|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
 Posted - 06/29/2006 : 13:58:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
The above quote contains a fundamental misunderstanding of every permutation of the BB theory.
Fortunately I'm old enough to remember that BB theory predated the inflation "myth". I first studied the idea during the Apollo landings. Guth wouldn't write his paper for 11 or 12 years, so I recall that there was a Big Bang theory prior to Guth.
quote:
Hopefully you have learned a little about the BB theory since this post.
I have learned quite a bit about which "flavor" of BB theory that Dave, Dr. Mabuse and you put your "faith" in now, yes.
quote:
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'?
I would think that the most "likely" answer is a merger of two "supermassive" (universe sized) black holes, one made of matter, and the other made of antimatter. Based on the dominance of matter over antimatter in our universe, I would guess that the supermassiveblack hole made of matter was the larger of the two.
quote:
What is your theory on how 2 galaxies colliding could form millions of other galaxies?
The galaxy collision analogy was just a handy analogy to demonstrate the idea furshur. You'll have to scale things up by many orders of magnitude. The supermassive black holes would have to be larger than anything in our remaining universe. Were just floating on the remnants of what's leftover. |
 |
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 06/29/2006 : 14:04:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
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".
Since I already have educated myself, I have a better idea. I'm going to call your bluff. Educate me. Show me your superior intellect and scientific knowledge and explain how this "faster than light inflation" doesn't violate the laws of physics oh great and grand one. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 06/29/2006 14:05:27 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/29/2006 : 14:39:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
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.
And? What did that accomplish?quote:
See Robb, this is the kind of reaction you will see when you can scientifically demonstrate that the emperor has no clothes.
Your question didn't demonstrate anything.quote:
The mainstream gets rude, obnoxious, loud, and they go for your funding.
Nice paranoia you've got there.quote:
Forunately I'm self employed and I could care less about funding.
That apparently doesn't prevent you from accusing people of going after your non-existent funding.quote:
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.
"We cannot know how large the universe is" is based upon observation and the laws of physics. What answer do you find to be more appropriate?quote:
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?
It means that space is expanding, and it takes real photons and atoms longer to cross it as time goes on.quote:
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.
I pointed that out in my answer to you, Michael. The "universal speed limit" of light is what prevents us from knowing the size of the universe with any certainty.quote:
These "myth" behind "inflation" (not necessarily every big bang theory) is that "singularities (points)" inflate. What is the force of inflation?
Good question. How do you think we could figure that out without a time machine?quote:
How is it that mass can travel faster than the speed of light?
Mass never travelled faster than the speed of light. I thought you "studied" this stuff.quote:
These are kinds of quesetions that they don't wish to explore and look at openly and honestly.
No, let's explore it openly and honestly. When has any theory of cosmological origins ever posited that mass has traveled faster than the speed of light, Michael? If you can answer that question honestly, it will be with a different answer than "the Big Bang says so," because the Big Bang theory does not assert faster-than-light travel of anything.quote:
Instead the mainstream would like to "pretend" they already know that a BB happened, laws of physics be damned.
The Big Bang theory obeys all laws of physics. Name one that it violates. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/29/2006 : 14:58:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
I have learned quite a bit about which "flavor" of BB theory that Dave, Dr. Mabuse and you put your "faith" in now, yes.
Now look who's "making it personal." You've spoken just like a creationist screaming about scientists having "faith" in evolution, Michael. I don't have any faith in the Big Bang theory. I don't even "believe in" the Big Bang theory. I simply understand it and the evidence, and agree that it represents the best explanation we've got right now for the phenomena we observe pertaining to the beginnings of our universe.
When new evidence comes along which shows that the theory makes incorrect predictions, the theory will change. No big deal. If new evidence comes along which shows the theory is wholly unworkable, we'll get a new theory. So what? Only people of "faith" in some sort of "dogma" would be bothered by those sorts of events. I'm not. I'm sure Mab and furshur won't give a damn, either.
And just because it's appropriate here, Arp, with his quasar pairs, hasn't shown squat about any mistakes in redshift, since he just assumes that the quasars have an intrinsic redshift, but can't predict what it should be. He doesn't actually have a theory to compete with even just the null hypothesis. At least, that's what I found in the links you supplied. If there's someplace that he actually uses observations to support his assumptions, I'd like to see it. Until then, I'll be working with the hypothesis that he lost his telescopes because he wasn't doing science with them, since he had no theory. |
- 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 : 15:13:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
The above quote contains a fundamental misunderstanding of every permutation of the BB theory.
