Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: charles1948 on 09/06/2021 22:34:50
-
Who cares what Einstein said? He was just a "theorist". There've been loads of such "theorists" in the past.
Such as Aristotle in Ancient Greece. He claimed that the Earth was at the centre of the Universe, which consisted of four "elements": Earth, Air, Fire and Water. Plus a Fifth element, the "Quintessence" which was responsible for making stars and planets glow, and revolve in perfect circles.
This was all complete cobblers, and set back the progress of Astronomy, Physics and Science generally, for 1,500 years.
Until practical scientists like Galileo, Boyle and Cavendish, blew the nonsense away.
They showed that theoreticians are not to be trusted. What counts in Science is factual evidence. Not some deranged theorising.
Unfortunately, modern science is becoming more and more deranged by absurd ideas like "Black Holes" "Wormholes", "Higgs Bosons", and the entire Universe having sprung from a particle smaller than a pea.
Hopefully, this will be put right soon!
-
Hopefully, this will be put right soon!
Well, if you deleted it, it would stop being wrong.
-
What counts in Science is factual evidence.
You seem to pick and choose what factual evidence to listen to. If you don't understand it, you blow it off. That's the argument from incredulity fallacy. Not at all a good scientific attitude to have.
-
Until practical scientists like Galileo
One of Galileo's most famous works was a thought-experiment.
He realised that, while Aristotle had noticed that heavy things often fell faster than light ones, Aristotle's conclusion- that the rate of fall was proportional to the mass- was wrong.
Apart from very light things, everything must fall at the same speed.
And he realised that before he did the famous experiment of dropping things.
He was a good enough theoretician to realise this.
He only did the experiment because the practical "experimental scientists" of the day wouldn't accept logic.
They needed him to "prove" the obvious.
-
Thanks, when I referred to Galileo as a "practical scientist" I was thinking more of his telescopic observations of the Moon and Jupiter to refute Aristotle.
As regards the falling of objects, I agree with you that Galileo's idea came from a "thought experiment", which boiled down to " What if you used a piece of string, to connect a heavy object to a light object"...... the rest is obvious
-
What counts in Science is factual evidence.
You seem to pick and choose what factual evidence to listen to. If you don't understand it, you blow it off. That's the argument from incredulity fallacy. Not at all a good scientific attitude to have.
I understand the modern theories. But I don't believe some of them are true.
Specifically, the theory that the entire Universe originated from a single tiny particle seems absurd, and unscientific.. Where's the evidence for it?
There isn't any. You might just as well claim that the Universe has always existed in a Steady State
-
But I don't believe some of them are true.
And the recurring theme on your part for that disbelief is the argument from incredulity.
You say this...
I understand the modern theories.
And then subsequently say this...
Specifically, the theory that the entire Universe originated from a single tiny particle seems absurd, and unscientific.. Where's the evidence for it?
There isn't any. You might just as well claim that the Universe has always existed in a Steady State
That tells me you don't understand the theories as well as you think you do. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and give you a chance to prove yourself. Can you explain to us what the Big Bang theory is, why it was proposed in the first place and why it is currently the most accepted theory for the origin of the Universe?
-
Specifically, the theory that the entire Universe originated from a single tiny particle seems absurd, and unscientific.. Where's the evidence for it?
What is absurd is you saying there is no evidence. Have you not simply googled "evidence for the big bang"?
-
Thanks, when I referred to Galileo as a "practical scientist" I was thinking more of his telescopic observations of the Moon and Jupiter to refute Aristotle.
And I was referring to the fact that he shows that you are factually incorrect.
-
Where's the evidence for it?
Literally all around us.
-
You might just as well claim that the Universe has always existed in a Steady State
We have known that to be impossible for centuries.
You say you are interested in practical demonstrations, but you don't understand the consequence of a simple observation like "it gets dark at night".
What is the point in observation if you refuse to think what it means?
-
But I don't believe some of them are true.
And the recurring theme on your part for that disbelief is the argument from incredulity.........
.........That tells me you don't understand the theories as well as you think you do. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and give you a chance to prove yourself. Can you explain ito us what the Big Bang theory is, why it was proposed in the first place and why it is currently the most accepted theory for the origin of the Universe?
