Can the Universe Create Itself?

[walterpthefirst]

Hello. 

 

First of all, my apologies to Pantheory for posting this thread while his own universe-related is still up and running.  I have no desire to (metaphorically) step on his toes, but I noticed this today and realized that it was very relevant to discussions in this forum.  

 

I'm a member of the PhysicsForum and this thread was started up yesterday.  https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/questions-gott-li-can-a-universe-create-itself.1013925/  The Gott - Li paper, 'Can the Universe Create Itself?' was completely unknown to me, even though it was published at the end of 1997.

 

Here is a link to the .pdf file in which the whole paper can be read.  https://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/9712344.pdf

 

Apart from being of philosophical and theological interest, this paper has very strong links to the Hawking - Penrose Singularity theorem (mis) used by the Christian apologist William Lane Craig.  

 

The theorem outlined in this paper... https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rspa.1970.0021 The Singularities of Gravitational Collapse and Cosmology.

 

I will be checking carefully through the Gott - Li paper and comparing it the Hawking - Penrose theorem, seeing what the implications of it are.

 

This will take some time, but I will report my findings here, in this thread.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

[pantheory]

9 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

Hello. 

 

First of all, my apologies to Pantheory for posting this thread while his own universe-related is still up and running.  I have no desire to (metaphorically) step on his toes, but I noticed this today and realized that it was very relevant to discussions in this forum.  

 

I'm a member of the PhysicsForum and this thread was started up yesterday.  https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/questions-gott-li-can-a-universe-create-itself.1013925/  The Gott - Li paper, 'Can the Universe Create Itself?' was completely unknown to me, even though it was published at the end of 1997.

 

Here is a link to the .pdf file in which the whole paper can be read.  https://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/9712344.pdf

 

Apart from being of philosophical and theological interest, this paper has very strong links to the Hawking - Penrose Singularity theorem (mis) used by the Christian apologist William Lane Craig.  

 

The theorem outlined in this paper... https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rspa.1970.0021 The Singularities of Gravitational Collapse and Cosmology.

 

I will be checking carefully through the Gott - Li paper and comparing it the Hawking - Penrose theorem, seeing what the implications of it are.

 

This will take some time, but I will report my findings here, in this thread.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

 

Thanks Walter, Your thread is very similar to what my own thread is about. Did the universe solely come from a beginning entity as proposed first by Big Bang theorists? What was the first cause, the so-called prime mover? The OP of my own 'universe' thread explains exactly how this would happen according to the Big Bang theory. The key thing to understand  is that it's not theory -- it's only logic, not speculation or hypotheses, That would be the hardest part for theorists and others to understand, that only logic is needed to understand it That could be why non-academics may presently know little or nothing about it, even though papers more than 6 decades old have explained it, including my own theory that has the same beginning. I would expect that very few understand it, even though it's not science or math, and not that difficult to understand. This would include many or most cosmologists, without asking questions, and answers coming from someone who does understand it.

 

However the title "can the universe create itself" is a poor title IMHO to enable the understanding of the principles involved.  Maybe a better title would be "why our universe was not created by God or from something before it."  That title could be a popular book. I could write up such a book to multiply my wealth. The main point and logic of the book would be the OP of my thread here.  Not only would it better explain this concept to scientists, but also to Christians, Jews and Moslem's, etc.  It could be translated into many different languages to accomplish this task.    Thanks Walter,  I have to start making plans now

[walterpthefirst]

2 hours ago, pantheory said:

 

Thanks Walter, Your thread is very similar to what my own thread is about. Did the universe solely come from a beginning entity as proposed first by Big Bang theorists? What was the first cause? The OP of my own 'universe' thread explains exactly how this would happen according to the Big Bang theory. The key thing to understand  is that it's not theory -- it's only logic, not speculation or hypotheses, That would be the hardest part for theorists and others to understand, that only logic is needed to understand it That could be why non-academics may presently know little or nothing about it, even though papers more than 6 decades old have explained it, including my own theory that has the same beginning. I would expect that very few understand it, even though it's not science or math, and not that difficult to understand. This would include many or most cosmologists, without asking questions, and answers coming from someone who does understand it.

 

Hi Pantheory.

 

You assert that only logic is required to explain the Big Bang?

 

Surely you don't mean ONLY logic?

 

What about observations and data?

 

And surely you don't mean ONLY logic, when said observations and data need to be interpreted?

 

Given that you interpret the same data and the same observations as everyone else - but in your own way?

 

Perhaps your assertion about only logic being needed is incomplete?

