A Big Bang Misconception

quote:

---

It is not that 'all things are expanding from a point,' rather, all things are moving away from each other as space-time stretches.
  —complexPHILOSOPHY

---

If all things are expanding away from each other then, isn't classical physics correct in theorizing that there is such a thing as absolute motion, since the reference is the point of origin. And, wouldn't Einstein be proven wrong in his claim that absolute motion or absolute rest can't ever be determined?
If all things, at levels of existence are expanding in this supernatural manner wouldn't all things be traveling at the same speed?Joman.

Quotes by Chatholic Scientist.

quote:

---

If you have a reference, even if it is the point of origin, then it isn't absolute motion, right? Having a reference makes it not absolute, I think.

---

The point of reference once determined allows the determination of the absolute motion of objects moving relative to it.
Any imagined movement of the point of reference in this particular case wouldn't matter since all expanding objects would share the same motion and any other possible reference point would be outside the realm of our universe and thus, indeterminate.

quote:

---

No, the speeds of things could change by the things interacting with each other.

---

If all things are expanding away from a certain point they can never collide. If gravity is proposed as a means of distorting expansion pathways then then the gravity must be considered as able to overcome expansion forces. But, if gravity were so powerful as to overcome expansion in a space that is rarified of matter then it wouldn't have allowed it in the first place since all things were imagined to be in the same (dense) point initially.Joman.

Quote by Jar.

quote:

---

Of course they can, and they do. There can also be local motion relative to other local objects as well as objects developing over time.

---

It's not an explosion at all that we are talking about. Right?
The dots on a stretched balloon never meet do they?
Now, which ist? The big bang was a explosion of the dynamite kind or it was a expansion of space.Joman.

Quotes by Chatholic Scientist.

quote:

---

Its my understanding that if the motion is relative to something then it is not absolute. You seem to have contradicted yourself.

---

The determination of motion relative to any point of absolute rest is an absolute measurement. That's why calibration labs have standards. The argument against classical physics is that there isn't any way to determine absolute motion since no reference point of absolute rest can be determined. my argument is that if the math says that all things came from a single point then that point is the point of absolute rest for the universe in question.

quote:

---

Call the direction of the expansion away from the point "y" and direction perpindicular to that "x". Gravity could move objects in the x direction while those objects maintain there momentum in the y direction and this could cause those objects to collide. Once stuff starts colliding, you can imagine this causing other collision causeing others and so on without causeing the expansion to stop.

---

You must include z.
As I have said, if gravity is powerful enough to do as you say then gravity is more powerful than the force of expansion. If that were true, then when all matter was densely packed together it wouldn't have had the ability to expand in the first place.By the way, i'm not saying that no collisions would ever occur for other reasons. I'm saying that the expansion force of the big bang can't be confused with the force of a dynamic explosion.
The expansion the big banger's are talking about C.S. is one that is expanding even the dimensions of the sub-atomic world. It is supposed to be expanding the dimensions of the wavelength of light since, during the supposed very long trip across space, the space it is linked up with is expanding. But, the yardsticks are expanding also. That is, all frames of reference are expanding.
I argued that if expansion includes all things, then any redshift effect due to expansion would be nulled out and thus hidden. But, because of that the redshift represents something other than expansion of the universe. Now this is problematic. If we assume that the redshift doesn't represent the effect of an expansion force then we would intuitively expect the redshifts to be enormously varied in speed and direction. Which they aren'.
I personally believe that an expansion of space was a real event, although not necessarily a ongoing one. I believe this because the AV Bible says God..."stretcheth forth the heavens."

quote:

---

I don't think it has to overcome the expansion force to change the path. If your driving your car straight and start making a turn, you don't have to have any acceleration in the reverse direction. Think of 2 planets expanding on near perpindicular paths being attracted to each other in a direction perpindicular to the direction of expansion. That force of attraction would not have to overcome the expansion force, no?

---

I disagree. Firstly, I would like to point out that a true expansion of all things from a point source would be unable to produce any paths pependicular to each other.
So, I'm saying that all effects contrary to such reasoning would be due to non-expansion forces. The biggest wouldn't be gravity (gravity is to weak) but instead, the thermodynamic value of the energy found/or ignited in the point source from which all matter came.This leads to another critcism. If we postulate an enormous amount of thermo energy at the moment of initial expansion from a point source and say that that is the force that drove all things apart and willy nilly in a secondary way (with repect to expansion forces) then it is obvious that any supposed accretion of atoms and molecules couldn't occur until the thermodynamic situation cools down far more than it is now.
The molecules of a gas under thermo expansive force aren't overcome by the gravity of the molecules.
So, you can see that a huge number of molecules must be somehow packed together densely before enough local gravity effect is unified in it's effect upon local objects of significant mass. Well? If one suppose that the clumping of mass occurred at the initial expansion event then the CMR (cosmic background radiation) is not the signature of that event. For, if it were, then the background radiative residue wouldn't be smooth but, clumpy also...which it is not.Joman.

Quote by Ringo.

quote:

---

Measurements are calibrated relative to a standard. There is nothing "absolute" about the standard. The standard can be anything at all, as long as all measurements are made relative to the same standard.

