Questions about Cosmogony and Cosmology

[pantheory]

This thread will be about your questions concerning what may not make sense to you, or where you wish clarification concerning your understandings of current, or alternative theories and speculations in Cosmology or Cosmogony. Cosmogony is the study of the beginnings of the universe. For the purpose of these conversations the word “universe” would include all known matter and energy that’s observable to us by our senses or by our instrumentation and experiments.  The word “cosmos,” for the purpose of these conversations, will include everything that could conceivably have existence, such as other universes, a spiritual realm, god, etc.

As for myself, I have been an independent researcher and theorist in cosmology and theoretical physics for more than 50 years and have written, along with others, a number of related peer-reviewed papers published in this field. But this thread will be about your questions, not about any of my own alternatives.

The emphasis will be on your questions about the universe or cosmos and what may, or may not make sense to you concerning the answers that you have heard or read. My answers will be based upon what has been observed and whether the present interpretations and speculations relating to these observations generally make sense and are logical. My answers will be logic-based,  directly addressing your questions, with answers either related, or unrelated to present mainstream ideas and theories in these fields.

As an analogy to such ideas, and for the purpose of these conversations if you wish,  one could consider the word “catholic” to mean all such ideas and theories on these subjects, whether mainstream or not, and the same word capitalized “Catholic,” to mean the presently accepted mainstream theories and ideas concerning these subjects. 

The definition of the word "catholic" being considered: universal in extent; including all possibilities

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/catholic

Probably few here realize that there are hundreds of different theories of cosmology, as many as there are protestant religions. To rightfully be called a theory or hypothesis such proposals need to be science- based in content and form, and none should be easily refutable by observation or experimentation.  Of course observations and the results of experiments can be interpreted by logic alone, or by different theories in a number or different ways. To some, mainstream or other theories may be considered logical, but to others not.

As to an understanding of alternative cosmologies in general, there are two major types. One type concerns recognized mainstream theorists proposed alternatives to present theory,  and the second type involves alternative theories that have never been studied or considered by mainstream theorists or practitioners, such alternatives or non-standard cosmologies, as stated above, number in the hundreds.

Here are a few links referring to more than a dozen of these alternative theories and hypothesis. This is just a sampling of the hundreds of written cosmologies that have been proposed and disseminated within just the last 60 years as alternatives to the Big Bang Theory.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-standard_cosmology

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Alternative_cosmology

https://www.scientificexploration.org/forum/against-the-grain-some-alternative-cosmologies

If the answers do not make sense to you, do not believe them, instead study the question and answer further then come to a conclusion, but always be ready to change your beliefs or conclusions. Like religion, none of present-day cosmology, known alternatives, or proposals ever made by anyone, none may be correct.

Such Questions asked should be logical to you, and all answers also must be logical to you for your consideration – as should your acceptance of any proposal or theory whether mainstream or not.

 

 

 

[bornagainathiest]

In the interest of full and transparent declaration to your fellow members, do you have anything of interest to declare about the content of this link, Pantheory?

 

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Alternative_cosmology

.

.

.

Also, in the light of what you advise your fellow members to do...

 

If the answers do not make sense to you, do not believe them, instead study the question and answer further then come to a conclusion, but always be ready to change your beliefs or conclusions. 

 

...are you just as ready to change your beliefs and conclusions about mainstream cosmology?

[pantheory]

BAA.

 

As to your first question, yes my cosmology is included in these alternatives, The Pan Theory, since it is not entirely unknown because of its peer-reviewed papers, and because of the related website explaining the theory. As to your second question as to whether I could ever accept mainstream cosmology? the answer would depend upon new evidence that could support the Big Bang model, or futher contradict it. The major hypotheses which support the present big bang, the Lambda-cold-dark-matter version, are dark matter, dark energy, and the Inflation hypothesis. For instance, there are no known recognized observations concerning what dark matter or dark energy might be. Also, the inflation model of the Big Bang is not based upon science in that its existence is not presently observable or testable, which are primary requirements for it to be considered science.

 

Lastly the supposed expansion of the universe, according to the Big Bang model, is based upon the observed red-shift of galaxies, but there are a number of other explanations that can explain these observed red-shifts.

 

As to whether we will find evidence to further support or disparage the Big Bang model or any alternative model,  is discussed below:

 

After the James Webb space telescope goes up and is fully functional, it may be announced that they have found at the farthest distances, old, very large and red appearing galaxies, maybe with observably high metallicity (heavy atoms). This could be considered evidence that the universe is much older than the Big Bang model theorizes, which would imply that the Big Bang model would likely be wrong. On the other hand, if they observe only small young, blue-appearing galaxies with minimal metallicity at these farthest distances, then all theories and hypothesis proposing an older or infinite age universe, would likely be wrong — which would include nearly all alternative cosmologies including my own model. Or maybe scientists will discover a very old star, that according to their calculations is considerably older than what the estimated age of the Universe, according to the Big Bang model, could allow. Or there could be other observations or discoveries that could eliminate some possibilities of theory while favoring others.

