Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   GRAVITY PROBLEMS -- off topic from {Falsifying a young Universe}
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 136 of 205 (252266)
10-16-2005 8:12 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by simple
10-16-2005 3:09 PM


Re: testing the metal
Making money off of something doesn't make it right.
What are you talking about? What money? Do you think theoretical physicists are well paid, or funded by industry, or Disney or something???
As far as what you think, regarding the quetions from simple, at least, it's hard to know, as all you had on offer is a pompous attitude.
If someone approaches me and says "Ha, you think you know about gravity, but actually you know nothing... look what it says on this internet site, doesn't this just show how you scientists have got it all wrong" I tend to get a little shirty.
If, on the other hand, someone approaches with a question or even a sensible and reasoned challenge (as with RAZD) I am more than willing to spend time explaining, conversing, and debating.
The recent black hole that seems to help produce stars in our own galaxy, is forcing a rethink of some things
Yes it is... issues surrounding stellar birth and evolution... not black holes, or any fundemental physics whatsoever. As I keep saying, you cannot trust popular science accounts of anything.
Quit trying to make it sound like you got it all sewed up!
Far from it, but all I seem to be getting from you and Simple is "ha ha, you know nothing". This is completely false.
Do you know what time is? People talk of time space, but I don't think you do?
What do you mean? At what level? Time baffles the hell out of me, but that is at a much deeper level than you are thinking. But then it was my job for several years.
Tell you what. Tell me what you do for a living, and I will then explain to you calmly how you know nothing about your trade, and how I, with no experience in your field, am suitably qualified to riducule your knowledge. Fair?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by simple, posted 10-16-2005 3:09 PM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by simple, posted 10-17-2005 10:43 PM cavediver has replied

  
tsig
Member (Idle past 2909 days)
Posts: 738
From: USA
Joined: 04-09-2004


Message 137 of 205 (252282)
10-16-2005 9:39 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by simple
10-14-2005 2:50 PM


Re:how it works
Are you kidding? What more would we want to know about a light switch than, all we do is flip it, and the light goes on?! Some want to know more than how it works.
You might want the electrician to know more than that.
This message has been edited by DHR, 10-16-2005 09:48 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by simple, posted 10-14-2005 2:50 PM simple has not replied

  
simple 
Inactive Member


Message 138 of 205 (252293)
10-16-2005 10:28 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by cavediver
10-16-2005 7:54 PM


there is more then
quote:
When did you last chat to Einstein or Feynman about your ideas about their fields?
The impression wasn't from chatting, but at least you were able to get you little smug attitude a little airing there.
quote:
Funny, it was the other way around this morning at church. But then my church has always been rather heavily creationist.
So, the church ( we assume if you meant synagogue you would have been open about it) you went to today always has been creationist, and to a large defree as well! Interesting, so you mingle as one with people who believe in more than a physical universe, likely many with some evidences they feel in their lives. Any church like this must break bread together as well, I can imagine your little grin, as you smirk at those folks. Must be a good feeling? ..The other way around? In other words they believed in the loves, but not the standard cosmo model, I guess you mean. If you believe in both, then you must admit there is more. If you do not, anyone listening to a word out of your mouth ought to hang their head in shame.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by cavediver, posted 10-16-2005 7:54 PM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by cavediver, posted 10-17-2005 4:47 AM simple has replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 139 of 205 (252322)
10-17-2005 1:53 AM
Reply to: Message 131 by simple
10-16-2005 4:24 PM


Re: testing the metal
As far as criticize something, and learning a lot about astrophysics, I think looking at the core assumptions may be a good start.
I'm not sure what you take to be the core assumptions.
As I see it, the core assumptions for astrophysics are:
  • Measurement systems that work locally can be extended to apply throughout the cosmos.
  • The behavior of light appears the same to all observers.
The mathematics, including GR, arises from those assumptions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by simple, posted 10-16-2005 4:24 PM simple has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 140 of 205 (252328)
10-17-2005 4:47 AM
Reply to: Message 138 by simple
10-16-2005 10:28 PM


