Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 121 (8774 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-28-2017 3:03 PM
370 online now:
AndrewPD, dwise1, JonF, New Cat's Eye, NoNukes, PaulK, Tangle (7 members, 363 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Tom Larkin
Post Volume:
Total: 814,805 Year: 19,411/21,208 Month: 2,170/3,111 Week: 391/574 Day: 46/59 Hour: 0/5

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123
4
5Next
Author Topic:   Black Hole Universe Model Questions
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9751
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 46 of 69 (668866)
07-25-2012 8:58 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by Echetos
07-25-2012 3:12 AM


Re: Bumpdate
All reasoning is circular. This circularity belongs even to the most rigorous of traditions, including science, mathematics, and logic. Give me one truth arrived at by noncircular reasoning and you’ve solved a foundational epistemological conundrum—the problem of contemporary philosophy.

Nonsense. Try reading a few chapters of Euclid and see how non circular proofs work.

It is the case that there are some axioms that are accepted as true without proof. But given those, it is certainly possible to derive more things without any circular reasoning.

I responded:

You can't be inside it. The surface is spacetime.

You could not possibly be this obtuse. You have already acknowledged that the universe appears to be expanding to observers within the universe. How can you say that and then follow it up with denying Dr. Adequate a viewing point within the universe?


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Echetos, posted 07-25-2012 3:12 AM Echetos has not yet responded

    
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11578
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 47 of 69 (668869)
07-25-2012 10:07 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by Echetos
07-25-2012 3:12 AM


Re: Bumpdate
All reasoning is circular. This circularity belongs even to the most rigorous of traditions, including science, mathematics, and logic. Give me one truth arrived at by noncircular reasoning and you’ve solved a foundational epistemological conundrum—the problem of contemporary philosophy.

No, that's not what I'm talking about. Here is non-circular reasoning:

If you are a human then you are a mammal. You are a human. Therefore, you are a mammal.

That's a straight-forward deduction. Here is circular reasoning:

The Bible says that all scripture is true. The Bible is scripture, therefore it is true. Ergo, the claim that all scripture is true is, itself, true.

That has nothing to do with the epistemological conundrum of knowledge ultimately relying on some axiomatic truth.

No offense taken. And I guess I am just making shit up—but how else would any progress occur?

By following the evidence where it leads instead of making shit up.

People come up with theories and those theories are tested. General Relativity, for example, was considered balls crazy until it wasn’t proven wrong by people staring at a solar eclipse.

Please don't compare yourself to Einstein. He wasn't some layperson making up shit at their computer desk. And he wasn't making shit up like you are. He was deriving mathematical equations and exploring the consequences of their explanations. Its not even remotely the same.

How so? What physical realities are you seeing today that suggest that the concepts “expanding” and “contracting” as being polar opposites is outdated and unscientific?

I’ve already given an answer to this, which you sort of touched on: the principle of quantum superposition.

And I rebutted that by explaining that the concepts “expanding” and “contracting” are on a macroscopic level that quantum superposition doesn't apply to.

Things that happen on a quantum level necessarily translate to the macro states because they literally comprise the foundation of those states.

No, that's not right. As I said, at different scales different forces apply. You can ignore gravity when plotting the path of an electron, but you have to take it into account when ploting the path of a planet. Quantum superposition cannot be used to explain the motion of planets.

So people here that claim or feign to know for certain that the BHUM model is incorrect have simply missed the point.

Has anyone really claimed certainty on that? I think you're missing the point:

Its not that we know your whole theory is wrong, its that some of the things it relies on aren't being described correctly. Your defense to this seems to be: "Well, it could be that way"

But you don't offer any reason why is should be that way. And now that we're getting into the details of how we know you're not providing any shoulds, you're retreating into the shadows of 'all knowledge is circular' and 'Einstein made shit up too'.

I’m not saying I’m right. I admit I have no idea, for sure, what sorts of rules (or Rule) govern this amazing cosmos. All I’m saying is—which many people have said before—is that it seems, according to empirical observation, that our universe seems to behave like what I’ve described here:

http://scottsteffens.blogspot.com/2012/04/bhum-bee-hum.html

So far nobody has raised a single meaningful reason why this is not the case.

Sure I have:

Macroscopic things cannot contract and expand at the same time.

A macroscopic object cannot expand towards a singularity, it has to contract at some point.

The behavior of macroscopic objects cannot be described by quantum mechanics.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Echetos, posted 07-25-2012 3:12 AM Echetos has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15947
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 48 of 69 (668945)
07-25-2012 10:58 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Echetos
07-25-2012 3:12 AM


Re: Bumpdate
Even if an observer was “embedded in the paper”—a scenario completely of your own invention ...

What?

If the paper is an analogy for spacetime, then we are all embedded in the paper.

—in this analogy there’s no conceivable way the universe would appear to be contracting. An observer buried or “embedded” anywhere in “the paper” of this analogy—the skin of the apple—would observe an expanding universe according to Hubble's Law.

If only saying things made them so, your argument would be a lot more convincing. Also it would be an argument.