Fortunately I'm old enough to remember that BB theory predated the inflation "myth". I first studied the idea during the Apollo landings. Guth wouldn't write his paper for 11 or 12 years, so I recall that there was a Big Bang theory prior to Guth.
Jesus! Inflation has nothing to do with your misconception. Since you don't even knw where you were wrong let me point it out for you.
You said: 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.
quote:
Educate me. Show me your superior intellect and scientific knowledge and explain how this "faster than light inflation" doesn't violate the laws of physics oh great and grand one.
I doubt that I am smarter than you, however I am certainly more educated about science than you.
Since you don't seem to want to google about the BB theory I will just google common misconceptions and see what we get:
First entry - big bang
From the article:
quote:
Similarly, the big bang happened everywhere--in the room in which you are reading this article, in a spot just to the left of Alpha Centauri, everywhere. It was not a bomb going off at a particular spot that we can identify as the center of the explosion.
There is no general direction that the big bang came from, there is no center. This is FUNDEMENTAL to understanding what the BB is, clearly a point you do not get even after study the BB since you were 10 years old.
Now answering your question about expansion faster than the speed of light: (please notice this NOTHING to do with inflation)quote:
In fact, Hubble's law predicts that galaxies beyond a certain distance, known as the Hubble distance, recede faster than the speed of light.... The solution is that special relativity applies only to "normal" velocities--motion through space. The velocity in Hubble's law is a recession velocity caused by the expansion of space, not a motion through space.
quote:
I would think that the most "likely" answer [to the origin of the universe] is a merger of two "supermassive" (universe sized) black holes, one made of matter, and the other made of antimatter.
These yin and yang black holes of course had to have existed in space, so I have a question for you. This scenario would cause SPACE ITSELF TO EXPAND exactly how????? (For your own sake don't try to answer this)
I again recommend that you learn a little something about the subject that you are condeming so you don't sound like a moron.
|
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 : 15:48:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
And? What did that accomplish?
It demonstrates that ultimately all theories in astronomy are based faith in things nobody can explain, but only one idea gets presented in class.
quote:
Nice paranoia you've got there.
Ya, it's just my imagination that furshur and HH went ballistic into the realm of "personal".
quote:
That apparently doesn't prevent you from accusing people of going after your non-existent funding.
What kind of a goofy strawman is that. I even explained that I was immune from the political and financial pressures.
quote:
"We cannot know how large the universe is" is based upon observation and the laws of physics. What answer do you find to be more appropriate?
You might explain how "large" the singularity was to begin with. What "size" it occupied during the quark soup phase, ect.
quote:
quote:
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?
It means that space is expanding, and it takes real photons and atoms longer to cross it as time goes on.
A perfect example of double-speak if every I heard it. Define "space". Define the force of "inflation".
quote:
I pointed that out in my answer to you, Michael. The "universal speed limit" of light is what prevents us from knowing the size of the universe with any certainty.
The "size" thing here is awefully fuzzy. Singularities are typically considered "points" from a mathematical perspective. How do get from a "point" to an "inflated universe" that has spread out a considerable distance from that "point"?
What is "space", and how does it "expand"?
quote:
Good question. How do you think we could figure that out without a time machine?
How many "forces" are there Dave? We know about gravity, electricity, kinetic energy, ect. You can't even identify the force of inflation?
quote:
Mass never travelled faster than the speed of light. I thought you "studied" this stuff.
Then how is the mass or any of the photons of the universe spread out any further than 27.4 light years from the original "singularity"?
quote:
No, let's explore it openly and honestly. When has any theory of cosmological origins ever posited that mass has traveled faster than the speed of light, Michael? If you can answer that question honestly, it will be with a different answer than "the Big Bang says so," because the Big Bang theory does not assert faster-than-light travel of anything.
No, it just asserts that the universe is greater than 27.4 light years across and never bothers to explain how that's possible in terms of real forces and real photons and real atoms.
quote:
quote:
Instead the mainstream would like to "pretend" they already know that a BB happened, laws of physics be damned.
The Big Bang theory obeys all laws of physics. Name one that it violates.
