|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
 Posted - 06/29/2006 : 20:25:55 [Permalink]
|
Dave you have a point there.
Michael certainly exhibit the classic symptoms of the inability to imagine that spacetime is all there is. Like many others I've talked to who have no clue what-so-ever about astronomy and cosmology they seem stuck with the idea that there must be some kind of static meta-space (in lack of a better word) into which our universe/spacetime is expanding.
In the light of this idea (pun intended) of Meta-space, it is not surprising that Michael have misconceptions about what Big Bang theories really say. |
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 : 21:11:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Dave you have a point there.
Michael certainly exhibit the classic symptoms of the inability to imagine that spacetime is all there is.
Huh? I can "imagine" anything. What I'm looking for are observational facts that support various theories about how our universe got here. Evidently you expect me to "assume" as you do that "spacetime" as we know it, began with the "bang". If I don't agree with the majority, I'll be shunned, accused of being uneducated, ridiculed and made fun of.
quote:
Like many others I've talked to who have no clue what-so-ever about astronomy and cosmology they seem stuck with the idea that there must be some kind of static meta-space (in lack of a better word) into which our universe/spacetime is expanding.
I certainly have more than a "clue" about miopic little viewpoints about how the physical universe came to exist. I just don't happen to agree with you that "spacetime" was created in a 'bang' only 13.7 billion years ago. Evidently if I don't join this miopic view of space and time I'll be accused some more of being uneducated or being stupid or both. Nevermind the fact none of you can explain how "space" can go through "expansion". Nevermind the fact you can't demonstrate that the "bang" represented the beginning of spacetime, or the beginning of atoms.
quote:
In the light of this idea (pun intended) of Meta-space, it is not surprising that Michael have misconceptions about what Big Bang theories really say.
There is no single "Big Bang Theory". There are many of them. The more you keep harping on personal put downs and shy away from explaining how 'space' experiences some kind of 'expansion', the more certain I am that none of you can answer the question.
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/29/2006 : 21:16:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
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".
So when you said this,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. You switched context at the first period between just this website ("Robb" and the "ballistic" reactions of furshur and H. you mentioned) and the whole professional astronomical field? Okay, I see now.quote:
I never claimed to be "victimized" by the "system", since I have been out of the official "system" for over 20 years.
This is the first time I've ever heard you state you were a part of "the system."quote:
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.
As soon as you do, since you can't seem to stop mentioning the political and financial aspects of these endeavors, and crow about people having their careers ruined as if it actually meant something about the "truth" of any scientific proposition. You volunteered those things, nobody else brought them up before you mentioned Arp. If you didn't want to talk about them, and instead keep things "focused on the science," then why did you talk about them?quote:
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?
Actually, Big Bang theory is simpler, since it is what's being used to determine the age of the universe these days. Let's stick with that.quote:
What a great pseudo-scientific handwave Dave. Congrats on a clever way of avoiding yet another direct question with psuedoscientific sounding nonsense.
What are you talking about? Einstein's General Relativity is the definition of "spacetime" used in cosmology for the last umpty-ump decades, you claimed to have studied this stuff, and so I saw no need to go through the tensor calculus with you to define it in more detail. What did you expect me to say?quote:
To think you that actually have the never to accuse *me* of that after all the tough questions you've sidestepped.
I'm not accusing you of sidestepping anything, I'm accusing you - justifiably - of asking me about the definition of a term which you obviously use in multiple ways.quote:
This is another great example Dave of your attitude problem. There are *many* (probably dozens) of variations of BB theory.
And I asked you to name one - just one - which doesn't include any notion of cosmic expansion. Show us the breadth of your knowledge on this subject, and list ten different "Big Bang" theories and what distinguishes one from another. I've already told you that I'm talking about the "hot" Big Bang theory. It goes by that name is cosmological circles. Name nine (just nine) more.quote:
I don't know exactly which one you hold up as the one most "near and dear" to your heart.
None of them, as I've already explained.quote:
I don't know which one that you seem to think is the "right" one.
