The Big Bang is NOT Scientific

How do you think Darwin came up with the theory of evolution? Philosophy of course. When something cannot be observed you use philosophy to understand it and come up with a hypothesis. Evolution cannot be observed but clues and evidence can be gathered to help support the theory. I for one am a evolutionist and have faith of evolution, because it still, like the big bang, has not been proven factual.

Actually, what I meant was that the phrase "defy all outliers" is meaningless. One can defy authority, one can defy expectations, but I have never heard of anyone defying an outlier. Unless by "outlier" one means the particular person in a position of authority who is out lying in that field. While I am not necessarily against a creative use of language, I am always suspicious when a person who is arguing against the scientific consensus uses terms in a non-standard way -- it sets off my "crackpot" alarm.

quote:

---

Whats wrong with arguing with the dictionary?

---

Nothing is wrong with using a dictionary. In fact, I appreciate that you clarified what you meant by "science". However, you are using the word "science" differently than we understand the meaning of "science" here in these discussion forums. Which means that there is the possibility that either we already agree with you (and there is nothing more to discuss), or that we find the particular point that you are raising to be uninteresting.--

quote:

---

...it will float in the air for a little....

---

I don't think that I am the one who needs to take a trip back to third grade science. I assure you that the pencil will not float in the air for a while. It will travel in a parabolic path until it strikes another object.--Let's get back to your response to a previous message of mine:

quote:

---

quote:

---

This is reasonable since General Relativity, a well-verified scientific theory, itself makes the prediction that the universe must either be expanding or contracting

---

​

There is actually NO evidence for this theory scientists have been trying to prove it for over 50 years yet still there has yet to be evidence.

---

Well, you can believe that there is not evidence for General Relativity if you want. You can believe that mass does not cause space to warp, but starlight will take a bent path around the sun just the as the General Theory of Relativity exists. You can believe that a rotating mass cannot actually drag space itself around, yet the perihelion of Mercury will continue to precess at the rate predicted by GR. You may believe, if you wish, that space cannot be stretched and compressed, yet we will continue to observe that closely orbiting neutron stars will undergo an increase in orbital period, and at exactly the rate that matches the loss of energy by radiating waves composed of these types of distortions, as predicted by GR.So GR predicts phenoma that we actually observe, and that these phenoma have no other explanation except by the bending, stretching, and otherwise warping of space-time itself. Furthermore, GR also predicts that the universe itself should be expanding and contracting, and, indeed, we observe that the galaxies are receding in the expected manner. Why, then, should we doubt that space itself is expanding?

The same way all theories are developed - as an explanitory framework based on observations. No, by observation. If it can't be observed, how do you know there's something there you need philosophy to understand? Quite untrue. Evolution is fact, a fact which the theory of evolution explains.

You’ve misunderstood what the quoted extracts are saying, and you've ignored the bits of the article that explicitly contradict your other assertions.Relativity can be tested just fine. Professor Pullin is explaining that it is hard to use the GPS system to perform such tests because of the way it is designed. You need to set up your own experiments; such as were described plainly in the article.Many extremely accurate tests were performed nearly thirty years ago, which confirmed with considerable precision and accuracy the relativistic effects that impact upon the GPS system. Engineers of the modern GPS system therefore took this well confirmed scientific model into account, and actively adjust the clocks to track time at ground level. As a result, those clocks are not measuring observable time for the satellites. They are designed to be used for locating positions on the Earth’s surface; they are not designed to perform tests of relativity.Anyone with the appropriate resources can still put an atomic clock in orbit and measure time properly, to perform the same tests that have been performed previously. Other tests can be performed as well, and more easily. The real hard observations you have yet to explain are the experiments and observations described that confirm relativistic physics and the need for special engineering of the GPS system.Immediately before the paragraph you quoted, there is a description of the NTS-2 satellite in 1977, as follows:

quote:

