Comments by "Mosern1977" (@Mosern1977) on "How did the universe begin?" video.

Because it is the simplest?
3
Until I see someone measuring the expansion of space using some other method than redshifting of light, I'm not convinced of it happening. And if there is no expansion of space, then last 80 years of cosmology goes down the drain. But at the moment we have stars older than the universe, and galaxies gathering unreasonably fast. And just wait until next generation telescopes comes online, and we'll see galaxies way older than the universe.
2
I've been thinking about the same thing - why not.
2
Its more like. Observation: It is wet on the ground outside. Hypothesis: Kids dropped a bucket of water - we know dropping buckets of water makes the floor inside wet. So it must be the same effect. Observation 2 (proof): I see a kids shoe. Surely it must have been the kids. Observation 3 (problem): It is wet all over the place, that must have been a very large bucket. Math to the rescue: We have calculated that the bucket needs to be 100.000 liters to achieve the result. There is nothing preventing such large bucket from existing.
2
Some might have math associated with them?
1
They'd be like: We're 5% confident in this model. But we have no better one, because we are all thinking inside the limitations of our bubble.
1
Hehe, North Pole will melt when winter temperature is over 0 degrees. So we need about 40 more degrees of heating. Santa Claus will be fine for long.
1
Vinny Holiday - well, when you are sure the kids have spilled water, and with future observations bend more and more over to suit this hypothesis - that's when you go astray. The problem arise when there are no competing hypothesis out there. Do you then just double down on the existing (wrong one, but fixable with "magic"), or do you go with a "blank slate" approach?
1
Vinny Holiday - I think being married to a theory is much more prevalent than what you think. That's why we have stuff like 'Dark Energy' and 'Inflation'. Just like at 100.000 liter bucket for the kids to spill. Because the alternative theory has yet to be invented (rain), ad-hocing the existing one seems to be the name of the game.
1
@tofu-munchingCoalition.ofChaos - hmmm. If two theories are incorrect, does it make one better than the other? They are both wrong in the end. Maybe one is partially correct, and one is totally wrong. But if both are totally wrong, we should treat them as wrong.
1
@tofu-munchingCoalition.ofChaos - well if I'm not mistaken the Hubble Constant is pretty much infinite at the point of Big Bang. Meaning two quarks next to each other would be flying away from each other way beyond the speed of light. And this is all based on the idea that space itself is expanding, which is based on an interpretation of galactic redshift that has not been confirmed in any other experiment. I'd say it is counter-intuitive to the point of disbelief as there is nothing about the event that can be observed anywhere else. It breaks all other known rules of physics, and lives on magic special rules. And even then it fails to explain 95% of the universe. Call me a sceptic.
1
@tofu-munchingCoalition.ofChaos - at the time of Big Bang the Hubble constant was infinite. Meaning two particles with 1 nm separation would expand away from each other over light speed. I guess one needs to have been there to believe that... We have no observations of anything receding from us faster than the speed of light. We have galaxies with high redshifts that are far away. What that means can be debated, as there are no (AFAIK) other measurements out there collaborating the hypothesis that galactic redshift is caused by expansion of space itself. I have no real problem with counterintuitive in itself (although intuitive is preferable), but I have problem with theories requiring us to believe things that have never been measured directly and breaks all other things we think we know (and have actually measured directly).
1
@tofu-munchingCoalition.ofChaos - do we have two molecules (or clouds of hydrogen plasma) next to each other departing at over speed of light? No. Well that was the case back in they day apparently. Did I mention it was an extremely dense plasma as well? Having an observation and a hypothesis for the cause of it, does not make it right. Even if the hypothesis is based on extrapolating some known mechanism. (Ie. observation: it is wet outside. hypothesis: kids have spilled water from a bucket - we know the floor gets wet indoors when this happens. * No other evidence is needed *) So you have like maybe 70/30% chance of this hypothesis of being correct. But unfortunately your hypothesis ends up causing serious issues with other observations, that only is resolvable when postulating new laws of physics. Then your hypothesis chance of being correct drops down to maybe 10/90 or even lower. Adding magic epicycles to save a theory does not make for a good scientific theory.
1
I do note that these all assume (except maybe the unicorn theory) that space is in fact expanding. AFAIK we only have galactic redshift observations to back that assumption up, the expansion of space is a possible explanation for galactic redshift, but that does not make it the only explanation. The expansion of space has not been measured directly in a laboratory.
1
@lukabc31 - never heard that as a proof for expanding universe. Thought it was due to tidal effects.
1
@lukabc31 - just checked, and the common explanation is that earth rotation is slowing down and via tidal forces is transferred to the moon, causing more energy and higher orbit. But the math actually seems to match pretty well with expansion of universe.
1
@lukabc31 - quick google search gave the result that apparently there is fossil evidence of earth rotation being much faster billions of years ago (apparently 5 hour days). So moon is stealing rotational energy from earth and that energy leads to higher orbit. I've not done the math on the energy conservation here, but it might be plausible...
1
Well, even if you start with something sound - it doesn't really help if you end up discussing colors of the unicorn in the end.
1
So far all our established and working theories are fairly elegant. Just look at E = mc2 or F = ma or similar equations. Simple and elegant. No 11 dimensional space and shit. I'm sure there is an elegant solution out there. One reason it might not be picked up, might be that we have some "facts" incorrect. It's like if we had the orbits of Venus and Mars incorrectly observed, and therefore rejected the Heliocentric view, because it couldn't explain those (wrong) observations.
1
Don't assume the BB theory is correct. Ask instead - what direct evidence exist for an expanding space.
1
And if God is a unicorn - then sure, I'm in.
1
I'd like some proof that space is in fact expanding. We have observations of galactic redshift, and that is assumed to be caused by an expanding space. But as far as I know, this expansion has never been measured in any other way.
1
Not if unicorn shit is larger than football size.
1