|
| Thread: The Big Bang: did it happen or not? |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
posted February 02, 2009 07:49 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Rubycus:
Quote:
I mean, if there is a God he could easily make the universe expand.
Yes, but the Big Bang is a simpler explanation.
Thank you. This acctually prooves my point: there is no proof for the big bang.
E=MC˛
the fact that energy can be matter is supporting the theory that the universe began from small particles of energy (quarks) and that, as the universe stretched, new elements began to develop.
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 02, 2009 10:41 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Rubycus:
Quote:
I mean, if there is a God he could easily make the universe expand.
Yes, but the Big Bang is a simpler explanation.
Thank you. This acctually prooves my point: there is no proof for the big bang.
E=MC˛
the fact that energy can be matter is supporting the theory that the universe began from small particles of energy (quarks) and that, as the universe stretched, new elements began to develop.
Err, where do you get this from?
For intrinsic logic, note that all the new elements are made of THREE constituents: Protons, Electrons and Neutrons. It's irrational to assume MORE constituents for either Protons or Neutrons (or even Electrons); we have enough evidence to conclude that the workings of "nature" (or whatever you want to call it) are ECONOMICAL. While this cannot be proven with any exclusivity, of course, IT MAKES SENSE, to assume that our "universe" consists of the least possible number of basic or constituent "elements".
Current particle physics is nothing less than a mess therefore.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted February 04, 2009 03:54 PM |
|
|
Quote:
What exactly do you mean?
Your previous post, especially this:Quote:
Do you remember what happened the last time when an important observation amounted to "missing something"? Difference in light speed when measured against the earth stream in the light ether? It lead to the conclusion that there is none.
@Dagoth: if anything, that formula says that mass and energy are the same and therefore, the Universe is made up of ONLY photons (and anti-photons which might just as well have a special property of the photon, so when they come in contact they make matter, etc).
It is like in computers though: you can have a computer with base 10, but the bare minimum (and most efficient at that matter) is binary, 1 and 0, because it is the absolute minimum possible (you can represent any number with it). Of course, with only 1 digit you are not able to represent anything at all, so you need at least 2 symbols.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Minion
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted February 09, 2009 03:51 PM |
|
|
Quote:
In fact Big Bang explains nothing at all. While it explains how - or rather makes use of the relativity of - space and time have come to exist, it rather leaves ENERGY (in each of its available forms inclusing matter) as something of a complete mystery: where does all the energy come from? Or the matter, for that matter.
I think it is time to hear the theory that JJ supports. I hope it explains where all the energy in the Universe comes from 
____________
"These friends probably started using condoms after having produced the most optimum amount of offsprings. Kudos to them for showing at least some restraint" - Tsar-ivor
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 10, 2009 03:30 PM |
|
|
Start reading right here:
http://openseti.org/Docs/HotsonPart1.pdf
Very elegant, imo, and rather convincing. If you like what you read, switch to part 2, by simply exchanging the 1 for a 2 in the url.
|
|
Totoro
Famous Hero
in User
|
|
posted February 11, 2009 04:33 PM |
|
Edited by Totoro at 16:34, 11 Feb 2009.
|
It could be possible to create a program that is just like our universe. Then we could go sit down in some machine, put a wierd helmet in our head and transfer our consciousness into this program. Then one day we die in this program and our consciousness is transferred back. We wake up in a white room with machines everywhere and then just continue lives in there. Then some day we die there as well and our consciousness is again transferred to a higher level just to die in that level to be transferred to yet another level and so on.
____________
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 11, 2009 04:44 PM |
|
|
|
Doesn't lead anywhere, though.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted February 11, 2009 05:37 PM |
|
|
That is very interesting book, but I just found out this examining more closely:Quote:
The DNA molecule, the basis of life, is arguably the most complex entity known. Yet its code is written using just four components, the four bases whose combinations comprise the genetic code. It can be shown by complexity theory that three bases would not provide sufficient complexity for this code, and five would be redundant. Yet any number of components could have been used. However, only four are necessary, only four are used.
Then it goes how a computer requires only 2 values, the absolute minimum. I'm a bit confused as to why 4 are needed (instead of 2) in "complexity theory", do you happen to know the source of that? (note this is a bit off topic but anyway)
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 11, 2009 06:06 PM |
|
|
|
For positive and negative, matter and antimatter
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted February 11, 2009 06:54 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 18:56, 11 Feb 2009.
|
Is that the name of a book? I can't find it with Google...
(if not, I asked what's the source that DNA can't work with, let's say, 2 elements, instead of 4... because our computers prove that 2 is enough, but that book says you need at least 4 for DNA, so I'm curious what are the differences).
