Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 52 (9178 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: Anig
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,079 Year: 5,336/9,624 Month: 361/323 Week: 1/204 Day: 1/21 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creation cosmology and the Big Bang
Taq
Member
Posts: 10190
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.0


(1)
Message 211 of 305 (666288)
06-25-2012 2:25 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.
This seems to be an interesting intersection of a religionist mindset and the real world of science. The laws of physics are not dogmatic tenets of belief. Never have been, never will be. Science has thrown out plenty of laws over the last few centuries. When observation contradicts a law it is the law that we throw out, not the observations. Reality trumps Scientific Law. Please remember that.
We are not talking about principles here. We are talking about OBSERVATIONS. The survey of type Ia supernovae demonstrated that the expansion of the universe is accelerating. Period. The observations demonstrate that over a long enough distance that the cumulative expansion will be greater than the speed of light resulting in a de Sitter Universe. This universe is a valide solution to General Relativity, but that hardly matters. What matters is that if a "law" is contradicted by observations of reality then it is the law that is wrong, not reality. This is a lesson that no creationists seems capable of learning.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by zaius137, posted 06-20-2012 2:33 PM zaius137 has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 3058 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 212 of 305 (666300)
06-25-2012 4:28 PM
Reply to: Message 207 by Admin
06-25-2012 11:02 AM


Re: Big Bang violates physics
It might help Zaius if you explained how far apart galaxies must be before this is true.
Good point, although I'm worry he won't understand what the numbers represent.
Currently (and that's important to note since the expansion rate is NOT constant) two galaxies must be separated by around 4,200 megaparsecs - or, in numbers that I can understand: 130,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 kilometers
In laymen terms: far as fuck.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by Admin, posted 06-25-2012 11:02 AM Admin has seen this message but not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 3058 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 213 of 305 (666301)
06-25-2012 4:43 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by zaius137
06-20-2012 2:33 PM


Re: Big Bang violates physics
dbl post
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by zaius137, posted 06-20-2012 2:33 PM zaius137 has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 3058 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


(2)
Message 214 of 305 (666302)
06-25-2012 4:48 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by zaius137
06-20-2012 2:33 PM


Re: Big Bang violates physics
Dark energy must be a quantum effect
You sound like Deepak Chopra... Woo Woo!
The quantum effects of cosmic consciousness unifies the mind, body and soul allowing one to transcend reality - Deepak Chopra (I just made that up)
You truly have no idea what you mean when you type any of this stuff, right my friend? C'mon, be honest.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by zaius137, posted 06-20-2012 2:33 PM zaius137 has not replied

  
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 4074 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 215 of 305 (666308)
06-25-2012 5:54 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by Son Goku
06-16-2012 5:43 PM


Re: Big Bang violates physics... Not
That's a fantastic notion you are peddling after the Belgian Abb, Son Goku. What do you mean practically by being at rest relative to the universal fluid? Who or what can be said to answer that description? God resting outside the universe may. Or is God moving at the average speed of the universe? Have you got a figure for that speed? Is the Universe a finite object in relative motion God is moving along with, my friend?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by Son Goku, posted 06-16-2012 5:43 PM Son Goku has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 216 by Son Goku, posted 06-25-2012 6:14 PM Alfred Maddenstein has replied

  
Son Goku
Inactive Member


(7)
Message 216 of 305 (666309)
06-25-2012 6:14 PM
Reply to: Message 215 by Alfred Maddenstein
06-25-2012 5:54 PM


Re: Big Bang violates physics... Not
Alfred Maddenstein writes:
What do you mean practically by being at rest relative to the universal fluid? Who or what can be said to answer that description?
On large scales the universe appears as a homogenous fluid. This fluid would have an average momentum in a given direction in any reference frame. Somebody at rest with respect to this fluid is an observer who would perceive it to have no average motion.
God resting outside the universe may. Or is God moving at the average speed of the universe? Have you got a figure for that speed? Is the Universe a finite object in relative motion God is moving along with, my friend?
Characters from Bronze Age Western Semitic literature don't have a speed that can be compared with the average motion of matter in the universe.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 06-25-2012 5:54 PM Alfred Maddenstein has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 217 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 06-25-2012 7:37 PM Son Goku has replied

  
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 4074 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 217 of 305 (666311)
06-25-2012 7:37 PM
Reply to: Message 216 by Son Goku
06-25-2012 6:14 PM


