Scientifically, I agree with molecular-panspermia (Extraterrestrial organic molecules).

Indeed, statistically it is plausible that organic molecules can be formed from dusts (and later meteorites and comets) in space. These molecules may have become precursors for life after crashing on planets. Amino acids was also detected in one of the comets, if my memory serves me right. — FLUX23

Spectral measurements indicate that amino acids and sugars indeed form in interstellar dust. They are all over the place, literally. I am by no means an expert, but that might suggest that simple organics didn't have to be seeded: if they form so readily everywhere, couldn't they have formed here on Earth?

Yeah, lots of things break down if you pull on one strand, such as speed of light or gravitational constant. Suddenly stable isotopes become unstable, familiar chemical reactions cannot proceed, you get black holes all over the place, etc.

A lot of extremely clever scientists, utilising sophisticated technology, have come to the view that the Universe began with rapid expansion from a single point. They're not simply sitting around the camp-fire spitballing 'how did it all begin, George?' There are masses of observational data - and besides all the hypotheses are subject to constant questioning and review. Scientists don't believe anything just for the sake of believing it. Certainly there are many things unknown about it, but the fact that you can't believe that it happened doesn't count for evidence against it. — Wayfarer

As I said, they proceed to this conclusion, from the evidence, which is spatial expansion. But spatial expansion as understood in cosmology is a nonsense notion. As I explained earlier, there is inconsistency between the expansion of space interior to an object, and the expansion of space exterior to an object. This inconsistency is produced because relativity theory does not provide us with the proper relationship between objects and space.

All these "extremely clever scientists", simply overlook this inconsistency because none of them have the balls to address the real problem which is the failings of relativity theory. Any physicist who expresses doubt concerning the almighty relativity theory is immediately ostracized from the community of "real scientists".

have a lot of respect for your posts on philosophy, but I think most of your arguments against scientific topics are variations on: 'I can't understand that at all, and unless you can explain it to me, it must be nonsense'. There are very many confounding discoveries in science, things that highly intelligent people have wrestled with, even to the point of breakdown. Often they can only be represented in the language of mathematical physics which I know I don't comprehend. But that doesn't mean they're 'talking gibberish'. — Wayfarer

I have a reasonable scientific background and you might be surprised at how well I understand this stuff, despite an inability to clearly express myself. I admit my mathematics is very low, and that's why I ask for clear descriptions. So when something which is clearly contradictory in terms of description, (such as the expansion of space inside an object being different from the expansion of space outside an object), can only be accounted for with mathematics, I consider such an application of mathematics to be deception, used to hide a contradiction.


Yes, I completely understand how the use of general relativity theory led to the conclusion of spatial expansion. My claim is that the fact that the expansion of space, as recognized through general relativity, is not the same internal to an object as it is external to an object, indicates a failing of general relativity's expressed relationship between space and objects. You insist, that there is "mountains of evidence to confirm" general relativity, with unwavering disregard for the blatant evidence against it.

An expanding universe implies that in the past everything was closer together, and taken to it's extreme implies that all observable objects were in a very dense (and therefore hot) cluster. — VagabondSpectre

Sure, interpreting observations of the universe through the use of general relativity indicates that in the past, objects were closer together. But we all know that objects themselves are made up off parts, and each of the parts might also be represented as an object. Why is it that the parts of an object were not closer together in the past?

Scientists do attempt addressing that problem. They just haven't got a universally acceptable solution or alternative. So you are right, general relativity is, by no means, a complete, fully accurate description of physics.

Unlike special relativity, where theories like QFT have unified quantum mechanics and special relativity, general relativity lacks any good alternative or generalizing theories. In fact, even one of the most successful theories like Quantum Field Theory is still inadequate to completely explain several experimental data such as particle physics. This is due to the fundamental nature of QFT. So then, from the practical point of view, what are you insisting we do? Forget about scientific theories and be "philosophical", which in my opinion is even worse in this particular case? Or we just stop talking about it and be agnostic? Because one thing that would really bug me is that you mentioned in a thread "Does a 'God' exist", specifically this post, where you said:

According to your claim then, we cannot prove the existence of anything, and this is probably true, we take the existence of things for granted. But that's just extreme skepticism, to claim that we can't prove the existence of anything. — Metaphysician Undercover

I thought you were against extreme skepticism. You seem to be unable to accept general relativity because of certain area that it cannot account for despite the good description (or approximation) of reality that general relativity provides (and is actually used in engineering area, and it works well). This is likely the same for any other theory. Does that mean you disagree with every single theories out there?