Re: there is more then
If you believe in both, then you must admit there is more.
I never once said that there isn't more... not once. This was your assumption and also Simple's. This was someting else that I found offensive: because I am scientist involved in fundementral physics, it somehow automatically means that I am atheistic/agnostic. Try looking at some of my postings on other forums at this site. I am a Christian and attend a very lively evangelical, and largely creationist church.
If you want to know about more than just the physical universe, read the Bible, or whatever religious/spiritual text you have in mind. Talk to your fellow believers and share their company. That is where you will learn of God... not by peering into physics/astronomy/chemistry or any other worldly pursuit and hoping that at some point a veil will be drawn aside and you will experience a full gnostic revelation. The last time that was tried the number of languages on the planet shot up a bit.
God's created world is an awesome place, and I had incredible joy from delving deep into its mysteries. It was a great privilidge for which I still thank God. I do not like it when others (Christian or not) make light of this...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by simple, posted 10-16-2005 10:28 PM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by simple, posted 10-17-2005 10:29 PM cavediver has not replied

  
simple 
Inactive Member


Message 141 of 205 (252535)
10-17-2005 9:42 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by RAZD
10-16-2005 8:09 PM


evidence
quote:
But the disagreement would be about the cause not the fact of rising temperatures. This is not arguing about the evidence, but what it means. Part of any skeptic application of scientific data.
Bingo. And creation theories use the same evidence generally, or lack of it as the big bang theory, and others.
quote:
As to the lawyer prompted specialists: their job is to obfusticate - is nicotine, but is the link to cancer\addiction clear and is it only from the nicotine? (You are pushing this one because now you are back in the courts where they only allow you to anwswer specific prepared questions. You are also using technicians hired specifically to do for tobacco companies what "creation scientists" do for AiG and the like: start with a premise and fill in the facts to fit. This is not science in either case, but pseudo-science.)
But for example, in BB, they start with a premise, that something came from nothing, and proceed from there. 'Gee, we got this little universe in a singularity, now lets see if we can run with it'! In the split/merge idea that was brought up in the thread before it split, then merged back in cosmology here, the CMB is explained in creation itself, and the split. Same evidence, not argueing that, but, as you said, 'what it means'.
quote:
When it comes to honest disagreement over the evidence it occurs in all sciences. You see this with the physics data too - dark matter vs ekpyrosis vs MONDE\PA acceleration systems etc.
Again, in the creation/evolution/old ages debates, usually evidence isn't under question, say like present radioactivity, or light speed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by RAZD, posted 10-16-2005 8:09 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by RAZD, posted 10-17-2005 9:47 PM simple has replied
 Message 148 by cavediver, posted 10-18-2005 4:53 AM simple has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 142 of 205 (252539)
10-17-2005 9:47 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by simple
10-17-2005 9:42 PM


Re: evidence
hello again ark.
There is a difference between disagreeing over evidence
And denying evidence that exists.
AND with making up endless lists of what ifs.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by simple, posted 10-17-2005 9:42 PM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by simple, posted 10-18-2005 12:58 AM RAZD has replied

  
simple 
Inactive Member


Message 143 of 205 (252545)
10-17-2005 10:29 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by cavediver
10-17-2005 4:47 AM


Re: there is more then
Then I do apologize! My dumbness entirely there, in making assumptions. God bless you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by cavediver, posted 10-17-2005 4:47 AM cavediver has not replied

  
simple 
Inactive Member


Message 144 of 205 (252546)
10-17-2005 10:43 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by cavediver
10-16-2005 8:12 PM


