|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
 Posted - 07/12/2006 : 14:17:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
And that misunderstanding comes straight from the insistence that spacetime is "eternal."
Prove it's not eternal Dave. You can't even provide evidence to explain inflation, let alone expansion or acceleration. How would you have any idea if there was ever a time when atoms did not exist?
quote:
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.
I'm only trying to force *all theories* to abide by the laws of physics Dave, and offer explanations that don't require we accept the existence of new fields and particles that have never been evidenced or even theorized in particle physics, QM or GR. |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/12/2006 : 14:22:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
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...
Good grief! Einstein defined it all for us in General Relativity!quote:
...just like you utterly failed to provide evidence for an inflaton field that is *only* required in BB theory in the first place!
So you're not going to count the fact that WMAP is confirming inflationary predictions as evidence? Okay, then we won't count anything your solar theory successfully predicts about the Sun as evidence for your theory, either. Fair's fair.quote:
Based on the metaphysical "answers" you handed me, I'd have to say that exactly where it belongs.
I didn't provide any metaphysical answers, Michael - you misunderstood my answers.quote:
You are right. My explanation doesn't require two kinds of metaphysical fields and particles.
No, it just requires blackholes more massive than the universe, magnetic fields which increase with distance from a "center," and an infinite amount of time (and thus energy). All unevidenced stuff, but you expect us to believe it.quote:
The common denominators here is "concentration of energy" and "expansion" Dave. Those are the two main issues. We're just explaining them different ways.
No, Michael. Big Bang theory doesn't try to explain expansion, Big Bang theory explains the redshift observations as due to expansion of Einstein's spacetime. Similarly, the Big Bang doesn't attempt to explain any "concentration of energy," it explains the presence of the CMBR and the cosmological light-element abundances. Big Bang theory doesn't attempt to explain anything that we haven't observed. Your theory does attempt to explain things which nobody has observed to date.quote:
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.
Now you're trying to rewrite history again, Michael, since the only thing you mentioned in your first "big fat myth" post was Guth's inflation. You didn't even understand the difference between inflation and expansion at that point in time, and you certainly never mentioned Copernicus back then.quote:
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".
You're projecting again, Michael: it's your model which has an eternal space in it. The Big Bang theory says that the "Bang" happened everywhere and to everything, so there was no "center of everything," and couldn't possibly be one.quote:
Dave, all any BB theory does is attempt to take the "center of everything" and move it to a different place.
That's not true, since the Big Bang theory specifically posits that there is no "center of everything."quote:
We have no idea if a "concentration of energy" event was a "single" event.
According to the Big Bang definition of "universe," there could only have been one "event" for this universe. Whether other such events happened for other alleged universes is pure speculation at this point in time.quote:
You "imagine" that it was. Great.
Nope, you are projecting again, Michael.quote:
People once imagined the earth was the center of everything too, then a sun, then galaxy, then a "singularity".
No, Michael, you're simply ignoring what the Big Bang theory says in favor of what you'd like it to say so that it's easier for you to call it a "big fat myth." Any "singularity" associated with Big Bang theory was everything, and so couldn't possibly be at the center of anything.quote:
Maybe there are lots of "singularities" Dave.
I won't play metaphysics games with you, Michael. If there are other universes, we don't have any evidence of them.quote:
In fact we certainly see lots of evidence suggesting the existence of "supermassive" blackholes.
We've never seen any evidence suggesting a blackhole with a mass larger than that of our universe.quote:
Why is one "singularity" so special?
Because it contained everything we see today.quote:
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.
Again, Michael, why is it that you're so enamored of QM theory when it deals with fields and particles which were "never hinted at" by the theories governing physics in the 19th century? Do you complain about String Theory because nobody's ever seen a string, or would you complain about it because it can't match observ |
- 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 : 14:31:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ricky
If that's the case, then I have to agree with what was said earlier. There can't be constant acceleration without breaking your speed limit.
Well, the speed limit is set by laws of physics. Once we reach the upper end of the speed limit, even infinite energy isn't going to make them go any faster.
quote:
In fact, the only way to gaurntee that nothing will break the speed of light is to do as Dave said, and lower the universal speed limit to .5c so that relative speed can never be over c.
