|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: what is the big bang and how do i understand it? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3633 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
I'll let the big guns demolish your position Oh, right, thanks a bunch RAZD. As if I've all the time in the world to address your grumbly ramblings and then refute this rubbish for the zillionth time... Hmmm, Percy's rich isn't he... I think he should start paying by the word. Brad would be in for one hell of a windfall.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3633 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
Except that (as you say) there has to be 6 times as much of {it} as everything else we have ever been able to observe, measure, postulate or tweak out of the depths. That's a lot of quarks in the system! Probably not quarks Axions and neutrinos aren't quarks... And we have observed it, gravitationally. If it's not very active elctromagnetically, then that's all we have.
And that is still a quarter of the {total stuff} (by whatever metric they used). No, stop saying this! It's not sensible.
Expected when you make lamda (cosmological, non-zero vacuum energy, whatever) non-zero except that it is zero for all normal space -- that part? No, that's not correct. Lambda is constant throughout space and time. It is the same everywhere. The comsological constant is not a field. It is a constant. Surprisingly That is why it is such a simple concept. And for the thousandth time (hyperbole) it is part of the theory of GR. It is built in to the equations. Before we knew about the acceleration we were banging our heads together trying to come up with a reason for it being zero. It's just that popular science tends not to pick up on problems of things that aren't there! As they tend not to know about them.... because they aren't there But it is not a problem with GR. It just points out that there's a free parameter, and if you want an explanation, try quantum gravity. Don't forget that GR doesn't tell us what matter is. It is an unknown in GR. All it cares about is the energy. It doesn't know about quarks, leptons, bosons, planets, stars, humans. This is the realm of quantum gravity/UFT/TOE(vrything). Let me turn this all around... We have GR which works astoundingly well within our Galaxy. It works astoundingly well within other galaxies. You give it a mass distribution, it tells you the shape of space and how that mass distribution should evolve, and it works. Not only that, but it gives all of the predictions and associated observations that I have mentioned. Especially the SR limit. It predicts the bulk behaviour of the universe, including the freedom to have the observed acceleration. It is incredibly simple and straightforward as a theory, with a mathematical formulation almost too neat to be conceivable for a theory of its scope. The only strnge bit is the rotation curves of galaxies. They seem to behave strangely. Now, Occam's Razor time: i) Do we kick out GR and start again, requiring a new theory that produces identical predictions to GR except when it comes to Galaxy rotation curves, where the theory changes markedly? Oh, and reduces to SR. This has been tried. Again and again. It does not seem possible. There are alternatives to GR (e.g. Brans-Dicke) but they do not solve your problems. ii) Do we accept GR and also accept that there is some strange non-luminous but gravitationally normal matter distrubution causing the galactic anomaly? iii) Do we accept a modified GR and also accept that there is some strange non-luminous and gravitationally-bizarre matter distrubution causing the galactic anomaly? Modifying GR doesn't seem to work. You cannot modify one length scale to such an extent to predict the correct rotation curves and then expect that modification to vanish once you leave that length scale. I know you stared with your own suggestions and ideas, but please remember how many constraints you are working under... as I mentioned before, if you cannot reproduce SR, you've lost before you've begun. Here's a question... what would you like your new theory of gravity to predict?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1395 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
and then refute this rubbish for the zillionth time... Well that's why I referenced the previous thread that addressed this issue with a specific example that pretty well refutes the concept. If he's honest he will investigate that part and come back with specific refutations or questions. Or this is just peachharris back for more? by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22359 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
Ingvar writes: "The accelerating universe" is a misinterpretation of measurings of the galaxies' radiation where Edwin Hubble found that the spectral lines are redshifted. The right explanation is that the radiation's waves are fractionally dissipating by elongation, which implies accelerated displacement of the radiation's wave-spectrum. What does "fractionally dissipating by elongation" mean? What does "accelerated displacement of the radiation's wave-spectrum" mean?
This phenomenon was not understood but interpreted as a Doppler-velocity caused by the galaxies recession -- so Hubble multiplied the redshift-rate with the light-speed (c) and fond (1929) that all galaxies seem to move away at 500 km/s/Mpc. Hubble's original estimate was off by around a power of 10 because of errors in his distance estimates. The current accepted estimate is around 71 km/s/Mpc.
