Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   No Big Bang--Just gentle whisper
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 16 of 100 (359289)
10-27-2006 10:26 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by baloneydetector#zero
10-27-2006 9:48 AM


Re: Reply to Dr Adequate
baloneydetector#zero writes:
Hi Percy. I'm trying to put together an apology for Dr. Adequate.
I don't know if you owe Dr Adequate an apology, but if it makes you feel better...
Where you go with this thread is largely up to you. Modern cosmological views are extremely well established and supported by a wealth of evidence. I think things would go best if you used current views as a point of departure rather than making up your own. The latter approach tends to bog down with one side trying to explain the evidential support for modern cosmology, and the other side digging in their heels while complaining that their own ideas are extremely insightful and deserve more serious consideration. In other words, an unproductive impasse.
Nice to speak to a man from New Hampshire (where)...
Ayuh! Can't reveal my location, it would threaten anonymity, but it's good to see New England gain representation here at EvC!
P.S. Do you involve yourself with all responses to messages?
God, no! I scan the proposed topics every day and noticed that your proposal had been sitting around unaddressed for a while, so I stepped in. After you split it into paragraphs it turned out to be a topic that interests me. I don't usually participate in many threads these days due to lack of time.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by baloneydetector#zero, posted 10-27-2006 9:48 AM baloneydetector#zero has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 17 of 100 (359332)
10-27-2006 1:44 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Percy
10-27-2006 4:51 AM


Re: Reply to Dr Adequate
The phrase that Baloney used was "fall off the edge of your universe". Unless this is just a euphemistic way of referring to regions of the universe too distant to affect our own region due to the expansion of intervening space, this is not a current cosmological view. I do find the view that distant galaxies would fall off the edge of the universe to be ridiculous, but that is not part of current theory.
I took him to mean the fact that glaxies will disappear beyond our "horizon"; and to be constrained by a desire to make it sound like the flat Earth theory.
The notion of a flat Earth itself, I might add, is not "ridiculous", it is merely known to be false. It is not something one could dismiss a priori just by giggling at it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Percy, posted 10-27-2006 4:51 AM Percy has not replied

  
baloneydetector#zero
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 100 (359335)
10-27-2006 2:09 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Dr Adequate
10-26-2006 6:32 PM


Apology to Dr Adequate
I hope that you didn’t take me wrong. I didn’t mean to offend you. I was just trying to define what I should try to respond to. The term “ridiculous” might be too harsh. All my life, I’ve been faced with what are to me false truths. Humans can and do swallow anything. For instance, it won’t be too long before there are as many religions as there are people. Some might even try to swallow a hippopotamus. So, “baloney” might be a less offensive term. What the heck, it’s part of my handle, isn’t it.
When I am faced with two choices, I’ve always leaned towards the simplest one. It’s an Occam’s razor thing.
For me, there are things that seem to stretch my imagination to the breaking point. That does not mean that they are not true. All of these things we are discussing are theories, not proven facts. It just so happens that I’ve reached the age where tomorrow is merely a possibility. If I don’t talk now, my ideas may never be aired and possibly, that’s where they belong-in a vacuum.
So, I think the red shift, not matter why it happens, does indicate an apparent limit to our universe at the point where the red shift indicates an apparent recession speed (assuming a doppler reason) of the speed of light. There can’t be an argument there, can there?
I also don’t believe that I’m necessarily right. If I was right, someone else that has a larger oar in the water than I do, would have come up with it before.......Bob

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-26-2006 6:32 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Percy, posted 10-27-2006 5:00 PM baloneydetector#zero has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 19 of 100 (359359)
10-27-2006 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by baloneydetector#zero
10-27-2006 2:09 PM


