If you could do one thing and you would face no consequences...

[Skaloop]

Many many people who know far more about this than you or I disagree with you. I also agree that it wouldn't necessarily result in light emitting from literally every point in space, but it would necessarily result in something quite different than what we currently observe. (Also note that I don't accept current ideas on age of the Universe as fact, just that these ideas point in the same direction, of there being a finite beginning)

What, specifically?

 

[Tuddrussell]

The universe is not a set state, it is just the totality of everything. The universe we see today with stars and stuff does have a beginning.

We know very little about the universe before the big bang.

 

[razeontherock]

"Universe before the big bang," is a nonsensical phrase. And Skaloop, in response to your question, we would see a higher ratio of light vs darkness in our night sky. No way around that.

 

[m9lc]

Word. Science observes repeatable events to determine the laws governing them. Supernatural events are by definition not controlled by laws of nature. The proper venue for the examining the supernatural is not the scientific lab and the scientific method, it is eyewitnesses and the historical method.

When it comes to the supernatural, eyewitnesses have been notoriously inaccurate, so I'm not inclined to agree with you that eyewitnesses and the historical method are the proper tools for evaluating the supernatural. For example: I'm sure that you would say that the eyewitnesses for all religions besides Christianity are mistaken. As well as the eyewitnesses for wood nymphs and the Charybdis.

* warning, this is a dozen baby steps at once. Read repeatedly*

This is indeed getting more condescending with every post.

 

[Tuddrussell]

"Universe before the big bang," is a nonsensical phrase.

The universe is the totality of all that exists, but all that exists is not all that there is. Evereything in OUR universe started with the big bang, but reality is not necessarily a quality that our universe has a monopoly on.

we would see a higher ratio of light vs darkness in our night sky. No way around that.

Proof?

 

[Skaloop]

"Universe before the big bang," is a nonsensical phrase.

OK, can an eternal thing have a beginning? Can an eternal universe have started with a big bang?

And Skaloop, in response to your question, we would see a higher ratio of light vs darkness in our night sky. No way around that.

Why? Human observation of the night sky is within a window of a few hundred thousand years. Recordings of such is much less still. So there's a limited number of light-producing bodies that would fall within that window. Anything fore or aft of that window wouldn't be observed.

Like you said, there are people smarter (or at least better informed on the matter) than either of us, and some of them disagree with me. But some of them disagree with you. But certainly, speaking as laypeople, we should be able to articulate our views, even if they aren't up to snuff with the experts. Basically, I'm looking for your explanation of why there should be more light than we see.

 

[drstevej]

When it comes to the supernatural, eyewitnesses have been notoriously inaccurate, so I'm not inclined to agree with you that eyewitnesses and the historical method are the proper tools for evaluating the supernatural. For example: I'm sure that you would say that the eyewitnesses for all religions besides Christianity are mistaken. As well as the eyewitnesses for wood nymphs and the Charybdis.

Ever read Simon Greenleaf, Testimony of the Evangelists ? Greenleaf was the leading scholar at Harvard Law School specializing in the canons of evidence. His A Treatise on the Law of Evidence (3 Vols) is a legal classic.

He was challenged to evaluate the testimony presented in the four gospels for the life of Christ. He accepted the challenge and published the results in a lengthy treatise. In the course of his analysis he was converted.

Now, it is easier to ignore this work that actually read it. I might just rattle your preconceptions. I would be willing to read a parallel book on wood nymphs. Reference please...

This is indeed getting more condescending with every post.

Don't get discouraged, you're doing just fine.

 

[razeontherock]

OK, can an eternal thing have a beginning? Can an eternal universe have started with a big bang?

No. Only if it were eternal in one direction but finite in the other, like a geometric ray; which is, not eternal.

Why? Human observation of the night sky is within a window of a few hundred thousand years. Recordings of such is much less still. So there's a limited number of light-producing bodies that would fall within that window. Anything fore or aft of that window wouldn't be observed.

Disagreed. Light reflects.

I'm looking for your explanation of why there should be more light than we see.

I guess to explore this further we'd need to start with measurements of how much of our night sky (on a moonless night) is dark, vs how much emits light. This seems to me rather like "counting the stars"

2000 visible on a dark night far from any man made source of light. Source:

Ask An Infrared Astronomer: Stars

I'm not at all convinced this is accurate, but it is something. To my mind, the issue is not so much that there should be more visible points of light, but that more space between those points should be light. We seem to have NO space between those points that are light! This strongly disagrees with an eternal Universe.

 

[Tuddrussell]

This strongly disagrees with an eternal Universe.

An eternally lit universe.

 

[razeontherock]

Yes but again, every cosmological model we have has light so close to the very beginning it's practically impossible to speak of existence w/o light.

 

[Tuddrussell]

Again, existence does not mean everything that is, it means everything that is in the observable universe.