However c is actually the universal speed limit as it relates to matter. I have no clue how fast we're currently traveling, but eviently we continue to accelerate. This would suggest that we are traveling less than c.
quote:
And on top of that, the universe has been here for an infinite amount of time, so we, as well as everything else, must be going .5c. Is that right? Or did I miss something.
The implication is that while the "cosmos" may have been here for an "infinite time", the "physical universe" that we can see, was once involved in a "slam" that took place in a regionalized area of time and space. If you imagine that regionalized area as being a gravity well, the EM forces are "pulling" on the material coming out of that gravity well. As they get further and further from the gravity well, the particles caught in the EM wave (in this case galaxies) continue to accelerate. This acceleration physically stretches the galaxies apart. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/12/2006 : 14:35:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Prove it's not eternal Dave.
It's not my job to disprove your silly statements, it's up to you to provide evidence for them. Besides, I already did disprove it, by showing that an eternal universe either requires the violation of the laws of thermodynamics or an infinite amount of energy (in which case, the "cosmos" would never be anything but energy).quote:
How would you have any idea if there was ever a time when atoms did not exist?
The CMBR shows that no atoms existed at one point in time. Your objections to that were ad hoc and without evidenciary basis.quote:
I'm only trying to force *all theories* to abide by the laws of physics Dave...
Then why does your theory require the violation of the laws of thermodynamics?quote:
...and offer explanations that don't require we accept the existence of new fields and particles that have never been evidenced or even theorized in particle physics, QM or GR.
No, to accept your theory, we just have to accept the existence of entire universes and an alleged "cosmos" which have never been evidenced (and only get "theorized" because of a bunch of abstract equations, not because of any observations), and we also have to accept the violation of fundamental physical laws. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 07/12/2006 : 15:23:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
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.
As the wave expands and the carrier particles stretch, each particle would have to exert it's force over a larger and larger volume of space(?). Shouldn't this lead to a constant decrease in the acceleration of galaxies away from eachother (and eventually cause the universe to even stop expanding). In order for the galaxies to be accelerating away from eachother, wouldn't these EM waves have to have an overall increase in energy as time goes by. |
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 07/12/2006 : 15:31:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
It's not my job to disprove your silly statements, it's up to you to provide evidence for them.
Ya, like you provided evidence that there was ever a time when matter did not exist?
quote:
Besides, I already did disprove it, by showing that an eternal universe either requires the violation of the laws of thermodynamics.....
How could the cosmos violate any conservation laws just by redistributing its energy? How are any termodyanmic laws violated?
quote:
or an infinite amount of energy (in which case, the "cosmos" would never be anything but energy).
Maybe the universe does contain *nearly* infinite amounts of energy, but that does not mean that every cubic centimeter has to contain infinite amounts of energy.
quote:
The CMBR shows that no atoms existed at one point in time.
No, it does not. You "interpreted" that into the CMBR all by yourself.
quote:
Your objections to that were ad hoc and without evidenciary basis.
Pfft. Like you have an evidenciary basis for suggesting the existence of inflaton fields?
quote:
Then why does your theory require the violation of the laws of thermodynamics?
This is pure boloney, and a complete distraction. Name me one law of thermodynamics that is violated, or explain how you *think* it's being violated. I'll be happy to set you straight.
quote:
No, to accept your theory, we just have to accept the existence of entire universes and an alleged "cosmos" which have never been evidenced (and only get "theorized" because of a bunch of abstract equations, not because of any observations),
Talk about pots and kettles. Like your inflaton field is better somehow?
quote:
and we also have to accept the violation of fundamental physical laws.
Pure boloney. Let's hear the law of physics I'm violating, and your explanation of how it's being violated. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 07/12/2006 15:36:18 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 07/12/2006 : 15:34:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ricky
Then we should be able to detect these EM forces since they must be pretty damn strong to push galaxies apart, no?
Sure, but not necessarily while being sheltered within the sun's sheath, which is probably contained inside of a much larger galactic sheath. Even still, we should be able to detect it's presense in the motion of the galaxies. We should also be able to see the flow of electricity throughout the system. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 07/12/2006 15:34:46 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 07/12/2006 : 15:43:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Hawks
As the wave expands and the carrier particles stretch, each particle would have to exert it's force over a larger and larger volume of space(?). Shouldn't this lead to a constant decrease in the acceleration of galaxies away from eachother (and eventually cause the universe to even stop expanding). In order for the galaxies to be accelerating away from eachother, wouldn't these EM waves have to have an overall increase in energy as time goes by.
