Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8960 total)
26 online now:
PaulK, vimesey (2 members, 24 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 869,215 Year: 963/23,288 Month: 963/1,851 Week: 86/321 Day: 1/47 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   An Alternate Creation Theory: Genic Energy
nwr
Member
Posts: 5590
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


(1)
Message 31 of 181 (672512)
09-08-2012 11:25 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by TheRestOfUs
09-08-2012 7:35 PM


Yes. I am doubting that gravity can bend space.

You have to keep in mind that, in some sense, empty space is nothing. So it is nothing that is being bent. Properly understood, curvature of space-time has to do with how we measure time and distance. Roughly speaking, it is those imaginary straight lines from Euclidean geometry that are being bent.

Nikola Tesla thought so too so you may place me in the same catagory of "what"?

Tesla also has the reputation of being something of a crackpot.

Even further, I believe several well known scietists also published around the time of the starlight refraction event predicted by Einstien that jumping to the conclusion that space itself was bent by gravity was a bridge too far when the light itself being bent could just as easily be the explanation.

Well now you owe us an explanation of why you think "space being bent" and "light being bent" are different things.

Jesus was a liberal hippie

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by TheRestOfUs, posted 09-08-2012 7:35 PM TheRestOfUs has not yet responded

  
TheRestOfUs
Member (Idle past 2593 days)
Posts: 56
Joined: 09-08-2012


Message 32 of 181 (672514)
09-08-2012 11:45 PM


Oh joy! Lot's of BS pontifications to debunk. (Knuckles cracking) .

I'll sleep on it and tear into ya'll in the morning. (yawn).

Night all,

Trou


Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Tanypteryx, posted 09-09-2012 1:59 AM TheRestOfUs has responded
 Message 36 by Admin, posted 09-09-2012 7:40 AM TheRestOfUs has not yet responded

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 2332
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 3.8


(6)
Message 33 of 181 (672516)
09-09-2012 1:59 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by TheRestOfUs
09-08-2012 11:45 PM


Trou writes:

Oh joy! Lot's of BS pontifications to debunk. (Knuckles cracking)

You're not up to it, mate. There's only one person pontificating here.

It's one thing to act smug when you actually have knowledge about a subject, but when you act smug and you sound like an ignorant boob it's just embarrasing.

Maybe you don't know it, but two of the people who responded to you (Cavediver & Son Goku) are actual physicists who have spent their lives studying how the universe works. If you drop the attitude and pay attention you might actually learn something.

The rest of the people who responded to you have seen all these long-refuted arguments of yours before and they also know what the evidence shows and why your ideas are incorrect.


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by TheRestOfUs, posted 09-08-2012 11:45 PM TheRestOfUs has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by TheRestOfUs, posted 09-09-2012 1:57 PM Tanypteryx has not yet responded

  
zaius137
Member (Idle past 1791 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012


Message 34 of 181 (672517)
09-09-2012 2:17 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by TheRestOfUs
09-08-2012 2:58 PM


A few choice comments...
Hi there… TheRestofUs

Careful you could be accused of scientific heresy amongst this crowed…

You are completely justified in doubting the premise of the Big Bang. There are so many ad-hoc contrivances to this so-called theory that it must be considered a religion by now and NO Einstein did not predict the Big Bang…. His thought was a static universe balanced on the cosmological constant.

I am a creationist and say that the Big Bang is nonsense.

As for astronomical redshift:

    1. Doppler redshift is a result of relative radial motion between emitter and observer.
    2. Gravitational redshift occurs when the emitting body’s photons lose energy overcoming a gravitational field.
    3. Cosmological redshift is caused by the relativistic expansion of the universe, as quantified by the Hubble constant, H0.

Total redshift effects can be represented by:

Plus one new twist called plasma redshifting…http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0401420

Drawing any conclusion about proving the supposed Big bang all depends on what emphasis you place on any one of these effects. However knowing that Periodic redshift is a reality, you can only conclude that the Big Bang is nonsense.

As for the warping of space-time, it stands as an icon of empirical evidence. It is the rock on which shatters fantasies like Quantum gravity or the fictitious Higgs Boson. I mention the Boson here because it is also a casualty of General Relativity in that it cannot impart mass to a black hole.

You know that same Black hole that is the stumbling block to unification and man’s pride.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by TheRestOfUs, posted 09-08-2012 2:58 PM TheRestOfUs has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-09-2012 7:39 AM zaius137 has not yet responded
 Message 38 by Son Goku, posted 09-09-2012 9:19 AM zaius137 has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 35 of 181 (672528)
09-09-2012 7:39 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by zaius137
09-09-2012 2:17 AM


Re: A few choice comments...
Drawing any conclusion about proving the supposed Big bang all depends on what emphasis you place on any one of these effects.

