The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: ?Big Bang or Just A Stretch of Godís Imagination?  (Read 36283 times)

Offline peppercorn

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1466
    • View Profile
    • solar
?Big Bang or Just A Stretch of Godís Imagination?
« Reply #25 on: 18/11/2009 13:13:37 »
Quote from: peppercorn
These limitations are what? Please explain.
With the lack of information to answer their unanswered questions, science does not have a solid foundation to build on...
You speak as if there is a source of (valid and testable) information that science is somehow not privy to. There isn't.
Also, the 'foundations' of science are no less solid because of as yet unexplained phenomenon.  True, a experimental outcome tomorrow might lead to a complete rethinking of some of the most fundamental concepts in science, but empirical science is in some ways mislabelled as the search for ultimate truth, really it should be considered an ever-more precise 'model' of our collective perception of existence.

Quote
Again, Can you show me where science has adequately proven why planets and black holes rotate? I am well aware they have theories too.
Theories are what science 'has'.  Proof (so far as it has a meaning) - Well, particularly with the 'model' explaining rotation of the planets, theory and observation are in agreement, so the model is good.  Perhaps as importantly, the mechanics that govern planetary rotation are the same mechanics that govern our human-scale world and predict its outcome faultlessly.

Quote from: WunderingTruth
Quote from: peppercorn
Electrons are matter not light. Claiming otherwise is counter to physics
Electrons are a form energy that makes up matter, Again I am speaking of light as defined in my theory, which includes electron clouds around atoms. This is only counter to a different theory in physics based on ( lack of information ).
Lack of information has nothing to do with it. Either use the right terms and work 'inside' the world of science or don't, it's up to you.


Quote
free energy = confined energy = balance = order Simple yes, but I believe that's
what makes it beautiful.
Beauty (as you perceive it) is not enough. Being comparable with observation is ALL!


Quote from: WT
Quote from: me
I think the maths of symmetry breaking has something to say about this too...
Again, theory verses theory.
Well one highly polished scientifically-based theory versus your so-far ill-defined ideas - in that sense, yes!

Quote
How could small packets of energy spread throughout the universe to be received at every point in the universe?
No mainstream scientist says they are 'arriving' at every point in the universe.

Quote
When a photon is ( emitted ) it has a starting point at which it is not moving until it is ( emitted ). When it is observed, or absorbed, or captured it is stopped.
More correctly it doesn't exist before its moving.  It makes its journey (at 'c') then is no longer a photon. At either end of the 'journey' the quanta of energy it 'is' has been/will be in some other form.
 

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
  • Thanked: 2 times
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
?Big Bang or Just A Stretch of Godís Imagination?
« Reply #26 on: 18/11/2009 14:51:51 »
Quote from: peppercorn
These limitations are what? Please explain.
With the lack of information to answer their unanswered questions, science does not have a solid foundation to build on...
You speak as if there is a source of (valid and testable) information that science is somehow not privy to. There isn't.
Also, the 'foundations' of science are no less solid because of as yet unexplained phenomenon.  True, a experimental outcome tomorrow might lead to a complete rethinking of some of the most fundamental concepts in science, but empirical science is in some ways mislabelled as the search for ultimate truth, really it should be considered an ever-more precise 'model' of our collective perception of existence.

Quote
Again, Can you show me where science has adequately proven why planets and black holes rotate? I am well aware they have theories too.
Theories are what science 'has'.  Proof (so far as it has a meaning) - Well, particularly with the 'model' explaining rotation of the planets, theory and observation are in agreement, so the model is good.  Perhaps as importantly, the mechanics that govern planetary rotation are the same mechanics that govern our human-scale world and predict its outcome faultlessly.

Quote from: WunderingTruth
Quote from: peppercorn
Electrons are matter not light. Claiming otherwise is counter to physics
Electrons are a form energy that makes up matter, Again I am speaking of light as defined in my theory, which includes electron clouds around atoms. This is only counter to a different theory in physics based on ( lack of information ).
Lack of information has nothing to do with it. Either use the right terms and work 'inside' the world of science or don't, it's up to you.


Quote
free energy = confined energy = balance = order Simple yes, but I believe that's
what makes it beautiful.
Beauty (as you perceive it) is not enough. Being comparable with observation is ALL!