So when something which is clearly contradictory in terms of description, (such as the expansion of space inside an object being different from the expansion of space outside an object), can only be accounted for with mathematics, I consider such an application of mathematics to be deception, used to hide a contradiction. — Metaphysician Undercover

This tells me that

I have a reasonable scientific background and you might be surprised at how well I understand this stuff — Metaphysician Undercover

is a lie.

Spectral measurements indicate that amino acids and sugars indeed form in interstellar dust. They are all over the place, literally. I am by no means an expert, but that might suggest that simple organics didn't have to be seeded: if they form so readily everywhere, couldn't they have formed here on Earth? — SophistiCat

Good point, and maybe you are right. It might not be a meteorite that brought necessary things on Earth but it was on Earth in the first place. I am not an expert in astronomy neither so I don't know.

My claim is that the fact that the expansion of space, as recognized through general relativity, is not the same internal to an object as it is external to an object, indicates a failing of general relativity's expressed relationship between space and objects — Metaphysician Undercover

Objects on cosmologically small scales (our local galactic group and smaller) exist within a gravitational field strong enough to counteract metric spatial expansion. If I understand the science correctly, spatial expansion occurs everywhere, it's just counteracted by other physical forces (nuclear bonds/gravity) and therefore not at all measurable on small scales. It can only be experimentally observed using cosmologically large scale distances (millions of parsecs).

But we all know that objects themselves are made up off parts, and each of the parts might also be represented as an object. Why is it that the parts of an object were not closer together in the past? — Metaphysician Undercover

Go back far enough and they were. If we rewind time and observe where the material the earth is composed of goes, it gets dispersed into the molecular cloud that first gave birth to the sun and the solar system (which collapsed under it's own gravitational pull) about 5 billion years ago. If we look at the molecular cloud as a whole and start rewinding time, we see that some of the higher elements that provided the initial gravity bump required for our sun to form might have come from other stars and other galaxies that have already formed and since expired. As we continue rewinding time, the universe is shrinking and every distant mass is steadily getting closer and closer together. All the non primordial gas (the hydrogen that was already present) keeps getting sucked into stars, and those stars disperse into the molecular clouds that created them: everything is still slowly but steadily getting closer and closer together, and the background temperature is very slowly rising. Once we reach about 13.2 billion years back, we see every higher element in existence (non hydrogen/helium/lithium) get sucked into the first stars, and then dispersed into the primordial hydrogen, helium, and lithium clouds that originally created them.

Up to this point we're at about 13.65 billion years back in time, and the observable universe is about 42 million light years across (Woah! That's down from the 46 billion that it presently spans!). The Cosmic microwave background radiation starts heating up (from 60K to 4000K), heat distribution in matter becomes more homogeneous, and the "neutral atoms" that existed at this time start shedding their electrons (they become ions), until eventually everything becomes plasma. ((The light what was freed when these ions gained electrons as the universe expanded and cooled is what gave rise to the cosmic microwave background, and it paints a picture of the fluctuations in the distribution of matter at the time (where the CMB is stronger, more hydrogen ions were binding with free electrons). This distribution reflects some fluctuation/non-homogeneous feature in what came before, and the distribution of larger structure which emerged afterward.))

As we continue rewinding time beyond this point, the shrinking of space rapidly, rapidly, accelerates until and all the hydrogen ions break apart into protons and neutrons. Every object in the observable universe is at this time very close together, very dense, and very hot. Rewinding further, sub-atomic particles break and give way to smaller particles while everything continues to rapidly shrink and heat up, until a point when everything is so dense and so hot that our theoretical models break and we lose the ability to have any notion of what happened before then. The best we can do is propose that a quantum fluctuation caused a chain reaction of some kind which then lead to the expansion of the universe and progression of matter which all the observational evidence points toward.

