|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
 Posted - 03/11/2006 : 09:17:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by THoR
Why would you presume THAT was the paragraph which elicited the applause?
Because you applauded after the conclusion of my argument.quote:
I will endeavor to clip your quotes more closely.
Yes, you ought to, otherwise you simply sew confusion. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
THoR
Skeptic Friend
USA
151 Posts |
Posted - 03/11/2006 : 09:40:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by THoR
Fascinating. It posits a finite amount of mass (made of fundamental particles)...
No, the Big Bang posits no particles at all (to beging with).
I'm pointing to TODAY, you seem to be pointing to the singularity. What is observable exists TODAY. As a BB advocate, do you believe a finite number of particles exist today?quote:
quote:
...hence a finite volume...
The "finite" part is not the issue.quote:
...so who determined the trajectories of the galaxies?
The laws of physics.
and that makes them non-random? Randomness is part of physics.quote:
quote:
Is the gist of the illustration REALLY over your head or are you just playing dumb?
I'm arguing against poor definitions and playing fast-and-loose with established scientific theories.
|
I would procrastinate but I never seem to get around to it. |
| Edited by - THoR on 03/11/2006 09:40:47 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 03/11/2006 : 17:32:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by THoR
I'm pointing to TODAY, you seem to be pointing to the singularity. What is observable exists TODAY. As a BB advocate, do you believe a finite number of particles exist today?
Yes, but I wasn't objecting to your use of the word "finite."quote:
quote:
The laws of physics.
and that makes them non-random? Randomness is part of physics.
Show me any physics theory in which to get an answer, you roll a die. Randomness is a part of physics, but the laws of physics are non-random. Gravity doesn't act in a random fashion. Even quantum events act stochastically, otherwise the term "half life" would be meaningless. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
THoR
Skeptic Friend
USA
151 Posts |
Posted - 03/12/2006 : 08:59:55 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by THoR
I'm pointing to TODAY, you seem to be pointing to the singularity. What is observable exists TODAY. As a BB advocate, do you believe a finite number of particles exist today?
Yes, but I wasn't objecting to your use of the word "finite."quote:
quote:
The laws of physics.
and that makes them non-random? Randomness is part of physics.
Show me any physics theory in which to get an answer, you roll a die. Randomness is a part of physics, but the laws of physics are non-random. Gravity doesn't act in a random fashion. Even quantum events act stochastically, otherwise the term "half life" would be meaningless.
OK, actually randomness is not required. Replace the word 'random' with the word 'ANY'...now does the gist shine thru. There is more than one explanation for the Universe to appear to be 'ballooning'.
Using the same type of logic - and of course the most sophisticated of equations, I could note the daylight hours are getting longer and extrapolate that in a few months, the sun will shine 24 hours a day. |
I would procrastinate but I never seem to get around to it. |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
THoR
Skeptic Friend
USA
151 Posts |
Posted - 03/12/2006 : 18:17:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ricky
quote:
Originally posted by THoR
Given a finite number of moving particles randomly vectored at random velocities within a finite volume, eventually all collisions which could occur WILL occur - within a finite period of time. Many of those collisions may occur outside of the original volume, but they will still take place within a finite period and within a finite distance. Once all collisions have occurred, all particles will eventually reach the boundary of the initial volume and be moving away from each other.
It is small wonder the bodies within the infinitesimal portion of the Universe we can detect with our technology seem to be moving away from each other. The default assumption seems to be this is due to a 'ballooning' of the Universe from a point of singularity, but the above scenario explains the phenomenon equally as well.
You are ignoring gravity. Since gravity is acting on all the particles, they would tend to come closer together or at least slow down. However, we see that things moving away from us are accelerating.
Astute observation. The Universe, itself seems to be ignoring gravity. It's a great embarassment to BigBang proponents - messes 'em up royally and sends 'em scurrying to cover their butts with esoteric theories filled with magical dark matter (move over Harry Potter).
What if the Universe was infinite. And what if there was an INFINITE amount of matter scattered from just beyond our boundary of detection all the way to infinity. Might it not be causing the accelleration? |
I would procrastinate but I never seem to get around to it. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 03/12/2006 : 19:01:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by THoR
OK, actually randomness is not required. Replace the word 'random' with the word 'ANY'...now does the gist shine thru.
No, it makes things even more confusing:Given a finite number of moving particles vectored in any direction at any velocities within a finite volume, eventually all collisions which could occur WILL occur - within a finite period of time. That first 'randomly' took some rewriting, did I get it correct?quote:
There is more than one explanation for the Universe to appear to be 'ballooning'.
There are an infinite number of explanations for the universe to appear to be "ballooning," so what?quote:
Using the same type of logic - and of course the most sophisticated of equations, I could note the daylight hours are getting longer and extrapolate that in a few months, the sun will shine 24 hours a day.
