Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
4 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:   Big Bang Critics
happy_atheist
Member (Idle past 4904 days)
Posts: 326
Joined: 08-21-2004


Message 106 of 130 (337381)
08-02-2006 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by 2ice_baked_taters
08-02-2006 9:29 AM


2ice_baked_taters writes:
Everything physical has mass or it does not exist physically. If something truely has no mass then it cannot be physical in nature. Relativity simply is not describing the picture correctly.
Are you aware of any observation that indicates that photons have a non-zero rest mass? Are you aware of any theoretical physics that argues that something with a non-zero rest mass can travel at c? Whether or not relativity is describing reality correctly depends on observations, not semantics.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 08-02-2006 9:29 AM 2ice_baked_taters has not replied

  
2ice_baked_taters
Member (Idle past 5841 days)
Posts: 566
From: Boulder Junction WI.
Joined: 02-16-2006


Message 107 of 130 (340886)
08-17-2006 6:18 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by Percy
08-02-2006 11:14 AM


The reason I mentioned terminology is that your statement, "Everything physical has mass or it does not exist physically," is impossibly vague. By physical do you mean anything that exists, or only anything physical like an anvil? By mass do you mean rest mass or energy mass?
If I were to seek correct interpretations of your statement, one would be, "Everything physical (i.e., made up of particles) has a rest mass," and the other would be, "Everything that exists has an energy mass."
Here lies the problem. There is this wonderful dualism that is being embraced. One can't have it both ways. Energy mass must be a falicy and truly be derived from an undetermined rest mass of a "photon"
Or the nature of all things is in fact derived from energy mass and rest mass is derived from energy.
In other words either all things are derived from physical restmass and "energy" is just an interpretation or all things are derived from energy mass and physical rest mass is just interpretation or manifestation. I believe it cannot be both.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Percy, posted 08-02-2006 11:14 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by Percy, posted 08-17-2006 6:57 PM 2ice_baked_taters has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 108 of 130 (340899)
08-17-2006 6:57 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by 2ice_baked_taters
08-17-2006 6:18 PM


2ice_baked_taters writes:
In other words either all things are derived from physical restmass and "energy" is just an interpretation or all things are derived from energy mass and physical rest mass is just interpretation or manifestation. I believe it cannot be both.
It sounds like you're arguing for some kind of rest-mass/energy-mass equivalency in the same way as mass/energy equivalency. Maybe there is a relationship there, Cavediver might know.
What I was actually replying to was your claim that "Everything physical has mass or it does not exist physically." I pointed out that it was impossibly vague, and it still isn't clear what you were trying to say.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 08-17-2006 6:18 PM 2ice_baked_taters has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 08-18-2006 10:17 AM Percy has replied

  
2ice_baked_taters
Member (Idle past 5841 days)
Posts: 566
From: Boulder Junction WI.
Joined: 02-16-2006


Message 109 of 130 (341040)
08-18-2006 10:17 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by Percy
08-17-2006 6:57 PM


What I was actually replying to was your claim that "Everything physical has mass or it does not exist physically." I pointed out that it was impossibly vague, and it still isn't clear what you were trying to say.
It is the dualism being ignored that makes this unclear.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Percy, posted 08-17-2006 6:57 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by Percy, posted 08-18-2006 10:34 AM 2ice_baked_taters has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 110 of 130 (341046)
08-18-2006 10:34 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by 2ice_baked_taters
08-18-2006 10:17 AM


Please explain.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 08-18-2006 10:17 AM 2ice_baked_taters has not replied

  
Joman
Inactive Member


Message 111 of 130 (341876)
08-21-2006 8:27 AM


Big Bang?
There isn't any evidence of a "big bang" that I'm aware of.
Isn't that why the hypothesis relies on the non-scientific notion of there having been a "singularity"? Isn't a singularity a one of a kind excuse given due to the absence of any scientific evidence?
Joman.

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by Chiroptera, posted 08-21-2006 9:06 AM Joman has replied
 Message 113 by Modulous, posted 08-21-2006 10:35 AM Joman has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 112 of 130 (341882)
08-21-2006 9:06 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by Joman
08-21-2006 8:27 AM


Re: Big Bang?
quote:
There isn't any evidence of a "big bang" that I'm aware of.
The red shift in the spectra of distant galaxies, which are proportional to their distance from our galaxy. In fact, this was the first piece of evidence that suggested an expanding universe.
The Cosmic Microwave Background, which was predicted before it was observed based on the hypothesis of an expanding universe.
Now you are aware of two pieces of evidence of the Big Bang.
-
quote:
Isn't that why the hypothesis relies on the non-scientific notion of there having been a "singularity"?
No. If one extrapolates the expansion backwards, one comes to a point where the density and the temperature of the universe is infinite -- a singuarity.
At any rate, the Big Bang hypothesis does not rely on the singularity. It relies on the evidence that we observe in the universe today.