 

 

2 hours ago, pantheory said:

 

However the title "can the universe create itself" is a poor title IMHO to enable the understanding of the principles involved.  Maybe a better title would be "why our universe was not created by God or from something before it."  That title could be a popular book. I could write up such a book to multiply my wealth. The main point and logic of the book would be the OP of my thread here.  Not only would it better explain this concept to scientists, but also to Christians, Jews and Moslem's, etc.  It could be translated into many different languages to accomplish this task.    Thanks Walter,  I have to start making plans now

 

The title isn't of my choice.

 

That's the title of Gott and Li's paper.  https://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/9712344.pdf

 

Can the Universe Create Itself? J. Richard Gott, III and Li-Xin Li Department of Astrophysical Sciences, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544 (December 29, 1997)

 

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

[pantheory]

2 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

Hi Pantheory.

 

You assert that only logic is required to explain the Big Bang?

 

Surely you don't mean ONLY logic?

 

What about observations and data?

 

And surely you don't mean ONLY logic, when said observations and data need to be interpreted?

 

Given that you interpret the same data and the same observations as everyone else - but in your own way?

 

Perhaps your assertion about only logic being needed is incomplete?

 

 

 

The title isn't of my choice.

 

That's the title of Gott and Li's paper.  https://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/9712344.pdf

 

Can the Universe Create Itself? J. Richard Gott, III and Li-Xin Li Department of Astrophysical Sciences, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544 (December 29, 1997)

 

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

Yes, I mean logic only, plus single-definition semantics; no science, speculation, theory, or math is needed. This is not just the Big Bang theory, it would apply to the very beginning of any finite cosmology such as my own. OK then, what is single-definition semantics?

 

Concerning single definition semantics: Look at the definitions below for the word 'time' and space in science.

 

There are many definitions for these words time and space in science, and in common language. To understand the beginning of universe , we must come up with single definitions of these words as it could apply to the beginning. Even for definitions of these words, we must use logic as they would apply to a beginning entity.

 

Defining Time:

"The continued progress of existence and events in the past, present, and future regarded a specified interval or its whole."

Time is the continued sequence of existence and events that occurs in an apparently irreversible succession from the past, through the present, into the future. It is a component quantity of various measurements used to sequence events, to compare the duration of events or the intervals between them, and to quantify rates of change of quantities in material reality or in the conscious experience. Time is often referred to as a fourth dimension, along with three spatial dimensions.

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

What clocks measure (attributed to physicists Albert Einstein, Donald Ivey, and others)

Time as a rate and interval of definable change.

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/15371/understanding-time-is-time-simply-the-rate-change

An interval of definable change occurring under the same conditions.

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

https://phys.org/news/2016-03-evolution-interval-frequency-antiquity.html

 

Defining Space:

 

Space is the expanse in which any specified volume including  the entire universe exists.

https://www.thefreedictionary.com/Space+(physics)

Rene Decarte defined space as an extension of matter. Einstein said that space and time cannot exist separate from matter.

The bottom line here is that to understand the beginning of the universe, you must consider how space and time could logically apply to that beginning. So just one definition of time and space can be used to explain such a beginning.logically..

 

For single-definition semantics defining both, as it could apply to a beginning universe.

 

For time we will define it as:

An interval of change in the form or relative motion of something.

 

For space we will define it as:

The distances between that which exists (matter and field) and the volume it occupies.

 

For a beginning entity, time would apply to any changes in its external or internal form or relative motion.  Space would apply to the volume which it occupies and any volume changes as time progresses.

 

 

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

Ok, I now see what you mean Pantheory.

 

 

But please compare what you've written in your last message, 46 minutes ago to what you wrote 2 hours ago, in your first one.

 

The key thing to understand  is that it's not theory -- it's only logic, not speculation or hypotheses, That would be the hardest part for theorists and others to understand, that only logic is needed to understand it That could be why non-academics may presently know little or nothing about it, even though papers more than 6 decades old have explained it, including my own theory that has the same beginning. I would expect that very few understand it, even though it's not science or math, and not that difficult to understand. This would include many or most cosmologists, without asking questions, and answers coming from someone who does understand it.

 

 

There is no mention of single-definition semantics here.  You assert that ONLY logic is needed.  But then you added something to logic.

 

 

Yes, I mean logic only, plus single-definition semantics, no science, speculation, theory, or math. This is not just the Big Bang theory, it would apply to the very beginning of any finite cosmology such as my own. OK then, what is single-definition semantics?  Concerning single definition semantics: Look at the definitions below for the word 'time' and space in science.

