Back to Home

Blackholes2 Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | Blackholes II | Post
Login

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Has Science Erred !

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Mournblade on January 31, 2001 13:05:31 UTC

What do you think then , there was nothing then suddenly a big bang , how could this just occur without a space , where would the matter reside , how could it exist.

That is my thought and it is hard to explain. As I mention, for the Big Bang to have come from something that something must have existed previously. So where did that come from? By postulating the previous existence of space or matter you only put back the question, but what created that? As mentioned, science does not invoke a Divine Architect as that answers no questions.

Can I explain this creation ex nihilo, hardly. There are as many competing ideas as there are researchers in the field. My personal take is it is a consequence of Heisenbergs Uncertainty Principle. But I have no proof, evidence or model to back me up, just a GUT feeling.

The red shifts have an alternative explanation as I have explained which is perfectly feasible yet seems to also go against your scientific beliefs and why not , it is simple so why should a red shift be true to laws that can at anytime be eradicated to advance science.

I'm sorry, but I disagree your explanation is perfectly reasonable. If the Universe was created from successive episodes of stellar material being blown into space you would see only a blue shift as the material is blown towards us. This does not explain why Galaxies are moving apart.

I can not see why you say "laws that can be at any time erdicated to advance science". A law is only eradicated if overwhelming evidence is found against it.

Are you telling me that the big bang has no center , why should matter expand in one direction only,

Yes, this is possibly one of the hardest aspects of modern cosmology to grasp. The reason is that the Big Bang does not create matter inside an existing space, it creates space which expands. The mass/energy is simply there for a ride. The current model is that space expands by a factor of about 1050 in around 10-30s. Which means that spacetime expands superluminally. The mass take a lot longer to catch up.

what makes you think that Relativity is void from attack now or in the future .

Nothing at all. No theory is so perfect that it is not open to question or revision. Relativity is known not to explain what is inside black holes. It is inconsistent with Quantum Mechanics. Quantum Entanglement and the EPR (Einstein, Podolsky, Rosen) paradox appear to contradict Relativity. Bell inequalities and the Aspect experiment (EPR experiment) apparently do as well.

Work on GUT and TOE theories are designed to provide the successor to Relativity. This is what Hawking, Thorne, Kaku and others are working on. Hardly a case of theorists blindly following the same path. People know Relativity is not the complete answer.

Anyone can work out that my idea of falling is going to be at odds with your understanding of gravity , and yes I am going to be specific and explain the effect of falling but not just at the moment

I eagerly await.

what you need to ask science is to be specific on what it means by the curvature of space .Hawkings and Einstein introduce it like a stranger walking through my door yet they do not give a rational explanation , niether of them state how the curvature of space is achieved or what it really represents so please explain how the fusion of space and time is achieved .

Curvature of space and spacetime are actually different topics but realated, big ones at that. I will need to dig out some old notes on Minkowski space time and the Einsein/Stress-Energy tensors. I really suggest you read Kip Thornes book "Black Holes and Time Warps, Einsteins Outrageous Legacy" or better still "Gravitation" by Misner, Thorne and Wheeler. Every thing you ever wanted to know about Relativity is in Gravitation.

If I get time I will post my understanding on this.

Well as yet I have not been proven wrong and my theory is far less complex than science has been interpreting and explaining the universe with the scientific rock of gravity that has yet to give a gravitational wave of a hello nature .

Gravity waves are known to be hard to produce and detect. Every other prediction of Relativity has been tested and proven so it appears to be a solid theory.

4/why then does science portray such a beginning .

As mentioned, the problem is one of how up to date the information is and pop-sci interpretations. There have been a number of major upheavals in Cosmology in the last 20 or so years. Inflationary theory being one of the biggest changes to occur. In order to explain things the journalists often dumb things down too much as well.

We are not talking of TV neglecting the big bang issue but the actual concept of a beginning by science , most of us understand it as a big bang

Problem is that no where on this board do you seem to indicate what your current knowledge of Cosmology is so I have been assuming your sole source of info is the TV/magazines. Then from this assuming that the "big questions" are not being tackled.

