Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 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:   The problems of big bang theory. What are they?
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 33 of 389 (400270)
05-11-2007 8:53 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by jackal5096
05-11-2007 2:16 PM


If that were so, why do so many astronomers brag about using gravitational lensing to see behind a galaxy?
What's important is not that they're seeing behind a glaxy, but that they're seeing gravitational lensing. This is what they're bragging about.
For example, in this NASA photo NASA claims that a single quasar, located behind the galaxy, appears four times, in four quadrants, around the galaxy in front of it, due to gravitational lensing. Yet, the quasar is not directly visible through the galaxy.
I guess that would be due to gravitational lensing. The point of gravitational lensing is that you see things where they aren't, not where they are.
---
NB: I should think you probably can't see through the center of a galaxy, but I'm just guessing. But a lot of any galaxy will be empty space.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by jackal5096, posted 05-11-2007 2:16 PM jackal5096 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by jackal5096, posted 05-11-2007 11:26 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

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


Message 37 of 389 (402396)
05-26-2007 9:48 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Lysimachus
05-25-2007 10:59 PM


Re: Video
Could we have something in writing, please?
I suffer from acute and almost life-long literacy, and frankly I'm not sure that video is the best format for a "profound" discussion of quantum mechanics and general relativity --- I take it that's what it contains?
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Lysimachus, posted 05-25-2007 10:59 PM Lysimachus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by NosyNed, posted 05-26-2007 11:29 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

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


Message 53 of 389 (430138)
10-23-2007 1:52 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by TyberiusMax
10-23-2007 11:16 AM


Re: The bitter simple question
Matter exists physically and exists as energy
Matter is what EVERYTHING is made out of...
Matter cannot be created nor destroyed...
The amount of matter in the Universe has been the same ever since the matter came about.
I think you're getting matter and energy a bit mixed up.
The amount of energy in the form of matter can certainly change --- it is energy (including matter) that's conserved.
The universe therefore cannot be infinitely old because that would mean that matter has been here forever
Which you rule out why?
(N.B: again, you should be talking about energy, not matter.)
How, since you cannot make SOMETHING from NOTHING, is this possible
Consider that if energy is conserved this means that you can in fact create positive energyso long as in the process you create an equal amount of negative energy (such as is associated with a gravitational field) to offset it. This would look like "something from nothing", but would not violate the law of conservation of energy.
(I mention this because some physicists think that this may have happened.)
There is a Being or Something who is outside all boundaries of LAWS and NATURE and TIME, and created all we know and do not know.
Well, since you're prepared to acknowledge "a Being or Something", perhaps you should also write "created or caused".
Also, it's not necessarily true that it caused "all we don't know". There might, in principle, be cosmoses other than our own, with different causes.
So, overlooking any minor deficiencies in your exposition, we seem to have reached the conclusion that something must have made the Big Bang go Bing, but we don't yet understand it in terms of our current state of scientific knowledge.
As you have remarked, this is not an argument to make anyone rush out and become a theist, or even a deist.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by TyberiusMax, posted 10-23-2007 11:16 AM TyberiusMax has not replied

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


Message 54 of 389 (430139)
10-23-2007 1:59 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by TyberiusMax
10-23-2007 12:49 PM


Re: The bitter simple question
Because anything that is there is existence and therefore had to be made at sometime.
I think this is the weakest point of your argument. It is not internally, logically self-contradictory to imagine that energy that has always existed in the past and will always exist in the future. Nor would this violate any of the known laws of nature.
Indeed, it would superficially appear to violate the laws of nature if there was a point at which it came into existence, since the law of conservation of energy states that however much energy there is in the Universe now, there must have been at all times in the past.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by TyberiusMax, posted 10-23-2007 12:49 PM TyberiusMax has not replied

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


Message 63 of 389 (430161)
10-23-2007 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by TyberiusMax
10-23-2007 3:13 PM


Re: The bitter simple question
I'm not referring to time, the english language has it's limits you know.
This is why physicists use math instead.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by TyberiusMax, posted 10-23-2007 3:13 PM TyberiusMax has not replied

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


Message 109 of 389 (430451)
10-25-2007 2:57 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by TyberiusMax
10-25-2007 9:03 AM


Re: More false dichotomies
Since people are not reading backward to see what I have said I must repeat:
Oh you must, must you?
I believe that I heard you the first time.
Matter cannot be created nor destroyed...
Well, this is as far as I could be bothered to read through your lastest post.
And you go whining about people not reading what you wrote.
This is garbage, man. This is complete gibbering crap. I did explain it to you. If you had bothered to read the posts I've addressed to you, you'd know it was crap.
But instead, you feel that you "must repeat" this garbage, on the pretext that people aren't listening to you.
We have listened to you, we've explained why you're wrong, and I'm not even going to bother responding to the rest of your post until you get it into your head that according to the laws of physics, energy is conserved, but matter is not, because matter is only one form of energy.
Have you got that?
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by TyberiusMax, posted 10-25-2007 9:03 AM TyberiusMax has not replied

