Problems with the Big Bang Theory

[Cerebrum123]

I never liked the Big Bang Theory. I don't think Sheldon Cooper is funny.

[Roy]

The Standard Model concludes that the galaxies are expanding in all directions, along with space expanding between the galaxies.
The expansion of space is posited to account for red-shifted light, ...

No, it isn't. The relative motion of galaxies (due to expansion of space) is posited to account for red-shifted light.

Roy seems to be making a distinction without a difference here. He says the galaxy motion is caused by the space expansion. I say the expansion of space is posited to account for red-shifted light, which is associated with the motion of the galaxies. Roy seems to be making a distinction to avoid the problem of a lack of evidence for expanding space causing light red-shift.

I'm making a distinction to highlight that this:

"In fact, if SR and GR posit that space is a vacuum, then there cannot be any effect on light from the expansion of space."

is complete rubbish because it depends on red-shift being caused by the actual expansion, not by the consequent relative velocity of galaxies.

[Yttrium]

I have the strange urge for a meaningless argument at the moment, so I'll look at Problem 1 here.

[B]
1) Problem - The expanding universe model is self contradictory.

1) If the universe is infinite then it is without limit.
2) To expand means to go beyond a limit.
3) Hence, for a body to expand infers the body has limit.
4) Therefore an infinite, expanding universe is not possible, for the universe cannot go beyond that which does not have a limit.

First off, you're mainly making a semantics argument.
To expand is to grow in size/volume. A limit is something you might expand to, not past.
In an infinite universe, expansion can proceed endlessly. Frankly, that's just common sense. (Not that physics always follows common sense, but this is pretty basic stuff.)

5) If the universe is finite, then it has limit.
6) What exists beyond the universes limit is either a being or a non being.
7) If it is a being, then it must be part of the universe, for the universe itself is a being.
8) If it is a non being, then there is nothing beyond the limit of the universe.

If the universe is finite, then there is nothing beyond it. The expansion can be seen as a reduction in density of the universe. The universe would not be expanding into anything. The average distances between objects would simply be increasing.

9) But, nothing (non being) has no potency (can be) nothing (non being) is receptive of a perfection, and therefore nothing (non being) has potency.
12) Therefore, because 9) contradicts 11), an inflating universe is self contradictory.

Perfection? Potency? What? Your argument here is simply nonsensical. It looks like you just have a problem conceiving of an expansion without something to expand into. This is not really a problem in physics.

[Christianbookworm]

I can imagine an infinite sheet with dots on it with the dots moving away from each other. The distance between the dots gets larger, so the sheet is expanding even though it is infinite. Has anyone told this guy the infinite hotel rooms story? Where there's a htel with an infinite number of rooms. The rooms are somehow all full. But more room can be made by having the old guests take every other room, take only prime number rooms, etc.

[JohnMartin]

I'm making a distinction to highlight that this:

"In fact, if SR and GR posit that space is a vacuum, then there cannot be any effect on light from the expansion of space."

is complete rubbish because it depends on red-shift being caused by the actual expansion, not by the consequent relative velocity of galaxies.

So what is the experimental evidence that expanding space actually causes light to redshift, when according to relativity theory, space is a vacuum? There is no experimental evidence, therefore the standard model (SM) is only an application of the Copernican principle to redshift, whereby the entire universe is thought to expand, because a principle of thought requires that it be so. The SM is an unverifiable, or at least an experimentally unverified theory, hence the SM is not science, but merely a form of Copernican humanism projected into the data of a created universe, which is actually rotating around the stationary earth. Redshifted light is not caused by the expansion of space. Redshifted light is caused by another cause within the rotating universe.

Because the SM is only based upon interpreting redshift data through an apriori principle, the interpretation is false. Hence SM is a fictional model about a universe that never existed, nor never will exist. Space cannot expand, and expanding space cannot redshift light, for light redshift would mean light is attached to the motion of space between bodies, which has never been experimentally demonstrated.

What the heck is space in relativity anyway, other than a thought world of x,y,z,t which doesn't exist in the real. How does x,y,z,t change to x1,y,1,z1,t1 and thereby change the light properties to make light redshift? The idealized model simply cannot be applied experimentally to account for light redshift.

JM

[JohnMartin]

I can imagine an infinite sheet with dots on it with the dots moving away from each other. The distance between the dots gets larger, so the sheet is expanding even though it is infinite. Has anyone told this guy the infinite hotel rooms story? Where there's a htel with an infinite number of rooms. The rooms are somehow all full. But more room can be made by having the old guests take every other room, take only prime number rooms, etc.

The sheet is the limit of space. The standard model cannot account for the expansion between the galaxies and has no explanation for where the galaxies go when they reach the edge of the universe. The entire model is a fraud.

Once Christians believed the universe was created and rotated around the stationary earth. Now we are told that such a universe does not exist because the earth would be in a special place. So the modern universe is composed of motion in all directions to remove the earth from the center of the universe. Now the entire universe is special, to remove the earth from being special. Everything is both affirmed as not being special but implied as being within a universe that is entirely special.

JM

[Yttrium]

So what is the experimental evidence that expanding space actually causes light to redshift, when according to relativity theory, space is a vacuum?

He keeps telling you that it's not about "space expansion". It's about relative velocities between galaxies. We see that the light from other galaxies is red-shifted. We infer from the red shift that the other galaxies are moving away from us. That's all there is to it. If all the galaxies are moving away from us, this implies that the known universe is expanding.

