|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Big Bang or Big Dud? A study of Cosmology and Cosmogony - Origins | |||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: 'cept its not matter/anti-matter. Its matter/gravity. Matter/anti-matter is a very different thing. Just being pickie....
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/PAO/html/warp/antistat.htm Take care. ------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
Well, I'll comment on what I can until mark gets back to the thread.
quote: This one is easy. You can have one without the other. The two are interchangable.
quote: I don't like the analogy with friction. Think of it as cooling. As the universe expands, the energy is spread thin. Until that energy level gets low enough the various sub-atomic particles are moving too fast to stick to one another.
quote: I can't find a number, but at this point the density is still very very high. Sorry
quote: No.
quote: Try a mathematical analogy. You start with zero and derive 1 and -1. So far, no change. Same energy. These are the particle anti-particle pairs. If the expansion of the universe seperates the two quickly enough they don't rejoin and annihilate one another. You still have the same total energy, it just looks different. ------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: These definitions are colloquial. They won't do you any good in physics. Try reading this about energy and this about mass quote: No, this is way off base. The matter/energy equivalency has nothing to do with the quantum uncertainty principle. Einstein's famous e=mc² is the formula for this equivalancy.
quote: The size of the universe is expanding rapidly, thus the energy is spread over greater and greater areas, so the temperatures drop locally.
quote: I am not completely sure what you asking or why. But the answer is probably no. The universe continues expanding even after inflation stops therefore the same energy/mass is spread over more and more area. The density must go down.
quote: This is an area of physics at the very edge of our knowledge. Much of it is still theoretical. So proof is hard to come by. Mark's argument is however well supported by theory.
quote: The net energy is the same but it is spread over a large area. Think about liquid iron in a bucket. And imagine it in a perfectly sealed building--- nothing can get in or out. This building is impossible to build of course, but imagine it. Now pour that iron out on the floor of the room. It will spread and cool, changing to solid metal. The temperature of the air goes up, the temperature of the floor goes up but the total energy stays to same its just spread over a greater area.
quote: I'll look it up.
quote: You final few questions require some research and thought on my part. I will revisit you earlier post and see what I can do, if someone doesn't beat me too it. Take care. ------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: Sure, but this doesn't mean that you can play willy nilly with the definitions. It is one thing to describe an event or theory in common parlance and quite another to turn around and reason from that language. The problem is called equivocation, and it leads to error. It also has to do with something called linguistic determinism, which describes the way language influences how people think.
quote: If you look up 'matter' at Matter -- from Eric Weisstein's World of Physicsyou will find a one line definition with the word matter in quotes no less. Look up 'mass' at the same site. This should give you some idea about the relative importance of the concepts. "Matter" is a fuzzy concept loaded with philosphical baggage. quote: Yeah, it does. Note that Einstein used 'mass' not matter in the formula. This is the bit that allowed the construction of nuclear devices-- the transformation of part of the mass of an atom into energy.
quote: You are mis-representing the equation. It isn't the energy and mass of a system. It is the amount of energy needed to create mass or the amount of energy released when mass is destroyed. Yes, there is a proportion involved, but not the way you think.
quote: I did?
[quote]Combining this definition with Einstein’s formula we find that an increase in the energy of a system results in a directly proportional increase in the amount of matter contained within that system./quote Ok. You almost have it here. Note, proportional increase in mass -- NOT MATTER.
quote: Got it.
quote: Yes it does. Note the equal sign in the equation instead of a maybe-sometimes sign.
quote: Did you get dizzy writing this?
quote: Energy can exist independently of matter. This isn't a fact. You are back to talking about energy in the colloquial sense.
quote: The universe is increasing in size.
quote: I do indeed wish to debate it.
quote: You took the analogy further than it was meant to go. It was an illustration, not a formula. Remember up top where I was talking about the danger of turning around and reasoning from colloquial analogy?
quote: Is is now? Thought it was the curvature of space-time. ------------------http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: It isn't so much inapplicable as limited, especially the definition of 'energy' What you've got is a definition that works for everyday life-- bowling balls hitting pins and such, but doesn't work at the extremes-- nuclear explosions for example. The analogy would be Newton's mechanics vs. Einstein's general theory. Newtonian mechanics work most of the time, but not at the extremes. Close to home as example would be that Newton's formulas can't describe the orbit of Mercury. It is too close to the Sun. Einstein's formulas can. Hence, Einstein trumps Newton. The thing is, Newton's formulas are still used and used frequently becasue they work almost all the time. Because Einstien's formulas are more complicated, they are not used unless necessary. What you are doing is equivalent to taking Newton's (your almost-always definitions) and arguing against Einstein. Using the easier but less accurate definition the argue against the more complicated but also more accurate.
quote: You've missed the point. 'Matter' occupies ONE LINE. There are no formulas, equations, variables, whatever. The point was to illustrate the importance of the concept.
quote: hmmm...... I rechecked the link I provided. I see a full page of defining and more than a dozen equations.
quote: I say matter is 'fuzzy' because there are no equations that deal with it. The equations all deal with 'mass' As for the philosophical baggage, maybe I am taking this part too seriously. Unless you want to get into the history of meta-physics, I probably should just leave this alone. If you want, start it in a new thread.