"These monkeys are at once the ugliest and the most beautiful creatures on the planet./ And the monkeys don't want to be monkeys; they want to be something else./ But they're not."
-- Ernie Cline

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Joman, posted 08-21-2006 8:27 AM Joman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by Joman, posted 08-21-2006 1:14 PM Chiroptera has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7799
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 113 of 130 (341891)
08-21-2006 10:35 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by Joman
08-21-2006 8:27 AM


Re: Big Bang?
There isn't any evidence of a "big bang" that I'm aware of.
This post should cover the important evidence. Every confirmation of general relativity is evidence that the big bang is an accurate way of describing the universe.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Joman, posted 08-21-2006 8:27 AM Joman has not replied

  
2ice_baked_taters
Member (Idle past 5841 days)
Posts: 566
From: Boulder Junction WI.
Joined: 02-16-2006


Message 114 of 130 (341932)
08-21-2006 12:24 PM


I am not for or against a big bang hypothesis. I am against those who claim evidence suppports a hypothesis. We know very little and have far more questions than answers. "evidence" has a funny way of being interpreted by individuals. One persons obvious conclusion is not anothers and the popular opinion does not always hold to be the correct one. Take the obvious view that the world was flat or the inherant igorance of "savages" in history. I abhore those who misrepresent facts with bias. That is the effect of ego in science. Regardless of my sceptical view of humanity I applaud those who search for answers
Edited by 2ice_baked_taters, : No reason given.
Edited by 2ice_baked_taters, : A bit of polishing

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by Chiroptera, posted 08-21-2006 12:35 PM 2ice_baked_taters has not replied
 Message 116 by sidelined, posted 08-21-2006 1:07 PM 2ice_baked_taters has replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 115 of 130 (341937)
08-21-2006 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by 2ice_baked_taters
08-21-2006 12:24 PM


quote:
Regardless of my sceptical view of humanity I applaud those who search for answers...
That would include the majority of astrophysicists and cosmologists who have collect the evidence that strongly supports the Big Bang model of the early universe and have elucidated many of the details in the early history.
-
quote:
...and abhore those who misrepresent facts with bias.
That would seem to include the religious fanatics and scientific cranks who deny the massive amount of evidence that has help shape our understanding of the early universe.

"These monkeys are at once the ugliest and the most beautiful creatures on the planet./ And the monkeys don't want to be monkeys; they want to be something else./ But they're not."
-- Ernie Cline

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 08-21-2006 12:24 PM 2ice_baked_taters has not replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5898 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 116 of 130 (341947)
08-21-2006 1:07 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by 2ice_baked_taters
08-21-2006 12:24 PM


2ice_baked_taters
I am not for or against a big bang hypothesis. I am against those who claim evidence suppports a hypothesis. We know very little and have far more questions than answers. "evidence" has a funny way of being interpreted by individuals.
So you have found a specific error with aspects of the big bang theory? Which points of evidence do you dispute?
The cosmic microwave background? WMAP Cosmology 101: Cosmic Microwave Background
The hydrogen_helium abundance? http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/astro/hydhel.html
The expansion of the universe? Expansion of the universe - Wikipedia
Where exactly in the physics of the model of the big bang theory do you find fault in the reasoning? How would your model explain it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 08-21-2006 12:24 PM 2ice_baked_taters has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 08-22-2006 6:04 AM sidelined has not replied

  
Joman
Inactive Member


Message 117 of 130 (341950)
08-21-2006 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by Chiroptera
08-21-2006 9:06 AM


Re: Big Bang?
quote:
Chiroptera "The red shift in the spectra of distant galaxies, which are proportional to their distance from our galaxy."
The redshift requires interpretation doesn't it.
Isn't the above interpretation of it (that is suitable for the big bang hypothesis) only one of the possibilities?
What if it's not proportional?
What is the red shift reference frame?
Our sun?
An earthen furnace?
In my humble, and considered opinion, it is but, common sense to expect that light, regardless as to it's origin or structure as an energetic mass; will lose power in transit across space. The dielectric constant of space describes a capacitive insulator and should not be thought to be an ideal one. Leakage is the norm. I would expect a thermodynamic law effect to appear in the speed of light constant,and that it would be evidenced by the loss of power over time. And, so it seems.
The pattern of velocities of heavenly objects is a contradiction to common sense if the big bang were thought to be true.
Otherwise, there would arise the irony of the modern science establishment claiming that the earth is the apparent center of the universe. Do you think that a big bang would distribute redshifts the way we find them? I think the redshifts would evidence all kinds of variation due to the immense variation in vectors to be expected in such an event.
I would expect that a appropriately sensitive redshift measurement of local objects (within parallax distance) would reveal that all spectra is shifted randomly +/- about a mean value due to the variation in vectors of the various objects in motion. Can some one show me the data that proves that many local objects with known vectors have been used to establish the validity of our redshift reference and possible effects from secondary causes?
quote:
Chiroptera "The Cosmic Microwave Background, which was predicted before it was observed based on the hypothesis of an expanding universe."
Data revealing a cosmic background radiation was recorded seven in 194. Gamov brought it up in (1948). The amount and the description of it has been disputed. The cosmology of the big bang can't claim any historical accuracy.
quote:
Chiroptera "If one extrapolates the expansion backwards, one comes to a point where the density and the temperature of the universe is infinite -- a singuarity."
There isn't any scientific evidence of infinity!
Extrapolation is math used when facts are unavailable!
There isn't any evidence of anything, existing anywhere, that possesses any of the qualities you've specified!
Infinite density? Infinite temperature?
Ridiculously non-scientific notions.
You can extrapolate a perfect vacuum but, you can't produce one can you?
quote:
Chiroptera "At any rate, the Big Bang hypothesis does not rely on the singularity."
What does it rely on then?
The singularity in question is an extrapolation that proves the math is bogus since, it leads to a supernatural circumstance wherein, all known laws of physics are voided (avoided?).
Joman.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Chiroptera, posted 08-21-2006 9:06 AM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by Chiroptera, posted 08-21-2006 1:31 PM Joman has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 118 of 130 (341959)
08-21-2006 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by Joman
08-21-2006 1:14 PM


