|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
 Posted - 07/05/2006 : 13:55:47
|
quote:
Michael, it looks like you accidentally stumbled upon one of the little nags about universe.
It's only a nag related to BB theory, not necessarily the universe. It all depends on how old and how large one believes the cosmos to be.
quote:
General Relativity can by used for large scale modeling of the universe.
And if the universe is near infinite in size and near infinite in age, then such theories can be applied nearly infinitely. There is no scientific reason to "assume" that "spacetime" began only 13.7 billion years ago, or that what we think of as our universe is not part of a much bigger picture.
quote:
But in the early hours of Big Bang the Universe wasn't large-scale.
We don't know that. We believe that most of the matter that we can still see today was once concentrated in spacetime as we understand it. That's about the only conclusions we can actually draw, even if we assume Arp is "mostly" or completely incorrect, and we assume that Hubble was "mostly or completely correct. Even still, we can make no predictions about the nature of how that matter came together, or how it came to exist in it's present state. Whether it was all concentrated in a "singularity" is not known at this time.
The existence of mature galaxies in the early universe defies the early "bang" models. We have no idea if the Hubble Telescope replacement satellite will see even further back in time. All we know for sure is that early BB models did not correctly predict what we see in the early universe. We keep changing the BB model, but again, there is absolultely no guarantee that it even applies, even if we were to assume that Arp is "mostly" incorrect.
quote:
And Quantum Mechanics can't answer the questions either.
And Quantum Mechanics may still be able to answer these questions *if* we do not "asssume* that all matter was created or destroyed in the events near and around 0,0,0,0 spacetime. Again, it completely depends on how we choose to interpret the evidence that suggests the physical universe that we see today, is accelerating away from a generally concentrated area of spacetime.
quote:
This is what scientists are working on now: the synthesis of Quantum and Gravity.
I think they'll ultimately discover that it involves electricity and magnetism and the carrier particles of magnetic fields.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/06/020604073033.htm
[Subject changed to reflect the content of this thread.
Discussion continued from this thread. //Dr. Mabuse]
|
Edited by - Michael Mozina on 07/06/2006 09:20:23
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2006 : 04:37:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
This is what scientists are working on now: the synthesis of Quantum and Gravity.
I think they'll ultimately discover that it involves electricity and magnetism and the carrier particles of magnetic fields.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/06/020604073033.htm
Interesting article too bad it has nothing to do with what Dr. Mabuse was talking about.
quote:
You can't take gravitational fields and gravitons out of GR Dave!
I know you said something along the lines of the ignorant calling the ignorant ignorant. So please forgive me but, this comment is astoundingly ignorant. It may be that the TV show STARTREK is right and we will find gravitons all over the place eventually but gravitons have absolutely nothing to do with General Relativity.
Come on Michael admit that you were wrong. That statement is so clearly wrong that you should be able to admit it this time.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
 |
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2006 : 07:37:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Michael, it looks like you accidentally stumbled upon one of the little nags about universe.
It's only a nag related to BB theory, not necessarily the universe.
True, and BB theory is the dominant theory for modelling the early days of the universe. It doesn't become dominant without a reason: scientists think that collected evidence support the theory better than any other theory.
quote:
It all depends on how old and how large one believes the cosmos to be.
Belief has nothing to do with it. It's about postulating a hypothesis, and try to see if evidence support it. After discarding flawed ones, eventually the scientist comes up with a fairly good description.
quote:
quote:
General Relativity can by used for large scale modeling of the universe.
And if the universe is near infinite in size and near infinite in age, then such theories can be applied nearly infinitely. There is no scientific reason to "assume" that "spacetime" began only 13.7 billion years ago,
Scientists didn't "assume" a 13.7 billion years old universe then figuring out the BB theory. That number is inferred from evidence gathered during their research.
quote:
or that what we think of as our universe is not part of a much bigger picture.
Religious people tend to think that the universe is but a part of a much bigger picture. Do you belong to this category?
Scientists acknowledge that anything beyond our universe is also beyond our ability to probe it, and could therefore be classified as metaphysics. So you're telling me that metaphysics is a necessary part of your much-bigger-than-BB-theory-universe?
quote:
quote:
But in the early hours of Big Bang the Universe wasn't large-scale.
We don't know that.