Good idea, but let’s up the ante somewhat and include Higgs Boson. Let’s also say that @charles1948 is limited to only posting in this thread until he’s has convinced us.
Not just copying from say Wiki, but own, detailed understanding and include sufficient detail on why you don’t believe these are true - no fallacious arguments either.
On any other special interest forum (on any topic) persistent naysayers would be banned, here we are more tolerant and allow alternative views to be expressed in this section. Anyone who persistently posts alternative theories in the main section will be limited to this section only, particularly where those views disrupt valid discussions on a topic.
-
It's clear that the "Big Bang" theory is too firmly established to be challenged. At least, at present.
This has often happened in Science. Established theories don't get overthrown, until all the scientists who've been seduced by them, die off. And are replaced by a new generation of young scientists, who exclaim in disbelief:
"What! They believed in that! They thought the entire physical mass of the Universe, all the billions of stars in all the billions of galaxies, were once contained in a single mathematical point? Were they mad?"
To which the answer is: No, the Scientists weren't mad - they were misled by the Mathematicians.
-
It's clear that the "Big Bang" theory is too firmly established to be challenged
No.Anyone with evidence that it is wrong can challenge it.
they were misled by the Mathematicians.
No.
Mathematicians are not generally the ones who gather evidence in astronomy.
The evidence came from observation.
You really should find out how science works before you try to overturn it.
-
Don't you think that modern "Physics" has been almost entirely captured by "Mathematicians"
Who use their mathematical theories to subvert Physics into a mere abstraction, divorced from reality.
Just like they did in earlier centuries, when they told astronomers that the Moon must revolve around the Earth in a mathematically perfect circle. So any variations in the Moon's diameter, as viewed from Earth, were illusions.
The variations are actually caused by the Moon's orbit being elliptical. But the mathematicians didn't like ellipses, which are lop-sided and thus inferior to neat symmetrical circles.
The mathematicians prevailed over the astronomers, and for 1500 years astronomers had to believe that all celestial movements are circular. Even Galileo did, which is very surprising.
-
Don't you think that modern "Physics" has been almost entirely captured by "Mathematicians"
No.
Just like they did in earlier centuries, when they told astronomers that the Moon must revolve around the Earth in a mathematically perfect circle.
So, you also don't understand what the church did- as well as thinking that mathematicians gathered the evidence of red-shifts.
The mathematicians prevailed over the astronomers, and for 1500 years astronomers had to believe that all celestial movements are circular.
To a pretty good approximation, they are.
It was only when the observations were good enough to show that they weren't circular that the mathematicians did some more arithmetic and realised they were elliptical (to a very good approximation)
You seem not to understand that the mathematicians are, at best, the slaves of the experimentalists.You really should find out how science works before you try to overturn it.
-
It's clear that the "Big Bang" theory is too firmly established to be challenged. At least, at present.
This has often happened in Science. Established theories don't get overthrown, until all the scientists who've been seduced by them, die off. And are replaced by a new generation of young scientists, who exclaim in disbelief:
"What! They believed in that! They thought the entire physical mass of the Universe, all the billions of stars in all the billions of galaxies, were once contained in a single mathematical point? Were they mad?"
To which the answer is: No, the Scientists weren't mad - they were misled by the Mathematicians.
Nice dodge. Now how about answering my questions?
Can you explain to us what the Big Bang theory is, why it was proposed in the first place and why it is currently the most accepted theory for the origin of the Universe?
-
Kryptid, no-one can truly explain the Big Bang theory. It seems daft. But is the best one we have so far.
In due course, it will no doubt be replaced by a new and better one. Doesn't that lead to this principle:
In Science - never, ever, believe unconditionally in any current theory. Give it no more than guarded acceptance.
Because it'll probably turn out to be wrong.
-
In due course, it will no doubt be replaced
There is considerable doubt.
In the mean time, answer the question.Quote from: Kryptid on Yesterday at 01:05:16
Can you explain to us what the Big Bang theory is, why it was proposed in the first place and why it is currently the most accepted theory for the origin of the Universe?
-
You know all this. The Big Bang theory originated because spectroscopic observations seem to indicate that galaxies are presently moving apart from each other.
