Skip to comments.Misconceptions about the Big Bang
Posted on 02/24/2005 3:54:37 AM PST by PatrickHenry
click here to read article
The only problem was the vacuum contained energy (which is something)
So, unless you can prove that something can come from nothing, it is not science, it is philosophical speculation.
Not quite. Michelson-Morley showed ether was not necessary to explain the observations. They never said it didn't exist.
I'm not certain. For the second reference frame that we see zipping away from us, I think their mass increase does have consequences, even locally for them. Not gravitationally, because they don't feel heavier, but with respect to their inertial mass, there must be a difference. (I'm breaking Einstein's principle of equivalence here, so I recognize that I'm in trouble ... yet -- waiving the flag of buffoonery -- I persevere.) If it were a ship, for example, approaching lightspeed, they would soon be unable to accelerate further.
Or possibility #3: the Universe is much, much stranger than it seems like to us.
Hint: what is your on-board clock doing as you approach the SOL, WRT a clock on a "stationary" frame of reference?
(think about the answer as it would affect the fact that acceleration is the derivative of velocity WRT time)
I disagree. The Michelson-Morley experiment was done at opposite ends of the earth's orbit (6 months apart). The results were identical. If there were an ether that light traveled in, then the speed of light would have been different. Hence, the ether theory was discredited. (A good textbook on the subject is "Special Relativity," by Anthony French. MIT Press.
... in the frame of reference of the first (you called him stationary) observer. In the frame of reference of the ship, they continue to accelerate, or more specifically, they continue to feel the force of acceleration.
The clock is keeping perfect time, so far as the people on the ship are concerned. But the time dilation is real, as they would learn if they could return home. Similarly, I suspect (but don't know) that their mass increase is real too.
And the effect of this on the acceleration of the spacecraft, as viewed from an external "stationary" oberver, would be???
Actually, that's a popular misconception. The reason that the time dilation appears real when they return is because the rocket ship is ACCELERATING. If it were not accelerating, then there would not be any effect of difference in aging. Special Relativity is defined by the concept that all inertial reference frames are equivalent. It establishes a series of transformations so that the observations of observers in these different reference frames all measure the same thing. IT DOES NOT APPLY TO ACCELERATING FRAMES OF REFERENCE.
However, the accelerating rocket ship is not an inertial frame, it is an accelerating frame. This problem is handled mathematically by making an infinitely long series of infinitesmal transformations from each inertial reference frame to the next, somewhat faster reference frame.
The long and the short of it is that the result of time dilation, that the astronauts have aged less upon their return, is entirely due to the fact that the rocket ship was accelerating.
I'll take your word for it.
It's hard to learn when all the knowledge-obtaining orifices are closed.
Maybe I'm just hungry though.
I can't think of any, unless they could see the ship's clock, and note that (correcting for the message transit time) it's out of sync with the clock at home (assuming they were once in sync). Also, I suppose if the viewing position were right, they'd see a shortening of the ship's "forward direction" dimension (if you know what I mean). Offhand, I can't think of any visual manifestation of the increase in mass.
Actually, that's a popular misconception. The reason that the time dilation appears real when they return is because the rocket ship is ACCELERATING.
Yes, that's why the ship is the frame that undergoes the time dilation, and not the earth, even though from the ship's viewpoint, the earth is seen to be accelerating away from the earth. But it's really the ship that experiences acceleration.
Nevertheless, even for non-accelerating frames of reference that are in motion with respect to each other, the Lorentz transformation applies to observed differences in time, length, etc. Or so I've always understood. That's how the two frames can make sense of their otherwise incompatible observations.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. First there were grapefruits!
Now your talking my language...I've always been clueless as to how "nothing" exploded into everything.
Right, the article is clear, "In the beginning, there were grapefruits".
I think "Dean Wormer said it best in "Animal House": "Fat, drunk, and stupid is no way to go through life, son."
>> Hubble's law predicts that galaxies beyond a certain distance, known as the Hubble distance, recede faster than the speed of light. For the measured value of the Hubble constant, this distance is about 14 billion light-years.
If Hubble's "Law" is correct we will never see those galaxies because they are moving away from us faster than their light is moving toward us. That would be strange, indeed, except for the fact that the speed of light is nothing to our all-powerful God -- He who created the heaven and the earth and all its host -- He whose power is beyond our comprehension since we are mere men with no power, to speak of. Hubble's "Law" is certainly possible. Of course, if the appropriately named Hubble Telescope or some future device proves Hubble wrong, then maybe his calculations were wrong -- maybe he meant 20 billion light years, give or take a few, or a bunch. Or maybe he was a mere dreamer who had no clue about the creation of the universe, though he pretended so and wanted so much to be right. But, no matter, he was certainly fascinated by its incredible beauty and unimaginable vastness, as am I.
You're talking out of your hat. Cause and effect necessarily take place in a specified time sequence, which doesn't necessarily apply before the Big Bang. (Nothing is south of the south pole.)
