Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 109 (8738 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-26-2017 5:29 PM
401 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jayhawker Soule
Post Volume:
Total: 805,391 Year: 9,997/21,208 Month: 3,084/2,674 Week: 500/961 Day: 113/117 Hour: 2/2

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1617
18
192021Next
Author Topic:   Creation cosmology and the Big Bang
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10192
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 256 of 305 (666430)
06-27-2012 8:48 AM
Reply to: Message 252 by Alfred Maddenstein
06-26-2012 8:07 PM


Re: Relativity Doesn't Violate Relativity (that would be silly)
AM writes:

My firm conviction is that the Universe as a whole has no possible age.

Conviction based on what exactly?

AM writes:

Time measurements are relative to every relative location. Time measurement on the large scales is a relative distance measurement. Far, far away is equivalent to long, long ago. Time is therefore local while the Universe has no possible location being everywhere at once so it is timeless.

Can this hypothesis of yours be expressed mathematically? What are the testable logical consequences of this (i.e. what verifiable predictions does it result in)?

AM writes:

Every finite object has a measurable age while the Universe being not a finite bounded object in relative motion has none.

Why cannot the age of the universe be considered from the frame of reference that corresponds to it's rest frame? That is what we mean when we talk about the "age" of an object.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 06-26-2012 8:07 PM Alfred Maddenstein has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 257 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 06-27-2012 11:43 AM Straggler has responded

  
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 1349 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 257 of 305 (666440)
06-27-2012 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 256 by Straggler
06-27-2012 8:48 AM


Re: Relativity Doesn't Violate Relativity (that would be silly)
The conviction is based on very careful examination of the alternatives to that proposition. Those are found to be based on obvious fallacies and impossible to support without invoking magic and using sloppy definitions of the terms.
If the Universe
Origin
Space
Time
Begin
Expand
Object
Concept
etc.
are defined rigorously the utter absurdity of the alternative proposition becomes abundantly clear. There is no way an appearance of something from nothing can be avoided if the alternative big bunk cosmogony is to remain consistent within its own framework.
Of course, any theory could be supported by mathematics. You should not forget though that numbers do not stand on their own. They fall into meaninglessness unless well propped by meaningful words. Otherwise some cultures would have developed where people successfully communicated using numbers only. You need first to explain to yourself without contradiction what physical property exactly this or that quantity or ratio represents. Only then maths can be great help and not before. I am afraid English is the main language of science, not maths.
What the rest frame of the Universe is supposed to mean exactly? There is nothing in nature to what anything can be possibly fixed, nailed or bolted permanently to constitute such, I am afraid. All rest is relative and apparent and any apparent rest is the total sum of all motions. Rest or rest frame is uniform apparent motion which is doubly confusing. Even as such rest and motion are matter of perspective. What seems at rest from afar starts moving on closer examination. Magnifying things affects their apparent motion. Getting away from moving things or getting closer to them changes their apparent velocity as a function of their intrinsic size or puts them to apparent rest. Those are all examples of relativity and they could be multiplied. The result is I am apparently at rest in my chair now. Is that the rest frame of the Universe? Speed of light, speed of horizon and the constant now are probably the best candidates to contend for the honour.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by Straggler, posted 06-27-2012 8:48 AM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 259 by Straggler, posted 06-27-2012 12:19 PM Alfred Maddenstein has responded

  
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 1349 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 258 of 305 (666441)
06-27-2012 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 255 by Admin
06-27-2012 7:22 AM


Re: Admin Request
No, I mean what I mean. Relativity is as long a tradition as the creationist cosmogony under my scrutiny. When Heraclitus stated that that the sun was the size of a puddle that was very good science. The statement implied that apparent size of an object is related to its distance from the observer. The distinction between apparent and intrinsic as related to size, distance and motion is the essence of relativistic dialectics. Way up is the same as way down is another accurate relativistic statement.
The same goes for the creationist mythological tradition of scholastics. Mr. Lemaitre and Mr.Friedmann are good modern representatives of it. Mr.Hawking puts it in a nutshell when he states that "since there is such a law as gravity the Universe can and will create itself out of nothing." The maths he uses to support this is excellent and consistent apart from the fundamental errors it is based upon.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by Admin, posted 06-27-2012 7:22 AM Admin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 265 by Admin, posted 06-27-2012 4:02 PM Alfred Maddenstein has responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10192
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 259 of 305 (666442)
06-27-2012 12:19 PM
Reply to: Message 257 by Alfred Maddenstein
06-27-2012 11:43 AM