Quote from: WT
Quote from: me
I think the maths of symmetry breaking has something to say about this too...
Again, theory verses theory.
Well one highly polished scientifically-based theory versus your so-far ill-defined ideas - in that sense, yes!

Quote
How could small packets of energy spread throughout the universe to be received at every point in the universe?
No mainstream scientist says they are 'arriving' at every point in the universe.

Quote
When a photon is ( emitted ) it has a starting point at which it is not moving until it is ( emitted ). When it is observed, or absorbed, or captured it is stopped.
More correctly it doesn't exist before its moving.  It makes its journey (at 'c') then is no longer a photon. At either end of the 'journey' the quanta of energy it 'is' has been/will be in some other form.

Both of you have arguements on both sides to abou 50% accuracy - you guys should stop arguing and figure out where you misplacements of idea's clash. There is a difference between the latter, and not agreeing at all.
 

Offline peppercorn

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1466
    • View Profile
    • solar
?Big Bang or Just A Stretch of Godís Imagination?
« Reply #27 on: 18/11/2009 15:53:08 »
Quote from: Mr S
Both of you have arguements on both sides to abou 50% accuracy - you guys should stop arguing and figure out where you misplacements of idea's clash. There is a difference between the latter, and not agreeing at all.
One has the validity of maths and real world predictability.  The other doesn't, hence the problem.
 

Offline WunderingTruth

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 31
    • View Profile
?Big Bang or Just A Stretch of Godís Imagination?
« Reply #28 on: 18/11/2009 17:19:18 »
So, are you assuming my theory has no basis in fact?

Again show me the math that proves me wrong.
 

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
  • Thanked: 2 times
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
?Big Bang or Just A Stretch of Godís Imagination?
« Reply #29 on: 19/11/2009 06:41:50 »
I simply don't have the time.

I'm struggling with daily activities as it is. Sorry.
 

Offline peppercorn

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1466
    • View Profile
    • solar
?Big Bang or Just A Stretch of Godís Imagination?
« Reply #30 on: 19/11/2009 12:52:42 »
So, are you assuming my theory has no basis in fact?

Again show me the math that proves me wrong.

In the world of science, an individual with a new theory must prove their argument by scientific method - that is: put it in a form that makes predictions (ideally with some maths to define exactly what is happening) and then look for evidence in the real world that supports it. No one in history has ever furthered their scientific career by saying "I've got this really general ill-defined idea which I believe is true. Now, it's up to others to prove me wrong!"

If you can make some general predictions as to what your theory should mean for reality then we can explore whether it matches up with what scientists observe.  The first step (as I've said several times) is to put your ideas in recognisable scientific language; e.g. you can't call all energy/matter Light as it destroys the meaning of the word & therefore your theory.  Try using more correct terminology, then we'll see....
 

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
  • Thanked: 2 times
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
?Big Bang or Just A Stretch of Godís Imagination?
« Reply #31 on: 19/11/2009 13:08:14 »
In fact, this is a ruckus bteween you two ... I will not interviene anymore.
 

Offline peppercorn

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1466
    • View Profile
    • solar
?Big Bang or Just A Stretch of Godís Imagination?
« Reply #32 on: 19/11/2009 22:35:06 »
In fact, this is a ruckus bteween you two ... I will not interviene anymore.
Ha! Hardly a ruckus! You may have noticed that my 1st reply to WT was incredibly positive & encouraging. I certainly don't want him to give up exploring his ideas, just make them more accessible to analysis.
 

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
  • Thanked: 2 times
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
?Big Bang or Just A Stretch of Godís Imagination?
« Reply #33 on: 20/11/2009 01:39:05 »
Maybe not a ruckus, if you knew the absolute definition. More like though admittedly it's an arguement that resides without any rectification.

I was right in what i said.
 

Offline peppercorn

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1466
    • View Profile
    • solar
?Big Bang or Just A Stretch of Godís Imagination?
« Reply #34 on: 20/11/2009 11:12:41 »
it's an argument that resides without any rectification.
You say that, but rectification is exactly what I hope for.  It's hard enough these days for educators to inspire their students to take up the sciences (or engineering - like moi!). I certainly don't want to put anyone off their exploration of science. It's just scientific enquiry needs rules and boundaries or it's meaningless.
 