 

 

I had to question your initial wording for you to add what was missing - single-definition semantics.  So, your assertion that... 'only logic is needed to understand it' ...is misleading.  Logic AND single-definition semantics are needed.  There are TWO interdependent elements involved.  Not one (only logic) operating on it's own.

 

 

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[pantheory]

3 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

Ok, I now see what you mean Pantheory.

 

 

But please compare what you've written in your last message, 46 minutes ago to what you wrote 2 hours ago, in your first one.

 

The key thing to understand  is that it's not theory -- it's only logic, not speculation or hypotheses, That would be the hardest part for theorists and others to understand, that only logic is needed to understand it That could be why non-academics may presently know little or nothing about it, even though papers more than 6 decades old have explained it, including my own theory that has the same beginning. I would expect that very few understand it, even though it's not science or math, and not that difficult to understand. This would include many or most cosmologists, without asking questions, and answers coming from someone who does understand it.

 

 

There is no mention of single-definition semantics here.  You assert that ONLY logic is needed.  But then you added something to logic.

 

 

Yes, I mean logic only, plus single-definition semantics, no science, speculation, theory, or math. This is not just the Big Bang theory, it would apply to the very beginning of any finite cosmology such as my own. OK then, what is single-definition semantics?  Concerning single definition semantics: Look at the definitions below for the word 'time' and space in science.

 

 

I had to question your initial wording for you to add what was missing - single-definition semantics.  So, your assertion that... 'only logic is needed to understand it' ...is misleading.  Logic AND single-definition semantics are needed.  There are TWO interdependent elements involved.  Not one (only logic) operating on it's own.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

 

I'm Sorry, I often proof read my material over and over before I post it, and even then sometimes change it a little (just one or two words) to better clarify my intended meaning. Once you've quoted it I try to explain any changes when asked. This seldom happens since the final form of my posting, is nearly always the clearest concerning my intended meaning. But it can mess with someone's first understanding of it and postings,  if my meanings were not originally clear enough.   

[walterpthefirst]

8 minutes ago, pantheory said:

 

Sorry, I often proof read my material over and over before I post it, and even then sometimes change it a little (just one or two words) to better clarify my intended meaning. Once you've quoted it I try to explain any changes when asked. This seldom happens since the final form of my posting, is nearly always the clearest concerning my intended meaning. But it can mess with someone's first understanding of it and postings,  if it was not clear enough

 

That's cool, Pantheory.

 

Thanks to your clarification I now see what you mean.

 

Cheers,

 

Walter.

[pantheory]

On 4/4/2022 at 3:20 PM, walterpthefirst said:

 

That's cool, Pantheory.

 

Thanks to your clarification I now see what you mean.

 

Cheers,

 

Walter.

 

It's great that you understand it. Upon explaining this same beginning-of-the-universe explanation in more than one science forum years ago, only a few of those who replied stated they understood it, and most that criticized it showed by their replies that they didn't understand it. I would expect that those that didn't answer but read it, more than half didn't understand it -- not that the explanation is that difficult IMHO.

[walterpthefirst]

On 4/4/2022 at 3:23 PM, walterpthefirst said:

Hello. 

 

First of all, my apologies to Pantheory for posting this thread while his own universe-related is still up and running.  I have no desire to (metaphorically) step on his toes, but I noticed this today and realized that it was very relevant to discussions in this forum.  

 

I'm a member of the PhysicsForum and this thread was started up yesterday.  https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/questions-gott-li-can-a-universe-create-itself.1013925/  The Gott - Li paper, 'Can the Universe Create Itself?' was completely unknown to me, even though it was published at the end of 1997.

 

Here is a link to the .pdf file in which the whole paper can be read.  https://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/9712344.pdf

 

Apart from being of philosophical and theological interest, this paper has very strong links to the Hawking - Penrose Singularity theorem (mis) used by the Christian apologist William Lane Craig.  

 

The theorem outlined in this paper... https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rspa.1970.0021 The Singularities of Gravitational Collapse and Cosmology.

 

I will be checking carefully through the Gott - Li paper and comparing it the Hawking - Penrose theorem, seeing what the implications of it are.

 

This will take some time, but I will report my findings here, in this thread.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

 

Hello again.

 

As promised, here is what I've gleaned from the Gott - Li paper entitled, Can the Universe Create Itself?

 

First, some context. 

There is currently no agreed way of successfully reconciling Classical physics with Quantum physics.  So, Einstein's theories of general and special relativity remain the go-to way of understanding the macroscopic universe and quantum mechanics remain the go-to way understanding the microscopic universe.  The former is strictly deterministic, where cause always precedes effect, but the latter is not deterministic, because events appear to happen without any detectable cause.

