|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
 Posted - 07/03/2006 : 17:02:06 [Permalink]
|
Talk about goal post shifting and pure confusion. Dave's lingo isn't consistent with Dr. Mabuse's lingo, so I get chastised for it.
First we began by talking about what "space" is composed of, which in the "real" and macroscopic world involves matter, plasma, subatomic particles, gravity, ect. Then Dave, you shifted the goal pasts and asked me what the "space" between a proton and electrons is made of. I explained that according to particle theory, it too is made of "particles, in this case "carrier particles", which I pointed out *might* expand, and I asked you if that is what you meant. Evidently that isn't the case. Now you're shifting the goal posts again to asking me, "What is the 'space' between carrier particles made of. How do I know Dave? Beats me! As you folks pointed out, even the presense of gravitons is a 'theory' based on QM and particle theory. Anything below this realm enters into the realm of "unknown" since the "God" particles remains an unobserved theory. I would assume that if there are "smaller particles" than our concept of carrier particles, then they are still "particles" of some sort, which allows us to apply some sort of physics to them. You however seem to be *insisting* on some sort of "metaphysical" explanation so you can play "Buddhist science", asking me metaphysical things like "what is going to stop nothing from expanding."?
Are we going to have "particles" and fields to apply physics to, or are you insisting on shifting the goal posts into the mythical realm of expanding nothingness, undefined forces, "coasting" forms of "expansion" and pure metaphysical speculation?
How should I know the answer to your *new* definition of "space" Dave? For all I know it *could be* turtles all the way down. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 07/03/2006 17:15:55 |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 07/03/2006 : 20:56:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
How should I know the answer to your *new* definition of "space" Dave?
I never defined it, Michael, due to the terrible confusion you're sewing on this issue.
You want me to define "space," but you've already decided that you'll only accept definitions which are based upon particles of some sort or another. But that makes about as much sense as the question "what is a centimeter made of?" No sense at all. You may as well ask, "how many is blue?"
Spacetime is a metric, Michael, and not a tangible object like a particle. Particles exist within spacetime, they don't "define" it. That's why mass can warp spacetime, per Einstein's theories (which have passed every test thrown at them). General Relativity isn't "metaphysics." |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 07/03/2006 : 22:51:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Spacetime is a metric, Michael,
What does that mean? What "metric" do you intent to apply to "nothingness" without fields and particles? How do you intend to measure nothing with metrics?
quote:
and not a tangible object like a particle.
If you're not talking about fields and particles, then you're talking about "intangible" metaphysical mumbo jumbo.
quote:
Particles exist within spacetime, they don't "define" it.
Of course they define it Dave. They are the "things" that give "substance" to the "nothingness". You can't define time, or measure time with metrics without particles and fields to actually measure.
quote:
That's why mass can warp spacetime,
From the instant we had carrier particles and quarks, we had mass and spacetime Dave. From the begining, the forces of gravity worked completely against your notion of expansion. As we already agreed, we need fields and particles for QM to even work Dave.
You need to now define the "force" you believe is going to overcome the forces of gravity.
quote:
per Einstein's theories (which have passed every test thrown at them). General Relativity isn't "metaphysics."
What kind of strawman is that? When did I claim that general relativity, that is based on particles and fields is "metaphysics"? I'm simply complaining about they way *you* are trying to ignore the *mass* and *fields* aspect of relativity altogether! |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 07/03/2006 23:00:32 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 07/03/2006 : 23:28:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
What does that mean? What "metric" do you intent to apply to "nothingness" without fields and particles? How do you intend to measure nothing with metrics?
Again, what is a centimeter made of, Michael? Show me how one of the simplest metrics around, a stick with a couple of notches in it for measuring distance, is defined by particles and forces.quote:
If you're not talking about fields and particles, then you're talking about "intangible" metaphysical mumbo jumbo.
Show me where General Relativity defines spacetime in terms of particles and forces, then.quote:
Of course they define it Dave. They are the "things" that give "substance" to the "nothingness".
What "substance" are carrier particles travelling through, then, Michael?quote:
You can't define time, or measure time with metrics without particles and fields to actually measure.
Time is just a measure of change. If space can expand, then time can measure the expansion. But I see the real problem now: you're mistaking the map for the terrain. You're confusing a model for reality. No serious student of these issues confuses the mathematics used to descibe the universe (such as the metrics of General Relativity) with the universe itself. Nobody has any clue what the universe is "made of" at the most-basic level, Michael. The equations which make up General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics only serve to allow us to predict the behaviour of things within the universe.quote:
quote:
That's why mass can warp spacetime,
From the instant we had quarks, we had mass and spacetime Dave. From the begining, the forces of gravity worked completely against your notion of expansion.
Not according to Big Bang theory. Mass only came about a (relatively) long time after "the beginning." The universe was pretty big by the time there was any mass in it. And since gravity is the weakest of the forces (when considered a force), gravity lost the battle before it was even present.quote:
As we already agreed, we need fields and particles for QM to even work Dave.
And those fields and particles are primarily abstract notions embodied by mathematics, and not stuff that's been "directly measured." According to your (apparent) definitions, that makes the entire field of physics "metaphysics."quote:
You need to now define the "force" you believe is going to overcome the forces of gravity.
Since you've already agreed that gravity wasn't a factor in the early universe, why are you even asking this question?quote:
What kind of strawman is that? When did I claim that general relativity, that is based on particles and fields is "metaphysics"?
Show us all how Einstein defined "spacetime" in terms of particles and fields, and you'll show it's not a strawman.quote:
I'm simply complaining about they way *you* are trying to ignore the *mass* and *fields* aspect of relativity altogether!
No, I'm paying quite close attention to it, since it means the difference between a "Big Crunch" and a "Heat Death" waiting at the end of the universe. But you've already agreed that mass is irrelevant to the early universe, since there was no mass, so why would you now reverse yourself and claim I'm ignoring that? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 07/05/2006 : 06:13:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Space isn't "empty" Dave. It's full of carrier particles including those that make gravity possible. There is not such thing as "empty" space. If there were such a thing, it could not "expand", because there would be nothing *to* expand.
This is nonsense. If space is expanding then according to you there must be new particles forming from nothing to occupy this new space to prevent it from being empty. If on the other hand you are saying that the particles are expanding then we could not meausre that because if matter is expanding that would mean our measuring devices are expanding too.
Completely empty space still has 4 dimensions. That is the definition of space. Empty space is not 'nothing' it is empty space.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 07/05/2006 : 10:42:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Again, what is a centimeter made of, Michael?
A centimeter of *what* Dave? Where shall we put our frame of reference and how shall we determine when it's expanded without any frames of reference?
quote:
Show me how one of the simplest metrics around, a stick with a couple of notches in it for measuring distance, is defined by particles and forces.
Exactly what reference points do you intend to use as you attempt to measure the expansion of "nothing" with your metric ruler?
quote:
Show me where General Relativity defines spacetime in terms of particles and forces, then.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity
quote:
General relativity (GR) is the geometrical theory of gravitation published by Albert Einstein in 1915. It unifies special relativity and Isaac Newton's law of universal gravitation with the insight that gravitation is not due to a force but rather is a manifestation of curved space and time, this curvature being produced by the mass-energy and momentum content of the spacetime. General relativity is distinguished from other metric theories of gravitation by its use of the Einstein field equations to relate spacetime content and spacetime curvature.
It's a "metric" theory of "gravitation" involving mass Dave, it is not a metric theory of empty space. No mass, no energy, no momentum, no spacetime, no GR Dave.
quote:
What "substance" are carrier particles travelling through, then, Michael?
As I said Dave, I have no idea. For all I know the space in between carrier particles is composed of smaller particles or it may contain nothing at all. If this space is composed of smaller particles, then expansion is still possible, but you will still need to define the force of expansion that mysteriously overcomes the gravitational curvature of "spacetime".
quote:
quote:
You can't define time, or measure time with metrics without particles and fields to actually measure.
Time is just a measure of change.
Without particles to "expand" and "change" and measure Dave, expansion simply isn't possible. There is no "reference frame" in such a scenario. If you truly have *nothing* to work with, there is nothing *to* expand, and there is no force in the universe that could expand "nothing".
quote:
If space can expand, then time can measure the expansion.
If there are no particles or fields to apply force to Dave, there is nothing that can expand, and there is no force in the universe that could possibly expand "nothing".
quote:
But I see the real problem now: you're mistaking the map for the terrain. You're confusing a model for reality. No serious student of these issues confuses the mathematics used to descibe the universe (such as the metrics of General Relativity) with the universe itself.
I'm not confused by GR Dave, but obviously you are horribly confused about GR. As the Wiki definition says, "General relativity (GR) is the geometrical theory of gravitation". No serious studying of GR attempts to talk about the "expansion" of anything other than a fields or particles. Without gravitational forces, the theory of GR is pretty much useless Dave and frankly you claimed it was useless anyway when you claimed there was not "mass" at the beginning of the universe.
quote:
Nobody has any clue what the universe is "made of" at the most-basic level, Michael.
But somehow you are still sure that it "expands" anyway, even though you can't name the force to begin with, and you don't know what it's made of. Worse yet, you seem to be defining space as the *absense* of anything remotely like a field or a particle. That is a completely metaphysical mythology Dave that has absolutely nothing at all to do with GR.
quote:
Not according to Big Bang theory. Mass only came about a (relatively) long time after "the beginning."
Where did that mass that made up the quarks come from Dave? "Poof" it just appeared out of your mystery "nothingness" after it expanded just like magic? Sheeesh! Talk about special pleading and irrational contradictions. If that was the case, then GR wouldn't even be applicable, and your whole case amounts to magical "poof" theory.
quote:
The universe was pretty big by the time there was any mass in it.
What was the unviverse made of before it was "mass" Dave? How did it exist as a "massless" thing? How did this "expanding substance" form mass? Why did it form mass only *after* it expanded? How about at the quark soup stage Dave? How physically large was "the universe" at this stage when the unviverse did have "mass" and GR applied? What form did it exist in before the quark soup stage, and how large was it then?
quote:
And since gravity is the weakest of the forces (when considered a force),
Except we assume that Black Holes are powerful enough to prevent light from escaping and according to BB theory the universe began as some kind of singularity (t=o). Now we discover that evidently this unvierse did not contain any mass but somehow it mysteriously *created* mass sometime *after* inflation/expansion phase. Care to elaborate a bit, or is this more psuedo-scientific mythology than science?
quote: |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 07/05/2006 10:43:33 |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 07/05/2006 : 11:30:32 [Permalink]
|
Jeeze Michael, you really need to do some reading up on the basics of the big bang theory, as well as General Relativity (again just the barest basics would be nice).
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 07/05/2006 : 12:04:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
Jeeze Michael, you really need to do some reading up on the basics of the big bang theory, as well as General Relativity (again just the barest basics would be nice).
And there you have it Robb.
Here we see more of the same nonsensical ridicule you'll have to put up with the first time you demonstrate that the emperor has no clothes. In this case BB theory has no "substance".
You'll be accused of being ignorant by the ignorant. The more you demonstrate the weaknesses of their case, the louder they'll get.
BB theories, particularly these field-less, particle-less sorts of BB theories, amount to mere "poof" theories in the final analysis. Viola, a universe just appeared like magic! Physics? What particles and fields can we even apply physics to? What force drives the expansion? What physics?
BB theory, particularly these kinds of BB theories amount to pure mythology. They're a nice child's story, a yarn, pseudo-science spun into a nice little "story" about the beginning of time. When we look at the science very carefully however, we find no definined particles, no defined fields, no defined forces, no defined sizes at any timelines, nothing. We have nothing but quaint mathematical constructs applied to pure and utter mythology. Wee!
I'm not going to whip this dead, particle-less, field-less, mass-less, useless nonsense forever. Unless any of you have any real defintions to make here regarding the particles, fields, sizes, timelines or forces, this conversation is going nowhere. We're simply talking psuedo-scientific mythology wrapped up in clever sounding phrases. We might as well be discussing how the easter bunny created the universe out of thin air. But wait, the easter bunny ideas is more logical, because at least "thin air" has mass. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 07/05/2006 12:08:30 |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 07/05/2006 : 12:26:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Without gravitational forces, the theory of GR is pretty much useless Dave and frankly you claimed it was useless anyway when you claimed there was not "mass" at the beginning of the universe.
Michael, it looks like you accidentally stumbled upon one of the little nags about universe. General Relativity can by used for large scale modeling of the universe. But in the early hours of Big Bang the Universe wasn't large-scale. And Quantum Mechanics can't answer the questions either. This is what scientists are working on now: the synthesis of Quantum and Gravity.