Re: Big Bang violates physics... Not
The universe appears as even fluid on such scales to whom exactly? If I look now out my window would I catch that appearance? Or do I need a space telescope in order to adjust my watch to the universal clock? Did Friedmann personally observe the fluid or did he hatch the idea in his head? You may not respect the actual characters of the Semitic literature but you seem to honour the principles of its cosmogony. The linear time following a creation event and suchlike. The average speed of motion of matter could logically be only that of causality and that is expressed in the speed of light. The problem with your interpretation is that in real life any speed has a vector and that points every which way relative to an observer and is called velocity. So, no sorry, no universal time is possible as per the Copernican principle and the rest of post-geocentric relativity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by Son Goku, posted 06-25-2012 6:14 PM Son Goku has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-26-2012 1:32 AM Alfred Maddenstein has replied
 Message 220 by Son Goku, posted 06-26-2012 5:35 AM Alfred Maddenstein has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 391 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 218 of 305 (666327)
06-26-2012 1:32 AM
Reply to: Message 217 by Alfred Maddenstein
06-25-2012 7:37 PM


Re: Big Bang violates physics... Not
You know that that doesn't mean anything, right?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 06-25-2012 7:37 PM Alfred Maddenstein has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 219 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 06-26-2012 3:13 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 4074 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 219 of 305 (666330)
06-26-2012 3:13 AM
Reply to: Message 218 by Dr Adequate
06-26-2012 1:32 AM


Re: Big Bang violates physics... Not
It means what I said, Inadequate. No universal Greenwich Mean Time is possible. That's a notion strictly for the birds. Extremely silly of the best professionals in the field to entertain such a primitive notion. Simultaneity is relative and the relation depends on distance measured in light units. No shared birthday for the whole of existence is remotely possible. Not a slightest chance in eternity. The Universe has no possible age.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-26-2012 1:32 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by Son Goku, posted 06-26-2012 5:39 AM Alfred Maddenstein has not replied

  
Son Goku
Inactive Member


(3)
Message 220 of 305 (666331)
06-26-2012 5:35 AM
Reply to: Message 217 by Alfred Maddenstein
06-25-2012 7:37 PM


Re: Big Bang violates physics... Not
Alfred Maddenstein writes:
The universe appears as even fluid on such scales to whom exactly? If I look now out my window would I catch that appearance?
Water is a collection of widely separated molecules on the scale of the molecules, however zoom out far enough and it effectively becomes a fluid. It is the same with the universe, zoom out far enough and on those scales it behaves like a continuous fluid.
Did Friedmann personally observe the fluid or did he hatch the idea in his head?
He made a reasonable assumption that the universe would be homogeneous and isotropic on the largest scales. Turns out he was right as the WMAP studies have shown.
You may not respect the actual characters of the Semitic literature but you seem to honour the principles of its cosmogony.
There is no issue of respect or disrespect, it's simply that your question was nonsensical. For analogy let us take another God and another physical variable. So could you tell me the approximate entropy of Zeus?
The linear time following a creation event and suchlike.
I have no idea what you mean by linear time in this context, could you explain and also what is the "suchlike".
The average speed of motion of matter could logically be only that of causality
No, as that makes no sense. Speed is measured in meters per second, causality is a general concept. All the matter in the universe typically has some relative velocity with respect to other pieces of matter. The FLRW description of spacetime is written down from the perspective of somebody for whom all these velocities average out to zero. We do this simply because calculations are easier in this reference frame.
that is expressed in the speed of light
This makes absolutely no sense. Causality is not a speed (think about it!).
The problem with your interpretation is that in real life any speed has a vector and that points every which way relative to an observer and is called velocity.
Do you honestly believe you are going to find a flaw in the Big Bang model by pointing out that velocity has magnitude and direction, i.e. is a vector?
So, no sorry, no universal time is possible as per the Copernican principle and the rest of post-geocentric relativity.
Who spoke of universal time?
Also, again, how do you think the principle of Relativity can contradict a model of the universe generated by General Relativity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 06-25-2012 7:37 PM Alfred Maddenstein has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 222 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 06-26-2012 8:07 AM Son Goku has not replied
 Message 223 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 06-26-2012 8:18 AM Son Goku has not replied

  
Son Goku
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 221 of 305 (666332)
06-26-2012 5:39 AM
Reply to: Message 219 by Alfred Maddenstein
06-26-2012 3:13 AM


Re: Big Bang violates physics... Not
Alfred Maddenstein writes:
It means what I said, Inadequate. No universal Greenwich Mean Time is possible. That's a notion strictly for the birds. Extremely silly of the best professionals in the field to entertain such a primitive notion. Simultaneity is relative and the relation depends on distance measured in light units. No shared birthday for the whole of existence is remotely possible. Not a slightest chance in eternity. The Universe has no possible age.
There is no universal time in the Big Bang model of cosmology.
Please think about what you are saying. You are not going to be able to use Relativistic ideas to disprove General Relativity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 06-26-2012 3:13 AM Alfred Maddenstein has not replied

  
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 4074 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 222 of 305 (666339)
06-26-2012 8:07 AM
Reply to: Message 220 by Son Goku
06-26-2012 5:35 AM


Re: Big Bang violates physics...
.
Edited by Alfred Maddenstein, : delete

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by Son Goku, posted 06-26-2012 5:35 AM Son Goku has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 224 by Straggler, posted 06-26-2012 8:36 AM Alfred Maddenstein has replied

  
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 4074 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 223 of 305 (666340)
06-26-2012 8:18 AM
Reply to: Message 220 by Son Goku
06-26-2012 5:35 AM


Re: Big Bang violates physics...
Water fluids have boundaries, my friend. Think of air and ocean floor. The Universe is not such an entity. In and out in your suggestion to zoom is bad analogy and a category mistake. So no, you cannot possibly zoom out in the case of the Universe to find a reference for cosmological time. Unless you stand outside the universe with a watch in your hand which is an oxymoron. I understand, of course, that what you mean is changing perspective from the molecular level to a larger scale while being in the water. The thing is, any linear measurements of time could be done only from the local perspective corresponding to the molecular level in your analogy. An intelligent observer for whom only time has any meaning is trapped on the molecular level while doing the measurements. You use years as standard units. That standard belongs to the molecular level.
How do you mean there is no universal time in the Big Bunk cosmology?
The t axis in your metric is that linear universal timeline. It's one and only axis in the model serving the whole universe. Hence that is your universal time. Calling it by another name may not change the essence of the notion.
Causality is indeed a general concept so is motion of matter and on the most abstract level they coincide. Therefore the average motion of matter and the flow of causality is one and the same unless any particular motion is uncaused. The speed of light is the speed all that motion is communicated at universally. Therefore that is the average speed of the motion of matter. That is much more to the point than the idea of the average momentum on large scales that you use after Friedmann. Whatever happens locally is communicated universally at the speed of light. Simple. In relation to time the constant flow of causality results in the constant impression of now which is the starting point from where you plot the timeline backwards extrapolating the local meaning onto the whole of existence. Which is a fallacy, of course. A hypothesis based on such a fallacy is not worth a lot, however much you try to persuade yourself to the contrary.
The hypothesis is the most idiotic explanation to the redshift. Nothing to do with relativity onto which it was artificially patched. Einstein never accepted it. Read his papers on Schwarzschild singularities if you don't trust me. He understood that big bangs, expansions of space, black holes, singularities and so on are just mathematical games not reflecting in any way the physical reality of the cosmos.
Edited by Admin, : Hide text of duplicate post.
Edited by AdminModulous, : unhidden previously hidden text at user's request.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by Son Goku, posted 06-26-2012 5:35 AM Son Goku has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 06-26-2012 12:48 PM Alfred Maddenstein has not replied

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 173 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 224 of 305 (666342)
06-26-2012 8:36 AM
Reply to: Message 222 by Alfred Maddenstein
06-26-2012 8:07 AM


Re: Big Bang violates physics...
AM writes:
How do you mean there is no universal time in the Big Bunk cosmology?
There is no absolute (aka 'universal') time in relativity. Relativity tells us that time intervals are not universal but instead depend entirely on the frame of reference.
That is kinda the whole point. That is where relativity gets it's name from. And, unlike the confused babble you are spouting, relativity has been repeatedly confirmed by means of verified predictions.
So what is this 'universal' time you speak of?
And what predictions does whatever it is you are putting forward as an alternative hypothesis to relativity make?
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 06-26-2012 8:07 AM Alfred Maddenstein has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 225 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 06-26-2012 9:25 AM Straggler has replied

  
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 4074 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 225 of 305 (666346)
06-26-2012 9:25 AM
Reply to: Message 224 by Straggler
06-26-2012 8:36 AM


Re: Big Bang violates physics...
Can you read? If there is no absolute time in big bunk cosmology what then the figure 13.7 billion years of the universal age means? Does the figure hold only here, does it apply anywhere in the universe or is it 70 trillion years or more in some places while in other places the universe is only two days old ? If it does hold anywhere now then it is implied by the universal time. In relativity, on the other hand asking how old is the universe is as meaningful as inquiring what colour is John's jealousy. So the big bunk cosmology has got nothing to do with relativity. It is a pre-copernican geocentric type of cosmogony in pseudo-modern disguise.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by Straggler, posted 06-26-2012 8:36 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by Straggler, posted 06-26-2012 1:30 PM Alfred Maddenstein has replied
 Message 246 by Son Goku, posted 06-26-2012 4:25 PM Alfred Maddenstein 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