 

In 1970 Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose used general relativity to formulate their paper, The Singularities of Gravitational Collapse and Cosmology.  Using GR, they therefore reject the possibility that Closed Time-Like Curves (CTCs) were a physical possibility.  In classical physics no effect can be it's own cause.  That is a violation of causality. 

 

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

 

But there appear to mathematical solutions to GR that do theoretically permit the existence of CTCs.  These solutions were discovered by van Stockum in 1937 and then confirmed by Gödel in 1949.  It therefore appears that Hawking and Penrose either took a very conservative approach when they rejected CTCs or perhaps they were simply trying to be pragmatic, limiting themselves to tractable solutions to GR.  Either way, their rejection of CTCs should not be taken as gospel.  (Pun intended!)

 

This is a key excerpt from the Wiki article on CTCs.

 

One feature of a CTC is that it opens the possibility of a worldline which is not connected to earlier times, and so the existence of events that cannot be traced to an earlier cause. Ordinarily, causality demands that each event in spacetime is preceded by its cause in every rest frame. This principle is critical in determinism, which in the language of general relativity states complete knowledge of the universe on a spacelike Cauchy surface can be used to calculate the complete state of the rest of spacetime. However, in a CTC, causality breaks down, because an event can be "simultaneous" with its cause—in some sense an event may be able to cause itself.

 

Gott and Li have found that CTCs are theoretically permissible in quantum physics and their solution seems to be compatible with Inflationary cosmology.  In a nutshell the scenario they propose is that the universe caused itself in quantum-scale event not unlike the self-creation of pair of virtual particles from the quantum vacuum.  Then the nascent universe inflated itself, as per standard Inflationary cosmological models.

 

This is all very complex and technical, so here are a number of easy-to-understand points to take away from this.

 

1. 

Some people claim that Hawking and Penrose have mathematically proved in 1970 that the universe must have had a cause outside of itself.  

 

2.

But this proof was itself disproved in 1998, when evidence was discovered that showed that one of Hawking and Penrose's key assumptions was false.

 

3.

This means that the Hawking - Penrose 'proof' cannot be used to disallow solutions to GR like Gott and Li's.

 

4.

But that does not mean that Gott and Li's solutions must be correct.  It simply means that they are permitted.

 

 

Therefore, CTCs remain a possibility and it is also possible that the universe did indeed cause itself.

 

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

[pantheory]

3 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

Hello again.

 

As promised, here is what I've gleaned from the Gott - Li paper entitled, Can the Universe Create Itself?

 

First, some context. 

There is currently no agreed way of successfully reconciling Classical physics with Quantum physics.  So, Einstein's theories of general and special relativity remain the go-to way of understanding the macroscopic universe and quantum mechanics remain the go-to way understanding the microscopic universe.  The former is strictly deterministic, where cause always precedes effect, but the latter is not deterministic, because events appear to happen without any detectable cause.

 

In 1970 Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose used general relativity to formulate their paper, The Singularities of Gravitational Collapse and Cosmology.  Using GR, they therefore reject the possibility that Closed Time-Like Curves (CTCs) were a physical possibility.  In classical physics no effect can be it's own cause.  That is a violation of causality. 

 

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

 

But there appear to mathematical solutions to GR that do theoretically permit the existence of CTCs.  These solutions were discovered by van Stockum in 1937 and then confirmed by Gödel in 1949.  It therefore appears that Hawking and Penrose either took a very conservative approach when they rejected CTCs or perhaps they were simply trying to be pragmatic, limiting themselves to tractable solutions to GR.  Either way, their rejection of CTCs should not be taken as gospel.  (Pun intended!)

 

This is a key excerpt from the Wiki article on CTCs.

 

One feature of a CTC is that it opens the possibility of a worldline which is not connected to earlier times, and so the existence of events that cannot be traced to an earlier cause. Ordinarily, causality demands that each event in spacetime is preceded by its cause in every rest frame. This principle is critical in determinism, which in the language of general relativity states complete knowledge of the universe on a spacelike Cauchy surface can be used to calculate the complete state of the rest of spacetime. However, in a CTC, causality breaks down, because an event can be "simultaneous" with its cause—in some sense an event may be able to cause itself.

 

Gott and Li have found that CTCs are theoretically permissible in quantum physics and their solution seems to be compatible with Inflationary cosmology.  In a nutshell the scenario they propose is that the universe caused itself in quantum-scale event not unlike the self-creation of pair of virtual particles from the quantum vacuum.  Then the nascent universe inflated itself, as per standard Inflationary cosmological models.

