Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A Big Bang Misconception
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 3597 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 46 of 83 (343025)
08-24-2006 3:49 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by anglagard
05-11-2006 9:31 PM


Re: ISBN
ISBN numbers often appear alongside the pricing code.

Archer

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by anglagard, posted 05-11-2006 9:31 PM anglagard has not replied

  
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 3597 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 47 of 83 (343030)
08-24-2006 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Hyroglyphx
05-11-2006 11:47 PM


Re: Classical big bang models
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-11-2006 11:47 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Joman
Inactive Member


Message 48 of 83 (343033)
08-24-2006 4:16 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by ringo
08-24-2006 2:42 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by ringo, posted 08-24-2006 2:42 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by ringo, posted 08-24-2006 4:32 PM Joman has replied

  
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 3597 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 49 of 83 (343038)
08-24-2006 4:31 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Hyroglyphx
05-12-2006 2:58 PM


Re: Points in space-time
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-12-2006 2:58 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 50 of 83 (343039)
08-24-2006 4:32 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Joman
08-24-2006 4:16 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Joman, posted 08-24-2006 4:16 PM Joman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Joman, posted 08-25-2006 11:32 AM ringo has replied

  
Joman
Inactive Member


Message 51 of 83 (343302)
08-25-2006 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by ringo
08-24-2006 4:32 PM


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 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.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by ringo, posted 08-24-2006 4:32 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by ringo, posted 08-25-2006 11:59 AM Joman has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 52 of 83 (343315)
08-25-2006 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by Joman
08-25-2006 11:32 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Joman, posted 08-25-2006 11:32 AM Joman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Joman, posted 08-25-2006 12:25 PM ringo has replied

  
Joman
Inactive Member


Message 53 of 83 (343329)
08-25-2006 12:25 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by ringo
08-25-2006 11:59 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by ringo, posted 08-25-2006 11:59 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by ringo, posted 08-25-2006 12:28 PM Joman has replied
 Message 55 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-25-2006 12:32 PM Joman has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 54 of 83 (343330)
08-25-2006 12:28 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Joman
08-25-2006 12:25 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Joman, posted 08-25-2006 12:25 PM Joman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Joman, posted 08-25-2006 2:14 PM ringo has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 55 of 83 (343333)
08-25-2006 12:32 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Joman
08-25-2006 12:25 PM


In the mean time you could repond to my Message 43.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Joman, posted 08-25-2006 12:25 PM Joman has not replied

  
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 3597 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 56 of 83 (343337)
08-25-2006 12:42 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by complexPHILOSOPHY
05-02-2006 7:22 AM


Re: Big Bang misconceptions
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by complexPHILOSOPHY, posted 05-02-2006 7:22 AM complexPHILOSOPHY has not replied

  
Joman
Inactive Member


Message 57 of 83 (343360)
08-25-2006 2:05 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by New Cat's Eye
08-24-2006 3:34 PM


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 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.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-24-2006 3:34 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-25-2006 4:45 PM Joman has not replied

  
Joman
Inactive Member


Message 58 of 83 (343361)
08-25-2006 2:14 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by ringo
08-25-2006 12:28 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by ringo, posted 08-25-2006 12:28 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by ringo, posted 08-25-2006 2:30 PM Joman has not replied
 Message 60 by Percy, posted 08-25-2006 3:08 PM Joman has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 59 of 83 (343364)
08-25-2006 2:30 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Joman
08-25-2006 2:14 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Joman, posted 08-25-2006 2:14 PM Joman has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 60 of 83 (343372)
08-25-2006 3:08 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Joman
08-25-2006 2:14 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Joman, posted 08-25-2006 2:14 PM Joman 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