Offline WunderingTruth

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 31
    • View Profile
?Big Bang or Just A Stretch of Godís Imagination?
« Reply #35 on: 23/11/2009 10:21:22 »
Quotes
Posted on: 18/11/2009 13:13:37
Posted by: peppercorn
Quote
You speak as if there is a source of (valid and testable) information that science is somehow not privy to. There isn't.
Also, the 'foundations' of science are no less solid because of as yet unexplained phenomenon.
 
If science can not explain The wave/particle characteristic of light, what causes the phenomenon called gravity, and the missing energy they are trying to base their dark energy/dark matter theories on, then there is information science is not privy to.
Quote
Well, particularly with the 'model' explaining rotation of the planets, theory and observation are in agreement, so the model is good.  Perhaps as importantly, the mechanics that govern planetary rotation are the same mechanics that govern our human-scale world and predict its outcome faultlessly.
The model of my theory also agrees with the observation, I don't see any physical bodies rotating in perpetual motion in our human scale world.
Quote
Lack of information has nothing to do with it. Either use the right terms and work 'inside' the world of science or don't, it's up to you.
Photons and electrons have already proven themselves to be waves. If science wants to continue to refer to them as ( little packets of energy ), it's up to them. My terminology
explains my theory, with photons and electrons as waves of energy, that are infinite in mass at the speed of light.

Quote
Quote
free energy = confined energy = balance = order Simple yes, but I believe that's
what makes it beautiful.
Beauty (as you perceive it) is not enough. Being comparable with observation is ALL!
It is comparable with observation.

Quote
I think the maths of symmetry breaking has something to say about this too...
Again, theory verses theory.
Well one highly polished scientifically-based theory versus your so-far ill-defined ideas - in that sense, yes!
Highly polished scientifically based? More like educated guess. My ideas are well defined if you took the time to study them through.
Quote
How could small packets of energy spread throughout the universe to be received at every point in the universe?
No mainstream scientist says they are 'arriving' at every point in the universe.
Oh come on now. In order to be able to see the objects that produce light within the visible universe from all points within the range of that light, the information from that light ( photons ) must be received at all points where the objects are visible.


Quote
Posted on: 18/11/2009 12:15:37
Posted by: BenV
Including god may close my mind to your theory, as it requires making an assumption that has no basis in fact.  If I were to replace the word God with the word Goblins in all of the above, would you still hold your theory to be true?
You assume God has no basis in fact. I assume God does. There is more evidence within the observation of creation to support my assumption of an intelligent designer than not.   
Whatever you want to call the first cause within my theory doesn't change the basis of the theory. Again, what is the first cause of the big bang? Where is the math that supports all of he energy in the universe was at one time compressed into a singularity smaller than an atom? Where is the math that supports the universe expanding to the size that it is from this one singularity in approximately sixteen billion years ( faster than the speed of light )?

Quote from: Mr S
Both of you have arguements on both sides to abou 50% accuracy - you guys should stop arguing and figure out where you misplacements of idea's clash. There is a difference between the latter, and not agreeing at all.
One has the validity of maths and real world predictability.  The other doesn't, hence the problem.
Your right mine does have the validity of math and real world predictability, and theirs doesn't. Thank you.
 

Offline peppercorn

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1466
    • View Profile
    • solar
?Big Bang or Just A Stretch of Godís Imagination?
« Reply #36 on: 24/11/2009 14:30:59 »
Nice to see you've come back with more questions WT. It's a shame many of them appear to be facsimiles of earlier one, but here goes...

If science can not explain The wave/particle characteristic of light, what causes the phenomenon called gravity, and the missing energy they are trying to base their dark energy/dark matter theories on, then there is information science is not privy to.
First science can explain the wave/particle characteristic of light and the whole EM spectrum. Plus this explanation extends to contain all force carriers and matter particles.  Relativistic gravity is also a complete theorem.
Second, of course there is information science is not privy too.  That's the purpose of science - to expand our knowledge and understanding. 
I think I asked earlier what information you were privy to that the scientists around the world didn't have. So?

