5
   

The forbidden questions of comsology and physics

 
 
Banana Breath
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Sep, 2015 11:15 am
@Leadfoot,
Have a look if you will, at the classic rocket-in-space problem, no gravity, no air resistance or turbulence; my (admittedly limited) understanding is that acceleration due to thrust is independent of initial velocity.
Quote:
http://www.real-world-physics-problems.com/images/rocket_physics_44.png
"This answer is very nice and compact, and it does not depend on the initial velocity vi. This is perhaps a surprising result coming out of this analysis."
http://www.real-world-physics-problems.com/rocket-physics.html
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Sep, 2015 11:46 am
@Banana Breath,
Again, I agree with that, in fact that is part of the mystery. It DOESNT MATTER what the initial velocity is. ANY CHANGE in velocity, even reducing the relative or absolute velocity of a mass requires an exponential increase in the required energy as the CHANGE in velocity increases linearly.

That is why we are locked in local space. We don't have enough energy available to escape it in a human lifetime (or even many human lifetimes).
Banana Breath
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Sep, 2015 12:01 pm
@Leadfoot,
Except (according to scifi writers...) when we break the rules by dilating time and/or space, or perhaps through infinite improbability.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Sep, 2015 09:34 am
@Banana Breath,
Banana Breath wrote:

Quote:
you cannot describe one and only one thing wrong with inflationary cosmology. You lose.

Brandon, if it makes you happy to call every legit scholar in the world a loser, you go ahead, knock yourself out. But when you actually grow up (if you ever do) you'll notice that every legit scholar examining and criticizing the topic is generous in their research citations, that's what makes a good scholar. Pick up a copy of "The Universe in a Nutshell" by Stephen Hawking. Have a good look at his references and how he uses him.
If it will make you happy, write to him and ask him to rattle on in criticism of conventional physics without using any references. Let us know when you hear back from him. It would take a truly sad little man to dedicate his life to such tasks but I suspect you're up to the job.


Discrediting the poster is not an argument. You tell us that the big bang theory is wrong, but, when pressed, cannot specify one debatable thing that's wrong. You lose.
Banana Breath
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Sep, 2015 11:59 am
@Brandon9000,
Brandon, silly Brandon. Scroll back and read from the beginning. My criticism of the big bang theory isn't the inflationary period, it's the assumption that it converges to a singularity wherein all laws of physics no longer apply. I have both stated my own concerns, AND cited the concerns of other theorists and thinkers including Hawking.
Among other places, my own concerns in my own words were stated Tue 8 Sep, 2015 12:07 pm above where I stated:
Quote:
if one describes cycles of big bangs and big crunches and alternate universe bubbles popping up here and there and adds the qualifiers "all bets are off as far as physics in the transition phases"("a" below) that is indistinguishable from a religious (b) or magical (c) perspective:
a) Laws of physics no longer apply during singularity stage
b) God made it happen
c) Abra-cadabra, presto-change-o
Personally I have a problem with scientific theories that depend on large events that don't obey scientific principles.

Brandon, you're clearly a quackhead. Like Setanta, you can't read for meaning, you can only make noise and squawk about imagined "failures" of others. You're truly pathetic; not quite as vile as Setanta, but equally unable to contribute anything meaningful here.
http://image.spreadshirtmedia.com/image-server/v1/designs/11541637,width=178,height=178/Quack-Head,-Duck-Lover.png
Tes yeux noirs
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Sep, 2015 03:46 pm
Banana Breath, your silly toilet mouth does you no service at all. Just breezed to say that. Bye.

Banana Breath
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Sep, 2015 04:04 pm
@Tes yeux noirs,
For real Tes? Ha, are you taking offense at the word "silly?" Or is it "quack?"
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Sep, 2015 07:05 pm
@Banana Breath,
Banana Breath wrote:
Brandon, silly Brandon. Scroll back and read from the beginning. My criticism of the big bang theory isn't the inflationary period, it's the assumption that it converges to a singularity wherein all laws of physics no longer apply. I have both stated my own concerns, AND cited the concerns of other theorists and thinkers including Hawking.
Among other places, my own concerns in my own words were stated Tue 8 Sep, 2015 12:07 pm above where I stated:
Quote:
if one describes cycles of big bangs and big crunches and alternate universe bubbles popping up here and there and adds the qualifiers "all bets are off as far as physics in the transition phases"("a" below) that is indistinguishable from a religious (b) or magical (c) perspective:
a) Laws of physics no longer apply during singularity stage
b) God made it happen
c) Abra-cadabra, presto-change-o
Personally I have a problem with scientific theories that depend on large events that don't obey scientific principles.