If I’m wrong please paste a picture with a point on the apple where an observer sees a contracting universe…

If time progresses from the bottom to the top of the apple, then anywhere above the equator of the apple. You know, in the bit where the universe would be contracting.

Since the singularity—in this clearly inadequate 3-dimensional representation—is omnipresent (the core of the apple)

* sighs deeply *

If the skin of the apple represents the universe, then the Big Bang singularity is at the bottom of the apple, and the Big Crunch singularity is at the top of the apple. There is no singularity at the center of the apple, and the notion of a singularity being there is completely meaningless, since there is no "there" there.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Echetos, posted 07-25-2012 3:12 AM Echetos has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Echetos, posted 07-26-2012 3:56 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Echetos
Junior Member (Idle past 1686 days)
Posts: 13
Joined: 04-01-2012


Message 49 of 69 (669050)
07-26-2012 3:56 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Dr Adequate
07-25-2012 10:58 PM


Re: Bumpdate
@ Dr Adequate

If time progresses from the bottom to the top of the apple

Time does not progress from the bottom to the top of the apple. According to the BHUM time is essentially unreal as with the majority of other multiverse theories.

If the skin of the apple represents the universe, then the Big Bang singularity is at the bottom of the apple, and the Big Crunch singularity is at the top of the apple. There is no singularity at the center of the apple, and the notion of a singularity being there is completely meaningless, since there is no "there" there.

The point of the apple analogy was to show that the Big Bang and Big Crunch singularity are the same thing. The universe both originates from and collapses into the same point—the singularity at the center of the apple.

Something like this:

But again, the universe is not a 3-dimensional object so debating the merits of the apple analogy is a waste of time.

@ Catholic Scientist

Sure I have:

Macroscopic things cannot contract and expand at the same time.

A macroscopic object cannot expand towards a singularity, it has to contract at some point.

The behavior of macroscopic objects cannot be described by quantum mechanics.

Your first two points assume that General Relativity (GR) provides a complete description of all physical phenomena. It also contains the implicit premise that the universe as a whole should be treated as an ordinary macroscopic object. We know for certain that GR is an incomplete theory and the jury is still out on the nature of the universe.

Your third point is just factually untrue. http://www1.amherst.edu/~jrfriedman/MacroQuantum.pdf


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-25-2012 10:58 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-26-2012 4:52 PM Echetos has not yet responded
 Message 51 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-26-2012 8:41 PM Echetos has not yet responded

    
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11578
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 50 of 69 (669052)
07-26-2012 4:52 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Echetos
07-26-2012 3:56 PM


Re: Bumpdate
Well now you're just grasping at straws...

Sure I have:

Macroscopic things cannot contract and expand at the same time.

A macroscopic object cannot expand towards a singularity, it has to contract at some point.

The behavior of macroscopic objects cannot be described by quantum mechanics.

Your first two points assume that General Relativity (GR) provides a complete description of all physical phenomena.

How so? I don't see it having anything to do with GR.

It also contains the implicit premise that the universe as a whole should be treated as an ordinary macroscopic object.

Not really, its more about what a singularity is than the specifics of the object.

Your third point is just factually untrue. http://www1.amherst.edu/~jrfriedman/MacroQuantum.pdf

C'mon, I'm talking about planets n'stuff and you bring up a superconducting quantum interference device being put into a superposition of two magnetic-flux states. And that paper even says:

quote:
there has been no experimental demonstration of a quantum superposition of truly macroscopically distinct states.

According to the BHUM time is essentially unreal...

Yikes, I'm afraid that's the nail in the coffin.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Echetos, posted 07-26-2012 3:56 PM Echetos has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15947
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 51 of 69 (669090)
07-26-2012 8:41 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Echetos
07-26-2012 3:56 PM


Re: Bumpdate
Time does not progress from the bottom to the top of the apple.

What do you think it's an analogue for?

According to the BHUM time is essentially unreal ...

But don't throw away your clocks just yet.

The point of the apple analogy was to show that the Big Bang and Big Crunch singularity are the same thing. The universe both originates from and collapses into the same point—the singularity at the center of the apple.

But that's meaningless. The center of the apple is not an analogue of anything.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Echetos, posted 07-26-2012 3:56 PM Echetos has not yet responded

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 18 days)
Posts: 879
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 52 of 69 (669562)
07-31-2012 12:08 AM


spacetime?
wiki writes:

The theory of general relativity predicts that a sufficiently compact mass will deform spacetime to form a black hole.

Deforming something only makes sense if there is an object to be deformed. Spacetime is not an object; it is a mathematical construct.


Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by cavediver, posted 07-31-2012 2:48 AM foreveryoung has responded

    
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1118 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 53 of 69 (669565)
07-31-2012 2:48 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by foreveryoung
07-31-2012 12:08 AM


Re: spacetime?
Deforming something only makes sense if there is an object to be deformed. Spacetime is not an object; it is a mathematical construct.

