big bang theory falsified?

[Kwalish Kid]

Originally Posted by Maartenn100

I have still a question and I can't find the answer.

What's wrong with the following reasoning?

Absolutely nothing! It's vanilla cosmology!

[Maartenn100]

What do you mean with 'vanilla Cosmology'?

[Maartenn100]

Originally Posted by sol invictus

I already answered that question. Yes, the age of the universe is relative. But there is a preferred reference frame - the one in which the average density on large scales is homogeneous and isotopic and the CMB radiation is isotopic. When cosmologists refer to the age of the universe, they mean as measured by someone at rest in that frame.

I'm sorry. I know you already answered this, but I don't know why these features makes it "a prefered reference frame".
Because, thinking in terms of 'prefered reference frames' is not consistent with the idea of special relativity.

Originally Posted by sol invictus

Because of the fact that the avarage density on large scales (relative) is homogeneous and isotopic and the CMB ratdiation is isotopic.

Large scale is relative and not absolute. Otherwise, you are thinking in terms of 'absolute space', isn't it?
Can you explain this please. Why does this make that frame 'a prefered reference frame'? And why is it possible to be inconsistent with special relativity ("there is no prefered reference frame and no absolute space").

[sol invictus]

Originally Posted by Maartenn100

I'm sorry. I know you already answered this, but I don't know why these features makes it "a prefered reference frame".
Because, thinking in terms of 'prefered reference frames' is not consistent with the idea of special relativity.

It's preferred in the sense that it's unique - there's only one frame where the CMB is (almost) isotropic. Anyone moving with respect to that frame will see a CMB with a special direction.

Of course you don't have to use that frame, and if you used a different one the time since the big bang would be different. But it's often convenient to use it, and most matter in the universe is approximately at rest in it (so time intervals in that frame are literally the age of most matter).

Quote:

Large scale is relative and not absolute. Otherwise, you are thinking in terms of 'absolute space', isn't it?
Can you explain this please. Why does this make that frame 'a prefered reference frame'? And why is it possible to be inconsistent with special relativity ("there is no prefered reference frame and no absolute space").

There's nothing at all inconsistent with SR - this is a frame defined relative to the CMB.

[Kwalish Kid]

Originally Posted by Maartenn100

What do you mean with 'vanilla Cosmology'?

I use "vanilla" in the sense of ordinary, standard, without any extra options. If you learn cosmology, you learn that reasoning you laid out.

We are lucky in that there happens to be a reference frame in which the universe is homogeneous on large scales. People tend to use this reference frame in cosmological statements.

[Maartenn100]

Yes, I read about it: it's called 'the cosmological principle'.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by Maartenn100

Yes, I read about it: it's called 'the cosmological principle'.

But did you understand it?

[Craig B]

I am no mathematician or cosmologist. I was informed, however, that there is no universal frame of reference. But in the late 1960s after the CMB was detected, attempts were made to calculate the earth's velocity in respect to it. It suddenly struck me that the frame of reference at rest with regard to this radiation would be a preferred universal FOR. I remember I was riding a bicycle at the time and nearly fell off. Was my astonishment justified?

What also intrigued me about the CMB discovery was something like this: religious preachers have always spoken about the miraculous creation of the first Light. At last it was observed by people working for a telephone company, charged with the task of removing crackles from telephone conversations. And when they discovered this Divine Light, they at first thought it emanated from pigeon droppings. Scientific tales are much more fascinating than religious ones!

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by Craig B

I am no mathematician or cosmologist. I was informed, however, that there is no universal frame of reference. But in the late 1960s after the CMB was detected, attempts were made to calculate the earth's velocity in respect to it. It suddenly struck me that the frame of reference at rest with regard to this radiation would be a preferred universal FOR. I remember I was riding a bicycle at the time and nearly fell off. Was my astonishment justified?

What also intrigued me about the CMB discovery was something like this: religious preachers have always spoken about the miraculous creation of the first Light. At last it was observed by people working for a telephone company, charged with the task of removing crackles from telephone conversations. And when they discovered this Divine Light, they at first thought it emanated from pigeon droppings. Scientific tales are much more fascinating than religious ones!