---

At the time of launch of the first NTS-2 satellite (June 1977), which contained the first Cesium clock to be placed in orbit, there were some who doubted that relativistic effects were real. A frequency synthesizer was built into the satellite clock system so that after launch, if in fact the rate of the clock in its final orbit was that predicted by GR, then the synthesizer could be turned on bringing the clock to the coordinate rate necessary for operation. The atomic clock was first operated for about 20 days to measure its clock rate before turning on the synthesizer. The frequency measured during that interval was +442.5 parts in 10^12 faster than clocks on the ground; if left uncorrected this would have resulted in timing errors of about 38,000 nanoseconds per day. The difference between predicted and measured values of the frequency shift was only 3.97 parts in 10^12, well within the accuracy capabilities of the orbiting clock. This then gave about a 1% validation of the combined motional and gravitational shifts for a clock at 4.2 earth radii.

---

That is one of the many accurate and repeatable scientific tests on which modern physics is based.The second comment you quoted observes that there are still other aspects of relativity that do not substantially affect the GPS system at its current levels of precision. Some of those effects are well tested also, by other means, and if more accuracy is required in the GPS system than it may need to be reengineered to take those into account as well.General relativity continues to be subject to new and more stringent tests, as our technology improves and as we gain the capacity to perform those tests. For example, in October last year, a confirmation of the frame-dragging effect was made from analysis of the orbits of the LAGEOS and LAGEOS II satellites, with an accuracy of about 1%, and with systematic error limited to 10% of the observed effect. There is at present another experiment in operation, called Gravity-Probe B, which is making an even more accurate determination of the effect, in order to give a new test of relativity. The effect is too small to make a difference to GPS systems; but it is testable by scientists who design experiments to explore the observable universe and guide the development of scientific models capable of explaining their observations.Cheers -- Sylas

Looks more and more to me like he doesn't really read or pay attention to everything and only pick and choose what he sees to reinforce his preconceived notions. I had a bad feeling when I posted the link.

I have a nephew who works with satellites. The satellites involve imaging, and that's all he'll say. Once, when staying at his house, I was browsing his library and came across a highly technical (but very well organized, written and illustrated) book on GPS. I read a lot of it, and really understood how it worked ... but I 've forgotten a lot of it, and the name of the book.Anyhow, my memory of what that book said is not quite what you said. As I recall, the clocks on the GPS satellites are keeping, as best we can engineer, the proper time for an observer on the satellite. The effects that require steering are not relativistic; they're mostly thermal, or at least similar to thermal. They are stochastic, unpredictable in magnitude and direction. So they have to accumulate some error, measure it, and give the right kick in the right direction. Otherwise, if the errors were predictable, we'd just program in the appropriate empirically derived correction on top of the relativistic correction.So the steering is not based on this well-confirmed scientific model (which is how I read the first sentence I quoted); the "regulator" of the clock is pre-set on the ground based on this well-confirmed scientific model. The steering is for other effects.

It is also possible that the laws of nature may very well all exist outside the pocket of space and time created by our big bang. Yes a very early universe may have been so hot and dense that our current laws of nature were inadequate to describe or predict the events occurring inside the dense mass but that does not mean that we can automatically rule out the possibility that the laws of nature would not have worked just fine at some distance away from this dense mass.And lets for a moment say that our big bang was in fact caused by the collision of two separate pockets of space time crashing into each other at extreme velocity. I predict that would generate a huge amount of background radiation that would cool over time. So if I find background radiation then that means I must be right ??? The existence of background radiation does not validate all matter in the known universe once existing inside a single dense mass. It just validates that the event that took place that began the process of scattering matter in all directions outwards took place in an environment of relatively consistent density.This message has been edited by nipok, 04-29-2005 12:57 AM

nipok Does your model account for the hydrogen-helium abundence?Does it allow for a unification of the fundemental forces before the era of the Planck time?What was the nature of the spacetime before our universe was created?What became of the uncertainty principle in this spacetime?What was the structure of matter at this time? How does it follow that the model you propose would predict background radiation that we detect today?Why would they generate radiation in the microwave region at this time in the universe?

---

And since you know you cannot see yourself,
so well as by reflection, I, your glass,
will modestly discover to yourself,
that of yourself which you yet know not of

Oops, that can't be right. They are keeping the proper time of an observer on Earth's surface and, therefore, not the proper time of an observer on the satellite. The rest of what I wrote is AFAIK correct.

