that it is a theory?

as you then speak of that which we cannot see, because the only truthful thing we can say, due to our current visual horizon (limited vision of indeterminate size, relative to the full extent of the whole universe) is that it appears that the galaxies in our particular area, of the indeterminate whole of the universe, are opening their relative positions, which is not necessarily indicative of anything beyond what we can see.

I'll try again:

The Big Bang Theory, actually that is worth repeating: Theory. I could make it bold, increase the font size, colour it red, but I'm not sure it would make any difference, would anything convince you that I understand that it is a theory?

That is what Thales did two and a half thousand years ago; by doing so he liberated the human mind from sweet, but silly fantasies about gods and set the course for philosophy and science that has resulted in us putting people on the moon and building Large Hadron Colliders.

Non-inquisitor, as it does not necessarily follow, that your leap of faith, from our limited perspective, that the universe is expanding, is aligned with Thales and the Scientific communities moon visitation or Hadron Colliders.

You mean non sequitur. I am not suggesting that there is any logical necessity to the argument and as to my leap of faith, let me remind you:

The Big Bang Theory, actually that is worth repeating: Theory. I could make it bold, increase the font size, colour it red, but I'm not sure it would make any difference, would anything convince you that I understand that it is a theory?

Which bit do you not understand?

[SpheresOfBalance]

So if you see an expanding universe due to, so called, red shift, you are taking a leap of faith like that required by religion,

I'll try again:

The Big Bang Theory, actually that is worth repeating: Theory. I could make it bold, increase the font size, colour it red, but I'm not sure it would make any difference, would anything convince you that I understand that it is a theory?

as you then speak of that which we cannot see, because the only truthful thing we can say, due to our current visual horizon (limited vision of indeterminate size, relative to the full extent of the whole universe) is that it appears that the galaxies in our particular area, of the indeterminate whole of the universe, are opening their relative positions, which is not necessarily indicative of anything beyond what we can see.

I'll try again:

The Big Bang Theory, actually that is worth repeating: Theory. I could make it bold, increase the font size, colour it red, but I'm not sure it would make any difference, would anything convince you that I understand that it is a theory?

That is what Thales did two and a half thousand years ago; by doing so he liberated the human mind from sweet, but silly fantasies about gods and set the course for philosophy and science that has resulted in us putting people on the moon and building Large Hadron Colliders.

Non-inquisitor, as it does not necessarily follow, that your leap of faith, from our limited perspective, that the universe is expanding, is aligned with Thales and the Scientific communities moon visitation or Hadron Colliders.

You mean non sequitur. I am not suggesting that there is any logical necessity to the argument and as to my leap of faith, let me remind you:

The Big Bang Theory, actually that is worth repeating: Theory. I could make it bold, increase the font size, colour it red, but I'm not sure it would make any difference, would anything convince you that I understand that it is a theory?

Which bit do you not understand?

Your ego has shown, minutely, throughout this thread, here and there, but not as much as in this message. You are dangling it for everyone to see, in your unneeded sarcasm. It's hell, in being seen, for what one can be, as one tries to hide behind words, or a word.

As far as 'sequitur' is concerned, that was my spell checker, plugging in the word 'inquisitor,' that my failing eyes neglected to catch. I wish I was perfect, yet we're all dying the moment we're born.

My point, that seemingly went over your head, is that at least "I" always try and be as clear as possible, with my wording, speaking as much truth, as possible, at all times, and I welcome critique, in order to perfect it, as much as my ailing body allows. The point here, is that I wonder why people call it a theory, yet word it, as they talk about it, otherwise. And then it dawns on me. So as to promote it beyond that of a theory, at every convenience, so as to sell it.
A lie???
Oh, no see way back here, at the beginning, you may have overlooked, or forgotten about it, but I said it was only a theory.
Yes, I see...

The only reason one would use a word, like 'theory,' so as to describe a body of words, as to their weight, and yet speak within that body of words, giving it more weight, as if its fact, is born of dishonesty, plain and simple, and is a testament to the human condition, of ego before truth. One would almost believe that this was your theory.

