I [Vlad] found the comments (to the article above) made by the user johnmerryman very interesting. Here are some of them (quotes):
"What seems to be overlooked is the global effect of thermodynamics is the convection cycle. Energy radiating out, as mass and matter coalesce in. Galaxies are energy radiating out, as mass coalesces in.
There are really two directions of entropy, as energy radiates toward infinity, while form/mass coalesces toward equilibrium.
If we take all physical properties out of space, it has the two non-physical properties of infinity and equilibrium. Infinity as there is no thing to bound and define it, while equilibrium is implicit in General Relativity, as the frame with the fastest clock and longest ruler is closest to the equilibrium of the vacuum, the unmoving void of absolute zero. So space would seem to be both the absolute and the infinite.
What fills space are the aforementioned energy and the forms expressed.
We are mobile organisms with a sequential process of perception and a narrative based culture, so we think of time as the point of the present, moving past to future, but the reality is that change turns future to past. Tomorrow becomes yesterday, because the earth turns. There is no literal dimension of time, because the past is consumed by the present, to inform and drive it. Causality and conservation of energy. Cause becomes effect.
So the aforementioned energy, as process, goes past to future, while the patterns generated, the forms, go future to past. As consciousness goes past to future, while thoughts and emotions go future to past.
Consider waves; What drives them is the energy, but what we perceive are the forms, the fluctuations and undulations, frequency and amplitude.
As these organisms, we have the digestive, respiratory and circulatory systems processing the energy driving us on, while the central nervous systems sorts through and further organizes and condenses the forms precipitating out. So there is a cognitive bias toward the information, rather than the energy manifesting it. Particularly since form is inherently static, while energy inherently dynamic. Trying to "perceive" the energy would just be whiteout, all the forms, frequencies, amplitudes all swarming around, even though it is what we actually "see."
So yes, our linear, goal oriented, go forth and multiply paradigm is reaching edge of the global petri dish and we will have to develop a more cyclical, reciprocal, yin/yang, feedback driven model. This monist idealism just creates polarization out of the polarities. Cycles, people, cycles.
I think the real issues driving our problems are much more conceptual and many of the current social and economic problems are effects of these underlaying causes.
For example, we have this monist ideal based paradigm, where if something is better than something else, ultimately there must be some ideal state, toward which we are headed. Be it a more perfect society on earth, heaven, the technological singularity, etc. Yet nature is cyclical. More like a game of Rock, Paper, Scissors, than winner take all. Such as today, where the current round of winners of capitalism have decided the rules no longer apply, if it means they might lose, so being the most powerful, they don't have to follow any rules, but are discovering that it is the current set of rules which enabled their successes and now the entire fish is rotting from the head down.
Or consider the concept of efficiency, which is the mantra of today. That we can do more with less. So the ideal, the end state of efficiency will be when we can do everything with nothing. There is only so much we can harvest, if we are taking out more than we put back. It's like bacteria racing toward the side of the petri dish.
The rabbit might be faster, but the turtle is still plodding along, long after the rabbit has died. It's not about ends, it's about means. There is only the present and it's driven by thermodynamic cycles, not linear time. Time is just another effect, like temperature, pressure, color, sound. Frequencies and amplitudes. It's just that as mobile creatures, our thought process is sequential, so we experience it as linear, but then we also experience the sun rising in the east and setting in the west. Change turns future to past. Tomorrow becomes yesterday, because the earth turns.
"Cosmic background radiation was discovered in the 1960s; what do you attribute that to, if not the Big Bang?"
The light of ever more distant sources, shifted off the visible spectrum, into the radio. The solution to Olber's paradox.
The scientific problem of Big Bang theory is that it can't be falsified, as whenever there is a gap between prediction and observation, some enormous new, otherwise invisible force of nature is assumed and all is well. What if your accountant just wrote in a figure and called it "dark money," whenever they found a gap in your books?
The very first patch was when they realized that as everything is redshifted proportional to distance, it makes us appear to be at the center of the universe, so it was changed from an expansion in space, to an expansion of space, because "spacetime!"
Which totally ignores the central premise of General Relativity, that the speed of light remains constant in every frame. Obviously if intergalactic light is redshifted, it is not constant to intergalactic space. The speed of light would have to increase, as space expands, in order to remain constant.
So two metrics of space are being derived from the same light. Which is the "ruler?"Given the "expansion" is still being denominated in lightyears, ie more lightyears as it expands, this means the speed of light is still being assumed to be the real denominator, so the expansion can only be a numerator. Ie, more distance, not expanding space.
We are at the center of our point of view, so maybe an optical effect would be worth reconsidering. It has been shown that multi spectrum light "packets" do redshift over distance, as higher spectrums dissipate faster, but that would mean we are sampling a wave front, not observing individual photons traveling billions of lightyears.
Which raises the question of whether photons are irreducible. Maybe they are just information derived from the underlaying energy. More like frequencies and amplitudes, than the energy driving the wave.
As for an optical explanation, if it compounds on itself, this would explains why the effect starts off gradually, then eventually goes parabolic, explaining the curvature in the rate of redshift, currently being explained by "Dark Energy."
As for "Dark Matter," what if gravity is not so much a property of mass, as mass is the lower end of a much broader spectrum of structural consolidation, starting all the way out with those photons.....
Just some thoughts, but I'm waiting on the James Webb, to further examine that cosmic background radiation."