"We don't know that" in the sense that we didn't directly observe it. The explanation of the pre-decoupling era of the universe according to BB theory simply cannot be directly observed, but the explanation wouldn't have been eleveted to theory status unless there was good evidence to make that inference.
quote:
We believe that most of the matter that we can still see today was once concentrated in spacetime as we understand it.
Spacetime was smaller, so yes, in that sense, all matter in the universe was was more concentrated. But not concentrated in a localised place within spacetime.
quote:
That's about the only conclusions we can actually draw, even if we assume Arp is "mostly" or completely incorrect, and we assume that Hubble was "mostly or completely correct.
Hubble and Arp is ancient history in regards to BB. Just like Darwin's original (DNA-less) explanation of origin of species. The theory has evolved far beyond the scope of their imaginations.
quote:
Even still, we can make no predictions about the nature of how that matter came together, or how it came to exist in it's present state.
Of course we can. Scientists are doing that at CERN all the time. That's what particle accelerators are built for...
quote:
Whether it was all concentrated in a "singularity" is not known at this time.
If you want to nit-pick, then yes that's true. We do not know what happened at T=0. BB theories can only back-trace until Planck-time.
quote:
The existence of mature galaxies in the early universe defies the early "bang" models.
No, it defies early Galactic Evolution theories. These theories obviously have to get modified. The importance of the fluctuations detected in CMBR has obviously been underestimated.
quote:
We have no idea if the Hubble Telescope replacement satellite will see even further back in time. All we know for sure is that early BB models did not correctly predict what we see in the early universe.
The BB theory correctly predicted the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (not just the existance of it, but the spectacular properties of it), that is one of the most important evidence for the theory. The time after the decoupling to the earliest detected galaxies are currently blank as far as evidence goes, but in there somewhere is the "interface" between BB theory and Galactic Evolution theory.
quote:
quote:
And Quantum Mechanics can't answer the questions either.
And Quantum Mechanics may still be able to answer these questions *if* we do not "asssume* that all matter was created or destroyed in the events near and around 0,0,0,0 spacetime. Again, it completely depends on how we choose to interpret the evidence that suggests the physical universe that we see today, is accelerating away from a generally concentrated area of spacetime.
And you haven't presented any process that could explain the expasion of space (or even the acceleration as it's been detected). Your Big Slam theory has this far not provided any explana |
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. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2006 : 09:18:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
Come on Michael admit that you were wrong. That statement is so clearly wrong that you should be able to admit it this time.
Wrong about what? What are you talking about?
You guys apparently have absolutely *nothing* to work with. No mass, no force, no particles, no fields, nothing. From this nothingness, evidently the universe just went "poof" into existence like magic. But the magic show didn't just stop there. The magical growing universe evidently went through some metaphysical process called "inflation" in which no force is defined, and then another metaphysical phase called "expansion" which again lacks any sort of explanation. Evidently it's important to distinguish between the two metaphysical stages none the less. Go figure.
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2006 : 09:34:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Again, it completely depends on how we choose to interpret the evidence that suggests the physical universe that we see today, is accelerating away from a generally concentrated area of spacetime.
And still, the Big Bang theory doesn't actually posit that. But, of course, the problem is that while individual pieces of evidence can be interpreted in an infinite number of ways, very few of those interpretations are going to match the interpretations of other pieces of evidence in a consistent and logical manner.quote:
Originally posted by furshur
Come on Michael admit that you were wrong. That statement is so clearly wrong that you should be able to admit it this time.
So was the statement that evolution is a theory of physics, but he actually fought being corrected on that, and instead constructed a whole slew of rationalizations so that he'd be "correct." I'm sure the same would have happened with his assertion that kinetic energy is a force, had he decided to actually respond to the correction in that case. I would consider the most-famous example of this kind of behaviour to be his arguments that we can't accurately measure the mass of the Sun, since he went so far as to invent a whole new class of metaphysics - namely motion in the "Z-axis" which is not governed by Relativity - to hand-wave away objections.
It's things like that which show that Michael doesn't really give a damn about the science, all that really matters to him that his faith in what he thinks is science is undisturbed. I mean, look at his real kiss-off post, in which he continues to make the claim that the Big Bang theory attempts to explain the cause of the universe. Despite nearly everyone else in that thread pointing out - repeatedly - that the theory doesn't even address "t=0," he is sure it does, and so attacks it as if it did. It's a wonderful example of truthiness in action, but Michael doesn't grasp the fact that all his rhetoric is for naught without evidence here on the SFN or within the scientific circles upon which he seeks to make his mark. |
- 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 - 07/06/2006 : 10:14:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
Come on Michael admit that you were wrong. That statement is so clearly wrong that you should be able to admit it this time.
