| THEORIES WITH PROBLEMS - THE BIG BANG THEORY -> Big Bang? | Start A New Topic | Reply |
| Post Info | TOPIC: Big Bang? |
| Posted By: field day Posted On: May 28, 2004 Views: 821 | RE: Big Bang? Quote: "I would be delighted if a new theory came along that overturned any existing theory, it would mean progress." Yes, it would indeed. The big bang hypothesis, evolutionary theory, etc have clearly not yet been proven and it is therefore important for all the alternatives to be discussed with an open mind. No doubt you understand this. If therefore, I happen to find legitimate evidence somewhere that one or more of its (BBT, evolution,..) founding assumptions may be wrong, you cannot scientifically reject a plausible interpretation of that evidence on faith in the Big Bang theory, nor can you automatically assume current understanding completely (or at all) applies to that evidence. You also cannot claim that I won't find such evidence if I dig deep and hard enough, or if indeed ignorance plays a role. That is my point. That is what I mean by conformatory biase. If people have to undermine public respect of and confidence in the scientific establishment to get to the truth of it all, then that is a demonstration of the depth of the problem, and part of the reason why people have to attitudes they do. If a physics student challenges his teacher in front the whole class and eventually proves him wrong, what impression would that give of the student? Bright or disrespectful? I'd say bright with potential! Quote: "There is absolutely no evidence that any of today's theories are wrong." That is an opinion. Goodbye. |
| Posted By: Zoogies! Posted On: May 28, 2004 Views: 819 | RE: Big Bang? I fail to see how the statement that there is no evidence that undermines the big bang theory is an opinion - that abortion is wrong, would be an opinion, but that is now. Evidence either exists or it does not. Keith has said it does not - it's up to you to prove that it does exist. |
| Posted By: Keith Mayes Posted On: May 28, 2004 Views: 817 | RE: Big Bang? Zoogies is right field day. It is not my personal opinion that no error has been found with either the BBT or Relativity, it is a hard, indisputable, scientific fact. You say: "You also cannot claim that I won't find such evidence if I dig deep and hard enough, or if indeed ignorance plays a role." So this is good reason to claim, as you keep on doing, that the theories are wrong? It is of course impossible for me to predict what may happen in the future, so I am forced to rely on the here and now, common sense, empirical science and logic, not on personal prejudice and ridiculous claims, such as "I know that Relativity is wrong". Sure you do. I do not agree that all alternative theories should be viewed with an open mind. If they made sense, then yes, but they don't. I have yet to see one that was NOT written by an idiot. There is a hell of a difference to having an open mind and taking an interest in obvious stupidity. Why don't you just admit that neither you, nor anyone else, has been able to find a single fault with either theory. You also say, and this is the most telling part: "If people have to undermine public respect of and confidence in the scientific establishment to get to the truth of it all....." You still believe that there exists some sort of global conspiracy to conceal the 'truth'. Why you should think this to be the case God only knows, but it does reveal something very fundamentally flawed about your character. It is as sad a case as those who believe in the great conspiracy theory that men did not walk on the moon. Sad people, all of you, very sad. Why don't you just face reality and join the real world? What is it with you conspiracy nuts? |
| Posted By: Achilles Hell Posted On: May 29, 2004 Views: 808 | RE: Big Bang? Hmm. Before I start I do not believe: -That there is a global conspiracy. -That no evidence exists that can prove modern theories wrong. -That ignorance or lack of interdsicplinary expertise does not play a role. -That mainstream science is not biased towards familiarity. -That metaphysics does not play a role in science. -That pure speculation is scientific. -That faith is scientific. -That people don't make logical mistakes. -That concepts can be anything more than concepts. -That mathematics can be anything more than mathematics. It is possible, as in the case of relativity, to incorrectly assume that a purely mathematical modification to an equation or concept can constitute a physical law, e.g. the modification and manipulation of space and time. What you misunderstand Keith, is that the manipulation of space and time is, in itself, invalid as means by which to analyse and understand the world. In other words, as field day pointed out all along, space and time cannot exist as physical objects in their own right. They are mathematical and for modelling purposes only in the case of scientific investigation. Every scientific assumption made using the output of a numerical model is a model-dependent assumption. Fair enough, you think of yourself as existing and perceiving the world in a dimensional sense. You find it very difficult to avoid use of the dimensional concept in order to explain the properties of physical objects. You also recognise the keeping of time by a clock. However, these experiences do not, in themselves, justify the existence of space and time. Furthermore, it cannot be presumed that space exists simply because we think of the world as being three-dimensional, nor that time exists simply because we perceive events to happen. It is highly likely that all observed phenomena are the result of physical interactions between objects (not the result of the effects of subjects (space and time) on objects). What we actually perceive is physical, and the physical has properties, not dimensions. Space is Euclidean. It is inconsistent and contradictory to say that space (in numerical models) is both Euclidean and non-Euclidean. It is either Euclidean or non-Euclidean. Understand? Furthermore, it is a very bad idea to limit the extent of space and time. Any entities within a Euclidean framework require relative and finite spatial coordinates, otherwise they cannot be recognisably localised. They must also have relative and finite size, otherwise different entities cannot recognisably physically exist. In a universe of finite dimensional size, this is not possible. Any valid scientific approach is tied to an infinite extent of space and an infinite duration of time as a conceptual basis of existence, as this is the only way to accommodate an arbitrary number of objects and causal events. Get it? The difference between the object and the subject is quite obvious. For example, you can see a chair, but cannot see any dimensions that you presume it to exist in. The chair is the object, the dimensions the subject. Equally so, you can touch a chair, but it is impossible to touch space or time. You cannot see, touch, smell, taste or hear space or time. These sensory perceptions are the means by which we justify the existence of objects. If we cannot sense space or time, we cannot sense them, and therefore have no sensory means by which to justify their existence (in terms of the five sense we are born with). You may say that you see events happen and see objects, put that is it, you do not see space or time. They are of the mind. No theory can make a mathematical concept into a real, perceivable object. You cannot measure space and you cannot measure time because they are the measuring devices! No observation of the bending of light can justify to manipulation of the very domain through which the light bends. Only manipulations of the physical circumstances within the domain are justified (this is in the case of both numerical models and perceived reality). All theoretical models use space and time as their basic framework within which to operate. This is the only conceivable way of accommodation the existence of objects (because objects themselves cannot be the model domain). But this does not mean (beyond the model) that space and time have to exist. We need space and time to make predictions, but we do not need space and time to perceive the observed reality! For a numerical model, it is not invalid to manipulate the framework itself, only the objects within the framework. No amount of accuracy can justify manipulation of the framework within which the model operates (the model equations operate on the physical circumstances, not on the model itself), because, if it did, you would then be justified in manipulating the framework to yield an accurate description of why ANY phenomena physically occurs, as you wished. Therefore the general theory of relativity is not invalid because certain observations or evidence show so, but because it is inadmissible (scientifically contradictory) to assume that one can manipulate the very framework with which observations themselves are made. Say, for example. That you decide to bend a three-dimensional space on which one side is point A, and no the opposite side point B. Say you then ask me to draw a straight line from point A to point B through the geometry you just manipulated. What, may I ask, is going to stop me from drawing directly from one point to the other? What makes you think that a straight line can be anything else other than a straight line, with no bends or twists? You are kidding yourself that I cannot draw a straight line! What is most bewildering about the claims of general relativity is that Einstein though it was ok and that there was nothing wrong with assuming that a purely mathematical manipulation of space and time could constitute anything more than just that. I mean, what the hell lead him to believe that space and time, which are physically unperceivable, had anything to do with a physical phenomena, that is perceivable? You are continually asking for solid facts and evidence, but neglect to consider that the very assumptions on which relativity is based may be scientifically inadmissible. You say space-time exists and neglect that fact that you cannot perceive it; perception being the ultimate verification of its existence. I need say no more than that. I honestly dont care whether you have faith in the BBT or not. My point is clear! I challenge you, Keith, to explain your way through this: http://www.bearfabrique.org/Catastrophism/WALLSAN.TXT without resorting to claims of faulty equipment, conspiracies, the BBT says this or that, or down right ostracism! No "idiots" drew these conlusions! Try and be impartial on this! It contradicts the BBT (among other theories), and that IS the point! This does make sense and is logical!!! If you can't makes sense of it, it is no use trying to make out that it's nonsense when it is not! That is YOUR problem!!! I repeat, YOOUURR problem!!! |
| Posted By: Keith Mayes Posted On: May 29, 2004 Views: 806 | RE: Big Bang? Wow! What a long posting! Let me first assure you that I have read it all. You say that: "is that the manipulation of space and time is, in itself, invalid as means by which to analyse and understand the world." Very interesting I'm sure, but I have no idea who claims to be manipulating space and time. Dr. Who perhaps? Uri Gellar? Spock? You follow this up with the equally perplexing remark that: " space and time cannot exist as physical objects in their own right." What on earth do you mean? Space and time do not exist? What is our galaxy existing in then, if not space and time? Custard? Please explain what the universe is exactly if space and time do not exist. On second thoughts, I'd rather you didn't bother, Just join the other fruitcakes and have a nice little chat amongst yourselves. PS I looked at the website you suggest. I am a little confused by it. Is it meant to be a joke or are we all supposed to pretend to be fruitcakes and be amazed at its scientific insights? I have read more sense in a Kiddies comic. If you think it makes sense, then that explains your posting. |
| Posted By: Achilles Hell Posted On: May 29, 2004 Views: 799 | RE: Big Bang? Quote: " What is our galaxy existing in then, if not space and time?" For a start, what makes you think our galaxy has to exist "in" something to exist? It exists! That's it! Quote: "Please explain what the universe is exactly if space and time do not exist." Definition of the universe: all that exists! If space and time exist, then they too are part of the universe! Jeez! What is it with you people and shallow reasoning? You think space and time exist..I strongly beg to differ to that claim. Space is spatial and time is temporal. Those are their individual characteristics. Space cannot have a temporal component and time cannot have a spatial component because space IS spatial and time IS temporal! There is no such thing as a spatial-temporality or a temporal-spatiality. Events have no spatial characteristics because it is common sense and logical that we perceive things to happen (physically perceivable systems and objects to interact physically). Equally, objects have no temporal characteristics because it is again common sense and logical that we perceive them to have being. However, one could argue that even though we do not see a chair move unless acted upon, that the very being of the chair is a happening (just like when a clock stops ticking, it does not mean that all clocks stop working). In fact, even if all clocks stopped ticking, that does not mean that events stop happening. This further implies that time is physically non-existent by the fact that we perceive happenings, and one need not assume anything more than physical interactions are what is required for these to take place, ticking clocks or not. The existence of time is not a condition of the occurrence of events! As for the case against the very notion of the existence of space beyond modelling and mathematics Take a piece of something. Call it the universe. Lets say this is all you have (which is the definition of the word universe anyway). So absolutely nothing else exists. No void, no nothing, nothing! Now, put that universe you have somewhere. Where? Anywhere! But how can you put it somewhere of there is nowhere to put it? Exactly! But doesnt that mean the universe doesnt exist? I didnt say that! But the universe has to exist somewhere! So you are essentially saying that it is a condition of the existence of the universe that it exist somewhere? Yes! Who says it is a condition? Says common sense and logic! I just said, in the scenario above, that if absolutely nothing else exists (which is the case anyway), you cannot put the universe anywhere. How is that not common sense and logical? But there is something else! No there is not, as I have pointed out! Then what happens to the concepts of "here" and "there"? You tell me! There is no "here" or "there"!? You just answered your own question! But how can there be no "here" or there" of we perceive everything relative to us? Does anything exist that is relative to the universe? No! Again, you just answered your own question! What? If the universe cannot be "here" or "there", nothing can! So? So even if you think it is ok to think that we perceive everything relative to us, you cannot say things have locations! Right!? There is no such thing as location! So what is my point? It is not a condition that the universe exist "somewhere" in order to exist! The universe cannot possibly have a location, and therefore space cannot possibly exist, beyond the universe. And, even if space is part of the universe, space cannot have a location, because the universe can't! Therefore, space does not exist! The universe, and everything that is part of it, is locationless! Thus is it highly plausible that space and time are not "conditions" of the existence of the universe! If this does not make sense it you, that would explain your lack of understanding! So..please understand it! Goodbye and hope you get it (for your understanding's sake). |
| Posted By: Keith Mayes Posted On: May 30, 2004 Views: 797 | RE: Big Bang? Thanks for your wonderful posting! So time does not exist. Space does not exist. locations do not exist. Thanks for sharing that with us. It all makes perfect sense now. Now that you have definitely proved that both Relativity and the BBT are both idiotic in what they suggest, can you please share with us the real truth on how the universe began and why it is expanding. Can you also, while you are at it, give us the truth about gravity, light speed and time, that has been so wrongly portrayed by Relativity? Thanks a bunch. |
| Posted By: Darth Vader Posted On: May 30, 2004 Views: 793 | RE: Big Bang? Quote: "So time does not exist. Space does not exist. locations do not exist." Quote: "...can you please share with us the real truth on how the universe began and why it is expanding." You know, Keith, you really are an ignorant prick! |
| Posted By: Cosmic Catastrophe Posted On: May 30, 2004 Views: 787 | RE: Big Bang? Sounds interesting folks |
| Posted By: Tez Posted On: May 30, 2004 Views: 786 | RE: Big Bang? Bit harsh Darth Vader? wheres your proof? |
| Posted By: Darth Vader Posted On: May 30, 2004 Views: 780 | RE: Big Bang? Hi Tez, to quote Keith: Quote: "...can you please share with us the real truth on how the universe began and why it is expanding." Quote: "Einstein's famous equations show that the universe should be expanding, not because the galaxies were moving through space, but because the 'empty' space between them (spacetime) is expanding." And as Achilles pointed out: "Take a piece of something. Call it the universe. Lets say this is all you have (which is the definition of the word universe anyway). So absolutely nothing else exists. No void, no nothing, nothing! Now, put that universe you have somewhere. Where? Anywhere! But how can you put it somewhere of there is nowhere to put it? Exactly! But doesnt that mean the universe doesnt exist? I didnt say that! But the universe has to exist somewhere! So you are essentially saying that it is a condition of the existence of the universe that it exist somewhere? Yes! Who says it is a condition? Says common sense and logic! I just said, in the scenario above, that if absolutely nothing else exists (which is the case anyway), you cannot put the universe anywhere. How is that not common sense and logical? But there is something else! No there is not, as I have pointed out! Then what happens to the concepts of "here" and "there"? You tell me! There is no "here" or "there"!? You just answered your own question! But how can there be no "here" or there" of we perceive everything relative to us? Does anything exist that is relative to the universe? No! Again, you just answered your own question! What? If the universe cannot be "here" or "there", nothing can! So? So even if you think it is ok to think that we perceive everything relative to us, you cannot say things have locations! Right!? There is no such thing as location!" The concept of space is based on the concept of location. Einstein's equations are purely mathematical and only consider to universe for a dominant gravity. Furthermore, Einstein's equation show that gravity can be described through the curvature of "space" by matter, when in fact gravity is a property of matter and doesn't lead to the curvature of space. (Again) "space" is not a real physical object; you cannot, as pointed out by Achilles, touch, taste, smell, see or hear it. Also to quote Keith: "If you disagree with the principle of redshift proving expansion, that's your own personal choice, but it happens to be out of step with every scientist on the planet." The so-called "red shift equals distance" interpretation is one of many possible explanations. One question I'd have for Keith is what exactly makes the "red shift equals distance" relation so convincing he can't consider other possibilities? Does he believe it to be a perfect linear relationship (when it's not)? Also, Hubbles assumption was that the ratio of radial velocity (v) to distance (d) is a constant. H = v/d. If you do a thorough analysis of the BBT n' Hubbles constant (which is derived from light measurements), you'll find it has no meaning before the epoch of "decoupling", as postulated in the BBT, hence the inconsistency. As for the helium abundances and CMBR, it's just as plausible that massive stars generated in the formation of galaxies can explain them. For the CMBR, the energy from supernovae and other phenomenon is absorbed by interstellar dust and intervening matter on its long journey across "space" (through the medium of fields), then re-emitted back into this medium, hence the 2.7 K CMBR. Furthermore, BB theorists offer no proof that the CMBR is the remains of the BB. Like