|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: New Big Bang Cosmology | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Eta_Carinae Member (Idle past 4374 days) Posts: 547 From: US Joined: |
You do realise (I hope) that your post is complete and utter crap from a physics perspective.
I posted this earlier - but you really do NEED to read some more on the SDSS survey maps. You are completely misunderstanding things. THERE ARE NO CONCENTRIC CIRCLES! WE ARE NOT AT A CENTRE!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Gup20 Inactive Member |
LIke I said... I am not a physicist... I can only repeat it as I understand it. I am sure that Dr. Humphreys (who has a PhD in physics) could give you the numbers - I cannot.
Perhaps you should go check out his book - Starlight and time and tell us what you think about it. (D.R. Humphreys, Starlight and Time, Master Books, Green Forest, Arkansas, 1994.)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
coffee_addict Member (Idle past 477 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: |
Gup20 writes:
In other words, you just took his word for it because it supported your beliefs. LIke I said... I am not a physicist... I can only repeat it as I understand it. I am sure that Dr. Humphreys (who has a PhD in physics) could give you the numbers - I cannot.Perhaps you should go check out his book - Starlight and time and tell us what you think about it. (D.R. Humphreys, Starlight and Time, Master Books, Green Forest, Arkansas, 1994.) I am not about to dismiss what I have been taught by my professors (who also have PhD's and more) because Humphreys told me to. The Laminator
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Eta_Carinae Member (Idle past 4374 days) Posts: 547 From: US Joined: |
about cosmology. His white hole cosmology model in starlight and time is a non starter as a model from the get go.
I don't think people who got a PhD in Physics from LSU decades ago and then faded into obscurity as an engineer should be taken seriously on cosmology. Note that he has ZERO experience in cosmology and general relativity as his dabblings attest to. Again, I recommend you learn something about the SDSS survey, what those maps show and why they look like they do. Remember any survey like the SDSS is not a volume limited sample but a magnitude limited sample with the corresponding selection effects and observational biases that come with the territory.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Gup20 Inactive Member |
I don't think you know what you are talking about -
Regarding Dr. Russel Humphreys: Beginning in 1979 he worked for Sandia National Laboratories (New Mexico) in nuclear physics, geophysics, pulsed-power research, and theoretical atomic and nuclear physics. In 1985, he began working with Sandia’s ‘Particle Beam Fusion Project’, and was co-inventor of special laser-triggered ‘Rimfire’ high-voltage switches, now coming into wider use. The last few years at Sandia had seen greater emphasis on theoretical nuclear physics and radiation hydrodynamics in an effort to help produce the world’s first lab-scale thermonuclear fusion. Besides gaining another U.S. patent, Dr Humphreys has been given two awards from Sandia, including an Award for Excellence for contributions to light ion-fusion target theory.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
coffee_addict Member (Idle past 477 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: |
Gup20 writes:
I looked and I looked and I still couldn't find where it says "cosmology." Beginning in 1979 he worked for Sandia National Laboratories (New Mexico) in nuclear physics, geophysics, pulsed-power research, and theoretical atomic and nuclear physics. The Laminator
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 734 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
Besides gaining another U.S. patent,
I'm on seventeen US Patents, and my knowledge of cosmology is only that of a literate layman. Humphreys is blinded by ideology.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sylas Member (Idle past 5260 days) Posts: 766 From: Newcastle, Australia Joined: |
I don't think you know what you are talking about... Actually, Eta_Carinae is probably the best informed person here on these matters. He knows exactly what he is talking about, and is certainly better positioned with respect to background than Dr Humphreys. Eta has chosen to be anonymous on the net, but has given some limited details of his background, including that his work as an astrophysicist over the last twenty plus years has encompassed aspects of stellar evolution, cosmology, and quantum gravity. All I can confirm, as a fairly well informed layman, is that he has demonstrated a depth of understanding of the material and the relevant theory consistent with his claimed background. Eta tends not to suffer fools gladly, and does not work well at explaining in detail for people who have no background, but are inclined to dismiss the entire field of modern astronomy without having made a passable attempt to learn a bit about it for themselves. For example, in Message 152 he says
This is one of the things that pisses me off more than anything else about YEC's. They either think you are lying to them or they think by reading 2 webpages from some nutcase they think they know the same amount of physics as someone like me who has being doing this for a living since 1980. He has a reasonable point. Humphreys is a crank when it comes to cosmology; and his Starlight and Time is arrant nonsense. Your own invocation of the Sloan survey in Message 6 is bizarre. In fact, these deep space surveys are completely inconsistent with Humphreys' nonsense. The earlier 2dF survey pretty much demolished the notion of quantized redshift — which was the closest thing Humphreys had to any empirical basis for his ideas. The Sloan survey will be examined for the same effect I am sure; I have not seen a publication out as yet. The 2dF results have been discussed here, by JonF in Message 33. I've discussed it in other forums; I can't find having said much about it here; but my post Message 67 has some useful material. Cheers -- Sylas (Edit to fixed link to one of my posts) This message has been edited by Sylas, 05-14-2004 12:14 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
coffee_addict Member (Idle past 477 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: |
I still have a question that remains unanswered. If the universe has a center and Earth is very near the center, what is causing the time dilation near the center???
