|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
 Posted - 07/12/2006 : 11:40:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
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.
Well, I begin with the Copernican principle you hold so dear Dear. I point out that we first believed the earth was the center of everything, then the sun, then Milky Way, then a mythical BB. The reality is however that we're really quite clueless. We can't see very far. In fact we are *extremely* near sighted at the moment. We can't even explain how our own sun works, let alone a whole cosmos.
[sip]We're just here because were here. This is one slice of eternity in space time, in all little mudball in the cosmos. I don't try to worry about eternity. I will take care of itself. It's future is already written in the stars. :)[/sip]
Whoa Dude!  |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 07/12/2006 11:42:33 |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/12/2006 : 11:41:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
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'd have to be an alternate reality in which Hubble's Constant doesn't exist, redshift isn't correlated with velocity, the laws of thermodynamics don't apply, the CMBR looks more like Rayleigh Scattering, and so Big Bang theory would never have been proposed in the first place. Big Bang theory would, really, be absolutely ridiculous in a "cosmos" in which a Big Slam actually occured. If observations matched a Big Slam, then Big Bang theory would only be taken seriously on the desktops and blogs of crackpots. In other words, Michael, the more you explain your idea of BS theory, the more it becomes clear that its predictions and those of Big Bang theory suggest universes which are wholly incompatible with each other. No interpretation of the evidence in such a case could support both theories.quote:
I then come before you to present this "Bang" theory based on the ideas you've give me here. I tell you that "inflaton" fields drive "inflation". I tell you "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. I tell you fantastic stories like this, and I try to imagine your reaction.
You've got it all backwards, though, Michael. You didn't care about starting with the observations when you started claiming that the Big Bang is a "big fat myth," but anyone who's serious about presenting a theory will begin by saying, "here is what we see," and only after that attempt to explain it. You didn't want to start with General Relativity, redshift, the CMBR and the cosmic abundance of light elements, you skipped straight past the foundational evidence, aimed for the most speculative thing you could find about the theory, and then smeared the whole thing as metaphysics on the basis of one small part.quote:
I can just see Dave pointing out that besides the Copernican problem...
What Copernican problem? Big Bang theory posits that the "Bang" happened everywhere, so the universe should look homogeneous at large scales, and it does, just like the Copernican Principle states. It's funny that you never even mentioned this "problem" until someone else provided a link to the philosophy, too, sort of like you've just now read it, misunderstood the implications of Big Bang theory with regards to the Principle, and said, "wow! Another problem!" and once again embarassed yourself by spouting a scientific falsehood.quote:
...you've got a minor little issue related to epxlaining what the hell an inflaton field is, and how we might demonstrate it.
And researchers are currently doing just that. What's the problem, Michael?quote:
You've also got a "minor" little defintion of problem as it relates to this dark energy thingy you've been ranting on about.
Who's been ranting about dark energy?quote:
Other than the fact you made up particles that have never been demonstrated...
Gravitons have never been demonstrated, Michael.quote:
...left all the details of expansion unanswered...
Others have already explained them.quote:
...and violated the Copernican principle...
No, it is your "Big Slam" model which violates that principle, since distance varies with the square of time under the constraint of constant acceleration while velocity is directly proportional to time, so you don't get identical "recession" speeds at any given radius from any given point.quote:
...sure, it's a great idea!
Yup, not a single coherent criticism of Big Bang theory which isn't hypocritical in that bunch of text. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 07/12/2006 : 11:47:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
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!
That's rich, since in order for the BS to conform to the evidence of red shift, we'd have to be at the center of the BS, thus, well, violating the CP. |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 07/12/2006 : 11:52:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
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*.
Ah, yes that would be the 'universe sized anti-matter black hole' crashing into the 'universe sized matter black hole' explanation.... um-hmmm...
quote:
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
Your BS theory does not explain the observed red shift. Look over the last several pages, at least 4 or 5 people have tried to explain to you why.
quote:
You are the one violating the copernican principle,
Shock and amazement - you don't understand the copernacian principle. Read your link very carefully and you will see that the big bang is discussed!
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
| Edited by - furshur on 07/12/2006 11:56:44 |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/12/2006 : 12:36:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ricky
It sounds to me like you are suggesting the BB happened at the "center" of the universe. If so, that is one of the most fundamental misunderstandings of the BB.