Brandon, you're clearly a quackhead. Like Setanta, you can't read for meaning, you can only make noise and squawk about imagined "failures" of others. You're truly pathetic; not quite as vile as Setanta, but equally unable to contribute anything meaningful here.
http://image.spreadshirtmedia.com/image-server/v1/designs/11541637,width=178,height=178/Quack-Head,-Duck-Lover.png


The name calling is merely childish. First of all, I will say that although I do know something about physics, cosmology is beyond my detailed knowledge, so I am debating this knowing only what I have heard around.

Having said that, your argument seems to boil down to:

"The laws of physics do not apply during the singularity stage and, therefore, the theory is like magic and religion and not like science."

My response is that at most the theory is saying, and I do not know this for sure, that known laws of physics apply as soon as the big bang starts, but currently unknown physics applies before. This, if it is what they are saying, would be equivalent to saying that known theory is a subset or approximation of a larger theory that includes but is not limited to known theory. This is not at all implausible. It has happened before in physics. For example, Newtonian physics was eventually found to be a subset of relativistic physics applying approximately at low speeds. If you believe that mainstream physics is saying that no laws, as opposed to currently unknown laws, apply prior to the explosion, please find me a link to that from a reputable source.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Sep, 2015 12:02 am
Looks like BB is attempting to drag as many people into his troll-a-thon as possible. I've already pointed out that he has contradicted his claim that this is a forbidden question. There is nothing further here that i need say.
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Sep, 2015 07:43 am
@Setanta,
Quote:
There is nothing further here that i need say.

I must have missed the part where you said anything to begin with...
Banana Breath
 
  2  
Reply Mon 14 Sep, 2015 11:37 am
@Leadfoot,
Setanta said lots, just nothing meaningful or contributory to any coherent discussion. He cursed at some windmills, spit at some imagined gremlins, and denied the existence of anything beyond the frame of his myopic narcissistic mirror. Sounds like a pretty typical day in Setanta land.
0 Replies
 
Banana Breath
 
  2  
Reply Mon 14 Sep, 2015 11:53 am
@Brandon9000,
Quote:
If you believe that mainstream physics is saying that no laws, as opposed to currently unknown laws, apply prior to the explosion, please find me a link to that from a reputable source.

Brandon, you're going around in circles, and once again asking for things that have already been provided. Scroll back and you'll notice that I've already posted several times, both quotes and references from some of the most reputable sources in the world. Tue 8 Sep, 2015 10:04 am and Wed 9 Sep, 2015 08:33 am including the following quote from Stephen Hawking (with my boldface emphasis added):
Quote:
At this time, the Big Bang, all the matter in the universe, would have been on top of itself. The density would have been infinite. It would have been what is called, a singularity. At a singularity, all the laws of physics would have broken down. This means that the state of the universe, after the Big Bang, will not depend on anything that may have happened before, because the deterministic laws that govern the universe will break down in the Big Bang.
http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html

Wed 9 Sep, 2015 08:59 am, additional quotes from Harvard Professor and theoretical physicist Matt Strassler, and cosmologist/physicist professors Ali and Das, including this:
Quote:
"The Big Bang singularity is the most serious problem of general relativity because the laws of physics appear to break down there"
http://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html#jCp

They all agree that this is a fundamental flaw in the big bang theory and consequently they're trying to INVENT new theories that would avoid the inconsistencies. Again, they are in the minority in the larger science community.
And again, as I've already stated, this is the bigger problem is science, astronomy and cosmology, where instructors present the big bang theory WITHOUT confronting the violations of the laws of physics. And again, I've provided references on this above which our resident troll windmill fighter pretends he can't see.

Brandon9000
 
  2  
Reply Sun 20 Sep, 2015 05:58 pm
@Banana Breath,
I think the idea they're trying to get across is that although there is a lot of evidence for much of the theory, more work needs to be done on the part concerning the initiation. The fact that this portion of the theory is giving implausible results doesn't negate the evidence for other parts that do seem to fit the facts. It's not surprising that it's difficult to work out a theory on this subject since it is so far divorced from most of the things observable in our present daily experience which we can easily measure.
0 Replies
 
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Sep, 2015 10:56 am
@Brandon9000,
Thanks Bran for that #....795, with which I agree most wholeheartedly, for what that's worth (not much hereabout I'm afraid)

But there's one notion we simply can't seem to undo; and that's the idea that there's a "nothingness" outside the Universe, apparently an empty space, that we're living in a sort of "ball" that's surrounded by it

...when of course there simply isn't an outside; while our home doesn't have the "shape" of a ball 'cause it doesn't have a "shape," concepts hard to grasp probably because they can't be pictured in Mind's Eye

How this figures into the present arguments however, I can't fathom. I merely mention it 'cause it might
Banana Breath
 