You are seemingly well read, as to the subject at hand, I commend you on your time spent. I only interjected so as to lend to your intellect, not your parroting. Anyone with a keen memory, can recite that which they've read, but the one that truly impresses me, is the one that can then pick it apart, and make it better, reducing it's flaws, so that everyone can more readily, understand it, for what it truly is. These are the marks of a true authority, especially one of philosophy.

You may see it otherwise, but show me truly, where you can see, that I'm trying to diminish you. You understood my points and agreed, yet you cling to a single word, as if it shall make you better at being understood. Is that not your goal, to be better understood, as to the actual truth, in the imparting, of current ideas, here in a philosophy forum?

You may want to continue to see us as enemy's, as to this point. That, of course, is your choice.

[tillingborn]

My point, that seemingly went over your head, is that at least "I" always try and be as clear as possible,

Actually, so do I, but it is very difficult to make yourself understood when the person you are addressing has their own interpretation of words. When I say suggest, what I mean is suggest. Likewise my use of the word theory is intended to mean theory. You however, keep telling me I mean something different.

You may want to continue to see us as enemy's, as to this point. That, of course, is your choice.

If I could be certain that what you mean by enemy is the same as me, I could make a decision.

[SpheresOfBalance]

My point, that seemingly went over your head, is that at least "I" always try and be as clear as possible,

Actually, so do I, but it is very difficult to make yourself understood when the person you are addressing has their own interpretation of words. When I say suggest, what I mean is suggest.
Have you looked up the word suggest lately? Even the most respected dictionary agrees with me, the Oxford, (online edition) definition #2. Redshift does not necessarily 'cause one to think that (universe expansion) exists or is the case.' Not necessarily, well at least to anyone that has any kind of brains, as it's seen in a limited window of unknown size. Yes it's possible, but not necessarily probable, so it makes it's wielder a potential fool. To say something 'is suggested' lends more to probability, while to say that it 'may suggest' of that it 'seemingly suggests,' lends more to only possibility. Mine is the safe bet, as to truth, while yours is a leap of faith, without any undeniable proof. Yours are the words of a swampland salesman. Mine warns 'again and again' that your home my sink, that there are no guarantees.

Likewise my use of the word theory is intended to mean theory. You however, keep telling me I mean something different.
Not at all, you just ignored my point, because you know it to be true. You know that your verbiage, leads people, to take that leap of faith, the word, 'theory,' potentially a forgotten foot note, as they navigate the forest of information, to emerge a believer, in an assumption.

You may want to continue to see us as enemy's, as to this point. That, of course, is your choice.

If I could be certain that what you mean by enemy is the same as me, I could make a decision.
I have nothing against you, but your words, within the body text, leads people to take a leap of faith, when no one can know if it's safe to jump, their safety hanging on the thread of a word, uttered only once, often ignored. At least it has been that way with the TR and STR. I have met many people that see that it's a fact, despite the inclusion of the word 'Theory' in all technical/reference pubs, I've ever seen.

OK you're going to be stubborn, that's fine. But I do believe that you understand my point. And that you see it's merit, no matter how slight.

[Godfree]

My point, that seemingly went over your head, is that at least "I" always try and be as clear as possible,

Actually, so do I, but it is very difficult to make yourself understood when the person you are addressing has their own interpretation of words. When I say suggest, what I mean is suggest. Likewise my use of the word theory is intended to mean theory. You however, keep telling me I mean something different.

You may want to continue to see us as enemy's, as to this point. That, of course, is your choice.

If I could be certain that what you mean by enemy is the same as me, I could make a decision.