And that misunderstanding comes straight from the insistence that spacetime is "eternal." All of Michael's objections, really, seem to boil down to him trying to force Big Bang theory to comply with universal axioms which are only appropriate (and perhaps not even then) for BS theory. |
- 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 - 07/12/2006 : 12:43:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
It'd have to be an alternate reality in which Hubble's Constant doesn't exist,
But I'm the only one of the two of us to explain redshift Dave. You simple handwaved something called "expansion" which then utterly failed to define, just like you utterly failed to provide evidence for an inflaton field that is *only* required in BB theory in the first place!
quote:
If observations matched a Big Slam,
quote:
then Big Bang theory would only be taken seriously on the desktops and blogs of crackpots.
Based on the metaphysical "answers" you handed me, I'd have to say that exactly where it belongs.
quote:
In other words, Michael, the more you explain your idea of BS theory, the more it becomes clear that its predictions and those of Big Bang theory suggest universes which are wholly incompatible with each other.
You are right. My explanation doesn't require two kinds of metaphysical fields and particles.
quote:
No interpretation of the evidence in such a case could support both theories.
The common denominators here is "concentration of energy" and "expansion" Dave. Those are the two main issues. We're just explaining them different ways.
quote:
You've got it all backwards, though, Michael. You didn't care about starting with the observations when you started claiming that the Big Bang is a "big fat myth," but anyone who's serious about presenting a theory will begin by saying, "here is what we see," and only after that attempt to explain it. You didn't want to start with General Relativity, redshift, the CMBR and the cosmic abundance of light elements, you skipped straight past the foundational evidence, aimed for the most speculative thing you could find about the theory, and then smeared the whole thing as metaphysics on the basis of one small part.
No Dave, I didn't "smear" it based on one "small part", rather two *major* issues (the causes of inflation and expansion), and one major principle violation which you were so kind to point out. You mentioned one of the reasons that made me reject BB theory in the first place. I think it's very amusing that you have the nerve to accuse me of "just reading it". Evidently it's very surprising for you to learn that it applies to this very issue and your belief system about the "center of everything".
quote:
What Copernican problem? Big Bang theory posits that the "Bang" happened everywhere, so the universe should look homogeneous at large scales, and it does, just like the Copernican Principle states.
Dave, all any BB theory does is attempt to take the "center of everything" and move it to a different place. We have no idea if a "concentration of energy" event was a "single" event. You "imagine" that it was. Great. People once imagined the earth was the center of everything too, then a sun, then galaxy, then a "singularity". Maybe there are lots of "singularities" Dave. In fact we certainly see lots of evidence suggesting the existence of "supermassive" blackholes. Why is one "singularity" so special?
quote:
It's funny that you never even mentioned this "problem" until someone else provided a link to the philosophy, too, sort of like you've just now read it, misunderstood the implications of Big Bang theory with regards to the Principle, and said, "wow! Another problem!" and once again embarassed yourself by spouting a scientific falsehood.
Pfft. Dave, that was one of lesser reasons that made me abandon the bang concept in the first place. It was really nothing more than an attempt to "explain everything" as coming from "one event". By making a big deal about it, you simply reminded me of how it applies to this issue. The main reason I reject BB theory is because it relies on not one, but two types of metaphysical "fields". The rule violation is just a side issue.
quote:
And researchers are currently doing just that. What's the problem, Michael?
The problem is that such a "particle" is only required in your pet theory Dave. It's never hinted at in GR or QM or particle physics. It's only required to exist in your theory. Is it a "big" or a "small" particle compared to say an electron?
quote:
Who's been ranting about dark energy?
How do you explain expansion Dave? Let's hear it!
quote:
Gravitons have never been demonstrated, Michael.
Technically, in my theory Dave, it's doesn't make one iota of difference whether they've been demonstrated, since my theory isn't predictated upon their existence to begin with.
quote:
Others have already explained them.
Your "explanation" invovled one metaphysical field, and you weren't sure if there was another. I've not really heard you explain explansion however. You keep gloating about this aspect being the crowning jewel in BB theory since is explains redshift, but unlike me, you have have yet to identify the force, field, or particle of expansion.
quote:
No, it is your "Big Slam" model which violates that principle, since distance varies with the square of time under the constraint of constant acceleration while velocity is directly proportional to time, so you don't get identical "recession" speeds at any given radius from any given point.