---

But, there point made was that the initial point from which all expanded is a point of "absolute rest". Which is an absolute standard of reference and not the kind found in cal labs.

quote:

---

You can choose any point in space and you'll find that all points in space are moving away from it.
There is no "fixed point". The same is true for every point.

---

BTW, your point is based upon belief that your right not upon evidence, since no one has tested all other points in space.If scientists are extrapolating math back to a point then they can find it and fix it. If they can't then there isn't any scientific reality to their theory. And, even more profound is the fact that they haven't any scientific method to their extrapolation since it apparently isn't based upon actual observation.
If one placed dots upon a ballon and expanded it, I believe that a competent math man could calculate the original position of each dot from the ongoing expansion, even from within the frame of reference (the balloon skin).
Joman.

Where?
I said that cal labs use standards not "absolute standards". I used that statement as a analogy to the use of references while trying to draw attention to the fact that if a reference is absolute then the measurement can be absolute also. Which is my point! Your opinion is based on math and not on actual measurement. I'm not going to go look. So, does that mean your right do you think? Your a math man? What scientific observational data are you extrapolating from? I don't want to use a balloon skin. The balloon skin analogy is big banger cosmological one that is apparently not very useful
Anyway, you said your extrapolating from a scientific observational point of view backwards to a point. I'm the one that's telling you it's all simply in your head and on paper. My argument is that if you really were extrapolating from a observational data pov then you could indeed pin point the origin of the expansion. I exptrapolate data often and it is only useful in a real world sense when the extrapolation is hard data based and not theory based. Which is all that is necessary since all dots resolve to one point. We aren't talking about extrapolating for too small a sample.
BTW, if expansion were true then the earth wouldn't appear as the center unless it was. It would appear that all sources of light were receding and would share this fact with all points of reference. But, the actual data (if possible) would reveal the point of origin by use of the variety of red shift values. In a true expansion many redshift measurements would exist. However, none would be perpendicular unless secondary causes intrude. Nor, would any show objects not receding, unless due to secondary causes of other motions.Joman.Joman

Ringo,Let me know when you do understand my points.Joman.

All quotes by Catholic Scientist I think that also. But, I reason that that inability is due to the disconnect between theory and reality. Yes. My reasoning is that there's nothing known, that is outside of the universe of space in question to expect to hinder it.
Since, the point of origin is extremely dense (at some moment) and the expansion has been described as unable to expand actual matter, due to the strength of gravitational force (the weakest force in the real universe)then, the densely packed matter wouldn't have budged due to any expansion force. And, therefore, nothing within the boundary of the space at that time was able to prevent it either. So, I think, yes.
Now, cosmologists are saying that space expands leaving mass behind and yet sometimes they use a balloon analogy which contradicts the notion. {For, if the dots are the clumps of mass, which are unaffected by the expanding medium (the balloon's skin) then, when we expand the balloon the dots shouldn't move.}
I've heard the excuse that it's a bad analogy. But, it's been a bad analogy for a long time. I suspect there's no real world way of describing the big bang theory and thus no better analogy than a bad one exists. No official position. But, it would be a tremendous boon to science to ascertain a point of absolute rest.
Relative motion has been in physics since Galileo. No, only if you can pin point it. The singularity is an escape from the confines of classical physics and realivistic physics also. It's needed so that a supernatural event has a psuedo scientific sounding name that doesn't invoke the authority of God. I agree. The cosmologists told us that the mass is unaffected due to the power of local forces such as gravity. So, the big bang had to have exploded for some other reason since expansion forces had no grip on the matter. But, the cosmologists aren't explaining the contradiction, yet. But, then what did it?
If you say it's the power of space expansion that did it then how can you also claim that now the same force can't overcome less massive senario's? Remember, they're are claiming that it's the localization effect. No, you were right! They are saying that the merest amounts of local
force is all that is required to prevent the expansion of matter or even the distant ttraction between stars within a galaxy! Remember, that local is defined as everything from ruler size up to galaxy size, but, not beyond that however. And, we did! The cosmologists are saying that all things don't expand due to local gravity and other effective forces that are local. (local =/- 200,000 light years) Well,of course. But, how and why? How is the expansion having any effect upon anything if it isn't strong enough to expand a galaxy?
By the time you suppose that we have enough dark matter and black holes to build and maintain a galaxy there's no way the expansion force can overcome it! Because, a minimum of heat is all that is required to prevent gravity from condensing any mass. I think a lot of people are unable to grasp just how weak gravity is. I weigh only 200lbs under the effect of the whole earth! But, the expansion force is much weaker they say (although it can expand a whole universe). The only thing that's kicked in is confusion. Fusion can't occur unless the condensing of matter has already occurred.Thanks for the posting training. I appreaciated it.Joman.Ps. Personally I think the devil's in the details and confusion in the minds of scientists is the goal.

Ringo,Ok.
How is it the expansion force was able to expand the densest clump of matter initially but, not the extremely less dense ones now?
How can it move a whole galaxy and yet it can't expand the galaxy itself? (consider how small the gravity effect between our sun and others is)Joman.