Cont: Why James Webb Telescope rewrites/doesn't the laws of Physics/Redshifts (2)

[theprestige]

While removing "the universe" from the lexicon neither eliminates the evidence of an origin (a very hot dense period of almost, if, no spatial extent) nor the possibility (not "necessity") of a multiverse, in reality. Getting rid of the word doesn't do what you want because simply having it didn't do what you just claimed it did. It's the other way 'round, that evidence supports a very hot dense period of almost, if, no spatial extent (an origin for the perceived universe) and having the mere possibility of a multiverse extending the possible universe beyond what we can directly perceive. The word didn't create the evidence or implications but simply came and is defined as a result of them.

Similarly, just getting rid of the word "cancer" doesn't eliminate a condition where cells reproduce rapidly and out of control perhaps spreading throughout the body. The word didn't cause or drive the condition, in reality the condition simply spawned the word.

Yeah, but when I put tissue under a microscope, all I see are cells in unregulated reproduction. Where's this 'cancer' I'm supposed to see?

 

[The Man]

One interpretation of the evidence supports that. The interpretation that says there's a universe with a finite age.

Actually a number of differing interpretations support that, because, well, the evidence supports that and not all require "a finite age". Big bounce theories just as an OTOMH example.

Cosmologists have adopted a type of multiverse closely intertwined with the inflation epoch:

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

"According to eternal inflation, the inflationary phase of the universe's expansion lasts forever throughout most of the universe. Because the regions expand exponentially rapidly, most of the volume of the universe at any given time is inflating. Eternal inflation, therefore, produces a hypothetically infinite multiverse, in which only an insignificant fractal volume ends inflation. "​

Perhaps you meant to say " Some cosmologists have adopted a type of multiverse closely intertwined with the inflation epoch:"?

True.

But cancer is something you can point to. It has a physical position relative to other things.

That's not true for the universe.

And like I said, we already had a name for the universe. Several, in fact. Reality, Nature, the World, Existence, Being.

Oh, "physical position relative to other things."? What's its position relative to itself? How do you define these "other things" when whatever word you want to choose "Reality, Nature, the World, Existence, Being" generaly encompases all percetable things?

Your linguistic accusation remains without the causal, "has provided", relation you asserted before or whatever redress you seek from that erroneous assertion. It didn't change anything, a rose by any other name.

 

[The Man]

Yeah, but when I put tissue under a microscope, all I see are cells in unregulated reproduction. Where's this 'cancer' I'm supposed to see?

You need a bigger microscope.

My dad had a binocular microscope with a video camera. I rigged one of the eyepiece tubes with a pen light for better illumination on the stage into the camera. If you set things just right you could reflect back and focus in on the filament of the light in the other eyepiece.

 

[Mike Helland]

Actually a number of differing interpretations support that, because, well, the evidence supports that and not all require "a finite age". Big bounce theories just as an OTOMH example.

Perhaps you meant to say " Some cosmologists have adopted a type of multiverse closely intertwined with the inflation epoch:"?

If you rollback inflation and all it entails, the big bang doesn't work. That's why inflation was added.

Both Linde and Guth, however, continued to support the inflationary theory and the multiverse. Guth declared:

It's hard to build models of inflation that don't lead to a multiverse. It's not impossible, so I think there's still certainly research that needs to be done. But most models of inflation do lead to a multiverse, and evidence for inflation will be pushing us in the direction of taking the idea of a multiverse seriously.[21]
​

According to Linde, "It's possible to invent models of inflation that do not allow a multiverse, but it's difficult. Every experiment that brings better credence to inflationary theory brings us much closer to hints that the multiverse is real."[21]​

When I was child, I was taught there was a universe, that began like 12 billion years ago and it expands.

The expanding universe in its original form made a lot more sense. That would be the top picture:

In its original form, an expanding Einstein model had an attractive, economic elegance. Alas, it has since run into serious difficulties, which have been cured only by sticking on some ugly bandages: inflation to cover horizon and flatness problems; overwhelming amounts of dark matter to provide internal structure; and dark energy, whatever that might be, to explain the seemingly recent acceleration. A skeptic is entitled to feel that a negative significance, after so much time, effort and trimming, is nothing more than one would expect of a folktale constantly re-edited to fit inconvenient new observations.​

https://www.americanscientist.org/article/modern-cosmology-science-or-folktale

Oh, "physical position relative to other things."? What's it's position relative to itself?

