Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Big Bang is NOT Scientific
lost-apathy
Member (Idle past 5409 days)
Posts: 67
From: Scottsdale, Az, USA
Joined: 04-24-2005


Message 16 of 301 (203188)
04-27-2005 10:30 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by NosyNed
04-27-2005 9:54 PM


Re: No evidence for General Relativity?
quote:
Since you are making such strong statements about areas of physics it seems fair to presume that you actually know something about the subject.
Therefore it is fair to ask you to list the generally accepted experiments that have been done for general realitivity, what the accepted results are and your discussion of why they do not count as support for GR.
I'll make it easy for you: You may start with the 1919 measurements of the bending of light. Since that is, certainly by todays standards, flawed you may knock the first one off easily. Then you can continue with the others. Since I'm not as expert like you are I'm only aware of a few of them. It will be interesting to learn more from you.
Unfortunately you have, so far, only made bare, naked, unsubstantiated assertions. Far be it for me to say that you have something hanging out in the wind but that is the first impression.
For one, right now I AM NOT thinking scientifically, but philisophically. I am not saying that any of these theories are wrong. WHat I am saying is that they are not scientific.
Science - the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding
Gavity is a common scientific fact. If I drop a pencil 10 times I can guartee that the ten times i drop it it will go to the ground defying all outliers.
Now can you guarantee me that if i fly a space ship out into no where that i will hit the end of the universe? No because it has not been tested yet. Space hasn't been tested to the end of the universe, and time has stayed constant for as long as we know. So please tell me some evidence that space is like a bubble and not infinite.
This message has been edited by lost-apathy, 04-27-2005 11:23 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by NosyNed, posted 04-27-2005 9:54 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by NosyNed, posted 04-27-2005 10:34 PM lost-apathy has replied
 Message 21 by Chiroptera, posted 04-28-2005 12:21 AM lost-apathy has replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 17 of 301 (203190)
04-27-2005 10:34 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by lost-apathy
04-27-2005 10:30 PM


Re: No evidence for General Relativity?
For one, right now not I AM NOT thinking scientifically, but philisophically.
So your statements about there being no support for GR are based on ignorance of the science?
That is boring.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by lost-apathy, posted 04-27-2005 10:30 PM lost-apathy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by lost-apathy, posted 04-28-2005 6:33 PM NosyNed has not replied

coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 467 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 18 of 301 (203196)
04-27-2005 10:41 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by lost-apathy
04-27-2005 10:12 PM


Re: Cranky mode
The reason I asked those questions wasn't to find out how much you can quote from people. I wanted to see how much you know about these things before we can proceed. You must understand my precautions. I don't like talking to deaf ears or blind eyes. I've talked to many people before only to find out after a while that they had no clue what I was talking about.
So, again, please tell us what part of red shift supposedly supported big bang.
Added by edit.
By the way, your link gave me the following page.
I really don't see what this has to do with what we are talking about.
This message has been edited by Troy, 04-27-2005 10:50 PM
This message has been edited by Admin, 04-28-2005 09:38 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by lost-apathy, posted 04-27-2005 10:12 PM lost-apathy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by dsv, posted 04-28-2005 12:33 AM coffee_addict has not replied
 Message 25 by lost-apathy, posted 04-28-2005 6:47 PM coffee_addict has not replied

Sylas
Member (Idle past 5250 days)
Posts: 766
From: Newcastle, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2002


Message 19 of 301 (203199)
04-27-2005 10:55 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by lost-apathy
04-27-2005 10:12 PM