For example, if you are a physicist, you can calculate their actual magnitude. And if you are a creationist, you can make stuff up and not notice that you're wrong 'cos of knowing damn-all about physics. And this will indeed affect what "emphasis" you place on these effects.

As for the warping of space-time, it stands as an icon of empirical evidence. It is the rock on which shatters fantasies like Quantum gravity or the fictitious Higgs Boson. I mention the Boson here because it is also a casualty of General Relativity in that it cannot impart mass to a black hole.

You know that same Black hole that is the stumbling block to unification and man’s pride.

Once again I have to wonder whether you compose your posts by drawing words at random out of a hat.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by zaius137, posted 09-09-2012 2:17 AM zaius137 has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12655
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 36 of 181 (672529)
09-09-2012 7:40 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by TheRestOfUs
09-08-2012 11:45 PM


Hi TheRestOfUs,

I promoted your thread because you said the were a science and big bang buff who wanted some help clarifying a few things, such as the infinities. Now that we know you would actually like to discuss alternate cosmologies we have some bookkeeping to take care of that would normally have taken place before promotion, namely, what is to be the central focus of this thread. We like threads to have a strong central focus.

I am therefore declaring that the topic of this thread is the tired light model and how well it fits the available evidence as compared to the big bang model. I'm changing the thread's title accordingly.

Anyone who would like to discuss other cosmologies should find a different thread, or propose a new thread over at Proposed New Topics.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by TheRestOfUs, posted 09-08-2012 11:45 PM TheRestOfUs has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 5717
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 37 of 181 (672530)
09-09-2012 7:45 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by TheRestOfUs
09-08-2012 7:44 PM


Your question about Pioneer has been answered.

Not embarrassed by being caught in a false claim, I see. Ignore your failure and try to change the subject.

So far you're batting 000. Just another ignorant crackpot.

Edited by JonF, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by TheRestOfUs, posted 09-08-2012 7:44 PM TheRestOfUs has not yet responded

  
Son Goku
Member
Posts: 1153
From: Ireland
Joined: 07-16-2005


Message 38 of 181 (672537)
09-09-2012 9:19 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by zaius137
09-09-2012 2:17 AM


Re: A few choice comments...
I must say, like Dr. Adequate, I often struggle to understand the meaning of your sentences. I will try to deal with one paragraph as best as I can.

zaius137 writes:

As for the warping of space-time, it stands as an icon of empirical evidence. It is the rock on which shatters fantasies like Quantum gravity or the fictitious Higgs Boson.


I don't really understand how:
(a) Quantum Gravity shatters on the warping of spacetime. The warping of spacetime is a feature of classical gravity, which would be a subset of quantum gravity. It would be like saying Quantum Electrodynamics shatters on the Coloumb potential a standard part of classical electrodynamics. It doesn't since the quantum theories contain the classical theories.
(b) The Higgs boson has nothing to do with the warping of spacetime. Just because physicists deal with and write papers about two topics doesn't mean the two topics themselves are directly related in some way. The Higgs boson has nothing more to do with the warping of spacetime than electric charge or chemistry does.

I mention the Boson here because it is also a casualty of General Relativity in that it cannot impart mass to a black hole.

This doesn't make sense. A Black Hole has the mass of the object that formed it and any additional matter that fell into the black hole. The Higgs boson isn't really involved.

You know that same Black hole that is the stumbling block to unification and man’s pride.

Black holes don't prevent unification in any sense. Could you explain?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by zaius137, posted 09-09-2012 2:17 AM zaius137 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by zaius137, posted 09-09-2012 7:36 PM Son Goku has not yet responded

  
Son Goku
Member
Posts: 1153
From: Ireland
Joined: 07-16-2005


Message 39 of 181 (672539)
09-09-2012 9:30 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by TheRestOfUs
09-08-2012 8:00 PM


Not enough.
Son Goku,

I believe Mercury's orbit problem was calculated as consitent with a Euclidean concept of Space by another astronomer at the time. I will find it.

Trou

Mercury has a perihelion in Newtonian gravity due to the gravitational influence of the outer planets. However it's not enough by a wide margin to account for the full perihelion.

Of course it still must be calculated to match observations exactly, since it does affect the perhelion.

Abstract of one of the early papers to calculate the effect here:
http://ajp.aapt.org/resource/1/ajpias/v47/i6/p531_s1?isAu...

