You have taken a very bad example for predictions. There are no predictions in this case, only conjectures. Cosmology is metaphysics with mathematical formulas. It is good of you to have confidence in Science. So do I. But I refuse to accept blindly what scientists tell me. Once again, even when all scientists agree on something it is still no guarantee that it is true. It is certainly an indication to take it seriously as long as there is no better alternative. But it should not be a reason to close our minds to other possibilities, how crazy they may sound at first.

I confess that I find the fact that we can see across immense distances with a telescope as something that has not been fully analyzed in all its consequences — Hachem

The nature of perception, space, and duration must be reimagined in a completely new manner.

For example, perspective tells us what can be grasped and what cannot. By changing perspective, we are able to grasp. So if there field of action is holographic, the mind might not be "moving" but rather manipulating the perspective of the hologram. Understanding art and perspective provides some insight into this possibility. It may also be possible to better understand the nature of non-local action by flipping distance and reimagining it as perspective. It's a long shot, but nothing other than a complete 180 degree flip is going to provide insight into the nature of mind and perception.

I think you certainly should keep digging in this direction. My inclinations are different if certainly not opposed to yours.
Right now I am still wondering how distant stars can be reflected on our retina and how the moon can be reflected on a lake.
I am completely unsatisfied with the theory of the duality of light and will continue my reflexions and modest experiments with photographic gear (professional lab gear to study light is simply out of my reach), and see where that gets me.

Right now I am still wondering how distant stars can be reflected on our retina and how the moon can be reflected on a lake.
I am completely unsatisfied with the theory of the duality of light and will continue my reflexions and modest experiments with photographic gear (professional lab gear to study light is simply out of my reach), and see where that gets me. — Hachem

Yes, I too have reflected on all this and have decided that the arts and holographic photography is the most useful direction to proceed. Science has to be turned on its head.

Bergson used photography as his model for explanation and Stephen Robbins reinterprets Bergson in a holographic setting. While Bergson modeled holography in his writings, it actually predates holography by many decades, so as with Da Vinci, he had a miraculous ability to See.

David Bohm describes in his essay on Creativity how paradoxes are resolved by flipping perspective. To solve these issues it is necessary to consider science moving 180 degrees in the opposite the direction of nature because it deals with matter not life. Bergson's critique of Relativity is brilliant beyond measure. Stephen Robbins covers it in one of his videos.

Damned if I know what's going on with the universe. But...

No one can "see" the universe in its entirety -- we are part of it, of course, or at least I hope we are -- and it exceeds our farthest reach of vision. Perhaps (or probably) some galaxies are already invisible to us, and will never be visible in the future.

The universe is a model, not a photograph.

Does the background microwave radiation help you at all? It appears to be everywhere, not evenly spread out. How would the big bang be consistent with a universe that was NOT expanding? How could something be "in the center"?

What is the relationship between a black hole and the space around and in it? Does it have space within it?

In regards to light:

1) There is no duality. It is a wave (a real wave as discussed a hologram) and what is perceived as a particle is simply a wave perturbation (De Broglie-Bohm). As an aside, De Broglie was an admire of Bergson.

2) Zajonc wrote an interesting book on light called "Catching the Light". Lots of interesting bits of information that he collected but no insightful conclusions.

3) Don't think of light as propagate propagating in distance. Rather, as with Bohm's quantum potential, it is the form that is changing (similar to the way perspective creates distance). Thus, the canvas isn't necessarily getting larger or smaller, but rather the forms on it are changing.

You have to look hard for the problems with Relativity (Robbins-Bergson are a good starting point), but the upshot is that ontologically it is a mess despite. It should be considered only as a mild extension of the Lorentz transformation equations, no more. I often wonder whether Einstein's wife, a highly skilled mathematician during a time when women had no future in science, did all of the heavy lifting, especially since Einstein gave her all if the Nobel money. For me, Einstein was a pop star. Very unimpressive when it came to philosophy. His stance on QM was way off the charts.

No one can "see" the universe in its entirety -- we are part of it, of course, or at least I hope we are -- and it exceeds our farthest reach of vision. Perhaps (or probably) some galaxies are already invisible to us, and will never be visible in the future. — Bitter Crank

It is my understanding that there is a great deal of the universe which is, even theoretically, unreachable from here because it is receding from us faster than the speed of light.

