what is the big bang and how do i understand it?

Great.Now we have a theory that is based on the existence of something that is postulated in order to make another theory work ....epicycles on epicycles on epicycles.perhaps this will lead to refutation of the "dark energy" concept?enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

I'm sorry if I wasn't more explicit. You are fairly new here and may not have read some of my posts on this topic before.The standard theory of gravity al la Newtonian physics was fine until relativity came along, and the new theory on the block has gotten rave reviews from all concerned, as the evidence mounted it looked like we had a winner ...... except for two small problems The first problem has spawned a number of interesting theories, including several forms of string theories, which call on added dimensions to solve the problems. The concept of added dimensions does solve a lot of little things and leads to some interesting thought experiments. Personally I have always considered more dimensions likely because of the dance of sub-atomic particles both in and out of existence and in and out of different "incarnations" or forms: to me this is similar to something 3 dimensional oscillating in and out of "flatland" and spinning such that it's appearance changes with time as well. Time will tell if extra dimensions bear fruit ... and in the long run that "fruit" will need to be at the galactic scale, or it doesn't solve problem (1). Of course one of the problems with the quantum mechanics side of the gravity equation is the total absence of any observed {particle\field\mechanism} for gravity on the subatomic scale.The second problem has spawned first "dark matter" and then "dark energy" based entirely on the question "if the equations are correct, then what do I need to have in order to make predicted behavior match observed behavior" -- in other words they assume that the latest equations are correct and then "invent" matter and energy to make it work. It seems to me that (almost) nobody is asking, "if the equations are wrong, what do I need to do to them to make predicted behavior match observed behavior" -- and then to look for evidence of that. There have been a couple in recent years, but they seem to be treated as fringe concepts when they have just as much validity as invented "dark stuffs".Note that physicists are comfortable with saying that Newtonian physics are sufficiently accurate that they can be used at small (planet sized?) scales, only requiring General Relativity physics for interplanetary calculations and stuff within the solar neighborhood. They tend to break down when you get outside the solar system (as evidenced by the several satellites that have left the solar neighborhood and which show behavioral anomalies consistent with the effects on large galactic systems ... as if "dark stuffs" were existing within the solar system). And then note that all these theories of gravity are essentially empirical formulas based on observations, and not derived.One of the new string based theories that intrigues me is ekpyrosis, as it minimizes the need for new dimensions, but also explains the anomaly between observation and prediction in the motions of large galactic systems ... without invoking "dark stuffs" ... which is something that I expect from the next generation theory of gravity.That is, of course, my personal opinion.Now to tie this in to the new theory, it takes for granted the existence of the dark stuffs and then theorizes what effect they may have in the next million years plus. Sorry if I find this concept ludicrous at the start, but note that the advantage of such thoughts is that they may develop tests for the existence of the dark stuffs, and we may then learn that it is indeed a house of cards.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Thanks, the problem in understanding may be mine, due to limited exposure (several university courses, but ... was it really 40 years ago? ... updated occasionally by talks with a radio astronomer brother) I don't think of tweaking one or the other so much as of new ways of thinking about them that alleviate the problems -- a new way of thinking about time for instance. One thought that has been on my mind for some time is that we all talk about time being another dimension, but the equations still only have space factors and there is no relationship between gravity and distance in time (that I am aware of as a physics "spectator"). I'm having trouble resolving this apparent contradiction. It seems that string theory does not require dimensions, but when they are developed to explain observations that then they have to be there? But this still does not negate the fact that we do not have any corroborating evidence. That is my problem. This also makes me wonder if we are not blinded to other possibilities as a result of taking the theories as more solid than the evidence justifies. I have no problem with non-radiant matter within the galactic medium: we obviously have evidence of it right here in River City: our planets, asteroids, comets, dust, etcetera ... but it doesn't add up to a significant proportion of the mass of the solar system. With dark stuffs we are talking about the sun representing 4% of the {mass\energy} of the solar system (to put it in the same proportion as the galactic scale calculations on the amounts of dark stuffs), and I have some trouble with that.We are also now finding planets around other stars, and can calculate their masses and orbits and find they apparently are not significantly different from the mass distributions in our solar system. This tends to corroborate the evidence of the solar system.This leaves the space between stellar systems for the {stage of actions} for the dark stuffs, and while some rogue brown dwarfs, black holes and orphaned planets have been found (most by accident it seems) they do not add up to a significant proportion, while the dark stuffs need to be a significant proportion for the equations to work. And had humans on hand to make corrections as needed. More to the point are the {mars landers} of recent fame and misfortune, and they were programmed by GR (IIRC). Several. The easiest is from wikipedia, (and this has the advantage of being updated by those in the field as new information becomes available, but offset by the capability of being edited by someone without a clue): Another is a complete PDF paper (takes some time to load) from some heavy-hitters:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0104/0104064.pdf Again, that looks like the effect of dark stuffs right here in River City (and that means trouble, folks). How is the value of {G} determined? What should it be?Note that one of the problems that I have with the ekpyrosis theory is that it explains the gravity anomaly by having a 'mirror' universe in the other sheet(s) and that gravity carries from one to the other. The problem here is that there is no reason for the other universe to end up with the same mass distribution, so there should be anomalies within anomalies.Instead consider that each subatomic particle travels in time (similar to the stacks of earth concept). The existence of particles as lines in time does not affect the observed behavior of particles at a point in time because it is "pulled" equally forward and back by its "time shadows" and the effect of "time shadows" gets absorbed into Newtonian {g} calibrations and Einsteinian {G} calibrations for the scales we are working in (as meager humans in a much vaster universe). But "time shadows" can easily add up to affect gravity on vast galactic scales. And here in River City. This is one of the concepts that I toy with, wishing I had the resources to check it out.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Message 23 when you have time ... no hurry.I'm just sitting here,paiting watiently......like chopped liver ...