When I talk about the big bang as if it is bona fide knowledge , what I'm saying is essentially is that the above description of the evolution of matter in the observable universe is all very well reasoned by physical science. You can focus on the fact that we cannot see beyond what we can only faultily describe as a "singularity", and say the big bang is bullocks, but you would be discounting everything that we know about what came afterward, which in every possible sense of the word, is everything.

Scientists do attempt addressing that problem. They just haven't got a universally acceptable solution or alternative. So you are right, general relativity is, by no means, a complete, fully accurate description of physics.

Unlike special relativity, where theories like QFT have unified quantum mechanics and special relativity, general relativity lacks any good alternative or generalizing theories. In fact, even one of the most successful theories like Quantum Field Theory is still inadequate to completely explain several experimental data such as particle physics. This is due to the fundamental nature of QFT. — FLUX23

Right, I'm glad to see that someone here agrees with me to an extent anyway. And I agree with you about the obvious, that QFT has unified special relativity with quantum mechanics. But this is not without its problems. From my perspective, special relativity suffers from the same fundamental problem as general relativity, and that is that it establishes a faulty relationship between space and time. As I described earlier in this thread, the result of this is that it gives us no platform toward understanding non-dimensional (therefore non-spatial) existence.

Mathematicians and physicists regularly utilize non-dimensional points, but there are no principles whereby we can say that a non-dimensional (therefore non-spatial) entity has any real existence. As a result, QFT misleads physicists into studying all sorts of virtual particles and different symmetries, without any grounding for the reality of these things. But real non-dimensional (non-spatial) existence can be provided for by allowing that time can be passing without material change occurring. Then this occurrence, time passing, is itself non-dimensional existence, and time becomes the 0th dimension rather than the 4th. From this perspective we can validate non-dimensional points by locating them in time rather than space. A general area in space, may be associated with a point in time, the point in time having real existence, rather than the perspective produced by special relativity which associates a general area in time with a point in space. See how the vagueness is shifted from a temporal vagueness to a spatial vagueness.

So then, from the practical point of view, what are you insisting we do? Forget about scientific theories and be "philosophical", which in my opinion is even worse in this particular case? Or we just stop talking about it and be agnostic? — FLUX23

Scientific theories come into existence through philosophy. When a theory is put forth, that's what it is, speculative philosophy. And so Einstein was practising philosophy when he put forth the special theory of relativity. We can continue to practise philosophy to resolve the problems involved with relativity theory. Theories are philosophical by nature, science is the method by which theories are tested and supported through empirical evidence. I think it is a mistake to attempt to distinguish philosophical theories from scientific theories, it's just the case that some theories are more speculative than others.

This tells me that ... is a lie. — FLUX23

I don't know what would qualify as "a reasonable scientific background" to you. Perhaps you think that one cannot understand science without mathematics, but I'll point you to the fact that must renowned scientists publish their theories in plain terms with very little math. For example, you'll find very little math in Newton's work, none in Darwin's evolutionary theory, and very little in Einstein's special theory of relativity, though there is an abundance in the general theory. Mathematics has become a crutch for modern science. If the evidence doesn't fit the theory, then create some new mathematical axioms, such as imaginary numbers, to force a fit.

I thought you were against extreme skepticism. — FLUX23

I guess you don't know me too well. To be extremely skeptical is to question theories, analyze them for consistency and inconsistency. It is not to flatly dismiss them in an absolute way. When I said, in the other thread, that we take existence for granted rather than proving existence, this is because we do not know what "existence" means, we don't know what it means to exist. So to prove that something exists when we do not know what it means to exist is a kind of nonsense, it would be like trying to prove that an object is heavy when we do not know what it means to be heavy. Before we can prove whether a particular identified thing exists, we need to prove what "exists" means.