Re: Cranky mode
lost-apathy writes:
quote:
How do you explain the michelson-morley experiment? What about the time dilation effect on the GPS satellites? Read this link.
This was written by Jorge Pullin.
"Jorge Pullin is the Horace Hearne Chair in theoretical Physics." -physicsdaily.com - physicsdaily Resources and Information.
Theory - abstract thought : SPECULATION
Dictionary by Merriam-Webster: America's most-trusted online dictionary
Careful, lost-apathy. The request to behave applies to you also. If you start being deliberately troublesome, you will incur my official wrath in my admin role.
You have appealed to a dictionary to justify an ad hominem against Professor Pullin and as an excuse for avoiding a good question. The definition of theory in the Merriam-Webster that you have cited has six alternatives. You have quoted number 2 only, which is not the one used in science. The proper definition in this context, and in the context of Professor Pullin's profession, is number 5, which reads as follows:
quote:
5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena (wave theory of light)
That is, Professor Pullin is well placed to EXPLAIN observed phenomenon. It is part of his job description.
The Michelson-Morley experiment was performed in 1887, and lead to Michelson winning the Nobel prize in 1907. It is a real phenomenon, and the explanation is special relativity; and indeed the Michelson-Morley experiment is good evidence for relativity, since Newtonian physics is unable to explain it.
The link you were given by Troy, and written by Pullin, was in relation to the question about the modern Global Positioning System, and this also stands as good evidence for relativity.
The question for you is, since you reject relativity, how do YOU explain these observed phenomenon; this evidence?
Cheers -- Sylas

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by lost-apathy, posted 04-27-2005 10:12 PM lost-apathy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by lost-apathy, posted 04-28-2005 6:27 PM Sylas has not replied

paisano
Member (Idle past 6413 days)
Posts: 459
From: USA
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 20 of 301 (203211)
04-27-2005 11:53 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by crashfrog
04-27-2005 10:24 PM


There is actually NO evidence for this theory scientists have been trying to prove it for over 50 years yet still there has yet to be evidence.
Tell that to the particle physicists at Fermilab and CERN. They have to take relativistic effects into account when controlling the accelerator and when making measurements of mass and lifetime of elementary particles.
Reply should have been to OP, not Crashfrog.
This message has been edited by paisano, 04-27-2005 11:54 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by crashfrog, posted 04-27-2005 10:24 PM crashfrog has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 301 (203220)
04-28-2005 12:21 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by lost-apathy
04-27-2005 10:30 PM


Uh-oh -- argument by dictionary
quote:
Science - the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding
Okay, so you are using a definition of science that is different from the commonly accepted definition. The definition of science that most people around here use is the body of models and the data used to test the models by means of the scientific method.
First, I do not agree that the Big Bang is not science even by the definition that you are using.
Second, I don't find the question of whether Big Bang is or is not science according to your definition is an interesting enough question to continue the discussion.
--
quote:
If I drop a pencil 10 times I can guartee that the ten times i drop it it will go to the ground defying all outliers.
What does it mean to "defy all outliers?" I think that this is an indication that your thoughts on this subject may be a little unclear, and that you don't know as much about this subject as you seem to think that you do.
This message has been edited by Chiroptera, 28-Apr-2005 04:22 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by lost-apathy, posted 04-27-2005 10:30 PM lost-apathy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by lost-apathy, posted 04-28-2005 6:57 PM Chiroptera has replied

dsv
Member (Idle past 4714 days)
Posts: 220
From: Secret Underground Hideout
Joined: 08-17-2004


Message 22 of 301 (203221)
04-28-2005 12:33 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by coffee_addict
04-27-2005 10:41 PM


Re: Cranky mode
(Penguins unite!)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by coffee_addict, posted 04-27-2005 10:41 PM coffee_addict has not replied

lost-apathy
Member (Idle past 5409 days)
Posts: 67
From: Scottsdale, Az, USA
Joined: 04-24-2005


Message 23 of 301 (203437)
04-28-2005 6:27 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Sylas
04-27-2005 10:55 PM


Re: Cranky mode
quote:
Careful, lost-apathy. The request to behave applies to you also. If you start being deliberately troublesome, you will incur my official wrath in my admin role.
Sorry if this made you upset, but i was just joking around, you know the look up idiot in the dictionary and you'll find the name... But yeah I'll make sure it won't happen again.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Sylas, posted 04-27-2005 10:55 PM Sylas has not replied

lost-apathy
Member (Idle past 5409 days)
Posts: 67
From: Scottsdale, Az, USA
Joined: 04-24-2005


