Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 48 (9179 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,248 Year: 5,505/9,624 Month: 530/323 Week: 27/143 Day: 17/10 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Universe Race
Percy
Member
Posts: 22699
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 331 of 410 (459643)
03-09-2008 8:23 AM
Reply to: Message 325 by Agobot
03-08-2008 7:53 PM


Agobot writes:
And how come some of the experts speak with such great authority about the Big Bang, its phases, how it started, how it proceeded, how matter came to be, when, in fact, the Big bang itself is not proven to be a fact?
As theories go, that the universe was once in a very hot, dense state is something in which we have a high degree of confidence because of the strong empirical support in the form of observational evidence of things like recession speed of galaxies increasing with distance, the decreasing proportion of heavy elements with increasing distance, the cosmic microwave background radiation arriving with (almost) equal intensity from all directions, etc., and the equally strong theoretical support from general relativity that rules out a static universe.
It's just one of the proposed theories/albeit the best one, so far/. As time goes by, new theories will arise and replace older ones, as we gather more knowledge and evidence of the world.
Absolutely true, but you fail to note that the evidence upon which older theories were based is not replaced. New theories must still be consistent with old data. This is why, for example, theories of the shape of earth went from flat to spherical to oblate spheroid, and not from flat to spherical to cubical. Any theory that replaces the Big Bang must still explain the original hot, dense state for which the observational evidence is so strong.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 325 by Agobot, posted 03-08-2008 7:53 PM Agobot has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22699
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 339 of 410 (459682)
03-09-2008 1:12 PM
Reply to: Message 335 by tesla
03-09-2008 12:29 PM


Re: Pea size
You're just asking the same question over and over again. We keep giving you the same answer over and over again. Do you think the answer is going to change? No, the data cannot be interpreted as an explosion into pre-existing space.
tesla writes:
In the math, Has the speed of our own cluster, Our own galaxy and our own rotation, Been taken into account when determining the speed of expansion?
Our local reference frame is considered stationary. There is no such thing as an absolute reference frame to measure against.
The relative speed from our point of view as being "faster than light speed" Is more than likely a trick of the eye, If we do not have the proper math to evaluate the true speed relative to our own.
The amount of red shift provides an extremely accurate measure of relative speed.
The idea that "nothing is moving" and just "the fabric expanding" does not seem to be supported by meteors and planets.
You're pulling the "nothing is moving" comment out of context. In the scenario under consideration in that prior discussion, nothing is moving. Obviously everything in the universe has local motions, but these are dwarfed by the recession velocities of objects a great distance apart.
Is this not as potential the truth? Or what data do you have that would prove this model wrong?
How many times do we have to mention the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR)? It proved your model wrong a half century ago.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 335 by tesla, posted 03-09-2008 12:29 PM tesla has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22699
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 345 of 410 (459694)
03-09-2008 1:35 PM
Reply to: Message 341 by tesla
03-09-2008 1:16 PM


Re: Pea size
tesla writes:
Why would clusters moving be any different than the lesser bodies movement just because of its scale?
Space is expanding at the same rate everywhere, but objects that are gravitationally bound to each other do not expand away from one another with the expanding space. Gravity diminishes by the square of the distance, so at the largest scales, larger than galactic clusters, objects are so distant from one another and their mutual gravitational attraction so weak that they are carried away from each other by the expansion of space.
Just because measurement is impossible without two points to measure from does not mean there is no movement.
No one said measurement is impossible. We said that there's no such thing as an absolute reference frame. It is equally valid to make measurements from any inertial (non-accelerating) reference frame you choose, so we choose our own local reference frame for convenience, which by definition is stationary since we're not moving relative to ourself. I would guess that it is also common to adjust cosmological measurements to be relative to our sun or to the Milky Way galaxy in which our sun resides, but you'd have to ask Cavediver or Son Goku to find out for sure.
Then why is it taught that the universe is expanding faster than light speed? From what viewpoint is this being viewed for its validity in relativity?
The Hubble constant, the rate of expansion of the universe, is approximately 71 kilometers/second/megaparsec. The speed of light is approximately 300,000 kilometers/second. Since recession velocity is proportional to distance, doing the math tells us that objects separated from each other by more than 4,222 megaparsecs (8 1022 miles or 1.3 1010 light years) are receding from each other at a speed greater than that of light.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Correct values in last paragraph, must have accidentally hit a number one row off on the number pad.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 341 by tesla, posted 03-09-2008 1:16 PM tesla has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 347 by fallacycop, posted 03-09-2008 1:45 PM Percy has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22699
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 346 of 410 (459695)
03-09-2008 1:38 PM
Reply to: Message 343 by cavediver
03-09-2008 1:25 PM


