03 Jul 05
Originally posted by no1marauderI guess you are what, now admitting you misrepresented my post
You're obviously completely ignorant about astronomy and cosmological models and uninterested in being anything but ignorant. If you can explain a mechanism whereby the apparent motion of all galaxies speed up and slow down, I and the Nobel Prize committee would be interested in hearing it. My response is directly on point to the logical imp ...[text shortened]... between my ears; your posts in this thread give no evidence of anything existing between yours.
earlier!
Kelly
03 Jul 05
Originally posted by KellyJayDoes someone tie your shoes for you? Please see my post above: I most certainly did not misrepresent your post and dealt with it's logical implications which you are so pathetically ignorant you don't even understand!! If all you're going to do is sit here and argue "Goddunnit" (as your last post to Frogstomp suggests) why do you bother to pretend that you have any interest in a rational discussion? Your absolute refusal to even read and try to understand the Big Bang theory by using the sites I gave you speaks volumes; are you happy being a narrow minded, wilfully ignorant person?
I guess you are what, now admitting you misrepresented my post
earlier!
Kelly
03 Jul 05
Originally posted by KellyJayhe would still be unable to put a dimensional object inside inside a geometric concept that has no dimensions.
For the sake of this discussion if you allow for the possiblity of an
all-powerful creator, wouldn't that creator be the source of all energy
for any system that creator designs? Why would anything matter to
a creator who by his will designed all the systems there are?
Kelly
03 Jul 05
Originally posted by KellyJayWe can calculate the time when they passed each other, the rest is irrelevant.
I said we only now how fast they are traveling at the moment, not
how long they were traveling. The fact that they are traveling at
75mph does not mean they were doing so for 300 years, or 3 hours.
The rest comes from between your ears; it didn't come from my post.
Which seem to be something you are quite adept at doing, that is
inserting bits and pieces of facts only you see.
Kelly
Similarily, we can see that galaxies are moving apart and can calculate when they were closer together.
It's just physics.
03 Jul 05
Originally posted by frogstompThey're no way to know how long the singularity that existed before the Big Bang existed at all; it might not have been there for an instant at all. We can trace the physical reality of the universe for milliseconds AFTER the Big Bang, but we have no way of knowing what the singularity's properties were before then (if it had any).You're entering metaphysics to dogmatically assert that this singularity had particular properties similar to those of a singularity within a black hole; there is nothing to indicate that this is true.
mass cannot exist entirely within a singularity without meeting the requirements of a black hole and that's irrespective it's value ( all is need be is greater than zero).
energy has it's own existential problems in a non-physical dimension space based on a singularity's infinite curvature, it would also be required to have a zero ...[text shortened]... clear that a 5th or higher dimension would require a rethink on the meaning of singularity.
03 Jul 05
For Kelly.
The clincher for the Big Bang was the observation of the microwave background, right where the theory said it would be.
In short, from some time after the bang until 300,000 years after the bang, the universe behaved like an ionized gas or plasma, such as which we see today in a neon sign. 300,000 years after the big bang, the plasma cooled enough so that electrons could begin to combine with protons to form atoms, and the universe became transparent to light. The microwave background which we see today is that plasma, red-shifted down in temperature by the action of time, distance and the expansion of the universe. Our vision can literally see something that is billions of years old, no time machine needed.
03 Jul 05
3 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderHere's the properties of all singularities :
They're no way to know how long the singularity that existed before the Big Bang existed at all; it might not have been there for an instant at all. We can trace the physical reality of the universe for milliseconds AFTER the B ...[text shortened]... thin a black hole; there is nothing to indicate that this is true.
just as the properties of X^2+Y^2+Z^ -T^2 = 4dimensions(spacetime)
and X^2+Y^2+Z^ =3 dimensions (sphere)
and X^2+Y^ =2 dimensions (circle)
and X^=1 dimension (line)
0+0+0-0=0dimensions (singularity)
zero is the ultimate event horizon any mass totally inside a singularity would have to cause an immediate black hole, there's no way out of this either.
waveforms would also be impossible as they would have no direction to either wave or meet the other existential requisite of having velocity equal to that of light D=vt no D : no vt and in relativistist sense no v^2 : no relativistic effects
as I've said before the math gets beyond my limited expertise once in differential geometry since I can only read it in differential form and I have to wait for real mathematicians to work them out.
btw the event horizon of a black hole containing all the stuff in the universe might still be less than a light milli-second
also we are using the term event horizon in the limited sense of the distance from the center of the gravity field to the points that the escape velocity becomes greater than the velocity of light.