I couldn't possibly say which of any you care to list is the "right" one. I'm not going to live long enough to find out.quote:
There isn't any way I can quantify every detail and debate withf BB theory all under one roof.
Nobody asked you to.quote:
Your rediculace self rightousness is utterly unfounded since I've got no idea which one you seem to think is the "authorative" version.
I already told you the one I've been talking about, in a previous post. Quit acting like I didn't answer your question.quote:
You can't even say for sure (scientifically speaking) which "variation" of BB theory is most accurate!
What? Who could? Nobody has divine knowledge of the laws of physics, Michael. What a ridiculous objection!quote:
Argh, you are so aggravating when you want to be! What force causes "expansion"? What is driving the acceleration of the universe today?
See? Those are two different questions which are unrelated to one another. That's why I asked for your definition of "inflation," since you've got cosmic expansion also confused with the (relatively) recent acceleration of cosmic expansion. How can I possibly answer these questions if you refuse to get the terms correct?quote:
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 explain what "space" |
- 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 : 21:36:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Evidently you expect me to "assume" as you do that "spacetime" as we know it, began with the "bang".
No, we just expect you to define spacetime in the same way that the theory you are criticizing does, otherwise you'll have constructed a strawman.quote:
If I don't agree with the majority, I'll be shunned, accused of being uneducated, ridiculed and made fun of.
No, you've done that to yourself by claiming to have "studied" these things but then claiming that multiple universes inhabit the same spacetime, which is an obvious rookie mistake.quote:
I certainly have more than a "clue" about miopic little viewpoints about how the physical universe came to exist.
Prove it. Name ten different Big Bang theories and tell us what differentiates one from another.quote:
I just don't happen to agree with you that "spacetime" was created in a 'bang' only 13.7 billion years ago. Evidently if I don't join this miopic view of space and time I'll be accused some more of being uneducated or being stupid or both.
No, you've been unable to demonstrate that you even understand the concept, after you claimed to have studied it and worked within "the system." This has nothing to do with your rejection of Big Bang theory, and everything to do with your inability to properly criticize that which you reject, making your rejection look dogmatic rather than scientific.quote:
Nevermind the fact none of you can explain how "space" can go through "expansion".
None of us have even tried, since you seem to be refusing to share any definitions of words with us. What's the point of explaining something to you when you don't agree with what the very words mean?quote:
Nevermind the fact you can't demonstrate that the "bang" represented the beginning of spacetime, or the beginning of atoms.
The "Bang," by definition, did not represent either, really. The Big Bang theory doesn't start at time zero, and atoms didn't exist (according to BBT) until some 380,000 years after time zero. So you see, you're misrepresenting the theories again in your complaint that it's our fault that you're being dumped on.quote:
There is no single "Big Bang Theory". There are many of them.
Name ten of them. Please include one which doesn't mention the expansion of the universe at all, a theory you claimed exists.quote:
The more you keep harping on personal put downs and shy away from explaining how 'space' experiences some kind of 'expansion', the more certain I am that none of you can answer the question.
I thought this discussion was about the Big Bang theory, which explains only observable phenomena. The expansion of the universe is so slow that we can't observe it occuring today, and even if we could, it wouldn't be happening anywhere near a gravity well like our galaxy. Can you grasp the difference between a theory which explains the observation that our universe is expanding, and a theory which explains how our universe is expanding? Okay, so which one is "the Big Bang 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 : 21:36:17 [Permalink]
|
I do get personal with Michael. I shouldn't but he is so fucking smug and so fucking wrong - it just grates on me.
For instance I gave him a very simple link; Common misconceptions about the BB
Does he take the 25 minutes to read the article, and maybe double the amount he knows about the BB? Of course not! He smugly states:
quote:
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?
This is addressed in the article I supplied.
quote:
People often assume that as space expands, everything in it expands as well. But this is not true. Expansion by itself--that is, a coasting expansion neither accelerating nor decelerating--produces no force. Photon wavelengths expand with the universe because, unlike atoms and cities, photons are not coherent objects whose size has been set by a compromise among forces.
Amazing just amazing.
Michael also said (again)
quote:
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.
