Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 49 (9179 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,227 Year: 5,484/9,624 Month: 509/323 Week: 6/143 Day: 6/13 Hour: 1/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creation cosmology and the Big Bang
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 166 of 305 (665889)
06-19-2012 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 163 by zaius137
06-19-2012 1:33 AM


Re: Big Bang violates physics
Here is a paper by Gentry
It might be interesting to discuss this "paper". Are you adopting the views in this paper as your own position?
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by zaius137, posted 06-19-2012 1:33 AM zaius137 has not replied

  
Son Goku
Inactive Member


Message 167 of 305 (665890)
06-19-2012 12:17 PM
Reply to: Message 163 by zaius137
06-19-2012 1:33 AM


Re: Big Bang violates physics
zaius137 writes:
Your solution is very Newtonian, let me explain. Newton uses two separate laws, the first and second, to describe the conservation of momentum and energy. Now Einstein’s field equation lumps both identities into one law (energy-momentum 4-vector).
I have to keep communication in mind. A proof of the conservation of four-momentum would be too involved for a forum post as I would first have to prove Noether's theorem.
Energy is not conserved globally in a universe described by FLRW metric. Lack of energy conservation defies the materialistic rationalist view of the universe.
Before I deal with the rest of your post, could you tell me how a "lack of energy conservation defies the materialistic rationalist view of the universe"?
Edited by Son Goku, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by zaius137, posted 06-19-2012 1:33 AM zaius137 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by zaius137, posted 06-19-2012 2:24 PM Son Goku has replied

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 180 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(2)
Message 168 of 305 (665893)
06-19-2012 12:36 PM
Reply to: Message 163 by zaius137
06-19-2012 1:33 AM


Re: Big Bang violates physics
Just to be clear here - It is your contention that the Big Bang theory accepted by physicists obviously violates a fundamental law of physics as described by physicists - But that no actual physicist has noticed this blatant contradiction.
Is this your position here?
Without going into the technical details here - Don't you think this a rather unlikely oversight on the part of physicists?
Are you suggesting physicists are idiots or engaged in some sort of wild cover-up conspiracy type thing?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by zaius137, posted 06-19-2012 1:33 AM zaius137 has not replied

  
Son Goku
Inactive Member


(4)
Message 169 of 305 (665894)
06-19-2012 12:47 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by vimesey
06-15-2012 8:00 PM


Re: Big Bang violates physics
We can be patient Trying to translate the sort of maths that is Son Goku's day job into language that people like me can have even a ghost of a chance of understanding must not be at the top of his list of priorities, and I am really grateful to him for doing so when he can.
It's always my pleasure to post this stuff, I hope it's useful for others.
(And there's a big soccer tournament in Europe at the moment, and with Ireland fighting a valiant battle last night against a superb Spanish team, I guess that a Guinness or two might have been consumed)
Indeed and a wee bit of Poitn, I don't even follow football, but my Dad and my wife insisted!
Edited by Son Goku, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by vimesey, posted 06-15-2012 8:00 PM vimesey has not replied

  
zaius137
Member (Idle past 3524 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012


Message 170 of 305 (665899)
06-19-2012 2:24 PM
Reply to: Message 167 by Son Goku
06-19-2012 12:17 PM