They called it ''white dielectric material''.

[Craig B]

Originally Posted by dafydd

They called it ''white dielectric material''.

That's not what my mother called the substance she found at the bottom of her budgie's cage.

[Toontown]

Originally Posted by Craig B

I am no mathematician or cosmologist. I was informed, however, that there is no universal frame of reference. But in the late 1960s after the CMB was detected, attempts were made to calculate the earth's velocity in respect to it. It suddenly struck me that the frame of reference at rest with regard to this radiation would be a preferred universal FOR. I remember I was riding a bicycle at the time and nearly fell off. Was my astonishment justified?

No.

Why wouldn't the entire universe's frame of reference be preferred?

[Craig B]

Originally Posted by Toontown

No.

Why wouldn't the entire universe's frame of reference be preferred?

If it had one, I'd love it to bits. But does it?

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by Craig B

That's not what my mother called the substance she found at the bottom of her budgie's cage.

Isn't that called muesli?

[Maartenn100]

Originally Posted by dafydd

But did you understand it?

Good question. As far I can understand it:

isotropic and homogeneous: the same in all directions and at all distances. The part that we can see around us, aside from small-scale local differences, is representative of the whole. It's an idea of the uniformity of the universe.
Edwin Powell Hubble was the first to show that the large scale structure of the universe is homogeneous and it only applies to very large volumes of space. (relative...)

Analogy: just as we must take a fairly large sample of population to obtain a representative group of people, so must we consider a fairly large volume of space in order to find within it the characteristics and kinds of objects that are typical of other large volumes of space.

But I still can't understand the idea WHY these features make this frame a "prefered reference frame". Even with the CMB-explanation of Sol Invictus. Because SRT tells us: there is no such prefered frame.
So, I don't see any consistency here. It's an arbitrary choice, I think.

[Maartenn100]

But can you give me a reasonable answer to my following idea:

We have seen in SRT that all processes slow down in moving systems. observers, moving relative to us, actually age more slowly than we do. (see muon experiments f.e.).

So an observer who have travelled near 0.999999c of the speed of light, will have a different idea of 'age of the universe' when he is back in 'the prefered frame of reference.' His idea of time/age is been changed, because he once travelled very fast.

An observer who once was in the vicinity of a black hole has got another idea of timeflow. And back on Earth, he/she will have another idea of 'the age of the universe' in the 'prefered reference frame'.

Years are passed for the twinbrother on Earth, but the fast traveller has received another idea of the timeflow of this near past. And back on Earth, in the 'prefered reference frame' he or she will have received another idea of the age of the universe.

This falsifies the attempt to define an objective age of the universe.


Two observers with a difference in timeflow during their pasts because of a relative motion or by being in different gravitational fields will disagree on the age of the univers in 'the prefered reference frame'.

[sol invictus]

Originally Posted by Craig B

If it had one, I'd love it to bits. But does it?

Probably not.

We can only see a finite part of the universe. In our part, there is an approximate rest frame defined by the CMB. But there's no reason to expect our frame to be at rest with respect to the approximate CMB rest frames of other putative observers very far away. If fact, there is good reason to think those frames are not at relative rest.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Maartenn100

But I still can't understand the idea WHY these features make this frame a "prefered reference frame". Even with the CMB-explanation of Sol Invictus. Because SRT tells us: there is no such prefered frame.

You are getting confused between the two uses of the word prefered.

The "prefered" reference frame that cosmologists use is one that they like to use. It is a personal choice. It is preferred as everyone has been telling you because it is easy to detect a velocity relative to the CMB.

The "prefered" reference frame that does not exist in SRT is one that the universe does not use. It is a physical fact about the universe.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by Maartenn100

But can you give me a reasonable answer to my following idea:

We have seen in SRT that all processes slow down in moving systems. observers, moving relative to us, actually age more slowly than we do. (see muon experiments f.e.).