Objects on cosmologically small scales (our local galactic group and smaller) exist within a gravitational field strong enough to counteract metric spatial expansion. If I understand the science correctly, spatial expansion occurs everywhere, it's just counteracted by other physical forces (nuclear bonds/gravity) and therefore not at all measurable on small scales. It can only be experimentally observed using cosmologically large scale distances (millions of parsecs). — VagabondSpectre

I believe that gravity is incorporated into the space-time metric, it is a property of space time. So if there is a part of space, at a great distance between objects for example, in which there is no gravity, then general relativity does not apply here, there are no objects moving in relation to each other, they are too far away. Yet there is still activity of space relative to time here, what is known as spatial expansion. So general relativity gives us an inaccurate representation of the relationship between space and time.

When I talk about the big bang as if it is bona fide knowledge , what I'm saying is essentially is that the above description of the evolution of matter in the observable universe is all very well reasoned by physical science. You can focus on the fact that we cannot see beyond what we can only faultily describe as a "singularity", and say the big bang is bullocks, but you would be discounting everything that we know about what came afterward, which in every possible sense of the word, is everything. — VagabondSpectre

Actually, what I am arguing is that your starting point, general relativity, is faulty, and that is why your finish point, the big bang is faulty. So I believe that the entire described scenario is deficient. Look, general relativity cannot account for the activity which is known as spatial expansion, scientists do not know what this is. There are no principles to explain it. So your entire described scenario is just unprincipled speculation. The problem is, that when cosmologist come across a problem, something which makes no sense, or appears to be unintelligible, then instead of recognizing the most likely cause of this problem, that the general theory of relativity is inadequate, and this inadequacy is causing the problem, they'll just invent some new fiction, like dark matter, to account for the problem. Instead of accepting the most probable reason for the problem, that they do not have an accurate model of the relationship between space and time, as general relativity is unreliable, they'll assume the existence of something like dark matter, which has no evidence for its existence, other than that there is something which the theory cannot account for. So the only evidence of its existence is the fact that assuming its existence makes the theory work.

I believe that gravity is incorporated into the space-time metric, it is a property of space time. So if there is a part of space, at a great distance between objects for example, in which there is no gravity, then general relativity does not apply here, there are no objects moving in relation to each other, they are too far away. Yet there is still activity of space relative to time here, what is known as spatial expansion. So general relativity gives us an inaccurate representation of the relationship between space and time. — Metaphysician Undercover

There are some gravitational forces everywhere. The gravitational field generated by a given mass extends infinitely, it just gets weaker the farther and farther away another mass gets from it. The gravitational forces generated by our local galactic group are stronger than spatial expansion up to a certain distance away, and so it keeps us clustered together (gravity holds back everything being pulled apart).

Actually, what I am arguing is that your starting point, general relativity, is faulty, and that is why your finish point, the big bang is faulty. So I believe that the entire described scenario is deficient. Look, general relativity cannot account for the activity which is known as spatial expansion, scientists do not know what this is. There are no principles to explain it. So your entire described scenario is just unprincipled speculation. The problem is, that when cosmologist come across a problem, something which makes no sense, or appears to be unintelligible, then instead of recognizing the most likely cause of this problem, that the general theory of relativity is inadequate, and this inadequacy is causing the problem, they'll just invent some new fiction, like dark matter, to account for the problem. Instead of accepting the most probable reason for the problem, that they do not have an accurate model of the relationship between space and time, as general relativity is unreliable, they'll assume the existence of something like dark matter, which has no evidence for its existence, other than that there is something which the theory cannot account for. So the only evidence of its existence is the fact that assuming its existence makes the theory work. — Metaphysician Undercover

"So the only evidence of its existence is the fact that assuming its existence makes the theory work."

We observe gravity (a relationship), and we make theories that describe this relationship. This allows us to predict what effects gravity will have, but it doesn't explain what it is or why it exists. We assume the existence of an invisible force (and describe it mathematically) in order to make the theory of gravity work. And it works.

When it comes to general relativity, Einstein somehow observed (even if hypothetically) spacetime and then set about describing it mathematically. And it works. Without general relativity, we wouldn't be able to get a GPS to work, we wouldn't be able to understand why orbits can slowly deviate and decay in certain ways, and we would have no way to explain why when we send a clock up into orbit and then bring it back down we find it has run fast by a very large margin (which corresponds to the distance it was from the earths surface where it was calibrated and the amount of time it spent at that distance); time dilation is real.