Message 24 of 301 (203439)
04-28-2005 6:33 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by NosyNed
04-27-2005 10:34 PM


Re: No evidence for General Relativity?
quote:
quote:
For one, right now not I AM NOT thinking scientifically, but philisophically.
So your statements about there being no support for GR are based on ignorance of the science?
That is boring.
Philosophy is the base of all science. How do you think aristotle figured that the earth is round, or that the sun is bigger than the earth? Philosophy enables us to figure things out that arn't currently explainable by science, which is how all hypothesis's start. But yeah you didn't answer my question.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by NosyNed, posted 04-27-2005 10:34 PM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by crashfrog, posted 04-28-2005 6:53 PM lost-apathy has replied

lost-apathy
Member (Idle past 5409 days)
Posts: 67
From: Scottsdale, Az, USA
Joined: 04-24-2005


Message 25 of 301 (203442)
04-28-2005 6:47 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by coffee_addict
04-27-2005 10:41 PM


Re: Cranky mode
I'm sorry if you didn't get my joke, but yeah.
What I think redhifts are(correct me if i'm wrong) is a back up of hubbles. It uses wavelengths and frequency's to measure the light of a galaxy to figure how far away and the speed at which they are moving away.
-But like I said before this has to do with matter within the universe and not space. If galaxies are moving away like dots on a balloon does that mean space is also moving with it?
As for the one article you linked me I read it and it is quite interesting.
Here's a quote from that same article.
"At present one cannot easily perform tests of relativity with the system because the SV clocks are actively steered to be within 1 microsecond of Universal Coordinated Time (USNO).
Several relativistic effects are too small to affect the system at current accuracy levels, but may become important as the system is improved; these include gravitational time delays, frequency shifts of clocks in satellites due to earth's quadrupole potential, and space curvature."
From what i get from reading this is that currently our technology is not precise enough to measure to such a degree. He said it in his own words. "At present one cannot easily perform tests of relativity." Now if you cannot test it how can it be science? Science is based on ACCURATE tests and many observations.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by coffee_addict, posted 04-27-2005 10:41 PM coffee_addict has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by JonF, posted 04-28-2005 7:03 PM lost-apathy has replied
 Message 30 by paisano, posted 04-28-2005 7:05 PM lost-apathy has replied
 Message 35 by Sylas, posted 04-28-2005 8:51 PM lost-apathy has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1457 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 26 of 301 (203444)
04-28-2005 6:53 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by lost-apathy
04-28-2005 6:33 PM


Personal Bias - I hate Philosophy
Philosophy is the base of all science.
I don't believe that philosophy, except in a historical sense, can be the base of anything. Philosophy is an exercise where we determine that we don't know what we think we know. If you want to actually gather some knowledge, then you need to apply methods that no longer properly belong under the heading of "philosophy", methods like empiricism and experimentation that have since come under the term "science."
Philosophers used to be scientists. Now they ask questions about what words mean and what knowledge is. I recognize the debt science owes to philosophy but currently, science has incorporated all that philosophy has to offer the discovery of information about the universe.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by lost-apathy, posted 04-28-2005 6:33 PM lost-apathy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by lost-apathy, posted 04-28-2005 7:05 PM crashfrog has replied

lost-apathy
Member (Idle past 5409 days)
Posts: 67
From: Scottsdale, Az, USA
Joined: 04-24-2005


Message 27 of 301 (203445)
04-28-2005 6:57 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Chiroptera
04-28-2005 12:21 AM