As I say, what constituted the nature of the Big Bang is open to debate. No one knows or can readily guess, there is no evidence, yet. All that can be surmised is that it happened. The model then extrapolates from there.

I did mention it as a primeval atom so do not twist things,

I am not twisting things. Cosmology has moved a long way since the concept of an oscillating Universe with things collapsing back to a point and re-exploding ad infinitum. Hawking and Hartle has proposed the concept of an Instanton. More about which can be read at http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gr/public/qg_qc.html.

either way you seem to agree that you cannot account for its existence until the final miliseconds can provide an answer which in turn makes your observational data subject to question .

Such is the nature of the beast. We can never 'see' the creation only intuit it from the way the Universe is.

So now your are saying that gravity had nothing to do with the big bang , in my view you are right because gravity does not exist , yet in the view of others how do you explain a big bang without a density , and are you psychic , then what do you know of my interests in reading or what I watch , so far it seems that you already have made your mind up about me and my theories , what I like to know is can you test them to be wrong
You speak of scala fields and mention spacetime yet cannot explain the fusion of both entities, you say it seems to fix a number of real problems for the big bang cosmology , is that after creation as you recently mentioned , how do you know what I am thinking , are you really psychic.


No, I am not psychic. A lot of the questions you ask appear to be based on older cosmological models and thought. Which led me to think your source of information was TV and pop-sci magazines and not text books/journals. If I erred, please correct me. I have never had a problem being wrong and admitting a mistake. I was also trying to be fair and reasonable by pointing out that cosmologists know there are problems in the models, a fact also missed in many books on the subject.

Yes, Inflation 'fixes' the horizon and flatness problems of the older big bang models, after creation. As I mention, the models all deal with events after creation and not the creation itself.

FWIW, the big problem in physics is marrying Quantum Field Theories (Gauge theories) with Gravity. No where have you indicated your level of knowledge in this field so I do not know what you think a Scalar Quantum Field is?

you seem to miss the point why the universe should have a fixed age , can you see the beginning even with HST.

You stated

The big bang hypothesis goes against intuition , what would be the cause to have accumulated the mass size of the primeval atom , how did it get there , how could gravity give it cause to create a big bang 15 billion years ago , why not 16 or 100 billion years ago , I know that these dates are not dismissed because one could say that the light has not yet reached us from that far back and so our vision is limited to our present horizon .

Which is what I mean about questions indicating a lack of current understanding. Figures for the age of the Universe are based in Hubbles Constant and usually have error bars. the best fit to date is something like 15 +/- 2 Billion years. No one has proposed an age of 100 Billion years.

Interesting you mention horizons. Above I pointed out that the universe expands tremendously, the observable Universe is possibly a minute fraction of the whole. But the Universe having a diameter of, say, 1000 Billion light years does not make it that old, still only 15 Billion years old.

Again you seem to miss the point, you cannot dismiss that the overall diameter of the universe is 35 billion years old so its light has not yet reached us , how then can science be sure that it is not bigger .

As mentioned above, it's probably a lot, lot bigger than that. Out of interest where did you get the figure of 35 BLyr from?

QUOTE an article in time magazine 2 sept 1991 , the big bang under fire , scientists postulate that the cosmos could be trillions of years old that grew not from gravity but from electricity and magnetism .

I hate doing this but Time is hardly a reputable scientific journal and things have moved on a lot in 10 years. Science or Scientific American are usually a bit more accurate and up to date in their descriptions as they get reputable scientists to write.

9/Well if you seem to think that I am wrong then that is your opinion , it does not make science right to prove a wrong especially when it twists its finding to suit what it has created .

Sorry, you asked to be proven wrong and I presented some evidence you appear not to know of that proves you wrong. The whole purpose of science is to constantly prove itself wrong. Only that way does the dross get swept away and valid theories remain. Opinion and belief have no place in science, evidence and data do.

Again, I will point out that cosmology knows there are problems in the theory and many respected mainstream scientists are actively working to overthrow accepted thought. Hardly the image of twisting findings to support what it has created.