Quote
The model of my theory also agrees with the observation, I don't see any physical bodies rotating in perpetual motion in our human scale world.
Well obviously you don't see objects orbiting other objects on a human scale because the masses are far to small. Sensitive equipment can measure gravitational attraction on this scale though and the forces are consistent with the planetary scale.  You say your theory also agrees with observation - where does it? I've yet to see it in any format that would allow prediction, let alone comparison with observation.

Quote
Photons and electrons have already proven themselves to be waves. If science wants to continue to refer to them as little packets, it's up to them.
QM says there both and depending on the situation they act one way or another. That's both consistent and appliable.

Quote
My terminology explains my theory, with photons and electrons as waves of energy, that are infinite in mass at the speed of light.
OK, here's an idea.   If you are going to 'explain' your theory (by explain I mean throw out all the current laws of what an electron or photon 'is' under current physics) why not call these objects something else to avoid confusion.
For example you could call a energy carrying particle that is capable of having mass (let alone infinite mass) a "blouton"! Don't be calling it a photon as it has nothing in common with what the world's scientist understand by that term, plus it ignores all the laws that have been painstakingly drawn up to govern one.  Now you have your new energy carrier, please supply the explanation of how it is able to exist and what mathematics describe it.

Quote
Quote
Quote
free energy = confined energy = balance = order Simple yes, but I believe that's what makes it beautiful.
Beauty (as you perceive it) is not enough. Being comparable with observation is ALL!
It is comparable with observation.
Go on then - compare it!  Your 'confined energy' is your term for how your imagine energy is held stationary in the very structure of spacial dimensions. Is that right? If so, you must see it as a way of explaining why the rate of universal expansion appears to be accelerating over time (I'm trying to follow your 'logic' here).
Okay... Therefore as a theory that you hold as valid you must be confident it will be comparable with the observed acceleration. Yes?
As you have not supplied any equations or measurable 'rules' for the theory as yet I will leave it to you to gather the data (available online) and to compile a written argument that shows that the observed facts are consistent and predicable if starting solely with your theory (and this time it REALLY is going to need SOME maths! - esp. since you've dumped all the current mathematical explanations).

Quote
Highly polished scientifically based? More like educated guess. My ideas are well defined if you took the time to study them through.
I think the key word you've stumbled across here is Educated!  It's much more than a simple guess as it has mathematical rigour (see the common theme here).

Quote
In order to be able to see the objects that produce light within the visible universe from all points within the range of that light, the information from that photons must be received at all points where the objects are visible.
But that's actually different from what we observe. Light does exhibit particle-like behaviour - whether it's in the lab or through the lens of a deep-focus telescope. The arrival of light (in the form of photons) can be a fleeting event if very few photons are sent out from a source or it's a blinking long way away! Also you mention range, as if photons somehow have a built-in range limit; they don't.  They travel straight ad-infinitum until something gets in the way, then they are either deflected or absorbed.
You allude to a photon's 'information' (From your standpoint this information is what we 'see' as light, I think!) needing to extend to all points from the photon's genesis, but the night sky would be infinitely bright in that case.  Again no useful predictions come out of what you say.

Sorry to appear to 'come down hard' in a few places, but these 'rules of inquiry' in science are there for very good reasons. 
Good luck furthering your understanding and ideas, peppercorn.
« Last Edit: 24/11/2009 14:34:28 by peppercorn »
 

Offline WunderingTruth

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 31
    • View Profile
?Big Bang or Just A Stretch of Godís Imagination?
« Reply #37 on: 01/12/2009 01:54:02 »
Quote
First science can explain the wave/particle characteristic of light and the whole EM spectrum. Plus this explanation extends to contain all force carriers and matter particles.  Relativistic gravity is also a complete theorem.
Second, of course there is information science is not privy too.  That's the purpose of science - to expand our knowledge and understanding.
I think I asked earlier what information you were privy to that the scientists around the world didn't have. So?
Where has science explained how,( or why )light appears as wave/particle?
Where has science proven what constitutes gravity, gravitons?
Science is not privy to God, I am.

Quote
Well obviously you don't see objects orbiting other objects on a human scale because the masses are far to small. Sensitive equipment can measure gravitational attraction on this scale though and the forces are consistent with the planetary scale.  You say your theory also agrees with observation - where does it? I've yet to see it in any format that would allow prediction, let alone comparison with observation
We're talking about what causes planets and black holes to " rotate " not orbit, did you forget? You stated the scientific model for this also holds up in our human scale world.

