My Cosmology

Does it?
The observable does have a definable size but there is much beyond its boundary and I am pretty sure there is no way of knowing just how big it is ...but believe me I know its infinite☺

This permittive part ... has it been observed? Its seems something you have invented at the moment...which is fine but let me know if you are speculating or referrencing a particular model.

You interpret the universe to act that way, which is reasonable but all that has occurred is you are able to use human tools to describe relationships but we dont know zip really.

Not misused at all.
It is what we can observe apparently.

Alex

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The big bang does not really say anything about t=0 and all it does say is the condition was hot and dense...why folk see BB as a begining beats me when the theory clearly says it deals with something...a hot dense something and BB offers no comment as to how it was hot and dense or where it came from.
Why folk want to claim this as a begining is beyond me as clearly the theory does not say such ... BB theory merely deals with the evolution of the universe from what was believed to be a hot dense state.
Alex

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No, it isn't there in any physical form, it is a permittive nothingness that can theoretically be infinite, but is physically unobservable.

I don't see how one perspective of an unobservable condition could be invalidated by another.
My guess is as good as yours, and I say this with respect. Neither of us can prove our perspective, because we can only deal with the observable universe.

However we can measure red-shift of old and assumed early cosmic events or configurations.
~13.8 LY is the earliest we can measure and there seems to be an absence of older waves, from any further lack of red-shift.

Moreover, the oldest waves are missing the longest wave-lengths which would suggest an originally small but expanding emitting body. The BB?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Oh,I agree with that, but at some point it seems that the origins of the universe are no longer of a physical nature and causality is a hierarchical form of mathematical orderings, culminating in physical expression as a dense hot plasma which, in turn, gave rise to what we see today.

Bohm's Implicate and Explicate orders?

 

t=0 (there was nothing) t=1 (there was infinity)? The big bang doesn't say anything about that either. But then we are talking about THIS universe, no?
What about the missing wave-lengths?

My point is that the concept of "infinity and "inflation" pose a paradox. It cannot do both unless once assumes a completely permittive infinite condition where Hilbert's Hotel can be functionally applied.

As I understand Hilbert's Hotel, one can have a fully occupied hotel but are always able to accommodate new guests. It is infinitely permittive of new guests.

But until you add the additional guest the status is that the unused permittive area available for any additional guests does not yet exist and is physically created as space in the act of registering the guest (physically).

Hence my drawing a distinction between an infinitely large "permittive condition" and a defined geometric "occupied space"......

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

OK

Try looking harder.☺

Well theres your problem.
Your guess is not as good as mine.☺

I can prove my view that the universe is infinite by simple logic and I have a nice telescope so I should know.

You may be confusing time with distance...the BB model gives you a time frame of 13.8 billion years that we take as the period the universe has been evolving from the hot dense something the model suggests was present a pofteenth of a second after t...cause the model does not go back to t but only a poofteenth of a second past t...now in that 13.8 billion years the universe has been expanding ... it has expanded to an approximate diameter of 100 billion years, which is as much as we can observe....we are not limited by our scopes and better scopes wont cross the 100 bly barrier ..
The problem is that at this boundary the "other" parts of the universe are rushing away faster than light ..
That means we will never seen that part of the universe....what we can still see is our observable universe.

I am not understanding you here....could you add and expand please.
Alex

 

That sounds nice but I see no reason to think that way.
I have noticed you like math but you seem to assign it an unrealistic significance...
However maybe you could show me how nature uses s math book.
Alex

 

You can see infinitely far? By telescope? Can you see outside the universe?
If not, how do you know more about infinity. than I ?
I believe my logic makes perfect sense also. Else I would not have posited.
But I freely admit I have only my logic to rely on and a meager amount on cosmology.

 

That sounds nice but I see no reason to think that way.
I have noticed you like math but you seem to assign it an unrealistic significance...
However maybe you could show me how nature uses a math book.
I am not disrespecting yur view but could ask" what is different between a theist seeing god everywhere and you seeing math everywhere.