As to how that's possible, I've been confused. When I've asked how can some cosmological features be greater than 15 billion light years from us when the universe is only 15 billion years old, it's been explained that increase in distance caused by expansion of the universe is not the same thing as increase in distance as we usually think of it. Or that's what I think they said. Help someone.

This is just one of many instances where General and Special Relativity behinds to contradict each other with impunity:

https://www.space.com/33306-how-does-the-universe-expand-faster-than-light.html

Be out consider this, according to Special, an observer in any frame of reference can be considered at rest relative to other bodies in motion. Thus, according to Relativity, they are both exceeding the speed of light and at rest. I wonder what that must feel like?

For these reasons and many more, Relativity should not and cannot be given ontological meaning. They should simply be treated as transformation equations. What is actually happening it's beyond the c scope of Relativity. Ontologically, Relativity is a mess of contradictions, which are simply permitted by those who wish to give it ontological meaning.

I am suspicious of theories rejected by the consensus of the scientific community. If you look, there are lots of people that say relativity and quantum mechanics are hoaxes. At the same time, I am sympathetic to the frustration that comes from not understanding the chain of inference that scientists follow on complex issues. It would be helpful if we could get someone on the line who knows the science well. — T Clark

I agree. If we were arguing over the tenth decimal place of some constant then maybe we would have something. But the foundation of the theory of our entire universe? Seems a bit incredulous. And yet, there seems no real answer to my question. I agree, we need the heavy hitters in to answer this properly.


Rich, you're pretty up on your quantum mechanics and physics in general. Where is the flaw in the premise that the universe could be contracting, based on the red shift or anything else?

If this were so, the red shift would be greatest towards the mass that is pulling everything in since acceleration would be greatest there. Smaller red shift in the opposite, and blue shift in the other 4 directions as things parallel to us all get sucked closer to this mass. This tendency is called tidal force: expansion in 2 dimensions and contraction in the other 4, and is a signature of a strong gravitational field. — noAxioms

This is what I am arguing. How does it look now? Again if there was shrinkage of space around the galaxies the blue shift could be compensated for.

Rich, you're pretty up on your quantum mechanics and physics in general. Where is the flaw in the premise that the universe could be contracting, based on the red shift or anything else? — MikeL

Well, from the perspective of Special Relativity, how could anything bed contracting toward anything, since there is reciprocity between all frames of reference. There is no center! But then we switch to General Relativity which claims there are preferred frames of reference since one is supposedly accelerating while the other is not. Which one is accelerating?? So which SR or GR are we to believe if either? Can we use either for fundamental ontological knowledge, e.g. the universe is expanding. I don't think so. The theories contradict each other and cannot be brought under the umbrella of QM.

We certainly perceive changes in the Universe but everything about the standard scientific explanations, beginning with the Big Bang (the preferred center of the universe?) is flawed and can be questioned, so rather than try to solve the endless paradoxes (a twin paradox should not exist under SR, since both twins can be considered at rest relative to each other), I choose to ignore all of it, especially the notion of time and distance. I believe it is all wrong. I definitely don't take seriously the notion of faster than light galaxies.

Alternatively, ones can spend their life trying to solve all the paradoxes, and maybe have fun trying to come up with clever answers (which will necessarily contradict each other), but for me I rather pursue lines of thought that may prove more fruitful. My guess is that some point you'll also throw in the towel.

This is what I am arguing. How does it look now? Again if there was shrinkage of space around the galaxies the blue shift could be compensated for. — MikeL

Yes, under SR time and length are reciprocal. Contraction of length is ignored leading to all sorts of paradoxes. So many, that I simply game up on Relativity. It would be like spinning my wheels in Zeno's. None of it is real.

Here is an interesting statement:

https://groups.google.com/forum/m/#!topic/fr.sci.maths/Gy09OKYu3Ss

Could you provide me with the evidence for the expansion please. — MikeL

The discovery is associated with Edward Hubble. It appears pretty solidly documented. I don't see any merit in doubting established scientific findings on the basis that 'it seems wrong', although there seems to be some controversy over the rate of the expansion, e.g. see here.

is the inference that we are at the centre of the universe, as everything is red-shifted away from us? — MikeL

It is shifting away from any point you happen to be whether that's Earth or some other location.

I would like to present something that I wrote some time ago, when I was researching Relativity and Quantum Theory. I would be interested in your reactions on this single issue of the decay rate of muons and how RT and QM very often are self fulfilling prophecies. But especially the first point, the second being too wide and too deep for fast solutions.

https://philpapers.org/post/18962

edit: even though it is not exactly about the expansion of the universe, it concerns light and how it is conceived. That's when my interest started in the subject of light.

