|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
 Posted - 06/28/2006 : 18:16:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
...first you'll have to start by explaining how come the light is coming at us from all directions.
I already did. The hot Big Bang happened everywhere in the universe. When the universe went transparent - when it cooled down enough for hydrogen atoms to form, at about 3,000 K - it went transparent everywhere. The photons which had been scattering every which way until that point in time (hence the blackbody spectrum), suddenly free to travel long distances, are what we see as the CMBR.
So, how would a Big Slam or a static universe generate a blackbody spectrum? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 06/28/2006 : 18:45:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
I'll expect you to prove that temperature of course, but first you'll have to start by explaining how come the light is coming at us from all directions.
I thought you said that you've studied basic Big Bang theory. Anyone with slightly more than rudimentary knowledge of BB should know how and why the CMBR comes from all directions.
When the primordial fireball (as it's popularily called) cooled below a certain level, the universe changed from opaque to transparent. At that time, light was released from all points in space, in all directions. The CMBR we detect today is 13-14 billion years old, and the spectrum is red-shifted because of the expansion of space during its travel here.
Edited to add: Didn't read Dave's explanation before I posted mine. It's been hectic at work, and I'm stealing minutes here and there to compose a post.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 06/28/2006 19:34:17 |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 06/29/2006 : 00:18:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Would you care to provide some examples of these math-examples with no bases in observation? Just so we are on the same page...
Well, pretty much any math that is based on the idea that all mass in our universe began as "quark soup" during a "Big Bang" would fall into that category.
I was hoping for something more than that since it sounded like there were many such instances not connected to the Big Bang theory which you personally have a beef with (which automatically disqualifies all BBT-examples in my eyes).
quote:
quote:
<snip> The difference is that the change in complexity from a simple chemical formula to population dynamics is currently insurmountable because there are several layers of abstractions between them.
Sounds like we're on the same page at least.
I don't think so, because I'm on the same page as Dave in this case: Biological Evolution Theories are not Physics, but Biology. (and somewhat chemistry) You don't apply physics equations to entities in biology, it's a separate dicipline.
quote:
I'd love to have a private email conversation about it sometime (but not this week). You can email me anytime you like at the address on my website.
Why not create a thread about it in the Evolution/Creation folder instead? There are other members who are much better at evolutionary biology than I. I'm sure we both would appreciate their input, which wouldn't be possible if we took it to email.
quote:
quote:
The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation.
But that background radiation could be caused by many things, that are completely unrelated to even the "quark soup" period we both seem to agree on.
I'm afraid we aren't on the same page regarding "quark soup" either. I'm using the term that you introduced when you were trying to explain a slam theory. But I don't see how it would be similar to the quark soup as described by the BBT. That's why I'm using quotation marks. The BB quark soup was long gone before the first light was released.
quote:
In other words, if we imagine a quark soup event inside an infinite (but spacially distant) "cosmos" this radiation could not even be related to the events at 0,0,0,0. Another example might be a "slam" inside a thin gas universe. Where the radiation is simply a scattering effect from photons from the quark soup phase from distant gas plasma molecules that were not part of the material involved in the slam. In other words, there are several possible explanations for this background radiation.
I disagree because in the examples, the CMBR wouldn't be coming equally from everywhere. And you would still have to explain how the CMBR conforms so well with an ideal black body, and the enormous red-shift.
quote:
This cannot be considered evidence that is exclusive to an "all matter came from quark soup" model of the BB.
It seems pretty exclusive to me, because I have yet to see an explanation that equally elegantly explains the very specific nature of the CMBR.
quote:
Let us assume for a moment we have a singularity of quark soup. How do the photons go from there, and reach us today, and never be affected by iron in our current universe?
For an astronomer, you sure have a weird vocabulary. For starters, a singularity is an abstract thing, describing a single point in space. If you had any idea about what the Big Bang theory says, I wouldn't have to tell you these things... Then we have the quark soup: it ended before the first second after the initial flash of the Big Bang. It took another 380'000 years before the universe became transparent (the origin of CMBR) so the quarks were "long gone" by then.