When you say that all these uncanny principles are just invented to make theories work, you're right, but what it means for "a theory to work" is that it describes/predicts observational evidence. "Spatial expansion" isn't a problem, it's a working solution to a problem. Without it the observational evidence leads to great confusion.

When it comes to dark matter, as far as I understand the hypothesis, it's not used to explain spatial expansion (which follows from general relativity), it's used to explain why the metric spatial expansion is currently accelerating. Einstein originally thought he needed a cosmological constant (a force) in order to "hold back gravity" from collapsing a static model of the universe (he didn't know it was expanding at the time), and now it's making a comeback as we can now observe and measure the acceleration of this expansion. The force accelerating us is what they call dark matter. The observational evidence shows an acceleration in the expansion, and dark matter is more or less a placeholder theory to explain it, and the cosmological constant is the mathematical value we use to represent the force of the acceleration that we measure.

"Spatial expansion" isn't a problem, it's a working solution to a problem. Without it the observational evidence leads to great confusion. — VagabondSpectre

This is where we have a difference of opinion. You think that assuming "spatial expansion" avoids great confusion. I think that "spatial expansion" is just a term which hides the great confusion which lies underneath. I think that the application of general relativity to the vast expanse of the universe creates the observational evidence known as "spatial expansion". But the term is just a placeholder which we can refer to rather than referring to "the great confusion".

The observational evidence for an expanding universe doesn't rely on GR though.

Hubble measured and demonstrated the positive correlation between the distance of deep space objects and the speed which they are all traveling away from us (a positive correlation). This means that either we are at the center of a central point of expansion of matter (hence everything is heading away from us) or everything is moving away from everything else (it's all spreading out via some kind of metric expansion). If we were at or near a central point of expansion, then it stands to reason that there would be some sort of pattern in the distribution of matter, but the distribution of matter at the largest observable scale has no such detectable pattern or form, and we would be very lucky indeed if we truly were the center of the universe.

Spatial expansion describes an observed phenomenon, and while general relativity provides real theoretical and mathematical claws to the credulity of the phenomenon, the observational data that it predicts is why science has accepted it.

The legs of your disagreement are that A) General relativity leads to spatial expansion, which is "nonsense", and B) An unexplained objection about the real relationship between gravity and time which GR fails to describe...

I know that your distaste for the concept of spatial expansion doesn't negate it's validity, so what about general relativity is really so inadequate? In light of all the predictive power it lends us, what evidence do you have to suggest that it is somehow false?

The observational evidence for an expanding universe doesn't rely on GR though. — VagabondSpectre

The information received by Hubble is interpreted with the use of GR.

Hubble measured and demonstrated the positive correlation between the distance of deep space objects and the speed which they are all traveling away from us (a positive correlation). This means that either we are at the center of a central point of expansion of matter (hence everything is heading away from us) or everything is moving away from everything else (it's all spreading out via some kind of metric expansion). If we were at or near a central point of expansion, then it stands to reason that there would be some sort of pattern in the distribution of matter, but the distribution of matter at the largest observable scale has no such detectable pattern or form, and we would be very lucky indeed if we truly were the center of the universe. — VagabondSpectre

OK, so this is what I mean when I say expansion is unintelligible. Imagine a point in space. Then imagine a point some distance to the right, and a point the same distance to the left, and points above, and below, etc.. Everything is moving away from each of these points. How would you reconcile such different motions? Clearly relativity theory is incapable of reconciling such radically different motions, which are actually the same objects observed from different perspectives.

The legs of your disagreement are that A) General relativity leads to spatial expansion, which is "nonsense", and B) An unexplained objection about the real relationship between gravity and time which GR fails to describe... — VagabondSpectre

It's not the relationship between gravity and time which I object to, it is the relationship between time and space that general relativity creates, which I think is misguided. And I explained this, you just wrote it off as "unintelligible" without even trying to understand it. The issue is with non-dimensional (non-spatial) existence. Mathematicians and physicists utilize non-dimensional points, as if they have real existence. But the physicists have no ontological principles which allow that a non-dimensional point could have real existence in the world. Nothing can actually happen at a non-dimensional point, because there is no space there for anything to happen in, (though physicists seem to allow that some type of incoherent and unintelligible activity is going on there). To resolve this issue, to make non-spatial activity intelligible, we need to invert the relationship between space and time, such that time becomes the 0th dimension, rather than the 4th dimension. This would allow us to deal with the vast quantity of evidence, that there is non-spatial activity which occurs, in a coherent and intelligible way.