Re: Big Bang?
quote:
The redshift requires interpretation doesn't it.
Sure, but what other interpretations are there? The only known causes of a red shift are movement of the source of the light away from the observer (hence the expanding universe) or the light leaving a large gravitational well.
-
quote:
In my humble, and considered opinion, it is but, common sense to expect that light, regardless as to it's origin or structure as an energetic mass; will lose power in transit across space.
Your opinion is wrong. It is not common sense to people who know physics. There is no known mechanism for a red shift to occur simply by the light travelling through empty space. It is possible that travelling immense distances through the interstellar/intergalactic medium will affect the characteristics of the light; however, people had investigated this and found that this is not a cause of the red shift.
-
quote:
Data revealing a cosmic background radiation was recorded seven in 194. Gamov brought it up in (1948). The amount and the description of it has been disputed. The cosmology of the big bang can't claim any historical accuracy.
I don't understand what your problem here is. Before the Big Bang model, there was no reason to suspect that there was a Cosmic Microwave Background that had the characteristics of black body radiation. Once people recognized that the universe is expanding, thermodynamic considerations led to people to predict that there would be a CMB with the characteristics of black body radiation. The CMB was later observed.
This is what makes it evidence. Without the Big Bang model, the CMB would be a surprise and unexplicable. With the Big Bang model, not only is the CMB explained, but it has to be there. This is exactly what "scientific evidence" means.
-
quote:
There isn't any scientific evidence of infinity!
So far, no. The singularity is what we get when we extrapolate our present knowledge backwards. However, we know that our present knowledge does not work in the physical conditions that existed during the first fraction of a second after the proposed singularity. It may be that if and when our knowledge of the physical laws improve, we will be able to get a better extrapolation. It may very well be that, indeed, there was no singularity.
-
quote:
What does it rely on then?
Like all scientific theories, it relies on observations that we make now, and the logical inferences that can be made based on those observations. What scientific fields operate otherwise?

"These monkeys are at once the ugliest and the most beautiful creatures on the planet./ And the monkeys don't want to be monkeys; they want to be something else./ But they're not."
-- Ernie Cline

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Joman, posted 08-21-2006 1:14 PM Joman has not replied

  
2ice_baked_taters
Member (Idle past 5841 days)
Posts: 566
From: Boulder Junction WI.
Joined: 02-16-2006


Message 119 of 130 (342270)
08-22-2006 6:04 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by sidelined
08-21-2006 1:07 PM


So you have found a specific error with aspects of the big bang theory? Which points of evidence do you dispute?
Exactly what red shift indicates has been in question for some time.
There are a number of people and sites that bring this up. Here are a few.
New evidence against the BBT
The Picture that Won‘t Go Away
Evidence has nothing to do with theory. Theory is a belief, an extrapolation of possibility. There is to much unsettled in this area to place all our eggs in one basket.
Edited by 2ice_baked_taters, : No reason given.
Edited by 2ice_baked_taters, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by sidelined, posted 08-21-2006 1:07 PM sidelined has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by AdminNosy, posted 08-22-2006 7:56 AM 2ice_baked_taters has not replied
 Message 121 by ramoss, posted 08-22-2006 9:56 AM 2ice_baked_taters has not replied
 Message 122 by Chiroptera, posted 08-22-2006 11:48 AM 2ice_baked_taters has not replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 120 of 130 (342288)
08-22-2006 7:56 AM
Reply to: Message 119 by 2ice_baked_taters
08-22-2006 6:04 AM


Bare Links
Bare Links do not an argument make.
You need to summarize the argument in your own words and then refer to the links as backup.
Edited by AdminNosy, : change to admin as author

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 08-22-2006 6:04 AM 2ice_baked_taters 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