Re: Apology to Dr Adequate
baloneydetector#zero writes:
If I don’t talk now, my ideas may never be aired and possibly, that’s where they belong-in a vacuum.
If your ideas developed in a vacuum uninfluenced by evidence or informed opinion, then a vacuum is where they probably belong.
So, I think the red shift, not matter why it happens, does indicate an apparent limit to our universe at the point where the red shift indicates an apparent recession speed (assuming a doppler reason) of the speed of light. There can’t be an argument there, can there?
Are you interested in learning what modern cosmology believes about the universe, and what evidence causes it to think so? Or do you want to talk about your own personal ideas concerning cosmology?
Relativity theory says, and the evidence appears to confirm, that neither matter nor photons can travel faster than the speed of light in any given reference frame, but the expansion of space itself is not governed by this speed limit. Space can expand faster than the speed of light, and if the universe is sufficiently large then inevitably there are portions of our universe receding from us faster than the speed of light.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by baloneydetector#zero, posted 10-27-2006 2:09 PM baloneydetector#zero has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by baloneydetector#zero, posted 10-30-2006 9:14 AM Percy has not replied

  
baloneydetector#zero
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 100 (359797)
10-30-2006 9:14 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Percy
10-27-2006 5:00 PM


Response to Percy
Percy, your last two responses caused me to start doubting my baloney detector and I had to go back & check on things. Now that I've got myself back together, I've got to organized the jumbled thoughts inot some coherent response. Get back to you in a few days.....Bob

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Percy, posted 10-27-2006 5:00 PM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by baloneydetector#zero, posted 10-30-2006 11:02 AM baloneydetector#zero has not replied

  
baloneydetector#zero
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 100 (359822)
10-30-2006 11:02 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by baloneydetector#zero
10-30-2006 9:14 AM


Back to the drawing board
Percy, I have taken another peek at the latest in modern cosmology and find that nothing much has changed. All advances are still only theories most of which are based on variations on the Big Bang theory. If my baloney detector is even close to correct, and the Big Bang didn’t happen, then all of the advances in modern cosmology belong in the toilet.
I think that we can actually prove that the Big Bang didn’t happen and, to do this we must go back to basics. In my original article, it seems that I didn’t expand on the basics enough to be understood.
Like Dr. adequate cited, the force of gravity between two objects is inversely proportional to the distance between them. For any object in this universe, gravity is acting on it by all other objects in the universe. Like I mentioned in my original message, this action from all masses from all sides has the affect of holding and securing the original object in one place-at the center of the universe. This universal force provides inertia to the object which has a value we call mass.
Keeping this thought in mind and reviewing the idea that universe would be expanding if the Big Bang had happened, then why isn’t the mass of the object changing in response to the change in the distances of an expanding universe. Has the mass of any object been checked over time to ascertain this? Don’t think so.
Another thing, if the mass of the object is fixed, unchanging and, has a reasonable value (not infinite) then, it’s universe is not infinite or, if it is, gravitational attractions have a distance limit. What is great about this, is that we are able to move about our universe. This freedom of motion is another indication of the kind of universe we live in. The smaller the object, the greater freedom it has to move. Atomic and subatomic particles enjoy the most freedom.
There are some other thoughts floating around in there somewhere but, they seem to be out of lasso range. Maybe next time.
By the way Percy, I don’t live in Maine any longer. My company moved me to El Paso, Texas where I retired. Can’t afford Maine on retirement pay.........Bob

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by baloneydetector#zero, posted 10-30-2006 9:14 AM baloneydetector#zero has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by PaulK, posted 10-30-2006 11:54 AM baloneydetector#zero has not replied
 Message 23 by nwr, posted 10-30-2006 12:32 PM baloneydetector#zero has not replied
 Message 24 by Percy, posted 10-30-2006 2:20 PM baloneydetector#zero has replied
 Message 25 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-31-2006 10:01 AM baloneydetector#zero has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 22 of 100 (359844)
10-30-2006 11:54 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by baloneydetector#zero
10-30-2006 11:02 AM