The mathematicians said that must mean, that in the past, the galaxies were closer to each other.
The mathematicians then said this proved that the galaxies must have come from a single mathematical point.
Isn't that like saying that when a crowd of people go to a football match, and after the match is over, are observed to be dispersing and getting further apart, that the crowd must have come from a single mathematical point within the football stadium.
-
Kryptid, no-one can truly explain the Big Bang theory.
So when you said
I understand the modern theories.
That wasn't the truth? If you understand it, you can explain it.
It seems daft.
Sounds like another argument from incredulity.
In Science - never, ever, believe unconditionally in any current theory. Give it no more than guarded acceptance.
That is exactly what science does.
You know all this. The Big Bang theory originated because spectroscopic observations seem to indicate that galaxies are presently moving apart from each other.
The mathematicians said that must mean, that in the past, the galaxies were closer to each other.
The mathematicians then said this proved that the galaxies must have come from a single mathematical point.
So I see that you only know part of the evidence.
-
You know all this. The Big Bang theory originated because spectroscopic observations seem to indicate that galaxies are presently moving apart from each other.
That is just one piece of evidence.
The mathematicians said that must mean, that in the past, the galaxies were closer to each other.
Nope, it was astronomers and astrophysicists.
The mathematicians then said this proved that the galaxies must have come from a single mathematical point.
No.
Isn't that like saying that when a crowd of people go to a football match, and after the match is over, are observed to be dispersing and getting further apart, that the crowd must have come from a single mathematical point within the football stadium.
No.
-
A good friend and mathematician showed me, a few months before she died, a note that I had written 50 years previously: "physics is a trivial particularisation of mathematics". I still hold that to be true, provided that you interpret "trivial" in its mathematical sense.
The whole business of physics is to produce mathematical models of what happens, and for that we use a very small subset of mathematics, plus an awful lot of hard experimental work to make sure we know what we are talking about and check that the maths really does consolidate and predict the results of our observations.
So what? The complete works of Shakespeare is, mathematically speaking, a trivial particularisation of the English language. And a motor car is a really tiny application of physics and chemistry (itself a tiny subset of physics). To invert the question (the sort of thing scientists do), we can consider Shakespeare (Henry V, prologue)
Can this cockpit hold
The vasty fields of France? Or may we cram
Within this wooden O the very casques
That did affright the air at Agincourt?
O pardon, since a crookèd figure may
Attest in little place a million,
And let us, ciphers to this great account,
On your imaginary forces work.
Just because it's a tiny bit of a trivial application of an enormously (infinitely? more than that - we can distinguish several kinds if infinity....!) broad subject, doesn't make physics, chemistry or astronomy any less significant in our trivial lives. You can build a car with maybe a dozen spanners, and the catalogs list thousands of different tools including spanners, but that doesn't mean the car is designed by spanner manufacturers, or is less useful than a horse.
-
Say we all went inside a futuristic space ship and started to increase our velocity approaching the speed of light. According to Special Relativity, distance will contract and the universe outside the window will appear to be heading toward the big crunch. The universe does not change for us, but rather this is a relative reference affect due to our motion.
Next, we put on the space brakes and slow down the ship from our near speed of light velocity back to slow speeds. During this braking, the universe will now look like the big bang is occurring. In the end it was all a reference illusion created by relative motion and us unconsciously defining ourselves as the center of the universe.
The bug in this scenario is that distance will appear to change only in the direction of motion. To make this scenario more realistic in 3-D, so the entire universe follows the trick, our motion would need to be in 3-D, like the wave function of a hydrogen 1S electron so distance appears to contract in all directions.
Another way to do this, with a simpler form of motion, is with a microscope. We zoom into a tiny drop of pond water, slowly increasing magnification. This type of reference change is different from special relativity, in that the propagation of time is not impacted by the zooming. All observations and our base reference will use the same clock. The only thing that changes is our distance perception.
If we start with the drop of water; primordial atom, distance will appear to expand as we magnify more and more. As we zoom in further, microscopic bugs will start to look like buses, and we wonder how all these ever fit into that tiny drop of water.