So an observer who have travelled near 0.999999c of the speed of light, will have a different idea of 'age of the universe' when he is back in 'the prefered frame of reference.' His idea of time/age is been changed, because he once travelled very fast.

An observer who once was in the vicinity of a black hole has got another idea of timeflow. And back on Earth, he/she will have another idea of 'the age of the universe' in the 'prefered reference frame'.

Years are passed for the twinbrother on Earth, but the fast traveller has received another idea of the timeflow of this near past. And back on Earth, in the 'prefered reference frame' he or she will have received another idea of the age of the universe.

This falsifies the attempt to define an objective age of the universe.


Two observers with a difference in timeflow during their pasts because of a relative motion or by being in different gravitational fields will disagree on the age of the univers in 'the prefered reference frame'.

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=376681

http://astro.berkeley.edu/~dperley/univage/univage.html

http://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/E...n/clayton.html

[Maartenn100]

Thanks!!

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by Maartenn100

Thanks!!

My pleasure.

[Toontown]

Originally Posted by Craig B

If it had one, I'd love it to bits. But does it?

I dunno. Relativity is so confusing. Does a frame of reference have a size limit? Remember, we're talking about a "preferred" FOR, not a "priveledged" FOR.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Maartenn100

Don't act like you have never heared of timedilation or spacebending or lengthcontraction by speed or gravity.

Translation: "I'm not going to tell you !"

[Craig B]

Originally Posted by Toontown

I dunno. Relativity is so confusing. Does a frame of reference have a size limit? Remember, we're talking about a "preferred" FOR, not a "priveledged" FOR.

I have nothing to add to what Sol Invictus states at post #136, for which I thank him.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Maartenn100

wrong. A real scientist would only listen to the argument. Even when a child gave it. Scientists are people. People outside a field can have different perspectives, scientists can not see. Someone on the hill has a better view on the whole wood then the people who live in the woods. So, don't underestimate 'the layman'.

Tee hee. So you think you can topple modern physics ? Good, mister Gallileo. Prove it. Don't just use words. Use evidence. Good luck.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Maartenn100

I'm just saying: if physisists admit they don't understand what it means (a singularity or 'time begins'), they aren't communicating an idea at all when they are using these words. A critical thinker, who uses the standards he or she uses to be sceptic, can't accept such vague language.

So, first an argument from incredulity, and now one from ignorance. You are not a critical thinker.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Maartenn100

In fact: they are blabbering about something on paper (math), but they have no idea how it is related to some hard scientific observable evidence.

Correction: YOU don't know.

[Maartenn100]

Correction: I DO know. Physicists DID tell me 'they actually don't know how to imagine this beginning expanding universe'. So, I DO KNOW scientists have no idea what they are talking about while describing their mathematical shemes on paper of that very beginning and this expanding whole. But they are presenting the expansion of this mathematical figure as if they do understand the idea as something we all can imagine (can understand).

But the fact is: they have no clue how their shemes are related to reality. What does it mean 'an expanding sphere of time and space, expanding in nothing'.

I'm only the critical thinker who sees this claim. I don't have to prove a thing. I can see that 'the claim of the big bang of these scientists is of the same level as some new age claim about some figures on paper of another dimension and our intuïtion can't get what it is, because it's counter-intuïtive, ...'.

There is no difference for a critical thinker to make a distinction in the quality of what is been claimed by these scientists about the Big bang or the claim of some nostradamus who says: it's counter-intuïtive, it's a dimension we can't see, etc... In both cases: no living human being understands how to grasp the idea of a beginning of time and space, expanding in nothing and without bounderies. Even the claimers don't understand their claim.


And if you think you understand how this space and time begins to expand as some kind of sphere in nothing, I would say: go find yourself a good psychiatrist.

The beginning of the universe can only be explained on paper, with analogies, etc. Because the scientists have no idea what they are talking about.

As I said: they are not communicating any ideas.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by Maartenn100

Correction: I DO know. Physicists DID tell me 'they actually don't know how to imagine this beginning expanding universe'. So, I DO KNOW scientists have no idea what they are talking about while describing their mathematical shemes on paper of that very beginning. But they are presenting these mathematical figures of their expanding space and time-sphere as if they do understand the idea as something we all can imagine (can understand).

