Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 83 (8942 total)
30 online now:
AZPaul3, Coragyps, dwise1, ringo (4 members, 26 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: John Sullivan
Happy Birthday: Anish
Post Volume: Total: 863,467 Year: 18,503/19,786 Month: 923/1,705 Week: 175/518 Day: 49/52 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   An Alternate Creation Theory: Genic Energy
zaius137
Member (Idle past 1693 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

  
zaius137
Member (Idle past 1693 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012


Message 57 of 181 (672589)
09-09-2012 7:36 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Son Goku
09-09-2012 9:19 AM


Re: A few choice comments...
To the friendly participants…

If the emphasis of redshift is placed on the wrong terms of the redshift equation there stands to be a gross violation of total energy conservation of the universe caused by redshifting.

The classic assumption of “expansion of space”and not Doppler redshift violates fundamental conservation of energy in the universe.

Here is a paper attempting a explanation… still not complete.

quote:
“One problematic aspect of the cosmological expansion is the apparent loss of energy associated with the redshift. The effect is particularly bad with cosmological background photons received in the current epoch – they are received with only about 0.1% of their emission energy. Attempts to account for the missing energy within the framework of general relativity have met with severe problems because of the difficulty in defining a local gravitational energy density (gravitational energy cannot be expressed in tensor form). As a
result, it is widely accepted that energy is not locally conserved in general relativity 3 , although claims are made that energy is globally conserved during expansion. This is in stark contrast to the normal Doppler shift where, as demonstrated in the text, energy is conserved on a photonby-photon basis.”
http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0407/0407077.pdf

Now the big rub comes when recessional velocity (Doppler) approaches the speed of light… a violation of Special Relativity develops.

My friend Son…. Off point really but I think some reply is warranted and only for curiosity reasons. I release you from necessity to respond….

My deepest apologies to the “Admin”….

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.

If warping of spacetime is a subset of General Relativity, (I assume you meant to say that) what is the direct relation between Quantum Gravity and the Curvature Tensor? Only food for thought….

(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 never said the Higgs was responsible for the warping of spacetime but maybe it is. If it represents an energy or mass then it will distort space.

I agree with most of the statement except the “electric charge” or electric field part. If it contains energy, it can be said to warp-space.

Quote:

quote:
“ As another example, a beam of light (produced from, say, a laser) consists of an electromagnetic field, and it will exert a force on charged particles. Thus the electromagnetic field carries momentum. Because an electromagnetic field contains energy, momentum, and so on, it will produce a gravitational field of its own. This gravitational field is in addition to that produced by the matter of the charge or magnet.” http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=do-elect...

The Higgs Boson mechanism 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.

Exactly, so what is the Boson responsible for? Certainly not the impartation of mass to a black hole and by the way most of the ordinary matter to boot. The Higgs boson is an artifact of a failed paradigm.

Now back to the point…


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Son Goku, posted 09-09-2012 9:19 AM Son Goku has not yet responded

  
zaius137
Member (Idle past 1693 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012


Message 106 of 181 (672696)
09-10-2012 4:43 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by Straggler
09-10-2012 2:41 PM


Re: Not enough.
I find this a bit rigorous for a conversation forum…

Rather than a 'Gish Gallop' I would prefer that we identify the one you think is strongest and look at that in detail. Pick one and then let's ask these questions:

1)What exactly does the theory say?
2) How exactly does it lead to the prediction in question?
3) Is the theory falsified if the prediction isn't met?
4) What new observable data did the prediction and it's verification
result in (i.e. what was discovered as a direct consequence of the theory in question)?

Try applying number 3 and 4 to say a theory like Evolution… Just funny.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Straggler, posted 09-10-2012 2:41 PM Straggler has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by Admin, posted 09-10-2012 4:56 PM zaius137 has not yet responded

  
zaius137
Member (Idle past 1693 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012


Message 158 of 181 (672926)
09-12-2012 12:37 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by TheRestOfUs
09-11-2012 4:58 PM


Re: No neutrino gap.
To the RestOfUs….

Check out the spontaneous flavor change of Neutrinos to account for the total numbers from the sun.

Now…

quote:
Subquantum kinetics, a physics methodology that applies general systems theoretic concepts to the field of microphysics…from http://starburstfound.org/downloads/physics/nucleon.html

You seem taken by this proposition made in Subquantum kinetics theory. But is this a new theory or simply a Brusselator like approach to describe physics.

There is an underlying symmetry and resonance in nature. However, I believe that there is eloquence to the physical world that a kinetics process will never be able to capture. Where Subquantum kinetics theory grows and is corrected with observation after observation, no conceptual model outside a mathematical construct appears.

Take the following description of Subquantum kinetics for example:

quote:
The operation of these ether reactions causes wave-like field gradients (spatial concentration patterns) to emerge and form the observable quantum level structures and physical phenomena (e.g., subatomic particles with mass, charge, spin, and force field effects and electromagnetic waves).

Here is a gigantic step backward in that a “``quas-irigid'' luminiferous ether” is now universally invoked. It is not that the previous invocation of that active ether was problematic enough but now it will be larger and universal in Subquantum kinetics.

Yes, Subquantum kinetics works at some level in that it can make physical predictions from its “fine tuning” of the model to observations.

quote:
c) it compares the model's simulated results to actual observations. The model's mathematical parameters are then "fine-tuned" so that its simulated results accurately reflect experimental observation, thereby making the model a realistic representation of the physical world.

Now the big question… How are all the forces unified? (a conceptual model would be helpful)

About postings my friend… for the best examples just use the “PEEK” button at the bottom… can’t miss.

Please hang around because there is much to be learned.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by TheRestOfUs, posted 09-11-2012 4:58 PM TheRestOfUs has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019