You'll have to elaborate since none of that mak |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 07/12/2006 : 12:46:32 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ricky
quote:
I point out that we first believed the earth was the center of everything, then the sun, then Milky Way, then a mythical BB.
It sounds to me like you are suggesting the BB happened at the "center" of the universe. If so, that is one of the most fundamental misunderstandings of the BB.
No, I'm just noting it supposedly began as something physically "small" in size. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 07/12/2006 : 12:53:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
That's rich, since in order for the BS to conform to the evidence of red shift, we'd have to be at the center of the BS, thus, well, violating the CP.
Obviously I have not been able to comminicate these ideas to you very well, since this is simply not so. The galaxies (cars) are "floating" in an expanding wave of carrier particles that "stretch" over time. The only difference between BB theory and the one I'm proposing is that I"m suggesting the carrier particles are EM waves, whereas in BB theory, the carrier particles that "stretch" have not been defined. You are having a tough time grasping the idea that the carrier waves we're riding in are expanding over time. From your position, you seem to imagine that "dark energy" is the cause of this expansion between galaxies, whereas I am simply suggesting they are electromagnetic waves, not dark energy that causes this "stretching". Is that at all helpful? |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 07/12/2006 12:56:52 |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 07/12/2006 : 13:30:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ricky
Are you saying that spacetime is being expanded by these electromagnetic waves? Or that things are actually being "pushed" upon by them, and thus, actually moving?
Things are actually moving. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 07/12/2006 : 13:34:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ricky
So you were saying above that the sun, the Earth, the Sun, and the Milky Way were all thought to be at the center of the universe, but that the BB was small in size? How does that make any sense with what you posted?
In this case, BB theory creates the illusion of a "beginning", where none necessarily exists. It imagines a time where no forms of atoms existed, where no evidence suggests this. The "singular" nature of this event makes it attractive mythmaking material, but there is no guarantee that it was a singular event, or that there was a time when no atoms existed. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 07/12/2006 13:39:17 |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 07/12/2006 : 13:40:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
The galaxies (cars) are "floating" in an expanding wave of carrier particles that "stretch" over time.
The particles stretch - Now that sounds like metaphysics
quote:
The only difference between BB theory and the one I'm proposing is that I"m suggesting the carrier particles are EM waves, whereas in BB theory, the carrier particles that "stretch" have not been defined.
Again you prove you are totally ignorant of the BB theory. There are no 'carrier particles' that stretch.
quote:
You are having a tough time grasping the idea that the carrier waves we're riding in are expanding over time.
That would be because it is nonsensical
quote:
From your position, you seem to imagine that "dark energy" is the cause of this expansion between galaxies, whereas I am simply suggesting they are electromagnetic waves, not dark energy that causes this "stretching".
And yet again your ignorance of the BB theory shines through. Dark energy has nothing to do with expansion. Dark energy is a theoretical construct to explain accleration. Electromagnetic waves are infact stretched in the BB theory (you know red shift) because space itself is expanding.
You know Michael when you maintain that mainstream physics is actually metaphysics it would help your case if you had a fucking clue about any of the theories you are talking about.
|
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 : 13:55:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
quote:
The galaxies (cars) are "floating" in an expanding wave of carrier particles that "stretch" over time.
The particles stretch - Now that sounds like metaphysics
The galaxies are "stretched apart" by the EM force. There isn't anything metaphysical about it.
quote:
Again you prove you are totally ignorant of the BB theory. There are no 'carrier particles' that stretch.
Which is exactly what makes it "metaphysics" rather than physics.
quote:
That would be because it is nonsensical
Evidently every electrical motor is "nonsensical" then, because they work on exactly the same principle of force.
quote:
And yet again your ignorance of the BB theory shines through. Dark energy has nothing to do with expansion. Dark energy is a theoretical construct to explain accleration. Electromagnetic waves are infact stretched in the BB theory (you know red shift) because space itself is expanding.
It's all metaphysical mumbo jumbo to me furshur. You can't explain the changes in distances based on any tangible particle or any tangle force or any tangible field.
quote:
You know Michael when you maintain that mainstream physics is actually metaphysics it would help your case if you had a fucking clue about any of the theories you are talking about.
It's this kind of arrogance that really pisses me off. You can't explain "inflation" *or* "expansion" or "acceleration" and you're going to tell me you have better clues? Riiiiiiight.... |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