That is also one of the reasons for my disbelief in your idea that a "quark soup" could generate the CMBR. If there was a big slam, then space was already there, far outside the area you designate 0,0,0,0. So how do you explain the temperature drop in the CMBR, the massive red-shift in the spectrum?
quote:
quote:
The lack indicates that there wasn't any matter that could absorb nor emit additional components in the spectrum.
You're going to have to define "lack" here in some way, since there must be some influence of the iron in our current universe on these photons as they travel.
Dave already did: CMBR conforms so close to a black body.
However, CMBR is not totally perfect. It does have minute deviations from the mathematical model of the perfect black body. These deviations has been traced back to hydrogen, helium, and scattering off electrons. No metal absorption nor emissions.
quote:
Again, I would go back to the galaxy collision scenario, where two black holes intersect and explode.
Where did you get the idea that black holes explodes if they "intersect"?
quote:
Not every vectored direction that a photon might take from the quark soup is likely to intersect any significant amount of iron as it travels from the soup. Only once in a while will it run into a sun or interact with existing iron.
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 06/29/2006 : 09:54:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
I'll expect you to prove that temperature of course, but first you'll have to start by explaining how come the light is coming at us from all directions.
I thought you said that you've studied basic Big Bang theory. Anyone with slightly more than rudimentary knowledge of BB should know how and why the CMBR comes from all directions.
When the primordial fireball (as it's popularily called) cooled below a certain level, the universe changed from opaque to transparent. At that time, light was released from all points in space, in all directions. The CMBR we detect today is 13-14 billion years old, and the spectrum is red-shifted because of the expansion of space during its travel here.
Edited to add: Didn't read Dave's explanation before I posted mine. It's been hectic at work, and I'm stealing minutes here and there to compose a post.
I have studied BB theory Dr., which is why this explanation sounds more metaphysical than physical. I'm more than happy to accept that whatever "quark soup" phase existed, it was radiating energy "everwhere. How big was it? An inch across, a light year across, 10 light years in diameter? How large was the quark soup? |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 06/29/2006 : 10:01:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
...first you'll have to start by explaining how come the light is coming at us from all directions.
I already did. The hot Big Bang happened everywhere in the universe.
How "large" is "everywhere" Dave? What physical size was the universe when it "cooled" enough to emit the photons we see in the backgound radiation? |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 06/29/2006 : 10:15:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
For an astronomer, you sure have a weird vocabulary. For starters, a singularity is an abstract thing, describing a single point in space.
That is essentially what I am describing at 0,0,0,0. If it cooled due to expansion from that "point", and nothing can travel faster than light, then theoretically the universe can be no larger than 27.4 light years across, assuming that photons have been traveling from than point ever since.
That is why I asked you about "sizes" at various phases, including what "size" you believe they universe to be at the moment. If you believe that "inflation" can cause something to travel faster than light, you'll have to explain how that works. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 06/29/2006 : 10:26:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
That is also one of the reasons for my disbelief in your idea that a "quark soup" could generate the CMBR. If there was a big slam, then space was already there, far outside the area you designate 0,0,0,0. So how do you explain the temperature drop in the CMBR, the massive red-shift in the spectrum?
The massive red shift is due to the vast distances between our universe and the rest of the universes in the multiverse.
How do you physcially explain the massive red shift and the "temperature drop" as you put it? How did we get from a "point" in space to massive red-shifts in only 13.7 billion years? |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 06/29/2006 : 11:57:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Where did you get the idea that black holes explodes if they "intersect"?
They might explode if the combined force and energy reached some sort of critical mass/energy state. They probably would explode if one was made of matter, and the other was made of antimatter. Based on the fact that there is more matter than antimatter in our universe, I would have to assume that the one that was made of normal matter was "larger".
Can you tell me what makes a "singularity" "inflate"?
|
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 06/29/2006 12:01:15 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 06/29/2006 : 12:07:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
The CMBR we detect today is 13-14 billion years old, and the spectrum is red-shifted because of the expansion of space during its travel here.