Yes. I would be inclined to agree with that conclusion. |
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 07/12/2006 : 15:51:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by Hawks
As the wave expands and the carrier particles stretch, each particle would have to exert it's force over a larger and larger volume of space(?). Shouldn't this lead to a constant decrease in the acceleration of galaxies away from eachother (and eventually cause the universe to even stop expanding). In order for the galaxies to be accelerating away from eachother, wouldn't these EM waves have to have an overall increase in energy as time goes by.
Yes. I would be inclined to agree with that conclusion.
I'm not sure I understand what you are agreeing with. That there is a decrese in the acceleration of the galaxies away from eachother OR that the EM waves increase in energy? |
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 07/12/2006 : 15:52:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
I didn't provide any metaphysical answers, Michael - you misunderstood my answers.
Since this post was a behemoth of a post, and I'm responding between phone calls, I'm going to respond to some key points in separate repsonses.
Your defintion of "inflaton" fields was purely metaphysical Dave. By this I mean that nowhere else outside of BB theory will you find a reference to such particles or fields. You can't even seem to identify the size of the particle in relationship to an electron. There is no mention of this type of particle in particle physics. There is no mention of such a particle in QM. In fact the only place we see this particle meantioned is in relationship to your pet theory, because your pet theory is the only one that requires it. Furthermore there is no evidence of the existence of such a particle outside of your pet theory. That makes it a purely "metaphysical" particle Dave. Plain and simple. You can dance around this point all day, but it's not going to change anything.
I'm still waiting to hear you explain the force of expansion in your own words. I suspect your explanation for expansion is going to be rather "metaphysical" in nature as well. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 07/12/2006 15:55:20 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 07/12/2006 : 15:54:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Hawks
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by Hawks
As the wave expands and the carrier particles stretch, each particle would have to exert it's force over a larger and larger volume of space(?). Shouldn't this lead to a constant decrease in the acceleration of galaxies away from eachother (and eventually cause the universe to even stop expanding). In order for the galaxies to be accelerating away from eachother, wouldn't these EM waves have to have an overall increase in energy as time goes by.
Yes. I would be inclined to agree with that conclusion.
I'm not sure I understand what you are agreeing with. That there is a decrese in the acceleration of the galaxies away from eachother OR that the EM waves increase in energy?
I would tend to assume that the EM waves are increasing in energy. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 07/12/2006 : 16:08:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
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?
Well, it's a radical departure from the way this was originally proposed. I mean, my initial understanding had a bunch of galaxies in an already-existing universe moving together (why wasn't explained, but I'm guessing gravity?) until they all "smashed" together and then moved apart-- or perhaps smashed together, mingled, and then kept going. In any case, the "slam" part suggested there was an area in the alread-exiting universe where this happened. If so, we should be able to detect this with red shift. Since we can't, the BS is wrong.
But then, I appear to have the BS wrong. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 07/12/2006 : 16:18:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Now you're trying to rewrite history again, Michael, since the only thing you mentioned in your first "big fat myth" post was Guth's inflation.
And I've now explained why it's a "big fat myth" since it's based on metaphysics!
quote:
You didn't even understand the difference between inflation and expansion at that point in time,
I attribute all expansion and acceleration to EM fields Dave. I attribute the "explosive" stage to the matter and antimatter interactions. I've heard dozens of BB theories talked about by different individuals, including some without an inflation stage altogehter! I have no idea which exact set of BB theories you personally find to be "authorative". I'm still waiting to hear you explain expansion in fact. The fact Einstein noted it's existence isn't going to get you off the hook from explaining what causes it Dave.
quote:
and you certainly never mentioned Copernicus back then.
I hadn't even thought about ol' Copernicus since my college days, but since you were so kind to mentioned it, and it is applicable to this discussion, I thought I'd point it out. You have a special position at t=0. I do not.
|
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 07/12/2006 16:52:38 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