Wrong about what? What are you talking about?
This statement you made:
"You can't take gravitational fields and gravitons out of GR Dave!"
Specifically the term gravitons, as in "She cana tek mech more capitan, were trrrapped by da grrraviton beem".
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2006 : 10:36:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
True, and BB theory is the dominant theory for modelling the early days of the universe. It doesn't become dominant without a reason:
This is simply an appeal to popularity and/or authority arguement.
quote:
scientists think that collected evidence support the theory better than any other theory.
The only evidence I'm aware of that actually supports BB theory is the redshifted background. This can only even be considered "evidence" if we assume that Arp is *entirely* wrong and that *only* movement can cause redshift. Even with that assumption, there is no guarantee that *only* the BB model can explain such redshifting.
quote:
Belief has nothing to do with it.
I disagree. I think "belief" and pure "faith" has a lot to do with it.
quote:
It's about postulating a hypothesis, and try to see if evidence support it. After discarding flawed ones, eventually the scientist comes up with a fairly good description.
The problem with BB theory, is regardless of how many "flaws" it can be shown to contain, it continues to be the "darling" of the "establishment". Astronomers won't even consider any alternatives until Hubble's replacement shows us whole galaxies where we see little specs in Hubble images today. Even then they'll probably just tinker with the ages of things and stick to myth none the less. These kinds of creation myths tend to become engrained into the establishment. They seem to provide an explanation of how it all began, and in doing so, these stories bring "order" to the system. Astronomy professors can't just run around admitting to their students that we haven't got a clue how the universe got here, so they made up a cute little creation myth, complete with mystical and metaphysical undefined forces, complete with two different metaphysical stages just to make it sound good.
quote:
Scientists didn't "assume" a 13.7 billion years old universe then figuring out the BB theory. That number is inferred from evidence gathered during their research.
Which research specifically?
quote:
Religious people tend to think that the universe is but a part of a much bigger picture. Do you belong to this category?
You seem to be the one trying to sell a creation myth, not me. My religious beliefs are utterly irrelevant.
quote:
Scientists acknowledge that anything beyond our universe is also beyond our ability to probe it, and could therefore be classified as metaphysics. So you're telling me that metaphysics is a necessary part of your much-bigger-than-BB-theory-universe?
I think you're a little loose with your classification system. I put my cards on the table already. I've identified the forces, the particles, where the mass came from, where the overall energy came from, etc. I never tried to claim anything 'expanded' without explaining the force of that expansion. Even if I cannot know where the matter and antimatter holes formed, or study that part of the history of the cosmos, I can explain everything from that point forward in terms of electricity, magnetism, explosive interactions between matter and antimatter at the event horizons, and if we allow to be "large" enough in size, then the red shift is mostly what's leftover from the galaxies that have already accelerated and traveled beyond our ability to see them.
There is nothing "metaphysical" in my explantion, and at no time did the "universe" fall outside of QM or any of the laws of physics.
quote:
"We don't know that" in the sense that we didn't directly observe it.
We can't directly observe anything directly related to the Bang itself at this point. Too much time has passed.
quote:
The explanation of the pre-decoupling era of the universe according to BB theory simply cannot be directly observed, but the explanation wouldn't have been eleveted to theory status unless there was good evidence to make that inference.
The only "good evidence" you have would be the redshift, and again, I believe that there are ways to explain that redshifting phenomenon with a slam in an older universe.
quote:
quote:
We believe that most of the matter that we can still see today was once concentrated in spacetime as we understand it.
Spacetime was smaller, so yes, in that sense, all matter in the universe was was more concentrated. But not concentrated in a localised place within spacetime.
Here's where the BB explanations start to take on a mystical quality to them. If we go with Hubble's belief that redshifting is indicative of objects moving away from us, then we have a pretty good idea that all the mass we see in the universe today was once a lot closer together than it is today, correct?
quote:
Hubble and Arp is ancient history in regards to BB.