time running out
quote:
What are you talking about? What money? Do you think theoretical physicists are well paid, or funded by industry, or Disney or something???
Well, here, I was responding to this
"This is the bread and butter of theoretical physics." Not that those in the field made much or little, but that the making of money itself didn't make something right.
quote:
What do you mean? At what level? Time baffles the hell out of me, but that is at a much deeper level than you are thinking. But then it was my job for several years.
I might think that I consider time at a deeper level than you. For example, in the bible, there is a little sentence, or phrase that I think says a lot on the matter of time. It says, '...time shall be no more' This to me indicates that when the temporal universe passes away, and the new heavens and new earth are revealed (in their true full beauty, and physical and spiritual eternal state) time will really cease to exist in any limiting, or meaningful way at least. This means that time here and now is 'temporal'. Something that exists, I assume, because it is needed in the temporal physical universe.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by cavediver, posted 10-16-2005 8:12 PM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by AdminJar, posted 10-17-2005 10:49 PM simple has not replied
 Message 147 by cavediver, posted 10-18-2005 4:35 AM simple has not replied

  
AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 145 of 205 (252549)
10-17-2005 10:49 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by simple
10-17-2005 10:43 PM


Sorry but we're in a Science forum
I might think that I consider time at a deeper level than you. For example, in the bible, there is a little sentence, or phrase that I think says a lot on the matter of time.
Sorry but over in the science forums we try to deal with evidence that can be independantly verified. While you might think the Bible has something to contribute on this subject, please remember that it is only a matter of your personal opinion and not evidential.

Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
  • General discussion of moderation procedures

  • Thread Reopen Requests

  • Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
  • New Members: to get an understanding of what makes great posts, check out:
  • "Post of the Month" Forum

  • "Columnist's Corner" Forum
  • See also Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC, and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 144 by simple, posted 10-17-2005 10:43 PM simple has not replied

      
    simple 
    Inactive Member


    Message 146 of 205 (252563)
    10-18-2005 12:58 AM
    Reply to: Message 142 by RAZD
    10-17-2005 9:47 PM


    info superhighway
    I had done some posting back when this thread originated. On the topic of the supernova, I had a response, and after many months, went back, read it again.
    RAZD- "because then there would be NO time difference between the star light and the ring light: that would have been in the "instantaneous light" period OR the universe since the time instant light ended is still older than 168,000 years." http://EvC Forum: Falsifying a young Universe. (re: Supernova 1987A) -->EvC Forum: Falsifying a young Universe. (re: Supernova 1987A)
    And "and the fact that you had to extensively overhaul the concept to provide variations means that the original concept was destroyed by the evidence ... just to clarify that little issue." post 257
    Since then, I have thought more about it. If the merged universe (spiritual and physical) was here in our past, it would mean light was not limited, as ours now is, for any who missed the old stuff.
    As I see it, (and it doesn't matter much for this discussion anyhow), the seperation would have been about a century after the flood, or something like about 2300 yrs BC. Around this time then, it would have had light replaced by our present version. Razd's point was if 1987a happened back in the time when the instant light was here, it would not make sense, or be possible, because of the rings on the supernova, I think. They move as they should, not in some instant fashion, of course.
    Now I wanted to try a new take on this important point. The seperation came, and we were left with present light, but it seems reasonable that this light carried information from it's point of orgin, info which until the split came instantly. The change of the former into the present light seems to have left a time delay in the light, and the info it carries! Something in the seperation event, and how light was affected by it. The spiritual elements seperated, and the result, is the light we now have, yet with an undetermined delay in the time it takes info to travel along this highway of light.
    As an example, we could say, a time delay for information, of 2350 years. So, if supernova 1987a happened 2313 years after the split, which we roughly placed at 2300 BC, (4300 years ago) we would have it showing up on the 'light information superhighway', say in 1987! Just about right!
    My question then is,
    This would be impossible, because....... ????