We don't have all the answers yet, but you're calling Big Bang bunk because it defies your understanding. Hey, that's not my problem, and it won't make the teory less valid. |
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. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 07/05/2006 : 12:27:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
A centimeter of *what* Dave?
You're the one who is demanding that I define spacetime in terms of particles and fields, so you tell me, Michael.quote:
Where shall we put our frame of reference and how shall we determine when it's expanded without any frames of reference?
You're now talking nonsense. If we agree on a frame of reference, then why would you say we have no frames of reference?quote:
Exactly what reference points do you intend to use as you attempt to measure the expansion of "nothing" with your metric ruler?
I've never claimed that space is "nothing," Michael, you are putting words in my mouth.quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativityquote:
General relativity (GR) is the geometrical theory of gravitation published by Albert Einstein in 1915. It unifies special relativity and Isaac Newton's law of universal gravitation with the insight that gravitation is not due to a force but rather is a manifestation of curved space and time, this curvature being produced by the mass-energy and momentum content of the spacetime. General relativity is distinguished from other metric theories of gravitation by its use of the Einstein field equations to relate spacetime content and spacetime curvature.
It's a "metric" theory of "gravitation" involving mass Dave, it is not a metric theory of empty space. No mass, no energy, no momentum, no spacetime, no GR Dave.
That's funny as hell, since that Wikipedia article claims that the expansion of the universe, cosmological redshift, the Big Bang and the CMBR are all predictions of General Relativity. And in the quote you provided, above, you even bolded the part where it says that spacetime is curved by mass, which clearly indicates that spacetime exists apart from mass (it would be flat, of course).quote:
As I said Dave, I have no idea. For all I know the space in between carrier particles is composed of smaller particles or it may contain nothing at all. If this space is composed of smaller particles, then expansion is still possible, but you will still need to define the force of expansion that mysteriously overcomes the gravitational curvature of "spacetime".
That's all metaphysical garbage, Michael, since you are suggesting particles and forces which aren't known to exist.quote:
Without particles to "expand" and "change" and measure Dave, expansion simply isn't possible.
Particles don't expand under General Relativity, Michael. Spacetime does.quote:
There is no "reference frame" in such a scenario.
Utter nonsense, again, since a reference frame is simply something you pick to use, and not a natural occurence.quote:
If you truly have *nothing* to work with, there is nothing *to* expand, and there is no force in the universe that could expand "nothing".
Good thing that nobody here is talking about "nothing" expanding, then.quote:
If there are no particles or fields to apply force to Dave, there is nothing that can expand, and there is no force in the universe that could possibly expand "nothing".
Okay, so your idea that electromagnetism powers the "retreat" of galaxies from one another, how does that work, exactly? If what you say is true, then the universe is infinite, spacetime has always existed, and blue light emitted from a far-off galaxy should still be blue when it gets to Earth. In the "Big Slam," how much kinetic energy was converted into useless heat?quote:
I'm not confused by GR Dave, but obviously you are horribly confused about GR. As the Wiki definition says, "General relativity (GR) is the geometrical theory of gravitation". No serious studying of GR attempts to talk about the "expansion" of anything other than a fields or particles. Without gravitational forces, the theory of GR is pretty much useless Dave and frankly you claimed it was useless anyway when you claimed there was not "mass" at the beginning of the universe.
Apparently, you are unable to separate the definition of a metric (spacetime) with the effect that mass has on that metric (curvature). The metric defined in General Relativity is still useful with little or no mass in the universe, since Einstein made sure that it was still viable in Newtonian scenarios.quote:
But somehow you are still sure that it "expands" anyway...
The cosmological redshift shows that it is expanding, regardless of what it's "made of." Surely you'll agree that we can measure the size of something without knowing its composition?quote:
...even though you can't name the force to begin with...
General Relativity showed that gravitation can be modeled without a force, Michael, so your demands that there be a force are without merit.quote:
...and you don't know what it's made of.
I don't care what it's made of for the purposes of this discussion - you are the one demanding that spacetime be "made of" something.quote:
Worse yet, you seem to be defining space as the *absense* of anything |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2006 : 09:14:11 [Permalink]
|
The discussion of Big Bang and Michael Mozina's nomination the Big Slam continues in this thread.
|
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. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