Well here's a suggestion for us to try ,
there is a lot of debate as to what the bbt is or is not ,
there are clearly many versions and variations upon the theme ,
so lets hear YOUR variation ,
most of us know the common theories ,
what we don't know is us as individuals , and I am interested ,
what is your model for the universe ,
mine ,
Steady State , infinite universe ,
bangs happen on a galactic scale not a universal one,
no gods no life after death

[tillingborn]

Hello Godfree
I have started a number of threads which explain my model. One of which is called The bunniverse, precisely, SpheresOfBalance, so that no one could mistake it for something I was peddling as the truth. In essence I think the simplest model that accounts for the empirical data, that I am aware of, is a single expanding field and that 'particles' are knots and twists in that field. I have also stated that I suspect that time and spatial dimensions are simply relations that have no meaning in the absence of matter. To my own satisfaction, I can explain every physical phenomenon in the context of that single field. I am almost certain there is more to it, but nothing that there is any evidence for.

SpheresOfBalance, if someone can't understand that calling something a theory means it may not be true, there is a limit to the value of repeating it, likewise 'suggest'. It strikes me as ironic, given what you say about parroting authority, that you refer to a dictionary.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Hello Godfree
I have started a number of threads which explain my model. One of which is called The bunniverse, precisely, SpheresOfBalance, so that no one could mistake it for something I was peddling as the truth. In essence I think the simplest model that accounts for the empirical data, that I am aware of, is a single expanding field and that 'particles' are knots and twists in that field. I have also stated that I suspect that time and spatial dimensions are simply relations that have no meaning in the absence of matter. To my own satisfaction, I can explain every physical phenomenon in the context of that single field. I am almost certain there is more to it, but nothing that there is any evidence for.

SpheresOfBalance, if someone can't understand that calling something a theory means it may not be true, there is a limit to the value of repeating it, likewise 'suggest'. It strikes me as ironic, given what you say about parroting authority, that you refer to a dictionary.

Tillingborn, you and I both know, that there is a very big difference between speaking of the rules, of a man made language, and that of mans conjecture, as to the great mysteries of the universe. Language, and thus definitions, are there so that we can speak to one another. Without standardization, as to the meanings of words, no one makes any sense, as everyone speaks a different language. It's one thing to be honest, and admit that one sees a word differently, and thus that they have defined it differently, and to freely convey the reason why, but it's another thing entirely, to misuse it, purposely, or otherwise, and then allow ego to stand in ones way of admitting it.

Initially in this thread, I quoted (challenged) no one, but merely made a statement of fact, after which you challenged it, and I maintain that your resolve was false. At that time, there was no mention of the word, 'theory,' by you. Just that you saw that, so called, redshift, was indicative, (yes I know you used the word suggest, but in FACT indicate is it's synonym), that the universe was expanding. It is utterly false that one can necessarily make that call, from a window of unknown size. They can guess, but that is conjecture, a leap of faith.

Initially I thought you had integrity, now that image is fading fast, as you presumably, take any meager untrue shot that you can, and all for the sake of pride/ego. I have given you much kudos, that I saw that you deserved, where is my due? I have made a good case and you know it, no matter how nit-picky you may need to see it.

What ever, be stubborn if you will, but you and I both know.

Here is an example of the use of the word suggest in the worlds most respected Dictionary, Oxford: "the temperature wasn’t as tropical as the bright sunlight may have suggested" Notice the use of 'may' as I suggested to you, and no I had not known of oxfords usage until today. As to our topic of discussion, I see that the addition of 'may' is required, as it lends to the actual truth of the matter.

[tillingborn]

Language, and thus definitions, are there so that we can speak to one another. Without standardization, as to the meanings of words, no one makes any sense, as everyone speaks a different language.

Indeed. I'm not going to bother looking it up, but I'm fairly confident that no dictionary will claim that theory is synonymous with fact.

It's one thing to be honest, and admit that one sees a word differently, and thus that they have defined it differently, and to freely convey the reason why, but it's another thing entirely, to misuse it, purposely, or otherwise, and then allow ego to stand in ones way of admitting it.

Well; I think it's fair to point out that the above, seen from a particular perspective, could appear to have the characteristics of a hypothesis which may suggest the possibility that I am consciously attempting to undermine the critical faculties of readers of this forum by surreptitiously including a word I understand will be misunderstood, although it needs to be pointed out that this might in fact not be true. Perhaps. Or, as some people say: it's a theory.

