Skeptic Friends Network

Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
Home | Forums | Active Topics | Active Polls | Register | FAQ | Contact Us  
  Connect: Chat | SFN Messenger | Buddy List | Members
Personalize: Profile | My Page | Forum Bookmarks  
 All Forums
 Our Skeptic Forums
 Astronomy
 The Mathology of Big Bang
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 2

THoR
Skeptic Friend

USA
151 Posts

Posted - 09/03/2012 :  08:19:30  Show Profile  Visit THoR's Homepage Send THoR a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Big Bang theory depends upon the interpretation of the observed 'red shift' of elemental absorption markers in spectra from distant galaxies being the result of cosmic expansion. Strangely, it seems the more distant the galaxy, the greater the shift appears and at the very 'fringes of the Universe', the red shift indicates galaxies are moving away from us faster than the speed of light...and accelerating.

As a simple Doppler analysis this would be a burdensome inconvenience to cosmologists, but they have deftly explained away the seemingly extra-logical velocity by proposing it is the result of the self-same cosmological expansion they wish to substantiate - an expansion that relies heavily on hypothetical dark elements which are presumed to exist solely because they validate the hypotheses. Cosmologists tell us we are living on the surface of an expanding "soap bubble" universe (a three dimensional representation of a four dimensional concept). If this is so and the volume of the cosmos is growing, then new points of existence are being conjured into being where none existed before. Is this not magical thinking?

The mathematical incongruities of any falsely premised model can easily be reconciled by the use of additional false premises and calculations reverse engineered to force the correct results.

We don't have the ability to study how the subtle nuances of nature might affect the properties of light traversing vast distances over billions of years. There may be some yet undiscovered property of space or the nature of light, itself, that incrementally shifts the wavelengths of absorption markers to the red end of the spectrum over vast amounts of time and travel.


I would procrastinate but I never seem to get around to it.

Hawks
SFN Regular

Canada
1383 Posts

Posted - 09/03/2012 :  11:16:34   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Hawks's Homepage Send Hawks a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by THoR
We don't have the ability to study how the subtle nuances of nature might affect the properties of light traversing vast distances over billions of years. There may be some yet undiscovered property of space or the nature of light, itself, that incrementally shifts the wavelengths of absorption markers to the red end of the spectrum over vast amounts of time and travel.

Yup, there are always possible alternatives to scientific hypotheses.

METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden!
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26016 Posts

Posted - 09/03/2012 :  12:14:01   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by THoR

Big Bang theory depends upon the interpretation of the observed 'red shift' of elemental absorption markers in spectra from distant galaxies being the result of cosmic expansion. Strangely, it seems the more distant the galaxy, the greater the shift appears and at the very 'fringes of the Universe', the red shift indicates galaxies are moving away from us faster than the speed of light...and accelerating.

As a simple Doppler analysis this would be a burdensome inconvenience to cosmologists, but they have deftly explained away the seemingly extra-logical velocity by proposing it is the result of the self-same cosmological expansion they wish to substantiate - an expansion that relies heavily on hypothetical dark elements which are presumed to exist solely because they validate the hypotheses.
You are straw-manning again.
Cosmologists tell us we are living on the surface of an expanding "soap bubble" universe (a three dimensional representation of a four dimensional concept). If this is so and the volume of the cosmos is growing, then new points of existence are being conjured into being where none existed before. Is this not magical thinking?
Only if "new points of existence" had any meaning and their creation were considered impossible. I don't see how your premises are true. There is no conservation law for space-time.
The mathematical incongruities of any falsely premised model can easily be reconciled by the use of additional false premises and calculations reverse engineered to force the correct results.
If a scientific model produces incorrect results, then the model is incorrect. Science is the process of reverse-engineering nature, so the process you describe is necessary to create models which provide accurate predictions. It's not a bug, it's a feature.

The only point to argue is whether the original premises are entirely false. You have yet to provide any evidence that they are, instead opting to merely sneer at the straw-man versions of the models that you've built out of your own ignorance.
We don't have the ability to study how the subtle nuances of nature might affect the properties of light traversing vast distances over billions of years. There may be some yet undiscovered property of space or the nature of light, itself, that incrementally shifts the wavelengths of absorption markers to the red end of the spectrum over vast amounts of time and travel.
And there may be some undiscovered property of nature that leads to paper money growing itself in your wallet, but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting to become a millionaire if I were you.

Betting that completely speculative undiscovered properties of nature will eventually reveal the egg that you think already covers the faces of scientists worldwide is nothing more than wishful thinking. Why is it okay for you to engage in it, but when you think scientists do it, you set them up as a target for ridicule?

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Tim Thompson
New Member

USA
36 Posts

Posted - 09/03/2012 :  22:24:17   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Tim Thompson's Homepage Send Tim Thompson a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by THoR

We don't have the ability to study how the subtle nuances of nature might affect the properties of light traversing vast distances over billions of years. There may be some yet undiscovered property of space or the nature of light, itself, that incrementally shifts the wavelengths of absorption markers to the red end of the spectrum over vast amounts of time and travel.

Certainly true, but why is it relevant? The essence of science is the act of inference of reasonable & logical conclusions from observed facts and prior knowledge. If not that, what else would you have "scientists" do? Quit, perhaps, and not bother? After all, there will always be something we don't know yet, there will always be new knowledge to replace the old. So why should we even pretend to do "science" at all? What do you think?

Big Bang theory was first proposed by the Belgian Georges Lemaître in his 1927 paper "Un Univers homogène de masse constante et de rayon croissant rendant compte de la vitesse radiale des nébuleuses extragalactiques" ("A homogeneous Universe of constant mass and growing radius accounting for the radial velocity of extragalactic nebulae"), which appears translated into English as "Expansion of the universe, A homogeneous universe of constant mass and increasing radius accounting for the radial velocity of extra-galactic nebulae" in 1931. Lemaître based his conclusion on his solutions of Einstein's equations of general relativity and his knowledge of the spectral redshifts of extragalactic nebulae, measured mostly by Vesto Slipher at Lowell Observatory (Slipher, 1917). Although Einstein disagreed at the time with Lemaître's conclusion, Lemaître pointed out correctly that Einstein's equations in their original form did not permit a static universe, that they naturally predicted a universe either in expansion or contraction (Einstein had added his "cosmological constant", altering his equations from their original form, in order to maintain a static universe, which he was told by astronomers was the case). But the key to the birth of expanding universe cosmology came from Edwin Hubble at Mt. Wilson Observatory. Hubble had proven that spiral nebulae were extragalactic stellar systems (Hubble, 1925; Hubble, 1926; Hubble, 1929a). He also derived distances to numerous extragalactic stellar systems, and was first to notice that there was a correlation between distance & redshift (Hubble, 1929b). It is the redshift distance relationship that is the first foundation of Big Bang cosmology. This observed relationship is exactly what Lemaître's hypothesis requires. This is when the idea of an expanding universe first became popular (although, ironically, Hubble himself never accepted it). The relationship between redshift & distance is crucial and has been heavily supported and verified by continued observational astronomy programs (e.g., Sandage, 1972 is the first of a 10 paper series, all linked from there).

Your insinuation of circular reasoning is factually false. Lemaître's hypothesis was interesting, but not widely accepted, until Hubble's 1929 revelation of the redshift distance relationship. Only then did big bang cosmology begin to become popular. Redshifts are not used to verify the hypothesis of an expanding universe so much as the hypothesis of an expanding universe is inferred from the redshift distance relationship.

Furthermore, there are three main pillars of empirical evidence, all of which are consistent with big bang cosmology. One is the aforementioned redshift-distance relationship. Second is the existence of a thermal cosmic background radiation field (predicted by theorists decades before it was observed). Third is the relative abundances of the primordial elements, hydrogen & helium. All Big Bang cosmologies require a thermal background radiation; alternative cosmologies can allow for it as a special case, but only Big Bang cosmologies require it (i.e., if the observed CMB were non-thermal, then all Big Bang cosmologies would stand observationally falsified). One can infer the physical conditions of the infant universe, and from that the rate at which protons can fuse into alpha particles (helium-4 nuclei) and therefore the expected relative abundances generated in the short time allowed. The observed relative abundance of helium to hydrogen (about 25%) is consistent with calculated predictions from the theory (the calculations are based purely on theory and are in no way "rigged" to satisfy prior assumptions).

You titled your post "mathology", as if it were all just mathematical speculation, but you could not be more wrong. The essence of modern cosmology is the essence of science, the act of inference of reasonable & logical conclusions from observed facts and prior knowledge. All scientific theories are written in the language of mathematics and cosmology is no different. But it is also no different from any other branch of science, in that observational evidence and verification of any theory by observation are required. You overlook the significant observational basis of modern cosmology to your own detriment.

The history of Big Bang cosmology is well described in the book Genesis of the Big Bang (Alpher & Herman, Oxford University Press, 2001). The rational & scientific basis, including nucleosynthesis and the CMB are well described in numerous perfectly serviceable books. Cosmology: Science of the Universe (Edward Harrison, Cambridge University Press 2000, 2nd edition) is a good general book that beginning physics students or undergraduates should be able to follow fairly readily. Cosmology (Steven Weinberg, Oxford University Press 2008) covers the topic in significant detail and requires a strong math & physics background to follow. I suggest that you know a lot less than you think you do, and would profit by the effort to learn.

The point of philosophy is to start with something so simple as not to seem worth stating, and to end with something so paradoxical that no one will believe it. -- Bertrand Russell
Go to Top of Page

THoR
Skeptic Friend

USA
151 Posts

Posted - 09/04/2012 :  09:50:27   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit THoR's Homepage Send THoR a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Dave W.

Originally posted by THoR

Big Bang theory depends upon the interpretation of the observed 'red shift' of elemental absorption markers in spectra from distant galaxies being the result of cosmic expansion. Strangely, it seems the more distant the galaxy, the greater the shift appears and at the very 'fringes of the Universe', the red shift indicates galaxies are moving away from us faster than the speed of light...and accelerating.

As a simple Doppler analysis this would be a burdensome inconvenience to cosmologists, but they have deftly explained away the seemingly extra-logical velocity by proposing it is the result of the self-same cosmological expansion they wish to substantiate - an expansion that relies heavily on hypothetical dark elements which are presumed to exist solely because they validate the hypotheses.
You are straw-manning again.
Cosmologists tell us we are living on the surface of an expanding "soap bubble" universe (a three dimensional representation of a four dimensional concept). If this is so and the volume of the cosmos is growing, then new points of existence are being conjured into being where none existed before. Is this not magical thinking?
Only if "new points of existence" had any meaning and their creation were considered impossible. I don't see how your premises are true. There is no conservation law for space-time.
OK, so feel free to conjure, but please refrain from chanting 'abracadabra'.
The mathematical incongruities of any falsely premised model can easily be reconciled by the use of additional false premises and calculations reverse engineered to force the correct results.
If a scientific model produces incorrect results, then the model is incorrect. Science is the process of reverse-engineering nature, so the process you describe is necessary to create models which provide accurate predictions. It's not a bug, it's a feature.

The only point to argue is whether the original premises are entirely false. You have yet to provide any evidence that they are, instead opting to merely sneer at the straw-man versions of the models that you've built out of your own ignorance.
We don't have the ability to study how the subtle nuances of nature might affect the properties of light traversing vast distances over billions of years. There may be some yet undiscovered property of space or the nature of light, itself, that incrementally shifts the wavelengths of absorption markers to the red end of the spectrum over vast amounts of time and travel.
And there may be some undiscovered property of nature that leads to paper money growing itself in your wallet, but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting to become a millionaire if I were you.
Ever hear of Huygen's Principle? - http://www.spaceandmotion.com/cosmology-hubble-redshift-with-distance.htm


Betting that completely speculative undiscovered properties of nature will eventually reveal the egg that you think already covers the faces of scientists worldwide is nothing more than wishful thinking. Why is it okay for you to engage in it, but when you think scientists do it, you set them up as a target for ridicule?
If you wish to construe every challenge to the conventional wisdom ridicule, be my guest, but beware and sail ye not too far out into the cosmos lest thou fallest from the edge.

I would procrastinate but I never seem to get around to it.
Go to Top of Page

THoR
Skeptic Friend

USA
151 Posts

Posted - 09/04/2012 :  10:26:20   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit THoR's Homepage Send THoR a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Tim Thompson

Originally posted by THoR

We don't have the ability to study how the subtle nuances of nature might affect the properties of light traversing vast distances over billions of years. There may be some yet undiscovered property of space or the nature of light, itself, that incrementally shifts the wavelengths of absorption markers to the red end of the spectrum over vast amounts of time and travel.

Certainly true, but why is it relevant? The essence of science is the act of inference of reasonable & logical conclusions from observed facts and prior knowledge. If not that, what else would you have "scientists" do? Quit, perhaps, and not bother? After all, there will always be something we don't know yet, there will always be new knowledge to replace the old. So why should we even pretend to do "science" at all? What do you think?
No, science is a worthwhile endeavor; however, it seems most of its disciples have settled into a mindset based on what they consider the infallible genius of the icons who preceeded them. They seem reluctant to think independently and address the incongruities which any credible scientist admits exist.
SNIP.... It is the redshift distance relationship that is the first foundation of Big Bang cosmology. This observed relationship is exactly what Lemaître's hypothesis requires. This is when the idea of an expanding universe first became popular (although, ironically, Hubble himself never accepted it)
Applause!
Snip.... Furthermore, there are three main pillars of empirical evidence, all of which are consistent with big bang cosmology. One is the aforementioned redshift-distance relationship. Second is the existence of a thermal cosmic background radiation field (predicted by theorists decades before it was observed). Third is the relative abundances of the primordial elements, hydrogen & helium. All Big Bang cosmologies require a thermal background radiation; alternative cosmologies can allow for it as a special case, but only Big Bang cosmologies require it (i.e., if the observed CMB were non-thermal, then all Big Bang cosmologies would stand observationally falsified). One can infer the physical conditions of the infant universe, and from that the rate at which protons can fuse into alpha particles (helium-4 nuclei) and therefore the expected relative abundances generated in the short time allowed. The observed relative abundance of helium to hydrogen (about 25%) is consistent with calculated predictions from the theory (the calculations are based purely on theory and are in no way "rigged" to satisfy prior assumptions).
The processes that govern cosmological bodies appear to be limited in duration and cyclical. Why would CMB not exist in an infinite cosmos? Why wouldn't the evolution of the elements occur in a limitless Universe? Contemporary cosmologists seem to seek answers based on pre-conceived notions and don't often bother to look elsewhere. If you don't look, you will not find.


You titled your post "mathology", as if it were all just mathematical speculation, but you could not be more wrong. The essence of modern cosmology is the essence of science, the act of inference of reasonable & logical conclusions from observed facts and prior knowledge. All scientific theories are written in the language of mathematics and cosmology is no different. But it is also no different from any other branch of science, in that observational evidence and verification of any theory by observation are required. You overlook the significant observational basis of modern cosmology to your own detriment.
Nature is an accomplished prestidigitator, but when observations imply the illogical, you can bet her sleight of hand is at work. If something must exist on order to change or be changed, then existence is the source of cause and effect, not the result and 'creation' is a fallacy attributable to the bias of man's process of thought. The cosmos wasn't 'created' by an omnipotent entity nor some inexplicable spontaneously spawned singularity. And if the volume of the 'Big Bang Universe' is growing because the space within it is expanding rather than because distant bodies are receding into the existing cosmos around it, then new volumes of space are being 'created' in places where none existed before. I don't question the data, it is the interpretation that is magical thinking.

The history of Big Bang cosmology is well described in the book Genesis of the Big Bang (Alpher & Herman, Oxford University Press, 2001). The rational & scientific basis, including nucleosynthesis and the CMB are well described in numerous perfectly serviceable books. Cosmology: Science of the Universe (Edward Harrison, Cambridge University Press 2000, 2nd edition) is a good general book that beginning physics students or undergraduates should be able to follow fairly readily. Cosmology (Steven Weinberg, Oxford University Press 2008) covers the topic in significant detail and requires a strong math & physics background to follow. I suggest that you know a lot less than you think you do, and would profit by the effort to learn.
I have been studying this subject for forty years - twenty on the internet. I spent a few years at the university library (math/physics major), but never invested in hard copies thereafter. My computer library is somewhat limited - to papers rather than books. I am not a stranger to the subject. I even spend time reviewing hypothesis I consider to be falsely premised at the outset...those that fly in the face of common sense. If scientists cannot reconcile their theories with common sense, chances are they are flawed. Non-sense is nonsense.

I would venture a guess that more man hours have been expended in the interpretation of religious writings than cosmological data. Both disciplines will tell you without hesitation that they can prove the legitimacy of their conclusions pertaining to the origin of the cosmos by reference to their respective bibles. Maybe a bit of ignorance can be blissful, but sometimes you have to step away from the forest in order to see the trees. There is only one truth and I haven't found it in either camp.

I would procrastinate but I never seem to get around to it.
Edited by - THoR on 09/04/2012 10:54:53
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26016 Posts

Posted - 09/04/2012 :  11:48:38   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by THoR

OK, so feel free to conjure, but please refrain from chanting 'abracadabra'.
Okay, so you're not even going to try to demonstrate that "new points of existence" means something outside your own head, you're just going ridicule people who disagree with you.
Ever hear of Huygen's Principle? - http://www.spaceandmotion.com/cosmology-hubble-redshift-with-distance.htm
Sure, but how does that model solve the horizon problem?
If you wish to construe every challenge to the conventional wisdom ridicule...
If you weren't tossing out insults left and right, you might have had a point here. You continued to simply ridicule scientists in your response to Tim Thompson, with included bonus logical fallacies.

Too bad you refuse to address challenges to your own "wisdom."

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Machi4velli
SFN Regular

USA
854 Posts

Posted - 09/04/2012 :  13:07:53   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Machi4velli a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by THoR

No, science is a worthwhile endeavor; however, it seems most of its disciples have settled into a mindset based on what they consider the infallible genius of the icons who preceeded them. They seem reluctant to think independently and address the incongruities which any credible scientist admits exist.


In that same post, Tim Thompson shows how the state of physics is precisely not that! Big Bang directly goes contradicts Hubble's opinion. Nearly every position of today is in opposition to some icon of science. It seems you're merely defining the "icons" as the ones whose predictions were shown to be correct in particular instances.

I even spend time reviewing hypothesis I consider to be falsely premised at the outset...those that fly in the face of common sense. If scientists cannot reconcile their theories with common sense, chances are they are flawed. Non-sense is nonsense.

To paraphrase Kant, common sense is a convenient method of being defiant without any insight. This common sense must be shown to be well-considered and reasonable thought, not appealed to as an oracle when no rational justification can be advanced.

Our common sense is inherently biased by our environment, and when evidence suggests it's simply wrong, what possible justification can there be for the assumption that common sense is infallible? This seems an impossible position to take and also suppose empirical observation has any meaningful bearing on truth.

I would venture a guess that more man hours have been expended in the interpretation of religious writings than cosmological data. Both disciplines will tell you without hesitation that they can prove the legitimacy of their conclusions pertaining to the origin of the cosmos by reference to their respective bibles.

The "bible" of science isn't set in stone. It's ever changing upon new evidence. Good evidence to the contrary of scientific claims has changed the scientific consensus on innumerable theories.

"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno

"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking

"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus
Edited by - Machi4velli on 09/04/2012 13:13:34
Go to Top of Page

THoR
Skeptic Friend

USA
151 Posts

Posted - 09/04/2012 :  17:33:26   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit THoR's Homepage Send THoR a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Machi4velli

Originally posted by THoR

No, science is a worthwhile endeavor; however, it seems most of its disciples have settled into a mindset based on what they consider the infallible genius of the icons who preceeded them. They seem reluctant to think independently and address the incongruities which any credible scientist admits exist.


In that same post, Tim Thompson shows how the state of physics is precisely not that! Big Bang directly goes contradicts Hubble's opinion. Nearly every position of today is in opposition to some icon of science. It seems you're merely defining the "icons" as the ones whose predictions were shown to be correct in particular instances.

I even spend time reviewing hypothesis I consider to be falsely premised at the outset...those that fly in the face of common sense. If scientists cannot reconcile their theories with common sense, chances are they are flawed. Non-sense is nonsense.

To paraphrase Kant, common sense is a convenient method of being defiant without any insight. This common sense must be shown to be well-considered and reasonable thought, not appealed to as an oracle when no rational justification can be advanced.

Our common sense is inherently biased by our environment, and when evidence suggests it's simply wrong, what possible justification can there be for the assumption that common sense is infallible? This seems an impossible position to take and also suppose empirical observation has any meaningful bearing on truth.
I am used to defining common sense as that which is logical rather than that which is the conventional wisdom - which is biased. It seems to be causing a semantical problem.

Conventional wisdom:
* Machines (composites) can think and have an individual identity
* Existence is the product of cause and effect
* Earth is flat - AND the center of the universe (which it actually is, but so is every other point in the cosmos)
* Obama will be re-elected

Common sense:
* 1=1
* Cause and effect is the product of existence
* If a volume is growing, either it is expanding into neighboring space or space is being conjured within
* It makes no difference who is elected, we're still screwed


I would venture a guess that more man hours have been expended in the interpretation of religious writings than cosmological data. Both disciplines will tell you without hesitation that they can prove the legitimacy of their conclusions pertaining to the origin of the cosmos by reference to their respective bibles.

The "bible" of science isn't set in stone. It's ever changing upon new evidence. Good evidence to the contrary of scientific claims has changed the scientific consensus on innumerable theories.
Amen!

I would procrastinate but I never seem to get around to it.
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26016 Posts

Posted - 09/04/2012 :  18:42:16   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by THoR

* If a volume is growing, either it is expanding into neighboring space or space is being conjured within
And this is different from your earlier, non-sensical "new points of existence." The question is, why do you think that an expansion of space-time is "conjuring?" Where is the law of conservation of space-time that might suggest that such a thing is impossible? Do you believe, contrary to General Relativity, that space-time is fixed and immutable?

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

THoR
Skeptic Friend

USA
151 Posts

Posted - 09/05/2012 :  08:42:46   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit THoR's Homepage Send THoR a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Dave W.

Originally posted by THoR

* If a volume is growing, either it is expanding into neighboring space or space is being conjured within
And this is different from your earlier, non-sensical "new points of existence." The question is, why do you think that an expansion of space-time is "conjuring?" Where is the law of conservation of space-time that might suggest that such a thing is impossible? Do you believe, contrary to General Relativity, that space-time is fixed and immutable?
Ah yes, the question of space-time. Space is a three-dimensional reality. Time is a process, equally real, but not a dimension. To meld the two may be mathematically convenient, but it does a disservice to the art of definition. Why not combine a three-dimensional beast, a pig, with something that it does, walking, and coin the definition "pig-walking". Pundits often hide behind esoteric definitions to obfuscate the illogicality of their argument.

Feel free to revel in your scientific certitude. I; however, having found a logical flaw that cannot be explained away by all the equations you can muster, remain a skeptic on the subject of cosmic expansion. It is up to you to explain how something grows without expanding into the existing reality around it and without creating something that did not formerly exist. Until that incongruity is addressed, all you have is an interesting fantasy.

I would procrastinate but I never seem to get around to it.
Edited by - THoR on 09/05/2012 08:51:37
Go to Top of Page

Kil
Evil Skeptic

USA
13470 Posts

Posted - 09/05/2012 :  10:05:46   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Kil's Homepage  Send Kil an AOL message  Send Kil a Yahoo! Message Send Kil a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Thor:
Until that incongruity is addressed, all you have is an interesting fantasy.

A fantasy built on empirical evidence. To call it a fantasy is you reveling in your scientific certitude. (I'm being generous by calling it "scientific.") Where exactly is your skepticism of the consensus view when you have already concluded that it's a fantasy?


Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.

Why not question something for a change?

Genetic Literacy Project
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26016 Posts

Posted - 09/05/2012 :  10:17:23   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by THoR

Ah yes, the question of space-time. Space is a three-dimensional reality. Time is a process, equally real, but not a dimension.
Then you are using words with your own personal definitions again, and should be ignored in any serious discussion of scientific matters. Time is just a measurement of change, and as such is certainly a dimension.
To meld the two may be mathematically convenient...
That's all that a model is: a mathematical convenience. I have little doubt any more than much of your obvious confusion about the state of science is due to mistaking the map for the terrain.
...but it does a disservice to the art of definition.
Scientific definitions are not an art, but are instead entirely pragmatic.
Why not combine a three-dimensional beast, a pig, with something that it does, walking, and coin the definition "pig-walking".
The size of a pig and how far it has walked could, indeed, be combined into a four-dimensional pig-state vector, but I don't know what practical use it could be put to. On the other hand, General Relativity works so well that its equations are used in GPS systems the world over. So whether or not space-time is actually "bent" enough by the mass of the Earth to affect the passage of time on satellites in orbit, the effects we directly observe sure make it look that way. The model is sound enough to be of immense practical value, regardless of what you think about using time as a dimension. Why should anyone care what you think, anyway?
Pundits often hide behind esoteric definitions to obfuscate the illogicality of their argument.
So Einstein was just a pundit? Once again, you cannot refrain from insult. You have nothing else, which is why you refuse to answer challenges to your beliefs.

(Is purple a condition?)
Feel free to revel in your scientific certitude. I; however, having found a logical flaw that cannot be explained away by all the equations you can muster, remain a skeptic on the subject of cosmic expansion.
No, you are a contrarian, not a skeptic. What possible evidence could convince you of cosmic expansion? You've already sneered at and/or strawmanned everything the cosmologists have to offer, so it's quite obvious that you are simply opposed to the idea, and have no interest in actually examining the real arguments being made. So the answer is "none at all." No evidence, no matter how strong or direct, could possibly convince you that you're wrong. That isn't skepticism.
It is up to you to explain how something grows without expanding into the existing reality around it...
What "existing reality around it?" How have you measured this alleged reality?
...and without creating something that did not formerly exist.
So in your mind, empty space is something that exists? Wouldn't space have to be an entity, then?
Until that incongruity is addressed, all you have is an interesting fantasy.
According to you, empty space follows some natural law unknown to all physicists which states that space can't be created (then how did it get here in the first place?). Yet you demand that the cosmologists prove you wrong instead of providing evidence for your own hypothesis.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Machi4velli
SFN Regular

USA
854 Posts

Posted - 09/05/2012 :  12:15:50   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Machi4velli a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by THoR

Originally posted by Dave W.

Originally posted by THoR

* If a volume is growing, either it is expanding into neighboring space or space is being conjured within
And this is different from your earlier, non-sensical "new points of existence." The question is, why do you think that an expansion of space-time is "conjuring?" Where is the law of conservation of space-time that might suggest that such a thing is impossible? Do you believe, contrary to General Relativity, that space-time is fixed and immutable?
Ah yes, the question of space-time. Space is a three-dimensional reality. Time is a process, equally real, but not a dimension. To meld the two may be mathematically convenient, but it does a disservice to the art of definition. Why not combine a three-dimensional beast, a pig, with something that it does, walking, and coin the definition "pig-walking". Pundits often hide behind esoteric definitions to obfuscate the illogicality of their argument.


I don't know what you think is implied by the word dimension, but it's merely another piece of information required to define a point.

Adding time as a dimension could be as little as adding a coordinate on an axis that works exactly like the space coordinates (4 dimensional Euclidean space) -- this is commonly used when speeds and distances are on a scale not substantively affected by relativistic concerns, and this has been done at least since Newton and Galileo, and probably much earlier.

Now what is done in Minkowski spacetime (for special relativity) is to design the time dimension a little differently to control for the Lorentz transformation, which handles the differences in motion in different speed objects, but the effect doesn't change anything at low speeds substantially (it has the term 1 - v^2/c^2 where c is the speed of light and v is velocity, so it's effectively just 1 for low velocity).

Mathematically, we're building a different inner product space, meaning we build a different way of measuring 4 dimensional distance because displacement reacts differently for velocities approaching c.

I would very much defy anyone to find something wrong in Einstein's very accessible explanation of special relativity and Minkowski spacetime. (http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/5001/pg5001.html). I can't comment on general relativity, however.

General relativity is more complex and handles accelerated reference frames, and so isn't as easily explained, at least by me. (I haven't seen the mathematical nuts and bolts of general relativity.)

"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno

"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking

"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus
Edited by - Machi4velli on 09/05/2012 12:19:31
Go to Top of Page

Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend

Sweden
9680 Posts

Posted - 09/05/2012 :  14:24:39   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Send Dr. Mabuse an ICQ Message Send Dr. Mabuse a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Dave W.

Originally posted by THoR
Why not combine a three-dimensional beast, a pig, with something that it does, walking, and coin the definition "pig-walking".
The size of a pig and how far it has walked could, indeed, be combined into a four-dimensional pig-state vector, but I don't know what practical use it could be put to.

The vector would possibly point out truffle.

Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3

"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse

Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder.
Go to Top of Page

On fire for Christ
SFN Regular

Norway
1270 Posts

Posted - 09/06/2012 :  02:23:11   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send On fire for Christ a Private Message  Reply with Quote
four-dimensional pig-state vector. I never thought I'd read that.

Go to Top of Page
Page: of 2 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Next Page
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Jump To:

The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise.


Home | Skeptic Forums | Skeptic Summary | The Kil Report | Creation/Evolution | Rationally Speaking | Skeptillaneous | About Skepticism | Fan Mail | Claims List | Calendar & Events | Skeptic Links | Book Reviews | Gift Shop | SFN on Facebook | Staff | Contact Us

Skeptic Friends Network
© 2008 Skeptic Friends Network Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 2.91 seconds.
Powered by @tomic Studio
Snitz Forums 2000