Model A (big bang) claims that all matter once existed inside a solitary mass something likely on the magnitude of a point singularity.Model B (collision theory) claims that all matter once existed inside 2 unique masses whose velocity was likely on the magnitude of c^2 in respect to each other. From a stationary observer nothing can travel faster than c but two separate items can move away from each other in opposite directions and from one item to the other the apparent speed can be greater than c. In collision theory all matter is held together by the same principles that govern our universe. Planets around a more dense star, solar systems around a more dense mass, galaxies around a more dense center. This is well proven. Our entire known universe is likely to be moving through a larger pocket of space time circling an much more dense center. It likely does so with other similar size pockets. These in turn make up a much larger pocket with relative space time inside itself that circles a more dense center as well. This continues to a point where the matter becomes the building blocks that become a quark or lepton on a scale that is difficult to comprehend. So when two atoms collide it is not really two atoms colliding but really the outermost electron shells. And it is not really two electrons colliding and massive velocity compared to each other but the two leptons that make up the electrons that are colliding. And someday it is likely that we will find as our scientific precision increases that there are building blocks to leptons so an atomic collision is really the collision not between two leptons but the two building blocks that make up leptons. With each subsequent decrease in size come an increase in effective velocity and we reach a point where the two small particles smash into each other and in a fraction of a nanosecond the laws that bind subatomic particles allow the mass and energy to regroup and bond back together so from an external viewer it looks like the matter remained whole but from in internal vantage point it would look very much like a big bang occurred. Yes since the few micro milliseconds after collision would be undergoing many of the same events as predicted in the big bang
theory. The unification of fundamental forces is based on something called Aetheric Density which someday will unite the remaining forces and yes this is validated under the collision theory paradigm. Much similar to what we have now. The nature of space time should be SpaceTime if you refer to our Universe or spacetime if you refer to our universe. spacetime would be well described in the process of our expansion. SpaceTime would exist on its own rights to define the physical world in the larger pockets of spacetime that our pocket of spacetime inhabits. All of which is part of SpaceTime. I'm sorry but the uncertainty principle has no bearing in this. Like the normalization of Feynmann diagrams and imaginary particles that pop into existence then disappear, these are constructs created in attempts to plug the logical holes in the parts of the big bang theory that fail normal logic and so strange constructs are invented to plug holes. Remove the holes and the constructs are useless. Since collision theory is the collision on a magnitude approaching c^2 the amount of energy released could easily equal the amount of energy an heat predicted in the earliest stages of the big bang, it is just the catalyst that caused the initial expansion that I question.This message has been edited by Admin, 04-29-2005 10:32 AM

It appears that the collesion theory has exactly the same predictions as the big bang theory. Is this the case?This message has been edited by Admin, 04-29-2005 10:33 AM

Hi Nipok,Your collision theory model is more appropriate for a new topic.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

This is sounding a little like "brane theory". Is that what you are talking about?At any rate, I don't see anything in your post that contradicts mine -- you seem to be proposing another cause for Big Bang.

Sup? You started this topic, so lets discuss a few things.
1) Where are you at in school? I am curious..do you want to study science, philosophy, religion, or perhaps all three?
As for me, I grew up basically ignorant of religion and science. I did study philosophy a bit. I read lots of books about many different topics...I used to like to read the encyclopedia!Words---the expression of ideas--is a wonderful thing! Even though everyone corrects you and lectures you with some good scientific clarifications on the topic that you have brought up, the real joy and value is obtained through being able to communicate.Have you ever noticed how shallow some conversations can be? Perhaps hanging at the mall with friends, nothing very substantial ever gets said.That is why school is a wonderful thing! That is why the internet CAN be useful. In our high tech world, high tech communication is possible.Having said all that, I want to encourage you to refocus and get back to this topic that you started. What is it that you want to tell all of us? Are you happy to just take it light, shoot the breeze, and have some online people to talk to?Or perhaps you have a gem of wisdom that you want to share with us.As always, I'm all ears!