Our universe began with the big bang, reality did not begin at that time.

 

[lux et lex]

Troy Newman organized "Operation Rescue was the largest civil disobedience movement in United States history with over 75,000 arrests nonviolent acts of blocking the doors of abortion clinics. Not one arrest for violent protest ever took place at an Operation Rescue event."

Source: How Troy Newman Rescued Operation Rescue :Operation Rescue

Anyway, to assume you could actually connect is to state he is NOT a terrorist! (Any competent terrorist could block a lot more than just one punch) So ya might need to go back to the drawing board with that one ...

What a funny assertion about terrorists in general. I'm pretty sure I could punch Terrorist Newman in the face. You forget about his idle encouraging of the murders of abortion providers and bombings of clinics. He is a terrorist mastermind. Not one that does the dirty work. That's what pro life drones are for.

 

[Skaloop]

No. Only if it were eternal in one direction but finite in the other, like a geometric ray; which is, not eternal.

So something that starts then goes of eternally is not eternal?

Disagreed. Light reflects.

Sure. Not necessarily in our direction, though, and even then only a tiny portion of it. Light is also blocked, which would explain less light. And light from distance stars reflecting off of distant bodies wouldn't be anywhere near as bright as light from actual stars. Even the closest star, the sun, reflecting off of the closest body, the moon, is drastically less bright. If light were reflecting off of things bright enough to light the sky, we'd be seeing it now even in a non-eternal universe.

I guess to explore this further we'd need to start with measurements of how much of our night sky (on a moonless night) is dark, vs how much emits light. This seems to me rather like "counting the stars"

2000 visible on a dark night far from any man made source of light. Source:

Ask An Infrared Astronomer: Stars

I'm not at all convinced this is accurate, but it is something. To my mind, the issue is not so much that there should be more visible points of light, but that more space between those points should be light. We seem to have NO space between those points that are light! This strongly disagrees with an eternal Universe.

OK, this seems odd. You're saying there should be points of light between the points of light we see? Maybe the points of light we see are the points of light between the points of light. Why should there be light between points of light, any more than there should be light from points of light?

 

[razeontherock]

What a funny assertion about terrorists in general. I'm pretty sure I could punch Terrorist Newman in the face.

By the 8th grade golden gloves boxers could not land a blow, and I'm certainly no terrorist mastermind. Just sayin' that your aspiration here isn't practical (but hey, from a Jersey boy, why not use brass knuckles instead of just a ring finger?)

 

[razeontherock]

Again, existence does not mean everything that is, it means everything that is in the observable universe.

Our universe began with the big bang, reality did not begin at that time.

These are existential topics. Does theoretical physics not address any of this?

 

[razeontherock]

So something that starts then goes of eternally is not eternal?

No, because it has a finite beginning. This very much comes to bear in our little de-rail here.

OK, this seems odd. Why should there be light between points of light, any more than there should be light from points of light?

Yes it does seem odd, and was initially counter-intuitive to me for reasons you've already stated. Not more than, but less light than from points of light, would exist in between points of light in our night sky if our Universe had an eternal history. We don't have anything even close to that, indicating a finite beginning. And such simplistic thought experiments are corroborated by all the available evidence

 

[Tuddrussell]

These are existential topics. Does theoretical physics not address any of this?

So what? Are you going to address it?

No, because it has a finite beginning. This very much comes to bear in our little de-rail here.

Eternal does not mean eternal both way. Eternal means without end, not without beginning.

]Yes it does seem odd, and was initially counter-intuitive to me for reasons you've already stated. Not more than, but less light than from points of light, would exist in between points of light in our night sky if our Universe had an eternal history. We don't have anything even close to that, indicating a finite beginning. And such simplistic thought experiments are corroborated by all the available evidence

So you say, but you have yet to provide any reason why that has to be that way.

 

[Skaloop]

Yes it does seem odd, and was initially counter-intuitive to me for reasons you've already stated. Not more than, but less light than from points of light, would exist in between points of light in our night sky if our Universe had an eternal history.

I'll ask again, because I'm not sure, but why? Why should there be points/areas of less light that the light from stars? Reflection can't be the sole reason, because (a) reflection reduces the amount of light dramatically even at close astronomical range, and (b) there's still the issue of the reflecting bodies existing outside of the observable window of Earth.

 

[razeontherock]

I'll ask again, because I'm not sure, but why? there's still the issue of the reflecting bodies existing outside of the observable window of Earth.

In an eternal Universe, (meaning one that existed in eternity past) the entirety of our observable window would have been flooded with light. We don't see anything remotely close to that. (Perhaps the question of why wouldn't all of that light travel away by now should be asked in the "ask a physicist" thread?)

 

[Tuddrussell]

What you don't seem to be getting is that even if the universe had no beginning, LIGHT DOES.