The law that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. There is no way for even photons to be more than 13.7 light years from the orginal singularity.
|
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 06/29/2006 15:51:18 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 06/29/2006 : 16:12:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Now look who's "making it personal." You've spoken just like a creationist screaming about scientists having "faith" in evolution, Michael.
Scientists do in fact have faith in evolution based on the evidence do they not? You have faith in a force called called "inflation", but you can't even seem to identify what that force consists of Dave. What can I say? That's "faith" in something you don't even understand. Faith isn't a "dirty" word however. We all have to have "faith" in our subjective interpretations of evidence. Faith is natural part of life. I wasn't slamming you, I was just pointing out that you seem to have "faith" that a BB is the "best" answer. I don't share you belief that the BB is the "best" expanation for what we observe in nature.
quote:
I don't have any faith in the Big Bang theory. I don't even "believe in" the Big Bang theory. I simply understand it and the evidence, and agree that it represents the best explanation we've got right now for the phenomena we observe pertaining to the beginnings of our universe.
I think you're going to great lengths to distance yourself from the ambiguity of claiming that something is the "best" fit when it comes to evidence. You have "faith" that the BB is the "best fit". You don't KNOW that with any certainty.
The term "best" in that sentence seems completely "subjective" expecially since you cannot even identify the force of inflation!
quote:
When new evidence comes along which shows that the theory makes incorrect predictions, the theory will change. No big deal. If new evidence comes along which shows the theory is wholly unworkable, we'll get a new theory. So what?
So maybe instead of herding all students of astronomy into a single miopic viewpoint, we should instead be offering college students a "range" of possible choices to explore. We should be willing to fund some new ideas as well as the old ones.
quote:
Only people of "faith" in some sort of "dogma" would be bothered by those sorts of events. I'm not. I'm sure Mab and furshur won't give a damn, either.
Ya, you guys are just above it all as professional "scientists". Come on Dave. Just look at the "attitude" surrounding this thread. If I won't put my faith in the party line "creation myth" with you, I'm called a "moron", and I'm blamed of being ignorant. This whole show has become one big peer pressure event based on rude attitude and childish name calling. It's prefect microcosm of what happens in the real world. If you don't conform, you're ostricized.
quote:
And just because it's appropriate here, Arp, with his quasar pairs, hasn't shown squat about any mistakes in redshift, since he just assumes that the quasars have an intrinsic redshift, but can't predict what it should be. He doesn't actually have a theory to compete with even just the null hypothesis.
Which is eactly why I ultimately bet against him in the final analysis Dave. He "may" still be right, and then he may only be a little right, but at the moment, I don't have "enough" evidence, or enough predictions to test for me personally to adopt his views. Even still, I have no need to "slam" his work or proclaim that it is wrong. I just don't know. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 06/29/2006 : 16:39:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
Jesus! Inflation has nothing to do with your misconception.
Inflation is the whole "ball of wax" furshur. If you can explain it, I'm absolutely sure that there is a Nobel prize in it for you.
From your article:
quote:
The expansion of our universe is much like the inflation of a balloon. The distances to remote galaxies are increasing. Astronomers casually say that distant galaxies are "receding" or "moving away" from us, but the galaxies are not traveling through space away from us. They are not fragments of a big bang bomb. Instead the space between the galaxies and us is expanding. Individual galaxies move around at random within clusters, but the clusters of galaxies are essentially at rest. The term "at rest" can be defined rigorously.
Here's where the "mythology" part of modern BB theory begins furshur. Because I am old enough to remember "other forms" of BB theory, I know that this idea of inflation to explain expansion is relatively new. Unlike the balloon analogy used in this article, no astronomer seems to be able to identify the "force" of expansion, or how the expansion is so "selective" in nature. If everything is "expanding" then the space between the earth and the sun should also be expanding right along with it, and the space betwen all the atoms too.
And of course, unlike the balloon analogy, evidently our universe is "flat" meaning there are no signs of any additional dimensions involved in this process.
For the record, the BB is not *a* theory, it is a whole *family* of related theories, not all of which include "inflation".
quote:
There is no general direction that the big bang came from, there is no center.
Of course not, it's a "metaphysical" "big bang". It somehow all began as a "singularity" (point) and now it's all "expanded" by an unknown force just like magic, and everyting receeds away from each other, well, some things do and some things don't because the magic force is "selective" about the way things "expand". Come on!
|
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 06/29/2006 16:48:04 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/29/2006 : 16:48:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
It demonstrates that ultimately all theories in astronomy are based faith in things nobody can explain, but only one idea gets presented in class.