The telescope does something similar, in that it allows far away things, that look tiny to the naked eye to appear closer and larger. This is the same affect as the microscope. Which means, as we look out into the universe further and further, the distance between things will appear to get farther and farther apart. Again, the propagation of time is not being impacted, since we are always collecting photons, in real time with the telescope. The increase in telescope sensitivity allows the moon to looks bigger and bigger and distant galaxies, that were once points of light, now appear to expand into millions of little bugs; stars.
If we stopped using all telescopes, the universe data would appear to contract back to the reference of the naked eye and we would have an older classic universe reference affect on which theory would need to build.
The difference between the microscope and telescope is connected to time delay. The subjects of the microscope are so small, the time delay is very small. We see the tiny bus sized bugs in real time.
The telescope brings distant objects closer by lowering the time delay. This is done by collecting photons, that are nearby, like with the microscope. The telescope only collects photons that were emitted long ago, but which reach us now. This creates a good view in distance for that time, but a poor view in real time. This makes inferring the universe not based on real time data. It would be like inferring modern humans from ancient fossils. A lot of time is ignored due to lack of data.
-
During this braking, the universe will now look like the big bang is occurring.
Um, no?
-
I can only assume that someone once asked Puppypower to show his references, and he misunderstood.
relative reference affect
a reference illusion
reference change
base reference
reference of the naked eye
classic universe reference
-
The telescope only collects photons that were emitted long ago, but which reach us now. This creates a good view in distance for that time, but a poor view in real time. This makes inferring the universe not based on real time data. It would be like inferring modern humans from ancient fossils. A lot of time is ignored due to lack of data.
Yes, if we relied on archaeology, wouldn't we infer that humans were skeletons who lived underground.
-
wouldn't we infer that humans were skeletons who lived underground.
Well, you might.
But most of us would understand that evidence of things like fire and fishing hooks and axes indicate that they lived above ground. .
And we would also know that, after a while, what's left of dead people is just the skeletons.
-
The telescope only collects photons that were emitted long ago, but which reach us now. This creates a good view in distance for that time, but a poor view in real time. This makes inferring the universe not based on real time data. It would be like inferring modern humans from ancient fossils. A lot of time is ignored due to lack of data.
Yes, if we relied on archaeology, wouldn't we infer that humans were skeletons who lived underground.
Archaeology appears to be yet another subject you know nothing about then.
-
The telescope only collects photons that were emitted long ago, but which reach us now. This creates a good view in distance for that time, but a poor view in real time. This makes inferring the universe not based on real time data. It would be like inferring modern humans from ancient fossils. A lot of time is ignored due to lack of data.
Yes, if we relied on archaeology, wouldn't we infer that humans were skeletons who lived underground.
Archaeology appears to be yet another subject you know nothing about then.
In archaeology, we know the present near the dig site and therefore we can draw a line from the present to the discovery. We can also draw a line from the discovery to the present. Like building a bridge across a river, if these two ends connect, properly, we are in good shape. We know how the story ends, since we live in the present. If the dig site was near the pyramids, we may stay at a hotel in Cairo, with high speed internet service.
With cosmology, we only know the past, when it comes to distant objects, since the light that reaches us from these distant objects is only from the past since light takes time to move over vast distances. There no light from the present of distant objects. This is coming in the future. There is a time delay between our observations and what the distant phenomena is actually doing. At far enough distances, for example, a second generation star, in real time, may still appear to be a first generation star to us, looking through a telescope, due to the long time delay.
The expanding universe adds a wild card, since it expanding distance causes the time delay, to increase with time. If we assume an expanding universe, then the time delay between us and other distant objects is increasing with time. What we see tomorrow, in terms of a distant object, is even further in its past due to more time delay. The expansing adds what could be modeled as a second time vector, to the time delay. This has similar units to acceleration.
Picture sending a probe to Pluto from the earth to simulate the expansion of distance. On the launch pad we communicate in real time. We it reach the moon, the time delay means we receive signals from the past. By the time we reach Pluto the time delay is even longer and this is even further in the past compared to the present. Time is moving forward in the probe, but our receivers are separating more and more from that present. Mathematically we get plus and minus time, with the minus time, the time delay.