  2  
Reply Mon 21 Sep, 2015 11:36 am
@dalehileman,
Quote:
while our home doesn't have the "shape" of a ball 'cause it doesn't have a "shape," concepts hard to grasp probably because they can't be pictured in Mind's Eye

There's a related issue that has bothered me since I was a kid. I'm not sure how related it is, but it might be the basis for conceptualizing (correctly or incorrectly) the expanding universe.
When you boil water, bubbles form and rise. Intuitively I watched this process as a child and wondered where the air comes from. If the water molecules gain more energy and bounce off each other, I understand that, they spread out, but within a bubble of air, no? I'm told "no," that's just steam, water vapor, water molecules spread out. Yet to my intuition, if they've spread out to the point where you can see between them, EITHER there is air between them, or vacuum between them, and if it's vacuum, then it should pull the water back into the space between the energized water molecules, but it doesn't.
In any case, how is that different from the expanding universe? Did a large amount of energy just cause the "steam bubble" that we're living in? The steam bubbles just collapse once they cool. Not into a singularity, but back into the original puddle.
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Sep, 2015 01:21 pm
@Banana Breath,
Wow Ban but thanks, I'll have to mull that over

Had never pondered the steam thing; yes, just what is it between the H2O molecules.....
0 Replies
 
Curiouserncurioser
 
  2  
Reply Wed 30 Sep, 2015 09:00 pm
@Leadfoot,
Leadfoot, apparantly the "Father of Quantum Mechanics," Max Planck, was one who believed in intelligent design.

"As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter. " Lecture, 'Das Wesen der Materie' [The Essence/Nature/Character of Matter], Florence, Italy (1944). Archiv zur Geschichte der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft, Abt. Va, Rep. 11 Planck, Nr. 1797

As quoted and cited here: http://todayinsci.com/P/Planck_Max/PlanckMax-Quotations.htm

I tend toward the belief but acknowledge that belief is not knowledge. I really do not know. I have for over a decade now had to stop calling myself a Christian simply because I could not prove to myself that I or anyone else has the holy spirit within them that the Bible speaks of, as the Bible describes it through the resultant gifts of the spirit which it says all believers receive. Though I do have to admit that out of long habit I do still tend to sometimes state things as though I were still a dogmatic believer. But the evidence of a designer such as you cite here seems to me to be evidence, though not proof, and it likewise seems to me that only those whose minds are closed to the possibility would deny it. And a closed mind is not the best sort to approach science.

The Bible is not a book to be taken as a science text, by any means. But there are passages that do agree with some observations of science. Such as this: "He stretches out the north over Empty space; He hangs the earth on nothing." Job 26:7.

Max Planck seemed to be in agreement with Paul, who said to the Athenians "...for in Him we live, move, and have our being, as also some of your own poets have said, 'For we are also His offspring.'" Acts 17:28.

Again, belief is not knowledge. But I tend to believe it.
Curiouserncurioser
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Sep, 2015 09:39 pm
@dalehileman,
Dalehileman, your response here to Brandon9000 catches my attention. I posted a question with some obervations earlier to which no one has yet responded which references the possibility of "somethingness" outside the boundaries of our universe, which I entitled "Observance of the universe from a round earth with implications." It is entirely speculatory and based on the fact that turning our instruments outward in any direction from our rond earth, we find ourselves looking into the past. This raises some implications and questions in my mind about the true state of the universe and what may be outside it though undetectable. (Non theological, I should add.) If you have the time and interest, you might take a look at it, and I would appreciate any comment you (and any others) may wish to make. It initially gained two thumbs up, but those have since disappeared, with no comments as to why. That baffles me.
Curiouserncurioser
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Sep, 2015 09:43 pm
@Curiouserncurioser,
I forgot to include the link.

http://able2know.org/topic/295292-1
0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  2  
Reply Thu 1 Oct, 2015 06:47 am
@Curiouserncurioser,
Quote:
The Bible is not a book to be taken as a science text, by any means. But there are passages that do agree with some observations of science. Such as this: "He stretches out the north over Empty space; He hangs the earth on nothing." Job 26:7.



Beautiful! And thank you for the Max Planct quotes, they were new to me.

While researching some recent findings in the field of epigenetics I ran across something that supported a bible verse that I long considered unexplainable either theologically or scientifically. It was the one that reads "The sins of the fathers are visited on the children unto the third generation". The new gene research said that while life style choices do not affect the inherited DNA, there appear to be epigenitic effects that can affect offspring up to 3 generations. I
was gobsmacked when I read it.
 

Related Topics

New Propulsion, the "EM Drive" - Question by TomTomBinks
The Science Thread - Discussion by Wilso
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek
 
Copyright © 2023 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 02/03/2023 at 02:32:00