Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 113 (8790 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 09-24-2017 1:42 PM
350 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Porkncheese
Upcoming Birthdays: Tempe 12ft Chicken
Post Volume:
Total: 819,351 Year: 23,957/21,208 Month: 1,922/2,468 Week: 15/416 Day: 15/24 Hour: 1/2

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
23456
...
13NextFF
Author Topic:   An Alternate Creation Theory: Genic Energy
TheRestOfUs
Member (Idle past 1745 days)
Posts: 56
Joined: 09-08-2012


Message 1 of 181 (672471)
09-08-2012 2:58 PM


Howdy!

I'm a new member. I found this site while googling around looking for those minds who like me have had a "problem" with the Big Bang Theory since I first heard of it back in the sixties.

Yeah, that's right, I'm an old fart. But back then I wasn't so old. Just a young guy who was a science buff for as long as I can remember.

When I first heard of the "Big Bang" it sounded cool. What could better suit my young brain awash as it was with bursting hormones? I imagined it far exceeded the mightiest electric guitar chord coming from a thousand Peter Townsends or Jimmy Hendrixes! Or the simultanious crash of drums and cymbals by a million Ginger Bakers! Or all the full throated harmonies ever to be reached by a billion Robert Plants!!!

Yeah! Like way way beyond the biggest explosion Steppenwolf ever imagined in "Born to Be Wild"! You know... I mean a really really really REALLY "BIG BOOM"!

Alas. The sixties ended. Woodstock was in the past. And after decades of recovery one day I sat and thought about questions.

Questions like "Life," and "the Universe". Then separately of course there was the pressing need for "the ANSWER to everything" to be considered. Fortunately I discovered that the ANSWER to everything was "42," thanks to "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy." And even though that was a great relief it still left the "questions" like "Life": What is it? and "The Universe". Where did it come from?

It's not that I really had anything against big explosions. Well maybe I did come to think of it. But could it be it was just that since my hormones were no longer raging a huge explosion seemed, I don't know, less..."sexy"? Was I that driven by my body chemistry?

Or was it that since I had heard the theory some things had been bothering me about it. Like;

If something was infinitely small and infinitley dense and there was NOTHING ELSE besides "it", (not even SPACE).

And you presume it exploded into that NOTHINGNESS.

You would have to also presume;

1.) It would be a uniform point.

2.) The "explosion" would also be uniform.

3.) Whether energy or matter it would ever expand from some infinite or near infinite density along straight lines. Ever thinning.

Therefore. To my mind without something, like a stone in a stream, there would be no slowing down. No irregularites, no way for compression, or clumping to occur. Nothing to compress the primordial matter (Hydrogen) into stars and galaxies.

I have since read quite a bit about cosmology. But these basic questions, (among many more), that I've had knocking around in my head for decades have never been adequately answered. Not as soundly as the ANSWER to everything being "42".

So I'd like to open this thread to examining these questions and others. I will admit I have come across an alternate explanation that involves a theory of continuous creation of matter and energy. But I'd like to first hear from whomever wishes to offer their thoughts.

TROU (you can call me trou).

Edited by TheRestOfUs, : No reason given.

Edited by TheRestOfUs, : No reason given.

Edited by Admin, : Change title.

Edited by Admin, : Change title from "Tired Light" to "Genic Energy"


Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Percy, posted 09-08-2012 3:54 PM TheRestOfUs has responded
 Message 7 by cavediver, posted 09-08-2012 5:52 PM TheRestOfUs has responded
 Message 34 by zaius137, posted 09-09-2012 2:17 AM TheRestOfUs has not yet responded
 Message 169 by Paul Choa, posted 09-29-2012 2:29 AM TheRestOfUs has not yet responded

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12528
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 2 of 181 (672473)
09-08-2012 3:47 PM


Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread copied here from the An Alternate Creation Theory? thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.
Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by TheRestOfUs, posted 09-08-2012 3:51 PM Admin has acknowledged this reply

    
TheRestOfUs
Member (Idle past 1745 days)
Posts: 56
Joined: 09-08-2012


Message 3 of 181 (672474)
09-08-2012 3:51 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Admin
09-08-2012 3:47 PM


Re: Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Administrator. What is the nature of your post? Do I need to reply or do something?

Trou


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Admin, posted 09-08-2012 3:47 PM Admin has acknowledged this reply

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 15917
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 4 of 181 (672475)
09-08-2012 3:54 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by TheRestOfUs
09-08-2012 2:58 PM


Hi Trou,

I'm the same Percy who promoted your thread, and I have a question that I could have asked before promotion, but I decided to promote first.