Quote
Photons and electrons have already proven themselves to be waves. If science wants to continue to refer to them as little packets, it's up to them.
Quote
QM says there both and depending on the situation they act one way or another. That's both consistent and appliable.
Are you even reading my theory?

Quote
OK, here's an idea.   If you are going to 'explain' your theory (by explain I mean throw out all the current laws of what an electron or photon 'is' under current physics) why not call these objects something else to avoid confusion.
the current laws of what an electron or photon 'is'? Show me any of these " current laws " that prove what a photon is as a wave, or what electrons are, other than just energy surrounding the nucleus of atoms?

Quote
I think the key word you've stumbled across here is Educated!  It's much more than a simple guess as it has mathematical rigour (see the common theme here).
Clouded education based on the agenda of trying to prove a creation without a creator.

Quote
Therefore as a theory that you hold as valid you must be confident it will be comparable with the observed acceleration. Yes?
I have already explained this. As you observe far away galaxies a read shift is observed, the farther away the galaxy the greater the read shift. The observed light is stretched from the observed galaxy to the observer, the farther away, the farther stretched, thus the red shift.

Quote
In order to be able to see the objects that produce light within the visible universe from all points within the range of that light, the information from that photons must be received at all points where the objects are visible.
Quote
But that's actually different from what we observe. Light does exhibit particle-like behaviour - whether it's in the lab or through the lens of a deep-focus telescope. The arrival of light (in the form of photons) can be a fleeting event if very few photons are sent out from a source or it's a blinking long way away! Also you mention range, as if photons somehow have a built-in range limit; they don't.  They travel straight ad-infinitum until something gets in the way, then they are either deflected or absorbed.You allude to a photon's 'information' (From your standpoint this information is what we 'see' as light, I think!) needing to extend to all points from the photon's genesis, but the night sky would be infinitely bright in that case.  Again no useful predictions come out of what you say.

I mention the range in which the light has traveled ( light years ). You do understand that in order for any lens, eye or telescope, to " see " it must receive photons? These photons are the visible connection between the lens and the object being observed? Your reasoning has no vision to even try to comprehend what I am saying. That's why we keep going in the same circle with this conversation.
 

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
  • Thanked: 2 times
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
?Big Bang or Just A Stretch of Godís Imagination?
« Reply #38 on: 02/12/2009 13:27:46 »
Quotes
Posted on: 18/11/2009 13:13:37
Posted by: peppercorn
Quote
You speak as if there is a source of (valid and testable) information that science is somehow not privy to. There isn't.
Also, the 'foundations' of science are no less solid because of as yet unexplained phenomenon.
 
If science can not explain The wave/particle characteristic of light, what causes the phenomenon called gravity, and the missing energy they are trying to base their dark energy/dark matter theories on, then there is information science is not privy to.
Quote
Well, particularly with the 'model' explaining rotation of the planets, theory and observation are in agreement, so the model is good.  Perhaps as importantly, the mechanics that govern planetary rotation are the same mechanics that govern our human-scale world and predict its outcome faultlessly.
The model of my theory also agrees with the observation, I don't see any physical bodies rotating in perpetual motion in our human scale world.
Quote
Lack of information has nothing to do with it. Either use the right terms and work 'inside' the world of science or don't, it's up to you.
Photons and electrons have already proven themselves to be waves. If science wants to continue to refer to them as ( little packets of energy ), it's up to them. My terminology
explains my theory, with photons and electrons as waves of energy, that are infinite in mass at the speed of light.

Quote
Quote
free energy = confined energy = balance = order Simple yes, but I believe that's
what makes it beautiful.
Beauty (as you perceive it) is not enough. Being comparable with observation is ALL!
It is comparable with observation.

Quote
I think the maths of symmetry breaking has something to say about this too...
Again, theory verses theory.
Well one highly polished scientifically-based theory versus your so-far ill-defined ideas - in that sense, yes!
Highly polished scientifically based? More like educated guess. My ideas are well defined if you took the time to study them through.
Quote
How could small packets of energy spread throughout the universe to be received at every point in the universe?
No mainstream scientist says they are 'arriving' at every point in the universe.
Oh come on now. In order to be able to see the objects that produce light within the visible universe from all points within the range of that light, the information from that light ( photons ) must be received at all points where the objects are visible.