Can you explain in physical terms, how "space" experiences "expansion". How does this red-shift the photons from the quark soup? Again, I need some dimensional ideas here and some physical explanations of how photons and matter experience "expansion" from this singularity/point. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 06/29/2006 12:08:06 |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 06/29/2006 : 12:17:53 [Permalink]
|
Michael you posted this on 6/13/06:
quote:
To answer your question Robb in layman's terms from a skeptical point of view, the Big Bang is a "theory" that is loosely based upon what we get by plotting the trajectories of galaxies backward in time. When we do this we notice that the galaxies seem to all originate from one general direction, or one general area of space.
The above quote contains a fundamental misunderstanding of every permutation of the BB theory. Hopefully you have learned a little about the BB theory since this post.
quote:
Sure. The only part we need to change is to suggest that the events at 0,0,0,0 were more like a galaxy collision or "big slam" where some matter survives intact.
Here are some photographs of colliding galaxies:
Why do you suppose these did not create a new universe? How is it possible for 2 galaxies to collide and form a 'quark soup'? As far as I know this would be impossible. Galaxies are mostly space - when they collide (which is not that unusual) there is very little chance of stars actually hitting each other.
Here is another interesting picture:
What is your theory on how 2 galaxies colliding could form millions of other galaxies?
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 06/29/2006 : 12:23:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
They might explode if the combined force and energy reached some sort of critical mass/energy state. They probably would explode if one was made of matter, and the other was made of antimatter. Based on the fact that there is more matter than antimatter in our universe, I would have to assume that the one that was made of normal matter was "larger".
Holy crap!! I would recommend that you cut your losses and just drop this line of conjecture your starting to embarrass yourself.... |
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/29/2006 : 12:27:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
How "large" is "everywhere" Dave? What physical size was the universe when it "cooled" enough to emit the photons we see in the backgound radiation?
If you'd studied cosmology at all, Michael (not just Big Bang theory), you'd know that nobody knows the answer to that question. We know the universe is larger than 13.7 billion light-years across, because otherwise the CMBR would have stopped, but beyond that, we cannot know, because we can't get information about the universe faster than at the speed of light. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 06/29/2006 : 12:27:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
some dimensional ideas here and some physical explanations of how photons and matter experience "expansion" from this singularity/point.
I thought you said you understood the BB theory. You haven't got a clue. Google Big Bang and at least learn the fundamentals before you come up with an alternative theory!
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 06/29/2006 : 13:42:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
If you'd studied cosmology at all, Michael (not just Big Bang theory), you'd know that nobody knows the answer to that question. We know the universe is larger than 13.7 billion light-years across, because otherwise the CMBR would have stopped, but beyond that, we cannot know, because we can't get information about the universe faster than at the speed of light.
It is precisely because I *have* studied the BB theory since about age nine or ten and inflation theory when it became "vogue" in astronomy, that I already know that there are no answers to these questions, and that's why I asked them Dave.
See Robb, this is the kind of reaction you will see when you can scientifically demonstrate that the emperor has no clothes. The mainstream gets rude, obnoxious, loud, and they go for your funding. Forunately I'm self employed and I could care less about funding.
Robb, you need to look for "real" answers, ones that aren't based on what I would "mathematical mythologies", but rather they should be based on observation and the laws of physics. When people talk about "inflation", they use terms like "space is expanding". What does that mean in physical terms with real atoms and real photons? They don't want to talk about that stuff, because innevitably someone has to point out that photons have a speed limit, and matter in terms of "atoms" has a similar speed limit.
These "myth" behind "inflation" (not necessarily every big bang theory) is that "singularities (points)" inflate. What is the force of inflation? How is it that mass can travel faster than the speed of light? These are kinds of quesetions that they don't wish to explore and look at openly and honestly. Instead the mainstream would like to "pretend" they already know that a BB happened, laws of physics be damned. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 06/29/2006 13:42:54 |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 06/29/2006 : 13:55:29 [Permalink]
|
Michael said:
quote:
How is it that mass can travel faster than the speed of light? These are kinds of quesetions that they don't wish to explore and look at openly and honestly. Instead the mainstream would like to "pretend" they already know that a BB happened, laws of physics be damned.
I swear your (lack of) knowledge of the BB theory is like a list of the top misunderstandings of the theory.
The universe can expand faster than the speed of light and it does not violate any physical law!!! Oh, MY how can that be?????
Here is an idea - learn a little bit about a theory before you say it is a "big fat myth".
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