Listen closely... No matter how big the explosion it will not cause space to expand. The explosion you are talking about would occur in preexisting space-time so it could not cause space to expand.
Here is a common everyday model of universal expansion:
Think of raisin bread rising. The raisins are galaxies. The raisins are all moving away from each other as the bread rises. The raisins farthest from your raisin are moving faster than the raisins closer to you. The raisins are not expanding but the space between them is.
If you take a day in the library you will be able to talk coherently about this subject. Right now you are spouting gibberish.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 06/29/2006 : 22:19:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
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?
Gravitation is keeping space from expanding. The gravitational force so far out from the galaxies as intergalactic space is to weak it's overcome by the cosmological constant.
Again, this is knowledge that is part of contemporary Big Bang theory. If you had truly studied BB theory, you should have known this.
quote:
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.
All of those "problems" are addressed by contemporary BB theory. If you had studied it, you shouldn't have to ask.
quote:
One, what is the force that stretches the rubber band,
The cosmological constant.
quote:
two, how is space like a rubber band in terms of particles and atoms and such?
With regards to photons, we know that the electromagnetic wave is stretched also as it travels through the space that is stretched. As for atoms "and such": we haven't been able to capture atoms and such from intergalactic space, so we have no way of knowing. However, it's entirely possible that the minute gravitational force, from an atom nucleus, within the electron cloud is enough to hold space stable. But since we can't get a hold of any atoms from the regions of space that is expanding, we can't say for sure.
quote:
The stretch of a rubber band can be explained by physics.
You're taking the analogy too literally. There is no spring constant unless you count gravity as a stabilising force within the vicinity of galaxies. Between galaxy clusters, there is nothing that is holding back the expansion.
quote:
How do you explain the stretch of space with physics?
This formula is derived from Hubble's Law, as for the underlying physics, I can't help you much with that, it is the absolute frontier of cosmological science of which I'm not updated.
The stretch of space is inferred from observational data of galaxies beyond the local cluster.
quote:
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.
Gravitational forces also cause blue-shift as the light approaches our galaxy, our sun, and our planet. Besides, this red- and blue- shift can be calculated, since gravitational forces are known. I have actually calculated red shifts of light in gravitational fields for an experiment with laser. The red shift detected in CMBR is not caused by gravitation.
quote:
Then again interactions with the "medium" of space may have some effect as well.
"Interaction with the medium of space" is very fuzzy. How about providing some concrete examples.
quote:
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?
Why does it matter? The quark soup shouldn't have been as large as a light year, but the 380kyo universe should be bigger than a few thousand light years. I don't have the energy to do any calculations on it at this time, it's 7am and I've been up all night. Maybe Dave looks it up, or calculates it from the spoiler I left. Mind you, I had just finished my third glass of white wine when I wrote it. If there is a conceptual error in my suggestion, I trust Dave to notice it.
quote:
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.
Please remind me again... Did you or did you not study Big Bang theory less than 30 years ago? Your cluelessness exhibited by your question indicates to me that you know practically nothing at all about the Big Bang theory. About it being opaque...
How about this: assume that the universe consist of a homogeneous plasma of hydrogen and helium with a temperature of 4000K. With your knowledge of plasma answer this question:
The distance between point A and B is one light-year, how long does it take for one specific photon to travel from point A to point B?
quote:
|
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 : 22:30:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Dave you have a point there.
Michael certainly exhibit the classic symptoms of the inability to imagine that spacetime is all there is.
Huh? I can "imagine" anything. What I'm looking for are observational facts that support various theories about how our universe got here. Evidently you expect me to "assume" as you do that "spacetime" as we know it, began with the "bang". If I don't agree with the majority, I'll be shunned, accused of being uneducated, ridiculed and made fun of.
The idea that spacetime is all there is, and nothing exist beyond it, not even "nothing" as in empty space, is an intricate part of the explanatory quality of the Big Bang theory. If you can't accept that idea, then you will have a problem understanding one of the fundamental concepts that makes Big Bang what it is. It's not about ridiculing you. It's about pointing out an inability to conceptualize the geometry of the early universe.