Well, it has to be "old news" to BB theorists, because the moment you debate the notion that redshifting is *only* a function of movement, then the idea starts to unravel in a hurry.
quote:
Just like Darwin's original (DNA-less) explanation of origin of species. The theory has evolved far beyond the scope of their imaginations.
That is a completely invalid comparision IMO. Here on earth we can study real and defined tangible objects up close and in real time. We can test the DNA, touch it, analyze it in great detail. We can look at t |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2006 : 10:44:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
Come on Michael admit that you were wrong. That statement is so clearly wrong that you should be able to admit it this time.
Wrong about what? What are you talking about?
This statement you made:
"You can't take gravitational fields and gravitons out of GR Dave!"
Specifically the term gravitons, as in "She cana tek mech more capitan, were trrrapped by da grrraviton beem".
Oh for crying out loud furshur, there is absolutely no way to separate mass, particles and/or fields from GR. You can't talk in terms of "spacetime" without regard to the mass and the fields they refer to. It's like talking about "the ocean" without any water.
If you're going to get on me for using a particle "theory", then what does that say for your magical poof theories? The "poof" theories I've heard so far including metaphysical undefined forces working their magic with nonexistent particles while "coasting" no less! You have exactly no evidence to suggest there should be any undefined forces, and nothing of substance whatsoever to work with. The fact you would try to chastise me for suggesting that particle theory is accurate in this regard is more than a little ironic. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 07/06/2006 10:45:10 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2006 : 11:06:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
And still, the Big Bang theory doesn't actually posit that. But, of course, the problem is that while individual pieces of evidence can be interpreted in an infinite number of ways, very few of those interpretations are going to match the interpretations of other pieces of evidence in a consistent and logical manner.
The BB theory you handed me Dave was anything *but* consistent or logical. You can't define the force of inflation or expansion, but somehow you know expansion is "coasting". You can't define the particles that expand, but somehow they all form into mass somehow *after* they "inflate". Hoy Vey! You call that logical or consistent?
quote:
So was the statement that evolution is a theory of physics,
Peanut gallery personal attacks from a guy that posted the last comments and then closed the last thread and didn't bother to start a new one. How cute. I even tried to give you the last word between us Dave, and you couldn't let it go. So be it.
quote:
but he actually fought being corrected on that, and instead constructed a whole slew of rationalizations so that he'd be "correct."
Evidently I'm supposed to agree with you on that topic or else I'll be trashed some more, is that it?
quote:
I would consider the most-famous example of this kind of behaviour to be his arguments that we can't accurately measure the mass of the Sun, since he went so far as to invent a whole new class of metaphysics - namely motion in the "Z-axis" which is not governed by Relativity - to hand-wave away objections.
Suggesting there is movement in the z-axis is not "metaphysics" Dave. In fact the data we've recently recieved about the shape of the sun's sheath would suggest that we're moving in the southernly direction since that is the "short" side of the teardrop shaped sheath that surrounds our solar system.
quote:
It's a wonderful example of truthiness in action, but Michael doesn't grasp the fact that all his rhetoric is for naught without evidence here on the SFN or within the scientific circles upon which he seeks to make his mark.
Evidence seems to be in the eye of the beholder Dave. You ridicule my suggestion that the sun and solar system move in the z-axis, even though we do see evidence that the sheath around the solar system isn't round, rather it is flattened in the southern hemisphere. Shrug. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 07/06/2006 12:18:49 |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2006 : 11:35:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
Come on Michael admit that you were wrong. That statement is so clearly wrong that you should be able to admit it this time.
Wrong about what? What are you talking about?
This statement you made:
"You can't take gravitational fields and gravitons out of GR Dave!"
Specifically the term gravitons, as in "She cana tek mech more capitan, were trrrapped by da grrraviton beem".
Oh for crying out loud furshur, there is absolutely no way to separate mass, particles and/or fields from GR. You can't talk in terms of "spacetime" without regard to the mass and the fields they refer to. It's like talking about "the ocean" without any water.
If you're going to get on me for using a particle "theory", then what does that say for your magical poof theories? The "poof" theories I've heard so far including metaphysical undefined forces working their magic with nonexistent particles while "coasting" no less! You have exactly no evidence to suggest there should be any undefined forces, and nothing of substance whatsoever to work with. The fact you would try to chastise me for suggesting that particle theory is accurate in this regard is more than a little ironic.