That's not how "relative" works.

How do you define these "other things" when whatever word you want to choose "Reality, Nature, the World, Existence, Being" generaly encompases all percetable things?

I can see other things. And point to them.

 

[The Man]

If you rollback inflation and all it entails, the big bang doesn't work. That's why inflation was added.

So if you do "rollback inflation and all it entails", time wise, it does work.

Both Linde and Guth, however, continued to support the inflationary theory and the multiverse. Guth declared:

It's hard to build models of inflation that don't lead to a multiverse. It's not impossible, so I think there's still certainly research that needs to be done. But most models of inflation do lead to a multiverse, and evidence for inflation will be pushing us in the direction of taking the idea of a multiverse seriously.[21]
​

According to Linde, "It's possible to invent models of inflation that do not allow a multiverse, but it's difficult. Every experiment that brings better credence to inflationary theory brings us much closer to hints that the multiverse is real."[21]​

Heck, from my perspective it is difficult to invent models of inflation that do or even don't allow a multiverse.

When I was child, I was taught there was a universe, that began like 12 billion years ago and it expands.

The expanding universe in its original form made a lot more sense. That would be the top picture:

[qimg]https://raw.githubusercontent.com/mikehelland/hubbles-law/master/img/bigbang_versions.png[/qimg]

In its original form, an expanding Einstein model had an attractive, economic elegance. Alas, it has since run into serious difficulties, which have been cured only by sticking on some ugly bandages: inflation to cover horizon and flatness problems; overwhelming amounts of dark matter to provide internal structure; and dark energy, whatever that might be, to explain the seemingly recent acceleration. A skeptic is entitled to feel that a negative significance, after so much time, effort and trimming, is nothing more than one would expect of a folktale constantly re-edited to fit inconvenient new observations.​

https://www.americanscientist.org/article/modern-cosmology-science-or-folktale




That's not how "relative" works.

But it is how relativity works.

I can see other things. And point to them.

Well, that would be how electromagnetism works both in the "seeing" and the "pointing".

So we get big bang and inflation does work. Models of inflation that preclude a multiverse, hard but not impossible, so workable. You will note the lack of the word "necessity" in those inflation/multiverse quotes. Instead it's "allow" and "taking the idea of a multiverse seriously". Your eyes and fingers work, presuming you point with your fingers.

Did I miss anything? like you evidently still missed your erroneous assertion that 'Adding "the universe" to the lexicon has provided a ridiculous origin story and the necessity of the multiverse'.

 

[Mike Helland]

So if you do "rollback inflation and all it entails", time wise, it does work.

Huh? Are you arguing for an expanding universe without inflation?

Or just without a multiverse?

Do we get to choose what version of the expanding universe to believe in?

If so, I like the 1960's version too.

 

[The Man]

Huh? Are you arguing for an expanding universe without inflation?

No, that's why I said "rollback inflation and all it entails", time wise, it does work.

Or just without a multiverse?

I'm not arguing either with or without a multiverse.

Do we get to choose what version of the expanding universe to believe in?

If so, I like the 1960's version too.

No, so stop trying.

ETA: Also, just picking one line to quote and address as if nothing else was posted doesn't work.

 

[Mike Helland]

Huh? Are you arguing for an expanding universe without inflation?

No, that's why I said "rollback inflation and all it entails", time wise, it does work.

I don't think we're using rollback in the same way.

rollback /rōl′băk″/
noun

A reduction, especially in prices or wages, to a previous lower level by governmental action or direction.
"a price rollback; a rollback of military supplies."
A turning back or retreat, as from a previously held position or policy.
"hoped for a rollback of support for the opposition's proposed legislation."
A return to a prior state.

When I said "rollback" inflation, I meant revert to the 1960's view.

What do you mean?

