|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
 Posted - 07/11/2006 : 20:07:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
I'm thinking that you are missing the notion that we are riding an expanding electromagnetic wave that is flowing through the galactic fields of spacetime.
Uh... this doesn't register with me. Redshift makes sense to me. Hubble's Law makes sense to me. The dichotomy I expressed above seems very clear. Either, we are at the center of the universe (where the BS happened), or everything is moving apart from everything else.
The later is true.
quote:
I don't see how an "electromagnetic wave" that people (or the earth? or the sun? or Saturn?) fits into this at all.
All of them are riding inside an expanding electromagnetic "wave" of moving carrier particles, and that wave is accelerating them, attempting to pull them further apart. The forces of gravity in our own solar system overcome this force, but this electromagnetic wave is what drives expansion. Our solar system seems to be accelerating toward the southern solar regions, since that is where the the sun's sheath is warped inward.
You might now ask Dave to explain the force of expansion in BB theory. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 07/11/2006 20:12:55 |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/11/2006 : 22:03:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
It's the part we *can't* see.
So you can't say it's even there.quote:
quote:
Again: how far is it to the next-nearest universe?
Beats me. Talk to me in about 3 or 4 Hubble telescope replacement cycles. Maybe then I'll have a better idea of scales of things.
Okay, that's another "I don't know," an answer you wouldn't accept from me regarding the Big Bang.quote:
quote:
There is no evidence of anything "external" to this universe,
There is evidence that we can't see very far, and we therefore have no idea how "big" the cosmos might be.
A pure argument from ignorance. Got it.quote:
I reject inflaton fields because they are not required in particle theory or QM or GR, and they've never been observed. Such a field and particle therefore falls outside of the realm of "physics", and can only be considered a from of "metaphyics". That is why I reject it.
Inflation seems to be required by Big Bang theory, which in turn was predicted by General Relativity. Of course, you reject Big Bang theory (as a "big fat myth"), even though it's predicted by General Relativity. Just like you accept gravitons because they're predicted by quantum theory, even though they've never been observed.quote:
No it's not! Energy is a given in *any* creation mythos Dave. You can't deny it's existence and nobody has a clue where it came from. It's not metaphysics to note that our existing universe is full of energy and the first law of thermodynamics applies. That is an examply of appling the laws of physics Dave, not metaphysics.
No, it's pure metaphysics because you're talking about the energy within the cosmos, which is unobserved, as "simply existing." That's a statement of absolute faith. Such "energy" isn't "required by QM or GR" (which are only theories about this universe, not some abstract larger "cosmos"), nor is it predicted by either theory. It's never been observed, and no lab can replicate it. You simply refuse to apply the same standards of evidence to your own theories as you apply to other theories, Michael.quote:
The major difference here Dave is that I'm not proposing new kinds of laws of physics, or unobserved fields that have never been evidence ore even theorized in particle physics.
So what? The strong nuclear force was brand-spanking new once. Before the 20th century, nobody had ever even dreamt it up. Yet here we are, all accepting that it exists and operates in certain predictable ways.
No, Michael, it seems that since inflationary theories are making testable predictions and inflationary physicists are actually carrying out those experiments, the difference between inflationary theory and your theory is that your theory doesn't make predictions which match current physics knowledge at all. I'll do the math for you if you'd like, but a constantly accelerating radially symmetrical "explosion" from a localized source does not match Hubble's observations. The differential velocity between our galaxy and another galaxy at some large distance, X, from us will always be larger in the direction of the "center" of the "Big Slam" than in any other direction.quote:
All I'm doing here is noting that our universe has energy and the first law of thermodynamics applies.
No, you're noting that some alleged "cosmos" has an unknown amount of energy which spreads into our universe through some unknown process. And why aren't you noting that the second and third laws of thermodynamics apply, as well?quote:
This is an example of applying the laws of physics to the issue Dave. The energy comes from somewhere. Where that energy comes from is anybody's guess. Thermodynamics however insists that the energy came from something.
Right, and all three laws of thermodynamics insist that if the "cosmos" has a finite amount of energy, then it should all become unusable in a finite amount of time. And if the "cosmos" is "eternal," then an infinite number of "finite amounts of time" have already gone by, and there should be no usuable energy anywhere. So unless you're willing to posit an infinite amount of energy - which would result in an infinitely huge singularity we could never escape from - then you're talking about a violation of the laws of thermodynamics. And since you smeared Guth with that brush, you should smear yourself with it, too.
This is what I was talking about many posts ago when I said that it looks like you don't think through the implications of your statements, Michael.quote:
quote:
An arcwelder's current draw doesn't increase at a constant rate over time, or else arcwelders would blow circuit breakers every time you used them.
As the arc begins to form, it certainly does start to draw more current.
What part of "constant rate" did you miss?quote:
At some point the current may remain constant, but the "system" still remains "energized".