Something about your journey of understanding about the Big Bang from the sixties until now didn't add up. You say you're a science buff and that you've read a great deal about cosmology and the Big Bang, but the problems you describe are not anything believed by cosmologists, e.g.:

TheRestOfUs writes:

Or was it that since I had heard the theory some things had been bothering me about it. Like;

If something was infinitely small and infinitley dense and there was NOTHING ELSE besides "it", (not even SPACE).

And you presume it exploded into that NOTHINGNESS.

You would have to also presume;

1.) It would be a uniform point.

2.) The "explosion" would also be uniform.

3.) Whether energy or matter it would ever expand from some infinite or near infinite density along straight lines. Ever thinning.

You say these things sound wrong to you, and I expect cosmologists would say they sound wrong to them, too. Why, after all you're reading, are you criticizing Big Bang theory for positions it doesn't hold?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by TheRestOfUs, posted 09-08-2012 2:58 PM TheRestOfUs has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by TheRestOfUs, posted 09-08-2012 4:02 PM Percy has responded

    
TheRestOfUs
Member (Idle past 1745 days)
Posts: 56
Joined: 09-08-2012


Message 5 of 181 (672476)
09-08-2012 4:02 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Percy
09-08-2012 3:54 PM


Please correct me if I'm wrong but prior to and subsequent to the latest "Inflation" add-on to the BB, have not most mainstream cosmologists and astrophyiscists upheld the Big Bang theory of creation upon the pillars of an "Expanding Universe" Model due in part to the Cosmological Redshift?

If so it presumes a single infinitely small and infinite or near infinitely dense point of origin for SpaceTime and all matter and energy does it not?

Edited by TheRestOfUs, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Percy, posted 09-08-2012 3:54 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by TheRestOfUs, posted 09-08-2012 5:42 PM TheRestOfUs has not yet responded
 Message 11 by Percy, posted 09-08-2012 6:30 PM TheRestOfUs has responded

    
TheRestOfUs
Member (Idle past 1745 days)
Posts: 56
Joined: 09-08-2012


(1)
Message 6 of 181 (672479)
09-08-2012 5:42 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by TheRestOfUs
09-08-2012 4:02 PM


Percy,

I realize that words like "infinitely small" or "infinitely dense" seem absurdities. Both to me and most people. They also seem absurdities when such values arise in Mathematical equations. It must mean that somewhere an assumption, the math, or both are wrong.

I ask to be excused for first being a layman and second for using such terms, but I have heard these terms used, (infinities) to describe singularities. Still let us for the sake of argument avoid using words like "infinite".

But even without such terms we can use many others that suggest the absurd. And I would say that absurdities abound when scientists make fantatsic assumptions for fantastic objects like "Singularities" or "Black Holes" that can "bend" space for example.

When scientists saw starlight being refracted around a massive object like our sun to confirm Einstien's GR Theory that "Space" itself is being bent; It leads to "fantastic theories" that if an object is small enough and massive enough it could so distort the supposed Space Time Continum that it would produce a never seen object like a "Black Hole". Not even a confirmed event horizon. Even if gravity does indeed bend space one has to admit a "Black Hole" is a suspiciously handy object to explain away all sorts of inconvienent astronomical observations and cosmological test data; which don't fit the Big Bang Theory.

Like Quasars and Galaxy Formation for instance. In fact I have read lately that one scientist is even using a Black Hole now to postulate that the entire Universe came from a "Black Hole".

This is not even to mention the Doppler Interpretation for the observed Cosmological Redshift. If a "Tired Light Model" fits the data better as even Hubble contended then the Big Bang falls apart.

Since I first heard the Big Bang Theory explained I have heard more and more "fantastic" explanations for the nature of the Universe as our observations become more sophisticated. That it is flying apart at faster and faster velocities the further away we look. That all sorts of strange ad hoc concepts must be introduced to make the data fit the theory. Many predictions and experiments on the microscopic level (Quantum Mechanics) seem to bear out in experimentation. But even there the force carrier gluon theories are becoming a bit ridiculous. And in addition there is even an invisible yet impenetrable "wall" called the "Copenhagen Convention" to paper over the incongruities between QM and GR.

IE; The "Big Bang" and "Black Holes" seem less and less "Elegant" to me. What I'm really saying is that it's time to pull out Occam's razor.