Re: Big Bang violates physics
Son my friend
Indeed, I would not want to delve into the deeper mathematics, even if I could. We must rely on other individuals work in this area. Remember you are one who wished to produce a conservation of momentum in FLRW in a few paragraphs. I found that offer rather astounding considering the complicated proofs needed. Here is a commentary on some of the principles I wish to cover, even this paper requires some of that deeper understanding of mathematics, I can follow the arguments up to the point of these mathematical details.
Is Energy Conserved in General Relativity?
I do appreciate the effort thou and your courage in that regard. But find the explanation too basic.
Before I deal with the rest of your post, could you tell me how a "lack of energy conservation defies the materialistic rationalist view of the universe"?
My statement rests on the notion that the materialist must provide a complete description of a creation apart from God; even though these mechanisms are often ad-hoc and resemble philosophy to the point of being a religion. As a Christian, I believe that God is very much in the totality of the universe description, but also admit that the human mind is probably incapable of attaining such a holistic description of the universe as to be complete.
The materialist makes no such admissions and pushes on with the pretense of scientific truths that are often not scientific at all; they are at best philosophical. As a Christian, I trust the real science and especially promote the reproducible and the provable.
Personally, I accept that Einstein’s General relativity theory has met a very high standard of scientific proofs and contains very fundamental truths of nature even though it is not by definition holistic. Please do not be offended by me stating that quantum mechanics is a theory of fundamental compromise although it also has recognizable achievements (a view held by Einstein).
To sum this denunciation up, FLRW is a unworthy trophy to the holistic description of the universe apart from God.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by Son Goku, posted 06-19-2012 12:17 PM Son Goku has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by Panda, posted 06-19-2012 3:28 PM zaius137 has not replied
 Message 172 by Son Goku, posted 06-19-2012 5:07 PM zaius137 has replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3827 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


(4)
Message 171 of 305 (665907)
06-19-2012 3:28 PM
Reply to: Message 170 by zaius137
06-19-2012 2:24 PM


Re: Big Bang violates physics
zaius137 writes:
I would not want to delve into the deeper mathematics...
zaius137 writes:
But find the explanation too basic.
Which ensures that you can ignore anything that contradicts your own personal opinions.
Just sayin'.

CRYSTALS!!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by zaius137, posted 06-19-2012 2:24 PM zaius137 has not replied

  
Son Goku
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 172 of 305 (665918)
06-19-2012 5:07 PM
Reply to: Message 170 by zaius137
06-19-2012 2:24 PM


Re: Big Bang violates physics
Indeed, I would not want to delve into the deeper mathematics, even if I could.
I do appreciate the effort thou and your courage in that regard. But find the explanation too basic.
Panda has already said this, but this isn't really sensible. You don't want the proper mathematics, but you don't want explanations which are too basic. What do you want? Should I explain exactly what Energy is in General Relativity and then explain why you can say that it both is and isn't conserved.
My statement rests on the notion that the materialist must provide a complete description of a creation apart from God; even though these mechanisms are often ad-hoc and resemble philosophy to the point of being a religion. As a Christian, I believe that God is very much in the totality of the universe description, but also admit that the human mind is probably incapable of attaining such a holistic description of the universe as to be complete.
The materialist makes no such admissions and pushes on with the pretense of scientific truths that are often not scientific at all; they are at best philosophical. As a Christian, I trust the real science and especially promote the reproducible and the provable.
Personally, I accept that Einstein’s General relativity theory has met a very high standard of scientific proofs and contains very fundamental truths of nature even though it is not by definition holistic. Please do not be offended by me stating that quantum mechanics is a theory of fundamental compromise although it also has recognizable achievements (a view held by Einstein).
To sum this denunciation up, FLRW is a unworthy trophy to the holistic description of the universe apart from God.
This seems to be about holistic worldviews. I asked a specific question however, namely:
How a lack of energy conservation defies the materialistic rationalist view of the universe?
I only want to know about this.
Edited by Son Goku, : Edit: Panda said it!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by zaius137, posted 06-19-2012 2:24 PM zaius137 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by zaius137, posted 06-20-2012 2:33 PM Son Goku has replied

  
zaius137
Member (Idle past 3524 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012


Message 173 of 305 (665989)
06-20-2012 2:33 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by Son Goku
06-19-2012 5:07 PM