But the fact is: they have no clue how their shemes are related to reality.

I'm only the critical thinker who sees this claim of an expanding universe from nothing. I don't have to prove a thing. I can see that 'the claim of the big bang of these scientists is of the same level as some new age claim about some figures on paper of another dimension and our intuïtion can't get what it is, because it's counter-intuïtive, blablabla'.

There is no difference to seperate the quality of what is been claimed. In both cases: no living human being understands how to imagine the idea of a beginning of time and space, expanding. Even the claimers don't understand their claim.

And if you think you understand how this space and time begins from a singularity to expand as some kind of sphere in nothing, I would say: go find yourself a good psychiatrist.

The beginning of the universe can only be explained on paper, with analogies, etc. Because the scientists have no idea what they are talking about.

Write a paper and get it published. Your ignorance of the subject is not proof. There is a very good reason why you are the only one who thinks like this.

[Skeptic Guy]

Lengthcontraction = shrinkage.

The water was very cold.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Maartenn100

Correction: I DO know. Physicists DID tell me 'they actually don't know how to imagine this beginning expanding universe'. So, I DO KNOW scientists have no idea

Wrong: You have made an assertion that set of the physicists that you have talked to do not 'know how to imagine this beginning expanding universe'.
Expanding this to 'scientists' (i.e..e. all scientists) is dumb.

The fact is that it is very easy to imagine this beginning expanding universe. The analogy used to imagine it is taught to school children all over the world - the expanding balloon analogy.

Originally Posted by Maartenn100

But the fact is: they have no clue how their shemes are related to reality. What does it mean 'an expanding sphere of time and space, expanding in nothing'.

But the fact is: This shows your ignorance of science.
Scientists know exactly how the mathematics of GR are connected to reality. GR models what we measure (reality) just like the other mathematical laws of physics model reality, e.g. Maxwell's laws model electromagnetism.
So you usually start with the evidence (see evidence for the Big Bang, e.g. the Hubble Law) and construct a theory that matches the evidence. This is known as science. The Big Bang model actually started with the observation that there were solutions to GR that described an expanding universe. Then there was the independent observation by Hubble that the universe was actually expanding.

You seem to have the common delusion that an expanding universe has to expand into something. It does not. For a start the universe is everything so that there is nothing for it to expand into . See Frequently Asked Questions in Cosmology: What is the Universe expanding into?
If you are at a level where the thing you know about the Big Bang theory is the balloon analogy then that is excusable. That anaolgy is confusing because you think of an actual balloon that is a 2D surface in a 3D volume.
The better anlogy is to introduce Mr & Miss Flatland. They are ants who live on the balloon at different points. They do not know that there is a "sky" above or an interior to the balloon. Everything they see and measure is restricted to the ballloon surface. So they are on a 2D surface and there is no 3D volume in which that surface is embedded.
Mr Flatland sees all of the galaxies going away from him at a velocity that depends on their distance.
Miss Flatland sees all of the galaxies going away from her at a velocity that depends on their distance.

This is a simplistic version of the mathematical structure of GR. GR has that we are in a universe with 3 spacial dimensions and 1 time dimension. GR uses the intrinsic (no reference to being embedded in a higher dimension space) properties of this universe.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

You seem to have the common delusion that an expanding universe has to expand into something. It does not. For a start the universe is everything so that there is nothing for it to expand into . See Frequently Asked Questions in Cosmology

Do you understand, Maartenn?

[Maartenn100]

Quote:

The fact is that it is very easy to imagine this beginning expanding universe. The analogy used to imagine it is taught to school children all over the world - the expanding balloon analogy.

Nice, that analogy for children of a balloon. But every rational and critical thinker would ask.

Can you imagine that "you are on that expanding balloon of time in that very beginning"? Of course not. No one can imagine that. What's your horizon when you are on that expanding balloon in the beginning? You can see yourself over and over again, ad infinitum?