Objects that existed close to the start of BB, no longer exist, but due to the time delay, increasing with time, we may still see light from that past, but we have no clue of what became of that object in the present. We cannot build the bridge from both sides of the river like in archeology but we have to build only from one side. There is no checks and balances and wherever it hits the other side can be claimed to be the goal.
A very distant planet, say 5 billion light years away, that was viewing the earth, would assume the earth, today, was an infant planet due to the time delay. It could not infer our last 5 billion years and what the present looked like on the earth. Looking for intelligent life on distant planets, outside our solar system, runs into the time delay problems. We see the past and but its present.
If we go back to the early seconds of the BB, when everything is still very close, the time delay is small. This is more like a microscope view, where we can use the microscope to expand distance to see the tiny details, but it all occurs in real time. The most distant objects, were once touching elbows with our ancient matter. Once everything expands, further, we start to get more of a telescope view, with an ever increasing time delay, with respect to signals coming from all over the expanding universe.
What we see today, is the most distant objects, appearing to move the fastest. However, since there is a time delay, the behavior of these most distant objects, are not from the present, but are a snapshot from their most distant past. The most distant past had the fastest objects. As we decrease the observational time delay, by looking at things that are closer and closer, the objects get slower; less red shift. This is consistent with an explosion of sorts. Upon detonation the matter expands quickly like a firework in the sky, then the debris slows with time. Based on signal time delay this is observed.
The current estimate for the size of the universe does not take into account the time delay. The distances we appear to see, is really coming from the distant past, and not from the present universe. We have no clue what the future state or position of the most distant objects are since there is billions of years of signal time delay before we will know. Are we confusing time and distance via the time delay increasing in time?
Because of the time delay a paradox appears. Let us assume the most distant objects are the oldest snapshots of the universe. If we assume the universe came from a singularity, things had to be closest in the beginning. How can an event from a close thing; when the universe was very close, early in the BB, now seem to be the farthest away? If this was a real time signal expansion makes sense but this an old signal from when things were close. It now looks far away.
One way to make this happen is for that early universe signal to have reached us more than one time. If the light was that traveling in a circle, to use a geometric example, and we were in the path of that circle, each time the light passes, the snap shot of the past, will add time more and more delay, with the signal getting fainter with time. That would make it look farther away.
In the beginning, when the singularity was finite but still small, the signal passed by us the first time with little time delay. The universe expanded and the same signal from the past, recycled and passed us again, giving us a glimpse of a nostalgic memory of our past together. The universe continued to expand, as did the time delay, so when it appears again, etc., this snapshot in time, of our earliest beginning, began to appear to be far away in distance, instead of time.
This was based on changes in conceptual assumptions in science, since time and distance are related when it comes to the speed of light and calculated distances of the universe relative to telescopes. Light year has the units of time but is used to express distance; time and distance equivalency in astronomy. Distance was chosen, since it was easier to conceptualize. Time was still nebulous in comparison to distance. Time delay changing with time gets esoteric.
Picture a scrapbook of pictures of a child from birth to old age. The first picture is the birth picture since the book is organized by time. The old age pictures are at the end. Since this scrapbook was in a three ring binder, I decide to take the pages out and spread these in a time line, where I place the pictures, literally, in a long line that spans a considerable distance of 25 meters. Instead of thinking in terms of dates, I reference the date in terms of its position on the line; 7.5 meter mark. The birth pictures are farthest from the present with a linear concept of time. What I am tying to do is collect these pictures and place them back into the binder based on time, with the time between the last page; present and first page; more distant past, requiring many flips, with each flip further from the real time present. It is also physically, further in space, from the last page.
-
With cosmology,
Yes and no.
In better weather I can look out of my window and see a fairly typical star how it was 8 minutes ago.
I don't think the 8 minutes matters much.
But, if it does, I can do rather better. I can do fusion (and other) experiments in a lab so I get results that are pretty much instant.
The expansing adds what could be modeled as a second time vector,
As we have grown tired of telling you, Time is not a vector.
(and "expansing " isn't even a word).
Objects that existed close to the start of BB, no longer exist,
Essentially every hydrogen atom in your body- and that's most of the atoms- formed close to the BB.