 

[bornagainathiest]

18 minutes ago, pantheory said:

BAA.

 

As to your first question, yes my cosmology is included in these alternatives, The Pan Theory, since it is not entirely unknown because of its peer-reviewed papers, and because of the related website explaining the theory. As to your second question as to whether I could ever accept mainstream cosmology? the answer would concern what kind of evidence might be found to support the Big Bang model, or contradict it The major hypotheses which support this model are dark matter, dark energy, and the Inflation model. For instance, there are no known recognized observations concerning what dark matter and dark energy might be. Also, the inflation model of the Big Bang is not based upon science in that its existence is not presently observable or testable, which are primary requirements for it to be considered science.

 

Lastly the supposed expansion of the universe, according to the Big Bang model, is based upon the observed red-shift of galaxies, but there are a number of other explanations that can explain these observed red-shifts.

 

As to whether we can find evidence to support whether the Big Bang or any other model may be wrong, this is explained below:

 

After the James Webb space telescope goes up and is fully functional, it may be announced that they have found at the farthest distances, old, very large and red appearing galaxies, maybe with observably high metallicity (heavy atoms). This could be considered evidence that the universe is much older than the Big Bang model theorizes, which would imply that the Big Bang model would likely be wrong. On the other hand, if they observe only small young, blue-appearing galaxies with minimal metallicity at these farthest distances, then all theories and hypothesis proposing an older or infinite age universe, would likely be wrong — which would include nearly all alternative cosmologies including my own model. Or maybe scientists will discover a very old star, that according to their calculations is considerably older than what the estimated age of the Universe, according to the Big Bang model, could allow. Or there could be other observations or discoveries that could eliminate some possibilities of theory while favoring others.

 

 

Also, the inflation model of the Big Bang is not based upon science in that its existence is not presently observable or testable, which are primary requirements for it to be considered science.

 

Your definition of science rules out much of what mainstream science infers to exist.

Such as the trillions of exoplanets orbiting the stars of other galaxies, which we can neither observe nor test, but whose existence is inferred.  

Such as events in the deep past (the Cambrian Explosion or the Snowball Earth) which cannot be observed or directly tested, but which are inferred to have happened.

Such as sub-atomic particles we cannot observe or test, but whose existence is inferred from the amount of energy missing from certain particle collisions.

 

Your definition of what constitutes science seems to be greatly at odds with that of mainstream science.

 

Shouldn't you therefore go on record and explain, for the benefit of your fellow members, the following points?

 

1.  Your personal definition of what constitutes science isn't the one used in mainstream science.

2.  The definition you gave in your reply to me is your own and not that used in mainstream science.

3.  You had no intention of misleading your fellow members, but this was just an oversight on your part.  

4.  You should have clarified that you were expressing your own, personal view of what constitutes science and not that used by mainstream science.

 

You'd agree that you should do these things, right Pantheory?

 

 

 

[pantheory]

My answers in blue.

 

"Your definition of science rules out much of what mainstream science infers to exist."

 

This is the definition of science that I use.

 

"Such as the trillions of exoplanets orbiting the stars of other galaxies, which we can neither observe nor test, but whose existence is inferred.  

 

Yes, this is not science, but it is the certainty of mathematical probability based upon science.

 

Such as events in the deep past (the Cambrian Explosion or the Snowball Earth) which cannot be observed or directly tested, but which are inferred to have happened.

 

Yes, the Cambrian explosion has a mountain of fossil and other evidence to support it, but the snowball earth is only theory, but I expect a good one.

 

Such as sub-atomic particles we cannot observe or test, but whose existence is inferred from the amount of energy missing from certain particle collisions.

 

Atomic particles such as neutrons, protons, and electrons are excellent theory also having a mountain of evidence to support their existence but little support as to their form, other than hypothesis. As to sub-atomic particles such as quarks, gluons, photons, etc., there are observations and theory which the mainstream believes implies their existences, but none of these conclusions are beyond contention IMO.

 

Your definition of what constitutes science seems to be greatly at odds with that of mainstream science.

 

Find another definition of science from a different dictionary source, that disagrees with the definition given above. I don't think you'll find any since the definition given is the accepted definition of the word "science."

 

The definition of "science" was cut and pasted verbatim from its source. The source was not given because the link seemed like it was too long. You can look up the definition yourself from the links above or below, or use any other dictionary source.