[Christianbookworm]

The sheet is the limit of space. The standard model cannot account for the expansion between the galaxies and has no explanation for where the galaxies go when they reach the edge of the universe. The entire model is a fraud.

Once Christians believed the universe was created and rotated around the stationary earth. Now we are told that such a universe does not exist because the earth would be in a special place. So the modern universe is composed of motion in all directions to remove the earth from the center of the universe. Now the entire universe is special, to remove the earth from being special. Everything is both affirmed as not being special but implied as being within a universe that is entirely special.

JM

Space isn't LITERALLY a two dimensional sheet! It's a simplistic analogy. You do know what analogies are, right?

[JohnMartin]

1) Problem - The expanding universe model is self contradictory.

1) If the universe is infinite then it is without limit.
2) To expand means to go beyond a limit.
3) Hence, for a body to expand infers the body has limit.
4) Therefore an infinite, expanding universe is not possible, for the universe cannot go beyond that which does not have a limit.

First off, you're mainly making a semantics argument.
To expand is to grow in size/volume. A limit is something you might expand to, not past.
In an infinite universe, expansion can proceed endlessly. Frankly, that's just common sense. (Not that physics always follows common sense, but this is pretty basic stuff.)

Limit is the end of a body or the end of a distance. Expansion require motion past a limit. The universe is not infinite according to Olber's paradox.

5) If the universe is finite, then it has limit.
6) What exists beyond the universes limit is either a being or a non being.
7) If it is a being, then it must be part of the universe, for the universe itself is a being.
8) If it is a non being, then there is nothing beyond the limit of the universe.
If the universe is finite, then there is nothing beyond it. The expansion can be seen as a reduction in density of the universe. The universe would not be expanding into anything. The average distances between objects would simply be increasing.

Expansion between galaxies involves the motion of galaxies towards the edge of the universe. Such concludes to motion towards the edge as to nothing.

Potency is a philosophical concept which is not nonsensical.

JM

[JohnMartin]

He keeps telling you that it's not about "space expansion". It's about relative velocities between galaxies. We see that the light from other galaxies is red-shifted. We infer from the red shift that the other galaxies are moving away from us. That's all there is to it. If all the galaxies are moving away from us, this implies that the known universe is expanding.

The relative velocities are are posited to be caused by space expansion. There are no experiments that produce the results required of the standard model. Hence the model is only a hypothesis without any experimental backing.

jM

[Yttrium]

The relative velocities are are posited to be caused by space expansion.

Who posits that? Where? What are you even talking about? The term "space expansion" doesn't even really make sense. A collection of objects/particles expands. The galaxies in the known universe seem to be expanding. Expansion of space doesn't make sense without the context of the objects.

[Yttrium]

Limit is the end of a body or the end of a distance. Expansion require motion past a limit.

A limit is the point at which expansion can no longer take place. It's the end. You don't expand past a limit. You're making up stuff that makes no sense.

Expansion between galaxies involves the motion of galaxies towards the edge of the universe. Such concludes to motion towards the edge as to nothing.

The edge of the known universe IS the galaxies. If the universe is finite, they're not moving towards the edge of the universe, because they are the edge of the universe.

Potency is a philosophical concept which is not nonsensical.

If you say so. You'll have to explain it a lot more to apply it to physical concepts. Otherwise, it appears to me to be nonsensical.

[JohnMartin]

Who posits that? Where? What are you even talking about? The term "space expansion" doesn't even really make sense. A collection of objects/particles expands. The galaxies in the known universe seem to be expanding. Expansion of space doesn't make sense without the context of the objects.

The Standard model posits space expansion between the galaxies. That's what it says.

JM

[JohnMartin]

Limit is the end of a body or the end of a distance. Expansion require motion past a limit.

A limit is the point at which expansion can no longer take place. It's the end. You don't expand past a limit. You're making up stuff that makes no sense.

Yes a limit may be understood as you have said above. But a limit may also be understood as a relative limit, whereby limit is determined relative to an act. When something expands, it initially has a distance, which has an end. The end of the distance is the limit of the distance. When the distance changes, then the expansion moves past the initial limit to another limit.

Expansion between galaxies involves the motion of galaxies towards the edge of the universe. Such concludes to motion towards the edge as to nothing.

The edge of the known universe IS the galaxies. If the universe is finite, they're not moving towards the edge of the universe, because they are the edge of the universe.

Which makes the standard model a fiction. The galaxies cannot be the end of the universe is space is expanding between the galaxies. The SM has many conceptual problems because the model is nothing more than a fiction developed to prop up the fantasy of relativity theory.

Potency is a philosophical concept which is not nonsensical.

If you say so. You'll have to explain it a lot more to apply it to physical concepts. Otherwise, it appears to me to be nonsensical.

Potency is what can be, or can do. Potency as can be, is the cause of limit and change.

JM

[Yttrium]

The Standard model posits space expansion between the galaxies. That's what it says.

Between the galaxies. Yes. You need to include the context. "Space expansion" by itself doesn't mean anything.

If Observer A projects a light and is moving away from Observer B, Observer B sees that light as red shifted. If A is moving towards B, the light is blue shifted. We test that. It works in real life. We see a red shift when we look at other galaxies. We infer that those galaxies are moving away from us, because moving apart is normally what causes red shift, in our experience and testing. Is this a difficult concept to master?