The New Cosmology of Mr. Mayer

For as long as you demand that the Universe conform to your own prosaic understanding of what is logical and sensible, you will remain utterly ignorant. Those of us who have devoted much of our lives to understanding the Universe, long ago learnt to let go of all presuppositions and let the Universe itself dictate its characteristics without interference from our ignorance. You would do well to do likewise.Do you even understand how General Relativity gives rise to the possibility of an expanding Universe, independent of any hypothetical "nothingness" that according to you surrounds it? And perhaps you could explain how "nothingness" can somehow transcend its own "nothingness" to gain the ability to "surround"?

Al seems like the kind of guy who thinks that the Uncertainty Principle and Quantum Mechanics and Relativity are "weird."Quantum Mechanics and Relativity are normal. We're weird. The Universe makes the rules, not us, we can just try to figure them out. People who try to mash the Universe into an intuitive anthropomorphic framework wind up like ICANT, ranting on and on about how existence brings everything that exists into existence.

Fist, you are mixing relativity and QM with the Big Bang hypothesis. The three are not blood relations at all. Their relation is rather like an arranged marriage. So, no, I am not denying anything that could be experimentally shown. Just as the premises of Mayer's theory are strictly based on what could be observed only.
That is exactly the same confusion people are trying to create when they are mixing the theory of natural selection with the Big Bang hypothesis. One stands very well to reason while the other is a broad daylight slap in the face of any good sense. Thus the two may not be possibly related in the way the proponents of the cosmic evolution are making them out to be.
What I said may be shown to be hyperbole only after you have given a sensible answer to my question you omitted when quoting my post.I reiterate: if the universe is bounded by a greater volume that would make the use of the term expansion legitimate when describing processes that are possible for the universe to be undergoing, then what is being described is not the whole universe but only a minor part of it.
That may lead to the conclusion that the greater entity the universe is bounded by may not exist for the term the universe used to retain its proper meaning. All that may not exist in simpler terms is called nothing.
Nothing to not exist takes no place whatsoever. What may take no place whatsoever, may not need to occupy any volume in order not to be taking any place. On the contrary, its volume may equal zero necessarily. The volume of zero may have radius of zero necessarily just as well.
To expand in order to retain its proper sense and be not just a piece of gobbledegook meaning whatever one may wish it to mean, would imply a type of relative motion involving a proportionate exchange of two volumes with one of the entities at rest relative to the motion of the other. A greater volume at rest and a lesser one in motion. Any increase in the volume of the lesser one is proportionate to the decrease in the volume of the greater surronding entity.
All the volume that is possible to gain from the zero volume the nothing may possess may equal zero necessarily. The corresponding increase in the radius of the entity expanding into nothing may equal zero necessarily just as well.The universe is not a relative entity in a relative motion.
The universe is not expanding and may never possibly do so. QED.
If you have a logical refutation of the above, it is always welcome. Insults and insinuations are not.

Thank you for your recommendation to be more poetic in my approach to physics. I return the favour and recommend you should be backing up your poetic approach and start as of tomorrow getting full taking nothing into your enlightened mouth. Put you nothing where your mouth is, in other words. Otherwise, I may remain unconvinced and decide that you prevaricate and pull the wool of words as is the habit of all the proponents of the reality of something popping from nothing in order to get busy expanding into nowhere.
Otherwise, my cat sends you a bit of rhyming to satisfy your poetic soul. He read a few cosmology textbooks summing up the knowledge gained in the following fashion:
dough's rising into nothin'
cosmos is a raisin muffin

You are way wrong, my friend. I don't find relativism weird at all. The theory proposed here is the strictest relativism since Nicholas of Cusa and Mach that I've met with.
So, on the contrary, it is the naive conception of the flat, linear and absolute time with a single point of beginning that is blatantly anti-relativist, for your information.

