Blue, have you really studied big-bangism? Are you aware of the articles of your cryptocreo faith?
Alfi, studying the big bangism and reading srticles is not the same thing. Articles are for simple folk to get a general understanding - or in your case misunderstanding - but that's besides the point. Articles don't teach anything.
Something expanding into something else is not what that religion claims is happening, if you don't know that.
Sure it does, in fact that is exactly what is taught. It's what theoretical physics is. It's what a unifying theory hopes to acheive. It's what M-theory describes, although without a total concensus.
It explores the fallacies your religion is based on:
You should try going to school instead of scouring the internet for shitty information if you're so interested in the subject. You won't reverse the entire scientific concensus on the big bangism posting links to things you barely have a grasp on.
If you end up knowing something you didn't know before, how is that not teaching something?
It's an article though, for you to understand anything it's saying you have to have an understading of the subject. I can read an article about neurology and be able to memorize what it says and regurgitate it to you giving the impression that I know what I'm talking about. But I actually wouldn't really know shit. Memorizing information or an argument against a scientific theory you read in an article does not make one smart.
What kind of articles are you talking about?
Any article.
Are you even talking about articles that are printed in National Geographic and the ones put out by Nature that are summaries of scientific papers?
Yes even those. An uneduscated person in biology reading an article about the evolution of hominids is not learning anything. The only way to get to understand hominid evolutionary history is starting with a basic biology of life class taught in school.
That's why a lot of the arguments here on this site from creationist are just silly, because they really don't know anything about science outside of what they've read on the internet about the sujects they're debating. It's clear to everyone else though, I can assure you that.
Both the cat and the author of the essay in the link studied bigbangism in fine mathemagical detail
I'm going to have to call bullshit on that. I don't know who "the cat" is but this author knows very little about the subject. You knowing equally as much (which is to say nothing at all) would agree with such nonsense. But that's my whole point Alfi.
Which is what you should do too, instead of ignorantly crapping at the mouth.
Hit the books, Oni
You know it's really bothering me that I haven't been given my own nickname by you yet. WTF?
Do you disagree that there would be no blue shifted items in the Universe if space was expanding at the same speed between everything in the universe?
I said, the space between the Milky Way and Andromeda is decreasing not expanding.
Scale ICANT, you're not taking size into consideration. I know the distance between the Milky Way and Andromeda seems large to you, but it's not. They are very close together. As with all other galaxies that are close together, some are moving closer to each other and with eventually, but not in all case, unite.
Do you disagree that the space between the Milky Way and Andromeda is not decreasing?
No it has nothing to do with "the space between them." You are confusing what you have read here in the past. For as long as you've been here and discussed this subject, you would think you'd understand some of it by now.
The space between them is not getting smaller, that is ridiculous. They are physically moving toward one another as the space around them continues to expand. Expansion occurs at a very grand scale.
If you don't want to learn that's ok, but don't pretend to know something you don't. You're sounding quite silly at this point.
You wouldn't live long enough to reach Andromeda traveling at the speed of light.
And yet it's still considered close to us by comparison. It's in our Local Group.
Thus expansion is based upon the assumption of all galaxies outside our own Milky Way moving away from us.
Not all, but most. Those in our Local Group can be seen moving toward us because they are close enough to observe their motion. The farther the galaxies are from us the only thing we can observe is their red-shifting.
quote:So, in a nutshell, if a galaxy's peculiar velocity is toward us and larger than its Hubble recessional velocity, then its light will appear blueshifted. This is possible for galaxies that are nearby like Andromeda, but as galaxies get farther away, their Hubble velocities dwarf any peculiar velocities they might have. As such, it's better to study far away galaxies when you're interested in how the universe is expanding.
Almost all the galaxies are red shifted; they are moving away from us, due to the Hubble expansion of the Universe. There are a handful of the nearby galaxies that are blue shifted. In addition to the apparent motion due to Universal expansion, individual galaxies also have their own intrinsic or peculiar motions; i.e. each galaxy is in motion irrespective of the universe's expansion and has its own unique velocity.
The velocities are in the order of hundreds of kilometers per second and in regions close enough to our own galaxy where the Hubble expansion results in less outward expansion than this, the galaxies' peculiar velocities (if they are large enough and sufficiently towards us) can overcome that expansion, resulting in a blue-shift.