I know that your distaste for the concept of spatial expansion doesn't negate it's validity, so what about general relativity is really so inadequate? In light of all the predictive power it lends us, what evidence do you have to suggest that it is somehow false? — VagabondSpectre

It is not a distaste for spatial expansion which I hold. I believe very strongly in spatial expansion, but I believe that it is grossly misunderstood, due to the approach, which is GR. Why I dislike GR then, is that it gives us no approach toward understanding spatial expansion, which is the real nature of space.

Mathematicians and physicists utilize non-dimensional points, as if they have real existence. — Metaphysician Undercover

No, we utilize non-dimensional points (and other mathematical constructions) as strictly hypothetical objects, and recognize that they do not have real existence.

That's fine, let's assume that all physicists believe that fundamental particles, and virtual particles which are represented as points, have no real existence. Then it is quite evident that they have no intelligible or coherent idea of what is referred to by "particle".

You are conflating the actual particles with the hypothetical (i.e., mathematical) representations.

The information received by Hubble is interpreted with the use of GR. — Metaphysician Undercover

The conclusion of Hubble gets interpreted by GR, not the information he gathered. Hubble demonstrated that the universe is expanding, somehow, someway (or that we are the center of it).

GR then came along and proposed a kind of mechanism of how. "Space itself is expanding" is what GR said. That the universe is expanding was already all but undeniable from Hubble's classical astronomical observations.

To restate, we observe that we live in an expanding universe, which is uncanny. "Spatial expansion" makes partial sense of this uncanny observation by at least giving us a way to describe and chart it.

OK, so this is what I mean when I say expansion is unintelligible. Imagine a point in space. Then imagine a point some distance to the right, and a point the same distance to the left, and points above, and below, etc.. Everything is moving away from each of these points. How would you reconcile such different motions? Clearly relativity theory is incapable of reconciling such radically different motions, which are actually the same objects observed from different perspectives. — Metaphysician Undercover

Spatial expansion is the only thing we can come up with that reconciles and predicts these seemingly contrary motions that we observe. We can only reconcile our observations by proposing that the space in-between sufficiently distant objects expands and push/pulls us apart. The fact that GR infers spatial expansion and that we observe it is points for GR, not a mark against it.

This would allow us to deal with the vast quantity of evidence, that there is non-spatial activity which occurs, in a coherent and intelligible way. — Metaphysician Undercover

I propose that events occurring on sufficiently small scales are indistinguishable from "non-dimensional events". GR breaks-down at quantum scales, it's true, but to an extent that doesn't matter as long as what GR says about Newtonian scales remains true. It's true for Newtonian/macro scales.

One day we might come up with a theory of quantum gravity and unite QM with GR in a way that enhances our predictive power in both the quantum and macroscopic scales of matter, but it is unlikely that such an advancement would overturn much of what we already know thanks to GR given that it has very well established and very powerful predictive power.

If what we think we know does hold true, non-dimensional phenomenon only become an issue if we try to actually talk about the "singularity" itself. Counter-intuitively, big bang cosmology is entirely concerned with what came after the big bang, not what came before, and not what it was; only what came after.

It might be true that the singularity that caused the big bang was an entire universe of it's own, with it's own history and developmental progression, but when we say that the "universe" is 13.75 billion years old, we mean the observable universe; our universe. There might be other universe,more things that exist outside of our universe, but we don't have any way to access them, so we're forced to only talk about what what we do have access to. Some things are beyond the horizon of what can be interacted with and therefore known.

You are conflating the actual particles with the hypothetical (i.e., mathematical) representations. — aletheist

What actual particles? That's the point. The representation is as a non-dimensional point, but what does this actually represent? It can't be a particle, because a real particle cannot be at a non-dimensional point. So what is being represented? If a real dimensional particle were being represented, it would have to be represented as being at more than one point. But then it would not be a fundamental particle, because occupying more than a point would indicate that it is divisible.