Re: Relativity Doesn't Violate Relativity (that would be silly)
AM writes:

What the rest frame of the Universe is supposed to mean exactly?

The "rest frame" in question would be any point at rest with respect to the Friedmann Lemaitre Robertson Walker metric coordinates.

What frame of reference are you applying? The whole point of relativity is that there is no preferred frame of reference. But I don't see how you can get very far without any frame of reference at all.

AM writes:

The conviction is based on very careful examination of the alternatives to that proposition. Those are found to be based on obvious fallacies and impossible to support without invoking magic and using sloppy definitions of the terms.

So your "hypothesis" simply amounts to a series of objections to Big Bang cosmology. You are not actually putting forward any alternative that can remotely match the predictive power of the existing theory and you have no supporting evidence for your claims aside from your own personal interpretations of existing data.

AM writes:

I am afraid English is the main language of science, not maths.

Except that most of the discoveries of modern physics have come about as a result of mathematical extrapolations which have then been verified as being in accordance with observable physical reality. Iím afraid that you can object to Big Bang cosmology, GR and the role of mathematics in scientific discoveries on personal and philosophical grounds until you are blue in the face, but as long as predictions keep being verified and discoveries being made that are in accordance with those predictions these will remain the dominant theories and practises. Because that is how science works.

If you want to overthrow a scientific theory it is no good waffling, hand waving and objecting on principle. You need to come up with a superior theory which explains all the existing physical evidence AND which can be verified/tested by predicting new discoverable phenomena that the old theory is unable to predict.

You obviously are not able to do this.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 06-27-2012 11:43 AM Alfred Maddenstein has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 261 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 06-27-2012 1:26 PM Straggler has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 6079
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 260 of 305 (666447)
06-27-2012 12:54 PM
Reply to: Message 250 by Alfred Maddenstein
06-26-2012 7:52 PM


Re: Big Bang violates physics
No, I am not excluding anything. I would not be certain that gravity exists as a separate phenomenon. If there is what could be described as a force of nature, it could only be one and only force of motion. The rest being its different manifestations on different scales.

So how does motion transfer from one body to the next? For example, why doesn't a baseball go right through the baseball bat? Why does it rebound and go flying in the other direction?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 06-26-2012 7:52 PM Alfred Maddenstein has not yet responded

  
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 1349 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 261 of 305 (666452)
06-27-2012 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 259 by Straggler
06-27-2012 12:19 PM


Re: Relativity Doesn't Violate Relativity (that would be silly)
Sorry, but why I or anybody else should choose Friedmann's co-ordinates for my arbitrary frame of reference? There is no reason for doing so. The metric is based on unsupported fantastic assumptions. It assumes that space grows from 0D point that was infinitely hot and dense into an ever widening slice as the universal time progresses. No such phenomenon has ever been observed. It further assumes that there is a preferred universal direction of motion claiming that to be a uniform radial recession from any point. Neither that is anything observed remaining unverifiable assumption. Things on larger scales are rather observed to rotate, not run away from each other.
What are those confirmed predictions of the big bunk cosmogony you are boasting about? I am not aware of any. Those predictions that I am aware of all dismally failed to match the observation and data. First the hypothesis predicted that the age of the whole of existence was less than the age of the earth. Later those words were all eaten and replaced by newer claims. Now observations show that the largest structures in the Universe are way older than the current estimate of the age of the whole. The data are being successfully ignored. What is assumed to be the infant universe is observed to be populated with adult galaxies high in metals contradicting the predictions of the hypothesis once again. The absurd prediction of the universal slowing down was replaced with no less ridiculous claim of its sudden speeding up. Those are just a few examples of dismal predictive failures of the big bunk cosmogony and they could be extended into a whole list of shame.
Sorry, you've got nothing much to write home about from the predictive front.
All the waffling and handwaving is entirely yours here, not mine.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by Straggler, posted 06-27-2012 12:19 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 263 by Taq, posted 06-27-2012 2:50 PM Alfred Maddenstein has responded
 Message 270 by Straggler, posted 06-27-2012 6:40 PM Alfred Maddenstein has responded
 Message 274 by Son Goku, posted 06-28-2012 3:42 AM Alfred Maddenstein has not yet responded

