|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: A Big Bang Misconception | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Archer Opteryx Member (Idle past 3625 days) Posts: 1811 From: East Asia Joined: |
ISBN numbers often appear alongside the pricing code.
Archer
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Archer Opteryx Member (Idle past 3625 days) Posts: 1811 From: East Asia Joined: |
n_j writes:
Too be honest, I dno't know how I feel about the BB. Why is it necessary to have feelings about it? Better to understand it first. Until you do, what do your feelings matter--even to yourself? I don't know how I feel about subatomic particles. But who cares? Archer
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Joman Inactive Member |
Quote by Ringo.
quote: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Archer Opteryx Member (Idle past 3625 days) Posts: 1811 From: East Asia Joined: |
n_j writes:
[Hovind] is afforded the opportunity to believe as he does. But lets look at it truthfully. If what Hovind was saying was so fantasitically false, then no one would care about his babble. As it is, its more than evident that what he's saying is hitting home to the scientific community. If creationism as a whole was not presenting a problem to secular views, then there would not be propaganda campaign to stop it. I mean, look at Talk Origins. Nearly the entire site is devoted towards the debate, as is this webforum. If it wasn't a problem and if it wasn't based on, at the very least, some merit, then no one would care either way. So its reasonable to assume that what Hovind and the gang are saying has more legitimacy than some would incline. Illiteracy must have something going for it--else the educators of the world would not invest so much energy in a propaganda effort to teach kids to read. A virtuoso feat of logic. Truly. Archer
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Joman writes: But, there point made was that the initial point from which all expanded is a point of "absolute rest". So what? No need to get tripped up by that one little phrase.
Which is an absolute standard of reference and not the kind found in cal labs. You were the one who said that "calibration labs" use absolute standards.I was just correcting your error. your point is based upon belief that your right not upon evidence, since no one has tested all other points in space. I think it's based on mathematics. When you've found a point in space that fails the test, come back and prove me wrong.
... they haven't any scientific method to their extrapolation since it apparently isn't based upon actual observation. That doesn't make any sense. There wouldn't be anything to extrapolate if it wasn't for the observations.
... 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). But you can't use "the balloon skin" as your frame of reference. In the analogy, earth would correspond roughly to one of the dots on the balloon. So your mathematician could only calculate the original dots' positions relative to the position of his own dot. Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Joman Inactive Member |
Ringo writes: You were the one who said that "calibration labs" use absolute standards. 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. Ringo writes: I think it's based on mathematics. Which is my point! Your opinion is based on math and not on actual measurement.
Ringo writes: When you've found a point in space that fails the test, come back and prove me wrong. I'm not going to go look. So, does that mean your right do you think?
Ringo writes: There wouldn't be anything to extrapolate if it wasn't for the observations. Your a math man? What scientific observational data are you extrapolating from?
Ringo writes: But you can't use "the balloon skin" as your frame of reference. I don't want to use a balloon skin. The balloon skin analogy is big banger cosmological one that is apparently not very usefulAnyway, 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. Ringo writes: In the analogy, earth would correspond roughly to one of the dots on the balloon. So your mathematician could only calculate the original dots' positions relative to the position of his own dot. 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 Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Joman writes: ... while trying to draw attention to the fact that if a reference is absolute then the measurement can be absolute also. And I've been saying that the reference is not absolute - so the measurement is not absolute either. As far as I can tell, you're the only one who claims it is.
Your a math man? In everyday life, I pose as the mild-mannered gunfighter, Ringo.But when danger threatens, I become Math Man! What scientific observational data are you extrapolating from? The Big Bang was originally extrapolated from observations of all of the objects in the universe. The math and the observations agree.
I don't want to use a balloon skin. Then why did you bring it up?
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 know that's your argument, but you haven't done anything to back it up. Look at the dreaded balloon analogy: There are an infinite number of points on the surface of the balloon, representing an infinite number of points in "space". You seem to be thinking in terms of standing "outside" the points and observing all of them at once. But there is no "outside". You can only stand on one point and observe the others relative to that point.
... if expansion were true then the earth wouldn't appear as the center unless it was. Huh? Balloon analogy again: the surface of a balloon has no "center". The earth can neither "be" at the center nor "appear" to be at the center.
In a true expansion many redshift measurements would exist. However, none would be perpendicular unless secondary causes intrude. There are secondary causes. What's the problem? Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Joman Inactive Member |
Ringo,
Let me know when you do understand my points. Joman.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Joman writes: Let me know when you do understand my points. If there's a problem in understanding, point it out. Don't just run away. Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
In the mean time you could repond to my Message 43.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Archer Opteryx Member (Idle past 3625 days) Posts: 1811 From: East Asia Joined: |
Thanks to complexPHILOSOPHY for the OP. My mental picture of this theory needed exactly the update you provided. I appreciate your taking the time to type it up.
Archer
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Joman Inactive Member |
All quotes by Catholic Scientist
I don't think we can determine the actual point of the singularity, though. I think that also. But, I reason that that inability is due to the disconnect between theory and reality.
Also, doesn't putting that point as the point of absolute rest assume that the expansion is equal in all directions? 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. What does classical physics say is the consequence of the existence of absolute motion? We would still have relative motion to deal with, no? 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. Does calling the point of singularity a point of absulte rest allow us to actually determine the absolute motion of something? No, only if you can pin point it.
What is it then? 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.
Einstein could still be correct that we can't determine the absolute motion, even if we say that it is theoretically possible, I don't know. I agree.
It would have to be more powerful if the force was in the opposite direction of expansion, but if the force was in a direction perpindicular, or closer, to the same direction, then it would not have to be more powerful. 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.
Its not like a bomb went off. 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. I don't think that is the expansion that they are talking about. Can you provide a source for this claim? No, you were right! They are saying that the merest amounts of localforce 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. Well, we're gonna have to get past that part before moving on. 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)
Not only is it ongoing, but the rate is increasing. 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! Why do you say that we aren't cool enough yet? 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).
Well, when fusion starts kicking in, shit goes haywire, yeah? 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Joman Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Joman writes: How is it the expansion force was able to expand the densest clump of matter initially but, not the extremely less dense ones now? By observation, we know that the galaxies are moving away from each other. Are you saying that we can only extrapolate that motion backward until the "expansive" force balances with the "attractive" force? That is, are you suggesting that the expansion "began" at some time (say 6000 years ago) with the galaxies already far apart? I would also like some clarification on what you think the "expansive" force is. Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22499 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Joman writes: How is it the expansion force was able to expand the densest clump of matter initially but, not the extremely less dense ones now? Ooh, good question. Let me rephrase this for the benefit of those trying to answer it. In today's universe we say that expanding space doesn't cause matter to expand with it because matter is strongly bound together. In the early universe during inflation my understanding of the model is that matter expanded with space. How so? Was it because matter was still so hot that no bonds had yet formed, and that the symmetries that became broken later were still in place?
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) This one's much easier. It isn't that it moves a whole galaxy. It's that the amount of space between it and adjacent galaxies is increasing. --Percy
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024