Spatial expansion is the only thing we can come up with that reconciles and predicts these seemingly contrary motions that we observe. We can only reconcile our observations by proposing that the space in-between sufficiently distant objects expands and push/pulls us apart. The fact that GR infers spatial expansion and that we observe it is points for GR, not a mark against it. — VagabondSpectre

The issue is that there is motion of objects which cannot be comprehended by GR. This motion is said to be caused by "expansion". So the fact remains that a vast amount of motion, if not the majority of motion in the universe cannot be comprehended by GR, and "spatial expansion is the only thing we can come up with" to explain these contrary motions. How can we even begin to measure these motions when our only means for measuring them, GR, views them as contrary motions, i.e. contradictory.

How can you extrapolate back in time, when you do not even know what these "contrary motions" consist of? Spatial expansion is the only thing we can come up with, but what does it really mean to have everything moving away from every point in space? It's not like everything is moving away from one single point, like an explosion, as "big bang" implies, it's the case that everything is moving away from every point. So the big bang is way off track, because there must be a big bang at every point in space, to account for the observation that everything is moving away from every point in space.

I propose that events occurring on sufficiently small scales are indistinguishable from "non-dimensional events". GR breaks-down at quantum scales, it's true, but to an extent that doesn't matter as long as what GR says about Newtonian scales remains true. It's true for Newtonian/macro scales. — VagabondSpectre

Not only is GR no good at the scale of the universe, because it cannot deal with the motions which are attributed to expansion, it is also no good at quantum scale. How can one even consider the possibility that GR gives us an appropriate representation of the relationship between space and time? It only provides a workable relation between space and time at a very limited spatial scale. A scale which has proven to be convenient for our meagre existence.

The representation is as a non-dimensional point, but what does this actually represent? It can't be a particle, because a real particle cannot be at a non-dimensional point. — Metaphysician Undercover

You have no idea how mathematical modeling works, do you? Or representation in general, since obviously a representation does not have all the same properties as whatever it represents, because then it would actually be that object.

Are you going to make a point or just blabber?

The issue is that there is motion of objects which cannot be comprehended by GR...

How can we even begin to measure these motions when our only means for measuring them, GR, views them as contrary motions, i.e. contradictory. — Metaphysician Undercover

We measure these motions with classical astrophysics, not GR. We describe and predict what we measure with "spatial expansion", which GR endorses. The expansion itself isn't contradictory if you're speaking in terms of transposing the expansion into direction and velocity.

It's not like everything is moving away from one single point, like an explosion, as "big bang" implies, it's the case that everything is moving away from every point. So the big bang is way off track, because there must be a big bang at every point in space, to account for the observation that everything is moving away from every point in space. — Metaphysician Undercover

The thing about the big bang is that it involved every point in observable space. We don't know whether or not what lies beyond the observable universe (the stuff so far away that light cannot reach us due to spatial expansion) simply goes on forever or actually has an edge. If there is indeed an edge and we are in a finite but expanding universe, then the big bang model makes sense: the universe was very tiny, then expanded to be very big. All the points in the expanded universe were contained (if only in some other form) within "the big bang", and spatial expansion produces no contradictions.

If the universe actually goes on forever, then there's still no problem with spatial expansion occurring everywhere (more space should not be a problem for infinite space), but "center of the universe" or "point where the big bang happened" becomes incoherent. If "infinite spatial points" exist, then they either always existed or were created all at once.

This possibility might seem like it contradicts the big bang, but it doesn't. When we say that the current universe is 92 billion light years across, we're referring to the range in which things are possibly observable (any farther than that and light won't reach us due to spatial expansion) which scientists call the "observable universe". When we say right after the big bang these 92 billion light years worth of points in space were all scrunched into the size of an atom, we're only talking about the stuff within our observable range, not the global universe. If there's infinite space out there, it doesn't matter how tiny you scrunch; the universe would still be infinitely big.

The big bang still makes sense in this scenario. 13.75 billion years might not mean the beginning of everything, but it does still mean the beginning of everything observable.

