# The Big Bang: Science's Greatest Blunder?

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by dkane75, Dec 20, 2007.

1. ### dkane75Registered Member

Messages:
33
The common explanation for the observation that galactic distance is generally proportional to the "redshift" of spectral absorption lines is that "space itself is expanding" (source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang).

However, this explanation is revealed in its utter absurdity when a simple thought experiment is done concerning any typical computer graphics program. Consider that there is an "observer world" (just like yours) and a "picture world" that resides only on a computer screen. The observer is perfectly free to change the scale of the picture world in any manner that he sees fit. However, this change in scale cannot possibly have any meaning to the inhabitants of the picture world. That is, there is no possible experiment that can be performed within the picture world to verify that its scale has ever changed in any way. A change in scale only becomes manifest in relation to the inhabitants of the observer world.

A full understanding of the implications of this simple thought experiment reveals the utterly absurd position in which mainstream Western cosmology finds itself. It has inexplicably confused the concept of absolute scalar change (experimentally unverifiable) with relative positional change (experimentally verifiable). Only in the latter case does the analogy of the Doppler effect make sense (which is the essence of Hubble's Law).

Because of these observations, another explanation of the redshift phenomenon is drastically needed. However, the explanation that I have to offer is far too large of a paradigm shift to attempt to convey it here. Suffice it to say that I have gotten rid of the ridiculous duality between "stuff" (mass-energy) and dimensionality (space-time) that has been haunting the Western scientific establishment since its very inception. (Hint: the concepts of "time" and "energy" are different ways of describing the same essential "idea-thing".)

Dennis Kane

3. ### losfomoTUnregistered UserRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
125
Wikipedia should not be taken as always correct. It is a great resource in general, but it is kept up by the general public, and therefore subject to many discrepancies. On the other hand, the concept of 'expanding space' is valid as long as you realize the term 'space' really just refers to the distances between objects.

Space should not be thought of as a physical thing that actually stretches or expands. In the case of universal expansion, it is the objects themselves that are CO-MOVING.. not space that is physically expanding as if it were a material thing.

HERE is a reference.

Last edited: Dec 20, 2007

5. ### dkane75Registered Member

Messages:
33
For some reason, there is a hideously subversive element that is missing from our common language experience when it comes to simple discussions concerning dimensionality. On one side, there are "dimensional absolutists" (like me) who claim that discussions concerning dimensional variation are philosophically absurd. On the other side, there are "dimensional relativists" who claim that dimensionality is just one more "entity" that can be experimentally verified.

I know perfectly well what scientists are attempting to claim, and I counter that this claim is profoundly misguided. I understand spatial dimensionality to be an absolute scale, just as I attempted to convey in my thought experiment. There is an enormous difference, however, between spatial dimensionality (as such) and the measurable "space gap" between objects that co-exist within the same dimensional framework. The former is a matter of principle and the latter is a matter of a particular experiment performed within the context of a particular instantiation of this principle.

The bottom line is that there cannot be such a thing as a fixed, universal dimensional context that exists apart from the particular dimensional contexts within which each observer finds himself. When talking about the universe as a whole, the notion of dimensionality simply does not apply. This is because the observer is taken out of the picture, leading to a scenario whereby scientific determinations necessarily do not apply.

If you haven't been able to guess, my arguments are far more philosophical in nature than the type that you typically get on these message boards. I have been developing a "philosophy of dimensionality" for most of my adult life, and the question of the meaning of such a thing as "universal expansion" is right up my alley.

So, for anyone else who wants to travel down this road on which I've been traveling for many years, I welcome you aboard. I just don't know how much more I can say to you guys who seem so satisfied with all of those philosophically ungrounded explanations that you have come to know and love.

7. ### Non-Logical-Idea-GuyFat people can't smile.Registered Senior Member

Messages:
1,002
well the fact that you can think or go down a road or put forward an idea is philosophically ungrounded.

i dunno much about physics but what you say seems viable, but when trying to persuade people don't give them a serious insult at the end - especially about philosophy when so much of human action is ungrounded.

Messages:
5,553

9. ### blobranaRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
2,214
The redshift can be matched up with other distance indicators. There are supernova brightnesses, variable stars , intrinsic galaxy brightness and sizes, as well as gravitational lensing and for smaller scales parallax measurements. All these different techniques would need alternative explanations if the redshift did not have a direct connection with the expansion of spacetime.