 

This is all very complex and technical, so here are a number of easy-to-understand points to take away from this.

 

1. 

Some people claim that Hawking and Penrose have mathematically proved in 1970 that the universe must have had a cause outside of itself.  

 

2.

But this proof was itself disproved in 1998, when evidence was discovered that showed that one of Hawking and Penrose's key assumptions was false.

 

3.

This means that the Hawking - Penrose 'proof' cannot be used to disallow solutions to GR like Gott and Li's.

 

4.

But that does not mean that Gott and Li's solutions must be correct.  It simply means that they are permitted.

 

 

Therefore, CTCs remain a possibility and it is also possible that the universe did indeed cause itself.

 

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

Hi Walter,  Looking forward to possibly seeing the meteorite shower this evening in Los Angeles.

 

As to this thread, as you may know, I think that cosmology is much simpler than present mainstream theory asserts.  I agree that there is currently no concensus way of successfully reconciling Classical physics with Quantum physics. But there have been proposals concerning their reconciliation ; mine is one of them. Such proposals are called "Theories of Everything." The most well-know attempt at such a theory was String Theory, now considered fringe physics. Below is my version of a Theory of Everything as well as my Grand Unified Theory, both available on ResearchGate website -- with a number of recommendations.

 

https://papers.pantheory.org/

https://www.researchgate.net/lab/Forrest-Noble-Lab

 

The general theme of this paper is that both Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity both have errors within them, When these errors are eliminated there no longer is any contradiction between these theories, according to my text.

 

Neither of these theories, or my changes to them, however, can explain the details of how the universe was created and began. This I explained in my prior postings, and I think you said that you understood my explanations, right or wrong?

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

On 5/30/2022 at 6:41 PM, pantheory said:

 

Hi Walter,  Looking forward to possibly seeing the meteorite shower this evening in Los Angeles.

 

As to this thread, as you may know, I think that cosmology is much simpler than present mainstream theory asserts.  I agree that there is currently no concensus way of successfully reconciling Classical physics with Quantum physics. But there have been proposals concerning their reconciliation ; mine is one of them. Such proposals are called "Theories of Everything." The most well-know attempt at such a theory was String Theory, now considered fringe physics. Below is my version of a Theory of Everything as well as my Grand Unified Theory, both available on ResearchGate website -- with a number of recommendations.

 

https://papers.pantheory.org/

https://www.researchgate.net/lab/Forrest-Noble-Lab

 

The general theme of this paper is that both Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity both have errors within them, When these errors are eliminated there no longer is any contradiction between these theories, according to my text.

 

Neither of these theories, or my changes to them, however, can explain the details of how the universe was created and began. This I explained in my prior postings, and I think you said that you understood my explanations, right or wrong?

 

 

 

Not exactly, Pantheory.

 

I think I said that I understood the principles underpinning your explanations.

 

Or, if I didn't say this exactly, it's what I meant.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

[pantheory]

Again, this was my explanation concerning how a finite universe would have began, based upon the Big Bang and my own model, and logic.

It might be realized that the explanations which follow  are not speculation or theory, they’re just logic.

This concept of  the beginning  of the universe involves the understanding and meaning of the word 'time' as being simply an interval of change and nothing more. So there would be no such thing as time zero. The first time and change could be explained as time  0-1, the second change would then be 1-2, the third change would be 2-3, the forth would be 3-4 etc. Since time could be explained as a range of changes, Time would be like a motion picture. The integers shown, 1,2,3,4 would therefore represent time-frames, which are like still photos conceptually, photographs. These time photos within these intervals of changing time would be where no changes occur like a photograph where no movement is involved, aka no time.

So would time zero be the beginning of time where no changes occurred? Not exactly. The first time involved the first changes. The beginning of time again was explained as time 0-1, as explained above, was the time interval where time began and functioned, where the very first changes occurred to the beginning entity.  In the same way time zero would have no meaning concerning time since no changes would be involved. There would have been no such thing as time zero, but there would have been a time-frame zero, a still picture of the beginning entity.

This concept simply explains that there was something that existed in the very beginning, time-frame zero, that had the potential to change into something a little different, which we call the beginning entity. We can call the cause of this first change to be the potential energy within this beginning entity. The first time again would have been the changes that occurred within the beginning entity between time frames  0 to 1.  Those that can understand the concept of potential energy can realize that the universe did not have to come from nothing else, or have come from something else.. And why time and potential energy are both necessary dimensions of reality, because without them nothing would ever change.

