91 (2 + 2) = 5, ig in dialogue with Stephen Crothers, when some become infinitely hot when the infinitely dense is challenged, or is it the other way about?
In the first section IG asks the questions, Stephen J. Crothers (Steve) supplies the answers.
Q1) Hawking said '…before the big bang there was nothing': Is that as silly as it sounds?
A1) Well, it's even sillier than it sounds. Not only does Hawking claim, along with his colleagues, that the Universe came into existence from nothing by means of some big bang creationism, in his book titled 'A Brief History of Time from the Big Bang to Black Holes' he says that "At the big bang itself, the universe is thought to have had zero size, and to have been infinitely hot."
Hawking and his fellow cosmologists do not know what temperature is. According to chemists and physicists, temperature is the motion of atoms or molecules; in other words temperature is related to the speed at which atoms or molecules move about. The more energy they have the faster they move and so the hotter is that which they constitute. Atoms and molecules have mass and volume, so they take up space. They need additional space in which to move. However, a universe of zero size has no space in which atoms and molecules can exist and no space in which they can move, and so a universe of zero size can't even have a temperature. Furthermore, how fast must atoms and molecules be moving in order to produce infinite hotness? Infinite hotness is nonsensical in any event.
Q2) Is there a better definition for the Universe than the one in my old O.E.D. 'Universe = all known things'?
A2) I suggest that this definition of the Universe might be extended somewhat because what is known changes every day, since things not seen today will be seen tomorrow, or someday thereafter. Accordingly we know that there are things in the Universe we do not specifically know today but will specifically know tomorrow, or someday thereafter. And with every advance in telescope power, microscope power, and imaging power generally, we have noted that we came to see things that we did not see before - and cosmologists even see things that don't exist! There is no reason to believe that this process of discovery will cease. So perhaps we could call the Universe the realm in which all things dwell.
Q3) Can the Universe be anything other than finite and expanding? All I see and hear is 'nobody knows'.
A3) The notion of a spatially finite expanding universe comes not from experiment or observation, but from Einstein's General Theory of Relativity. So it is only a mesmerising metaphysical notion. Einstein's Theory has the reputation of being so profound that only exceptionally brainy people can understand it; particularly people who can do complicated sums. But this is quite false because the essential features of this Theory are easy to understand, provided they are explained in straightforward terms, instead of the language of the cosmological boffins. For instance, how many types of big bang universes are alleged by Einstein and his followers? The answer is three. Which one do they talk about when they talk of a big bang expanding universe all over the media? They never say. Also, how many types of black hole universes are alleged by the cosmologists? The answer is four. Which one do they talk about when they talk of a black hole? They very rarely say. And which type of black hole universe in which type of big bang universe do they talk about? They never say. So the answer to your question is that yes indeed, the Universe can be other than finite and expanding. In fact, it can be said with certainty that the idea of an expanding universe, finite or otherwise, is false, on account of the fact that General Relativity is demonstrably false. There are two things any physical theory must satisfy: (a) logical consistency, (b) correspondence with experiment. General Relativity fails on both counts.
Q4) In my articles on the subject I talk about inner and outer metaphysical Abbottspheres. Is that as silly as it sounds?
A4) Abbott's Flatland is indeed a metaphysical world since it has no physical counterpart. In a metaphysical world one is at liberty to construct additional metaphysical parts at will. Inner and outer Abbottspheres are therefore admissible.
Q5) We have discussed and reported abusive and immature responses from the Establishment, but so far there has been not one shred of scientific or mathematical argument. Why do you think no-one has been able to answer your challenges in the category Black Holes and The Big Bang?
A5) The fundamental problem is that cosmology is not science. Cosmology is faith, belief and mysticism, masquerading as science by means of the application of jargon and complicated mathematics. Jargon and mathematics mislead people generally because most people don't know the relevant mathematics and are under the false impression that people who do mathematics are smarter than the average bear and so must be believed. Owing to their faith proponents of black holes and big bangs are disinclined to rational analysis. Logic and experimental facts play no role in cosmology. Just as those who believe in ghosts see ghosts everywhere as an explanation of things they don't understand, cosmologists see black holes and big bangs everywhere as explanations of what they don't understand. Their belief drives their thinking, not objective reality, not logical process. As a result cosmologists are entangled in logical inconsistencies and inconvenient experimental facts, all of which they don't want to acknowledge, because the truth ruins their faith, and the reputation of their lazy idol, Albert Einstein. Idolatry is not science either.
Part two, where Steve asks the questions and IG answers.
Q6) Ian, do you think that it is possible to have and not have your lunch box simultaneously on your desk at lunch time?
A6) In the real world? Of course not. If I wanted to mess around with the semantics of 'ownership' then I could probably come up with an 'artistic' solution. But that - like a dodgy insurance policy - wouldn't cover the contents. The answer is no.