 

[The Man]

I don't think we're using rollback in the same way.

rollback /rōl′băk″/
noun

A reduction, especially in prices or wages, to a previous lower level by governmental action or direction.
"a price rollback; a rollback of military supplies."
A turning back or retreat, as from a previously held position or policy.
"hoped for a rollback of support for the opposition's proposed legislation."
A return to a prior state.

When I said "rollback" inflation, I meant revert to the 1960's view.

What do you mean?

I meant as I said and you quoted "time wise". I know what you meant, not just rolling back time but reverting to view that even you asserted "doesn't work". Further even citing a quotation of why it doesn't work "horizon and flatness problems".

Fine, believe in a universe that doesn't work and is counter indicated by observations, even call it whatever you want. It won't change a thing, either now or even back in the 60's. The universe still just was what it is back then. It is just we had less information about it to work with.

 

[Mike Helland]

I meant as I said and you quoted "time wise". I know what you meant, not just rolling back time but reverting to view that even you asserted "doesn't work". Further even citing a quotation of why it doesn't work "horizon and flatness problems".

Fine, believe in a universe that doesn't work and is counter indicated by observations, even call it whatever you want. It won't change a thing, either now or even back in the 60's. The universe still just was what it is back then. It is just we had less information about it to work with.

I think what you're missing here is I don't "believe" any of this.

Did the universe begin around 14 billion years ago, starting with the hyperexpansion of inflation for a nanosecond?

Maybe.

Is it possible? Sure.

It's also possible, and highly probable, that the whole thing has no basis in reality whatsoever.

 

[The Man]

I think what you're missing here is I don't "believe" any of this.

So you don't believe the malarkey you've been posting?

As far as I can recall, there is nothing in modern cosmology that includes belief as a significant determining factor.

Did the universe begin around 14 billion years ago, starting with the hyperexpansion of inflation for a nanosecond?

Maybe.

Is it possible? Sure.

It's also possible, and highly probable, that the whole thing has no basis in reality whatsoever.

Ah, so you do believe it is not only "possible" but even "highly probable, that the whole thing has no basis in reality whatsoever. Is belief a significant determining factor in the observation of reality, in your understanding?

 

[Mike Helland]

So you don't believe the malarkey you've been posting?

As far as I can recall, there is nothing in modern cosmology that includes belief as a significant determining factor.

Ah, so you do believe it is not only "possible" but even "highly probable, that the whole thing has no basis in reality whatsoever. Is belief a significant determining factor in the observation of reality, in your understanding?

I believe that I have doubts, if that's what you're asking.

You believe in the expanding universe with zero doubt?

That doesn't seem rational.

 

[The Man]

I believe that I have doubts, if that's what you're asking.

No, I asked specifically about the relevance of belief to both the notions you post here and those you seem to oppose.

So what do you base this belief in your doubts upon?

You believe in the expanding universe with zero doubt?

That doesn't seem rational.

So, did you just miss or simply deliberately ignore the part where it was asserted that belief is not a significant determining factor in any cosmological theory I’m aware of?

Frankly, I don’t care, I’ll go with whatever is consistently supported by the observational evidence.

Similarly, I’m not aware of any cosmological theory that includes doubt, or the lack thereof, as a significant determining factor.

However, that being said, independent repeatability and the active pursuit of contraindicating observational evidence is what separates science from pseudoscience.

 

[Mike Helland]

So what do you base this belief in your doubts upon?

Me having doubts is simply a statement of fact.

So, did you just miss or simply deliberately ignore the part where it was asserted that belief is not a significant determining factor in any cosmological theory I’m aware of?

It shouldn't be.

However, that being said, independent repeatability and the active pursuit of contraindicating observational evidence is what separates science from pseudoscience.

I'd say any claim that relies on the existence of "the universe" is fantasy.

The expanding/inflating/multiverse/dark energy believers are operating in fantasy. Not reality.

It keeps the cosmologists busy. As long as they're happy, I guess.

 

[The Man]

Me having doubts is simply a statement of fact.

But it wasn't just a simple statement of fact, you asserted probability. Asserting it was even "highly probable, that the whole thing has no basis in reality whatsoever."

