|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Creation cosmology and the Big Bang | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alfred Maddenstein Member (Idle past 3996 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
That qualifies as 3D objects well and truly.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alfred Maddenstein Member (Idle past 3996 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
My firm conviction is that the Universe as a whole has no possible age. Time measurements are relative to every relative location. Time measurement on the large scales is a relative distance measurement. Far, far away is equivalent to long, long ago. Time is therefore local while the Universe has no possible location being everywhere at once so it is timeless. Every finite object has a measurable age while the Universe being not a finite bounded object in relative motion has none.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alfred Maddenstein Member (Idle past 3996 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
My friend, by relativity I mean the deepest underlying principle of relativity which is that everything is related to everything else and that the relation is following strict ratios and not a particular doctrine such as GR. Nicholas of Cusa, Galileo, the Copernican principle, Mach, Minkowski are much more fundamental to relativity than Einstein alone could ever be.
Now that the distinction between perfect and imperfect Copernican principle is a bogus one clearly follows from Minkowski unity of space and time. The principle could be as much imperfect as a pregnancy. You are either pregnant or you are not. The big bunk cosmogony is clearly barren of the principle and is therefore not a relativistic one. Nicholas of Cusa may not have known anything about the constancy of light and the rest of implied physics so him and Copernicus would naturally never realised and stressed the dual aspect of the principle. Modern professionals have no such excuse. They should know that spatial separation and distance in time is one and the same. Looking from anywhere far enough is looking in the past. Yet it cannot be the same past seen from everywhere. The past seen should be strictly relative to location. So if the past is different and peculiar to every location that should preclude any possibility of any common point of origin for the whole cosmos. Therefore the idea of cosmos evolving in time as a whole violates the principle necessarily.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alfred Maddenstein Member (Idle past 3996 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
The conviction is based on very careful examination of the alternatives to that proposition. Those are found to be based on obvious fallacies and impossible to support without invoking magic and using sloppy definitions of the terms.
If the Universe Origin Space Time Begin Expand Object Concept etc. are defined rigorously the utter absurdity of the alternative proposition becomes abundantly clear. There is no way an appearance of something from nothing can be avoided if the alternative big bunk cosmogony is to remain consistent within its own framework. Of course, any theory could be supported by mathematics. You should not forget though that numbers do not stand on their own. They fall into meaninglessness unless well propped by meaningful words. Otherwise some cultures would have developed where people successfully communicated using numbers only. You need first to explain to yourself without contradiction what physical property exactly this or that quantity or ratio represents. Only then maths can be great help and not before. I am afraid English is the main language of science, not maths. What the rest frame of the Universe is supposed to mean exactly? There is nothing in nature to what anything can be possibly fixed, nailed or bolted permanently to constitute such, I am afraid. All rest is relative and apparent and any apparent rest is the total sum of all motions. Rest or rest frame is uniform apparent motion which is doubly confusing. Even as such rest and motion are matter of perspective. What seems at rest from afar starts moving on closer examination. Magnifying things affects their apparent motion. Getting away from moving things or getting closer to them changes their apparent velocity as a function of their intrinsic size or puts them to apparent rest. Those are all examples of relativity and they could be multiplied. The result is I am apparently at rest in my chair now. Is that the rest frame of the Universe? Speed of light, speed of horizon and the constant now are probably the best candidates to contend for the honour.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alfred Maddenstein Member (Idle past 3996 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
No, I mean what I mean. Relativity is as long a tradition as the creationist cosmogony under my scrutiny. When Heraclitus stated that that the sun was the size of a puddle that was very good science. The statement implied that apparent size of an object is related to its distance from the observer. The distinction between apparent and intrinsic as related to size, distance and motion is the essence of relativistic dialectics. Way up is the same as way down is another accurate relativistic statement.