04 Jul 05
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderKneverKnight on
You're obviously completely ignorant about astronomy and cosmological models and uninterested in being anything but ignorant. If you can explain a mechanism whereby the apparent motion of all galaxies speed up and slow down ...[text shortened]... n this thread give no evidence of anything existing between yours.
If we see two cars moving in opposite directions on a road, we don't need a time machine to measure their speed and to calculate the time that the cars passed each other.
KellyJay
Very true if we knew they passed one another, but seeing two cars on
the highway and measuring their speed does not tell us how long they
were travelling, only how fast they are going now.
no1marauder
We've been through this "maybe the speed of light has changed" crap and it remains crap. Assuming things that are contrary to your observations and any rational explanation violates Occam's Razor and is complete unscientific (no faith about it at least in any non-Colettiesque use of that word). I see you have failed to take my advice and make any rudimentary study of the Big Bang. Two points are considered sufficient to "prove" the theory: 1) The galaxies have all been measured to appear to be moving away from one another, although what is really happening is that space is expanding between them (think of raisins in a raisin cake; the dough expands when cooked and the raisins get further apart); 2) There has been detected by scientists the background radiation of the Big Bang. The concepts are fairly simple; look them up as you are currently just arguing in extreme ignorance and making a fool of yourself.
Above is the exchange, they are actually one after another too. Note: You start on this
‘maybe the speed of light changed” spiel right away. We are having a discussion about
KneverKnight’s analogy on the cars speeding away. At no point do you see in either of
Our posts anything about any rate being changed. Not to mention that nothing by either
of us so far mentioned the speed of light either.
I point this out to you.
KellyJay
Okay, show me where the speed of light has changed was in this
conversation, for that matter where the speed of anything changed
within this conversation? Should I just assume you are once again
reading things into text that are not there, or are you once again
reading minds and telling everyone what it is I am thinking about
here in this thread? Once we settle this part we can look at the
rest of you faith based findings here, such as scientists detecting
the background radiation of the Big Bang.
This is a classic post by you, it is an all too familiar type of
response from you:
no1marauder
You responded to Kneverknight's car analogy by saying the speed of the cars might have changed. KK's analogy was based on the fact that the galaxies are all moving away from each other at a measurable rate, so your assertion was that maybe that rate has changed. This is the same basic argument you have made previously about the speed of light. My post was in response to your assertion that "wellwhoknowsthingsmighthavechanged". Please re-read my post carefully until you understand it, read the Big Bang site I gave and if you still have something to say, go ahead.
Can you point out a change in rate by either me or Kneverknight in
our posts? Show me the words, or can we once again just know you
are back at your mind reading tricks again. You just know what
someone must be thinking so it is okay for you to bash them for
something not written, because you “know” what it was they were
thinking at the time they wrote their posts? I can see how you think
you win most if not all of your debates; you get to put words in others
mouths so you can smack them down, it is much easier than simply
dealing with what was written.
Kelly
04 Jul 05
Originally posted by KneverKnightSo you believe that because you see microwave background,
For Kelly.
The clincher for the Big Bang was the observation of the microwave background, right where the theory said it would be.
In short, from some time after the bang until 300,000 years after the bang, the universe behaved like an ionized gas or plasma, such as which we see today in a neon sign. 300,000 years after the big bang, the plasma cooled ...[text shortened]... e. Our vision can literally see something that is billions of years old, no time machine needed.
right where the theory said it would be, proves the Big Bang?
Why, the only thing that it proves is that with the current information
we had we were able to predict where we would see it, not why it was
there. Getting the placement right, does not mean that we were
right in why it is there, true or am I wrong?
Kelly
04 Jul 05
2 edits
Originally posted by KellyJayBased on measurements of the expansion of the universe using Type Ia supernovae, measurements of the lumpiness of the cosmic microwave background, and measurements of the correlation function of galaxies, the universe has a measured age of 13.7 ± 0.2 billion years. The agreement of these three independent measurements is considered strong evidence for the so-called concordance model that describes the detailed nature of the contents of the universe.