I listened to a similar analysis by Stephen Robbins, but he took a more straightforward approach. He simply demonstrated that the body that is considered in accelerated motion (e.g., the muon or twin) could just as well be considered at rest and the Earth observer accelerating. Thus why the dilation? Something is happening but SR and GR are contradicting each other.

Another point, developed in Canales book:

https://www.amazon.com/Physicist-Philosopher-Einstein-Bergson-Understanding/dp/0691173176

Time in SR is not time in GR, but explanations of Relativity paradoxes bounce back and forth as if they are. In GR there is this concept of space-time while SR uses time in the more traditional meaning found in Newton's equations.

The upshot is this. One can spend their life trying to iron out Relativity by trying to explain all of the paradoxes, as one forever tries to figure out solutions to Zeno's (nothing wrong with this), or one can use the paradoxes as a red flag that something is very wrong (Bohm's suggestion) and forget about it. I chose the latter and instead I am following the ontological path laid out by Bergson. The same with QM. Rather than deal with superposition and wave collapses, I just choose Bohm's quantum potential and non-locality. The two ontological paths actually come together quite nicely.

The discovery is associated with Edward Hubble. It appears pretty solidly documented. — Wayfarer

I'm not arguing he saw the red shift Wayfarer. I'm arguing that the red shift does not necessarily imply an expanding universe. Maybe all of the galaxies are shrinking on the spot! Same effect, don't you agree? Maybe there are all contracting away from each other toward the center of the universe - again same effect.

If these can't be proven false, then the entire Big Bang to Heat Death is one theory predicated upon a weaker one.

Yes, under SR time and length are reciprocal. Contraction of length is ignored leading to all sorts of paradoxes. So many, that I simply game up on Relativity. It would be like spinning my wheels in Zeno's. None of it is real. — Rich

If this is the best evidence physics can offer about the expanding universe, red blurs in a telescope and conflicting equations, it seems like the premise and the entire multi-story list of deductions that come from it, is balancing on a single egg shell. - All because of a bit of red out there.

If you spend some time investigating just some of the paradoxes and evidence offered for certain theories, it is indeed flimsy and the explanations offered would make a contortionist blush. It's all so awful, and in school they teach it with such reverence. Similarly, I am reading a newly published book, DNA Is Not Destiny", where the author, Steven Heine, rakes high schools and universities for their simplistic and false ways they teach generics. It's like "You can't handle the Truth!".

Early on, I learned that if there are paradoxes and a steady stream of inconsistencies, the theory is flat out wrong, and what is needed is a new way of looking at the problem. That is why Bohm's QM solution is so straightforward and brilliant in nature.

So it comes down to this. Relativity helps address some measurement problems, but no more. There are two definitions of time used in SR and GR and the theories inherently contradict each other and are internally inconsistent. So for developing an ontological theory of nature, they are useless and any attempt to use any aspect of Relatively in a metaphysical model, especially Time, will simply confuse and lead in the wrong direction.

If you are looking to spend time trying to unravel the Relativity mess and amuse yourself and others with all of its contractions, then you have hit the mother lode. If you want to get on with the business of understanding the nature of nature, then just forget it and all cosmology that depends upon it, and look for more fertile grounds. No time can be better spent than thoroughly understanding Bergson and Bohm (and Sheldrake, if you are biologically bent), and with this knowledge begin to construct an interesting metaphysics. You really don't need a better foundation. After that, study and art so that you can begin to see nature deeply as it is. Tai Chi would be equally useful. Mathematics is unnecessary, since no amount of mathematics can ever capture the richness of nature. It doesn't even scratch the surface. What you need is a super keen sense of observation and a well developed creative intuition.

Yeah, I hear you Rich. But if the theory of the expanding universe is so pathetically weak, how has it come to pass as the accepted model. I'm no physicist and if I can look at it and say, hey what about space shrinkage around galaxies or a contracting universe, a gazillion others must have had the same questions.

It's a big deal, as it means we need new theories for everything to do with space, dark matter, dark energy all of it, or at least alternative theories. No wonder they keep invoking new stuff to explain inconsistencies.

But are we sure that there is no other supporting evidence? If not, wow!

Don't forget to post the Nobel Prize to Australia.