In which case, analogously, acceleration will slow and then stop, and velocity will become constant. Because acceleration under Special Relativity requires ever-increasing amounts of power, Michael. An increase in velocity of (for example) 5 m/s will require more power if you're already going 100 m/s than if you were only going 10 m/s. A constant amount of energy applied to a accelerate an ob |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 07/11/2006 : 22:33:16 [Permalink]
|
Two (minor) hijacks.
First, when I first opened this thread (using Firefox 1.0.7), everything in Dave's post after the second quote of Michael's was in the smaller font (the same as used inside quotes). I refreshed the screen once, no change. Refreshed it again and all the text was fine.
Dave, in the thread where people are reporting problems, maybe ask them to refresh their screens several times to see if it has any impact.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Right, and all three laws of thermodynamics insist that if the "cosmos" has a finite amount of energy, then it should all become unusable in a finite amount of time. And if the "cosmos" is "eternal," then an infinite number of "finite amounts of time" have already gone by, and there should be no usuable energy anywhere.
Ok, this is going to be sort of like the .999 does not equal 1 post, but if things are eternal, how can we be in the middle of eternity? If the past is infinite, then an infinite amount of time must have passed to ever arrive at now, meaning we could never get to "now." But then how could anything ever be said to exist within eternity? It has no beginning. You can't even say "energy appeared two second into eternity." To say something always existed is to say it never existed. Because we are in time, we see it pass. We see things that exist. Anything we see couldn't always have been around because then the time of our appearance could never have happened yet. Right? Someone set me straight on this.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 07/11/2006 22:34:21 |
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 07/12/2006 : 01:57:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
All of them are riding inside an expanding electromagnetic "wave" of moving carrier particles, and that wave is accelerating them, attempting to pull them further apart. The forces of gravity in our own solar system overcome this force, but this electromagnetic wave is what drives expansion. Our solar system seems to be accelerating toward the southern solar regions, since that is where the the sun's sheath is warped inward.
I must freely admit that I'm no cosmologist, but if the expansion of the universe is caused by an expanding electromagnetic wave of moving carrier particles, then should this wave not "loose power" at the cube of the distance the wave has travelled? Should this not lead to an inevitable slowing down in the acceleration of the expansion of the universe (i.e. the further the wave has moved, the less carrier particles it contains [per unit space] and the less it is able to cause any expansion)? Would that be a prediction of your model? |
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 07/12/2006 : 08:32:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Michael said:
Our solar system seems to be accelerating toward the southern solar regions, since that is where the the sun's sheath is warped inward.
How about this idea - the sun is moving at a relatively constant orbital velocity of 200 km/sec around the center of the galaxy and that motion through the interstellar medium is causing the sun's sheath to be warped.
Do you have any evidence that we are accelerating?
There is evidence that the expansion of space is accelerating but I know of no evidence that the Earth, Sun or the Milky way galaxy is accelerating anywhere.
If we see that all far distant galaxies are accelerating away from us couldn't that actually mean that it is us who is decelerating?
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 07/12/2006 : 08:37:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
HH said:
Ok, this is going to be sort of like the .999 does not equal 1 post, but if things are eternal, how can we be in the middle of eternity? If the past is infinite, then an infinite amount of time must have passed to ever arrive at now, meaning we could never get to "now." But then how could anything ever be said to exist within eternity? It has no beginning. You can't even say "energy appeared two second into eternity." To say something always existed is to say it never existed. Because we are in time, we see it pass. We see things that exist. Anything we see couldn't always have been around because then the time of our appearance could never have happened yet. Right?
Jesus, I seem to have developed a headache after reading this.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 07/12/2006 : 09:21:36 [Permalink]
|
| I was kinda hoping Dave (or someone) was going to explain the cause of "expansion" according to BB theory. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/12/2006 : 09:31:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Ok, this is going to be sort of like the .999 does not equal 1 post, but if things are eternal, how can we be in the middle of eternity? If the past is infinite, then an infinite amount of time must have passed to ever arrive at now, meaning we could never get to "now." But then how could anything ever be said to exist within eternity? It has no beginning. You can't even say "energy appeared two second into eternity." To say something always existed is to say it never existed. Because we are in time, we see it pass. We see things that exist. Anything we see couldn't always have been around because then the time of our appearance could never have happened yet. Right? Someone set me straight on this.
Wow, H. you really did drink the bong water, didn't you?  Seriously, I'd like to see Michael address these issues, since he's the one claiming the universe is eternal. |
- 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 - 07/12/2006 : 09:56:21 [Permalink]
|
I don't know what is the 'cause' of expansion. What is the 'cause' of gravity? All I know is that we can measure it, just like we can measure the expansion of the universe. Why does space bend around mass, I don't know, it just does.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 07/12/2006 : 10:01:29 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
I don't know what is the 'cause' of expansion.
Thank you for demonsrating that BB theory has no valid explaination for expansion. :)
quote:
What is the 'cause' of gravity?
Are we talking QM or GR?
quote:
All I know is that we can measure it, just like we can measure the expansion of the universe. Why does space bend around mass, I don't know, it just does.
So really, BB theory doesn't explain it, it simply notes it? |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 07/12/2006 10:03:32 |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 07/12/2006 : 10:24:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
I was kinda hoping Dave (or someone) was going to explain the cause of "expansion" according to BB theory.