Re: Big Bang violates physics
Son my friend
Panda has already said this, but this isn't really sensible. You don't want the proper mathematics, but you don't want explanations which are too basic. What do you want? Should I explain exactly what Energy is in General Relativity and then explain why you can say that it both is and isn't conserved.
Then provide the proper mathematics, if you must, because a Newtonian treatment is simply insufficient.
This seems to be about holistic worldviews. I asked a specific question however, namely:
How a lack of energy conservation defies the materialistic rationalist view of the universe?
If you are truly a rationalist, you cannot embrace a philosophical principle. Any accepted principle that violates basic laws of physics is not scientific and must be considered philosophical (if not religious). Cosmology of the Big Bang lacks the well-known basics of the conservation of energy so it is not materialistic.
Let us reason on the following
Consider:
Dark energy must be a quantum effect yet by all calculations the observed dark energy is vastly smaller than that predicted by quantum fluxuations; dark energy has not been explained by quantum theory. Furthermore the acceleration of distant galaxies is an anomaly in that, Dark energy does not increase the Relativistic mass of the galaxies in question; this I claim is dark acceleration.
In the FLRW model which galaxies are accelerated, is it the Milky Way or distant galaxies? Is it the relative speed between the galaxies? If it is the relative speed between galaxies, then when the speed exceeds the speed of light Special Relativity is violated (speed between observers cannot exceed the speed of light). See superluminal violations to Special Relativity.
Furthermore, the observed cosmological red-shifting in the CMB is another violation of the conservation of energy (as in a prior citation). Efforts to conform energy conservation to the models of cosmology fall short.
(Note) Special Geometries (ADM energy treatments) are not a plausible explanation for the conservation of energy.
Also consider...
quote:
According to general relativity, the conservation law for the total energy does not hold in more general, time-dependent backgrounds - for example, it is completely violated in physical cosmology. Cosmic inflation in particular is able to produce energy (and mass) from "nothing" because the vacuum energy density is roughly constant, but the volume of the Universe grows exponentially.
Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
My statement has nothing to do with holistic worldviews it has to do with science
I view all science as belonging to God as demonstrated in Romans 1:20. Provable and reproducible by the very definition of being scientific, yet all of creation by a universally brilliant mind. The Materialist regards the creation in a very nave way threw conception by natural laws. This to me is a contradiction in itself because I can recognize God in the very laws that govern the universe. The contradiction to the materialist is that the science does not support his cosmology.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by Son Goku, posted 06-19-2012 5:07 PM Son Goku has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-20-2012 2:57 PM zaius137 has replied
 Message 177 by frako, posted 06-20-2012 4:24 PM zaius137 has replied
 Message 180 by onifre, posted 06-20-2012 9:19 PM zaius137 has replied
 Message 191 by Son Goku, posted 06-24-2012 3:27 AM zaius137 has not replied
 Message 211 by Taq, posted 06-25-2012 2:25 PM zaius137 has not replied
 Message 213 by onifre, posted 06-25-2012 4:43 PM zaius137 has not replied
 Message 214 by onifre, posted 06-25-2012 4:48 PM zaius137 has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 399 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 174 of 305 (665991)
06-20-2012 2:40 PM



  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 399 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
(2)
Message 175 of 305 (665992)
06-20-2012 2:57 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by zaius137
06-20-2012 2:33 PM


Re: Big Bang violates physics
I was hoping that you might treat conservation of momentum with Noether’s theorem ...
Then provide the proper mathematics, if you must, because a Newtonian treatment is simply insufficient.
Isn't it time that you admitted to yourself that you are too fucking stupid to understand not only the content but also the nature of the things that are posted here, and take up some hobby more suitable to your intellectual capacity, such as basket-weaving?
You make me want to puke. You go about throwing out technical terms that you hope will make you look smart --- God help you, perhaps you're so stupid you think that you really are smart --- and you're such a drooling moron that you don't have the faintest idea what these terms mean. If you can't tell Newton from Einstein or Emmy Noether from a hole in the ground, then isn't it about time you shut the fuck up? Does not decency, honesty, integrity demand this?
If I had not already encountered creationists, I would find it unbelievable that anyone should dare to pose and prate and posture and prance around as you do without the slightest knowledge of what you're talking about. As it is, I find it par for the course. This is creationism. And may God have mercy on your soul.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by zaius137, posted 06-20-2012 2:33 PM zaius137 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by zaius137, posted 06-20-2012 4:13 PM Dr Adequate has not replied
 Message 179 by Admin, posted 06-20-2012 7:33 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
zaius137
Member (Idle past 3524 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012