Then it's a good thing that the motion of the universe isn't the only evidence we have for the Big Bang, then.quote:
It's a great embarassment to BigBang proponents - messes 'em up royally and sends 'em scurrying to cover their butts...
This just says that you've got no clue as to what "Big Bang proponents" actually think.quote:
...with esoteric theories filled with magical dark matter
What is magical about it?quote:
What if the Universe was infinite. And what if there was an INFINITE amount of matter scattered from just beyond our boundary of detection all the way to infinity. Might it not be causing the accelleration?
No, since the center of mass of an infinitely large amount of space is infinitely far away. And the limit, as r and m2 approach infinity (while G and m1 remained fixed and finite), ofF = Gm1m2/r2 is zero, so the net force of the infinite amount of matter would be nil.
Of course, the argument could be made that inifity squared is not larger than infinity, in which case the limit would beF = Gm1 which suggests that the force a particular body would feel from an inifitely large mass an infinite distance away would be proportional to its own mass (m1). We don't see that, however, as the acceleration of galaxies correlates to their distance from us, and not their mass.
Besides which, any force felt by an object from an infinite amount of mass in one direction will be precisely countered by the infinite amount of mass in the polar opposite direction. No matter how the equation works when m2 is infinite, the forces at work are exactly balanced, and no net force will be at play amongst the stars. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
THoR
Skeptic Friend
USA
151 Posts |
Posted - 03/13/2006 : 07:25:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ricky
quote:
Astute observation. The Universe, itself seems to be ignoring gravity. It's a great embarassment to BigBang proponents - messes 'em up royally and sends 'em scurrying to cover their butts with esoteric theories filled with magical dark matter (move over Harry Potter).
How about instead of just posting what you think sounds good, you actually look some of the stuff you say up? If you had taken the time to do so, you would have learned that dark matter was first used to explain inconsistencies when weighing galaxies.
DITTO:
"In cosmology, dark matter refers to hypothetical matter particles, of unknown composition, that do not emit or reflect enough electromagnetic radiation to be detected directly, but whose presence can be inferred from gravitational effects on visible matter such as stars and galaxies. The dark matter hypothesis aims to explain several anomalous astronomical observations, such as anomalies in the rotational speed of galaxies (the galaxy rotation problem). Estimates of the amount of matter present in galaxies, based on gravitational effects, consistently suggest that there is far more matter than is directly observable. The existence of dark matter would also resolve a number of inconsistencies in the Big Bang theory, and is crucial for structure formation."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter |
I would procrastinate but I never seem to get around to it. |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
|
|
THoR
Skeptic Friend
USA
151 Posts |
Posted - 03/13/2006 : 11:56:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ricky
Multiple theories, completely independent, and relying on the same thing! Go figure...
Maybe you missed the point. You claimed that dark matter was created to help the Big Bang, which is entirely not true.
Not that it was CREATED, but that it was USED to try to explain BB. Dark matter was actually CREATED by the Great Pumpkin for the Feast of Grenthian. |
I would procrastinate but I never seem to get around to it. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 03/13/2006 : 12:10:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by THoR
Not that it was CREATED, but that it was USED to try to explain BB.
Yeah, just like that pesky Relativity was used to explain inconsistencies with Newtonian mechanics. How dare physicists come up with theories which better match observation than prior theories!quote:
Dark matter was actually CREATED by the Great Pumpkin for the Feast of Grenthian.
Cite? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
THoR
Skeptic Friend
USA
151 Posts |
Posted - 03/13/2006 : 15:28:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by THoR
Not that it was CREATED, but that it was USED to try to explain BB.
Yeah, just like that pesky Relativity was used to explain inconsistencies with Newtonian mechanics.
I have a MAJOR problem with any equation that produces an imaginary number. Though emperically it seems to work, I would strongly suspect it is incomplete...unfortunately, I haven't used my higher math in decades and am lucky if I can add change in my head.
quote:
How dare physicists come up with theories which better match observation than prior theories!quote:
Dark matter was actually CREATED by the Great Pumpkin for the Feast of Grenthian.
Cite?
In metaphysics WECIB (what else could it be) is a valid ploy. I, myself, as a mad metaphysicist use it ad nauseum. Often ... Occasionally Rarely it proves out. In the realm of physics; however, before you declare that dark matter, indeed, exists - I'd like to see a sample of it in a test tube...it is not enough that its existence is SORELY NEEDED to explain away problems with established theory. |
I would procrastinate but I never seem to get around to it. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 03/13/2006 : 15:55:50 [Permalink]
|
THoR said:
quote:
In the realm of physics; however, before you declare that dark matter, indeed, exists - I'd like to see a sample of it in a test tube...it is not enough that its existence is SORELY NEEDED to explain away problems with established theory.
Now you're being inconsistent (not that it really suprises me). You want to see a bit of dark matter in a test tube, yet you insist that those "me" particles are real and offer none in that test tube for us to see.
No rational person would change their standard of evidence just because it is convenient.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