Quote
Posted on: 18/11/2009 12:15:37
Posted by: BenV
Including god may close my mind to your theory, as it requires making an assumption that has no basis in fact.  If I were to replace the word God with the word Goblins in all of the above, would you still hold your theory to be true?
You assume God has no basis in fact. I assume God does. There is more evidence within the observation of creation to support my assumption of an intelligent designer than not.   
Whatever you want to call the first cause within my theory doesn't change the basis of the theory. Again, what is the first cause of the big bang? Where is the math that supports all of he energy in the universe was at one time compressed into a singularity smaller than an atom? Where is the math that supports the universe expanding to the size that it is from this one singularity in approximately sixteen billion years ( faster than the speed of light )?

Quote from: Mr S
Both of you have arguements on both sides to abou 50% accuracy - you guys should stop arguing and figure out where you misplacements of idea's clash. There is a difference between the latter, and not agreeing at all.
One has the validity of maths and real world predictability.  The other doesn't, hence the problem.
Your right mine does have the validity of math and real world predictability, and theirs doesn't. Thank you.

I'm sorry... what is it you mean?
 

Offline peppercorn

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1466
    • View Profile
    • solar
?Big Bang or Just A Stretch of Godís Imagination?
« Reply #39 on: 02/12/2009 15:45:06 »
WunderingTruth, I feel we are going round in circles here!

Where has science explained how,(or why)light appears as wave/particle?
Where has science proven what constitutes gravity, gravitons?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave%2Dparticle_duality
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_relativity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_gravity
Quote
Science is not privy to God, I am.
That's all very well, but it has no baring on our discussions (on a science forum).


Quote
We're talking about what causes planets and black holes to "rotate" not orbit, did you forget? You stated the scientific model for this also holds up in our human scale world.
Sorry, it's just I've never come across anyone who doubts the Newtonian view on planetary rotation! -Must have 'zoned out' there for a moment.
Yes, I confirm that this scientific model is valid for human scale as much as it is for astronomical scales.   And?

Quote
Quote
QM says there both and depending on the situation they act one way or another. That's both consistent and appliable.
Are you even reading my theory?
Yes, reading, but not accepting as yet. You're going to have to flesh it out before it's a workable theory. Then (ONLY THEN) we can see whether it has ANY validity.

Quote
the current laws of what an electron or photon 'is'? Show me any of these "current laws" that prove what a photon is as a wave, or what electrons are, other than just energy surrounding the nucleus of atoms?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double%2Dslit_experiment

Quote
Quote from: me
I think the key word you've stumbled across here is Educated!  It's much more than a simple guess as it has mathematical rigour (see the common theme here).
Clouded education based on the agenda of trying to prove a creation without a creator.
Maybe you're suggesting that it's the devil who's clouded my judgement (?).

Quote
The observed light is stretched from the observed galaxy to the observer, the farther away, the farther stretched, thus the red shift.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_effect#Astronomy
Note: nothing to do directly with distance. Instead it tells us about the speed of recession.

Quote
These photons are the visible connection between the lens and the object being observed? Your reasoning has no vision to even try to comprehend what I am saying. That's why we keep going in the same circle with this conversation.
Hey! I did my best understand your description!  If you want to remove all ambiguity try describing your ideas in the form of equations!
 

Offline WunderingTruth

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 31
    • View Profile
?Big Bang or Just A Stretch of Godís Imagination?
« Reply #40 on: 02/12/2009 17:38:35 »
In 1905, Albert Einstein took an extra step. He suggested that quantisation wasn't just a mathematical trick: the energy in a beam of light occurs in individual packets, which are now called photons.[9] The energy of a single photon is given by Planck's constant multiplied by its frequency.