There are about 100 known galaxies with blueshifts out of the billions of galaxies in the observable universe. Most of these galaxies are in our own local group, and are all in orbit about each other. Most are dwarf galaxies among them include the Andromeda Galaxy, M31, etc.
So the Milky Way and Andromeda are moving through space like our space ships do when they go to the space station, is that what you are saying?
Yes, but not using rockets or any method of propulsion like those found on space shuttles.
If so what is the mechanism for such movement?
Gravity, ICANT. The gravity between the two galaxies is drawing them together, ICANT.
It's not a matter of belief. It is a fact that gravity is pulling them together. That's what the evidence shows.
I also understand that there are others that don't believe that.
Who? What "others"? Name a scientist that has come to a different conclusion based on the evidence.
If space between the two is expanding at the speed of light how can they get closer together?
NoNukes gave a great answer to it, with the math to support and explain it.
I know we will invoke gravity and space ceases to expand.
No one has said anything about the space ceasing to expand.
Thus we say the galaxies are gravitationally bound. That being the case why is the Milky Way and Andromeda not gravitationally bound to a larger group which is bound to a larger group etc. Then what is expanding?
You've already been explained all of this. You, as usually, don't understand what is being explained to you.
At this point, believe whatever you want to believe. It really doesn't matter. It's not like anything you're saying will change the evidence or the conclusions long established and studied at universities.
You have the opportunity to learn you just seem more comfortable in ignorance. I can't help you with that. So, fine, have it your way: Nothing is expanding. Nothing is red-shifting or blue-shifting. There is no shifting of any kind and the Big Bang is not real. You feel better now? You broke the conspiracy. We've been making it all up.
Prior to T=0 the Universe either existed in existence or in non-existence.
There is no universe prior to that.
1. It either has either existed eternally in some form.
You can't just use the word "form" in this case to mean anything you want or as some "unknown". You need to define what you mean by "in some form." Because what the evidence show is there is no "form" before the big bang.
2. It had a beginning to exist in non-existence.
This is nonsense. It literally means nothing.
I see no alternative and none has been presented to date.
Alternative to what? You haven't presented anything. You continue to use the word "universe" but a universe means 4D spacetime -- which is "existence". So how can existence exist in non-existence? That's ridiculous.
Also, there is NO OTHER form for the "universe" to be in. Once there is no 4D spacetime there is NO universe.
All we can do is define spacetime and the geometry of the universe as it currently is. We can also describe it at it's earliest state, until it gets too small and GR breaks down. And in the future, hopefully, unify quantum field theory and general relativity which would then explain how the universe emerges from a quantum state.
Everything else you are trying to say is nothing more than a quasi-philosophical point that is basically worthless, other than I guess to help you with your confusion. You have not presented us with anything for us to give you an alternative to. Your word salads don't mean anything.
As usual, you can learn this stuff properly but you'd rather remain comepletely ignorant on the subject. I don't get it, man.
Prior to planck time it is PRESUMED that all 4 fundamental forces were united into one force.
So you feel it's nothing more than blind guesses based on pure imagination, and not based on any mathematics?
So yes the models do refer to the singularity and what followed.
Telling a working physicist what the models actually say, who is going out of his way to help you understand where you are worng... that's your best one yet ICANT!
So you are saying the source I used should not be in the education business of teaching about the Big Bang.
I never mentioned that at all, or even insinuated that.
I'm just saying Son told you the Big Bang model doesn't deal with T=0 and you want to tell a working physicist that it does. As though somehow you know something he doesn't?
But I was not saying what I believed but what they taught.
What that link said was fine, and you should try to learn it if you're this interested in it. Anything you're making up is void of any actual math or physics so, really, it's irrelevant.
If you can describe the location of a thing at x, y, z that is completely independant of time... that is, the object is always there regardless of the time... I will concede that time is not a dimension of our universe.
Crazy, maybe, unbelieveable, no. Many people claim to hear voices and see images. Some claim it's God, others don't really know who the person is. It's a sign of mental illness, related to but not specifically: schizophrenic disorders, manic depression and psychosis. I have a friend who suffers from this, and oddly enough, like you, he tends to see the voice as a positive too.
You should think about looking into psychiatric help though. It's not a sign of a healthy brain to hear and see images that no one else can. Just some advice.
Telling a working physicist what the models actually say, who is going out of his way to help you understand where you are worng... that's your best one yet ICANT!
™ Version 4.2