What is your basis for that near quantitative assessment of the validity of your doubts?

It shouldn't be.

Fantastic, so beliefs don't and shouldn't matter in any cosmological theory.

I'd say any claim that relies on the existence of "the universe" is fantasy.

Likewise, I'm not aware of any cosmological theory where what you say is a significant determining factor.

The expanding/inflating/multiverse/dark energy believers are operating in fantasy. Not reality.

It keeps the cosmologists busy. As long as they're happy, I guess.

Wait, didn't you just assert that belief shouldn't be a significant determining factor in any cosmological theory? Yet now here you are fixating back on it again, particularly just your beliefs about the beliefs of others. Ain't that like belief²? Would you like to try for belief³? Heck, maybe that's what you've been missing all this time, a four-vector belief.

 

[Mike Helland]

But it wasn't just a simple statement of fact, you asserted probability. Asserting it was even "highly probable, that the whole thing has no basis in reality whatsoever."

What is your basis for that near quantitative assessment of the validity of your doubts?

The expanding universe wasn't working.

They "fixed it" by adding a nanosecond right at the beginning where 990 billion years of expansion takes place.

Now they're trying to fix inflation.

The basis for my doubts is that expansion didn't work and adding exponential amounts of it is silly.

I believed this stuff as a kid. I'm not a kid anymore.

Wait, didn't you just assert that belief shouldn't be a significant determining factor in any cosmological theory? Yet now here you are fixating back on it again, particularly just your beliefs about the beliefs of others. Ain't that like belief²? Would you like to try for belief³? Heck, maybe that's what you've been missing all this time, a four-vector belief.

I think a reasonable person would have serious doubts about the status of cosmology as a real science. No controlled experiments. The null hypothesis is always ignored. The subject matter itself is the creation of existence as we know it.

I don't blame my childhood self for believing in it. But at some point we're gonna have to circle back to reality.

 

[Mike Helland]

Here's a good example, Sean Carroll and Brian Greene talking about inflation:

https://www.youtube.com/live/WGN4Jv5sWQI?si=SfodsT1FI-akBFBC&t=1093

Mentions the multiverse, and then he says he thinks inflation, to him, has a "50% chance of being right" (20:49).

So. Seems like a good mindset. The only reason inflation would be true is if expansion is true. So let's say, there's a 50% chance the universe is expanding, and if it is expanding, there's a 50% chance inflation happened.

That would mean inflation has a greater than 50% chance of being simply made up.

 

[steenkh]

I think you are misunderstanding what is happening in cosmology. Of course cosmologists are aware that inflation could be wrong, but currently there is no better theory, as you well know, because you have yourself experienced how difficult it is to construct a cosmological theory that is supported by all available facts.

Inflation is currently the best theory we have, so of course this is what has the most interest, but if a better theory comes up, you can be sure that it will arouse a lot of interest.

The null theory is that the best theory we have is the right one, it is not that no theory is the right one. We will always go with the best, even if it is not perfect.

 

[jonesdave116]

The expanding universe wasn't working.

And yet all the evidence supports it.

But at some point we're gonna have to circle back to reality.

And the reality is that the evidence supports the fact that the universe is not only expanding, but is doing so at an accelerating rate.

The plethora of former steady-state advocates didn't just toss it aside because it was no longer cool to support. They ditched it because the evidence against it, and in favour of BBT, was overwhelming. They are welcome to jump ship back to SS, but I don't see any of them doing that. Were they all idiots? The only support I see for SS models these days is not in the peer-reviewed literature, but on crackpot websites and youtube channels from rank amateurs. That is not a good sign.

 

[Mike Helland]

And yet all the evidence supports it.

I used to believe that too.

The plethora of former steady-state advocates didn't just toss it aside because it was no longer cool to support. They ditched it because the evidence against it, and in favour of BBT, was overwhelming. They are welcome to jump ship back to SS, but I don't see any of them doing that. Were they all idiots? The only support I see for SS models these days is not in the peer-reviewed literature, but on crackpot websites and youtube channels from rank amateurs. That is not a good sign.

You seem to be under the impression the steady state universe wasn't an expanding one.

That's wrong.