Why do you post obvious nonsense?
A very distant planet, say 5 billion light years away, that was viewing the earth, would assume the earth, today, was an infant planet due to the time delay. It could not infer our last 5 billion years and what the present looked like on the earth. Looking for intelligent life on distant planets, outside our solar system, runs into the time delay problems. We see the past and but its present.
An aspect which has been covered in a few sci fi stories. It's hardly a secret.
What we see today, is the most distant objects, appearing to move the fastest. However, since there is a time delay, the behavior of these most distant objects, are not from the present, but are a snapshot from their most distant past. The most distant past had the fastest objects. As we decrease the observational time delay, by looking at things that are closer and closer, the objects get slower; less red shift. This is consistent with an explosion of sorts. Upon detonation the matter expands quickly like a firework in the sky, then the debris slows with time. Based on signal time delay this is observed.
If that was the reason for the Hubble constant then there would be two issues- firstly, it wouldn't give a simple proportional constant but more importantly, not everything would be moving directly away from us, but that's what we see.
-
Let me see if I can simplify this with an easier example. Say I show you a picture scrapbook of a person called Sam. This scrapbook has pictures from baby to old man, but I will only give you the baby pictures at the beginning. This simulates the time delay in terms of the oldest objects we can see in the universe.These pictures are the oldest.
From those old few baby pictures, tell me about Sam's future. I have the rest of the pictures of his future, from those baby pictures, to his old age, so we can compare your analysis, so see how easy it is too predict the future. Let me give you a hint, those baby clothes in the pictures I gave you were thrown away long ago, even though you can see them in the pictures, you are looking at today.
When we look out into space, we see snapshots of things that happened at various times in the past. We pull picture out of a large universe scrapbook. Time is stopped in each picture, while time continues to propagate for the actual object. We have two different time vectors, one of the matter and one for the energy emissions. A picture has no sense of direction in time, since time has stopped in the photo. The material object moves to the future and has a sense of direction in time, as the rest of Sam's pictures will show. The emissions from the matter give a snapshot of the matter, stopped in time. This moves through space hardly changing. The matter continues in time, driven by free energy considerations; higher entropy and lower enthalpy. The difference between the stopped point of time captured by the photo, and the free energy changes in time of the material object, is the time delay. The picture is delayed in time, since it stopped in time, while the material object continues forward in time.
After being stumped about the future of Sam, the material person, who moves forward in time, from a photo that was stopped times, I give you more pictures, now of the toddler stage of Sam, where his free energy has changed and the emissions for a snapshot in time, are different. The energy emissions define a new point in time, when the matter generated it refection of energy. The energy information does not age the same way, as the source matter.
The photo album may have turned yellow, but Sam did not, since the photo album is not Sam, but only points of time, defined by energy, contained within photographic materials, that will propagate with time. The time delay is the difference between the two time vectors t=0; snapshot and t=t1; object time, with the material of the photo album aging as t=t2.
The aging photo album, since it is a material based record, will change free energy with time. This may cause a change of entropy which can distort or cause the picture, of a point of time to appear to change in time. The information may appear to get yellow. This is still different from the free energy change of the original material object, that was the subject of the energy picture at a point in time.
The bottom line is we imagine how the subject object ages by trying to compare it to things which are nearby. This is the scrapbook approach, with the scrapbook having its own propagation in time for that point of time. The problem is, if universal space time is expanding, the propagation of time is not fixed for material objects at any point in time. Present time moves faster that past time. Expansion of space-time, creates an acceleration in the flow of time. If only distance was expanding and time propagation remained the same this is not space-time.
I now added another time vector, since material time propagation is not constant, but accelerates, similar to a force acting on time. I am not saying this is a force, but can modeled that way. The energy snap shop may red shift, but the free energy flow of the subject will accelerate. Our modeling of close things does not use the second free energy time vector implied by the expansion.
-
Let me see if I can simplify this with an easier example.
Why?
It's not that I don't understand your point.
The issue is that your point is wrong.
-
I now added another time vector
As we have grown tired of telling you, Time is not a vector.
-
All good discoveries start with a maybe that is the basis of philosophical thinking. Apart from discovering a rock by tripping over it.