According to relativity, only 2 things can cause time dilation. (1) Extreme gravitational condition and (2) high velocity. So, what's causing the time dilation near the center??? The Laminator
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sylas Member (Idle past 5260 days) Posts: 766 From: Newcastle, Australia Joined: |
Lam writes: According to relativity, only 2 things can cause time dilation. (1) Extreme gravitational condition and (2) high velocity. So, what's causing the time dilation near the center??? Let me jump in here. No offense intended to anyone, but I don't think Gup20 knows enough about Humphreys' model or relativity to answer this question. Humphreys (I think) proposes a severely distorted curved spacetime which would result in Earth's clocks running very slowly in relation to the rest of the universe. The only thing we know that makes such a distortion is mass; but who knows... perhaps there is something else. There is precedent in physics for adding parameters (cf Einstein's cosmological constant) which have various effects. I think Humphreys simply proposes a spacetime structure which is roughly analogous to the constants added by other physicists in other cases. The major (MAJOR) difference is that real scientists attempt to make their models fit observations. Humphreys is just thinking of some way to reconcile his belief in a young earth with the plain evidence of a very ancient universe. Humphreys makes no serious attempt to test the implications of his model. It is worth noting that Humphreys indicates that this distortion in spacetime is something that existed in the past; not now. He has no basis for how it arose or how is dissipated. The actual relativistic equations used were fundamently wrong anyway; though I understand he has made some attempt to correct those errors without acknowledging that he was esposed as a klutz who doesn't understand relativity. The funny thing is; his ideas gain enormous support, as he is the only young earth creationist I know making any credible attempt to deal with the observational evidence of an old universe, since the demise of the absurd changing speed of light ideas of Stterfield. The problem has been recognized by others (Danny Faulkner, for example) but noone can think of any better way to deal with the evidence. Cheers -- Sylas PS. Disclaimer: I'm a rank amateur in relativity; and I have not read the book Starlight and Time; though I've read some of the criticisms and defences.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RingoKid Inactive Member |
...so what about my inflating 13.7 billion light year thick membrane of a bubble type universe with black hole tendrils ???
I'd settle for being called an ignorant crackpot and pointed in the right direction...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sylas Member (Idle past 5260 days) Posts: 766 From: Newcastle, Australia Joined: |
RingoKid writes: ...so what about my inflating 13.7 billion light year thick membrane of a bubble type universe with black hole tendrils ??? Since you ask... it's gibberish. The tough problem is how to say that without causing offense. The description is reusing words and phrases from real cosmology and using them in new ways that just don't make sense. For example, 13.7 billion years is the age of the universe. How can it be the thickness of a membrane? The concept of "membrane" (or "brane") is also one that appears in cosmology, but it does not fit the kind of usage shown above. It is not something that exists simply in three dimensions. You can imagine, if you like, a piece of paper. It is like a "brane" which has two dimensions, but exists in a kind of three dimensional space. It has negligible thickness. If our universe was a "brane", then it has three dimensions, but the "thickness" would be in other dimensions that you cannot identify by moving around in space, but by looking in a new dimension entirely, which is not really accessible to our normal observation. The universe might be infinitesimally "thick" as a brane; and billions of light years in extent in the three dimensions we perceive. As for being pointed in the right direction; in my own personal view the best internet resource on cosmology is the cosmology tutorial and associated pages by Ned Wright at UCLA. Check it out. Parts of it are quite technical, so it will make depands of the reader; but it is still accessible for a layman. Cheers -- Sylas
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RingoKid Inactive Member |
...needs work huh ???
Thank you Sylas, I appreciate your honesty and please don't pull any punches. How else are we to learn if we are to scared to say what we think for fear of causing offense and I take most things short of personal insults as constructive criticism... ...I'll look into that link you posted and get back to you I warn you though, the questions are just going to keep coming I hope you're up to answering them... RK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sylas Member (Idle past 5260 days) Posts: 766 From: Newcastle, Australia Joined: |
I agree with your comment about the difficulty of being scared to say what we think. There is sometimes a fine line between being blunt about a proposed idea and being needlessly insulting to a person who is floating their own ideas with the aim of getting feedback. I'll do my best to be constructive and will be happy to answer questions to the best of my limited abilities. Fire away.
Cheers -- Sylas
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RingoKid Inactive Member |
...I just noticed
I said the bubble membrane was 13.7 billion light years thick as in the distance covered by light from the initial point of the big bang to reach it's current position at the leading edge of the inflating universe... On a side note, is it a known fact that nothing can exceed the speed of light if so is that the expansion rate of the universe if not then can we assume the gravitational pull of a black hole is "faster" or does it just accelerate up to speed faster ??? eg...a rear drive light powered engine pushes a white car up to speed and a front drive black hole powered engine pulls a black car up to speed. which car would win assuming of course the black car doesn't disappear into it's own engine...
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024