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Guess I asked for that ...

--------Q
IKN

{{{digs out old math books, blows dust off covers, sneezes ... }}}ermmmI'll have to get back to you ...(I'll get to your next one later)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

I just lost the post I was working on and only recovered 1/4 of it here, so I may be a little disjointed in this response. That was gory. Onward into the fray: Not sure how you get a 60,000,000 (6e8/10) fold difference in distance there other than assuming an orthogonal triangle made from distance and time and finding the hypotenuse ... doesn't this assume an equivalence between (1m) and (1s x 3e8)? I realize that 3e8 is the speed of light and this makes the units work out, but is this valid? or is there another constant involved? This seems to be the {math elegance} problem to me.I assume that the trajectory heights are also "adjusted" to then calculate the radii, but then I have to wonder what radii are being measured... at 26 or 10? or whatever? This is one of the {elegant math} problems imho. and N is whatever it takes to make the predictions match the observations ... What do the other theories predict? One of the things that is supposed to validate the theory of ekpyrosis is a lack of gravity waves: how does this handle this situation (tough question I understand, and unfair if you aren't familiar with ekpyrosis, but you can understand my reason for asking: I don't really need an answer unless it is easily obtained). But that is not all that is missing. It seems to me that not one thing predicted by (any of the) gravity theories has been found. So this halo exists just outside the solar system (in the area that the pioneer satellites are just entering) and yet it is composed of 89.986% of the solar system (the planets = 0.14% of the mass of the sun which is the 10% luminous matter here) and yet it doesn't interfere with any observations beyond the halo while being simultaneously dense, undetectable and universally distributed in a spherical shell ... is it made of salt?? (sorry, poor joke, but I think you can understand my problem here) Well I could be wrong on the use of GR for the Mars landers. Or they did it because they could, or because they lost a couple to {math\unit} errors and were gunshy, or because they were government contractors on an hourly payscale . Thanks, I thought so too. But also consider that this amount of acceleration is the same order of magnitude as is needed to correct the predicted behavior to match the observed behavior of large galactic systems. That to me is more than coincidence. Ah, so close.Let's start with Newton's general gravity equation. We observe that the force of attraction is proportional to the mass of object {A} and the mass of object {B} and inversely to the distance between them. We take extensive measurements at very fine precision and determine the value of G in the equation F = GmM/d²butwe cannot distinguish the effect of general relativity on this value, and further, any acceleration value of the amount given above is outside the level of accuracy here, and both get buried into the value of G even though they don't depend on the same generally observed relationships. The observations are the trump cards here and the formula is adjusted to match calculations to observations. That is the essence of an empirical formula, yes?Now on to Einstein's formula:G_ab = {8(pi)G/c⁴}*T_abfrom General relativity - Wikipedia: (bold red mine for emPHAsis)And again, any effect of the above noted acceleration is buried into the value calculated for {G}, just as it was in the Newtonian value. You still have an empirical result.The only difference is that when observation does not match calculation, instead of changing the formula, we now change the nature of the universe modeled in order to have it match the calculated formula driven result.It will be interesting to see if {Gravity Probe B} will be able to detect {{dark stuffs}} effects while in earth's orbit eh? Understood. One of the things that is attractive about the extra dimensions is that it explains where the subatomic particles go as they dance between their observable avatars in our limited {world\observation}: they would exist as physical reality rather than as a probability cloud, and only appear to be changing from one into another into another ... there may even be particles that we would never see (gravitons?) Hope the above rant on {empirical} helped with the {g} and {G} value absorption comment. Just a thought exercise: what is the gravitational attraction between two (time) lines as opposed to the attraction between (space) points (balls of matter)? Even if the lines are not parallel or even straight, the attraction will not be related to 1/d² even in a gross approximation, eh? Two skewed non-intersecting curves arcing away from each other will still display an effect that is not congruent with that model even "in the limiting cases of a weak gravitational field and slow speed relative to the speed of light" -- these are the "time shadows" of the objects in {previous moment} and {next moment} affecting the behavior of the observed particles in the {current moment}.If time does need to be multiplied by the speed of light to correlate to distance in space, then this effect would be small indeed, and probably only noticeable at a ... galactic scale?And we're back to where we started (is the barman calling "time"?)Enjoy.This message has been edited by RAZD, 08*21*2005 12:09 AM