 

https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&q=definition+of+science&oq=definition+of+science&gs_l=psy-ab.12..0i131k1j0l3.899.5943.0.13427.22.18.0.0.0.0.469.3342.0j5j0j4j3.12.0....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..10.12.3338.0..35i39k1.gvfTAUKHLkw

 

 

[bornagainathiest]

This...

 

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Historical_and_operational_science

 

 

[pantheory]

BAA,

 

"This...

 

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Historical_and_operational_science"

Of course nearly all theorists and practitioners would agree that methods of science were used to develop what has been called the Inflation theory, or the Inflation hypothesis --one of the underpinnings of the concordance model of the Big Bang.

 

But the Inflation proposal does not meet the definition of science in that it is neither testable or observable.

 

According to your link the Inflation proposal might be considered as science under the classification of Historical Science like some aspects of cosmology. But it has a problem with this classification too in that it is not a "science in which data is provided primarily from past events" because such asserted events are unobservable.
 

It also does not meet the definitions of a hypothesis or theory either since both require that a theory or hypothesis must be testable and falsifiable.

 

https://www.britannica.com/topic/scientific-hypothesis

 

https://www.google.com/search?q=define+scientific+theory%3A+testable+%2C+falsifiable&oq=define+scientific+theory%3A+testable+%2C+falsifiable&gs_l=psy-ab.12...23959.27681.0.31416.11.11.0.0.0.0.478.1984.0j9j0j1j1.11.0....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..0.0.0.Wx4BfDvT6Ok

 

Inflation seems to instead fall under the category of well-developed ad hoc speculation IMO.

 

It appears that the same problem exists for the proposals of dark matter and dark energy concerning their classifications. They cannot be a hypotheses or a theory if they are not testable or falsifiable. One cannot falsify their existence any more than one can prove the non-existence of unicorns or gods. Further discoveries, however, might enable one or both of them someday to be testable and/or falsifiable if in fact either exists.

 

 

[pantheory]

On 8/29/2017 at 0:52 PM, pantheory said:

 

double posting deleted

[bornagainathiest]

On 9/2/2017 at 3:58 AM, pantheory said:

BAA,

 

"This...

 

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Historical_and_operational_science"

Of course nearly all theorists and practitioners would agree that methods of science were used to develop what has been called the Inflation theory, or the Inflation hypothesis --one of the underpinnings of the concordance model of the Big Bang.

 

But the Inflation proposal does not meet the definition of science in that it is neither testable or observable.

 

Yes it does.

In two ways.  First, it tracks causality by providing an explanation for observed phenomenon and second by providing the means to make accurate predictions about phenomenon that were unobserved at the time when those predictions were made.  Predictions that have been independently verified and confirmed.  You and I have discussed these confirmed predictions at length Pantheory and yours is a stonewall denial of them.  Yet the confirmations keep coming and no doubt, you will keep on denying them.

 

Quote

 

According to your link the Inflation proposal might be considered as science under the classification of Historical Science like some aspects of cosmology. But it has a problem with this classification too in that it is not a "science in which data is provided primarily from past events" because such asserted events are unobservable.

 

This is false.

Past events seen (and also predicted to be seen) within the observable universe are indicators that Inflation rests upon a firm foundation of evidence.  Once again, you deny that this is so.

 

Quote

It also does not meet the definitions of a hypothesis or theory either since both require that a theory or hypothesis must be testable and falsifiable.

 

https://www.britannica.com/topic/scientific-hypothesis

 

https://www.google.com/search?q=define+scientific+theory%3A+testable+%2C+falsifiable&oq=define+scientific+theory%3A+testable+%2C+falsifiable&gs_l=psy-ab.12...23959.27681.0.31416.11.11.0.0.0.0.478.1984.0j9j0j1j1.11.0....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..0.0.0.Wx4BfDvT6Ok

 

Inflation seems to instead fall under the category of well-developed ad hoc speculation IMO.

 

Again, false.

Inflation is testable and falsifiable within the observable universe, for the reasons already given.  But you deny this.

 

Quote

 

It appears that the same problem exists for the proposals of dark matter and dark energy concerning their classifications. They cannot be a hypotheses or a theory if they are not testable or falsifiable. One cannot falsify their existence any more than one can prove the non-existence of unicorns or gods. Further discoveries, however, might enable one or both of them someday to be testable and/or falsifiable if in fact either exists.

 

 

 

And should these discoveries be made, will you then deny that they have been, just as you have done with testable and falsifiable evidence that supports Inflation?

 

[pantheory]

My previous quotes  (in green):

 

......the Inflation proposal does not meet the definition of science in that it is neither testable or observable.

 

Your responses (in black):

 

Yes it does.