No, because "we can't know how big the universe is" is positively explainable. I already explained it to you.quote:
Ya, it's just my imagination that furshur and HH went ballistic into the realm of "personal".
I certainly wouldn't describe it as ballistic. And since you're being just as personal, and wasting time defending against personal attacks instead of presenting scientific arguments, I don't see where you're not pot-and-kettling.quote:
What kind of a goofy strawman is that. I even explained that I was immune from the political and financial pressures.
So what? You still accused people here of trying to take away your mythical funding.quote:
You might explain how "large" the singularity was to begin with. What "size" it occupied during the quark soup phase, ect.
It occuplied the entire universe. We don't know how big that was. Why, if you studied this, do you seem to fail to understand that?quote:
A perfect example of double-speak if every I heard it. Define "space".
Check Einstein's General Relativity.quote:
Define the force of "inflation".
I can't do so until you define "inflation." You've tried to present it as a couple of different things, and I'll be damned if I'll play your bait-and-switch game again.quote:
The "size" thing here is awefully fuzzy.
No, it's not.quote:
Singularities are typically considered "points" from a mathematical perspective.
Go ahead and argue from ignorance all you like. You're simply demonstrating that you haven't studied what you claim to have studied.quote:
How do get from a "point" to an "inflated universe" that has spread out a considerable distance from that "point"?
You don't.quote:
What is "space", and how does it "expand"?
That'd be covered in Einstein's General Theory of Relativity.quote:
How many "forces" are there Dave? We know about gravity, electricity, kinetic energy, ect.
Electricity is not a force. Kinetic energy is not a force. You're 1-for-3 there, Michael.quote:
You can't even identify the force of inflation?
What do you mean by "inflation?" Again, I'm not playing your bait-and-switch game.quote:
Then how is the mass or any of the photons of the universe spread out any further than 27.4 light years from the original "singularity"?
If space itself expands, the matter within it will be at less than lightspeed. There is no "outside observer" measuring velocities, Michael. I thought you studied cosmology.quote:
No, it just asserts that the universe is greater than 27.4 light years across and never bothers to explain how that's possible in terms of real forces and real photons and real atoms.
That's simply a denial, since the Big Bang Theory certainly does explain it in terms of real forces, real photons and real atoms, using real laws.quote:
The law that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. There is no way for even photons to be more than 13.7 light years from the orginal singularity.
What "original singularity," Michael? Where is a 0-dimensional concentration of energy postulated by Big Bang theory? Can you quote even one cosmologist making such an argument?
It's all strawman-strawman-strawman with you, isn't it? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/29/2006 : 17:04:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Because I am old enough to remember "other forms" of BB theory, I know that this idea of inflation to explain expansion is relatively new. Unlike the balloon analogy used in this article, no astronomer seems to be able to identify the "force" of expansion, or how the expansion is so "selective" in nature. If everything is "expanding" then the space between the earth and the sun should also be expanding right along with it, and the space betwen all the atoms too.
Just amazing! You claimed to have studied, yet you get cosmic expansion (a feature of the Big Bang theory since day one, hence the name) confused with Guth's inflationary epoch (lasting all of 10-32 seconds, right up around 10-35 seconds into the universe), and also fail to understand why gravity holds spacetime together around areas of mass.quote:
And of course, unlike the balloon analogy, evidently our universe is "flat" meaning there are no signs of any additional dimensions involved in this process.
And that just shows you're misunderstanding the balloon analogy.quote:
For the record, the BB is not *a* theory, it is a whole *family* of related theories, not all of which include "inflation".
Offer a citation to any Big Bang theory which doesn't include cosmic expansion.quote:
Of course not, it's a "metaphysical" "big bang". It somehow all began as a "singularity" (point) and now it's all "expanded" by an unknown force just like magic, and everyting receeds away from each other, well, some things do and some things don't because the magic force is "selective" about the way things "expand". Come on!
Go ahead and attack this strawman all you like. You're not criticizing any actual Big Bang theory at all. |
- 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 - 06/29/2006 : 18:37:29 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
If it [Big Bang universe] 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 travelling from than point ever since.