Re: Pea size
cavediver replying to tesla writes:
No, you misunderstand me. I think you are entirely correct.
I wasn't able to figure this out. What was Tesla correct about?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 343 by cavediver, posted 03-09-2008 1:25 PM cavediver has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 348 by fallacycop, posted 03-09-2008 1:47 PM Percy has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22699
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 351 of 410 (459706)
03-09-2008 1:59 PM
Reply to: Message 347 by fallacycop
03-09-2008 1:45 PM


Corrected - thank you!
And thanks for the British sarcasm alert. I have a dry sense of humor myself, but that doesn't seem to help me detect it in others.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 347 by fallacycop, posted 03-09-2008 1:45 PM fallacycop has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 352 by tesla, posted 03-09-2008 2:05 PM Percy has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22699
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 353 of 410 (459711)
03-09-2008 2:16 PM
Reply to: Message 349 by tesla
03-09-2008 1:49 PM


Re: Pea size
tesla writes:
If a car is traveling 30 miles an hr away from a car traveling 30 miles an hr, The expansion of the space between them is at 60 miles an hr. But we only view the expansion by the relativity of the objects in the space.
If these cars are relatively close together in space, say on the same stretch of road, then space is not expanding between the two cars at 60 miles an hour. The two cars are separating from one another by traveling through space at a relative speed of 60 miles an hour.
But now imagine that these two cars, each still moving at 30 mph relative to ourselves but in opposite directions, are instead a great distance away. One is a half megaparsec in one direction, the other a half megaparsec in the opposite direction. Their local velocities are still 30 mph relative to ourselves, but their velocity relative to each other is now 71 kilometers/second due to the expansion of the intervening space, and we would now measure them each as traveling at half that rate, 35.5 km/s, away from ourselves.
With no two points what could you be observing?
I'm guessing that this is a reference to needing an object to pass point 1 at time 1 and point 2 at time 2 in order to calculate the velocity. We can't really do this directly using the visible motion of distant galaxies because they are too far away for their motion to be discernible, but we can do it indirectly by measuring their red shift, which gives two points separated by time on wavelengths of light.
But i suggest, They move on the path of the initial mass that imploded/exploded.
How many times must it be explained that the discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR) disproved this possibility nearly a half century ago.
Can you at least see this is just as likely as current accepted theory?
How many times do you want us to tell you "no".
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 349 by tesla, posted 03-09-2008 1:49 PM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 355 by tesla, posted 03-09-2008 2:36 PM Percy has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22699
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 354 of 410 (459712)
03-09-2008 2:23 PM
Reply to: Message 352 by tesla
03-09-2008 2:05 PM


tesla writes:
Hubble is like a ball thrown out of a window of a moving car, it is still moving within the greater rotations.
This looks like nonsense.
Nothing is stationary, so nothing can be deduced with any accuracy without observing its relative movement.
I suppose it is inevitable that you will at least occasionally stumble upon a collection and ordering of words that sort of make sense and are sort of correct. The theory of relativity says that all motion is relative, and more importantly and fundamentally, that the physical laws of the universe will always be observed to be the same in all inertial reference frames independent of their motion with respect to all other inertial reference frames. The key insight is that the speed of light will always be measured as c (300,000 kilometers/second) regardless of the relative speed of the reference frame from which the light was emitted.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Left out a word.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 352 by tesla, posted 03-09-2008 2:05 PM tesla has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22699
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 358 of 410 (459720)
03-09-2008 3:23 PM
Reply to: Message 355 by tesla
03-09-2008 2:36 PM


Re: Pea size
tesla writes:
The distance distorts time. You are observing things what they once were, Not as they now are. To accurately determine the space between you have to calculate our movements relative to those movements within the movements of what our time was when those movements were.
You're getting your contexts confused. I was responding to your claim that two cars traveling at 30 mph in opposite directions was due to the expansion of space between them. I replied that they're merely traveling through space, and explained that you would need them to be separated by a great distance before the expansion of space would be a significant factor.
Again, You have to modify what your looking at relative to its time and ours.
The time in the reference frame of the object whose speed you are measuring can be ignored.
Why? BBT is theory, It should be further scrutinized by what we understand of our relation relative to what we study, And the theory of relativity still has blank spots that need worked out. Like the engine of light, So we can determine how distance and time works over greater distances with greater accuracy by our own relative position.
No one said that theories related to the Big Bang shouldn't be scrutinized. It's being more thoroughly scrutinized recently than ever before in its history.
What was actually said was that it makes no sense to return to theories disproven long ago, which happens to be the case for what you're proposing.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 355 by tesla, posted 03-09-2008 2:36 PM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 359 by tesla, posted 03-09-2008 3:31 PM Percy has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22699
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 360 of 410 (459725)
03-09-2008 3:52 PM
Reply to: Message 359 by tesla
03-09-2008 3:31 PM