So you believe that because you see microwave background,
right where the theory said it would be, proves the Big Bang?
Why, the only thing that it proves is that with the current information
we had we were able to predict where we woul ...[text shortened]... that we were
right in why it is there, true or am I wrong?
Kelly
The early universe was filled homogeneously and isotropically with a incredibly high energy density and concomitantly huge temperatures and pressures. It expanded and cooled, going through phase transitions analogous to the condensation of steam or freezing of water as it cools, but related to elementary particles.
http://a9.com/%22big%20bang%22
04 Jul 05
1 edit
Originally posted by Phlabibit"It in no way diminishes the importance of the chemical bond to know that it arises from quantum mechanics, electromagnetism, and the prevalence of temperatures and pressures that allow atoms and molecules to exist. Similarly, it does not diminish the significance of life on Earth to know that it emerged from physics and chemistry and the special historical circumstances permitting the chemical reactions to proceed that produced the ancestral life form and thus initiated biological evolution. Finally, it does not detract from the achievements of the human race, including the triumphs of the human intellect and the glorious works of art that have been produced for tens of thousand of years, to know that our intelligence and self-awareness, greater than those of the other animals, have emerged from the laws of biology plus the specific accidents of hominid evolution."
Based on measurements of the expansion of the universe using Type Ia supernovae, measurements of the lumpiness of the cosmic microwave background, and measurements of the correlation function of galaxies, the universe has a measured age o ...[text shortened]... elementary particles.
http://a9.com/%22big%20bang%22
"When we human beings experience awe in the face of the splendors of nature, when we show love for one another, and when we care for our more distant relatives--the other organisms with which we share the biosphere--we are exhibiting aspects of the human condition that are no less wonderful for being emergent phenomena."
.....Murray Gell Mann
04 Jul 05
Ok, after my paste job...
I think it's silly to try and dispute such evidence to try and back up a book that is thousands of years old. In my mind, the book was written by humans. there might have been devine intervention now and then... but much of it is history to fit the times.
Things change. Eating Pork might have been a bad idea at some time. Eating shellfish. Others hold true, respect your elders, don't be cheating on your partner, don't go killing people.
Why is it so important to prove the earth is only about 6,000 years old? Who knows how God might have done it?
P-
04 Jul 05
Originally posted by KellyJayThe big bang model predicted the microwave background. The microwave background was observed. The observations of what is real correspond to the theory. That means that the big bang model is the leading expanation of how the universe evolved and came to be. There is no better theory.
So you believe that because you see microwave background,
right where the theory said it would be, proves the Big Bang?
Why, the only thing that it proves is that with the current information
we had we were able to predict where we would see it, not why it was
there. Getting the placement right, does not mean that we were
right in why it is there, true or am I wrong?
Kelly
No other theory as yet can explain the observations of reality that we see.
The car analogy: Two cars travelling away from each other on a two lane highway. Measure the cars' speed and calculate when and at which point the cars passed each other. Assume the drivers kept a constant speed. This assumption is not detrimental to the analogy.
04 Jul 05
1 edit
Originally posted by KneverKnightI understand your position, I'm still asking you these two questions,
The big bang model predicted the microwave background. The microwave background was observed. The observations of what is real correspond to the theory. That means that the big bang model is the leading expanation of how the universe e ...[text shortened]... nstant speed. This assumption is not detrimental to the analogy.
simply seeing that microwave background where we thought it
should be...does that mean it is there for the reasons we think?
Could we be right in the location and still wrong as to why?
Kelly
edit had to modify my post when I realized I asked you 2 questons. 🙂
04 Jul 05
Originally posted by KneverKnightI understood your anology, speed was never a question as far as
The big bang model predicted the microwave background. The microwave background was observed. The observations of what is real correspond to the theory. That means that the big bang model is the leading expanation of how the universe evolved and came to be. There is no better theory.
No other theory as yet can explain the observations of reality that w ...[text shortened]... . Assume the drivers kept a constant speed. This assumption is not detrimental to the analogy.
I was concern, that was all in between the ears of someone else.
Kelly