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

That is essentially the essence. Note that it is entirely possible for a singularity to develop within our universe and that it expands internally in just the same way, unable to breach the wall of the singularity, and also not be noticeable in this universe. The incredible shrinking frame of reference.Ekpyrosis posits the universe being caused by the collision of multi-dimensional sheets, with any number possible, and thus {only one} highly unlikely (especially as two sheets are involved), and also posits that they can repeat on top of previous expanded universes.See Space.com Article on Ekpyrosis (click) for some {commentary\explanations}. This was written in 18 April 2001, so there might be more up-to-date info on the web. If you google use {ekpyrosis theory -CD} (there is a band with that name). My understanding is that gravity enters the equations as negative {mass\energy} and that when you total all the {mass\energy\gravity} in the universe, you end up with a net zero (0) result -- that matter doesn't "come" from anywhere, it is just (temporarily) separated from the rest of the picture. If this is so then the {end entropic death of the universe} would be a {dissolving\fading\evaporating} of the universe away into the {nothing it started from}.Enjoy.{{Added by edit: welcome to the fray}}This message has been edited by RAZD, 08*21*2005 07:37 AM

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

ps -- if you use [ blockcolor (equals) white ] and [ /blockcolor ] (without spaces inside the brackets) behind your last image you get

gifs and pngs take on background color rather than have it in the image like jpgsThis message has been edited by RAZD, 08*25*2005 10:41 PM

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Again this goes back to what sylas said about the meaning: it isn't a thing so much as it is a mathematical part of the laws of physics as we know them, a point on the curves with a "singular" significance More correct would be plasma, a kind of {energy\mass} blend continuum mmm, black holes have "event horizons" ... "within you without you" boundaries ... ever wondered what it would look like from the inside?Again you are trying to use logic with incompete knowledge. Sylas says counterintuitive: believe it. There are some fascinating videos of Richard Feynman talking about some experiments that he used to show the particle nature of light that are downright bizarre based on intuition and logical thoughts: take a mirror place it flat move 10 feet to the right, shoot a photons out at the mirror and a recording device records the reflected photon ... to the right, beside you (percentage based on his model of behavior); take and cover parts of the same mirror (again according to his model) and the amount of light detected is brighter ... less mirror, more light. very buddhist why? why not pure magic? (or just "being") I see you believe in ferries ...

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

I know. I'll try to get to them this weekend. Not here. I use firefox. I've had trouble with this myself before, hence the trick. black on blue is hard to read (bruises the eyeballs )This message has been edited by RAZD, 08*26*2005 07:02 AM

yep those are the ones. I was too tired\lazy to look them up last night.

I have incomplete knowledge, and yes it is frustrating when {your\my} knowledge base runs out in the middle of trying to understand a point.We try to help each other eh? I think of it as too 'hot' for matter too dense for energy worse than that, every day some new objects reach that horizon. it kind of makes me feel like we better get out there before there isn't anything left to get to ... but the question is how you reached the conclusion you did. I used to live in Victoria, down by Cadboro Bay.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