In two ways.  First, it tracks causality by providing an explanation for observed phenomenon and second by providing the means to make accurate predictions about phenomenon that were unobserved at the time when those predictions were made.  Predictions that have been independently verified and confirmed.  You and I have discussed these confirmed predictions at length Pantheory and yours is a stonewall denial of them.  Yet the confirmations keep coming and no doubt, you will keep on denying them.

 

My replies (in blue)

 

Yes, it does provide an explanation for what is being observed, but that was what it was designed to do. It had to since it was an ad hoc proposal that must explain what was being observed, for the mainstream to even consider it. Otherwise it would not have been a good enough or acceptable proposal for the mainstream to consider it in the first place.

 

Ad hoc defined: "In science an ad hoc hypothesis is a hypothesis added to a theory in order to save it from being falsified. Often, ad hoc hypothesizing is employed to compensate for anomalies not anticipated by the theory in its unmodified form."

 

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

 

........the Inflation proposal might be considered as science under the classification of Historical Science like some aspects of cosmology, but it has a problem with this classification too in that it is not a "science in which data is provided primarily from past events" because such asserted events are unobservable.

 

This is false.

Past events seen (and also predicted to be seen) within the observable universe are indicators that Inflation rests upon a firm foundation of evidence.  Once again, you deny that this is so.

 

Consider the fact that Inflation was exactly designed to explain what is now being observed. The events that supposedly occurred during Inflation in its own time, were never asserted to be observable by present observations, only the effects of it.

 

Inflation seems to instead fall under the category of well-developed ad hoc speculation IMO.

 

Again, false.

Inflation is testable and falsifiable within the observable universe, for the reasons already given.  But you deny this.

 

See if you can find a source that agrees with your statement above, that the Inflation proposal is both testable and falsifiable. I don't think you will find any such source asserting verbatim that Inflation is "testable and/or falsifiable" while at the same time telling how it might be tested or falsified. However, you will find many sites stating the opposite conclusion.

 

(Referring to dark matter and dark energy)

 

Further discoveries ...might enable one or both of them someday to be testable and/or falsifiable if in fact either exists.

 

And should these discoveries be made, will you then deny that they have been, just as you have done with testable and falsifiable evidence that supports Inflation?

 

Claims of discoveries are not necessarily the same as real discoveries. The Nobel Prize was granted for the discovery of dark energy, and yet there are many, including myself, that think this claim of discovery was a mistake.

 

Future claims of discovery concerning either should be judged based upon the merits of the alleged discovery,  not necessarily on whether the mainstream or any other group agrees or disagrees with such claims.

 

 

 

 

[bornagainathiest]

An ad hoc hypothesis that is specifically designed to explain what has been observed cannot, by definition, make any predictions about what will be observed.

 

If it can make predictions that are confirmed by future observations, then it does not deserve to be called an ad hoc hypothesis -  because it clearly works.

 

Inflationary theory made predictions about what would be observed and these have been independently confirmed to the highest standards of accuracy

 

It therefore cannot be the ad hoc hypothesis you claim it is - because it clearly works.

 

It predicts, where an ad hoc hypothesis cannot.

 

 

[pantheory]

Happy Labor Day my friend.

 

37 minutes ago, bornagainathiest said:

An ad hoc hypothesis that is specifically designed to explain what has been observed cannot, by definition, make any predictions about what will be observed.

 

If it can make predictions that are confirmed by future observations, then it does not deserve to be called an ad hoc hypothesis -  because it clearly works.

 

Inflationary theory made predictions about what would be observed and these have been independently confirmed to the highest standards of accuracy

 

It therefore cannot be the ad hoc hypothesis you claim it is - because it clearly works.

 

It predicts, where an ad hoc hypothesis cannot.

 

 

 

If you were employed to develop an ad hac hypothesis to explain presently observed anomalies, wouldn't you consider what might be observed in the future, not only what is currently being observed?  If you were good at what you were doing then your ad hac hypothesis would last for awhile and not be easily or readily refutable.

[bornagainathiest]

You are taking this thread into conspiracy theory territory, Pantheory.

 

I will not follow you there.

 

In my experience there can be no meaningful dialog with conspiracy theorists.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA. 

[pantheory]

6 hours ago, bornagainathiest said:

You are taking this thread into conspiracy theory territory, Pantheory.

 

I will not follow you there.

 

In my experience there can be no meaningful dialog with conspiracy theorists.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA. 

 

No, no conspiracy at all. Inflation was a good attempt to save what I believe to be an ill-fated theory along with all of its hypotheses.

 

 

[bornagainathiest]

9 hours ago, pantheory said:

 

No, no conspiracy at all. Inflation was a good attempt to save what I believe to be an ill-fated theory along with all of its hypotheses.

 

 

 

Thank you for revising the content of your reply.