In answering the question, what existed before the universe? In common language for students first learning this concept, it has been explained as the same answer to the question, what is north of the North Pole? The same answer would apply. There is no such thing as north of the North Pole, and there could be no change (time) before the first change of the universe (if time is finite).

This concept does not suggest or imply that this is the correct theory of the beginning of the universe, only that this concept must be involved for any model of the universe that proposes a finite age to it, but not one coming from nothing, coming from something else, or one infinite in time and/or extension.

Space is another question. Was it always here? According to the Big Bang, and I expect most other finite universe models, space was also created in the beginning universe. Space can be simply defined as the simple distance between matter and the volume which matter and field occupies. Outside of the existence of all matter there would be no space, simply there would be no such thing as anything existing outside a finite universe.

The bottom line to the question "can the universe create itself?" would be that there was no such thing as something before the beginning entity. The beginning entity had the potential energy to very slowly change its form and size. Those changes that occurred we measure as time. The volume that contained this entity and its changing form we call space. Hence the results of these very slow changes are the universe we now observe.  

If so, it would have taken more than a trillion years just to create the observable universe, and countless time and multiples of that mass that probably exists outside the observable universe.

[walterpthefirst]

Thank you Pantheory.

 

As you know, my policy is to wait and see until better evidence comes in.

 

Therefore I keenly anticipate data from the JWST.

 

Should there be no evidence of Population III stars, the Cosmic Dark Ages and unevolved protogalaxies then I will accept it.

 

But should be evidence of these things, then I will accept them as a strong confirmation of the Lambda Cold Dark Matter model.

 

Furthermore, I will not be seeking to re-interpret the JWST findings to fit any preconceived model.

 

That's because I do not hold to any particular model.

 

 

What will you do?

 

 

Walter.

[pantheory]

19 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

Thank you Pantheory.

 

As you know, my policy is to wait and see until better evidence comes in.

 

Therefore I keenly anticipate data from the JWST.

 

Should there be no evidence of Population III stars, the Cosmic Dark Ages and unevolved protogalaxies then I will accept it.

 

But should be evidence of these things, then I will accept them as a strong confirmation of the Lambda Cold Dark Matter model.

 

Furthermore, I will not be seeking to re-interpret the JWST findings to fit any preconceived model.

 

That's because I do not hold to any particular model.

 

 

What will you do?

 

 

Walter.

 

Also thank you Walter, I know you don't particularly like non-mainstream theory.

 

I also have written a scientific research paper which I am presenting for journal publication, called

The Surprising and unexpected discoveries the James Webb Space Telescope will likely make

based upon our research

 

I can write a summary of it online and put a link to it here If you are interested in reading it.

[pantheory]

2 hours ago, pantheory said:

 

Also thank you Walter, I know you don't particularly like non-mainstream theory.

 

I also have written a scientific research paper which I am presenting for journal publication, called

The Surprising and unexpected discoveries the James Webb Space Telescope will likely make

based upon our research

 

I can write a summary of it online and put a link to it here If you are interested in reading it.

 

You have identified most of the defining observations that will confirm or deny mainstream theory by the James Webb.

 

your quote:

"Furthermore, I will not be seeking to re-interpret the JWST findings to fit any preconceived model. That's because I do not hold to any particular model. What will you do?"

 

One only re-interprets data that one believes was mis-interpreted in the first place. In that case all data should be re-interpreted that was wrongly interpreted in the first place, or re-evaluated based upon that possibility.  As I'm sure you know, different theories can and will interpret the same observations differently, especially at these great distances -- such as the history of a galaxy before its observation, the reasons for and interpretations of its color, size, brightness, dimness, density, shape, core size, core activity, type of stars, metalicity, chemistry, internal velocities, structure, internal structure or lack thereof, age, age variations, galaxy lensing, other variations, internal cloud matter, interactions, redshift, distance(s), typical, atypical, altered image, perspective angle, galaxy interactions, emissions, observable satellites, companions, neighborhood, foreground, background, image interference, etc.

[walterpthefirst]

2 hours ago, pantheory said:

 

You have identified most of the defining observations that will confirm or deny mainstream theory.

 

your quote:

"Furthermore, I will not be seeking to re-interpret the JWST findings to fit any preconceived model. That's because I do not hold to any particular model. What will you do?"

 

One only re-interprets data that one believes was mis-interpreted in the first place. In that case all data should be re-interpreted that was wrongly interpreted in the first place, or re-evaluted based upon this possibility.  As I'm sure you know, different theories can and will interpret the same observations differently -- such as the history of a galaxy before its observation, the reasons for and interpretations of its color, size, brightness, dimness, density, shape, core size, core activity, type of stars, metalicity, chemistry, internal velocities, structure, internal structure or lack thereof, age, age variations, galaxy lensing, other variations, internal cloud matter, interactions, redshift, distance(s), typical, atypical, altered image, perspective angle, galaxy interactions, emissions, observable satellites, companions, neighborhood, foreground, background, image interference, etc.