Q7) Now escape speed is the minimum speed a space rocket, for instance, must achieve in order to escape the gravitational influence of a body such as Earth; otherwise a projected object would go up, reach a maximum height, and then fall back down, just like a ball thrown into the air. In view of the question of lunch boxes, is it possible, Ian, to have and not to have an escape speed simultaneously at the same place?
A7) I know that the escape velocity from Earth - at sea level - is about seven miles per second and decreases until free of the pull. Surely an 'escape speed' means just that; the velocity needed to get away. An escape speed that doesn't work means that someone's got their sums wrong doesn't it? The answer again, is no.
And, let's not forget it was once a certainty that we could never escape the grasp of Earth's gravity.
(Steve remarks #7) Many people have heard about black holes, but something they don't know is that all the proponents of black holes claim that their black holes have and do not have an escape speed simultaneously at the same place, that place being the so-called 'event horizon', and the escape speed they say is the speed of light!
Of course, it is impossible to have and not have an escape speed simultaneously at the same place, just as in the case of lunch boxes. This simple fact alone completely invalidates black hole theory.
Q8) All cosmologists assert that black holes and big bangs possess various infinities. Misner, Thorne and Wheeler are big names in black hole theory and big bang cosmology. In their book titled 'Gravitation', they assert that the Universe began with a hot big bang, having the conditions "of infinite (or near infinite) density and pressure". On the 18th of February 2013,Professor Larry Krauss of Arizona State University asserted on Australian National Television that not only did the Universe spring into being from nothing, but that there "could be almost an infinite number of universes". Ian, is it possible to be "near infinite" and to have "almost an infinite number", and if so do you know how close to infinite these cosmologists got in order to be "near infinite" and to have an "almost infinite number"?
A8) Well, I have heard that scientists gave a value to Infinity and then used it in equations such as (∞-10)=something or other (or was I dreaming?) More of Xeno's nonsensical fun, mathemagical (nice word Crothers) games…I have chewed on the bone of Infinity since I was eight years old and first heard the word defined by my teacher as something that - spatially - never ends (Eternity being the temporal equivalent) and, by the same token, logically, can therefore never have started. Q.E.D. we don't exist. How in hell can you get 'near' to the non-existent 'limits' of something that has no beginning or end (rhet).
At www.gillan.com DF 45 explains…(As a child) It was hard for me to grasp such an abstract concept; I lived in a clearly defined world where everything had a beginning and an end. However the word - infinity - was challenging, so I thought it through, lying in bed one summer's evening. My room was bounded by walls, ceiling and floor, but there was a window and a door. That's where it started; I flew out of the window past the surprised demons that were always tapping on the panes. The street had an end, but shared it with the beginning of another; all the roads led somewhere, except for the blind alleys of course.
Ah, we're an island I thought, that's where it stops; England - as I knew it then, ended at the coast and the borders. But what lies across the ocean? Alright let's admit we live on a planet and that's it. But you only have to look up - or is it down? No, it's out; you only have to look out to see the galaxy and universe through which we hurtle. Beyond that is undiscovered. So I grabbed a good supply of familiar materials and built a fine brick wall around the universe, way beyond anything then known, and fell into a contented sleep, knowing that all things ended somewhere and whoever thought up the foolish notion of infinity was obviously an irresponsible romantic.
It can't have been long before I sat bolt upright in a terrible sweat. What's behind the bricks? What lies behind my universal wall? More bricks!! More bricks!! A squillion more bricks!!!!!???
That was my last attempt at holding it all together before I surrendered to Infinity.
But wait…Infinity goes in all directions doesn't it, just like eternity?
Stephen Hawking said there was nothing before the Big Bang. If he's right, the universe is finite at the beginning and, er, we don't know what beyond the horizon. All this is so very counter-intuitive and to complicate things even further we are all - each one of us - at the centre of the universe. I am in the music business so I kind of get that, but even so…it's that parallax effect again; like everyone has their own moon path.
So, how to manage the concept for now?
Earlier you said that my old definition of the Universe (all known things) could be expanded as we have advanced considerably since then. So in fact it is still 'all known things' isn't it? Just more than it was.
That makes it easier for me to understand; the boundaries of our knowledge are expanding, hence the moving limits. I like to deal with the finite but expanding package of 'what we know' (bearing in mind that a lot of it is fallacious - but never mind that for now) within the concept of infinity and speculate on the malleable, contiguous borders and beyond; into the realms of science fantasy and metaphysical fiction beyond the scope of our current knowledge.
(Steve remarks #8) Cosmologists never tell us how close to infinite they have been able to get. The reason is simple; they are talking gibberish - "near infinite" and "almost an infinite number" are meaningless. And infinity is not even a number.
According to black hole theory all black holes have a finite mass which is concentrated at the black hole singularity. Black hole singularities are of two types (a) a point, (b) the circumference of a circle. According to the cosmologists, the density at the singularity is infinite and spacetime curvature is infinite there too. In General Relativity gravity is not a force because it is spacetime curvature induced by the presence of matter. Thus, according to the cosmologists, a finite mass produces infinite gravity.