Just some thoughts.

Trou

Edited by TheRestOfUs, : No reason given.

Edited by TheRestOfUs, : No reason given.

Edited by TheRestOfUs, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by TheRestOfUs, posted 09-08-2012 4:02 PM TheRestOfUs has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by cavediver, posted 09-08-2012 6:17 PM TheRestOfUs has responded
 Message 15 by Percy, posted 09-08-2012 7:03 PM TheRestOfUs has responded
 Message 20 by Son Goku, posted 09-08-2012 7:39 PM TheRestOfUs has responded

    
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1176 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


(1)
Message 7 of 181 (672480)
09-08-2012 5:52 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by TheRestOfUs
09-08-2012 2:58 PM


Hi Trou, welcome to EvC.

You're asking about the traditional classical Big Bang cosmology, so I will answer in kind.

If something was infinitely small and infinitley dense and there was NOTHING ELSE besides "it", (not even SPACE).

Not "something" but *everything*, as in all of existence. This makes your "nothing else besides it" superfluous. There is no "nothingness", and nothing expands into it!

What you need to do (despite every layman explanation and Discovery Channel presentation) is stop picturing the Big Bang from "outside the Universe". There is no such thing at this level of understanding as "outside the Universe". This is what gives rise to these nonsense concepts such as explodig cosmic eggs expanding into "nothingness".

Infinitely small (and infinitely dense) simply means that if you take any two finitely separated points in the Universe today, no matter how far separated, and trace these points back in time towards the T=0 point, these points become infinitesimally close. Run time forwards again, and you can see these points expand away from each other. No explosion, no bang, no expanding into "nothingness", just expansion.

Just another little known point - if the Universe today is infinite, it has always been infinite including the initial singularity (ignoring the issue of the ill-definition of length scale at the singularity.)

1.) It would be a uniform point.

2.) The "explosion" would also be uniform.

In a classical world, yes, but we don't live in a classical world. Quantum fluctuations create non-uniformity, and post-inflation, these translate into variations in density that in turn give rise to the clumpiness that leads to the large scale structure of the Universe - clusters, galaxies, and stars.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by TheRestOfUs, posted 09-08-2012 2:58 PM TheRestOfUs has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by TheRestOfUs, posted 09-08-2012 6:12 PM cavediver has responded

  
TheRestOfUs
Member (Idle past 1745 days)
Posts: 56
Joined: 09-08-2012


Message 8 of 181 (672481)
09-08-2012 6:12 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by cavediver
09-08-2012 5:52 PM


Hi Cavedigger,

Hmmm. I think we should probably not get into the realm where we argue there is no such "Thing" as "Nothing". Because if so then we could fall prey to the argument that there also coudn't be such a "thing" as "something". Let's not fall into that philosophical abyss. Let's start with what makes sense. Since we live in "something". Common sense would dictate that this "something" came from "somewhere" or some OTHER "thing" EVEN if we haven't or cannot detect "it".

Let's start there ok? I have heard it proposed that the physical universe with all its matter and energy comes from an Etheric "sea" made up of various substrates. While this sounds Meta-Physical I would say it is less "fantastic" then that all this came from "Nothing".

Just a thought.

Trou

Edited by TheRestOfUs, : No reason given.

Edited by TheRestOfUs, : No reason given.

Edited by TheRestOfUs, : No reason given.

Edited by TheRestOfUs, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by cavediver, posted 09-08-2012 5:52 PM cavediver has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by cavediver, posted 09-08-2012 6:41 PM TheRestOfUs has responded

    
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1176 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 9 of 181 (672482)
09-08-2012 6:17 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by TheRestOfUs
09-08-2012 5:42 PM


When scientists saw starlight being refracted around a massive object like our sun to confirm Einstien's GR Theory that "Space" itself is being bent; It leads to "fantastic theories" that if an object is small enough and massive enough it could so distort the supposed Space Time Continum that it would produce a never seen object like a "Black Hole".

IE; The "Big Bang" and "Black Holes" seem less and less "Elegant" to me. What I'm really saying is that it's time to pull out Occam's razor.

The Big Bang and Black Holes are predictions of Einstein's General Theory of Relativity. You may well decide that if General Relativity should have the nerve to suggest such inelegant concepts then it should be abandoned; that is your prerogative. But as GR remains the second most successfully tested theory known to man, don't expect us cosmologists to race to your side in agreement...

