|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 5250 days) Posts: 766 From: Newcastle, Australia Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Big Bang Critics | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
happy_atheist Member (Idle past 4904 days) Posts: 326 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2ice_baked_taters Member (Idle past 5841 days) Posts: 566 From: Boulder Junction WI. Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22359 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2ice_baked_taters Member (Idle past 5841 days) Posts: 566 From: Boulder Junction WI. Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22359 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
Please explain.
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Joman Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
quote: 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: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7799 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2ice_baked_taters Member (Idle past 5841 days) Posts: 566 From: Boulder Junction WI. Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
quote: 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: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5898 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Joman Inactive Member |
quote: 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: 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: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
quote: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2ice_baked_taters Member (Idle past 5841 days) Posts: 566 From: Boulder Junction WI. Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
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
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024