Actually, recent estimates of the size of the universe today is somewhere in the vicinity of 150 Billion light-years. The explanation of the size is actually reasonable. The reason you conclude the size cannot be more than 25.4 Billion Ly across is that you assume that space is fixed, and that two (fixed) points in space will always stay at the same distance.
quote:
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.
This is basic cosmology.
Matter is travelling through space in sub-light speeds. However, space between galaxy clusters is being stretched out. Here's an analogy:
Take a rubber band and place it along a ruler. Take a pen and mark of every inch along the rubber band. Now start simulation: start stretching the rubber band. As cosmologic time passes the markings on the rubber band is distancing themselves from each-other.
Mark 1 and 2 are travelling away from each-other at the speed of 1m/s.
Mark 2 and 3 are travelling away from each-other at 1m/s
Mark 3 and 4 are travelling away from each-other at 1m/s.
If 1m/s represents half light speed, then mark 1 and 4 are travelling away from each-other at 1,5 times the speed of light. Not because they are travelling through space at that speed, but because space itself is expanding at that pace. The galaxies themselves may travel at 1% of light speed through space, but space itself is travelling faster.
When the rubber band is stretched so that the distance between mark 1 and 2 is 2 inches, then you might conclude that the universe have expanded to twice it's size, because you cannot see mark 3 and 4 from mark 1. But in reality the distance from mark 1 to mark 4 has tripled.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
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.
Then you're in denial of basic physics. Photons does not suffer from fatigue and loose frequency just because it get tired of travelling great distances.
quote:
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?
You are wilfully ignoring what the BB theory says about the conditions when light was released in the universe. The universe was already many light-years in diameter at 380k years after BB, but it was very evenly filled with opaque plasma. After space became transparent, light started travelling through it, but since space was also stretching out, so was also the photons. Thus the wavelength of the photons increased (frequency being reduced, peak intensity red-shifting), until today when it is no longer light but microwaves.
You can actually use the wavelength of the CMBR and calculate backward to find out the diameter of "our" part of the universe as it was when it became transparent (at ~3000k).
(by "our" part of the universe I refer to the 13 billion light-year radius we can observe today) Hint: just compare the ratio of the wavelengths, 3Kelvin vs 3000K using Boltzmann's equations on black body emitted light.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
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".
andquote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
I would think that the most "likely" answer is a merger of two "supermassive" (universe sized) black holes, one made of matter, and the other made of antimatter.
While matter and anti-matter are mirror images of each-other and do produce a great boom when they touch each-other, remember what the fundamental aspects of matter really is: energy.
A black hole is a singularity with a surrounding event horizon. All the matter in the black hole is concentrated in an infinitely small point that really doesn't have any volume at all. As such, the singularity cannot hold matter as we view it, but rather the energy that the matter represents. Once something passes the event horizon of the black hole, it pass beyond our ability to observe it. Nothing comes back. If two black holes collide, then both will pass beyond each other's event horizon never to be seen again. Their momentum will be summarised, just like any vector, and their respective kinetic energy will be added to the singularity that was the sum of the two black holes, and the radius of the event horizon will increase accordingly. What ever "quark soup" will form inside the event horizon of a black hole will never see "the light of day"...
quote:
Can you tell me what makes a "singularity" "inflate"?
The singularity that was the Big Bang is not the same thing as the singularity of a black hole. A singularity does not "inflate", whatever you mean by that.
10-42 seconds after time started, the Big Bang-singularity wasn't a singularity anymore, it had a volume. Whatever set the thing off, beats me. Perhaps the Grand Unifying Theory can one day answer that question. |
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. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 06/29/2006 : 18:50:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
[There is no general direction that the big bang came from, there is no center. This is FUNDEMENTAL to understanding what the BB is, clearly a point you do not get even after study the BB since you were 10 years old.
Damn it, furshur, you just managed to score 5 points in the crackpot index ...
§7...  ) |
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 : 19:48:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
It demonstrates that ultimately all theories in astronomy are based faith in things nobody can explain, but only one idea gets presented in class.
No, because "we can't know how big the universe is" is positively explainable. I already explained it to you.
How do you know how "old" the universe is?
quote:
I certainly wouldn't describe it as ballistic. And since you're being just as personal, and wasting time defending against personal attacks instead of presenting scientific arguments, I don't see where you're not pot-and-kettling.