So... the answer is NO, you will not admit you are wrong even when the fact is that you are 100% wrong in the statement you made:
quote:
"You can't take gravitational fields and gravitons out of GR Dave!"
It does not matter whether you are ignorant or just too arrogant to admit you are wrong the fact is anyone can look at an outline of General Relativity and see that you are 100% wrong.
Do you realize michael that Einstein never accepted quantum theory? The idea that gravitons having anything at all to do with General Relativity is laughable.
Do you realize that the hypothetical gravitons were not even thought of until decades after the formulation of General Relativity. Yet you arrogantly state gravitons have to be included in General Relativity.
Now will you admit that you are wrong - of course not, because your arrogance is only exceeded by your ignorance!
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2006 : 11:36:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
So really, there is no "data" that might falsify this belief in BB theory, and "prediction", even inacurrate prediction, is no measure of the value of any theory. In short, whatever failures the model makes as it relates to predictions are simply swept under the rug, and the theory lives on.
Yes. Well, sort of.
When we discover a flaw in a theory, we don't throw it out the window right away. That would be a very rash decision. Instead, we hold on to it. A theory explains things that we would otherwise have no explanation for. If we were to just throw it out, we would be going backwards in terms of scientific progression (the ability to explain things).
There may be ways to save a theory. Many theories depend on other theories. Could it be that possibly one of the other theories is wrong? Or maybe there is something we just don't know about that would solve our flaw. Could there be a mistake somewhere in our theory, that a quick change will solve it?
So instead, we wait. We must be cautious. Then, if some new theory comes along, we test it against the one we currently have. If it's signficantly better, we replace our current one. Being cautious means that the current theory has a home advantage. If the new theory is not enough to convince us, the home theory wins by default. If at all possible, there needs to be a test in which two competing theories are directly compared. In such a test, the result would falsify one theory while supporting the other. That makes great evidence for overturning a standing theory.
If you look at Newtonian physics, this exact thing happened with Mercury's orbit. We knew something was wrong for quite some time. But we held onto Newton's physics simply because there was no better choice. Einstien came along and not only explained everything that Netwon did, fixed Mercury's orbit, but also predicted new things, such as light bending around the Sun.
We also see it in evolution, as you mentioned. We are constantly changing evolutionary theory with every find we make. That is because we are gathering more evidence and getting a better picture. It doesn't mean anything is wrong with evolution. We save a theory if we can.
One result of this is that we need scientists thinking of "crazy" ideas that go against our current knowledge. We need those who think outside the box. But before you can think outside the box, you must know what is in it. From your posts here, Mozina, I don't think you know enough of what's inside to start thinking of what could be outside of it. It doesn't mean you can't try. All it means is that I will always approach your words with a sense of caution and doubt, to an extent.
Scientific revolutions don't exactly happen overnight. They build. We start seeing problems in our current theories. Then we take the time to solve these problems given our current framework. After a while, we will start to realize that our solutions are either very poor ad hoc reasoning, or just don't seem to work at all. It is then we start to look to other theories. We start to think, "What if..." Over time we build on to that question. We have people come up with all sorts of theories. Hopefully, we get one that looks pretty good with a rigourous test that will not only invalidate our old theory, but show our new one is better. It is at this point that science can change overnight.
But you expect everything to change in one instance. I'm sorry Mozina, it doesn't work that way. And science would be horrible if it did. |
Why continue? Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred thousand who hug their superstitions to their breast.
- Isaac Asimov |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2006 : 12:11:32 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
You're the one who is demanding that I define spacetime in terms of particles and fields, so you tell me, Michael.
No Dave, QM is what demands that you define spacetime in terms of mass and energy. You can't take the mass and particles and fields out of QM then continue to use terms that relate to QM. The term "spacetime" has no meaning without gravitational fields.
quote:
You're now talking nonsense. If we agree on a frame of reference, then why would you say we have no frames of reference?
Think about it Dave. The ruler won't tell us that anything has "expanded" unless we have measured the distance between two "points" and take another measurement between these two points at a later time. Since you've offered me no particles or reference points inside your "space" (not spacetime), it's impossible to measure anything.
quote:
I've never claimed that space is "nothing," Michael, you are putting words in my mouth.
Then what is it made of Dave?
quote:
That's all metaphysical garbage, Michael, since you are suggesting particles and forces which aren't known to exist.