Start with Newton then move on to Einstein
quote:
Like Dr. adequate cited, the force of gravity between two objects is inversely proportional to the distance between them.
You probably know this, but it is important to remember that it is the inverse square of the distance.
quote:
Like I mentioned in my original message, this action from all masses from all sides has the affect of holding and securing the original object in one place-at the center of the universe
No, no, no. Firstly this really only applies if the mass is evenly distributed. Since this is not the case local concentrations of mass will have a far greater effect (thanks to the inverse square law). Adding Relativity makes it worse because even Special Relativity denies that there is a meaningful "centre" to the universe.
quote:
This universal force provides inertia to the object which has a value we call mass.
No. Inertia is another thing entirely. It is not a force at all as your idea would require. Again you only need Newtonian mechanics to understand this.
quote:
...why isn’t the mass of the object changing in response to the change in the distances of an expanding universe
It hasn't been checked because it makes no sense. Weight - not mass - is the effect of gravity. And that is usually dominated by local mass concentrations. On the Earth's surface weight is overwhelmingly due to the attraction of the mass of the Earth - the rest of the universe has a negligible effect in comparison. (True, the moon has enough of an effect to cause tides, but even that is relatively small - and other bodies, even in aggregate, have even less effect).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by baloneydetector#zero, posted 10-30-2006 11:02 AM baloneydetector#zero has not replied

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


Message 23 of 100 (359857)
10-30-2006 12:32 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by baloneydetector#zero
10-30-2006 11:02 AM


Re: Back to the drawing board
If my baloney detector is even close to correct, and the Big Bang didn’t happen, then all of the advances in modern cosmology belong in the toilet.
I think you may need to turn down the sensitivity knob on your baloney detector. It might be picking up false alarms.
BB cosmology involves a concept shift, a different way of looking at things. A lot of baloney detectors went off when Einstein proposed his theory of relativity. That's because relativity did not fit our familiar conceptualization of things. That's a problem with concept shifts (or "paradigm shifts", as Kuhn would call them) - they can be hard to take.
That said, I am still myself a bit of a skeptic regarding BB. That's mainly because I don't think there is yet enough evidence. However, the problems you describe - those that trigger your baloney detector - aren't really problems with BB, they are mostly problems with your current understanding of BB.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by baloneydetector#zero, posted 10-30-2006 11:02 AM baloneydetector#zero has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Son Goku, posted 11-06-2006 12:01 PM nwr has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 24 of 100 (359880)
10-30-2006 2:20 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by baloneydetector#zero
10-30-2006 11:02 AM


Re: Back to the drawing board
baloney writes:
If my baloney detector is even close to correct...
The baloney emissions picked up by your baloney detector are coming from you. Please point your baloney detector at an actual science book and all should be well.
There is so much scientifically wrong in your post, and so fundamentally wrong, that one almost doesn't know where to begin. I guess I'll just run down the litany of errors, and I'll skip the parts of your message that just make no sense.
The attractive force between two objects is proportional to their mass and inversely proportion to the *square* of their distance. And Dr Adequate made no such statement as you claimed about gravity.
Mass is an inherent property of matter. It is weight that varies according to the strength of a gravitational field, not mass. It's actually a bit more complicated than that because the measured mass will vary according to relative velocity, and so I believe it would be more accurate to say that it is rest mass or intrinsic mass (they're synonyms) that is an inherent property of matter.
There is no evidence for a "center of the universe".
If mass is relatively uniformly distributed throughout the universe, then even if there were a "center of the universe" the effect of gravity at that point would be nil, since gravity cancels out. There would be no "holding and securing".
Whether or not the universe is expanding, it has no effect on the mass of objects. Once again, mass is an inherent property of matter.
While gravity can extend its influence at only the speed of light, there is no evidence for any distance limit.
Concerning your argument about degrees of freedom, I think everyone would agree that small objects can fit into many more places than large objects, but this doesn't have anything to do with the Big Bang.
A question: Do you think there might be any benefit to learning what science actually says about mass, gravity and the Big Bang?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by baloneydetector#zero, posted 10-30-2006 11:02 AM baloneydetector#zero has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by baloneydetector#zero, posted 10-31-2006 10:02 AM Percy has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 25 of 100 (360083)
10-31-2006 10:01 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by baloneydetector#zero
10-30-2006 11:02 AM