Talking of most successfully tested theories known to man, the most successful is based upon non-abelian (Yang Mills) gauge theory (which in turn is based upon Special Relativity and Quantum Mechanics) and is what gives rise to your "ridiculous" "force carrier gluon theories".

If you happen to be a betting man, I would suggest keeping your wagers on the small side.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by TheRestOfUs, posted 09-08-2012 5:42 PM TheRestOfUs has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by TheRestOfUs, posted 09-08-2012 6:29 PM cavediver has not yet responded
 Message 25 by RAZD, posted 09-08-2012 8:05 PM cavediver has not yet responded

  
TheRestOfUs
Member (Idle past 1745 days)
Posts: 56
Joined: 09-08-2012


Message 10 of 181 (672483)
09-08-2012 6:29 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by cavediver
09-08-2012 6:17 PM


Well I have been told I have an awful lot of "nerve". Especially when Hubble himself pulled down the ediface that's been built around his data. And was ignored. And I suppose Einstein's had a lot of nerve too when he himself thought it farcical the fantasic and absurd lengths some took his theories to.

So as to "bets" of any kind, go find a man like "Mitt" who makes big ones. That oughta to keep you happy.

Just a "suggestion".

Edited by TheRestOfUs, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by cavediver, posted 09-08-2012 6:17 PM cavediver has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 15917
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.1


(1)
Message 11 of 181 (672484)
09-08-2012 6:30 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by TheRestOfUs
09-08-2012 4:02 PM


Hi Trou,

I guess what I'm wondering is why, after all you're reading, you're unaware that as cosmologists project the expansion of the universe backward in time toward T=0 that they see the looming infinities as an indication that general relativity has broken down and can no longer be applied. I don't think the details of what happens near T=0 is a settled issue within cosmology, but it's probably safe to say that there's a pretty strong consensus that infinity density isn't one of the possibilities.

So how did you miss this?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by TheRestOfUs, posted 09-08-2012 4:02 PM TheRestOfUs has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by TheRestOfUs, posted 09-08-2012 6:44 PM Percy has responded

    
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1176 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 12 of 181 (672485)
09-08-2012 6:41 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by TheRestOfUs
09-08-2012 6:12 PM


Hi Cavedigger,

That sounds suspiciously familiar

I think we should probably not get into the realm where we argue there is no such "Thing" as "Nothing"

There is no arument to make. There really is no such concept as "nothing" in this context that has any reasonable definition.

Because if so then we could fall prey to the argument that there also coudn't be such a "thing" as "something".

No, we couldn't (or shouldn't) because such arguments are naive and spurious.

Common sense would dictate that this "something" came from "somewhere" or some OTHER "thing" EVEN if we haven't or cannot detect "it".

I generally agree with two caveats:

Common sense is the last thing that should trusted when working in such alien environments.

"Came from" suggests a causal relationship. Familiar concepts of causality do not always apply in General Relativity and related quantum theories.

I have heard it proposed that the physical universe with all its matter and energy comes from an Etheric "sea" made up of various substrates.

I would say that at a certain level, the physical universe with all its matter and energy *is* an Etheric "sea" made up of various substrates.

While this sounds Meta-Physical I would say it is less "fantastic" then that all this came from "Nothing".

Given that there is no such well-defined concept as "nothing", the Universe cannot have "come" from it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by TheRestOfUs, posted 09-08-2012 6:12 PM TheRestOfUs has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by TheRestOfUs, posted 09-08-2012 6:59 PM cavediver has not yet responded

  
TheRestOfUs
Member (Idle past 1745 days)
Posts: 56
Joined: 09-08-2012


Message 13 of 181 (672486)
09-08-2012 6:44 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Percy
09-08-2012 6:30 PM


Hi Percy,

I am aware that T=0 is a problem for cosmologists who subscribe to the Big Bang. But rather than ask me a layman what I've missed; How did so-called scientists "miss" that Hubble and Tolman publishing in 1935 stated that the "Tired Light Model," rather than the Doppler Interpretation, fit the Cosmological Redshift data better than the "Expanding Universe" Model? I'd call that a BIG swing and a miss!

Just some thoughts.