Re: Pea size
Your model is not new. Your proposal is for the explosion of matter and energy into existing space as opposed to the expansion of space itself. This was disproven nearly a half century ago by the discovery of the CMBR.
It's also disproven by the fact that except for groups of galaxies bound gravitationally, all galaxies are in retreat from each other with velocities proportional to distance, indicating the expansion was everywhere at once and not from a single point in pre-existing space.
It's also disproven by the fact that the clocks in distant galaxies do not run significantly slower than our own, as would be the case if their motion were due to travel through space instead of the expansion of space.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 359 by tesla, posted 03-09-2008 3:31 PM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 361 by tesla, posted 03-09-2008 4:19 PM Percy has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22699
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 362 of 410 (459734)
03-09-2008 4:47 PM
Reply to: Message 361 by tesla
03-09-2008 4:19 PM


Re: Pea size
tesla writes:
source: Cosmology: Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation CMBR
CMBR is not a solid science. And were only looking at 5th year data.
If you want to try to argue Paul Marmet's position here, go ahead (Paul Marmet rejects Einsteinian relativity). In the meantime, the CMBR is solid, peer-reviewed science both observationally and theoretically. Its discovery won the Nobel Prize for Penzias and Wilson and cemented the Big Bang as the only viable theory of cosmological origins.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 361 by tesla, posted 03-09-2008 4:19 PM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 363 by tesla, posted 03-09-2008 5:08 PM Percy has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22699
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 364 of 410 (459744)
03-09-2008 5:26 PM
Reply to: Message 363 by tesla
03-09-2008 5:08 PM


Re: Pea size
Hi Tesla,
What I said before was that if you want to argue Paul Marmet's position that you should go ahead, but what you instead posted was a link to:
Which doesn't have anything to do with Paul Marmet's ideas, in fact seems to be a completely different set of ideas except for the rejection of Einsteinian relativity.
Anyway, whoever's position you want to advocate, you have to do more than just post links. This is from the Forum Guidelines:
    Keep in mind that you can find any sort of cockamamie idea you want out there on the Internet. Your last two links were to material from message boards. People can post any kind of nonsense they like at message boards, which is pretty much what you're doing here, but which doesn't reflect anything in the published literature. I suggest you seek out some legitimate science sources.
    My point is the science is not definite, And what i am offering is just as potential given current understanding.
    If by "not definite" you mean the science is tentative, then of course I agree with you. It is the nature of all science to be tentative.
    --Percy

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 363 by tesla, posted 03-09-2008 5:08 PM tesla has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 365 by tesla, posted 03-09-2008 6:04 PM Percy has not replied

    Percy
    Member
    Posts: 22699
    From: New Hampshire
    Joined: 12-23-2000
    Member Rating: 3.7


    Message 402 of 410 (460033)
    03-12-2008 9:11 AM


    Closing Remarks
    This thread saw two different objections to current scientific views on cosmological origins:
    1. That the Big Bang was actually an explosion into space rather than an expansion of space.
    2. That our lack of knowledge of what happened at and very shortly after T=0 indicates that the rest of what we know about cosmological origins is wrong.
    The first objection is very reasonable from a lay perspective, and it must be answered by explaining how current scientific views derive from the evidence. I thought the science side did a fair job of this. It was actually absolutely excellent in those posts that took a "here's the information you seek" approach, but I say fair because it was all spread out over 400 messages, and in many messages the science side allowed themselves to be distracted by taunts and such, such as this from CTD way back in Message 22:
    CTD in Message 22 writes:
    These are the versions perpetuated in schoolbooks and pop science to keep the actual current big bang safe from being laughed out of the schoolhouse by the students. As silly as those versions were/are, they ain't nothin' compared to the real deal.
    In my opinion the science side is better off just ignoring these kinds of responses and only paying attention to actual issues.
    I can't recall now if anyone mentioned the accelerating expansion of the universe, but in case not, I'll just add that this is another piece of evidence that the Big Bang was not an explosion into existing space, since of course explosions don't continue accelerating after the initial explosion. It's even weirder than that, since the evidence tells us that the expansion slowed for a while, then began accelerating.
    The second objection based upon our lack of knowledge at and shortly after T=0 is just addlepated. Human beings will never know even the tiniest percentage of everything, and if what we don't know could actually invalidate what we do then it would be impossible to ever know anything.
    This particular objection also saw the most determined effort of misunderstanding and misinterpreting that I've ever witnessed. It was like he was saying over and over and over again, "I don't care how idiotic I'm going to appear, I'm going to find a way to misinterpret this. God Bless!"
    --Percy

    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.2
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024