Alfred,In the big bang model there is nothing outside the universe to expand into. The expansion of space can be thought of as the 'creation' of more space between the galaxies, or perhaps more correctly as an increasing distance measured between galaxies.Also, what does Mayer think about the predominance of Hydrogen and Helium in the universe?Oli

Your question was irrelevant. It does not matter if the BBT relies on green fairies. Your claim that the Big Bang "hypothesis simply cannot possibly match any observational data" is demonstrably false. Based on my reading of Chapter 15, not even Mayer is out on that limb with you.As to your question: The above strawman is not part of theory anyone is proposing The universe is not bounded by "nothing" and expansion does not mean gaining volume from some bounding "nothing". For that legitimate reason I did ignore the question in my response. What insults?Let me make my insinuations explicit. The majority of the discussion in this thread is directed at getting you to express Mayer's ideas so we can discuss them. In at least two cases you've admitted missing the mark, and I believe that in this post we are discussing yet a third such failure on your part.Perhaps you should withhold judgment on the reaction you are getting until you've carried your burden to produce evidence and argument.Or don't. Perhaps the paranoids are after you. And the evidence for your assertion is? Apparently, none so far. Why do I need to refute your statement until you establish it? None of us can get you to do your homework. You seem to feel that the burden of persuasion is somewhere other than with you.

As far as can gather you are insinuating that Mayer is somehow a cryptic supporter of the Big Bang hypothesis and I am failing to reflect his truly moderate views on that conjecture and am going much farther than him in my estimation of the hypothesis. I must assure you and everybody else that this is not the case. He is not mincing his words any more than I do, I am afraid.This is from the concluding section of his lecture summing up the proposed theory:"Given the new perspective provided by the ideas presented herein, observations imply that the universe does not have an age; 'old' does not even begin to describe it. The Universe is apparently a rational, observable and understandable physical manifestation of eternity, which is a newly emergent scientific fact that has profound implications.
We must now concede that the 'Big Bang' never happened and could never have happened; 'the expansion of the Universe' was a case of mistaken interpretation of the observations.
Thus, 'one of the great intellectual achievements of the 20th century' was not an accomplishment it has been lauded to be. It was actually complete nonsense and yet became in recent decades a typical example of what author Michael Critchton has called politicized 'consensus science' rather than being subject to appropriately open scientific debate.
With the verifiable understanding that the observed cosmological redshift is a relativistic time dilation effect and not an effect due to expansion, the entire premise for the primeval explosion of a singularity giving birth to the Universe some few billions years ago vanishes completely and irrevocably.
It has been established that in the context of the new cosmology a finite age to the Universe does not have meaning. As concerns the passage of time according to a local clock we can speak meaningfully about various components of the Solar System, the Milky Way, the Local Group and the more local clusters of galaxies. On a larger scale than that, the collective concept of a shared time scale starts to lose its meaning. According to our new understanding distant ideal clocks at relative rest tick more slowly as compared to similar local clock; the farther away the galaxy is from us the slower it ages from our point of view independent of any contribution to time dilation due to relativistic motion. When we are looking at redshift z=1, then for ten billion years of local time for our galaxy only five billion years have passed for those remote galaxies. At redshift z=9 the same ten billion years of local time correspond only to one billion there. Conversely from the point of view of distant observers, it is our region of the Universe that is growing older more slowly than theirs. This may seem paradoxical, yet it is a natural consequence of temporal relativity in which the primitive concept of absolute time is abandoned."Otherwise, NoNukes, my assertions may become demonstrably false like you allege they are only after yourself have conclusively demonstrated the possibility of nothing existing in any physical shape. Pending that, they are demonstrably self-evident.

So now we have Mayer's assertions rather than your own. At least that is an improvement. But these are still not leading to any discussion that allows us to accept or reject Mayer's conclusions. Well, no. I'm trying to draw you out into a discussion. There is no question that Mayer's hypothesis is different from the standard theory. The question is whether there is reason to believe Mayer is not a crank.But the first step is to get you to discuss Mayer's position, and the arguments for that position. We're over 50 posts in, and as best I can tell, you aren't planning to present anything other than assertions. Nobody here owes you any refutation. You haven't even presented any evidence for Mayer's conclusions. Further, you've presented distorted descriptions of current theory.If you are simply satisfied with your own belief, then you needn't have bothered starting a discussion thread.