This phenomenon was not understood but interpreted as a Doppler-velocity caused by the galaxies recession... This is a quibble, but while analogies are often drawn to the Doppler effect, the actual cause of the redshift is interpreted to be the expansion of the universe, not the recession veolocity of the galaxies. They only appear to be receding from us because the universe between us is expanding.
It is not the universe that is expanding or accelerating, but it is the radiation's wave-spectrum that is accelerating by elongation. How does a wave-spectrum accelerate?
Planck analyzed measurings of heat-radiation’s wavelengths-units, but transformed it to frequency-units to compare the temperature as energy per time-unit (effect). But it isn't the heat-radiation's energy (temperature) that is quantified, it is the radiation’s wave-units that are constantly displaced by the fractional rate of 6.6 x 10^-34. The units of Planck's constant are m2kg/s. How do you go about applying this to "wave-units" (whatever they are)?
So, Hubble found but didn't understand that the radiation is displaced by the same rate that Planck found... How are you drawing a correspondence between the Hubble constant, around 71 km/s/Mpc, and Planck's constant, which is 6.6x10-34 m2kg/s?
Dark matter is an interpretation of the misunderstood distribution of the velocity of the stars in the rotating spiral galaxies. Measurements show that all stars have the same velocity. Actually, measurements show that the further stars lie from the galactic center, the faster their velocity. This is because stars have a constant angular velocity (in other words, most stars of a galaxy have roughly the same orbital period about the galactic center), and so the ones furthest from the center have to cover more distance in the same period, and hence have higher velocities. This is an unexpected result, since the gravity of the galaxies is insufficient to keep the more distant stars from flying off. It is known that a halo of matter around galaxies would exert a gravitational influence that would keep the stars from flying off, but this matter is not visible. There are two candidates for this "dark" matter: MACHOS and WIMPS. MACHOS are Massive Compact Halo Objects, and WIMPS and Weakly Interactive Massive Particles. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1395 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Sorry to take so long on this. This will be rather haphazard ...
And we have observed it, gravitationally. So all we have is the observation of the gravitational effect, which is the basis for the concept of dark matter, and then use the gravitational effect for evidence that dark matter is there?
We have GR which works astoundingly well within our Galaxy.... The only strnge bit is the rotation curves of galaxies. They seem to behave strangely. But the pioneer anamoly?
It predicts the bulk behaviour of the universe, including the freedom to have the observed acceleration. Does this explain the pioneer anamoly?
Now, Occam's Razor time: iv) we know that we have some unexplained behavior, so all possibilities are on the table (and when we have eliminated the possible ...)
Here's a question... what would you like your new theory of gravity to predict? A new gravity {particle\wave} that is then found. That is the point eh? Enjoy. by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3633 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
Just written a HUGE reply and just lost all of it. What is it with this sodding editor? Lesson: compose long replies in something more stable than an online crappy editing facility
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1395 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
and even doing that is no guarantee ... I've had MSWord lock up on me after writing several pages only to lose the whole lot. Now I try to stick to an ascii text format to get around that happening
btw did you see the comment on the black hole on{Harvard to sponsor abiogenesis project} http://EvC Forum: Harvard to sponsor abiogenesis project -->EvC Forum: Harvard to sponsor abiogenesis project (where it is waaay off topic?)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3973 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 6.9 |
I used to experience that lost text nightmare regularly. Now I pause every paragraph or two (once I run long) to highlight and copy.
One feels quite smug with text on the clipboard when the editor freezes. Of course, the PC could freeze. I shoot those.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1395 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
heh
just had that happen. then we had a little discussion about who is in control of turning the machine off. I won, but it wasn't pretty. there are some days when {format drive C} looks like a good option. by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3633 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
Well, I lost that huge reply, but bits of it have found their way into that other thread. I should address your Pioneer Anomaly (PA) points though...