quote: I do not believe I am so guilty.
quote: Yes, under the right conditions.
quote: Very interesting question. By Einstein's formula, no. But the formula doesn't work at sub-atomic levels. Quantum mechanics takes over. And no one has yet to reconcile the two. Quantum mechanics limit the size.
quote: Well, we can't have infinitesimal amounts. See above. But for one unit of mass you need the speed of light squared worth of energy.
quote: This doesn't follow, or I am not understanding. Can you explain?
quote: OK. Mass is a measure of matter, yes? (I'd say mass is matter but forget that for now) How can you have an increase in mass without an increase in matter?
quote: Energy that isn't bound up in an object is existing independently of matter. The equation describes the transformation of one to the other.May I suggest a book called "E=MC2" by David Bodanis? quote: We are talking about the creation of space-time. It is the process of energy transforming into the universe as we know it. I don't see that energy would have to increase in size, just transform.
quote: Then put the pot of metal in a vacuum in empty space. It will still cool by radiation. This is just nit-picky.
quote: I am not sure what questions I am supposed to address. ------------------http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: There is a small portion of the discussion which concerns the expansion of space. That part has all but vanished in light of other elements of the debate. Still, I think the energymatter transformations are in some way related to the creation of space-time, though I am not yet sure how so I can't really debate it. ------------------http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: Which means that you don't know any more than I, so why are you correcting my admittedly speculative, and undemonstrated suspicion? ------------------http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: It isn't that I have a strong reason for being anti-theistic, it is that I have no reason for being theistic. ------------------http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: What? I was speculating that the creation of space-time is somehow related to the mass/energy equivalancies and I admitted up front that I don't know how and so can't argue the point. I don't think I've based anything on this suspicion-- it was a side thought as wrote the post. I could understand your ire if I were using this unproven idea to support another idea; but I'm not. It's just a feeling. I need to think about it awhile. Probably will throw it away or cannibalize it latter. But why post to tell me nothing but that you don't know where space-time came from but I am wrong anyway. Read your reply to me. There is a few lines of jargon and then, effectively, but I don't know either. Please, disagree with me, but give me something to bite into when you do. Oh, and what does this have to do with theism? And... glad you're back. ------------------http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by w_fortenberry:
[B][QUOTE]This further validates my claim that energy cannot exist independently of matter.[/b][/quote] Good grief!!! Then explain how it is that photons are considered mass-less particles.
No webpage found at provided URL: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/light_mass.html quote: Exactly where did I invoke the uncertainty principle? I thought I was refering to quantized energy states, and the fact that particles break at specific energies not haphazardly along the spectrum.
quote: Wrong. Einstein's formulas work on the large scale because quantum effects are not noticable at large scales. It is not about poor measurement, nor is it about the uncertainty principle. At very small scales you see the quantification of energy/matter. The models of atoms with electrons orbitting them? These are quantum models. Atoms do not crash into themselves because electrons can only jump from specific energies to other specific energies-- ie, there are no inbetweens! Quantum mechanics is jumpy, relativity is smooth-- there are inbetweens. Hence the two are not compatible.
[quote][b]Thus an increase in mass would also be an increase in the amount of matter within that space.[quote][b] Yes indeed.
quote: Such as? What you are missing is that that extra mass comes from ENERGY.
No webpage found at provided URL: http://www-ed.fnal.gov/samplers/hsphys/activities/graphics/collisions_emc2.gif ------------------http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: Make-believe numbers? You mean imaginary numbers. It is a valid number system, not a child's game of pretend. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: I don't care what we call them, though the term 'imaginary' is the traditional term. Call them candy-stripe numbers, or alice-in-wumbers. Don't really care. What I care about is that you posted a message indicating that imaginary numbers are unsatisfactory and thereby implying that you object to their use in building mathematical models of the early universe. And then equivocate on that, like so:
[quote][b]yes, the use of i as the square root of -1 has applications, i don't deny that...[quote][b] Then flip flop back the other way, like so:
quote: It is very confusing. I can't get a bead on what you are actually arguing. My best guess at the moment, taken from the above paragraph, is that you do not like the use of imaginary numbers because it leads to a description of the universe as an actual infinite, which is impossible in your view? ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: Move your arm an inch to the right. It just traversed an infinite number of points, or moved though an infinite number of moments of time. However hard you wish to argue that you can't get from point a to point b because you'd have to traverse an infinite number of points, the fact is that you do it all the time-- at least, according to how I understand your logic. I've got to check up on Hawking's arguments before preceeding. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: I'm researching my 'rythmatic but chew on this in the meantime.
No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.qsmithwmu.com/infinity_and_the_past.htm ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: This seems to be based on the idea that every subset of an infinite set is also infinite. It is possible to have finite subsets of infinite sets. Take the infinite set of books. It is possible to traverse the subset of {book1,book2,book3} There also appears to me a contradiction in the argument. It assumes that time itself is infinite. This means that we have an infinite amount of time to traverse infinite time. I'm sticking my neck out here but, ∞ / ∞ = 1. One isn't all that hard to traverse. It seems in fact to be right now. As the man said, Be Here Now. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2025