 

I see.

 

So, in a nutshell, if the JWST data is unacceptable to you, you will re-interpret it so that it becomes acceptable.

 

That is, in a way that validates your personal cosmology.

 

Whereas I, who do not have such a personal cosmology, will accept the data, whatever it is.

 

I will not force the universe to conform to my vision of how it must be.

 

I will accept it as it is.

 

 

 

[pantheory]

23 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

I see.

 

So, in a nutshell, if the JWST data is unacceptable to you, you will re-interpret it so that it becomes acceptable.

 

That is, in a way that validates your personal cosmology.

 

Whereas I, who do not have such a personal cosmology, will accept the data, whatever it is.

 

I will not force the universe to conform to my vision of how it must be.

 

I will accept it as it is.

 

 

 

 

Of course not. Just remember that all interpretations of observations by the James Webb, or any telescope for that matter, are made in accord with the present Big Bang model. For instance, interpretations of distant galactic observations were very different decades ago prior to the mainstream acceptance of dark matter, dark energy, and the Inflation hypotheses. Many or most of the almost countless other cosmologies do not accept some or any of these hypotheses. Many also have other explanations for the observed galactic redshifts other than an expanding universe. As you might understand, if the universe is not expanding, for instance, or if the Hubble distance formula is wrong at the greatest distances, then the entire Big Bang theory could be wrong.

 

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Alternative_cosmology

https://www.britannica.com/science/cosmology-astronomy/Steady-state-theory-and-other-alternative-cosmologies

 

 

 

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

Yes, when new data arrives old theories are often overturned by new ones that do a better job of explaining what is seen.

 

That's not in dispute and I am fully prepared to accept whatever the JWST data tells us.

 

 

But the issue under examination right now in this thread is your willingness or unwillingness to accept JWST data that confirms the LCDM model.

 

As stated earlier, I have no problem with willingness or unwillingness because I am not invested in any particular model.

 

My mind is open to the possibility that the LCDM model is wrong and it is also open to the possibility that it is right.

 

 

But, your stance on this appears to me to be somewhat similar to the re-interpretation of scientific data performed by Young Earth Creationists.

 

They have a strong vested interested in seeing their beliefs upheld and so they re-interpret geological and astronomical data to support their preconceived world view.

 

Like them, you have a strongly-held, preconceived view on how the universe must be.

 

So Pantheory, if you reserve the right to re-interpret the JWST data to validate your personal cosmology, how is that much different from what the YEC's do?

 

 

 

 

Walter.

 

[pantheory]

46 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

Yes, when new data arrives old theories are often overturned by new ones that do a better job of explaining what is seen.

 

That's not in dispute and I am fully prepared to accept whatever the JWST data tells us.

 

 

But the issue under examination right now in this thread is your willingness or unwillingness to accept JWST data that confirms the LCDM model.

 

As stated earlier, I have no problem with willingness or unwillingness because I am not invested in any particular model.

 

My mind is open to the possibility that the LCDM model is wrong and it is also open to the possibility that it is right.

 

 

But, your stance on this appears to me to be somewhat similar to the re-interpretation of scientific data performed by Young Earth Creationists.

 

They have a strong vested interested in seeing their beliefs upheld and so they re-interpret geological and astronomical data to support their preconceived world view.

 

Like them, you have a strongly-held, preconceived view on how the universe must be.

 

So Pantheory, if you reserve the right to re-interpret the JWST data to validate your personal cosmology, how is that much different from what the YEC's do?

 

 

 

 

Walter.

 

 

Pictures can be observed by anyone. But their interpretations and calculated data is based upon the theory used for interpretation. For instance, all models do not have the same methods for calculating what is being observed, the Hubble distance formula and the inverse square brightness formulas for instance. Very large, old appearing galaxies at the greatest distances would be extremely fast forming galaxies according to the BB theory, but at least some of them would be a predicted requirement of the almost countless Steady State theories.

