Originally posted by KellyJayFirst there was a “singularity” and then it expanded so that it no longer was a “singularity” -that’s it! -that is what the big bang theory says happened -did you hear any different?
What role do you think the singularity played in the Big Bang, maybe
you have a different belief about that than the one I'm used to
hearing about? Explain your view of the relationship between the
singularity and the Big Bang please.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJay……exactly how do you measure the age of
Before you call me a liar again, did you see me quote you in any
way shape or form, did I hint you made that claim?
Going on to your question, exactly how do you measure the age of
the universe?
Kelly
the universe? ...…
I have already repeatedly answered that -but this time I will give it another shot by elaborating slightly:
By looking at its current size and its current mass and its current rate of expansion (using the Doppler shift) and taking into account the law of gravity and any other laws of physics that may be relevant here and extrapolate backwards in time to estimate when it was a singularity.
2 edits
Originally posted by KellyJayOh -I see, I had somehow totally misread what you said there -I must have been trying to read it way too fast I guess -my apologies 🙂
I told you to stand on the balloon too, that simulates not having
any space around the balloon, but then you run into the problem
I predicted would occur, it would not expand with no space.
Kelly
The balloon in this hypothetical experiment will be completely contained within a small part of our universe and would be 3-dimensional with negligible 4-dimensional curvature + the space itself within it will not stretch because blowing up a balloon results in its size increasing through it occupying more 3D space that come FROM outside the balloon as opposed to the 3D space ITSELF within it literally stretching
-compare this with the universe expanding -it has 4-dimensional curvature and it is roughly a 4-dimensional sphere (NOT a 3-dimensional sphere like a balloon) so to expand it doesn’t require it to “push into” any kind of 3D space around it (and there is no logical reason to believe there is a requirement for some sort of “4D space” around it for it to “expand into&rdquo😉. Instead, it “expands” by the very space ITSELF within it stretching as opposed of it increasing in size through it occupying more 3D space that comes FROM “outside” it.
Thus, no experiment with a 3D balloon would simulate what happens to our universe as a whole because it is only practical to make the 3D balloon expand by making it expand into the space around it and at the same time NOT practical to make it expand my making the space itself within it stretch! (I think it would be quite hard to say the least to make that happen artificially!).
I think the balloon analogy is only serving to confuse you here because we (including myself) cannot actually mentally visualise a balloon without thinking 3-dimensionally. So, if you really want to understand, just forget all the analogies thrown at you and study the properties of 4-dimensional geometry. 🙂
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonIt is very sad, this is boiling down to another straight line circle in my
Oh -I see, I had somehow totally misread what you said there -I must have been trying to read it way too fast I guess -my apologies 🙂
The balloon in this hypothetical experiment will be completely contained within a small part of our universe and would be 3-dimensional with negligible 4-dimensional curvature + the space itself within it will not ...[text shortened]... t forget all the analogies thrown at you and study the properties of 4-dimensional geometry. 🙂
opinion.
Kelly
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonIt seems you have taken another stand than what you were saying.
First there was a “singularity” and then it expanded so that it no longer was a “singularity” -that’s it! -that is what the big bang theory says happened -did you hear any different?
I'll have to go back and look at this again, I may be missing your
point, or you may be saying two different things, right now I'm going
to give this a rest and come back when I am not trying to put words
in your mouth incase I am reading you wrong.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJay-and it doesn’t need a “place” -you are still visualising a “3-dimensional place” but you should understand mentally visualising in 3-dimensionals can never properly represent what is going on here nor any 3-dimensional analogies so you should forget these analogies and mental visualisations and just study the properties of 4-dimensional geometry.
Except there isn't a place to put its new size after it grows.
Kelly
If you Google:
“Properties of” 4-dimensional geometry
You will get a whole number of links about this. I haven’t had time to sort through them to find the really relevant ones but if you are really interested in understanding this then you will sort through them and read the relevant ones.
3-dimensional pictures and analogies will often be used to represent what goes on in 4-dimentions (because there is no other way of doing it!) but you just have to keep reminding yourself that these are conceptually very crude representations.
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonEither it is there or it is not, the fact you want to avoid the issue by
-and it doesn’t need a “place” -you are still visualising a “3-dimensional place” but you should understand mentally visualising in 3-dimensionals can never properly represent what is going on here nor any 3-dimensional analogies so you should forget these analogies and mental visualisations and just study the properties of 4-dimensional geometry.
...[text shortened]... you just have to keep reminding yourself that these are conceptually very crude representations.
claims of a forth dimension is just another straight line circle, or
an aimless, goal-less, designer. It just doesn't add up logically so you
twist it to attempt to make it fit even if you have have to break all
the rules of logic you attempt to hold religion accountable for.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayEither you understand the physics, or you don't, and it can only be dumbed down with descriptions of expanding balloons so much and still retain any meaningful connection to the actual physics.
Either it is there or it is not, the fact you want to avoid the issue by
claims of a forth dimension is just another straight line circle, or
an aimless, goal-less, designer. It just doesn't add up logically so you
twist it to attempt to make it fit even if you have have to break all
the rules of logic you attempt to hold religion accountable for.