Basically, since the outer planets have such a slow orbit compared to mercury, their effects on its orbit a very similar to the effects of a uniform ring of dust of equal mass to the planet spread along their orbit. (You can prove the effect on mercury's perihelion is almost identical.) These rings of dust are much easier to model and you can explicitly work out the perihelion of mercury using them.

Edited by Son Goku, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by TheRestOfUs, posted 09-08-2012 8:00 PM TheRestOfUs has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by TheRestOfUs, posted 09-09-2012 2:17 PM Son Goku has not yet responded
 Message 47 by NoNukes, posted 09-09-2012 2:31 PM Son Goku has responded

  
Son Goku
Member
Posts: 1153
From: Ireland
Joined: 07-16-2005


Message 40 of 181 (672540)
09-09-2012 9:32 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by TheRestOfUs
09-08-2012 8:03 PM


Spacetime
Son Goku,

It is conventionally held that the "fabric" of something we call "SpaceTime" is actually warped by gravity.

Trou.


It is not. No textbook of General Relativity says spacetime is warped by gravity. Rather that what we perceive of as gravitation, is the result of the geometry of spacetime. Quotes from textbooks available if requested.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by TheRestOfUs, posted 09-08-2012 8:03 PM TheRestOfUs has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 5717
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 41 of 181 (672544)
09-09-2012 11:13 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by TheRestOfUs
09-08-2012 7:44 PM


Sounds more like it's your mind that's exhausted buddy. Hubble and Tolman merely admitted that they knew of no other "mechanism" by which to explain the redshift than the Doppler Interpretation. Indeed a new physics is required. Like I said in the OP

You have grossly misrepresented them. They said that any non-recessional theory required new physics. Even then it was obvious which theory fit the data best. Now we have almost unimaginably more dat and the recessional explanation is the only one that fits the data. No other "explanation" comes close.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by TheRestOfUs, posted 09-08-2012 7:44 PM TheRestOfUs has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by TheRestOfUs, posted 09-09-2012 12:52 PM JonF has responded

  
TheRestOfUs
Member (Idle past 2593 days)
Posts: 56
Joined: 09-08-2012


Message 42 of 181 (672556)
09-09-2012 12:15 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Dr Adequate
09-08-2012 9:03 PM


Dr. Adequate,

Thank you for the LA Times Article on the Pioneer Spacecraft Anomoly. But even if Anderson et al are now saying they've accounted for the observed spontaneous blueshifting with recoil thermal radiation from decaying plutonium fuel and residual heat from electrical subsystems after trying to claim a "time acceleration" hypothesis I find it hard to believe them.

Since Scheffer,( E- Print arXiv:gr-qc/0107092; gr-qc/0108054), and Katz and Murphy, ( Phys. Rev. Letters 83) long ago suggested that what they were calling an acceleration effect when the spacecraft was moving sunward (and now calling deceleration when moving outward) was due to waste heat from subsystems radiated from the spaceward side of the spacecraft. In fact they believed the considered thermal effect should be reduced to 82% of its value.

Scheffer's Model predicted that the thrust from these thermal sources should have declined by 11.8% from "Period I" (10/1988) through "Period III" (7/1995) due to a decline in available spacecraft power and changes in the types of experiments being carried out. instead a much smaller rate of decrease in "acceleration" is seen. In fact when two of the main Models are just averaged it comes to only about 26% at most of the observed "acceleration".

In addition Anderson et al at the time maintained the unmodeled thermal effects accounted for even a much smaller percentage of the anomaly than the above models.

I am not surprised they are saying something different now since one Dr. Paul LaViolette had alerted them to look for this blueshifting in the Maser signal in 1980 and later published his prediction in 85 that they would find it. He called them at that time and cited his published prediction. And received no simple courtesy notification when they did find it nor mention that this was predicted by him.

So you see even if they now are saying they've accounted for it, their behavior makes me doubt it. In any event this blueshifting phenomina should be investigated in later spacecraft missions where highly accurate phase locked laser signals can look for the predicted effect. Because if it is verified the "Tired Light" Model gets new life since it confirms that energy is not absolutely conserved in the Universe. And the Big Bang goes down.

Just some thoughts


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-08-2012 9:03 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-10-2012 10:03 PM TheRestOfUs has not yet responded

  
TheRestOfUs
Member (Idle past 2593 days)
Posts: 56
Joined: 09-08-2012


Message 43 of 181 (672558)
09-09-2012 12:52 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by JonF
09-09-2012 11:13 AM


Son Goku and JonF,

I'll take you both on since you're so tiny.