A child will find it amusing, but a rational person. No way he or she can accept that idea.

Some scientists like to have the reputation they do understand 'an expanding balloon of expanding time'. But in reality they have no clue.

It's an extrapolation of contempory observations and by the underlying (unproven) claim that the laws of nature were the same in the beginning.

Or can you set up a controlled repeatable experiment to show us: 'expanding time'?
No, not at all. It's not even science. You are not communicating any idea by telling us: 'time can expand like a balloon (analogy) from nothing'. You can't prove the fact with an experiment of a fenomenon like 'no time at all' (the very beginning).

If you claim 'time can expand like a balloon from nothing', you must be able to set up an experiment to prove it. The fact is: you can't.

It's more likely and more rational that space is 'expanding' as an effect of gravitional space-expansion (cfr gravitational timedilation). There is timedilation because of gravity, so space can expand too between gravitational systems, given our reference frame.

Length can contract in relativity, why should space not be able to expand in relativity? It make no sense to deny that logic deduction. Space is not absolute (SRT), so it can expand too.

Time and space are one. Expanding of space, given our frame of reference, can easily been explained as a relativistic effect. Because of gravitational space-expansion. (cfr: gravitational timedilation)

That's more an 'Ockham's razer-explanation' then a Big Bang out of nothing.

Expanding space can easily be explained by 'relativity'. By the postulate that space is not absolute.

When you are talking about an expanding universe as a whole, you are talking about an absolute definable (but expanding) space and time.
SRT told us such absolute space and absolute time does not exist.
Ergo: BB-theory must be false.

That's a very logic argument to falsify your hole believesystem.

[TjW]

Originally Posted by Maartenn100

Nice, that analogy for children of a balloon. But every rational and critical thinker would ask.

Can you imagine that "you are in that expanding balloon of time in that very beginning" (with its bounderies)? Of course not. No one can imagine that. What's your horizon when you are in that expanding balloon in the beginning? You can see yourself over and over again, at infinitum?

A balloon of expanding time and space. If you claim you understand this, find yourself a good psychiatrist.
A child will find it amusing, but a rational person. No way he or she can accept that idea.

No one can undrstand 'the idea' of a balloon of expanding time... But some scientists like to have the reputation they do understand 'an expanding balloon of expanding time'. But in reality they are talking nonsens.

Your analogy just explains nothing at all. Accept that fact instead of acting like you know of what you are talking about.

We ARE ignorant about such fenomenon. It's not rational at all. It's an extrapolation of something on paper.

Or can you set up an experiment to show us: 'expanding time'.
No, not at all. It doesn't mean a thing to us. You are not communicating any idea by telling us: 'time can expand like a balloon from nothing'. No idea or interesting concept is been revealed by that.

If you claim 'time can expand like a balloon from nothing', you must be able to set up an experiment to prove it. The fact is: you can't.

Your inability to conceptualize how the universe is expanding doesn't affect how well the mathematical model fits physical observation.
If you desire to overturn the existing paradigm, you will have to learn enough mathematics to express your own pet concept in the unambiguous language of mathematics, and then show how those equations model all (not just one or two) of the current observations. Ideally, the equations should also imply some other as-yet-unobserved behavior of the universe, not in the current model, that can be looked for and found. It can't predict that things we observe happening don't happen, though.

The currently-accepted model is based on observation. So you have it backwards. Rather than the idea that the universe is expanding being an extrapolation from something on paper, we observe that the universe is expanding, and the something on paper is carefully crafted to give the answers that we see when we look.
It's well accepted because every once in awhile, we see something new, and either the observed behavior is consistent with the something on paper (in which case, that observation serves to confirm the something on paper we currently have is pretty close to right) or it isn't. In which case the something on paper is examined to see how the equations would have to change to be consistent with both the new observations and all the old observations.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by Maartenn100

Nice, that analogy for children of a balloon. But every rational and critical thinker would ask.

Can you imagine that "you are on that expanding balloon of time in that very beginning"? Of course not. No one can imagine that. What's your horizon when you are on that expanding balloon in the beginning? You can see yourself over and over again, ad infinitum?