Alex

 

I was attempting a joke.
The observable universe boundary may well be set by what our model suggests.
Alex

 

It certainly does not use our mathematics. Our mathematicas are merely symbolic representations of the orderly formation of recurring natural patterns and behaviors. preceded by universal mathematical potentials. Plato's solids are an example of such abstract mathematical structures.

I can only recommend checking out three cutting edge theoretical/philosophical perspectives on the origins of the universe.
One is actually old, the other two are very recent and based on the latest scientific evidence and consequent information valuation.

Wholeness and the Implicate Order, David Bohm
http://www.gci.org.uk/Documents/DavidBohm-WholenessAndTheImplicateOrder.pdf

"Causal Dynamical Triangulation", Renate Loll
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=causal dynamical triangulation renate loll&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart

"The Mathematical Universe", Max Tegmark

https://arxiv.org/abs/0704.0646

I do indeed like mathematics. Name me a single instance which can yield a reliable projection other than a mathematical form and process. Human symbols are just that, symbols by which we can identify the natural universal mathematical relative values and functions.

Moreover, our symbolic mathematics allowed us to get a glimpse of a Higgs boson emerging from the unseen Higgs field. We asked the Higgs Field to produce a boson and it did.
IMO, that gets pretty fundamental, if coupled with any kind of geometric forms (patterns)

 

Love that question!!!! It is clear that both sides are trying to understand OUR reality.

But reality cannot exist without agreement of what we are looking at.

God is an unnatural conscious motivated intentional being who dwells in an unnatural heaven and can perform unnatural miracles, whereas Universal Mathematics are the only way God could have been physically able to create the universe and his "miracles". We know this from "looking at the question from all physical and scientific perspectives, which have proven the Human concept of ID as part of an intelligent creator being to be bogus.

But if God did not use mathematics, God cannot be equated with natural physics and becomes a myth which will eventually fade into obscurity.
OTOH, Human interpretation of universal mathematics have led us on an astounding path of discovery and allowed us to ask many questions of the mathematical fabric and forces, and if we asked it with the correct mathematics, we usually get an answer. If not, we didn't ask correctly.
Fundamentally, human mathematics (if executed properly) cannot be wrong, it is the scientific language for us to symbolically represent the orderly workings of the universe.
Ask any banker.

You cannot reject mathematics in favor of a supernatural desire....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

, although the expression "movement in the direction of greatest satisfaction" is actually a mathematical equation even then. Mathematical values and functions are EVERYWHERE in our observable universe. God is nowhere to be seen.

Now if someone could come up with the declaration that God is the pseudo-intelligent ordering mathematical essence of the universe, I would say; "God for you".

But then, no miracles would be allowed. A self-referential ordering system of physical ( metaphysical) events does not allow an unequal equation.

 

Sorry I went out of range for a while...

I did not say there was nothing.

The BB does not say there was nothing.

Our hot dense something could have been, in fact must have been, infinite in my view although possibly localised to a region that contained our current observable universe.

We can only observe a bubble which is our observable universe and even if there is more outside our bubble wind it all back and we can only feal with that bubble..
But that bubble could have been but one of infinite bubbles...do you get what I am driving at?
Why is the universe infinite you may ask.
I think it can only be infinite because there can be no condition of nothing ..
If there is nothing you can only find something.

An infinite universe is eternal and therefore requires no creator and as clearly there is no creator evidenced or established in all human history ( other than unsupported wishful thinking) its very absence means the univerce can only be eternal and infinite.
Alex

 

Reality will exist without our agreement I think you may find.

Except there is no god.

God is an idea or concept.
A placeholder for wishful thinking and an answer to unnecessary questions such as meaning and purpose of it all.
It all just is☺ Jan says god is ... I say that there need be no purpose or meaning ... in an infinite eternal universe it may well be just about chaning of form ...maybe its all about the energy river sees or maybe not.

Apart from there being no god...I can make something and not use math and you can look at what I made and describe how math is everywhere.
Math is not the driving force nor is an unevidenced creator.