What makes you think that I have a religion

In a previous post; In order to understand my point then I have to express further by saying what had God created that had caused him to take six days , it could not be a primeval speck else we believers would lack faith in his abilities , so what I believe is that he created a huge sphere containing the entire mass of the universe that resided in an endless void , he then shed his energy upon it until it ignited , this then became the star of creation

ok I accept a divine intervention so tell me the answer to this how can a watch exist without a watchmaker . Then tell me the state of the world and how it got into such a state , would the proof of a creator not change things .

This has been addressed else where. I re-iterate, once you assume a God (any God(s)) then the answer to everything lies in , The Bible, Koran, Torah/Talmud, Vedas or whatever. You need search no further.

As to the state of the world, blame us humans.

11/Now you tell me how a divine architect creating everything from a singularity is more impressive than a large sphere , because the singularity would not have cause to make him rest on the seventh .

The evidence for this please?

12/Of coarse their are more smaller less luminous galaxies together , you forget that each consecutive stage means smaller stars , which means that there would be numerous smaller stars giving a growing structure to the universe , in turn these stars would eject less matter so the galaxies would be smaller and numerous today .

I fear you missed my point. The Hubble Deep Field photograph was at a high redshift, only few billion years after t=0 and before the Quasar epoch. Your model would have a few, well spaced, large individual stars at this epoch. Not the many closely spaced, dim galaxies seen.

13/If the wave lengths of our galaxies all shift at the same time then it is assumed that they are moving away from us with a red shift , and if they are blue shifted then they are coming towards us , what is it about that you do not understand , did you not know that galaxies are coming towards us , watch out here comes andromeda .

I'll be blunt, you really do not understand, do you. The Hubble flow only becomes apparent once it exceeds the peculiar velocities of individual galaxies. That is, with a hubble constant of about 50 Km /s/Mpc and most galaxies have velocities upto 500 Km/s you need to be at 100 Mpc or more before hubble redshift is observed. Galaxies in our local group are within 20/30 Mpc so we do indeed see a blue shift for some galaxies but this is not inconistent with Hubble expansion.

14/ oh excuse me but I did say that they are compact remnants from the last cycle of huge stars and this would make them dark at the north and the south poles because most of the stars surround its equatorial regions, the surrouding matter such as stars would heat this remnant causing jets of matter to eject visible at the north and south poles on occasion but mostly at the equator .

Not in the post I was responding too, to whit;

this star then after the first billion years ejected material through a coronal mass ejection that eventually formed one or more spheres and circled the star of creation which then heated these newly formed spheres and in turn they too ignited and continued to replicate onwards , therefor creating the structure of the universe and a consecutive expansion cycle where each expansion cycle became smaller and smaller .

To expand on this then one could see that consecutive matter ejections is the cause to create hubble to think that the universe is expanding due to the red shifts of todays galaxies , the further he looked back then the bigger the stars were back then which would have ejected matter further .

Today the universe has finished expanding and only the remnants of the last cycle of super huge stars remain , these then reside in the center of our galaxies , the further one looks back then the wider the gap between the globular clusters of galaxies , and further still then nothing much than quasars which apparantly are either the remnants of the first cycle of stars or there after , or are the first huge stars .

15/See previous answer 12 on galactic distribution .

Again, your model is a few, large, bright objects with decreasing distances and seperations with time. This is contrary to Hubbles findings.

16/So all evidence as you put it point to blackholes , well so far not in my book , and yes I did know , you though continue on about blackholes being the center of everything in our universe , if that was the case then why do all the galaxies , quasars , Lacertae objects and so on expand as you seem to believe , surely a blackhole is far stronger than the universal constant therefor giving a nail in the board effect upon space preventing it from expanding .

Again, you miss the point. The galaxies themselves do not expand but rather the space between them expands. A so called co-moving metric. Even then the efect is only measurable across hundreds of megaparsecs not at small scales such as 100,000 light years. Black Holes, for all their power, are nothing but dust motes on this scale. Even the largest black holes are only 10% of the mass of the hosting galaxy.

17/see previous answer 12 on smaller galaxies .

Again, it contradicts your model.