A child will find it amusing, but a rational person. No way he or she can accept that idea.

Some scientists like to have the reputation they do understand 'an expanding balloon of expanding time'. But in reality they have no clue.

It's an extrapolation of contempory observations and by the underlying (unproven) claim that the laws of nature were the same in the beginning.

Or can you set up a controlled repeatable experiment to show us: 'expanding time'?
No, not at all. It's not even science. You are not communicating any idea by telling us: 'time can expand like a balloon (analogy) from nothing'. You can't prove the fact with an experiment of a fenomenon like 'no time at all' (the very beginning).

If you claim 'time can expand like a balloon from nothing', you must be able to set up an experiment to prove it. The fact is: you can't.

It's more likely and more rational that space is 'expanding' as an effect of gravitional space-expansion (cfr gravitational timedilation). There is timedilation because of gravity, so space can expand too between gravitational systems, given our reference frame.

Length can contract in relativity, why should space not be able to expand in relativity? It make no sense to deny that logic deduction. Space is not absolute (SRT), so it can expand too.

Time and space are one. Expanding of space, given our frame of reference, can easily been explained as a relativistic effect. Because of gravitational space-expansion. (cfr: gravitational timedilation)

That's more an 'Ockham's razer-explanation' then a Big Bang out of nothing.

Expanding space can easily be explained by 'relativity'. By the postulate that space is not absolute.

When you are talking about an expanding universe as a whole, you are talking about an absolute definable (but expanding) space and time.
SRT told us such absolute space and absolute time does not exist.
Ergo: BB-theory must be false.

That's a very logic argument to falsify your hole believesystem.

Maartenn, je weet niks over dit onderwerp. Stop.

[Maartenn100]

Don't be obsessed with math.
Math doesn't give you a theory to explain the equations.
The equation exists (expanding space) and is been measured. (Hubble's law).

So your idea is wrong that math is needed in this case. The math is already there. The theory to explain the equation (BB-theory) must be wrong because it's inconsistent with a flexible universe. (not absolute).

The already mathematical well proven concept of SRT (relativity of space and time) is enough to explain the math of the expanding universe. (SRT is well enough been explained in mathematical terms).


Every person can make the following reasoning:

Been confronted with the idea of 'expanding space',
the first thing that comes to (my) mind is:

"Oh, yes, that's very normal, because 'space is not absolute'."

Space can contract and space can expand. (relativity)


That's normal in a universe with no absolute space and no absolute time.

Time can contract (timedilation) and time can expand. (expanding universe).

You see: same math, different theory to explain the math.

So, first deduction: expanding space must be a normal phenomenon, because space is not absolute.


AND

If you are talking about an absolute definable (but expanding) space and time (BigBang theory), your mathematical model can be wright, but is based on the wrong assumption. Because there is no such thing as an absolute definable (expanding) space or time. (postulates SRT).

Because it does not match with the already well proven SRT-concept.

AND

gravitaty can dilate time.
So gravitation must be able to do something with space too.
Because space and time are hanging together.

(deductive reasoning)

No math is still needed.

conclusion: expanding space is a relativistic effect, given our frame of reference, while we are observing gravitatinal fields further away. And it will be the same view of 'expanding space' wherever you are. Because of gravitational relativity.

No math is needed to give a theory to explain the math.

[Maartenn100]

Originally Posted by dafydd

Maartenn, je weet niks over dit onderwerp. Stop.

Dafydd,

Ik weet er genoeg van om via een denkfout waarbij men vertrekt van een onderliggend foute aanname (tijd en ruimte zijn absoluut) de BB-theorie onderuit te halen.

Dat is genoeg. Hoe goed de wiskundige modellen ook zijn. Je hoeft daarvoor niet alles te weten. Weten dat de aanname dat tijd en ruimte absolute grootheden kennen op een gegeven moment en uitdijen klopt niet met het concept van relatieve ruimte en tijd van de SRT. Zoals Karl Popper het zei: een essentiële fout en het gehele geloofsysteem is ongeldig.
Daarnaast kan je uit de SRT opmaken dat indien ruimte (en tijd) niet absoluut zijn, ruimte kan samentrekken en ruimte kan uitdijen op relativistische gronden.