I won't address the rest of the post because I can't see how it will end without becoming a pissing contest. |
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 : 22:59:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
You switched context at the first period between just this website ("Robb" and the "ballistic" reactions of furshur and H. you mentioned) and the whole professional astronomical field? Okay, I see now.
Not the "whole" system dave, just the 'attack dogs'. I've had a number of scientists call me and email me with some very nice things to say. I'm not picking on the "whole" industry Dave, just those without an open mind and a bad attitude.
quote:
This is the first time I've ever heard you state you were a part of "the system."
In this case by "system" I was refering to my indoctrination into these theories in college. I've been self employed since then and thats been more like 25 years at this point.
quote:
If you didn't want to talk about them, and instead keep things "focused on the science," then why did you talk about them?
Because these things are relevant and politics is a part of the scientific process.
quote:
quote:
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?
Actually, Big Bang theory is simpler, since it is what's being used to determine the age of the universe these days. Let's stick with that.
Man, you can't answer a single straight question with a single straight answer. I know why too. The moment you try to answer that question the sooner you have to admit that the physical universe was smaller in size. Then you can't claim "everwhere" anymore.
quote:
What are you talking about? Einstein's General Relativity is the definition of "spacetime" used in cosmology for the last umpty-ump decades, you claimed to have studied this stuff, and so I saw no need to go through the tensor calculus with you to define it in more detail. What did you expect me to say?
I expect you to give me some clue what all these math formulas relate to in terms of real life physical particles when you say "space is expanding". I have a pretty good idea what I think Einstein meant, but I don't have a clue what you mean. I'd like to have some clue "what" (in terms of tangible particles) are expanding and what force you think is driving this expansion. I'm asking you to define the theoretical force and explain in a theoretical way how it makes "space" (however you define it) expand.
I'm asking you to combine the physics with the math in some tangible way Dave, otherwise it's metaphysics. You're essentially handwaving formulas at me I already agree with, but you've not identified what space is, or how it expands.
quote:
And I asked you to name one - just one - which doesn't include any notion of cosmic expansion.
Everyone I can think of has an "expansion" aspect to it, and/or an "inflation" phase as well. There is an "expansion" of the universe itself, which I would explain in terms of electromagnetic fields and predomantly iron suns. You aren't even willing to identify the force of expansion, so this theory cannot be anything other than metaphysics.
quote:
Show us the breadth of your knowledge on this subject, and list ten different "Big Bang" theories and what distinguishes one from another.
I'm not your slave Dave. I don't have to bark on command to prove anything to you.
quote:
None of them, as I've already explained.
Then why should I believe in the idea if you don't Dave?
quote:
I couldn't possibly say which of any you care to list is the "right" one. I'm not going to live long enough to find out.
Definitely not with your attitude. :) Come on, lighten up, it was a joke. :)
quote:
See? Those are two different questions which are unrelated to one another.
I gave you the complete freedom to answer these two questions any way you wished Dave. Maybe you "beleive" they are unrelated. Maybe they are related even if you think they are not related. I'm not trying to stuff anything down your throat, I'm simply asking questions so I know exactly how *you* individual stand on these issues.
quote:
That's why I asked for your definition of "inflation," since you've got cosmic expansion also confused with the (relatively) recent acceleration of cosmic expansion. How can I possibly answer these questions if you refuse to get the terms correct?
But Dave, I'm not even sure *which* terms that you believe apply. Guth for instance was "Mr. inflation". There is a phase of inflation in many BB models. There is an expansion phase in most models. There is evidence the universe continues to acellerate. You may see these as having 3 different causes, or think only one force applies, or you may reject Guth's inflation ideas and skip right to expansion. I have no idea how you view these forces and what you believe in and what you do not Dave. I can't know unless I ask specfic questions and I get specific and *real* answers.
quote:
Since you were in "the system" 20 years ago, you appear to be being purposefully obtuse in refusing to understand that Einstein defined spacetime, and showed how it is malleable.
I'm not being obtuse Dave. I'm just A) not sure he personally was right (though I don't have a problem with his defintion actually) and B) I have no idea how you personally interpret his work.