Re: Uh-oh -- argument by dictionary
Whats wrong with arguing with the dictionary? One of the most common reasons people don't understand each other is because of the use of words.
quote:
quote:
If I drop a pencil 10 times I can guartee that the ten times i drop it it will go to the ground defying all outliers.
What does it mean to "defy all outliers?" I think that this is an indication that your thoughts on this subject may be a little unclear, and that you don't know as much about this subject as you seem to think that you do.
Ok lets take a trip back to third grade science.
1. An outlier is a piece of data that sticks out of the other data. Meaning that if i drop the pencil 10 times and 9 times it goes strait to the ground. The tenth one goes up instead of down first. This is a outlier.
If i were to say that "If I drop a pencil 10 times I can guarantee that the ten times i drop it it will go to the ground" I would be wrong. There are some cases that the pencil will not go to the ground. For example if I'm on the superman ride and drop the pencil right when i get to the top it will float in the air for a little and not fall to my feet.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Chiroptera, posted 04-28-2005 12:21 AM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by crashfrog, posted 04-28-2005 7:02 PM lost-apathy has not replied
 Message 33 by Chiroptera, posted 04-28-2005 7:31 PM lost-apathy has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1457 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 28 of 301 (203446)
04-28-2005 7:02 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by lost-apathy
04-28-2005 6:57 PM


I think what he's saying to you is that your qualifier was a little silly; if you say "this always happens, except when it doesn't" you'll very obviously never be wrong. Neither, however, will you have said anything worthwhile.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by lost-apathy, posted 04-28-2005 6:57 PM lost-apathy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Chiroptera, posted 04-28-2005 7:12 PM crashfrog has not replied

JonF
Member (Idle past 158 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 29 of 301 (203447)
04-28-2005 7:03 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by lost-apathy
04-28-2005 6:47 PM


Re: Cranky mode
"Several relativistic effects are too small to affect the system at current accuracy levels, but may become important as the system is improved; these include gravitational time delays, frequency shifts of clocks in satellites due to earth's quadrupole potential, and space curvature."
From what i get from reading this is that currently our technology is not precise enough to measure to such a degree.
Sorry, you got it wrong. It is true that the GPS system is not good for testing relativity, but it's not because we can't test relativity; rather, it's because GPS is nowhere near as accurate as the best instruments we have for testing relativity, and to keep it performing its primary function we have to reset the clocks periodically. But it's an excellent example of practical application of relativity. If the clocks were not deliberately tweaked, in accordance with the predictions of relativity, to keep the wrong time here on Earth, then the clock would require "steering" (i.e. resetting) much more often ... so much more often that the system wouldn't work nearly as well as it does if relativity were not correct.
From Real-World Relativity: The GPS Navigation System:
quote:
To achieve this level of precision, the clock ticks from the GPS satellites must be known to an accuracy of 20-30 nanoseconds. However, because the satellites are constantly moving relative to observers on the Earth, effects predicted by the Special and General theories of Relativity must be taken into account to achieve the desired 20-30 nanosecond accuracy. ...
The combination of these relativistic effects means that if not accounted for the clocks on-board each satellite would tick faster than clocks on the ground by about 38 microseconds per day (45-7=38)! This sounds small, but the high-precision required of the GPS system requires nanosecond accuracy, and there are 1000 nanoseconds in a microsecond. If these effects were not taken into account, a navigational fix based on the GPS constellation would be false after only 2 minutes, and in general errors in global positions would accumulate at a rate of about 10 kilometers each day! The whole system would be utterly worthless for navigation. This kind of accumulated error is akin to measuring my location while standing on my front porch in Columbus, Ohio one day, and then making the same measurement a week later and having my GPS receiver tell me that my porch and I are currently flying about 5000 meters in the air somewhere over Dayton, Ohio.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by lost-apathy, posted 04-28-2005 6:47 PM lost-apathy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by lost-apathy, posted 04-29-2005 11:37 PM JonF has replied

paisano
Member (Idle past 6413 days)
Posts: 459
From: USA
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 30 of 301 (203448)
04-28-2005 7:05 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by lost-apathy
04-28-2005 6:47 PM


Re: Cranky mode
I'm afraid you've seized on something out of context as support for your assertions, where it really isn't.
In particle physics, lifetime measurements of particles are made at resolution below a picosecond. These lifetime measurements are a quite direct verification of special relativity. The relativistic effect on the particle lifetimes and trajectories are readily observable. This is also observed in cosmic ray muons.
Your assertions that special relativity has not been verified by experiemt and observation are simply incorrect.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by lost-apathy, posted 04-28-2005 6:47 PM lost-apathy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by lost-apathy, posted 04-29-2005 11:33 PM paisano has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024