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


Message 115 of 389 (430459)
10-25-2007 3:31 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by TyberiusMax
10-25-2007 3:06 PM


Re: Once more...
Paul Davies
"One evasive tactic is to claim that the universe didn't have a beginning, and that it has existed for all eternity. Unfortunately, there are many scientific reasons why this obvious idea is unsound. For starters, given an infinite amount of time, anything that can happen will already have happened, for if a physical process is likely to occur with a certain nonzero probability-however small-then given an infinite amount of time the process must occur, with probability one. By now, the universe should have reached some sort of final state in which all possible physical processes have run their course. Furthermore, you don't explain the existence of the universe by asserting that it has always existed. That is rather like saying that nobody wrote the Bible: it was. It was just copied from earlier versions."
So eternity even without a God is impossible.
There is no way of explaining the actual beginning, even of the "large universe that holds all other universes"
You realise that whoever this Paul Davies chap is, he's talking bollocks?
I will explain why, but only on the condition that you show some sign of even having read my other posts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by TyberiusMax, posted 10-25-2007 3:06 PM TyberiusMax has not replied

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


Message 120 of 389 (430479)
10-25-2007 5:47 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by TyberiusMax
10-25-2007 3:55 PM


Re: Once more...
You say you only got to this point "matter cannot be created nor destroyed" yet you ignore that fact that a point is made in the whole.
I have in fact answered your points. Now you're asking me to answer them again, while reciting exactly the same blunders I corrected you on last time around.
Matter is not conserved. If you're going to base your argument on the premise that it is, even when you've been informed that this isn't true, then I don't need to read any further.
If you were to base your argument on 2 + 2 being 5, I should hardly need to point out any remaining flaws in your argument.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by TyberiusMax, posted 10-25-2007 3:55 PM TyberiusMax has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by TyberiusMax, posted 10-25-2007 5:55 PM Dr Adequate has replied

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


Message 122 of 389 (430481)
10-25-2007 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by TyberiusMax
10-25-2007 4:16 PM


Re: Once more...
Now, I am in fact prepared to explain to you the difference between something that is finite in space and something that is finite in time --- or perhaps you could figure that out for yourself? --- and, indeed, why applying the same sort of thinking to the dimension of time would prove your thesis incorrect --- and why the entirely unsupported opinion of someone who has read Stephen Hawking is not definitive --- but first I should like you to show some vague signs of having read and understood just one or two of the things I've already explained to you.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by TyberiusMax, posted 10-25-2007 4:16 PM TyberiusMax has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by TyberiusMax, posted 10-25-2007 6:04 PM Dr Adequate has replied

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


Message 126 of 389 (430650)
10-26-2007 2:43 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by TyberiusMax
10-25-2007 6:04 PM


Re: Once more...
Am I mistaken.. or do I not see you explaining anything that goes against anything I say?
You're mistaken, as you will see if you ever bother to read my posts.
All you have done is reply with simple sentences that do not try to disprove anything I say, along with simply denying credit to the two quotes of Davies, and Mayes/Hawking.
I don't know about you but it I find it hard to counter ideas that simply say "thats illogical". You must explain why a idea is illogical before you can claim that it is not.
To say that someone's answer is wrong would mean that you yourself knew the answer. Otherwise what else does saying their answer is not logical mean.
These vague ramblings appear to have nothing to do with anything I posted.
---
Could I add that reading Stephen Hawking and then writing something about the same subject is not the same as co-authoring a work with Stephen Hawking.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by TyberiusMax, posted 10-25-2007 6:04 PM TyberiusMax has not replied

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


Message 127 of 389 (430654)
10-26-2007 2:51 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by TyberiusMax
10-25-2007 5:55 PM


Re: Once more...
Ok forget about matter, I just want you to understand that a infinite universe is simply as impossible as having a God
I quote Keith Mayes who uses info from Stephen Hawking:
"I understand that many people have a problem with the idea of our universe being finite, that it has an 'end' to it, a boundary. They ask what this boundary would be physically like, as though it were some form of partition that we couldn't get through. However, there is not a particular direction that we could set off in our warp speed space craft that would lead us to a boundary, no matter how far or fast we travelled. The explanation for this seeming impossibility is that space-time is curved, thus you would be travelling in a circle that only appears to be a straight line. If it were possible to direct a laser beam from here through the centre of the universe it would not hit the other side of the universe, it would eventually hit the back of your head (metaphorically speaking). Einstein demonstrated how matter in the universe distorts the space-time continuum by accurately predicting how much our Sun distorted local space. He used a total eclipse of the Sun (as the only time that stars and the Sun can be seen at the same time in close proximity) to demonstrate that a star that was behind the Sun, and therefore not visible from our line of sight, would in fact be visible (in the darkness of totality) because the Sun warps the space-time around it and thus curves the light beam around the Sun, enabling us to see the star. Strictly speaking, the Sun does not actually curve the light around itself, the entire space-time continuum is curved, the light is still travelling in a 'straight' line."
"I do not believe that infinity exists in our universe."
If you ever get round to reading this quotation instead of just quoting it, you will see that nowhere does he say that it is impossible for the universe to be infinite it time. What he's actually saying is that it is not impossible for the universe to be finite in space.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by TyberiusMax, posted 10-25-2007 5:55 PM TyberiusMax has not replied