  
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 1349 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 262 of 305 (666464)
06-27-2012 2:25 PM
Reply to: Message 253 by vimesey
06-27-2012 2:57 AM


Re: Big Bang violates physics
I don't see what is your objection is here. You probably misunderstood my meaning. Of course, moving the magnets will result in a change in the balance of power bringing change to the direction of motion of the object affected. Though if there are two magnets may not mean there are two different forces involved. It's the same force, differently split, localised, focused and distributed. What I mean is that there could only one energy with a correspondingly single force at work. That is because the bottomline of any discharge of energy, any effort, any work done is some kind of motion or conversely some kind of a resistance to being displaced. The only difference between all those motions and so-called multiple forces is the vector, ie, direction of displacement and seeming range of influence. But all that is relative. An opposite force is the same force applied in the opposite direction.

There must be a concrete mechanism of translation. I don't make vain hypotheses but it is obvious that all matter is interconnected through radiation. The space between "gravitating" bodies is not empty. This is the invisible touch of all matter on all other matter. One idea I liked is imagining this radiation as electromagnetic ropes with torque. This is better than space warped by mass or aether though still it has its conceptual difficulties. The task is to explain how the ropes pass through each other and do not get entangled. Still, that is a start as the observation tells that this is strangely enough the case with light. Light beams don't clash and bounce off each other though are material enough as anyone can feel the pressure of the beating sun.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by vimesey, posted 06-27-2012 2:57 AM vimesey has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 269 by vimesey, posted 06-27-2012 6:04 PM Alfred Maddenstein has not yet responded
 Message 273 by Son Goku, posted 06-28-2012 3:36 AM Alfred Maddenstein has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 6079
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 263 of 305 (666469)
06-27-2012 2:50 PM
Reply to: Message 261 by Alfred Maddenstein
06-27-2012 1:26 PM


Re: Relativity Doesn't Violate Relativity (that would be silly)
It assumes that space grows from 0D point that was infinitely hot and dense into an ever widening slice as the universal time progresses.

It does? I was under the impression that this coordinate system works just fine for a static and infinite universe.

No such phenomenon has ever been observed.

But we do have evidence that it occurred in the past. We observe the evidence of this event.

Things on larger scales are rather observed to rotate, not run away from each other.

So you are completely unaware that distant galaxies are red shifted due to them speeding away from us?

What are those confirmed predictions of the big bunk cosmogony you are boasting about?

Red shifted galaxies, cosmic microwave background, evolution of galaxies, abundance of light elements, and the Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect to name a few. Read more here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html


This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 06-27-2012 1:26 PM Alfred Maddenstein has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 06-27-2012 3:55 PM Taq has responded

  
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 1349 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 264 of 305 (666477)
06-27-2012 3:55 PM
Reply to: Message 263 by Taq
06-27-2012 2:50 PM