18/Yeah thats right there are spiral and barred spirals , if I can explain spiral galaxies did you think that I could not explain barred spirals , well it is plainly obvios that matter would have been ejected at a faster rate causing the bars , as with the spirals then it was slower.
Other galactic shapes mean that the stars expelled the entire shell to create the variations .


So why do the bars rotate at the same rate as the arms coming off them? You say it is plainly obvious matter is ejected at a faster rate, please explain, in detail. You imply the radial velocity of the bar is high, this is actually not observed in any barred spiral. What does the arm 'eject' from and why, why not in non-barred spirals?

I ask only for enlightenment, I once spent 12 months of my life trying to understand Spiral Structure by reading every paper on the subject. I just barely understood Lin-Shu Density wave theory, stochastic modelling and their problems by the end of it I am more than happy to stand corrected.

19/What, do you think I was intending in writing my book out again , and lets get something straight neutrinos are not consistant with scientific findings, there should be 80 or so billion coming towards earth , have they found more than one a day yet

have you ever heard of cross sectional area of interaction. Neutrinos have a low cross sectional area. Hence the vast majority are never detected.

, so that makes your belief of how the sun burns redundant , and yes the idea of the sun burning from the solar atmosphere was thrown out years ago , it was postulated to be a lump of coal at one time , THAT IS NOT THOUGH HOW I PORTRAYED MY THEORY so again you seem to have whizzed through without really considering my theory other than to try to discredit the idea .

I never mentioned coal as that predated models of the Sun as a gravitationally collapsing gas cloud. So it is you who wizzed through my explanation. I said,

The relaxation time of a gravitationally collapsing star is too short to explain stellar life times. It also does not explain everything else observed in stars.

20/Bzzt, did you know that the corona is far hotter than the chromosphere of the sun and that science cannot explain this huge difference

Yes, but that is not the issue here. Your claim is that the sun burns only on the outside with a colder core. This does not explain what maintains hydrostatic equilibrium of the Star. It does not explain the variety of stellar types, evolution and lifetimes observed. It can not explain cepheid variables and T Tauri stars. The standard stellar models based on fusion and Eddingtons equations do.

would my theory that the sun burns from the outside inwards not answer this or should I send you a copy of my book published two years ago Titled ( A BRIEF SCIENTIFIC SLIP IN TIME ).

What fuel do you propose fuels the Sun that is cooller in the middle, hotter on the outside and burns in the middle contrary to anything ever seen, anywhere.

21/ Well sunspots on betelgeuse , well it goes to prove my theory all the more that it is not about to swell up and engulf its entire neigbourhood as just recently been discussed by me on the God and science site .

Sorry, that is an ascertation without grounds in fact.

22/No please do not feel sorry for me ! If I was destined to re-write the complete laws of physics then I would be in your position but as I fail to see the need to obtain a physics degree when I disagree then I remain eccentrically insane for it is here that I write the laws of physics ,

Unfortunately you misunderstand science. The majority of scientists, and certainly Physicists, operate by questioning things constantly. You score brownie points by disproving every one else wrong and you right. Never will you see teams of scientists quitely agreeing with other, it is usually noisy disagreement.

it is here that I understand why people such as yourself seem to think that science is the clock of your hope and understanding and like the blind mice then you scurry up to hear it chime , but you and science fail to notice or accept that the mechanism is wrong .
You and science have no room for other opinions or beliefs , I giving a simple explanation compact into a small area was nothing compared to the full theory yet you without really thinking about it decided to jump in with your theoretical sword , instead of questions you thought only opposing remarks which really is backed by your belief in science and its research and on top of all this you do it with research based on the theory of gravity that is well over 300 years and it still has not been discovered or properly explained by the originators of spacetime curvature as to what this really means or how time is fused with space , until it is explained then its meaning remains a stranger that walked into my home and left again , so have you erred that science has erred .

Funny, that. you ask people to disprove the theory, I present some evidence that at least shows serious downfalls in your thinking and, as usual with many, the defence is that science does not understand or no one has fully understood the issues.

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
Google
 
Web www.astronomy.net
DayNightLine
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2021 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins