Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,878 Year: 4,135/9,624 Month: 1,006/974 Week: 333/286 Day: 54/40 Hour: 1/4


EvC Forum ⇒ Science Forums ⇒ Big Bang and Cosmology ⇒

A Big Bang Misconception

Thread ▼ Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A Big Bang Misconception
ringo
Member (Idle past 440 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005

Normal Thread Display
Message 41 of 83 (343012)
08-24-2006 2:42 PM 		Reply to: Message 39 by Joman
08-24-2006 2:23 PM

Joman writes:
​
The determination of motion relative to any point of absolute rest is an absolute measurement. That's why calibration labs have standards.
​
Not at all.
​
Measurements are calibrated relative to a standard. There is nothing "absolute" about the standard. The standard can be anything at all, as long as all measurements are made relative to the same standard.
​
You can choose any point in space and you'll find that all points in space are moving away from it.
There is no "fixed point". The same is true for every point.
​
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Joman, posted 08-24-2006 2:23 PM Joman has replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Joman, posted 08-24-2006 4:16 PM ringo has replied
  
ringo
Member (Idle past 440 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005

Normal Thread Display
Message 50 of 83 (343039)
08-24-2006 4:32 PM 		Reply to: Message 48 by Joman
08-24-2006 4:16 PM

Joman writes:
​
But, there point made was that the initial point from which all expanded is a point of "absolute rest".
​
So what? No need to get tripped up by that one little phrase.
​
Which is an absolute standard of reference and not the kind found in cal labs.
​
You were the one who said that "calibration labs" use absolute standards.
I was just correcting your error.
​
your point is based upon belief that your right not upon evidence, since no one has tested all other points in space.
​
I think it's based on mathematics.
​
When you've found a point in space that fails the test, come back and prove me wrong.
​
... they haven't any scientific method to their extrapolation since it apparently isn't based upon actual observation.
​
That doesn't make any sense. There wouldn't be anything to extrapolate if it wasn't for the observations.
​
... I believe that a competent math man could calculate the original position of each dot from the ongoing expansion, even from within the frame of reference (the balloon skin).
​
But you can't use "the balloon skin" as your frame of reference.
​
In the analogy, earth would correspond roughly to one of the dots on the balloon. So your mathematician could only calculate the original dots' positions relative to the position of his own dot.
​
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Joman, posted 08-24-2006 4:16 PM Joman has replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Joman, posted 08-25-2006 11:32 AM ringo has replied
  
ringo
Member (Idle past 440 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005

Normal Thread Display
Message 52 of 83 (343315)
08-25-2006 11:59 AM 		Reply to: Message 51 by Joman
08-25-2006 11:32 AM

Joman writes:
​
... while trying to draw attention to the fact that if a reference is absolute then the measurement can be absolute also.
​
And I've been saying that the reference is not absolute - so the measurement is not absolute either. As far as I can tell, you're the only one who claims it is.
​
Your a math man?
​
In everyday life, I pose as the mild-mannered gunfighter, Ringo.
But when danger threatens, I become Math Man!
​
What scientific observational data are you extrapolating from?
​
The Big Bang was originally extrapolated from observations of all of the objects in the universe. The math and the observations agree.
​
I don't want to use a balloon skin.
​
Then why did you bring it up?
​
My argument is that if you really were extrapolating from a observational data pov then you could indeed pin point the origin of the expansion.
​
I know that's your argument, but you haven't done anything to back it up.
​
Look at the dreaded balloon analogy: There are an infinite number of points on the surface of the balloon, representing an infinite number of points in "space". You seem to be thinking in terms of standing "outside" the points and observing all of them at once. But there is no "outside". You can only stand on one point and observe the others relative to that point.
​
... if expansion were true then the earth wouldn't appear as the center unless it was.
​
Huh?
​
Balloon analogy again: the surface of a balloon has no "center". The earth can neither "be" at the center nor "appear" to be at the center.
​
In a true expansion many redshift measurements would exist. However, none would be perpendicular unless secondary causes intrude.
​
There are secondary causes. What's the problem?
​
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Joman, posted 08-25-2006 11:32 AM Joman has replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Joman, posted 08-25-2006 12:25 PM ringo has replied
  
ringo
Member (Idle past 440 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005

Normal Thread Display
Message 54 of 83 (343330)
08-25-2006 12:28 PM 		Reply to: Message 53 by Joman
08-25-2006 12:25 PM

Joman writes:
​
Let me know when you do understand my points.
​
If there's a problem in understanding, point it out. Don't just run away.
​
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Joman, posted 08-25-2006 12:25 PM Joman has replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Joman, posted 08-25-2006 2:14 PM ringo has replied
  
ringo
Member (Idle past 440 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005

Normal Thread Display
Message 59 of 83 (343364)
08-25-2006 2:30 PM 		Reply to: Message 58 by Joman
08-25-2006 2:14 PM

Joman writes:
​
How is it the expansion force was able to expand the densest clump of matter initially but, not the extremely less dense ones now?
​
By observation, we know that the galaxies are moving away from each other.
​
Are you saying that we can only extrapolate that motion backward until the "expansive" force balances with the "attractive" force? That is, are you suggesting that the expansion "began" at some time (say 6000 years ago) with the galaxies already far apart?
​
I would also like some clarification on what you think the "expansive" force is.
​
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Joman, posted 08-25-2006 2:14 PM Joman has not replied
  
Date format: mm-dd-yyyy
Timezone: ET (US)
  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024