Ya right.
quote:
So what? You still accused people here of trying to take away your mythical funding.
Show me *exactly* where I said that? You are simply building strawmen of your own creation Dave. I simply noted that there is both a political and financial component to the "industry" of "science". I never claimed to be "victimized" by the "system", since I have been out of the official "system" for over 20 years. Why would I whine about it now? I'm simply noting that life as an "insider", as someone who is dependent upon funding and "politics", it's a whole different world. I'm not being funded, so I can't possibly be worried about any of it being taken away. Geez! You personally take most of the cheap shots. *This* is a great example of stuff you do that irks me. Instead of keeping it focused on science, you take cheap shots, and create clever little strawmen to stick words in my mouth. That kind of stuff has no place in science and frankly it pisses me off. Knock it off.
quote:
quote:
You might explain how "large" the singularity was to begin with. What "size" it occupied during the quark soup phase, ect.
It occuplied the entire universe. We don't know how big that was. Why, if you studied this, do you seem to fail to understand that?
Let's start with something *really* simple. How do you know how *old* the universe is, and how do you know it to be fact?
quote:
quote:
A perfect example of double-speak if every I heard it. Define "space".
Check Einstein's General Relativity.
What a great pseudo-scientific handwave Dave. Congrats on a clever way of avoiding yet another direct question with psuedoscientific sounding nonsense.
quote:
quote:
Define the force of "inflation".
I can't do so until you define "inflation." You've tried to present it as a couple of different things, and I'll be damned if I'll play your bait-and-switch game again.
To think you that actually have the never to accuse *me* of that after all the tough questions you've sidestepped.
Again, let's start with the basic then, and I'll resist the urge to use any terms or concepts you don't introduce first. Start with the age of the unviverse and explain to my why you think the unviverse is "expanding"? (you have used that term).
quote:
Go ahead and argue from ignorance all you like. You're simply demonstrating that you haven't studied what you claim to have studied.
This is another great example Dave of your attitude problem. There are *many* (probably dozens) of variations of BB theory. I don't know exactly which one you hold up as the one most "near and dear" to your heart. I don't know which one that you seem to think is the "right" one. There isn't any way I can quantify every detail and debate withf BB theory all under one roof. Your rediculace self rightousness is utterly unfounded since I've got no idea which one you seem to think is the "authorative" version. You can't even say for sure (scientifically speaking) which "variation" of BB theory is most accurate!
quote:
quote:
What is "space", and how does it "expand"?
That'd be covered in Einstein's General Theory of Relativity.
This is another great example of some of your cheezy non-answer. I'll remember to use that line the next time someone asks me question about anything. How about coming down from that ivory tower and at least give us the readers digest version of what you think is "expanding" in terms of particle physics, force and energy for us.
quote:
What do you mean by "inflation?"
Argh, you are so aggravating when you want to be! What force causes "expansion"? What is driving the acceleration of the universe today?
quote:
If space itself expands, the matter within it will be at less than lightspeed. There is no "outside observer" measuring velocities, Michael. I thought you studied cosmology.
You seem to have the need to take the low road several time in every response. Even HH and furshur seem capable of limiting the below the belt comments to two or three posts a thread.
Now if you would actually define space, expansion or the cause of expansion, you'd still have a gigantic problem with the speed of light, but I we can't even tackle that side of the arguement till you |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 06/29/2006 19:51:08 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/29/2006 : 19:51:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
The massive red shift is due to the vast distances between our universe and the rest of the universes in the multiverse.
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Then you're in denial of basic physics. Photons does not suffer from fatigue and loose frequency just because it get tired of travelling great distances.
Personally, Mab, I'm willing to ignore the appearance of something like the ancient creationist "tired light" argument, because Michael has something much more bizarre in mind.
Michael, how far is it between our universe and the next nearest universe? What is a "vast distance" to you?
You see, Mab, the "tired light" thing isn't the strange part, the strange part is that Michael thinks that speculative multiple universes occupy the same spacetime, they're just really far apart. This makes me wonder absolutely certain that Michael has some personal definition of the word "universe" which nobody can find in any formulation of Big Bang or any other cosmological theory (just like he had a personal definition of "photosphere").