Well, you have raised now some points to discuss. You made an assertion that my and Mayer's assertions don't provide any points for discussion. I find that assertion to be a rather curious evidence of your lack of curiosity. A quite novel understanding of time is suggested as possible and you seem not to be bothered in the least whether such an understanding could be correct or not.
All you seem to be concerned about is whether you can call Mayer a crank or not. What do you exactly understand by a crank?
Does it mean mad or what? Have you got any precise measure or definition of that term, crank?
And what is your definition or measure of who is not..crank?
Then you assert that my presentation of the standard Big Bang hypothesis is distorted. I would appreciate you to show where it is distorted and correct my distortions.
Next you say that I am satisfied with my beliefs. Well, yes. What is wrong with that? Do you mean to say that you are not satisfied with yours?
Here is the board where people who are satisfied with their different beliefs discuss the beliefs they are not satisfied with. That means a discussion of different beliefs is going on. Or do you reckon that yours are not beliefs but some kind of absolute and final truth?
NoNukes, I don't really get you, man

Do you think trading assertions is going to be fruitful? You say that the universe is not expanding, but cosmologists disagree. Is that the end of the discussion? Do you really believe you've offered any reason to accept your assertions? I have already done that. So have others. I haven't noticed that pointing distortions out to you has had any effect on your rhetoric. Are you going to offer any defense of Mayer's work? If not, please say so now.

Yes, it might be fruitful as it is a process and all processes bring some fruits.
And yes, indeed, I believe that in seventy odd posts here I provided plenty of reasons why I disagree with the belief in the Big Bang theory. I did my best to formulate the reasons though one can always try better. I believe also that whenever I have been presented with objections to my reasons for disbelieving in the hypothesis, I've tried my best to analyse those objections. Within my limitations, of course.
Your claim that cosmologists disagree with me that there is no expansion is a poor inductive reasoning. Some do disagree and some do not. Such a disagreement is not an unchanging and intrinsic attribute of a cosmologist. Cosmologists may come in all shapes and sizes and they are often observed to start agreeing with what they have been known to disagree with. What is at rest and what is in motion in the universe and how it can be possibly at rest or in motion has been a point of discord among cosmologists for millennia. It's a naturally tricky and puzzling subject with the views and models developing and changing.If you notice, in terms of defence and attack it is not only Mayer's work that is under attack. His work seems to agree both with reason and observational data whereas the standard hypothesis may not so it may be in much greater need of a good defense.Of course, nobody owes me a detailed refutation of anything, yet the fact that none has been too eager to anticipate my joy to read it may be a good indication that writing it is not such an easy and pleasant task to perform.

Which cosmologist support a constant state universe??

---

"I hate to advocate the use of drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they always worked for me." - Hunter S. ThompsonAd astra per aspera

That was my point. Trading assertions is not a worthwhile way to discuss things.

Oli, do you believe the process that is the Universe behaves physically like a Hilbert hotel? And if you believe that why do you believe that Hilbert's reasoning is valid in spatial terms and not temporal? There is no reason that I see to believe that. Mind you, I am not saying that Hilbert's idea is not flawed anyway.
That makes your point about the elements that should need a certain time to be formed redundant and meaningless. Now assuming the infinity of space and the infinity of time, the two infinities may cancel each other out. Space is what takes time. Time consumes space. The two mutually dissolve resulting in a constant finite quantity.
The infinity of space may be bound by the infinity of time, so to speak.Would be very nice though if Hilbert's reasoning applied to orgasms. The more you come, the harder it gets would make love life wonderful, Oli.Edited by Alfred Maddenstein, : grammar