Einstein's proposal was able to explain several puzzling properties of the photoelectric effect ó "the way certain metals give off electrons when light falls on them"[1]:24. For centuries, scientists had debated between two possible theories of light: was a wave or did it instead consist of a stream of tiny particles? By the 19th century, the debate was generally considered to have been settled in favour of the wave theory, as it was able to explain observed effects such as refraction, diffraction and polarization. Because of the preponderance of evidence in favor of the wave theory, Einstein's ideas were met initially by great skepticism. Eventually, however, the particle analogy became favored, as it helped understand how light delivers energy in multiples of certain set values, called quanta of energy. Nevertheless, the wave analogy remained indispensable for helping to understand other light phenomena, such as diffraction.

Neither wave nor particle is an entirely satisfactory model to use in understanding light. Indeed, astrophysicist A.S. Eddington proposed in 1927 that "We can scarcely describe such an entity as a wave or as a particle; perhaps as a compromise we had better call it a 'wavicle' ".[13] This term was later popularized by mathematician Banesh Hoffmann.[14]:172

The general approach to deriving a quantum gravity theory that is valid at even the highest energy scales is to assume that such a theory will be simple and elegant and, accordingly, to study symmetries and other clues offered by current theories that might suggest ways to combine them into a comprehensive, unified theory. One problem with this approach is that it is unknown whether quantum gravity will actually conform to a simple and elegant theory, as it must resolve the dual conundrums of special relativity with regard to the uniformity of acceleration and gravity, and general relativity with regard to spacetime curvature.

Such a theory is required in order to understand problems involving the combination of very high energy and very small dimensions of space, such as the behavior of black holes, and the origin of the universe.

Doesn't the double slit experiment prove energy is a wave? 'wavicle'?
Yup looks like they have it all figured out!

Quote
Quote
Science is not privy to God, I am.
That's all very well, but it has no baring on our discussions (on a science forum).
So says the religion of science, trying to prove a creation without a creator.

Quote
Yes, I confirm that this scientific model is valid for human scale as much as it is for astronomical scales.   And?
So show me the human scale bodies rotating in perpetual motion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double%2Dslit_experiment [nofollow]
Proves my point, energy is a wave while in motion

Quote
Maybe you're suggesting that it's the devil who's clouded my judgement (?).
No,( though he does want to keep the blinders on ), I'm suggesting Biased opinion.

Quote
Quote
The observed light is stretched from the observed galaxy to the observer, the farther away, the farther stretched, thus the red shift.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_effect#Astronomy [nofollow]
Note: nothing to do directly with distance. Instead it tells us about the speed of recession.
They see it as the speed of recession, I see it as the stretching of light energy.
Note;( The amount of redshift increases in direct proportion to the increase of distance )?

These photons are the visible connection between the lens and the object being observed? Do you agree with this?
 

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1503
    • View Profile
?Big Bang or Just A Stretch of Godís Imagination?
« Reply #41 on: 02/12/2009 20:57:11 »
Now, once again, I'm not a cosmologist, so won't discuss your hypothesis, merely your approach to discussing it.

Quote
So says the religion of science, trying to prove a creation without a creator.

There's a couple of points to be made here.

Firstly, who are you to presume you know the mind of god? Which god? Would the other followers of your chosen religion agree that it,s okay for you to speak on his/her/their/it's behalf?

Secondly, the "science is a religion" argument has been done to death, and is totally misguided. I don't want to go through it here, but they are completely different paradigms. Religion is dogmatic, science pragmatic.

I'll ask again. If you replace the word god with goblins, magic, or better, "something we don't yet understand", would it still be equally valid to you?
 

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8328
  • "Vive la rťsistance!"
    • View Profile
?Big Bang or Just A Stretch of Godís Imagination?
« Reply #42 on: 02/12/2009 21:40:41 »
WonderingTruth,

I think religious beliefs are based on faith. As far as I know, all religions are based on accepting something without requiring scientific proof.

So, why would you require scientific proof? If science contradicts your religious views, ignore science and rely on your faith. Science does not have all the answers, but it tries to improve. Religions claim to have all the answers, so they don't need to improve.

And that is why science is not, and never will be, a religion.
 

Offline peppercorn

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1466
    • View Profile
    • solar
?Big Bang or Just A Stretch of Godís Imagination?
« Reply #43 on: 03/12/2009 11:43:49 »
So show me the human scale bodies rotating in perpetual motion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superconductivity
A perfect superconductor in a perfect vacuum can spin almost indefinitely.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double%2Dslit_experiment
Proves my point, energy is a wave while in motion
It isn't acting like a wave (whilst in motion) when it is sent through a single slit. That's the comparison the experiment makes - photon's have both wave-like and particle-like qualities.

