Re: Then I can jump in with my bias....

From: John M <>
Date: Sun, 23 May 2004 10:26:07 -0400

Hi, Hal,
I like your nihilistic (oops: zero-based) ontology as a representation of our knowledge. Beyond that:

I tried to cut out the 'expansion' as a cute idea which got only a justification by ignorance:
it was applicable and no other reasonable proposition was competing with the millions of slanted (theory laden) experiments to prove it - all assuming in advance that it is true.
Hubble was a genius. Not "god's" prophet. He may be right (not necessarily).

In your logic, if 'everything' increases within (including inter- and intraatomic measures, even an expanding space), does it make sense to speak about an unobservable overall change? We, our views, the details, the connections, all change the same way. Is it a fata morgana, if everything stays the same, we just say that the total is getting bigger? (while the universe? - space? being infinite?)

I tried to circumvent this obstacle in my narrative for a beginning (without a "creator"), by assigning 'space' (and 'time) to *our* organization of *our* universe from within. So 'my'
infinite means: the edge of defining space - no such measure beyond that.
Any other "edge" has something beyond it. (Einstein's joke: north of the North Pole?)

Like George, I can dream up occasions for a redshift beside a slow-down.
The conventional physical edifice resulting in missing (dark) things and controversies is the result of views (and calculations!) from an age with less epistemic cognitive inventory to base upon, wishful postulates upon the then logical explanatory trials (discount phlogiston) in concepts not identified to meet our present scrutiny (energy? gravity? their prodigies?)
but used as base in our religious-like belief system of 'physics.
Russell scolded me some years back: Don't I dare call his science a 'religion" - well I don't
but it is a belief system.
This list started to attempt to break loose from it - but too many conventional physicist-opinions terrorized many free spirits back into the 75 subsequent college-generations-brainwashed 'physicist'-community-memes of classical and well calculated physical thought.
Becuase it is efficient and productive it is not necessarily true (like the redshift).

As George said: "I now humbly wait for rebuttals ..." not offers to go elsewhere, because even if I get silenced, after many years of participation, I still want to read this list.

John M

  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Hal Ruhl
  Sent: Saturday, May 22, 2004 6:41 PM
  Subject: Re: Then I can jump in with my bias....

  Hi George:

  The idea at least for my point of view is more along the lines that the multiverse is a form of Nothing something like 256/256 is a form of 1 and [256/256 - 239/239] is another form of zero.

  By the way the idea is that space itself expands. This mechanism does not slow photons but rather increases their wavelength.


  At 05:07 PM 5/22/2004, you wrote:

    It seems most logical, to me anyway, that the Universe is truly infinite in time and space. Nothing
    created it, it will never end, and that is more logical, to me, than arising from nothingness.
    The whole modern concept of big bang etc. is mostly based on Hubble's red shift.
    When I read articles about the cosmos' origins and recent astronomy discoveries,
    I keep imagining immense distances and all kinds of possible ATTENUATIONS of light and gravity
    from distances that we haven't seen. At least not yet Gravity from further reaches of the same U slows
    light photons and therefore RED SHIFTS the light. I know, the same general gravity should act
    the same everywhere and therefore not attenuate, but I can imagine a relative kind of attenuation
    because the light or gravity photon or wave does become affected by all sorts of local gravities
    on its way to us. Why not just like the way light is bent around Mercury or gravity by Jupiter?
    The immense distances would allow for multiple interactions and a gradual slowing or red shift.
    So we don't need the big bang. The church likes it because it allows for a creator.
    And the missing energy or mass or dark matter..
    Why not just our parallel universe operating in a kind of 180 opposite direction from ours.
    Where else would those positrons and other fleeting particles have to go? Into our sister Universe, I
    would guess.
    I have been looking for a forum to express these views....and since I know of no one else..
    Everything-list people might be it.
    I now humbly wait for rebuttals and offers to go elsewhere.
Received on Sun May 23 2004 - 10:36:11 PDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:09 PST