Is the electromagnetic field an object or a mathematical construct? Can it be deformed? The metric field of spacetime is an almost identical type of object to the electromagnetic field. Why should it be less "real"?

All the evidence of the past 100 years points to space-time being deformed, which is why you won't find any professional cosmologist in the world denying it. How do you account for that?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by foreveryoung, posted 07-31-2012 12:08 AM foreveryoung has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by foreveryoung, posted 07-31-2012 9:52 AM cavediver has responded

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 18 days)
Posts: 879
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 54 of 69 (669586)
07-31-2012 9:52 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by cavediver
07-31-2012 2:48 AM


Re: spacetime?
We know there is an electromagnetic field; we don't know there is a spacetime. The electromagnetic field is a mathematical representation of the forces present on a charged particle at a point in space. The reality that creates those forces are electromagnetic waves which are very real. Spacetime is a mathematical construct; the reality behind it is matter waves. It is the waves that are being bent, not some imaginary spacetime.

Edited by Voltaire30, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by cavediver, posted 07-31-2012 2:48 AM cavediver has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by NoNukes, posted 07-31-2012 11:43 AM foreveryoung has responded
 Message 56 by cavediver, posted 07-31-2012 12:06 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded
 Message 59 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 08-02-2012 9:50 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9751
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 55 of 69 (669598)
07-31-2012 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by foreveryoung
07-31-2012 9:52 AM


Outing flannel???
The reality behind it is matter waves.

Voltaire30, what the heck are matter waves if not something you made up? Are you referring to the deBroglie wavelengths associate with matter? How do you deal with the fact that the wave like nature of large particles is less than that of small particles while the gravity effects are larger for large masses?

Further, static magnetic fields associated with a bar magnet are not propagated by electromagnetic waves. A changing magnetic field can generate a changing electric field which generates a changing magnetic field... ad nauseum.

Seriously, what's the point of claiming spacetime mere math and then making up stuff out of whole cloth to replace GR with nonsense.

Edited by NoNukes, : Change title

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison


This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by foreveryoung, posted 07-31-2012 9:52 AM foreveryoung has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by foreveryoung, posted 07-31-2012 10:01 PM NoNukes has responded

    
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1118 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


(2)
Message 56 of 69 (669604)
07-31-2012 12:06 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by foreveryoung
07-31-2012 9:52 AM


Re: spacetime?
Spacetime is a mathematical construct; the reality behind it is matter waves.

"matter waves"?

And what do you think is responsible for the gravitational lensing we see throughout the Universe?

ABE

Hmmm, "matter waves" - thought the term was familiar. There was a poster here at EvC who was permanently suspended just a few days before you joined who talked about "matter waves". Shame you didn't get chance to meet

Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by foreveryoung, posted 07-31-2012 9:52 AM foreveryoung has not yet responded

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 18 days)
Posts: 879
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 57 of 69 (669637)
07-31-2012 10:01 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by NoNukes
07-31-2012 11:43 AM


Re: Outing flannel???
I didn't make anything out of whole cloth. I don't see what you are trying to say honesty.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by NoNukes, posted 07-31-2012 11:43 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by NoNukes, posted 07-31-2012 10:52 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9751
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 58 of 69 (669644)
07-31-2012 10:52 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by foreveryoung
07-31-2012 10:01 PM


Re: Outing flannel???
You appear to have invented the idea that sun warps "matter waves" to cause the earth and other planets to travel in elliptical orbits around the sun. Perhaps I am wrong and you got the idea from some other source.

I then gave the example of a static field (make it either electric or magnetic) to see if you could come up with an explanation of how such a field could be produced by some "waving". I don't believe you can.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison


This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by foreveryoung, posted 07-31-2012 10:01 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded

    
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 1442 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 59 of 69 (669787)
08-02-2012 9:50 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by foreveryoung
07-31-2012 9:52 AM


Re: spacetime?
Waves are not objects either. Waves are the motion of the ocean. It's water molecules that are moving. Waves absolutely need a physical medium to occur. Neither space nor time nor the combination of both can be such a medium. Both space and time are abstractions. Combining two abstractions doesn't make a fabric. It makes only a metaphor or a co-ordinates map at best.

Edited by Alfred Maddenstein, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by foreveryoung, posted 07-31-2012 9:52 AM foreveryoung has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-02-2012 10:14 PM Alfred Maddenstein has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11578
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 60 of 69 (669789)
08-02-2012 10:14 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Alfred Maddenstein
08-02-2012 9:50 PM


Re: spacetime?
Are you just making stuff up?

Waves are not objects either. Waves are the motion of the ocean. It's water molecules that are moving. Waves absolutely need a physical medium to occur. Neither space nor time nor the combination of both can be such a medium.

So then, what's the medium of EMR waves?

Both space and time are abstractions. Combining two abstractions doesn't make a fabric. It makes only a metaphor or a co-ordinates map at best.

And how do you know that? That is, if you're not just making stuff up...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 08-02-2012 9:50 PM Alfred Maddenstein has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 08-02-2012 11:19 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
Prev123
4
5Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017