[Godfree]

[quote="tillingborn"]Hello Godfree
I have started a number of threads which explain my model. One of which is called The bunniverse, precisely, SpheresOfBalance, so that no one could mistake it for something I was peddling as the truth. In essence I think the simplest model that accounts for the empirical data, that I am aware of, is a single expanding field and that 'particles' are knots and twists in that field. I have also stated that I suspect that time and spatial dimensions are simply relations that have no meaning in the absence of matter. To my own satisfaction, I can explain every physical phenomenon in the context of that single field. I am almost certain there is more to it, but nothing that there is any evidence for.

time and spatial dimensions have no meaning in the absence of matter .
isn't that like a child who puts their hands over their eyes and thinks ,
daddy isn't there anymore ,???
just because we or someone else are not there to witness it ,
does not mean it didn't happen ,
I could quote a fairly well known story about a tree falling in the desert , or forest depending on the version you heard ,
so you would argue the tree may or may not have made a noise , BUT we have no way of knowing ,,???
I would say the tree made a noise , and that we can know this ,
we can know this because we understand the physics involved ,
and we have similar experiences and understand that when things hit the ground they make a noise,
so to argue we don't/can't know ,
is to my mind , just being deliberately difficult .

[SpheresOfBalance]

Language, and thus definitions, are there so that we can speak to one another. Without standardization, as to the meanings of words, no one makes any sense, as everyone speaks a different language.

Indeed. I'm not going to bother looking it up, but I'm fairly confident that no dictionary will claim that theory is synonymous with fact.
I see that you keep side stepping the original point, as to your original challenge of my interjection in this thread, that it contained no usage of the word 'theory.' That it only contained 'suggest.' Here, I'll re quote you so that you can readily see, as apparently you don't want to be troubled to look back a few pages:

The reason no one can know if the universe, as a whole, is either expanding, contracting or static, is because our observations are only those of relative movement within our particular visible portion of the complete universe. Thus any claim is only speculation.

It's a bit more than speculation. It's true that we can only see so much, but nearly everything we can see looks like it is moving away; suggesting that the visible universe is expanding.

Yes, I would have included "possibly," just prior to "suggesting," for it to actually ring true. And did you notice my use of the word know, as any challenge that follows, precludes the use of the word 'theory.' at least as it pertains to my statement of fact, that you decided to argue.

And that my friend, was my original post, addressed to know one, and your challenging it. Clearly the word 'theory' does not exist. The crux of my concern is your use of 'suggest,' without a modifier, which is synonymous with 'indicate.' And what one sees in a window of indeterminate relative size, in this case, does not necessarily indicate, any such thing. For example, it could be true, that the full extent of the universe is merely an additional percentage, of what we can currently see, however, it could also be true that our current visual window, is like that of a quark in size, relative to the full extent of the universe, that is the size of our current visual window, or beyond, to the googolplex power, as our current window of opportunity, could not possibly, necessarily, indicate either way. To say either way, is merely conjecture. In fact it 'may' indicate that which you assert, and it 'may' not. It is purely conjecture. To pose a theory that is limited in scope, is limited in scope, why bother, if it's just an incremental guess, of infinite possibility? If only to sooth the egos, of those that need to know-it-all. Which is in fact where this sort of thing comes from. I am comfortable with keeping my vision on our current horizon, as that, is the only thing, that is somewhat certain.

It's one thing to be honest, and admit that one sees a word differently, and thus that they have defined it differently, and to freely convey the reason why, but it's another thing entirely, to misuse it, purposely, or otherwise, and then allow ego to stand in ones way of admitting it.

Well; I think it's fair to point out that the above, seen from a particular perspective, could appear to have the characteristics of a hypothesis which may suggest the possibility that I am consciously attempting to undermine the critical faculties of readers of this forum by surreptitiously including a word I understand will be misunderstood, although it needs to be pointed out that this might in fact not be true. Perhaps. Or, as some people say: it's a theory.
You conveniently ignored the fact that I said, "purposely, or OTHERWISE." Are the bold, underlined caps, easier for you to see, or is your integrity sinking fast, for the sake of ego?