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


Message 137 of 389 (430882)
10-28-2007 2:39 AM
Reply to: Message 131 by Elhardt
10-27-2007 10:25 PM


This topic is way too long to read the whole thing, but I'll throw in some interesting info.
Astronomers tell us that no matter how far out into the universe they look (that means looking back in time to a younger universe), all spiral galaxies appear the same age to us, with the same amount of twist, and the same amount of development. That defies any common sense at all. There are many unexplainable things we see.
Way not to cite things.
Look, if "astronomers tell us" something, then some particular astronomers must tell us this, based on some particular data, which they've published in some particular place. In which case, would it kill you to tell you where?
Otherwise, astronomers tell "us", nothing of the sort. They may conceivably have told you this, but they haven't told me; whereas you have told me ... but you're not an astronomer.
Or they may have told you nothing of the sort. Which astronomers do you say have told you these things? Where can I read them saying it?
The universe is expanding if the redshift is doppler based. But we see redshift from the sun and we're not moving away from it. There is anomalous redshift all over the place totally confusing the picture.
"We see redshift from the sun"? Who told you that? Was he an astronomer? Was he drunk?
I did see somebody mention the problem about things in the universe being older than the universe. Even the official NASA website admitted the problem. A 14 billion old universe with stars, galaxies, and dust clouds ranging from 17-19 billion years old is a problem. Apparently the way they're solving it is just hacking billions of years off the ages of things to bring them down below 14 billion years. Science did the same with the moon, by hacking 1.5 billion years off to bring it to the age of the earth to support their new theory. This is why one must take the things they say with a grain of salt.
And your last piece of information, and I use the term loosely, you attribute simply to "somebody". Who?
Let me guess, from the wild, implausible libels against scientists, he'd be some sort of creationist, right? Whose tatty pamphlet or ill-designed website did not itself quote and cite the scientific literature, yes?
"Apparently", you say? Well, things which are "apparent" must, y'know, actually appear somewhere. Where is it "apparent" that "the way they're solving it is just hacking billions of years off the ages of things"? Where, in fact, are "they" doing this, and who are "they"?
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Elhardt, posted 10-27-2007 10:25 PM Elhardt has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by Sylas, posted 10-28-2007 11:40 AM Dr Adequate has replied

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


Message 140 of 389 (430956)
10-28-2007 2:50 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by Sylas
10-28-2007 11:40 AM


Light from the Sun is redshifted by the gravitational redshift ...
Ah yes ... I wasn't sure what the guy was getting at, but that'll be it, won't it? And this tiny quantity is entirely predictable from the size of the relevant star, isn't it, and is well-known to astronomers, and could be factored into their calculations if it wasn't so tiny as to be negligible as compared with the redshift of distant galaxies.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by Sylas, posted 10-28-2007 11:40 AM Sylas has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by Chiroptera, posted 10-28-2007 2:57 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

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


Message 142 of 389 (430959)
10-28-2007 3:01 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by Elhardt
10-27-2007 10:25 PM


The universe is expanding if the redshift is doppler based. But we see redshift from the sun and we're not moving away from it. There is anomalous redshift all over the place totally confusing the picture.
OK, assuming that Sylas is correct guessing that you're talking about gravitational red-shift, then this is not "anomalous", and astronomers know about it. Of course they know about it. They'd be the first people to know about it. You only know about it 'cos they observed it and told everyone.
Hence, they are quite able to take its existence into account, and it does not "confuse the picture" for them, 'cos they know about it and understand it very well.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Elhardt, posted 10-27-2007 10:25 PM Elhardt has not replied

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


Message 148 of 389 (442935)
12-23-2007 6:10 AM
Reply to: Message 145 by sikosikik5
12-22-2007 11:45 PM


Re: another problem with the big bang theory
i dont know if you have heard this, but the conservation of angular momentum proves that the big bang theory did not happen.
We have heard this.
Many of us also took the trouble to find out whether it was true.
Now, here's something for you to think about.
Anything you know about physics is also known to physicists.
In particular, they, like you, have heard of the conservation of angular momentum, which is something they learned about in high school, and unlike you, they know exactly what it is. (See here if you have any interest in what it actually says.)
So if this law conflicted in any way with the Big Bang, they'd have noticed. Wouldn't they.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by sikosikik5, posted 12-22-2007 11:45 PM sikosikik5 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by IamJoseph, posted 02-24-2008 11:37 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024