EDIT: I know that DNA works with 4 as it is, but why does it need? (that article says anything lower than 4 = impossible). So I do know that's how things are now, with 4 elements in DNA, but why is it necessary (as in, if we would be able to make our own artificial DNA and use only 2 elements, for example)
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 11, 2009 08:25 PM |
|
|
Ah, ok, I misunderstood that.
No, that's not in that article. You have to research that for yourself.
|
|
Seraphim
Supreme Hero
Knowledge Reaper
|
|
posted February 11, 2009 11:14 PM |
|
|
What an irony!If science was not too efficient,religion would not even have the idea of saying the bing bang had been started from god.
And humanity is pretty dumb,they do want to explain the creation of the universe even when our own logic and reasoning is not even verified.
I guess that we will never find that one.
ps,anyone wondered how many stars do we have in sky? The paradox is that there might be more but their light did not arrive to earth while on the other hand it might be that all the stars are dead and we see their light from milions years ago.
|
|
Minion
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted February 13, 2009 05:38 PM |
|
Edited by Minion at 17:39, 13 Feb 2009.
|
Well although interesting, I still haven't read the article in it's entirety. But to give me a head start, answer a few questions. What is it that causes the rapid distancing of galaxies from one another? Or are the observations illusions, or somehow misinterpreted? How did it all "began" in Dirac's model? If you say that energy has always been there, the same applies to Big Bang theory as well. It can be a constant cycle of explosion and implosion, which has continued for eternity.
I have other questions too, but this will get us started (sorry for not yet reading the article, but on a forum it is better to lay the issues for everyone to see, so they can be better debated)
And earlier you said that Quote:
And while a theory is no static entity, each theory has foundations without which the theory wouldn't be the same anymore. An example would be the ether. Either there is one or not.
Yet that is not how it works. You have a theory made of and around observations. They are ALWAYS incomplete of course, we have limited skills of observing the space. But around those observations, a theory is formed. Now we check the calculations if they match. And if they do, no extra force is affecting the cosmos. But if the calculations don't add up, something needs to be added, be it Ether or the Dark Matter or something, that correct the calculations. For example, we can say that the Standard Model predicts that there is something like Dark Matter, which is exactly the same as normal matter except that it consist of particles that interfere very little with everything else except Gravitational force. And there are some very likely candidates for this particle. If the particle is found, that gives indication that the theory may be on a right track. Sadly, for not being able to find that particle it does not mean that it doesn't exist, as they are EXTREMELY difficult to notice.
Umm, I forgot my point. Oh yeah. You don't start a theory by first stating that "there is no Ether". That is absurd. You start from the observations. You reshape the theory so it makes sense, it may include Ether.
____________
"These friends probably started using condoms after having produced the most optimum amount of offsprings. Kudos to them for showing at least some restraint" - Tsar-ivor
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted February 13, 2009 05:44 PM |
|
|
Quote:
If you say that energy has always been there, the same applies to Big Bang theory as well. It can be a constant cycle of explosion and implosion, which has continued for eternity.
You're contradicting yourself. Earlier you said that the galaxies expand and move away from each other (accelerating!). This means another Big Bang (or Big 'Crunch') cannot happen. Unless again, those are illusions, but it has to be MORE than just illusion, because it has to 'Crunch' -- i.e do the opposite, not just stay in 'place'.
Quote:
For example, we can say that the Standard Model predicts that there is something like Dark Matter, which is exactly the same as normal matter except that it consist of particles that interfere very little with everything else except Gravitational force. And there are some very likely candidates for this particle. If the particle is found, that gives indication that the theory may be on a right track. Sadly, for not being able to find that particle it does not mean that it doesn't exist, as they are EXTREMELY difficult to notice.
Computers can be built, and have been built to operate in decimal (i.e 10 "particles"), but they saw it was a lot simpler and more efficient to use just 2 "particles"
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Minion
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted February 13, 2009 05:58 PM |
|
|
Quote:
You're contradicting yourself. Earlier you said that the galaxies expand and move away from each other (accelerating!). This means another Big Bang (or Big 'Crunch') cannot happen. Unless again, those are illusions, but it has to be MORE than just illusion, because it has to 'Crunch' -- i.e do the opposite, not just stay in 'place'.
I am not stating anything as a fact. One theory is that the Big Crunch Happens, which is in line with the idea that Energy has always existed. I am not contradicting myself. The galaxies may be moving away from each other now, but it may reverse itself if some conditions are met (don't remember them)
____________
"These friends probably started using condoms after having produced the most optimum amount of offsprings. Kudos to them for showing at least some restraint" - Tsar-ivor
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted February 13, 2009 06:11 PM |
|
|
I get what you're saying.