Moreover, there are events that occur in real time that are demonstrably uncaused. Subatomic decays are a whole class of examples. If they were caused by some undiscovered mechanism, pairs of decays would have to obey Bell's inequality. (Look it up if you're unfamiliar with it.) But it's an irreducible experimental fact that some decays violate Bell's inequality.
So either the events are uncaused, or there is some sort of faster-than-light signal that causes the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen correlations that violate the inequality. But faster-than-light signals ipso facto violate causality: if two events have a spacelike separation, the order of the events is frame-dependent (i.e., you can always find a physical frame in which the effect precedes the cause).
The mere existence of EPR correlations is an experimental proof that cause-and-effect cannot be universal.
Yeah, read my follow-up. I was shooting from the hip, responding to PH's post before I read the article.
If it did, then it is an effect of something (of God, or the Big Bang etc)
Evolutionists blame the hearers.
What the real problem is is that the hearers are listening for facts, and what they are hearing is supposition and conjecture, mixed with alot of faith.
Oh, without question the Universe is much stranger then any scientist can imagine.
They haven't even gotten near the Third heaven, throne of God Himself.
It doesn't surprise me you refuse to actually learn anything.
That logic is simply wrong on its face. Causality, as you lay it out, is a consequence of time. But time is a physical property of the universe and exists within it. The universe does not exist in time.
Once again, the north-south coordinate has a definite beginning and a definite ending, but this doesn't imply that anything lies south of the south pole. At the south pole, all possible directions point north, including directions that lie at right angles to each other. Similarly, at the Big Bang, in the simplest (Friedmann-Robertson-Walker) model, all possible directions point towards the future. If there's geometrically no past, there can't be a prior cause.
This is a very good point. Time being, in essence, a knowable dimension.
If there's geometrically no past, there can't be a prior cause.
I understand the conclusion of this statement, but I can't grasp the meaning of a "pior cause." Do you mean outside of time?
Will you please elaborate, thanks.
You may be correct in general terms, but there are many things I've seen that science has discovered which are at the very least a pin hole's view towards God.
Furthermore, Science might not discover it all, but in the scriptures themselves the clues are enormous for science to use to discover more.
Evolution is not a science.
No, evolution is not a FACT!
see post 113. Learning is the responsibility of the learner and no one else.
No. I said that if time doesn't exist before the Big Bang, there can't be a prior cause. "Prior" means "at an earlier time", and "cause" means a specific event at a well-defined place and time. To have a prior cause, there has to be a time at which it occurred.
That's not to say that it's impossible to construct models in which the Big Bang happens in a larger context (i.e., in which the Big Bang can be said to have a cause). Chaotic inflation, for example, has a gigantic number of Big Bangs, each giving rise to many more. Each of those cosmoses can be said to have a cause. My point was that there is no mathematical or philosophical requirement that such an outside context exist, although it may.
Printed this out for Sir SuziQ. He LOVES this stuff!
I did learn something, I learned that the universe In the beginning there were grapefruit and since the grapefruit were abundant, that was good.
Your reading comprehension is horrible. Your ability to grasp analogies is equally horrendous. And yet, you seem unnaturally proud of your ignorance.
Darwin Central is in a continuous war with agents of the Impervium.
We might be catching up with some old tired galaxies, and they would pop into view..
Stick around...it may be fun!
The galaxies which appear to recede at velocities in excess of the speed of light would exceed infinite mass if they were moving THROUGH space.
However, if space itself is moving with the galaxy, then its local velocity would be sub-c.
Other rambling that may or may not apply:
If body A is moving at 0.75c in the x-direction and body B is moving at 0.75c in the negative x-direction, and each shines a light towards the other, then each would see a red shift of 1.5 from the light of the other.
Well, no wonder our public school system is the way it is!
And Science is suppose to deal with facts
Now, who can argue against that!
Sounds like they are back arguing for the eternal universe.
This is not kindergarten. If you want a Nanny State, go to DU.
So, "eternal" is not a scientific theory yet, but a religious or philosphical thought as we know?
What I'm trying my best to comprehend is if "time" is a physical property could it be removed or hidden in existance. How do you even comprehend OUTSIDE OF TIME?
We have discoveredd that time changes or is different with atomic clock experiments... Please understand, I'm not trying to be philosophical about this, but I want to know how it relates to scientific theory...and maybe it doesn't?
Physicist, could it somehow all relate through "digital code?" I mean software is massless, timeless, why does it take up space if it's massless?
I'm sorry, forgive me for my indulgence of questions, but thanks for you insights.
...and it does. Look I don't believe in evolution either, but you just can not say that scientist have not found any evidence that leads them to concluded evolution. I just think there is more evidence for ID than evolution, but in no way do I discount science's discoveries.
If I need a tracheotomy between now and my 10,000th birthday in 11949 I'll just let them do it rather than strangle to death.