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 06/29/2006 : 23:09:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
The idea that spacetime is all there is, and nothing exist beyond it, not even "nothing" as in empty space, is an intricate part of the explanatory quality of the Big Bang theory.
That *would* be true if you actually had any direct observations to demonstrate that iron and pulsars didn't predate the BB. Without any such observation to confirm this "concept", it becomes more of a "mythological advantage" in that makes everything neat and tidy, but it's not an observational advantage at the moment. Since I don't agree to the BB concept, there is no need on my part to 'assume' that "spacetime" or matter began with the "bang". If you don't buy the theory in the first place, there's no reason to assume that spacetime began with the bang. In fact I think there is a strong danger here of *wanting* an easy answer, when the real answer may be much more complicated. This is how mythmaking begins.
quote:
If you can't accept that idea, then you will have a problem understanding one of the fundamental concepts that makes Big Bang what it is.
I understand the "theory" of it, I just don't happen to agree. Call me a BB "athiest". I lack belief in the big bang and the concepts around the big bang. The fact I don't agree with these ideas should not affect your case in any way if your case is based on direct observation and not "mythologies".
quote:
It's not about ridiculing you. It's about pointing out an inability to conceptualize the geometry of the early universe.
I simply choose to conceptualize it differently than you do. I tried your way from about the ages of 17 to 35 or so and then realized I could not "prove" any of it, and I couldn't explain the force of inflation or how space might "expand" any more than anyone here can. Nobody knows.
quote:
I won't address the rest of the post because I can't see how it will end without becoming a pissing contest.
I appreciate your professionalism in that way Dr. Mabuse. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 06/29/2006 23:15:30 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 06/29/2006 : 23:44:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
This is basic cosmology.
You mean this is basic BB theory. Cosmology as a field of science is not predicated upon the validity of the BB theory. Cosmology may have to change if the BB theory is ultimately falsified. If they launch Hubble's replacement in our lifetimes, that just might occur in our lifetimes.
quote:
Matter is travelling through space in sub-light speeds. However, space between galaxy clusters is being stretched out.
You can't claim these kinds of things without first defining the force that drives expansion and without defining what "space" is and how it is accelerated by this force. Otherwise you end up with two completely undefined metaphysical concepts being lumped together without anything "tangible" or "real" or "physical" to explain any of it.
quote:
Gravitation is keeping space from expanding. The gravitational force so far out from the galaxies as intergalactic space is to weak it's overcome by the cosmological constant.
You'll have to run that by me using some real forces and some real physics and some real particles. The cosmological constant is a number. It is not a force. The force is still undefined. In addition, the term "space" has not been defined yet, so it is impossible to tell if an undefined force can have any affect on an undefined space.
quote:
Again, this is knowledge that is part of contemporary Big Bang theory. If you had truly studied BB theory, you should have known this.
I do know all this Dr. Mabuse, but that does not mean that I agree with any of it. In addition, there is a "style" issue here that seems to be causing quite a bit of confusion. First you guys got on me when I "generalized" too much and used older terms like "inflation". I could see and understand your point. You need the freedom to explain things in your own way, and select the model that works best for you. I have to ask questions so I know where you stand on the key issues that I believe are relevant. I therefore have switched to more of "question and answer" model where I take nothing for granted about your options about the BB and I ask each person the relevant questions. This does not mean that I do not know the "mainstream" answers, it just means I'm not sure if you even personally agree with mainstream answers and I'm not sure which ideas in BB theory you accept and which you do not.
I rarely choose sides until I at least understand what my objections or agreements are, and I've weighed the options and made a choice. In this case, I've studied BB theory for a long time, and I've seen it change over the years. In all that time, these questions remain unansered and the answers tend to be "metaphysical" in their nature.
I'll tackle the rest of this post in the morning.
|
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 06/29/2006 23:49:42 |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2006 : 05:21:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Michael said:
I rarely choose sides until I at least understand what my objections or agreements are, and I've weighed the options and made a choice. In this case, I've studied BB theory for a long time, and I've seen it change over the years. In all that time, these questions remain unansered and the answers tend to be "metaphysical" in their nature.