Re: Back to the drawing board
Percy, I have taken another peek at the latest in modern cosmology and find that nothing much has changed. All advances are still only theories most of which are based on variations on the Big Bang theory. If my baloney detector is even close to correct, and the Big Bang didn’t happen, then all of the advances in modern cosmology belong in the toilet.
And this, of course, is where my baloney detector starts clicking. Because it is hardly likely that a non-physicist, with no mathematical background, is going to put Einstein straight.
I think that we can actually prove that the Big Bang didn’t happen and, to do this we must go back to basics.
You don't thing cosmologists know basic physics?
Like Dr. adequate cited, the force of gravity between two objects is inversely proportional to the distance between them.
To the product of their masses over the square of the distance between them.
For any object in this universe, gravity is acting on it by all other objects in the universe. Like I mentioned in my original message, this action from all masses from all sides has the affect of holding and securing the original object in one place-at the center of the universe.
You appear to be claiming that every object is at "the center of the universe". This is patently not true.
Keeping this thought in mind and reviewing the idea that universe would be expanding if the Big Bang had happened, then why isn’t the mass of the object changing in response to the change in the distances of an expanding universe.
Why don't wombats explode every time I whistle the Star-Spangled Banner?
Well, why should they?
Another thing, if the mass of the object is fixed, unchanging and, has a reasonable value (not infinite) then, it’s universe is not infinite or, if it is, gravitational attractions have a distance limit.
This is a complete non sequitur. That objects have a fixed mass does not imply a finite universe or a limit on universal gravitation.
What is great about this, is that we are able to move about our universe. This freedom of motion is another indication of the kind of universe we live in. The smaller the object, the greater freedom it has to move. Atomic and subatomic particles enjoy the most freedom.
This is not true. subatomic particles are bound together by electromagnetic forces and the strong nuclear force. You ever seen a free quark?
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by baloneydetector#zero, posted 10-30-2006 11:02 AM baloneydetector#zero has not replied

  
baloneydetector#zero
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 100 (360084)
10-31-2006 10:02 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Percy
10-30-2006 2:20 PM


Mathematics and the Universe
Sorry guys, it’s all my fault.
I started to think that there was something wrong, because, we didn’t seem to be understanding each other. I’d put one of my old ideas on this forum thinking that most of you that were reading material in this particular forum would be a cut above the average Joe. Don’t get me wrong, you are. It was me all the time. There I was, thinking that for some reason we seemed to be arguing about how many angels could dance on the head of a pin.
What was wrong, is that I didn’t inform you about things that I’d flung in Archie’s ”turlet’ a long time ago. In fact I’d completely forgotten them. After thinking about it a while, after reading and re-reading your messages, I came to the conclusion that I had to forage around in that ”turlet’ to see what I’d forgotten to mention to you.
Most of us regard certain people almost like Gods. We believe almost everything they say and do. I was the same. One day, I realized that mathematicians like Einstein are not Gods and that some of the things they say are colored by the type of people they are. Mathematicians think in formulae and numbers. They look at the universe and develop formulas that define certain aspects of it like gravity. Formulas are nice things but, they are only tools. You can take certain particulars at a certain time and crank them in a formula and voila-an answer. Formulas such as ”field formulas’, take all possibilities in consideration. That’s why you can crank any set of factors in them for a particular time and get a comprehensive answer for that set of factors.
Mathematicians have gone a little further. They have inverted the formulas that they developed and have turned around and used them to re-engineer the universe. A mathematical construct like a gravitational field formula suddenly became a space-time gravitational warp. We can’t take a mathematical construct that contains all possible states of time and space and apply it to a universe where only the present is happening. The past is gone and the future is not here yet and so, the gravitational field cannot define the present.
I don’t think we’ll ever really ever understand each other. People can’t discard ways of thinking overnight. I know I can’t. It takes me a long time.
Thank y’all for the messages and have a good life..........Bob