Again, Michael, at present no one can explain it. I linked earlier to some discussions of inflation and its implications. I'm sure you didn't bother to read it.
In any case, inflation resolves some issues-- like the horizon and flatness problems-- with the Big Bang, and so people are exploring how such a thing might have happened. In your rather backwards way of thinking, though, no one should think about inflation ever until it's been observed and proven. Of course, without thinking about it and devising ways of testing it, it will never be observed and proven.
I asked about dark matter, which is in just about every way the same as inflation. There are problems with our understanding of gravity. In an attempt to resolve this, people have proposed "dark matter" without a shred of proof for such a thing. Your answer was
quote:
Depending on how one tries to define "dark matter", it isn't necessarily "metaphysical" in nature. The same is true of dark energy, as long as you present it as a "wave" of energy of some sort, and you identify the carrier particles involved. Again, it all depends on the defitions and whether they can be "tangibly" defined in some matter. I'll buy into anything that's known to exist, or even theorized to exist at the particle level in particle physics. On the other hand, I see no reason to assume the existence of things that are not in evidence, or requried in particle thoery, expecially since I can explain these observations without resorting to or introducing any unknown or unevidenced fields. I can explain these observations based on known or theorized existing particles and waves, so I see no reason to resort to unevidenced fields or particles.
But all we can say about dark matter is that it "refers to matter particles, of unknown composition, that do not emit or reflect enough electromagnetic radiation (light) to be detected directly, but whose presence may be inferred from gravitational effects on visible matter such as stars and galaxies."
In other words, it's stuff that has to exist because otherwise our understanding of gravity is all wrong. Is that bad, or good? Should you be working on gravity, too?
Is the definition of dark matter any more convincing than that of the inflaton:
quote:
The inflaton is the generic name of the unidentified scalar field (and its associated particle), that may be responsible for an episode of inflation in the very early universe. According to inflation theory, the inflaton field provided the mechanism to drive a period of rapid expansion from 10#8722;35 to 10#8722;34 seconds after the initial expansion that formed the universe.
I see the word "particle" there, just like dark matter has the word "particles." Of course, we know nothing else about them, except that they help resolve problems in otherwise compelling theories. Since they do resolve such things, shouldn't be we thinking of ways to test them? Once tested, we can either put it to rest and move on, or show that it's true and keep exploring.
Again, your attitude seems backwards. |
| Edited by - Cuneiformist on 07/12/2006 10:30:53 |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 07/12/2006 : 11:14:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
So really, BB theory doesn't explain it, it simply notes it?
The BB theory explains what is observed. This is what theories do.
The BS theory (as has been shown to you many times and in many different ways, Michael) does not explain what is observed.
See the difference?
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 07/12/2006 : 11:16:45 [Permalink]
|
I'm trying to imagine some role reversal here in an alternate reality, where big slam theory has been well established "doctrine" in the astronomical community.
I then come before you to present this "Bang" theory based on the ideas you've given me here. I tell you folks that "inflaton" fields drive "inflation". I tell you that "dark energy" drives expansion (though I can't define it). I tell you to hell with the Copernican principle, there was only a single bang in all of eternity. I tell you fantastic stories like this, and I try to imagine your reaction.
I can just see Dave pointing out that besides the Copernican problem, I've got a minor little issue related to explaining what the hell an inflaton field is, and how we might demonstrate it. I've also got a "minor" little defintion of problem as it relates to this dark energy thingy I've been ranting on about. Other than the fact I made up particles that have never been demonstrated, left all the details of expansion unanswered, and violated the Copernican principle, sure, it's a great idea!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copernican_principle |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 07/12/2006 11:20:02 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 07/12/2006 : 11:27:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
The BS theory (as has been shown to you many times and in many different ways, Michael) does not explain what is observed.
See the difference?
This is so backwards from reality, it's hard to know where to begin. I was the one to explain the initial "blowout" stage, whereas BB theory created a metaphysical particle that is only required in *that particular theory*. I was the one that explained the "cause" of the expansion that allows us to explain redshift, whereas you pawned it off on something called "dark energy", which I have to assume is yet another metaphysical particle of some sort. You are the one violating the copernican principle, insisting only once in all of eternity has this ever occured. For crying out loud furshur, what exactly *does* BB theory explain? Show me evidence for a "dark energy" that can't be explained my way. Show me evidence for an "inflaton" field when matter/antimatter reaction seems work quite nicely. Explain to me why it's just hunky-dory for you to violate the copernican principle on a whim and then insist that we don't violate it any other time! For goodness sake furshur, I'm the only one that *didn't* resort to metaphysics, and gave "rational" possibilities. I freely admit that my answer may be wrong, but at least I'm not relying on two or three types of metaphysics and violating one of those science principles you seem to hold so dear.
|
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 07/12/2006 : 11:31:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I'm trying to imagine some role reversal here in an alternate reality, where big slam theory has been well established "doctrine" in the astronomical community.
It appears that you already are living in an alternate reality.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