(1)
Message 176 of 305 (666000)
06-20-2012 4:13 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by Dr Adequate
06-20-2012 2:57 PM


Re: Big Bang violates physics
Someone needs a Hug.
If I had not already encountered creationists, I would find it unbelievable that anyone should dare to pose and prate and posture and prance around as you do without the slightest knowledge of what you're talking about. As it is, I find it par for the course. This is creationism. And may God have mercy on your soul.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-20-2012 2:57 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
frako
Member (Idle past 420 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 177 of 305 (666001)
06-20-2012 4:24 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by zaius137
06-20-2012 2:33 PM


Re: Big Bang violates physics
If you are truly a rationalist, you cannot embrace a philosophical principle. Any accepted principle that violates basic laws of physics is not scientific and must be considered philosophical (if not religious). Cosmology of the Big Bang lacks the well-known basics of the conservation of energy so it is not materialistic.
— – Loan Portal28
Try this site it should provide a simple enough to make you understand why the big bang does not violate conservation of energy.
Basicly if you add everything up there is no energy, it all adds up to 0. So no violation of conservation of energy because no energy was created or destroyed, nothing was just split in to its positive and negative counterparts but if you add them up its still nothing.
Edited by frako, : No reason given.

Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand
Click if you dare!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by zaius137, posted 06-20-2012 2:33 PM zaius137 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by zaius137, posted 06-20-2012 7:31 PM frako has replied

  
zaius137
Member (Idle past 3524 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012


Message 178 of 305 (666009)
06-20-2012 7:31 PM
Reply to: Message 177 by frako
06-20-2012 4:24 PM


Re: Big Bang violates physics
(frako) my friend
quote:
But what made the universe and all its mass come into being at all? The suggestion is that the universe began as a quantum fluctuation of the vacuum. It used to be thought that the vacuum was truly nothing, simply inert space. But we now know that it is actually a hive of activity with particle-antiparticle pairs being repeatedly produced out of the vacuum and almost immediately annihilating themselves into nothingness again. The creation of a particle-antiparticle pair out of the vacuum violates the law of conservation of energy but the Heisenberg uncertainty principle allows such violations for a very short time. This phenomenon has observable and measurable consequences, which have been tested and confirmed. (The Inflationary Universe, Alan Guth, 1997, p. 272)
— – Loan Portal28
I read the article and concede the explanation sounds reasonable except that the magnitude of energy from quantum fluctuation is greater than the dark energy proposal. As we understand it, quantum fluctuations are not a reasonable explanation for the vacuum energy. Account for that vacuum energy in real numbers by established quantum predictions and your nomination for the next Nobel Prize in physics is assured.
Total energy conservation in the Big Bang is a myth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by frako, posted 06-20-2012 4:24 PM frako has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by frako, posted 06-21-2012 6:29 AM zaius137 has replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 13085
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 179 of 305 (666010)
06-20-2012 7:33 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by Dr Adequate
06-20-2012 2:57 PM


Re: Big Bang violates physics
Dr Adequate writes:
Isn't it time that you admitted to yourself that you are too fucking stupid to understand not only the content but also the nature of the things that are posted here, and take up some hobby more suitable to your intellectual capacity, such as basket-weaving?
Not really what we're looking for, but of course you knew that. I prefer that suspensions be preceded by warnings, and now that prerequisite is satisfied.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-20-2012 2:57 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 3065 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 180 of 305 (666015)
06-20-2012 9:19 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by zaius137
06-20-2012 2:33 PM


Re: Big Bang violates physics
In the FLRW model which galaxies are accelerated, is it the Milky Way or distant galaxies? Is it the relative speed between the galaxies?
Speed?
It's neither one. And the question, the way you ask it, makes no sense and shows you understand very little about the subject that you're trying to fake your way through...my friend.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by zaius137, posted 06-20-2012 2:33 PM zaius137 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by zaius137, posted 06-20-2012 10:11 PM onifre has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024