Re: Relativity Doesn't Violate Relativity (that would be silly)
Yes, at a stretch it could be used for infinite universe models. FLWR metric was indeed used by Hoyle in his steady state hypothesis but that was a grave mistake and the reason for the undoing of Hoyle's ideas.
The thing is the metric is a travesty of Minkowski's ideas. It re-introduces the linear time. That is, in the metric the spatial co-ordinates are time dependent which would be very well if the temporal co-ordinates were correspondingly space dependent which should follow from Minkowski ideas on the symmetry of the two related through light measures of motion.
Taq, check Irving Ezra Segal metric as that does not commit this grievous error.
Of course I am well aware of the redshift and its conventional interpretation.
The problem is that any one observing the Doppler effect in real life may be aware that moving objects do not recede in their uniform multitudes. Some recede and others approach. That alone should have raised red flags for the theorists. For every observer registering a redshifted signal from a receding object there could always be someone to whom the same object is approaching and who is therefore registering a blueshifted one. That's how it goes in real life. Actually Hubble himself was very cautious never professing any downright certainty as to the causes of the observed effect.
The Universe is all there is. It is already anywhere wherever it could be possibly expanding into including any extra dimensions. Expanding into itself is an oxymoron. Expanding into nothing should be tried by the morons who persist with the nonsense. Therefore another, a rational this time around explanation of the redshift phenomenon had to be looked for. Jumping to cretinous conclusions is not science. It's faith.
Thank you for your suggestion to visit TalkOrigins. I am already familiar with the site.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by Taq, posted 06-27-2012 2:50 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 266 by Taq, posted 06-27-2012 4:44 PM Alfred Maddenstein has responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12433
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 265 of 305 (666478)
06-27-2012 4:02 PM
Reply to: Message 258 by Alfred Maddenstein
06-27-2012 12:11 PM


Re: Admin Request
Alfred Maddenstein writes:

No, I mean what I mean.

And I mean what I said. This isn't a discussion. Please use the same meanings of words as everyone else. In this thread relativity refers to Einsteinian relativity, not relatedness.

If you would like to have a discussion about expanding the definition of relativity to include concepts of relatedness then please propose a new thread over at Proposed New Topics.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 06-27-2012 12:11 PM Alfred Maddenstein has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 277 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 06-28-2012 7:26 AM Admin has responded

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 6079
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 266 of 305 (666479)
06-27-2012 4:44 PM
Reply to: Message 264 by Alfred Maddenstein
06-27-2012 3:55 PM


Re: Relativity Doesn't Violate Relativity (that would be silly)
Yes, at a stretch it could be used for infinite universe models. FLWR metric was indeed used by Hoyle in his steady state hypothesis but that was a grave mistake and the reason for the undoing of Hoyle's ideas.

The metric was not Hoyle's undoing, it was the evidence.

Of course I am well aware of the redshift and its conventional interpretation.
The problem is that any one observing the Doppler effect in real life may be aware that moving objects do not recede in their uniform multitudes. Some recede and others approach. That alone should have raised red flags for the theorists. For every observer registering a redshifted signal from a receding object there could always be someone to whom the same object is approaching and who is therefore registering a blueshifted one. That's how it goes in real life.

And there are indeed galaxies that are blue shifted, such as Andromeda which is hurtling towards us. Of course, I was referring to the galaxies which are not bound by gravity to our own galaxy. Those are red shifted, and I see nothing in your post that argues against this as an indication that they are receding from us.

Expanding into itself is an oxymoron. Expanding into nothing should be tried by the morons who persist with the nonsense. Therefore another, a rational this time around explanation of the redshift phenomenon had to be looked for. Jumping to cretinous conclusions is not science. It's faith.

The conclusions follow from the evidence. Calling something ridiculous does not make it so. You are going to have to try harder than just calling people morons. Actually dealing with the evidence would be a good first step.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 06-27-2012 3:55 PM Alfred Maddenstein has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 267 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 06-27-2012 5:29 PM Taq has responded

  
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 1349 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 267 of 305 (666481)
06-27-2012 5:29 PM
Reply to: Message 266 by Taq
06-27-2012 4:44 PM


Re: Relativity Doesn't Violate Relativity (that would be silly)
Well, Taq, if the redshift is the evidence that the Universe has been expanding from 0D point of singularity to reach the huge proportions currently measured, then could you be so kind as to inform the cat where could it have possibly been expanding into, according to your lights?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by Taq, posted 06-27-2012 4:44 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 268 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-27-2012 5:41 PM Alfred Maddenstein has responded
 Message 291 by Taq, posted 06-28-2012 10:52 AM Alfred Maddenstein has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11247
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 268 of 305 (666482)
06-27-2012 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 267 by Alfred Maddenstein
06-27-2012 5:29 PM


Re: Relativity Doesn't Violate Relativity (that would be silly)
The Redshift doesn't tell you what the Universe is expanding into. And that's a nonsense question anyways because the Universe is everything so there can't be anything "else" for it to expand into.