 

Although cosmological models and hypotheses in general are difficult to disprove, strong evidence against them might be found. Maybe a few years after the James Webb space telescope and the Atacama long baseline radio-scopes have been operating for awhile, it will be announced that they will have found at the farthest observable distances some old appearing, very large and red appearing elliptical and spiral galaxies, or large galaxy clusters, some galaxies with maybe observably high metallicity. This would be in accord with predictions of cosmological models of a much older or infinite-age universe. This would also be strong evidence that the universe is much older and that the Big Bang model would likely be wrong. On the other hand, if only small young, blue-appearing galaxies with minimal metallicity were instead observed at these farthest observable distances (with no old appearing large galaxies), then all theories and hypothesis proposing an older or infinite age universe seemingly would also most likely be wrong — which would include nearly all alternative cosmologies proposing a much older universe, including the Pan Theory.

[walterpthefirst]

I see that you dodged my question, Pantheory.

 

So Pantheory, if you reserve the right to re-interpret the JWST data to validate your personal cosmology, how is that much different from what the YEC's do?

 

Would you please be so good as to answer it succinctly and directly?

 

Thank you.

[walterpthefirst]

Pantheory,

 

I'd like to draw your attention to the example of a scientist who re-interprets scientific evidence as he sees fit, so that it only supports what he feels it must.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behe#Dover_testimony

 

Michael Behe is a biochemist and was called to the stand in the 2005 case of Dover versus Kitzmiller.

 

He is an advocate of Intelligent Design theory.

 

 

"In fact, on cross-examination, Professor Behe was questioned concerning his 1996 claim that science would never find an evolutionary explanation for the immune system. He was presented with fifty-eight peer-reviewed publications, nine books, and several immunology textbook chapters about the evolution of the immune system; however, he simply insisted that this was still not sufficient evidence of evolution, and that it was not "good enough."

 

 

You are well aware of the evidence supporting the LCDM model, but I submit that like Behe, you do not find it "good enough" to persuade you from your long-held beliefs.

 

Therefore, I must ask you another question, Pantheory.

 

Will any amount of evidence for the LCDM model ever be "good enough" for you?

 

(Please note that this question carries no implication or inference of my support for the LCDM model.  I have no axe to grind here.  I neither support it nor reject it.)

 

Please answer the question succinctly and directly.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

[pantheory]

38 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

Pantheory,

 

I'd like to draw your attention to the example of a scientist who re-interprets scientific evidence as he sees fit, so that it only supports what he feels it must.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behe#Dover_testimony

 

Michael Behe is a biochemist and was called to the stand in the 2005 case of Dover versus Kitzmiller.

 

He is an advocate of Intelligent Design theory.

 

 

"In fact, on cross-examination, Professor Behe was questioned concerning his 1996 claim that science would never find an evolutionary explanation for the immune system. He was presented with fifty-eight peer-reviewed publications, nine books, and several immunology textbook chapters about the evolution of the immune system; however, he simply insisted that this was still not sufficient evidence of evolution, and that it was not "good enough."

 

 

You are well aware of the evidence supporting the LCDM model, but I submit that like Behe, you do not find it "good enough" to persuade you from your long-held beliefs.

 

Therefore, I must ask you another question, Pantheory.

 

Will any amount of evidence for the LCDM model ever be "good enough" for you?

 

(Please note that this question carries no implication or inference of my support for the LCDM model.  I have no axe to grind here.  I neither support it nor reject it.)

 

Please answer the question succinctly and directly.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

 

you're sure confrontational Walter. I say the standard model of cosmology, the LCDM model is wrong, and you say that I'm dodging the question concerning data. And I say that there is no data without calculations and interpretations of pictures and instruments. Here is an example of interpreting distances and brightness differently based upon different theories that have different equations.

 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/348973177_An_Experiment_comparing_Angular_Diameter_Distances_between_Pairs_of_Quasars

 

[walterpthefirst]

All right then, Pantheory.

 

I'll keep this as simple as I can and if you won't answer a simple question I'll drop the issue.

 

Will any amount of data in support of the LCDM model ever be good enough to persuade you to accept it?

 

Y / N ?

 

 

[pantheory]

30 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

All right then, Pantheory.

 

I'll keep this as simple as I can and if you won't answer a simple question I'll drop the issue.

 

Will any amount of data in support of the LCDM model ever be good enough to persuade you to accept it?

 

Y / N ?

 

 

 

"Will any amount of data in support of the LCDM model ever be good enough to persuade you to accept it?"

 

Yes, those observations that you and I both explained in support of the LCDM model, would likely persuade me to the model's acceptance, but the other observation possibilities which we both explained and understand, would probably convince both of us, and many others also, that the LCDM model is wrong. 

 

After let's say two more years, The James Webb and its interpretations, should IMO be able to generally support, or undermine and contradict the LCDM model.

[walterpthefirst]

Thank you.

 

Good night.