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 142 by RAZD, posted 10-17-2005 9:47 PM RAZD has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 149 by RAZD, posted 10-18-2005 6:43 PM simple has not replied

      
    cavediver
    Member (Idle past 3643 days)
    Posts: 4129
    From: UK
    Joined: 06-16-2005


    Message 147 of 205 (252608)
    10-18-2005 4:35 AM
    Reply to: Message 144 by simple
    10-17-2005 10:43 PM


    Re: time running out
    "This is the bread and butter of theoretical physics." Not that those in the field made much or little, but that the making of money itself didn't make something right.
    There was no reference at all to money. Scientists (in my field) survive on the science... and this was my menaing... the money is secondary, tertiary, or even irrelevant. These days I hang out with climbing and caving "bums", but I've known many science "bums".
    This means that time here and now is 'temporal'. Something that exists, I assume, because it is needed in the temporal physical universe.
    Of course. Time is a physical part of the universe... one dimension out of four (or more). In a finite universe BB scenario, time began at the BB. In a closed BB scenario, time ends at the final crunch. It is a totally integral concept to the physical universe. Even in an eternally existing universe, time is still just a physical concept. One of my favourite space-times has an infinite number of eternal universes, all connected in pairs by an infinite "corridor". If you travel through the corrdior, you can pass by entire enternal universes. And this type of thing is very basic... this is studied at masters level GR.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 144 by simple, posted 10-17-2005 10:43 PM simple has not replied

      
    cavediver
    Member (Idle past 3643 days)
    Posts: 4129
    From: UK
    Joined: 06-16-2005


    Message 148 of 205 (252611)
    10-18-2005 4:53 AM
    Reply to: Message 141 by simple
    10-17-2005 9:42 PM


    Re: evidence
    But for example, in BB, they start with a premise, that something came from nothing, and proceed from there. 'Gee, we got this little universe in a singularity, now lets see if we can run with it'!
    If you want to debate this stuff, please at least get the basics right. This is so wrong it is laughable. Who told you that the original premise was "something came from nothing"? Nothing could be further from the truth. Why do you think Einstein made his "greatest mistake"?
    Do you realise that there were huge objections to BB precisely because it introduced a beginning to the universe and this smacked of creation, especially when used with the wholly inappropriate soundbite "something came from nothing". The leading theory at the time was Steady-State which has an eternal universe, and many used this as a dismissal of creation and/or God. BB was too religious for many atheistic scientists. However, evidence mounted to dismiss the "atheistic" steady-state theory and force general acceptance of the "theistic" big-bang theory.
    The simple fact is neither BB nor steady state (nor any other theory of space-time) proves or disproves a concept of creation. You can just as easily have a creation of an eternal universe as a finite universe.
    Hope this clears things up a bit...
    Now, would you like to explain the physics of your split/merge theory? How it generates the observed CMB, the observed ratios of nucleosynthesis, the observed expansion of the universe, etc? You know, all that evidence for the BB scenario that you think is lacking...

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 141 by simple, posted 10-17-2005 9:42 PM simple has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 150 by simple, posted 10-18-2005 10:52 PM cavediver has not replied

      
    RAZD
    Member (Idle past 1405 days)
    Posts: 20714
    From: the other end of the sidewalk
    Joined: 03-14-2004


    Message 149 of 205 (252844)
    10-18-2005 6:43 PM
    Reply to: Message 146 by simple
    10-18-2005 12:58 AM


    Re: info superhighway
    This would be impossible, because....... ????
    Because there is no way to distinguish the photons. These can be absorbed by particles lost in space, with new ones emitted (knocked out the other side) in their places and we would not know, but it would wreck your scheme.

    we are limited in our ability to understand
    by our ability to understand
    RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
    ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
    to share.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 146 by simple, posted 10-18-2005 12:58 AM simple has not replied

      
    simple 
    Inactive Member


    Message 150 of 205 (252892)
    10-18-2005 10:52 PM
    Reply to: Message 148 by cavediver
    10-18-2005 4:53 AM


    Re: evidence
    Seems like the antichristian axe has fallen again in these parts? Won't see Pauly no more, I suspect. I have seen this topic here, tjough.
    Error | Christian Forums

    Note:The link above goes to a message on another board by one of our members who is currently under a 48 hour suspension for failure to follow the rules and guidlines. DO NOT reply to this post.
    sciguy, continued spamming our board as a method of getting around the rules and guidlines will result in your posting privileges being suspended.

    This message has been edited by AdminJar, 10-18-2005 10:07 PM

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 148 by cavediver, posted 10-18-2005 4:53 AM cavediver 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