The same goes for the creationist mythological tradition of scholastics. Mr. Lemaitre and Mr.Friedmann are good modern representatives of it. Mr.Hawking puts it in a nutshell when he states that "since there is such a law as gravity the Universe can and will create itself out of nothing." The maths he uses to support this is excellent and consistent apart from the fundamental errors it is based upon.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alfred Maddenstein Member (Idle past 3996 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
Sorry, but why I or anybody else should choose Friedmann's co-ordinates for my arbitrary frame of reference? There is no reason for doing so. The metric is based on unsupported fantastic assumptions. It assumes that space grows from 0D point that was infinitely hot and dense into an ever widening slice as the universal time progresses. No such phenomenon has ever been observed. It further assumes that there is a preferred universal direction of motion claiming that to be a uniform radial recession from any point. Neither that is anything observed remaining unverifiable assumption. Things on larger scales are rather observed to rotate, not run away from each other.
What are those confirmed predictions of the big bunk cosmogony you are boasting about? I am not aware of any. Those predictions that I am aware of all dismally failed to match the observation and data. First the hypothesis predicted that the age of the whole of existence was less than the age of the earth. Later those words were all eaten and replaced by newer claims. Now observations show that the largest structures in the Universe are way older than the current estimate of the age of the whole. The data are being successfully ignored. What is assumed to be the infant universe is observed to be populated with adult galaxies high in metals contradicting the predictions of the hypothesis once again. The absurd prediction of the universal slowing down was replaced with no less ridiculous claim of its sudden speeding up. Those are just a few examples of dismal predictive failures of the big bunk cosmogony and they could be extended into a whole list of shame. Sorry, you've got nothing much to write home about from the predictive front. All the waffling and handwaving is entirely yours here, not mine.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alfred Maddenstein Member (Idle past 3996 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
I don't see what is your objection is here. You probably misunderstood my meaning. Of course, moving the magnets will result in a change in the balance of power bringing change to the direction of motion of the object affected. Though if there are two magnets may not mean there are two different forces involved. It's the same force, differently split, localised, focused and distributed. What I mean is that there could only one energy with a correspondingly single force at work. That is because the bottomline of any discharge of energy, any effort, any work done is some kind of motion or conversely some kind of a resistance to being displaced. The only difference between all those motions and so-called multiple forces is the vector, ie, direction of displacement and seeming range of influence. But all that is relative. An opposite force is the same force applied in the opposite direction.
There must be a concrete mechanism of translation. I don't make vain hypotheses but it is obvious that all matter is interconnected through radiation. The space between "gravitating" bodies is not empty. This is the invisible touch of all matter on all other matter. One idea I liked is imagining this radiation as electromagnetic ropes with torque. This is better than space warped by mass or aether though still it has its conceptual difficulties. The task is to explain how the ropes pass through each other and do not get entangled. Still, that is a start as the observation tells that this is strangely enough the case with light. Light beams don't clash and bounce off each other though are material enough as anyone can feel the pressure of the beating sun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alfred Maddenstein Member (Idle past 3996 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
Yes, at a stretch it could be used for infinite universe models. FLWR metric was indeed used by Hoyle in his steady state hypothesis but that was a grave mistake and the reason for the undoing of Hoyle's ideas.
The thing is the metric is a travesty of Minkowski's ideas. It re-introduces the linear time. That is, in the metric the spatial co-ordinates are time dependent which would be very well if the temporal co-ordinates were correspondingly space dependent which should follow from Minkowski ideas on the symmetry of the two related through light measures of motion. Taq, check Irving Ezra Segal metric as that does not commit this grievous error. Of course I am well aware of the redshift and its conventional interpretation. The problem is that any one observing the Doppler effect in real life may be aware that moving objects do not recede in their uniform multitudes. Some recede and others approach. That alone should have raised red flags for the theorists. For every observer registering a redshifted signal from a receding object there could always be someone to whom the same object is approaching and who is therefore registering a blueshifted one. That's how it goes in real life. Actually Hubble himself was very cautious never professing any downright certainty as to the causes of the observed effect. The Universe is all there is. It is already anywhere wherever it could be possibly expanding into including any extra dimensions. Expanding into itself is an oxymoron. Expanding into nothing should be tried by the morons who persist with the nonsense. Therefore another, a rational this time around explanation of the redshift phenomenon had to be looked for. Jumping to cretinous conclusions is not science. It's faith. Thank you for your suggestion to visit TalkOrigins. I am already familiar with the site.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alfred Maddenstein Member (Idle past 3996 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
Well, Taq, if the redshift is the evidence that the Universe has been expanding from 0D point of singularity to reach the huge proportions currently measured, then could you be so kind as to inform the cat where could it have possibly been expanding into, according to your lights?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alfred Maddenstein Member (Idle past 3996 days) Posts: 565 Joined:
|
Well, I am somewhat dissimilar to the Universe in that that I may be justifiably presumed to have an inside and outside. I've got a surface. The Universe is not like that. Therefore your analogy is somewhat lame. I may have age as I have an outside standard of comparison for that measurement of my duration. The Universe may not have a surface so your analogy is a category mistake.