Well then this is clearly one of those "rare times". As I have pointed out (an you have refused to address) you have presented some of the classic misconceptions about the BB theory as facts. How can you possibly disagree with a theory that you aren't even knowledgeable about??
You talk a good game but in the end it is just hot air. This has been you MO for just about every post I have ever read by you.
edited: because I can't spell
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
| Edited by - furshur on 06/30/2006 07:57:34 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2006 : 05:37:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
In all that time, these questions remain unansered and the answers tend to be "metaphysical" in their nature.
How is it possible that unanswered questions have even metaphysical answers? I'm thinking that 95% of the length of these threads is just due to Michael making confusing statements like the above. Or, how he demands that I stay "focused on the science" while for him, the politics and financial aspects are "relevant" to the discussion.  |
- 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 - 06/30/2006 : 06:54:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Michael said:
Cosmology as a field of science is not predicated upon the validity of the BB theory
OK
quote:
Michael's very next line:
Cosmology may have to change if the BB theory is ultimately falsified.
So you dissagree with yourself???
quote:
quote:
Matter is travelling through space in sub-light speeds. However, space between galaxy clusters is being stretched out.
You can't claim these kinds of things without first defining the force that drives expansion and without defining what "space" is and how it is accelerated by this force.
Of course you can. These are measurements and calculation that are independent of what is causing the expansion.
quote:
I do know all this Dr. Mabuse, but that does not mean that I agree with any of it. In addition, there is a "style" issue here that seems to be causing quite a bit of confusion. First you guys got on me when I "generalized" too much and used older terms like "inflation".
I know that this is all very confusing for you michael, but no one is saying inflation is not part of the current BB theory. The problem is you think expansion and inflation are the same thing or you use an older model of inflation. Science is very precise, not understanding the definition of the terms is a killer to a scientific discussion.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2006 : 07:50:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Dr. Mabuse wrote:
Damn it, furshur, you just managed to score 5 points in the crackpot index.
DANG!! Oops, I mean dang!!
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
| Edited by - furshur on 06/30/2006 07:52:55 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2006 : 09:25:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
So you dissagree with yourself???
Huh? You're intentionally missing the fact that "cosmology" is *bigger* than one theory. Right now, cosmology fancies a specific theory, but it is not limited to this theory. The nitpicking around here is unbelievable.
quote:
Of course you can. These are measurements and calculation that are independent of what is causing the expansion.
But that doesn't address the *force* itself, nor does it explain what "space" is, or how this undefined source affects an undefined "space". You offered me two metaphysical terms, not one.
quote:
I know that this is all very confusing for you michael, but no one is saying inflation is not part of the current BB theory.
I see that now. That isn't the case in every discussion I've had with people about the BB theory. Some folks still really like Guth's "inflation" ideas. Some BB models out there still mention an inflation stage *and* an expansion phase. Some attribute the acelleration of the universe to the forces of expansion. There is not enough consistincy or agreement in BB theory for me to 'rule out' older or newer models, and I can't know in advance how any individual might percieve this event. It's not my job to guess which one you guys think is authorative, or which metaphysical ideas you believe in.
quote:
The problem is you think expansion and inflation are the same thing or you use an older model of inflation.
I don't like *any* of them. There's no particular advantage I see between Guths mythical inflation theories and your concept of expansiion. You label you metaphysical explanations differently, but since they are both metaphysical explanations, it's all myth from my perspective. I lack believe in inflation and expansion. I do believe in acelleration, but I attribute it to electromagnetic acelleration. The verbal distiction between two metaphyisical concepts is purely word play from my point of view.
quote:
Science is very precise, not understanding the definition of the terms is a killer to a scientific discussion.
Since this "expansion" you guys define is based on metaphysics, what exactly is the function difference between inflation and expansion in tangible terms other than the presumed "timing" of each event? Since neither force is defined, I have no real way to distinguish between the two. They could be the same thing for all I know. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 06/30/2006 09:30:51 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