Quote
I'm suggesting Biased opinion.
Biased toward empiricism and rationality? Yer, I'll hold my hand up to that!

Quote
I see it as the stretching of light energy.
Well, then I don't think you're far off agreeing with the scientific consensus - The further the distance light has travelled the more it's wavelength has been stretched (red-shifted) by the expanding media it's travelling through - ie. the dimensions of space.

Quote
These photons are the visible connection between the lens and the object being observed? Do you agree with this?
Well it doesn't have to be a lens at the terminus, but photons could (sort of) be thought of in this way. Probably closer to philosophy than science though.
 

Offline WunderingTruth

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 31
    • View Profile
?Big Bang or Just A Stretch of Godís Imagination?
« Reply #44 on: 04/12/2009 00:42:34 »
Quote
Firstly, who are you to presume you know the mind of god? Which god? Would the other followers of your chosen religion agree that it,s okay for you to speak on his/her/their/it's behalf?
If you can't open your mind to my explanation of how reality is an illusion of light energy, I know you wont be able to wrap your mind around who I am to presume to know the mind of God.

Which God? The, I am he which was, which is, and which is to come. God is the light of realty which was and is and is to come.

Trust me I choose no religion, and represent no religion. Man by wisdom knows not God. Get wisdom, but you need to get understanding also, understanding comes from God. God in times past spoke by the mouth of his prophets, in these last days he is speaking by the mouth of his son and daughter, ( God's two witnesses ). The wisdom of man is foolishness to God, the foolishness of God is wiser than the wisdom of men.

Quote
I'll ask again. If you replace the word god with goblins, magic, or better, "something we don't yet understand", would it still be equally valid to you?
"something we don't yet understand"? are you assuming someone yet understands God?

Why do you relate any conversation that concerns God with religion? Religious people follow darkness that appears as light, The prophesies and the revealing are sealed until the revealing or unveiling of the light of truth.

Religiously trying to prove a creation without a creator is motivated by a set of beliefs ( science is all sufficient, mind open, evidence that points to God as creator, mind closed ) Religiously adhering to a set of beliefs that closes your mind to contrary evidence is a form of religion.
 

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1503
    • View Profile
?Big Bang or Just A Stretch of Godís Imagination?
« Reply #45 on: 04/12/2009 08:31:32 »
Quote
Religiously adhering to a set of beliefs that closes your mind to contrary evidence is a form of religion.
And that is why science is not a religion, pragmatism. However, you are convinced that your particular deity exists, and have clearly closed your mind to other ideas.

Quote
If you can't open your mind to my explanation of how reality is an illusion of light energy, I know you wont be able to wrap your mind around who I am to presume to know the mind of God.

Try me.
 

Offline Madidus_Scientia

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
    • View Profile
?Big Bang or Just A Stretch of Godís Imagination?
« Reply #46 on: 04/12/2009 11:54:31 »
I think you've got your definition of close-minded muddled up. I recommend this youtube vid for clarification
 

Offline peppercorn

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1466
    • View Profile
    • solar
?Big Bang or Just A Stretch of Godís Imagination?
« Reply #47 on: 04/12/2009 17:45:15 »
I think you've got your definition of close-minded muddled up. I recommend this youtube vid for clarification
That's the best thing I've seen on youtube for ages!  Thanks for sharing!
 

Offline Madidus_Scientia

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
    • View Profile
?Big Bang or Just A Stretch of Godís Imagination?
« Reply #48 on: 05/12/2009 05:37:44 »
No worries, check out his other stuff too, it's all excelent.
 

Offline peppercorn

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1466
    • View Profile
    • solar
?Big Bang or Just A Stretch of Godís Imagination?
« Reply #49 on: 05/12/2009 14:01:36 »
No worries, check out his other stuff too, it's all excelent.
I have. It is! Cheers!
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

?Big Bang or Just A Stretch of Godís Imagination?
« Reply #49 on: 05/12/2009 14:01:36 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums