|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 5446 days) Posts: 67 From: Scottsdale, Az, USA Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Big Bang is NOT Scientific | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lost-apathy Member (Idle past 5446 days) Posts: 67 From: Scottsdale, Az, USA Joined: |
quote: For one, right now I AM NOT thinking scientifically, but philisophically. I am not saying that any of these theories are wrong. WHat I am saying is that they are not scientific. Science - the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding Gavity is a common scientific fact. If I drop a pencil 10 times I can guartee that the ten times i drop it it will go to the ground defying all outliers. Now can you guarantee me that if i fly a space ship out into no where that i will hit the end of the universe? No because it has not been tested yet. Space hasn't been tested to the end of the universe, and time has stayed constant for as long as we know. So please tell me some evidence that space is like a bubble and not infinite. This message has been edited by lost-apathy, 04-27-2005 11:23 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
For one, right now not I AM NOT thinking scientifically, but philisophically. So your statements about there being no support for GR are based on ignorance of the science? That is boring.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
coffee_addict Member (Idle past 505 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: |
The reason I asked those questions wasn't to find out how much you can quote from people. I wanted to see how much you know about these things before we can proceed. You must understand my precautions. I don't like talking to deaf ears or blind eyes. I've talked to many people before only to find out after a while that they had no clue what I was talking about.
So, again, please tell us what part of red shift supposedly supported big bang. Added by edit. By the way, your link gave me the following page.
I really don't see what this has to do with what we are talking about. This message has been edited by Troy, 04-27-2005 10:50 PM This message has been edited by Admin, 04-28-2005 09:38 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sylas Member (Idle past 5288 days) Posts: 766 From: Newcastle, Australia Joined: |
lost-apathy writes: quote: This was written by Jorge Pullin."Jorge Pullin is the Horace Hearne Chair in theoretical Physics." -physicsdaily.com - physicsdaily Resources and Information. Theory - abstract thought : SPECULATION Dictionary by Merriam-Webster: America's most-trusted online dictionary Careful, lost-apathy. The request to behave applies to you also. If you start being deliberately troublesome, you will incur my official wrath in my admin role. You have appealed to a dictionary to justify an ad hominem against Professor Pullin and as an excuse for avoiding a good question. The definition of theory in the Merriam-Webster that you have cited has six alternatives. You have quoted number 2 only, which is not the one used in science. The proper definition in this context, and in the context of Professor Pullin's profession, is number 5, which reads as follows:
quote: That is, Professor Pullin is well placed to EXPLAIN observed phenomenon. It is part of his job description. The Michelson-Morley experiment was performed in 1887, and lead to Michelson winning the Nobel prize in 1907. It is a real phenomenon, and the explanation is special relativity; and indeed the Michelson-Morley experiment is good evidence for relativity, since Newtonian physics is unable to explain it. The link you were given by Troy, and written by Pullin, was in relation to the question about the modern Global Positioning System, and this also stands as good evidence for relativity. The question for you is, since you reject relativity, how do YOU explain these observed phenomenon; this evidence? Cheers -- Sylas
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
paisano Member (Idle past 6450 days) Posts: 459 From: USA Joined: |
There is actually NO evidence for this theory scientists have been trying to prove it for over 50 years yet still there has yet to be evidence. Tell that to the particle physicists at Fermilab and CERN. They have to take relativistic effects into account when controlling the accelerator and when making measurements of mass and lifetime of elementary particles. Reply should have been to OP, not Crashfrog. This message has been edited by paisano, 04-27-2005 11:54 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
quote: Okay, so you are using a definition of science that is different from the commonly accepted definition. The definition of science that most people around here use is the body of models and the data used to test the models by means of the scientific method. First, I do not agree that the Big Bang is not science even by the definition that you are using. Second, I don't find the question of whether Big Bang is or is not science according to your definition is an interesting enough question to continue the discussion. --
quote: What does it mean to "defy all outliers?" I think that this is an indication that your thoughts on this subject may be a little unclear, and that you don't know as much about this subject as you seem to think that you do. This message has been edited by Chiroptera, 28-Apr-2005 04:22 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dsv Member (Idle past 4752 days) Posts: 220 From: Secret Underground Hideout Joined: |
(Penguins unite!)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lost-apathy Member (Idle past 5446 days) Posts: 67 From: Scottsdale, Az, USA Joined: |
quote:Sorry if this made you upset, but i was just joking around, you know the look up idiot in the dictionary and you'll find the name... But yeah I'll make sure it won't happen again.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lost-apathy Member (Idle past 5446 days) Posts: 67 From: Scottsdale, Az, USA Joined: |
quote:quote: Philosophy is the base of all science. How do you think aristotle figured that the earth is round, or that the sun is bigger than the earth? Philosophy enables us to figure things out that arn't currently explainable by science, which is how all hypothesis's start. But yeah you didn't answer my question.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lost-apathy Member (Idle past 5446 days) Posts: 67 From: Scottsdale, Az, USA Joined: |
I'm sorry if you didn't get my joke, but yeah.
What I think redhifts are(correct me if i'm wrong) is a back up of hubbles. It uses wavelengths and frequency's to measure the light of a galaxy to figure how far away and the speed at which they are moving away.-But like I said before this has to do with matter within the universe and not space. If galaxies are moving away like dots on a balloon does that mean space is also moving with it? As for the one article you linked me I read it and it is quite interesting.Here's a quote from that same article. "At present one cannot easily perform tests of relativity with the system because the SV clocks are actively steered to be within 1 microsecond of Universal Coordinated Time (USNO). Several relativistic effects are too small to affect the system at current accuracy levels, but may become important as the system is improved; these include gravitational time delays, frequency shifts of clocks in satellites due to earth's quadrupole potential, and space curvature." From what i get from reading this is that currently our technology is not precise enough to measure to such a degree. He said it in his own words. "At present one cannot easily perform tests of relativity." Now if you cannot test it how can it be science? Science is based on ACCURATE tests and many observations.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1495 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Philosophy is the base of all science. I don't believe that philosophy, except in a historical sense, can be the base of anything. Philosophy is an exercise where we determine that we don't know what we think we know. If you want to actually gather some knowledge, then you need to apply methods that no longer properly belong under the heading of "philosophy", methods like empiricism and experimentation that have since come under the term "science." Philosophers used to be scientists. Now they ask questions about what words mean and what knowledge is. I recognize the debt science owes to philosophy but currently, science has incorporated all that philosophy has to offer the discovery of information about the universe.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lost-apathy Member (Idle past 5446 days) Posts: 67 From: Scottsdale, Az, USA Joined: |
Whats wrong with arguing with the dictionary? One of the most common reasons people don't understand each other is because of the use of words.
quote:quote: Ok lets take a trip back to third grade science.1. An outlier is a piece of data that sticks out of the other data. Meaning that if i drop the pencil 10 times and 9 times it goes strait to the ground. The tenth one goes up instead of down first. This is a outlier. If i were to say that "If I drop a pencil 10 times I can guarantee that the ten times i drop it it will go to the ground" I would be wrong. There are some cases that the pencil will not go to the ground. For example if I'm on the superman ride and drop the pencil right when i get to the top it will float in the air for a little and not fall to my feet.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1495 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
I think what he's saying to you is that your qualifier was a little silly; if you say "this always happens, except when it doesn't" you'll very obviously never be wrong. Neither, however, will you have said anything worthwhile.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 196 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
"Several relativistic effects are too small to affect the system at current accuracy levels, but may become important as the system is improved; these include gravitational time delays, frequency shifts of clocks in satellites due to earth's quadrupole potential, and space curvature." From what i get from reading this is that currently our technology is not precise enough to measure to such a degree. Sorry, you got it wrong. It is true that the GPS system is not good for testing relativity, but it's not because we can't test relativity; rather, it's because GPS is nowhere near as accurate as the best instruments we have for testing relativity, and to keep it performing its primary function we have to reset the clocks periodically. But it's an excellent example of practical application of relativity. If the clocks were not deliberately tweaked, in accordance with the predictions of relativity, to keep the wrong time here on Earth, then the clock would require "steering" (i.e. resetting) much more often ... so much more often that the system wouldn't work nearly as well as it does if relativity were not correct. From Real-World Relativity: The GPS Navigation System:
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
paisano Member (Idle past 6450 days) Posts: 459 From: USA Joined: |
I'm afraid you've seized on something out of context as support for your assertions, where it really isn't.
In particle physics, lifetime measurements of particles are made at resolution below a picosecond. These lifetime measurements are a quite direct verification of special relativity. The relativistic effect on the particle lifetimes and trajectories are readily observable. This is also observed in cosmic ray muons. Your assertions that special relativity has not been verified by experiemt and observation are simply incorrect.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024