You are claiming that mass came from this "spacetime" as you keep calling it Dave. How did the mass get there? Where did it come from?
quote:
Particles don't expand under General Relativity, Michael. Spacetime does.
"Spacetime" requires the presense of mass, carrier particles and fields Dave. You've defined none of these things yet. Therefore your use of the term "spacetime" is both confusing and inaccurate. What "spacetime" are you talking about if you have no mass and no fields and no carrier particles?
quote:There is no "reference frame" in such a scenario.
quote:
Utter nonsense, again, since a reference frame is simply something you pick to use, and not a natural occurence.
Dave, you've given us no point, and no particles and no frames of references to work with. I can't "pick" anything, to measure, because there is nothing of substance *to* measure. If I had two particles to work with, I could measure them to see if they expand. If I don't have any particle and I don't have any fields, there isn't much to "measure". Get it?
quote:
Good thing that nobody here is talking about "nothing" expanding, then.
Then get specific and be specific and tell us what you are talking about. Don't you dare use the term "spacetime" because without gravity and gravitational fields, "spacetime" doesn't exist.
I'm going to skip any questions related to my ideas until you've put your ideas completely on the table. You can start by explaining how "mass" formed and what it formed from.
quote:
Apparently, you are unable to separate the definition of a metric (spacetime) with the effect that mass has on that metric (curvature).
Apparently you don't grasp the implication of the word "spacetime". It has a specific significance in QM that requires mass and gravitiational fields to be meaningful. It you try to remove that term from the context it relates to, you end up confusing the heck out of everyone. There is no "spacetime" without gravitational fields Dave. Any reference to that term without regard to mass and particles and fields is pointless and meaningless.
quote:
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.
Show me any instance where Einstein actually used the term "spacetime" in reference to system that was defined by an absense of all mass, an absense of aall carrier particles, and an absense of all fields.
quote:
The cosmological redshift shows that it is expanding, regardless of what it's "made of."
Cosmological redshift isn't fully understood Dave. You keep insisting this is so, but it's not. Even if it shows that the universe as we know it is expanding today, that is not evidence that only BB theory is viable.
quote:
General Relativity showed that gravitation can be modeled without a force, Michael, so your demands that there be a force are without merit.
The more you dodge and weave as we get to this question of the "cause" of expansion, the more it's apparent that you don't have any scientific explanations, and you don't have any answers. If you just admitted it, things would go a lot more smoothly between us.
quote:
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.
For QM to work Dave, "spacetime" has to be made of something "tangible" and measurable.
quote:
No, spacetime is a metric, Michael, completely independent of the presense or absence of any material thing.
Boloney!
quote:
Apparently you really haven't studied Big Bang theory, or you'd already know that before there was mass, all was energy. It cooled down enough to make quarks and gluons after a while.
Hoy Vey! You just got through telling me there are *no* particles and no fields, yet now you've stirred in "energy" into the mix?!?!? What "form" is this "energy" Dave? How did this "ene |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 07/06/2006 12:12:05 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2006 : 12:15:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ricky
Yes. Well, sort of.
When we discover a flaw in a theory, we don't throw it out the window right away. That would be a very rash decision. Instead, we hold on to it. A theory explains things that we would otherwise have no explanation for. If we were to just throw it out, we would be going backwards in terms of scientific progression (the ability to explain things).
I tend to agree with most of what you just said, so let me ask you an important question Ricky. Based on where things sit right now, what "evidence" would "falsify" Big Bang theory?
|
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2006 : 12:17:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
Do you realize michael that Einstein never accepted quantum theory? The idea that gravitons having anything at all to do with General Relativity is laughable.
Wait a minute. First you guy critisize me for talking about "old" Big Bang theory, and then you chastise me again for moving beyond Einstein and into quantum mechanics? Come on!
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2006 : 12:17:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
The BB theory you handed me Dave was anything *but* consistent or logical. You can't define the force, but somehow you know it's "coasting". You can't define the particles that expand, but somehow they all form into mass somehow *after* they expand. Hoy Vey! You call that logical or consistent?
No, I don't call it logical or consistent, Michael, but I never said those things. I said that there is no force for expansion, and that particles do not expand. You're the one who's making a mess of the theory by making mistakes every time you try to state the theory.quote:
quote:
So was the statement that evolution is a theory of physics,
Peanut gallery personal attacks from a guy that posted the last comments and then closed the last thread and didn't bother to start a new one. How cute.