So which SR or GR are we to believe if either? — Rich

SR and GR are not different...

This seems to be very pseudo-scientific right here. SR is a special case of GR, which occurs mainly when we're dealing with flat, non-curved space.

Okay. Any feedback on the validity of my argumentation concerning muons?

Who are you talking to? Was the muon comment for me or for Rich?

@MikeL
anyone. I am interested, in this case at least, in direct feedback on the argumentation, and much less on a general discussion, which I also consider as important, of RT and QM. In other words, are the arguments I am using solid or fallacious?

I'm arguing that the red shift does not necessarily imply an expanding universe. — MikeL

On what grounds? My cousin thinks Einstein has it all wrong. He drives a cab.

Nothing wrong with driving cabs Wayfarer. I heard of a guy that once worked in a Patent office. You won't believe his story.

To answer the question though, on the ground that the shift is caused by one object moving away from the other. One explanation is that it is moving away from you very fast, or another explanation is that you are moving away from it very fast. Directionality is the key here. They could also all be contracting toward their centre, in which case they are also all moving away from each other.

SR and GR are not different...

This seems to be very pseudo-scientific right here. SR is a special case of GR, which occurs mainly when we're dealing with flat, non-curved space. — Agustino

I'm not going to get too much into the confused mess of GR and SR, because no one can provide good answers. Only three people understand Relativity and none agree.

The wonderful world of Relativity.

https://www.space.com/33306-how-does-the-universe-expand-faster-than-light.html

"The notion of the absolute speed limit comes from special relativity, but who ever said that special relativity should apply to things on the other side of the universe? That's the domain of a more general theory. A theory like…general relativity.

It's true that in special relativity, nothing can move faster than light. But special relativity is a local law of physics. Or in other words, it's a law of local physics. That means that you will never, ever watch a rocket ship blast by your face faster than the speed of light. Local motion, local laws.

But a galaxy on the far side of the universe? That's the domain of general relativity, and general relativity says: who cares! That galaxy can have any speed it wants, as long as it stays way far away, and not up next to your face."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation

"Contrarily to velocity time dilation, in which both observers measure the other as aging slower (a reciprocal effect), gravitational time dilation is not reciprocal. This means that with gravitational time dilation both observers agree that the clock nearer the center of the gravitational field is slower in rate, and they agree on the ratio of the difference."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_relativity

General Relativity

"The upshot of this is that free fall is inertial motion: an object in free fall is falling because that is how objects move when there is no force being exerted on them, instead of this being due to the force of gravity as is the case in classical mechanics.This is incompatible with classical mechanics and special relativity because in those theories inertially moving objects cannot accelerate with respect to each other, but objects in free fall do so. To resolve this difficulty Einstein first proposed that spacetime is curved. In 1915, he devised the Einstein field equations which relate the curvature of spacetime with the mass, energy, and any momentum within it."

One explanation is that it is moving away from you very fast, or another explanation is that you are moving away from it very fast. — MikeL

It might be worth posting this on Physics Forum.

I have researched this type of question on physics forums and elsewhere. It does no good to ask you. You just get lots if different answers depending upon how I've views SR and GR sand how and when they can be used. As in the article that I linked to, explanations frivolously bounce from SR to GR back to SR as if the two can be used interchangeably. They cannot. In fact, GR directly contradicts SR as stated in the Wiki link I provided.

The standard cop out is with a wink and a smile, someone will proclaim that only the people understand GR. I actually think that is three too many. It is an error to assume science had it all worked out and laypersons simply don't understand it. On the contrary, it it the laypersons who usually unearthed all of the contradictions with simpler, straightforward questions. Beyond this, as in other link I offered, there is now an experimentally testable theory that the speed of light is variable. Always new things.

At end, one can spin their wheels forever in Relatively, or just move on and not bother with it. I just feel that it is an unsolvable riddle and eventually be overturned. Bergson's critique made 1000 years ago was spot on.

Something is happening but SR and GR are contradicting each other. — Rich

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/134417/is-special-relativity-a-special-case-of-general-relativity-qualitatively

I can confirm this attitude in Physics forums. They are very good at regurgitating textbook knowledge and abhor critical questions. I have even been banned just for daring claim that Optics is not necessarily correct. My confidence in critical thinking among scientists, whether forum users or academics, is very low.

It's true that in special relativity, nothing can move faster than light. — Rich

The same is true in GR.