But the pioneer anamoly? The PA is not sufficiently verified to warrant major attention yet. For every one of the very few papers pushing it as real, there is another saying that it is not real. Given the accuracy of GR we have seen in other observations (way below the level of this effect), it seems very unlikely to be real. But it would be great if it was real. There is no reluctance to accept new ideas once observations have been confirmed... take accelerative expansion. And the PA is on a totally different scale to the rotation curves. It is not remotely applicable. I know you mentioned that figure from the MOND site, but his acceleration is being used in a very different context. The PA and the MOND parameter are not comparable concepts, despite both being accelerations.
iv) we know that we have some unexplained behavior, so all possibilities are on the table Only those consistent with everything else that is known. That is a HUGE constraint.
A new gravity {particle\wave} that is then found. See my reply to you in the other thread. TTFN
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1395 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
The PA is not sufficiently verified to warrant major attention yet. For every one of the very few papers pushing it as real, there is another saying that it is not real. Given the accuracy of GR we have seen in other observations (way below the level of this effect), it seems very unlikely to be real. Seems to me you are making a logical fallacy here (appeal to authority) to dismiss the new kid on the block
But it would be great if it was real. There is no reluctance to accept new ideas once observations have been confirmed... And then take it back.
And the PA is on a totally different scale to the rotation curves. ... the MOND site, but his acceleration is being used in a very different context. The PA and the MOND parameter are not comparable concepts, ... The point being missed here is that the answer may lie somewhere in between a MOND acceleration and the standard model, that may involve a "weak" form of gravity to balance the "strong" (relatively speaking ... ) one we know, and that is only observable at the larger scale, a {force\field\tensor\distortion\etc} that varies from PA at the edge of the solar system to a MOND value at galactic distances and which will need more than two data points to evaluate (although I expect that an intense evaluation of other galaxies will not yield a constant MOND value: my skepticism of his model). Thanks. {abe}
See my reply to you in the other thread. did you see the reference to the {Einstein Lite} website? Relativity: Einstein's theory of relativity in animations and film clips. Einstein Light This message has been edited by RAZD, 10*12*2005 05:15 PM by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Son Goku Inactive Member |
quote:He's referencing papers, not appealing to authority. For all you hear about the Pioneer Anomaly, from a physical point of view it's kind of uninteresting. (8.74 1.33) 10’10 m/s2 is a miniscule acceleration. Given the mass of the Pioneer craft, the Force is equivilant to the weight of a 100 blood cells in the Earth's gravity.Not exactly something of overwhelming magnitude, or something that requires new physics. The tinest of surface evaporations account for it. In fact the main report on it said it was probably due to an "unknown systematic".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3633 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
Seems to me you are making a logical fallacy here (appeal to authority) to dismiss the new kid on the block There's only one authority I appeal to, and that is my own (enter Cartman in a police uniform) I have now read through a few of these papers and that is MY conclusion.
The point being missed here is... ...that may involve a "weak" form of gravity to balance the "strong" I'm certainly not missing it... I understand your suggestion and why you're making it. Are you up for a wager? How many peer-reviewed papers have been published on this very idea? Let's make it really easy and just ask for the order of magnitude The fact is, RAZ, it's a great idea. It just doesn't seem to work at the moment. It's been tried so many different ways. The most common way is through Brans-Dicke theory where we introduce a concept known as torsion... it was hoped that torsion would produce the a similar result to the one you are suggesting, but it just doesn't work out.
and which will need more than two data points to evaluate ROTFL We can't even find a particle that will fit two data points. The last thing we need is MORE data points...
did you see the reference to the {Einstein Lite} website? No, but thanks, I'm now checking it out. Will let you know what I think... TTFN This message has been edited by cavediver, 10-12-2005 07:04 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1395 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
he noted there were papers for and against and then appealed to authority to decide which were more valid. (and then stepped back to acknowledge that there could be another answer).
I think we will have to agree to disagree on the relative importance of the pioneer anomaly and dark stuffs, and wait for confirmation of one view or the other. by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1395 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
ROTFL We can't even find a particle that will fit two data points. The last thing we need is MORE data points... Well we certainly we need more data imho before we can say with authority that (1) dark stuffs exist(2) the pioneer anomaly {fits\doesn't fit} the equations At this point the only resolution is more data, eh? by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024