Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9173 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,578 Year: 4,835/9,624 Month: 183/427 Week: 96/85 Day: 1/2 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creation cosmology and the Big Bang
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 4045 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

  
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 4045 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

  
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 4045 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

  
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 4045 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 4045 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

  
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 4045 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

  
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 4045 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 226 of 305 (666347)
06-26-2012 9:58 AM
Reply to: Message 202 by zaius137
06-25-2012 2:01 AM


Re: Big Bang violates physics
My friend, Carmeli cosmology may be slightly more reasonable than the orthodox big bunk one but unfortunately it seems to incorporate the same fallacies.
Space may be an abstraction, a relation of things, a concept, a system of coordinates and so on. It is not a relative body in motion. It cannot have a velocity, accelerate, expand, contract and so on. Only objects can do all that. Neither the Universe can. The Universe is an idea signifying all that exists. It's not a pair of washed knickers. It cannot possibly expand, have an age, size, shape and so on. Ascribing such attributes to abstract notions is committing a grave fallacy of reification.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by zaius137, posted 06-25-2012 2:01 AM zaius137 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by Panda, posted 06-26-2012 11:53 AM Alfred Maddenstein has replied

  
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 4045 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


(1)
Message 228 of 305 (666355)
06-26-2012 12:36 PM
Reply to: Message 227 by Panda
06-26-2012 11:53 AM


Re: Big Bang violates physics
The Universe is an ultimate, all-inclusive, collective idea of all objects that possibly exist, has existed and will have existed. It's an ultimate list of all lists used for reference. Objects that are on that list can have various attributes the list itself cannot exhibit being not an object.
If you pretend that shopping list is the shopping, fine, eat the words on list, babbling moron.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by Panda, posted 06-26-2012 11:53 AM Panda has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-26-2012 12:41 PM Alfred Maddenstein has replied

  
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 4045 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 230 of 305 (666358)
06-26-2012 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 223 by Alfred Maddenstein
06-26-2012 8:18 AM


Re: Big Bang violates physics...
To admin. There is no duplicate post. The text in the other is removed

This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 06-26-2012 8:18 AM Alfred Maddenstein has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by fearandloathing, posted 06-26-2012 12:57 PM Alfred Maddenstein has not replied

  
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 4045 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 233 of 305 (666366)
06-26-2012 1:08 PM
Reply to: Message 229 by New Cat's Eye
06-26-2012 12:41 PM


Re: Big Bang violates physics
Because an object may have another object or process acting causally upon it. The Universe may possibly not. To be such it may need to have shape and surface. To be finite, bounded and relative in other words. At a stretch you may call the Universe a process or rather the process of all processes yet still no causal action upon it is possible for it to qualify as an object. Even in this case such attributes as expansion, acceleration, contraction, end, size, age, origin and so on could be used in a strictly metaphorical sense only. Not to imply anything measurable and concrete like it is done in the creationist big bunk cosmogony based on the fallacy of reification.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-26-2012 12:41 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by vimesey, posted 06-26-2012 1:21 PM Alfred Maddenstein has replied
 Message 235 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-26-2012 1:21 PM Alfred Maddenstein has not replied

  
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 4045 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 236 of 305 (666369)
06-26-2012 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 232 by Bolder-dash
06-26-2012 1:01 PM


Re: Big Bang violates physics
Ideas are part of the Universe as attributes of objects and processes. They are what the objects or processes do, though process is also an idea of many objects interacting.
They cannot physically accelerate or expand. Lovers can accelerate into each other's arms and you can measure the velocity and the rest of physical parameters. Love like the universe is an idea so it can expand only in poetical speech, not physics. Not to increase its physical volume, etc.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by Bolder-dash, posted 06-26-2012 1:01 PM Bolder-dash has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 242 by Bolder-dash, posted 06-26-2012 2:40 PM Alfred Maddenstein has not replied

  
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 4045 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 239 of 305 (666373)
06-26-2012 1:35 PM
Reply to: Message 234 by vimesey
06-26-2012 1:21 PM


Re: Big Bang violates physics
Physical objects are strictly 3D. Those have surface. Without it no causal action is possible. You can't perform a causal action on a concept. Try to damage justice or love in a literal sense. You can only damage a lover or unjust to the accused.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by vimesey, posted 06-26-2012 1:21 PM vimesey has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by vimesey, posted 06-26-2012 1:51 PM Alfred Maddenstein has replied

  
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 4045 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 243 of 305 (666389)
06-26-2012 3:06 PM
Reply to: Message 238 by Straggler
06-26-2012 1:30 PM


Re: Relativity Doesn't Violate Relativity (that would be silly)
It depends. Some non-intuitive concepts may not contradict good sense upon further examination. If not taken literally the idea that space bends is a useful metaphor for it's better than its alternative- the concept of aether. Of course, what is meant by the bending is a trajectory of moving entities, not any literal bending of a hard plane which would be nonsense. Hardly any good explanation but may serve some practical purposes well until a better explanation is found.
Other non-intuitive ideas are clearly bunkum oil and should be treated as such. Stretching intergalactic distances obviously belongs to the latter category. If gravity bends space, then the putative antigravity by analogy should keep unbending the bent instead of inflating volumes as it is alleged to be doing.
The whole of existence possibly contracting into less than a pea is clearly just a religious fraud devised by the priestly Lemaitre. Nothing to do with relativity and science in general so is definitely to be treated as such. It's not my problem if most of the educated humanity have gladly swallowed the creationist spiel shielded with dodgy maths. No possible observer is at rest to the Friedmann's co-ordinates. Friedmann was my compatriot bullshitter and his metric is pure hot air. If you love toying with space-time modelling there are plenty of much more interesting maps that are trying to keep it closer to the territory. Try Irving Ezra Segal, if you want to learn what a good metric might look like.
The Copernican principle as devised by Nicholas of Cusa is an assumption that the cosmos would look the same on average from any location. That is, an assumption that a hypothetical observer may take along with him the centre of the imaginary sphere wherever he may possibly go and would never see the edge of cosmos from anywhere. That applies both to space and time necessarily. It means anywhere at any instant. For space and time are interchangeable measures of distance. Far, far away cosmologically means long, long ago. Big Bunk idea does not satisfy the requirement as it presumes that the cosmos looked much different in Planck epoch or Dark Ages. The principle is thus violated with a vengeance for no observer at that distance from here may even fit in a Planck volume. Clearly the primeval atom hypothesis has got none to do with relativity.
Now predictions mostly belong to astrology. Especially when they are used to serve a proof that claiming something physically impossible is a good modern science. As far as I know all the major predictions of the big bunk hypothesis have failed to come true and the ideas had to be retrofitted to the data with all sorts of patches and fudges. So any defender of the hypothesis asking an opponent of the hypothesis to provide predictions must have plenty of cheek.
Science is to do with good rational explanations of the causes to the effects, not predictions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by Straggler, posted 06-26-2012 1:30 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 248 by Straggler, posted 06-26-2012 5:30 PM Alfred Maddenstein has replied

  
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 4045 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 244 of 305 (666393)
06-26-2012 3:41 PM
Reply to: Message 240 by vimesey
06-26-2012 1:51 PM


Re: Big Bang violates physics
Atoms are hypothetical objects, they can't be seen directly, otherwise, yes, atoms, protons, electrons to be objects of any causal action must be possibly drawn and imagined to have 3D shape. Anything 0,1,2D is a mathematical concept. It can't possibly move or be moved. To move an object must be capable of being circumscribed by a sphere. No motion, no causality.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by vimesey, posted 06-26-2012 1:51 PM vimesey has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 247 by vimesey, posted 06-26-2012 5:01 PM Alfred Maddenstein has replied
 Message 249 by 1.61803, posted 06-26-2012 5:56 PM Alfred Maddenstein has replied

  
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 4045 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 250 of 305 (666414)
06-26-2012 7:52 PM
Reply to: Message 247 by vimesey
06-26-2012 5:01 PM


Re: Big Bang violates physics
No, I am not excluding anything. I would not be certain that gravity exists as a separate phenomenon. If there is what could be described as a force of nature, it could only be one and only force of motion. The rest being its different manifestations on different scales. That is because there can't be any negative motion as that only means moving in the opposite direction which is a relative thing. If so then there is a direct physical mechanism to its workings that needs to be explained and described. That effect you are talking about is the combined effort of every atom of the earth and every atom in your body interacting. All that is in constant relative motion down to the oscillating quarks. They all are in direct touch with one another mutually translating their respective motions resulting in what appears to be a mutual attraction. No spooky action at a distance. I don't think so. Nor do I think there is any attraction really. Just momentum being passed on. Attraction would mean all matter moving towards all other matter. What direction is that exactly? Practical observation would tell that moving towards something is always moving away from something else. The same goes for repulsion. Direction is relative and only motion itself is absolute. That appears to be circular so angular momentum and rotation is the best candidate. Actually the word Universe literally means just that- rotating unity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by vimesey, posted 06-26-2012 5:01 PM vimesey has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 253 by vimesey, posted 06-27-2012 2:57 AM Alfred Maddenstein has replied
 Message 260 by Taq, posted 06-27-2012 12:54 PM Alfred Maddenstein has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024