First there is no way to verify unequivocally whether or not matter does warp space, since all of the standard tests for this effect may be accounted for by alternate theories. For example in 1898 before the development of general relativity, Paul Gerber, (P. Gerber, Zeitschrift fur Mathematik und Physik 43 (1898): 93-104), derived a formula for the angular advance of the long axis of Mercury's elliptical orbit in Newtonian CLASSICAL physics terms just by assuming that gravity propogates at the speed of light.

And second I will proudly stand with geniuses like Tesla when he uses the common sense you apparently lack and said in 1932 in response to the new concept being bandied about, "I hold that space cannot be curved, for the simple reason that it can have no properties... Of properties we can only speak when dealing with matter filling the space. To say that in the presence of large bodies space becomes curved is equivalent to stating that something can act upon nothing. I, for one, refuse to subscribe to such a view."

Further according to Dr. Paul Laviolette in his book "Genesis of the Cosmos," - "Research conducted in 1991 by a group of Cornell University scientists throws further doubt on Space- Time Warping equations. Their computer simulations showed that if a very large oblong mass were allowed to collapse upon itself, it would produce a spindle shaped gravatational singularity of infinite energy - a black hole- whose extremities would extend outside the black hole's central region of invisibility. Such a "naked" singularity would radiate infinite quantities of energy into surrounding space: an absurd result!" No wonder Einstien never believed this fantasy.

Just some more thoughts.

Trou


This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by JonF, posted 09-09-2012 11:13 AM JonF has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by JonF, posted 09-10-2012 9:14 AM TheRestOfUs has not yet responded

  
TheRestOfUs
Member (Idle past 2593 days)
Posts: 56
Joined: 09-08-2012


Message 44 of 181 (672566)
09-09-2012 1:57 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Tanypteryx
09-09-2012 1:59 AM


Tanypteryx,

I never said I was a physicist or even a scientist. Nevertheless we are all human beings and courtesy matters. But I can take it as well as dish it out.

I am presenting new and interesting ideas and if your two "heroes" can't take it without name calling I'd say they are the "boobs" (And I'd include you too.)

Here is another quote from LaViolette's book "Genesis of the Cosmos," (he says it better than me), "Big Bang cosmologists conceive the Universe to be contained within a finite sphere, an expanding bubble of space-time that has attained a radius of some 14 Billion light-years. They claim that nothing lies beyond this bubble of physical manifestation, no existence of any kind. Just as theologians did in medieval times, today's cosmologists have confined the heavens within an Aristotelian "crystalline sphere".

"When modern cosmologists are asked to comment on the present nature of the universe and on its ultimate fate, they project a dismal outlook. Basing their view on the second law of thermodynamics, they state that the universe was at its greatest state of order at the moment of the Big bang, and that ever since, with the continual expansion of space, things have tended toward greater disorder. They see the universe in its final stages as primarily dark, a giant black hole whose gloom arises from its vast population of smaller black holes, avaricious beasts that continually gobble up matter and snuff out light beams that approach too close. The cosmos is seen to tend toward a decay that has supposedly been going on for more than 10 billion years and is expected to continue for many billions of years to come.

By comparison, the event of creation, the emergence of light and order into physical manifestation, is said to have occurred in the briefest possible moment, an instant lasting less than 10 -43 seconds. Modern cosmology on the one hand elevates the principle of decay to a supreme status, referring to it as the "second law," but on the other hand relegates the phenomenon of cosmic creation to the obscure realm of chance and uncertainty as a highly improbable event. It is not surprising that death and darkness should ultimately rule over light in this spiritually impoverished worldview."

I agree totally with the above statement by LaViolette. And ever since I've become aware of the Big Bang Theory I felt the same inner malese. It is a spiritually impoverished view. And it is falling apart as more and more ad hoc contrivances are needed to hold up the teetering ediface. And everyone who takes science seriously as a search for truth and not as a religion or a means to tenure or to avoid ostracism by pygmies in a herd knows it.

Just my opinion.

Edited by TheRestOfUs, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Tanypteryx, posted 09-09-2012 1:59 AM Tanypteryx has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by cavediver, posted 09-10-2012 4:03 PM TheRestOfUs has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12655
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 45 of 181 (672568)
09-09-2012 2:12 PM


Forum Guidelines Reminder
I'm going to cease participating in discussion in this thread and take over as moderator.

Request to participants: Please follow the Forum Guidelines, particularly rule 10:

  1. Always treat other members with respect. Argue the position, not the person. Avoid abusive, harassing and invasive behavior. Avoid needling, hectoring and goading tactics.

It will not matter to me who started it first. I'm going to start with short 1-hour suspensions and gradually increase them. If you post after seeing this, better go back and edit quick.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020