Dat men op basis van deze solide argumenten dat het gehele geloofsysteem omverwerpt toch blijft vasthangen aan zijn geloof omdat 'men er zolang aan gewerkt heeft en iedereen dat vindt' is echt niet het probleem van de scepticus.

[Maartenn100]

I think there is no absolute amount of definable (expanded) space or time.
Space can contract and space can expand (relativity).
So 'expanding space' is a relativistic effect. Not because of relative motion, but because of relative gravity.

[TjW]

Originally Posted by Maartenn100

Don't be obsessed with math.
Math doesn't give you a theory to explain the equations.
The equation exists (expanding space) and is been measured. (Hubble's law).

So your idea is wrong that math is needed in this case. The math is already there. The theory to explain the equation (BB-theory) must be wrong because it's inconsistent with a flexible universe. (not absolute).

The already mathematical well proven concept of SRT (relativity of space and time) is enough to explain the math of the expanding universe. (SRT is well enough been explained in mathematical terms).


Every person can make the following reasoning:

Been confronted with the idea of 'expanding space',
the first thing that comes to (my) mind is:

"Oh, yes, that's very normal, because 'space is not absolute'."

Space can contract and space can expand. (relativity)


That's normal in a universe with no absolute space and no absolute time.

Time can contract (timedilation) and time can expand. (expanding universe).

You see: same math, different theory to explain the math.

So, first deduction: expanding space must be a normal phenomenon, because space is not absolute.


AND

If you are talking about an absolute definable (but expanding) space and time (BigBang theory), your mathematical model can be wright, but is based on the wrong assumption. Because there is no such thing as an absolute definable (expanding) space or time. (postulates SRT).

Because it does not match with the already well proven SRT-concept.

AND

gravitaty can dilate time.
So gravitation must be able to do something with space too.
Because space and time are hanging together.

(deductive reasoning)

No math is still needed.

conclusion: expanding space is a relativistic effect, given our frame of reference, while we are observing gravitatinal fields further away. And it will be the same view of 'expanding space' wherever you are. Because of gravitational relativity.

No math is needed to give a theory to explain the math.

No. The math is the theory. The math describes/models the behavior of the universe. Your handwaving is handwaving and may be dismissed as such.

[Maartenn100]

The math is not 'the mathematical model'.
A mathematical model is a set of scientifically well defined assumptions based on math.
The Big Bang theory is not the math, where it is based on.
It's a theory with assumptions in welldefined scientific terms. Math is the instrument to build it.
It's not the theory itself.

In this case, you try to extrapolate 'an observable expanding universe' to a beginning. (with math)
That's a model based on observations and based on math.

Another model is: expanding or contracting space is an aspect of relativity. Relative motion can cause it or gravity.
And the argument to falsifies the BB-theory is: an absolute expanding space or time can not exist in a universe where time and space are relative phenomena. An absolute defined age of the universe can not exist in such universe where time and space are relative. (SRT).

Same math, different 'model'/theory or hypothesis (in this case) to explain the observation of expanding space.
And it matches with the assumption that there is no absolute space and time.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Maartenn100

As I said: they are not communicating any ideas.

No, you're wrong.

YOU do not understand how this theory works in reality, because you can't let go of your everyday perceptions. That's fine. I don't understand everything either. The problem arises when you think that because YOU don't understand, NO ONE understands. That's projection.

Example: I used to disbelieve relativity because it didn't make sense to me, and I thought scientists just used it as a mathematical way to get around the problem. Then I realised that the EVIDENCE supported the theory, which made my incredulity meaningless, and that mathematical models DO represent reality, which made my inability to understand the abstract meaningless. It works, and my problems with it were my own.

The same thing goes for you today. You expecting your ignorance to represent reality is meaningless, and futile. Educate yourself about science and the theory, before you declare that your limited understanding somehow trumps centuries of hard work by thousands of people.