and I'm likely to sputter on for a few pages here ...Heh. I have been known to post a pile of verbiage on occasion ...
EvC Forum: Legal Death, Legal Life, Personhood and Abortion
http://EvC Forum: Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Part II.
just for starters ... you may want to invert that comment ...also http://EvC Forum: Sexual Selection, Stasis, Runaway Selection, Dimorphism, & Human Evolution: And that was before the addendums and added informations ... And if we measure distance in light-seconds then {c} drops out. But it sure shows a very small time vector related to human perceptions. This also seems to assume a measuring stick based on a changeable standard (relative to speed of light and location of observer) That's why I questioned what "radius" you were measuring if it has an {i} component. You mean the height element is orthogonal to time but the rest has a time element? Doesn't that assume that the center is always in plane with the time axis and that the chord of the arc is always parallel to it? Getting into the question of which is more based on math than observations. I don't mind models that are useful for explaining behavior. I just worry when time is spent delving into the wondrous world of math and ignoring {42}: "life, the universe, and oh, everything" And empirical solutions (within allowed parameters) to match math to observation. Good. This refines the model(s) Okay, so one theory requires 26 and another theory requires 10 to make the theories predictive behavior match observations (I'm assuming, otherwise what's the point) In other words there could be more elements in the equationsds = -A(t,a,b,c,...,x,y,z)dt + B(t,a,b,c,...,x,y,z)dx ...And GR just tells you how to get around (mathematically). So the {spin-up of a neutron-star pair} does not invalidate the theory. Need more tests. Hard to rely on an {absence of evidence} for validity. But that does not make it immune to further {development\tweaking} to include new theories that would obviate the need for dark stuffs, especially when the area where it is {weakest\least tested} is in the areas that involve the dark stuffs eh? Unfortunately I get sidetracked into GPS systems and .... but I did notice that they noted an absence of certain evidence. I still can't help but think that a slightly different {metric\filter\concept} would allow the signal to be separated from the noise level. Except for the Pioneer Anomaly. Size of effect or no, it is measurable within the neighborhood. I am interested in what some of the new specialized gravity satellites will {discover\measure\find} A theoretical physicist, published in Discover mag some years ago, talked about what would be needed to adjust the theory to make it fit the observations. I believe there was also an article was titled something like "Einstein's Big Mistake" in the same issue, and he made the comment about correcting the predicted behavior to match the observed without needing the dark stuffs and ending up with a small accelleration component.This appears related to but different from other "cosmological constant" thinking.FROM: What is a Cosmological Constant? (click)(note the radical leaning website): Most of these usages of the cosmological constant make it a substitute for the dark stuffs. A little more "radical" is: Cosmic Voids and Great Walls (click)
It may have been Milgrom or Bekenstein. FROM: Was Einstein wrong? (click)
Haven't been able to find a reference to the amount of acceleration needed here. Still can't see that image on your post.I don't know what the explanation is, but when I see some references to adding a small acceleration to take care of the problem, I have to wonder if pursuing theoretical reasons for that aren't just as valid as pursuing dark stuffs. The part where Einstein G is based on Newton g is based on empirical data fitting? Cute, but relation to reality is? This is one of the aspects I have most trouble with: enchantment with the mathematics and the clever things you can make the systems do. The object is to determine what is really happening and how to model that reality. Intentionally. To mirror the relationship mentioned in that middle section: (bold red mine for emPHAsis)Thus I use the Newtonian model in my thought experiment to {show\describe\model} how there could be an added acceleration that would be small in local {systems\tests\interactions}, small enough not to be measured but able to alter the behavior at large distances.No matter how you mathematically model the universe the behavior of {stuff} is different on the time vector than on the space vectors because they are lines in time and points in space.Oh. Just found a reference for the acceleration needed to nullify dark stuffs:
Dark Matter or Different Gravity 6a_o = 1.2 x 10^{^-10} m/sec^{^2}And that pioneer anomaly?a_p = 8 x 10^{^-8} m/sec^{^2}Maybe not {{one}} order of magnitude (closer to 2.8) but not that much different either.Enjoy.(yeah, that got long again ...)This message has been edited by RAZD, 08*27*2005 09:11 PM

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

okay I was using g to differentiate G_Einstein from G_Newton rather than g = (G_Newton)(M_Earth)It's gravity. The question is whether the math is being conciously used to model what we know about the universe, or are people making up "pretty" math equations and "elegant" solutions and getting away from the reason for the model in the first place.Math can be made to do all kinds of things: that doesn't mean that the models are real. But it is speculation and not science. Until there is evidence to validate predicted results.Welcome to the board.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Funny, that is not the impression I get from the wikipedia article that says:
General relativity - Wikipedia (bold red mine for emPHAsis)One may give birth to the other and grow up quite different, but it still has the belly-button .... I have no problem with this. This is the hypothesis stage. My problem is when more time is spent playing with the model than on what the model is supposed to represent, to the point of forgetting the original purpose.And if you never get out of the hypothesis stage then you never get to the predictions, falsification tests, refinements and observations that validate the concept as a theory.It's not that I want to rule out the happy moments, I just don't think they should be viewed as the {rule\goal}.k?

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}