But, if we take the effects as true (of expansion), then it is kinda impossible (unless something 'intelligent' happens) to have a Big Crunch, because they aren't just moving away from each other at a constant or decelerating speed, they are accelerating from each other.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 13, 2009 07:00 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Umm, I forgot my point. Oh yeah. You don't start a theory by first stating that "there is no Ether". That is absurd. You start from the observations. You reshape the theory so it makes sense, it may include Ether.
Well, sure, but there either is an ether or not. So depending on what results you get, the theory is either ok or not.
Conversely, if you have a theory that calls for a certain amount of matter THAT IS NOT THERE, than the logical step is, to rethink the theory and not invent a ghost-matter.
For the article and redshift. The Doppler effect is a wrong interpretation (the interpretation that galaxies are moving apart is wrong). Instead the redshift is the expression of a necessary loss of energy when photons move over a fistance which is proportional to distance, in keeping with the 2nd law of Thermodynamics. The Doppler interpretation violates conservation of energy law (since galaxies are accelerating, where comes all the energy from?). We could measure an expansion of space at the Hubble rate here in our system (meanwhile) and it doesn't happen, so official science decrees, that said expansion happens only where we cannot measure it, which is indeed nonsense. You can read that on page 20 of the 2nd part in detail.
Note that space seems indeed to be Euclidic - lattest observations seem to suggest this.
|
|
Minion
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted February 14, 2009 01:31 PM |
|
|
Quote:
For the article and redshift. The Doppler effect is a wrong interpretation (the interpretation that galaxies are moving apart is wrong). Instead the redshift is the expression of a necessary loss of energy when photons move over a fistance which is proportional to distance, in keeping with the 2nd law of Thermodynamics. The Doppler interpretation violates conservation of energy law (since galaxies are accelerating, where comes all the energy from?).
No. Actually the galaxies are not accelerating themselves, they only look so from our point of view. The Universe itself is expanding or we can say that the intervening space between galaxies is stretching.
____________
"These friends probably started using condoms after having produced the most optimum amount of offsprings. Kudos to them for showing at least some restraint" - Tsar-ivor
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 14, 2009 01:46 PM |
|
|
Listen, Minion. I followed your request, trying to summarize a couole of points, since you seem to be too lazy to read it.
If you are interested in this stuff, you should just read the original text which starts, as I said on page 20 of part 2, instead of arguing with me about a detail of my brief summary.
You have no problem with the fact that we don't measure the Doppler effect here, in our system? I HAVE.
|
|
Minion
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted February 14, 2009 03:29 PM |
|
Edited by Minion at 15:32, 14 Feb 2009.
|
The Doppler shift is not supposed to happen here, because at smaller scales matter has clumped together under the influence of gravitational attraction and these clumps do not individually expand.
I am not sure what I want to respond to in the article. It seems like a good theory overall. The only thing is that redshift is many times been proven to be caused by distancing. So I guess I will take a closer look at the way photon is seen in this model. That photons loose energy gradually while traveling in space is also called as "tired light" which is referred here.
# There is no known interaction that can degrade a photon's energy without also changing its momentum, which leads to a blurring of distant objects which is not observed. The Compton shift in particular does not work.
# The tired light model does not predict the observed time dilation of high redshift supernova light curves. This time dilation is a consequence of the standard interpretation of the redshift: a supernova that takes 20 days to decay will appear to take 40 days to decay when observed at redshift z=1.
In 2001 Goldhaber and the Supernova Cosmology Project published results of a time dilation analysis of 60 supernovae. A plot of their width factor w versus the redshift z is shown below.
Graph of time dilation vs redshift
If the redshift were due to a tired light effect, the width of a supernova light curve would be independent of the redshift, as shown by the red horizontal line. If the redshift is due to an expanding Universe, the width factor should be w = (1+z) as shown by the blue line. The best fit to the data is the black line, and it is clearly consistent with the blue line and rules out the tired light model. My best fit line is
w = 0.985*(1+z)(1.045 +/- 0.089)
using a least sum of absolute errors robust estimator to find the fit and the half-sample bootstrap to estimate the errors. This data excludes the tired light model by more than 11 standard deviations.
Blondin et al. (2008) also studied distant supernovae, but used spectra to judge the age of the supernovae. They found an aging rate that varied like
1/(1+z)(0.97 +/- 0.10),
compatible with the expected 1/(1+z) for expanding Universes, but 9.7 standard deviations away from the constant aging rate expected in the tired light model.
# The tired light model fails the Tolman surface brightness test. This is essentially the same effect as the CMB prefactor test, but applied to the surface brightness of galaxies instead of to the emissivities of blackbodies. Lubin & Sandage (2001) show that tired light fails this test by 10 standard deviations.
____________
"These friends probably started using condoms after having produced the most optimum amount of offsprings. Kudos to them for showing at least some restraint" - Tsar-ivor
|
| |
|
|