Of course, anybody can google big bunk predictions and anybody can google failed big bunk prediction. One always finds a lot via googling. On the other hand I've considered many alternative cosmogonies and they all also claim to predict a lot and they all claim their forecasts are very accurate and so on. Therefore my criteria is not the predictions but rather an absence or presence of plausible, rational explanations of the causal universal process offered by rivalling presentations. In that respect the big bunk cosmogony markedly lags behind most as hardly anything in it is making any good rational sense. Hot dimensionless points exploding into nowhere is not a particularly credible story. A huge pinch of salt should not be a surprising reaction for anyone telling such a tale.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alfred Maddenstein Member (Idle past 3996 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
In what way that question is nonsensical? Your answer seems to be a non-sequitor but the question is a most natural reaction to an unsupported and impossible claim made. The claim is like stating that somebody who is a basket case is a marathon champion. Obviously such a claim is likely to be met with scepticism and you'd need to explain how it is possible to be a marathon runner without legs to run on. To expand is a verb that has a certain meaning. A balloon can expand exactly because it can have a possible room it can be expanding into. The Universe is not a balloon nor is it a raisin muffin. It's lacking an oven needed to make a claim it does indeed perform the action alleged a plausible one.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alfred Maddenstein Member (Idle past 3996 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
First, ropes- that's not my idea, that's Bill Gaede's hypothesis. So talk to him and tell him that. His idea is actually that there are two forces- one of push and another of pull. His ropes got two strands and are sort of double helix. I don't accept the duality so we strongly disagree. Secondly photons are theoretical entities and in the theory light is propagated as waves, not as particles. Photons are waves dead on arrival in the theory if you forgot that.
Also every single motion may affect something directly and contribute indirectly to something else causing at once the effects of what is called gravity and of what is called electromagnetism. So I don't see what is a problem. My point is simply as there is only one existence, hence there is one motion only possible and therefore one and the same energy is spent for every action and reaction. The division into four forces is a convenient artefact. That division is nothing to be proud about and a good future theory will certainly scrap it. If the current theories fall apart into infinities is the fault of the theories and not any concern of Mother Nature. You folks are confused and don't even really know what gravity is. Is it forceless geometry as per Einstein or is it the force carried by gravitons as per QM? It can't be both, you know.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alfred Maddenstein Member (Idle past 3996 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
Ok, as you wish so I will propose a new thread on whether the big bunk hypothesis has got anything to with Minkowski and Einstein relativity.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alfred Maddenstein Member (Idle past 3996 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
Ok, so what is a photon? Does it have physical borders, surface, volume and shape? What happens when two photons meet in one place? Do they bounce off each other or do they pass through one another like ghosts through walls? Light from many sources seems to fuse. Why is that? And what do you mean by light being undetermined? Term is a limit and light has limits as I can stop it with my palm feeling its pressure. And it casts shadows and so on. It's something tangible and not a ghost.
I did not say gravity is caused by electromagnetism. Both are ideas. Ideas don't cause anything. I said what is assumed to be gravity and what is assumed to be electromagnetism are different aspects or combined effects of motion of physical objects. Gravity and charge are both ratios of mass and mass is a measure of material objects in motion. If it's yet not possible to derive the ratios without running into contradiction may not mean it will never be possible. What do you mean by saying the four forces are separated? Are they divorced like husband and wife and live in different countries or what?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alfred Maddenstein Member (Idle past 3996 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
First of all, you've got no clue what the so-called Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation is. You just allege it is a remnant of the Big Blank. That is an unsupported claim. It might be something else. Some suggest that it is the result of the ubiquitous orbital decay. The spin of every rotating body gradually slows down, friction and dissipation of radiation ensue. That's a much more likely explanation.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024