You certainly didn't seem to care, as your kiss-off post suggested you weren't going to be talking about this stuff again. Besides which, you've had over 900 posts with which to make your case, and on a more-formal science forum, your basic mistakes (kinetic energy as a force, for example) would have been ferreted out long ago, and you would have been shut down. You've never been banned here, you've never had a post deleted, you've never had a post edited for content (except the title of this thread). You are obviously perfectly capable of starting new threads, as you proved with this one. Apparently, you think it's some great hardship and a personal affront to be asked to do so.
And yes, it is a "personal attack," but you've given us nothing better to go on. You are clearly unprepared for a serious discussion of physics, because you think that kinetic energy is an example of a force, or that General Relativity posits gravitons (for examples). Why should I take you seriously, Michael, when you make such rookie mistakes? You're either very badly educated about these subjects, or you're getting so worked up that you're losing your ability to type in rational sentences. Either way, these personal faults are why your ideas are getting snubbed here, along with the facts that you won't present a proper solid-surface solar model, nor will you even try to understand our presentation of Big Bang Theory.
So yes, talking about how you obviously don't know the science you're trying to talk about is a personal attack - a perfectly appropriate personal attack.quote:
I even tried to give you the last word between us Dave, and you couldn't let it go. So be it.
Apparently, you also think that there's some reason I shouldn't respond to your posts in this public forum. If you want to have a private conversation with Dr. Mabuse, it'd be easy enough to email him.quote:
Evidently I'm supposed to agree with you on that topic or else I'll be trashed some more, is that it?
No, you're supposed to show that you can use the terms and definitions of science as everyone else does. You did not do so for a long time in the Sun threads, you gave us a big "whatever" when it was pointed out that inflation and expansion aren't the same thing in Big Bang theory, and you were handed the definition of "physics," shown that evolution doesn't explain any physics, but still insisted that evolution is a theory of physics. You can continue making stuff up as you go along, Michael, but nobody will take you seriously if you do.quote:
Suggesting there is movement in the z-axis is not "metaphysics" Dave. In fact the data we've recently recieved about the shape of the sun's sheath would suggest that we're moving in the southernly direction since that is the "short" side of the teardrop shaped sheath that surrounds our solar system.
No, Michael, saying that the Sun is moving and claiming that such movement affects our measurements of the Sun's mass without it being due to Relativistic effects is what is metaphysics. As I said months ago, the discovery of a relationship between acceleration and changes in apparent mass that's more than trivially different to Relativity would be worthy of a Nobel Prize.quote:
Evidence seems to be in the eye of the beholder Dave. You ridicule my suggestion that the sun and solar system move in the z-axis, even though we do see evidence that the sheath around the solar system isn't round, rather it is flattened in the southern hemisphere. Shrug.
I never ridiculed your suggestion that the Sun is in motion, Michael. In fact, in the very first thread you participated in, I calculated how much the speed of the Sun is affecting its mass due to Relativistic effects, based on the measured speed of our star. Your brand new assertion that I'm ridiculing the idea that the Sun and solar system moves is just one more rationalization of yours to avoid the difficult subjects which you are clearly unprepared to face. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2006 : 12:37:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by Ricky
Yes. Well, sort of.
When we discover a flaw in a theory, we don't throw it out the window right away. That would be a very rash decision. Instead, we hold on to it. A theory explains things that we would otherwise have no explanation for. If we were to just throw it out, we would be going backwards in terms of scientific progression (the ability to explain things).
I tend to agree with most of what you just said, so let me ask you an important question Ricky. Based on where things sit right now, what "evidence" would "falsify" Big Bang theory?
If you are going to ask that question, then you obviously don't agree with just about anything I said. Once a theory is accepted by the scientific community, the only way to get it out is to replace it, not falsify it directly. We can poke holes in it, notice that there is some sort of problem, but that's about it. Now there are exceptions. If we falsify something that must be true in order for our theory to work or make any sense at all, it is possible we will throw out the theory completely and go back to, "We don't know." But it is such a rare event that it is negligible. I can't think of one example where this has happened in scientific history. |
Why continue? Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred thousand who hug their superstitions to their breast.
- Isaac Asimov |
| Edited by - Ricky on 07/06/2006 12:42:16 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