What the Redshift shows is that the Universe is expanding. It takes inference to get to the singularty. But ya know what, it works with the math of the physics behind it so it does seem to be a correct inference.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 06-27-2012 5:29 PM Alfred Maddenstein has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 272 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 06-27-2012 8:11 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
vimesey
Member
Posts: 814
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 269 of 305 (666484)
06-27-2012 6:04 PM
Reply to: Message 262 by Alfred Maddenstein
06-27-2012 2:25 PM


Re: Big Bang violates physics
You probably misunderstood my meaning.

There's more than a fair chance of this.

a change in the balance of power

Ok, I'll admit to struggling a little here - to me, "power" means the magnitude of a force. But according to your earlier post "If there is what could be described as a force of nature, it could only be one and only force of motion." So when it comes to a magnet, what is the change in the "balance of power" (ie a change in the magnitude of the only force which you acknowledge, ie motion), which is being effected ? (please bear in mind that I acknowledge that there is a change in the effect of the force on the tin can - it moves - but when you talk of a change in the balance of power, you are talking in terms of a change in the force acting on it, and accroding to your ealier post ( "If there is what could be described as a force of nature, it could only be one and only force of motion."), that means a change in the motion acting on the can).

all matter is interconnected through radiation
I am again a little confused here - by "radiation", do you mean the dissemintation of energy ? If that's the case, then what is your mechanism for the dissemination of that energy ? Is it a different mechanism than motion ? (Bearing in mind that in your notion, "If there is what could be described as a force of nature, it could only be one and only force of motion.") If the dissemintation of energy is purely through motion, then fair enough, but please confirm this, because I suspect that there may be some evidence to the contrary.

This is the invisible touch of all matter on all other matter.

We may well be ad idem on this one - as I understand it, the standard model includes precisely such an invisible force - gravitation, as one of the four fundamental interactions.

electromagnetic ropes with torque

This is where I am having real difficulty. If, as you stated, "If there is what could be described as a force of nature, it could only be one and only force of motion.". then where does electromagnetism fit into this ? Is it not a force ?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 06-27-2012 2:25 PM Alfred Maddenstein has not yet responded

    
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10192
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 270 of 305 (666485)
06-27-2012 6:40 PM
Reply to: Message 261 by Alfred Maddenstein
06-27-2012 1:26 PM


Re: Relativity Doesn't Violate Relativity (that would be silly)
AM writes:

Sorry, but why I or anybody else should choose Friedmann's co-ordinates for my arbitrary frame of reference?

For the same reason that when talking about your age we choose your rest frame rather than that of your hypothetical twin who shot off into space at 1/2 C speed. Either frame of reference would provide a valid measurement of time. But only one would correspond to what is generally known as your "age". Likewise the age of the universe.

AM writes:

What are those confirmed predictions of the big bunk cosmogony you are boasting about?

Taq has provided a reasonable enough outline. Frankly anyone with the ability to type the phrase "big bang predictions" into Google can find the answer to this question. The really relevant question here is what do we need to look for in order to find a single verifiable prediction for the alternative hypothesis you propose?

I don't think you have anything to offer on this front at all....

AM writes:

All the waffling and handwaving is entirely yours here, not mine.

Tell us a single discovery that your alternative hypothesis (whatever that may be) has led to.

If you can't provide a single example of such a discovery then don't be surprised when nobody takes whatever theory it is you personally and subjectively want to impose particularly seriously.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 06-27-2012 1:26 PM Alfred Maddenstein has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 271 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 06-27-2012 7:29 PM Straggler has responded

  
RewPrev1
...
1617
18
192021Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017