So, before this discussion can go any farther, Michael, you're going to have to share with us your definition of a "universe." 'Cause Mab, furshur and I are all definitely talking about "everything within the spacetime we inhabit." And that definition precludes any other (speculative) universe being a "vast distance" from us, since "outside" of spacetime, the word "distance" has no meaning at all (which is why I put "outside" in quotes). |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 06/29/2006 : 20:24:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
If it [Big Bang universe] 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 travelling from than point ever since.
Actually, recent estimates of the size of the universe today is somewhere in the vicinity of 150 Billion light-years. The explanation of the size is actually reasonable. The reason you conclude the size cannot be more than 25.4 Billion Ly across is that you assume that space is fixed, and that two (fixed) points in space will always stay at the same distance.
This is where the physics seems to leap into metaphysics. What evidence do you have that space expands? What is "space" as you are defining it, and how does it expand in terms of photons and atoms and subatomic particles? What's expanding? How is it expanding? What is the force that continues to drive this expansion?
quote:
This is basic cosmology.
Matter is travelling through space in sub-light speeds. However, space between galaxy clusters is being stretched out.
This is rather "selective" expansion isn't it? Why does only the space *between galaxies* expand, and not the space between my desk and my chair?
quote:
Here's an analogy:
That was a good analogy, not so different than the balloon analogy, but there are actually several problems with trying to apply it to space and particles. One, what is the force that stretches the rubber band, and two, how is space like a rubber band in terms of particles and atoms and such? The stretch of a rubber band can be explained by physics. How do you explain the stretch of space with physics? What is space, how does it stretch, and why so selectively?
quote:
Then you're in denial of basic physics. Photons does not suffer from fatigue and loose frequency just because it get tired of travelling great distances.
No, but gravitational forces may affect red shift, hence my earlier comments about Arp. Then again interactions with the "medium" of space may have some effect as well. You seem to think it's "stretching" for instance.
quote:
The universe was already many light-years in diameter at 380k years after BB, but it was very evenly filled with opaque plasma.
How many light years across was this bowl of quark soup? 10? 100? 1000?
quote:
After space became transparent,
What do you mean by "after space became transparent"? Was it not transparent before this? We seem to be assigning an awful lot of properties to "space". It opaque or transparent, it stretches, but only in some places and not others, etc.
quote:
light started travelling through it, but since space was also stretching out, so was also the photons.
How exactly does a photon "stretch out" to achieve "faster than light" speeds? How come the "stretching" is limited to the space between galaxies, and how come galaxies aren't "stretching" too?
quote:
Thus the wavelength of the photons increased (frequency being reduced, peak intensity red-shifting), until today when it is no longer light but microwaves.
I'm having a conceptually tough time wrapping my head around a stretching process of "space". I can explain what is "stretching" in a rubber band, but you have yet to explain how space (only space between galaxies evidently) stretches.
quote:
While matter and anti-matter are mirror images of each-other and do produce a great boom when they touch each-other, remember what the fundamental aspects of matter really is: energy.
A black hole is a singularity with a surrounding event horizon. All the matter in the black hole is concentrated in an infinitely small point that really doesn't have any volume at all. As such, the singularity cannot hold matter as we view it, but rather the energy that the matter represents. Once something passes the event horizon of the black hole, it pass beyond our ability to observe it. Nothing comes back. If two black holes collide, then both will pass beyond each other's event horizon never to be seen again. Their momentum will be summarised, just like any vector, and their respective kinetic energy will be added to the singularity that was the sum of the two black holes, and the radius of the event horizon will increase accordingly. What ever "quark soup" will form inside the event horizon of a black hole will never see "the light of day"...
I appreciate the feedback, but I am still inclined to believe that the combined force of the explosions of matter and antimatter, the kinetic energy they had at impact, the anihillation of matter and antimatter, neutrino release etc, that there would sufficient energy and force to get the job done, particularly if both objects were relatively close in size and traveling at a very high velocity as the collided.
quote:
Can you tell me what makes a "singularity" "inflate"?
The singularity that was the Big Bang is not the same thing as the singularity of a black hole. A singularity does not "inflate", whatever you mean by that.
10-42 seconds after time started, the Big Bang-singularity wasn't a singularity anymore, it had a volume.
What volume did it have at that time? We'll stick with the term expansion or "stretch" of you prefer.
quote:
Whatever set the thing off, beats me. Perhaps the Grand Unifying Theory can one day answer that question.[/quote]
|
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 06/29/2006 20:28:52 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