when something breaks, you have to try to put the pieces back together in order to see what broke. BB theorists didn't do that with the CMBR, nor could they, as, by definition, the BBT doesn't include the moment of creation. Time is a necessary element for change. Without times prior existence, the BB couldn't have happened. That's common sense and yet another BBT contradiction. Furthermore, BB theorists inform us that our universe expanded from a small seed of extremely hot soup to its current size and average temperature of the cosmic background radiation of 2.7 K. This concept violates the laws of physics for a closed system. According to these laws of physics, as our universe expanded its average temperature should have increased, but the BBT claims the opposite, hence a direct contradiction. Do you understand? |
| Posted By: Keith Mayes Posted On: May 30, 2004 Views: 778 | RE: Big Bang? So, Darth Vader, you think that I am "an ignorant prick". That's rich coming from a little tosser like you. Id be surprised if you were on solid food yet. On reading through your posting I notice that neither of you super smart geniuses answered my question. Your posting is pretty much a repeat of Achilles Hell's conversation with himself. (I think that is so sad!) Are the two of you related? Or do you just happen to share the same very unfortunate genetic mutation? Never mind, you probably both qualify for some sort of government grant. I merely asked you to explain how the universe began and why it is expanding, if, as you say the BBT is wrong. If you 'know' it is wrong then what is the right answer? And your answer is.............? Same with Relativity. If that is also wrong then what is your theory regarding gravity, time and the constant speed of light. These are obvious questions to ask. And your answer is...........? I, for one, would also love to know what you think the universe is doing if we are wrong to claim it is expanding because of our interpretation of red shift. So is it either contracting or unchanging? (can't think of anything else it could be doing) Please, please, please, answer! And your really friggin stupid crap answer is..........? Also, why do you insist on regarding 'space' as being empty, as being nothing? Space is the same as everywhere else, except without air. Its called a vacuum by clever scientists. A vacuum is not a lump of nothing! It is a material part of the universe, with properties such as temperature, time, radiation, etc. If it were nothing, how do you explain that radiation, gravity and light, not to mention space ships, can travel through it? According to the one sided conversation you both quoted, this should be impossible, you both proved it with pure logic (ho hoh ho ho). So your answer to space being nothing is..........? If you are unable to provide any evidence that the theories are wrong, or explain the alternatives, then I think it best you both return to your playpen, because you are both making yourselves look such friggin idiots! As just one example of your stupidity, Darth Vader, and this really is a cracker! "According to these laws of physics, as our universe expanded its average temperature should have increased, but the BBT claims the opposite, hence a direct contradiction. Friggin amazing or what? How can you be so unbelievably stupid as to say that, yet manage to type on a keyboard and breath in and out at the same time? Ask your nanny about expansion and temperature. When you have discovered what a public prat you have made of yourself you had better come back under a different name to save further embarrassment. Dick heads like you two provide such a wonderful source of entertainment. Keep it up! Cant wait for your replies to my questions! Missing you already!!!! |
| Posted By: Darth Vader Posted On: May 31, 2004 Views: 775 | RE: Big Bang? Before I answer anything, just make a note that I don't hold anything against you. I believe you're ignorant because you're biased. That's it! We're all biased to some extent and our circumstances beyond our control. But I've very good reasons for not believing in the BBT, as I have pointed out some for you. |
| Posted By: Darth Vader Posted On: May 31, 2004 Views: 773 | RE: Big Bang? Quote: "And your answer is.............?" Fair enough. My answer is the universe is ageless and not expanding. Quote: "And your answer is.............?" I believe gravity to be an electrostatic dipolar force that is a manifestation of electromagnetism. "And your answer is.............?" The universe has an electromagnetic potential and is constantly going through non-expanding change due to the occurrence of events. "So your answer to space being nothing is..........?" Exactly that. That things travel through space is an arbitration. I'll you leave because I can see this is not going to get us nowhere. Best of luck. I don't expect you to understand, nor you I, either way. |
| Posted By: Darth Vader Posted On: May 31, 2004 Views: 888 | RE: Big Bang? I now recognise that my points were bordering on philosophical, and that science requires the existence of space. Error in judgement. |
| Pages [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ] Next Page -> |