We measure these motions with classical astrophysics, not GR. We describe and predict what we measure with "spatial expansion", which GR endorses. The expansion itself isn't contradictory if you're speaking in terms of transposing the expansion into direction and velocity. — VagabondSpectre

What do you mean by "classical astrophysics"? Do you measure the the Doppler shift of the CMB with classical astrophysics? What principles of measurement would you use to establish wavelengths?

Hubble measured light from pulsing stars in distant galaxies, not the CMB. The pulsing stars are of the "Cepheid" class, which have the characteristic of their pulse duration correlating with their luminosity. This provided a "standard candle" for Hubble to know the distance of the star.

By "classical astrophysics" I meant astrophysics which doesn't use quantum mechanics or general relativity.

The big bang still makes sense in this scenario. 13.75 billion years might not mean the beginning of everything, but it does still mean the beginning of everything observable. — VagabondSpectre

But those b-modes in the polarization of the CMB, if they are ever observed, will be from before the big-bang.

No, we utilize non-dimensional points (and other mathematical constructions) as strictly hypothetical objects, and recognize that they do not have real existence. — aletheist

Except when we are dealing with quarks, leptons or bosons.

You seemed to have missed the point aletheist, so I'll try to explain better. We have immense, abstract, conceptual structures called fields. The field has no corresponding spatial structure, but it is related to spatial existence through the means of points. But the point is still a non-dimensional, non-spatial entity, so there is no real correspondence here at all. That's why the existence of particles at various points is only probabilistic. The "real particle" or whatever it is which is existing in dimensional space, has no corresponding representation. The entire structure is set apart from, and does not actually correspond to any real dimensional (spatial) existence.

What I suggested is that it is completely conceivable, and logical, that we can give real existence to non-dimensional points, by allowing them to be actual points in time. But this requires that we dismantle the field structure, dismiss the relativistic approach, and develop a new approach which starts with the premise of real points in time. This is dependent on the determination of real points in time. Once we determine the real points in time, we can produce a representation of the corresponding spatial existence. It's just a potential way of simplifying the unnecessarily complicated field structure, but it requires work and experimentation to determine real points in time. You might simply dismiss this by asserting that there is no such thing as real points in time, special relativity denies this, but until someone carries out the work in an attempt to find them, this assertion will not be confirmed.

The fact that you think I am just blabbering makes my point for me.

If we are utilizing mathematics, we are dealing with strictly hypothetical objects, which may be (and often are) diagrammatic models of actual phenomena.

If we are utilizing mathematics, we are dealing with strictly hypothetical objects, which may be (and often are) diagrammatic models of actual phenomena. — aletheist

So, you are claiming that quarks, leptons, and bosons are not point particles. Why? What reason or evidence to you have that the Standard Model is wrong?

I said nothing at all about quarks, leptons, bosons, or the Standard Model. My claim is strictly about mathematics.

The fact that you think I am just blabbering makes my point for me. — aletheist

You were critical of my attitude, as if I had no idea of the difference between a representation and the thing represented, without addressing anything which I actually said. That, I think is just blabber. If you would have paid attention to what I said, you would have noticed that what I was saying is that we do not have any way of representing real, non-dimensional existence. Yet it is implicit within QFT that there is real non-dimensional existence. That is the problem of interpretation of quantum mechanics, we have no adequate way to represent what quantum mechanics tells us because it deals with non-dimensional existence.

I said nothing at all about quarks, leptons, bosons, or the Standard Model. My claim is strictly about mathematics. — aletheist

But you said:

No, we utilize non-dimensional points (and other mathematical constructions) as strictly hypothetical objects, and recognize that they do not have real existence. — aletheist

Which means, according to you, the Standard Model is wrong. Please explain.

If you would have paid attention to what I said, you would have noticed that what I was saying is that we do not have any way of representing real, non-dimensional existence. — Metaphysician Undercover

If you had actually said this in the first place, I would not have commented at all. What you actually said was:

The representation is as a non-dimensional point, but what does this actually represent? It can't be a particle, because a real particle cannot be at a non-dimensional point. — Metaphysician Undercover

I took you to be claiming that a non-dimensional point cannot represent a real particle, which is false.