Kelly
If you don't know tensor calculus, you don't understand the physics of the Big Bang. Heck, I *do* know tensor calculus, and I don't entirely understand it! (And what little I do understand, I can barely describe.)
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJay…claims of a forth dimension is just another straight line circle.. …
Either it is there or it is not, the fact you want to avoid the issue by
claims of a forth dimension is just another straight line circle, or
an aimless, goal-less, designer. It just doesn't add up logically so you
twist it to attempt to make it fit even if you have have to break all
the rules of logic you attempt to hold religion accountable for.
Kelly
Take a perfectly spherical balloon and draw a perfect circle around it. Now, and this is where you have to really stretch your imagination, imagine yourself as a 2-dimensional creature on the surface on the balloon. You would be slightly curved in 3-dimentions because the surface of the balloon is curved that way. But, also imagine that you can ONLY see in 2-dimentions. That would mean that you wouldn’t be able to see with your 2-dimensional eyes that you are slightly curved in 3-dimentions let alone anything else is curved that way. Now you try and test to see how straight the line is -you use your infinitely flat 2-dimensional ruler (that is itself slightly bent in 3-dimentions around the balloon -but you cannot see that either) and you see it as a perfectly straight line. You then mark a point along that line with your signature in your forgery-proof handwriting and then journey along that line to see where it ends. To your surprise, you find it leads back to your starting place because you come to a point which apparently has your signature on it.
Ok, that is a 3-dimensional analogy of a 4-dimensional sphere -but it a crude one because you cannot mentally “visualise” a 3-dimensional sphere without visualising/conceiving of 3D space around it. The problem here is that the 4-dimensional sphere that is the shape of our universe is being represented by a 3-dimensional sphere has NO space around it! It is impossible to “visualise” in 4D just as it is impossible to “visualise” a 3D balloon which has no space outside of itself -but, and this is the critical point here, what you must understand is that, just because we cannot “visualise” something, does not mean it cannot be so! -example: -we cannot “visualise” the infinite number of digits that make up the mathematical constant PI -but PI DOES have an infinite number of digits!
….claims of a forth dimension is just another straight line circle, or
an aimless, goal-less, designer.…
Now you confuse me; -although, obviously, I don’t believe the forth dimension is an “aimless, goal-less, designer”, (because I don’t believe that a dimension is a “designer” -I am not sure if that even makes any sense!) I wasn’t suggesting that the forth dimension is an “aimless, goal-less, designer”! -would you say that the forth dimension is “designer” with aims and goals!? do you believe that, say, the third dimension (not the forth) is “a “designer” with aims and goals!?
Originally posted by KellyJayIn other words you are incapable of understanding it so you give up.
It is very sad, this is boiling down to another straight line circle in my
opinion.
Kelly
The problem is you are attempting to belittle the existence of straight line circles even though it has already been demonstrated to you that they exist. They even exist in reality. Even more, around a black hole is a flat sphere, on which can be drawn an infinity of straight line circles.
Space is curved in the fourth dimension. That is a known fact.
The problem for you, is that refusing to understand the concepts does not constitute an argument in your favor, it merely demonstrates that you shouldn't be making claims in the area until you have studied is a bit more. The arguments that you and knightmeister raise are basically a denial of basic modern physics and your really shouldn't need to use the big bang to demonstrate your Nobel Prize winning discoveries, you should be able to use your argument to show that modern physics is totally wrong about reality as we see it in the here and now.
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou tell me how you define a straight line, and how you define a
In other words you are incapable of understanding it so you give up.
The problem is you are attempting to belittle the existence of straight line circles even though it has already been demonstrated to you that they exist. They even exist in reality. Even more, around a black hole is a flat sphere, on which can be drawn an infinity of straight line circl ...[text shortened]... t to show that modern physics is totally wrong about reality as we see it in the here and now.
circle. I'm telling you, your breaking something here in realms of
truth.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayA straight line: A line, which within the dimensions that it is being discussed, is one dimensional. In mathematical terms it would be defined as x=a where a is constant, and x is a given axis.
You tell me how you define a straight line, and how you define a
circle. I'm telling you, your breaking something here in realms of
truth.
Kelly
A circle is defined as being a straight line when using the polar co-ordinates in two dimensions ie r=a where a is constant and r is the radius. So circles are in fact always straight lines in at least one set of dimensions by definition.
More complicated situations can occur however, on the surface of the earth where latitude and longitude are taken as dimensions, a straight line such as the equator is also a circle.
In normal space time, we define a straight line as the path taken by either light in empty space, or a moving object when no forces are acting on it. In both cases it is possible for them to move in a circle, though more commonly the situation of diverging lines later converging.
If you have better definitions, then please let us know.
Originally posted by twhiteheadWait...how can light or a moving body with no forces acting on it move in a circle?
A straight line: A line, which within the dimensions that it is being discussed, is one dimensional. In mathematical terms it would be defined as x=a where a is constant, and x is a given axis.
A circle is defined as being a straight line when using the polar co-ordinates in two dimensions ie r=a where a is constant and r is the radius. So circles are ...[text shortened]... of diverging lines later converging.
If you have better definitions, then please let us know.