I absolutely agree but it records and tells us what is likely possible but it is nothing more than a human invention and a way of looking at things ... I actually can not put into words what I am trying to convey it is that profound☺

Yes and presumably beyond☺
Tell me...if maths disappeared would things still work?

Thanks for your links and the chat and sorry my humour is hard to understand.

But overall I doubt if we know as much as we yhink we do. By we I mean everone else ☺ I actually have all the answers but unfortunately I am so far ahead of the times folk probably could not accept my understanding.

Sorry river for chatting with Write 4U in your thread.

Hope spelling etc not too bad I have to go and do stuff and cant check or edit.
Alex

 

Nor can you or I say there was something, and if there was it would obey the mathematical laws as we understand and symbolized our own human observed naturally occurring physical patterns.

True but it does say the original universe started as a singularity . And yes, there maybe other singularities, baby universes or old universes within the permittive condition. But that going way out, IMO.

I'm sorry, I cannot visualize that. But I believe there are actual images of the finite universal plasma.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

In this diagram, time passes from left to right, so at any given time, the Universe is represented by a disk-shaped "slice" of the diagram.

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

And I can visualize a small extremely hot object emerging from some metaphysical tensor, but an infinitely large extremely hot condition from which bubbles form which are then identified as THE Infinite Universe. Doesn't quite feel right. We'd be a bubble in an infinite universe, no?
But what does this infinite condition contain? Or is it just a metaphysical condition, from which Universes emerge? In any case, if it does so consistently and these phenomena form a metaphysical pattern, we're back to mathematics.

Yes and it does not negate mathematics , but rather does negate any notions of ID, no? It is indicative of a probabilistic phenomenon in a chaotic condition and we're back to mathematics.

I can get into the metaphysics of that...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

http://www.bigbangneverhappened.org/p13.htm

IMO, even Alfven cannot deny that all these natural phenomena are mathematical in the way they function and that all aspects of these natural phenomena can be addressed and translated into our symbolic mathematical values functions.
If, as Tegmark proposes, you take the term mathematics in a broad perspective, everything we can possibly imagine as existing has a mathematical nature to it.

Is an Infinite Universe eternal or is Nothing eternal?
I totally agree with the rest....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

LOL, yes of course, we each would just experience it differently.....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

But you could not duplicate it without mathematics. Using maths I could. Using mathematical equations the universe does it naturally. Self-similar
duplication is a mathematical function.

I agree with that mathematics are not necessarily causal. But the (universal) spacetime rules by which physical expressions are allowed to happen are mathematical in their very nature.
It's inescapable. The lack of mathematical functions allow for a condition of probabilistic chaos, no? Then the patterns evolve and we have a demonstrably mathematical universe again.

 

I have the same emotions about the elegant simplicity by which mathematics function in the expression of natural phenomena. That very simple functional aspect is the very simplicity by which many universal mathematical potentials are able to express themselves in reality.

The Fibonacci sequence is no accident, nor is it Fibonacci who invented the mathematical sequence. It existed long before in many natural patterns. It can be found everywhere throughout the universe and abundantly on earth.
In daisies, the Fibonacci sequence of petal formation is encoded in its DNA. Not by Fibonacci, nor by God, but by a simple mathematical functional utility. Yet it occurs in many plants.

5 beautiful examples.
https://www.sunnysports.com/blog/5-examples-of-the-fibonacci-sequence-in-plants/

and of course the mathematical beauty of natural fractals as expressed in many organizations.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Broccoli anyone?

 

Apparently the background waves of the BB are missing the longest wavelengths and the lowest frequencies. As sound waves cannot be longer than the emitting body, and in view that they are missing from the cosmic microwave background it logically follows that the universe started as a relatively small object, but with unimaginable energy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background

Maybe its coincidental, but hydrogen is one of the most energetic particles in nature. It resists compression so strongly that a hydrogen fueled car requires a three stage compression of the hydrogen fuel tank to get any functional volume of hydrogen fuel.