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Percy, posted 10-30-2006 2:20 PM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by PaulK, posted 10-31-2006 10:09 AM baloneydetector#zero has not replied
 Message 28 by nwr, posted 10-31-2006 10:30 AM baloneydetector#zero has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 27 of 100 (360086)
10-31-2006 10:09 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by baloneydetector#zero
10-31-2006 10:02 AM


Re: Mathematics and the Universe
You really have set my baloney detector off. The problem is not that we have an exaggerated respect for Einstein. The problem is that you don't understand what you are talking about.
I'm sorry but you can't expect us to take your ideas seriously when you can't even manage high-school level physics.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by baloneydetector#zero, posted 10-31-2006 10:02 AM baloneydetector#zero has not replied

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


Message 28 of 100 (360091)
10-31-2006 10:30 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by baloneydetector#zero
10-31-2006 10:02 AM


Re: Mathematics and the Universe
Mathematicians have gone a little further. They have inverted the formulas that they developed and have turned around and used them to re-engineer the universe. A mathematical construct like a gravitational field formula suddenly became a space-time gravitational warp. We can’t take a mathematical construct that contains all possible states of time and space and apply it to a universe where only the present is happening. The past is gone and the future is not here yet and so, the gravitational field cannot define the present.
There is a strong link between theoretical physics and mathematics. However, mathematicians do not re-engineer the universe. The relation between mathematics and the universe is not what you take it to be.
Before you criticize physicists for rejecting naive folk-physics, you might want to study why they rejected it.

Compassionate conservatism - bringing you a kinder, gentler torture chamber

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by baloneydetector#zero, posted 10-31-2006 10:02 AM baloneydetector#zero has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 29 of 100 (360117)
10-31-2006 12:27 PM


Time for Concluding Comments
baloney writes:
Thank y’all for the messages and have a good life..........Bob
Well, this was a short thread. I move that we proceed on to concluding remarks.
There's nothing about Bob's claims worth commenting on. What's much more interesting is that here we have yet another example of a complete know-nothing, don't-want-to-know-nothing, coming here to make scientific declarations off the top of his head.
Had Bob stuck around we know the course this thread would have taken. We'd try and try and try to explain the actual position of science concerning the Big Bang, including all the evidence behind the theory. We'd talk about red shifts and and cosmic background radiation and distance measurements and the expansion of space and relativity and so forth, and Bob would accept none of it and understand even less. The thread would never actually discuss the Big Bang, but would just become yet another contest of patience versus insatiable ignorance, which almost always ends in an impasse. As has been demonstrated here many times, you can lead a person to facts but you can't make him think.
What do people think about threads like this? I was really on the fence about releasing this thread, but I thought Bob might reveal he had a better understanding of the issues than the opening post hinted. I had no idea Bob would reveal himself a nudnik and throw in the towel so quickly. Is it useful for EvC Forum to have discussion threads that are really nothing more than one side explaining and the other side blindly rejecting with no informed discussion actually taking place? The usual reason for endorsing such threads is that a lot of really useful information comes out of these efforts, and I really can't disagree, but wouldn't it be better if this information could instead emerge from a constructive discussion? Or am I asking too much?
--Percy

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by nwr, posted 10-31-2006 12:37 PM Percy has not replied
 Message 47 by RickJB, posted 11-07-2006 5:45 PM Percy has not replied

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


Message 30 of 100 (360123)
10-31-2006 12:37 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Percy
10-31-2006 12:27 PM


Re: Time for Concluding Comments
Is it useful for EvC Forum to have discussion threads that are really nothing more than one side explaining and the other side blindly rejecting with no informed discussion actually taking place?
Yes, we need these threads. We need them, not because of what they achieve, but because of who we are. We need them because, as scientists, we are willing to listen to critics, and to take the time to explain when that appears necessary.
The usual reason for endorsing such threads is that a lot of really useful information comes out of these efforts, and I really can't disagree, but wouldn't it be better if this information could instead emerge from a constructive discussion? Or am I asking too much?
For sure, constructive discussion is to be preferred. And sometimes such threads do lead to constructive discussion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Percy, posted 10-31-2006 12:27 PM Percy 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