Trou

Edited by TheRestOfUs, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Percy, posted 09-08-2012 6:30 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by JonF, posted 09-08-2012 7:22 PM TheRestOfUs has responded
 Message 27 by Percy, posted 09-08-2012 8:41 PM TheRestOfUs has not yet responded

    
TheRestOfUs
Member (Idle past 1745 days)
Posts: 56
Joined: 09-08-2012


Message 14 of 181 (672488)
09-08-2012 6:59 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by cavediver
09-08-2012 6:41 PM


Cavediver,

Sorry about the "CaveDigger" moniker. I just put my glasses on. You know "old fart" and such that I am. I actually meant no offense.

I would say that there is a causal relationship between this Universe of Matter and Energy and an "Etheric Sea" which is physically non-detectable by physical intrumentation. But may be inferred through observation. IE; The "Tired Light Model" suggests that energy is not "conserved' over vast periods of time and Inter-Galactic distances. That photons do indeed slowly and minutely lose energy and therefore Redshift.

And while this revises the First Law of Thermodynamics, this proposed revision is suggested by "The Maser Pioneer Blueshifting Effect" observed by JPL.

Just some more thoughts.

Trou

Edited by TheRestOfUs, : No reason given.

Edited by TheRestOfUs, : No reason given.

Edited by TheRestOfUs, : No reason given.

Edited by TheRestOfUs, : No reason given.

Edited by TheRestOfUs, : No reason given.

Edited by TheRestOfUs, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by cavediver, posted 09-08-2012 6:41 PM cavediver has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 15917
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 15 of 181 (672489)
09-08-2012 7:03 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by TheRestOfUs
09-08-2012 5:42 PM


TheRestOfUs writes:

I realize that words like "infinitely small" or "infinitely dense" seem absurdities. Both to me and most people. They also seem absurdities when such values arise in Mathematical equations. It must mean that somewhere an assumption, the math, or both are wrong.

Yes, that's correct. As I already said in my previous message, cosmologists take the looming infinities as an indication that the laws of general relativity break down and no longer apply. I don't think there's a consensus within cosmology at the present time about what actually happens as T approaches 0, but an infinite density singularity is considered unlikely.

But even without such terms we can use many others that suggest the absurd. And I would say that absurdities abound when scientists make fantatsic assumptions for fantastic objects like "Singularities" or "Black Holes" that can "bend" space for example.

Again, cosmologists aren't big on singularities, but any mass alters the shape of space/time, not just black holes. Are you sure you're a science buff? It's okay to have read something and rejected it, but you don't appear to have read anything at all because your comments reflect no familiarity with popular science writings about cosmology over the last 20 years or so.

When scientists saw starlight being refracted around a massive object like our sun to confirm Einstien's GR Theory that "Space" itself is being bent; It leads to "fantastic theories" that if an object is small enough and massive enough it could so distort the supposed Space Time Continum that it would produce a never seen object like a "Black Hole". Not even a confirmed event horizon. Even if gravity does indeed bend space one has to admit a "Black Hole" is a suspiciously handy object to explain away all sorts of inconvienent astronomical observations and cosmological test data; which don't fit the Big Bang Theory.

Are you rejecting that mass can bend space/time? That's one of the most verified findings of GR.

Anyway, you say that "inconvenient astronomical observations and test data" don't fit the big bang unless black holes exist, and you provide quasars and galaxy formation as examples, but they have nothing to do with the big bang. So either you're not making sense or there's something missing from your explanation.

In fact I have read lately that one scientist is even using a Black Hole now to postulate that the entire Universe came from a "Black Hole".

If for the sake of discussion we say that this proposal is totally insane, what has the proposal of one scientist to do with consensus views within cosmology. If your only point is that some scientists have some crazy ideas I think most here would agree with you.

This is not even to mention the Doppler Interpretation for the observed Cosmological Redshift. If a "Tired Light Model" fits the data better as even Hubble contended then the Big Bang falls apart.

Can I guess that this reading material you've mentioned is by creationists, not cosmologists? Now you're not only arguing against views cosmologists don't hold, indeed even seem unaware of, you're advocating views cosmologists reject because no research has revealed how these proposals are consistent with the evidence.

Since I first heard the Big Bang Theory explained I have heard more and more "fantastic" explanations for the nature of the Universe as our observations become more sophisticated.

The more and more fantastic proposals like singularities and infinite densities and doppler-only and tired light are coming from you, not from cosmologists.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by TheRestOfUs, posted 09-08-2012 5:42 PM TheRestOfUs has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by TheRestOfUs, posted 09-08-2012 7:18 PM Percy has responded

    
1
23456
...
13NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017