And if we were to discount the evidence from redshift there are still the other distance indicators to show that spacetime is indeed expanding. The logical explanation is that at some time in the distant past all the galaxies were here.

10. ### superluminalI am MalcomRValued Senior Member

Messages:
10,876
Yes. There are other confirming distance markers that support cosmological redshift.

Another genius who thinks that thousands of scientists over decades of time have - oops! - missed something so basic.

The "scalar" change is not proportional, as this genius's thought (or lack of thought) experiment would claim. It exhibits in a measurable way only over immense distances.

The sad thing is that it really does correllate to distance, as other known markers (type II supernovae?) show.

Messages:
10,296
{heavy sigh...}

Yet another self-proclaimed genius steps forward to claim that ALL the professional physicists and cosmologists in the whole world are wrong - and that HE has the real answer!!!

Kane, when will you and the other fruitcakes ever learn that you aren't nearly as bright as you think you are? Whenever you - and ONLY you - claim to have found some serious loophole in mainstream physics, that should serve as a major clue that you really have no idea of what you are talking about.

Without even realizing it, you've clearly made a BOLD statement that you are smarter than all the scientists who collectively have untold thousands of man-years of work and study in their fields. Yet you are egotistical enough to stand on the fringe and make your ridiculous claim. I also strongly suspect that you've never bothered to actually get a formal education in any of these areas.

12. ### dkane75Registered Member

Messages:
33
Yes. I am a bold, bad man. I am philosopher. (The origin of scientist.)

Would you care do get into a real conversation with a real man? Methinks that is not very likely!

13. ### superluminalI am MalcomRValued Senior Member

Messages:
10,876
Only pussies say "Methinks". Therefore you can't be a real man. You lose! Game over!

14. ### spidergoatValued Senior Member

Messages:
52,574
So, space isn't expanding, but the stars and galaxies are moving away from each other?

15. ### superluminalI am MalcomRValued Senior Member

Messages:
10,876
Err... whatever.

*bangs head in hopless despair after nearly a thousand posts on the subject* :wallbang:

16. ### dkane75Registered Member

Messages:
33
Everyone else,

Read the opening post again. I am not claiming that there is no such phenomenon as the proportionality between galactic distance and the redshift of spectral absorption lines. I am claiming, however, that this relatively determined phenomenon cannot possibly indicate such a thing as the absolute expansion of the dimensional context of the universe.

By the way, I am also aware of the phenomenon of CMBR. Again, I submit that this phenomenon has precisely nothing to do with such a ridiculous notion as a "relic of the Big Bang".

Don't get your shorts in a bunch, folks. There is no rush for me to take you into territory that I dare say you've never before ventured. It has taken me a long time to develop my theories, and to attempt to shove it down your throats all at once would do both of us a disservice!

17. ### superluminalI am MalcomRValued Senior Member

Messages:
10,876
Completely rediculous.

Unless we like having things shoved down our throats. I wish my girlfriend liked having things shoved down her throat.

18. ### dkane75Registered Member

Messages:
33
Spatial dimensionality is the absolute context whose "absoluteness" is required in order to make any kind of relativistic determination such as motion. In other words, it is nonsensical to speak of a change in our absolute context.

Sure, there is relative motion of galaxies within our local galaxy cluster (caused by gravity), but the galaxies that lie along Hubble's interpolated line do not lie within the reach of this gravitational field.

What I'm trying to say is that the shifting of spectral lines can be caused by one of two things:

1) Ordinary Doppler effect instances whereby gravity is in play
2) Stay tuned...

Messages:
10,296
To the contrary. I'm very much a real man in every sense of the word, including being retired after having spent many years doing actual science - and NOT wishy-washy amatuer philosophical stuff.

So if you happen to know of another REAL man that's interested in a REAL conversation, be sure to point him in my direction.

20. ### superluminalI am MalcomRValued Senior Member

Messages:
10,876
1) Ordinary Doppler effect instances whereby gravity is in play

and,

2) Stay tuned...

I like option #2.

21. ### kanedaActual CynicRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
1,334

Last edited: Dec 21, 2007
22. ### kanedaActual CynicRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
1,334

So, how come everything is moving away from everything else? Local gravity we are told can overcome expansion (or perhaps a new description is needed?), yet there was a time when everything was close enough that local gravity would not have allowed such expansion. If space is not the mechanism, what is the latest excuse?

Maybe DE, except you have to explain that away. Where it originally come from, when it appeared, why there seems to be ever more of it causing faster expansion, etc.

Another BB fudge is urgently needed.