Re: What before big bang?
From: Bjoern Feuerbacher (feuerbac_at_thphys.uni-heidelberg.de)
Date: 09/01/04
- Next message: robert j. kolker: "Re: Article: A Century of Einstein"
- Previous message: Bjoern Feuerbacher: "Re: Important question"
- In reply to: truegridtz: "Re: What before big bang?"
- Next in thread: truegridtz: "Re: What before big bang?"
- Reply: truegridtz: "Re: What before big bang?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2004 15:15:54 +0200
truegridtz wrote:
> "Bjoern Feuerbacher" <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message
> news:ch3tr5$d2s$1@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...
>
>>truegridtz wrote:
>>
>>>"Albert Einstein" <dadaismo@tin.it> wrote in message
>>>news:iG7Zc.178539$OR2.8434846@news3.tin.it...
>>>
>>
>BF: This is about a short as I could make it and hopefully it makes
>sense. I have trouble reading it myself.
We'll see.
>>>As I see it the ultimate in science (relativity) proves that the
>>universe was created.
>>
>>General Relativity is the best theory we have up to know - but
>>essentially everyone agrees that for very small times, it breaks down
>>due to quantum effects,
>
>
> There is always the problem of the "observer." Since we have but one basic
> observation point (possibly the term is "world event") we cannot be sure
> exactly what we see. Matter is in motion, internally.
Sorry, I don't see what that has to do with my argument above.
>>and in order to describe these first times, we
>>need a theory of Quantum Gravity. It may well turn out that then that
>>the universe *had* no beginning.
>
>
> I do not subscribe to what might be termed quantum theory.
*big sigh* Why not? And why does every piece of evidence we have
so far agree with it, in some cases even to an accurary of 12
significant digits?
> I see overwhelming evidence that everything is EMR.
Please present that evidence. For starters, you could explain how
electrons can be EMR.
> So it assembles in basic packages, call them quantum.
How does EMR "assemble" in packages?
> I strongly suspect that what is perceived
> through science is highly flawed because many observations are flawed,
> thus results and extrapolations are flawed.
Which observations are flawed, and what is your evidence for that?
> Science is trying to fit all the evidence together into a unified theory.
> A lot of the evidence is not what it appears to be.
For example?
> Much of it is
> mathematical representation that has little resemblance to reality.
Evidence is not mathematical representation.
>>For some, still speculative, ideas, look here:
>>
>><http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=1&articleID=00042F0D-1A0E-1085-94F483414B7F0000>
Have you looked there?
>>>No matter what type of theory is set forth pertaining to a beginning of
>>>our
>>>existence, there must have been the propagation medium present
>>>beforehand for anything to work.
>>
>>Huh? Could you please explain that logic further?
I don't see anything below where you explain why a "propagation medium"
had to be there "beforehand for anything to work".
> As I see it, the "writing on the wall"
What do you mean?
> says that EMR traveling through
> free space is traveling through a propagation network that is "bent" by
> gravity.
Huh? What do you mean by "propagation network"?
> The bending is only a mathematical and geometric observation.
Well, since bending *is* something geometrical, that's not surprising,
isn't it?
> What is actually happening is probably quite different than a bending.
If you can reproduce the predictions of General relativity without
the assumption of curved spacetime, feel free to do so.
> Relativity, in a geometric sense, is mostly rotation through 90 degrees
> or somewhere in between.
I have no clue what you mean here.
> What is actually happening is most uncertain.
Not at all.
> The propagation medium is what is called free space. It has properties that
> are necessary for matter to operate as it does.
For example?
> The "writing on the wall"
> strong suggests (from my perspective) that matter does not inherently have
> all of the qualities of space-time.
I have no clue what you mean by "matter has (or has not) qualities of
space-time".
> What matter reacts to is a quality (qualities) of free space.
Huh
> It must have been present in the beginning.
*What* must have been present there, and why?
> Whatever massive material event happened (that appears to be steadily
> expanding), call it the Big Bang,
The Big Bang is not "steadily expanding", and it even makes no sense
to say that a "massive material event happened that is steadily
expanding". Events don't expand.
> must have had an already existant free space.
Why?
> Once again, (assuming that there is some scientific explanation for
> the presence of the initial quantity of matter in the beginning)
See the link above for some ideas, as I said.
> the matter
> itself did not and does not generate the qualities of free space.
Well, I know of no one who says that "matter generates the qualities
of free space". Probably because it is totally unclear what you *mean*
with "the qualities of free space".
> It is conceivable to me that the generation of matter in the beginning could
> have been an electromagnetic event that literally generated matter.
What is an "electromagnetic event", and how can it generate matter?
> It is
> conceivable that light and velocity were spontaneously generated
Contradicts conservation of energy, don't you think?
And, BTW, velocity of what?
> and then matter formed due to some type of interaction.
That's marvelously vague, congratulations!
> Even so, the properties of
> free space would have to be present the mass-energy conversions to take
> effect.
What "properties of free space" do you mean?
> Who knows, maybe someone stuck a match in a room of of mirrors
> inside a black hole.
A black hole has nothing to do with the BB.
> Maybe that's what the damned ape did. Playing with a
> cigarette lighter. Kabooom. Mabey it was an anti-cigarette
> lighter......anyhow....
What ape? Sorry, I don't get the joke.
> The qualities of free space (as far as I know) are homogeneous through the
> universe no matter what the quantity of matter in the vacinity (surely there
> is some exception to this at the edge of reality, wherever that might be, if
> there is such a place). Yes, the matter in the vacinity changes the free
> space, but the free space itself is the same every where.
Err, if it is changed, how can it be the same?
> From this it
> seems logical to conclude that the qualities of free space were not
> generated at the moment of the beginning.
How does that follow?
> These qualites were already
> present. Someone put free space in operation. In fact, a universe this
> complex could not have generated itself.
Why not?
> The whole theory of evolution is patently absurd.
*even bigger sigh*
Please go to www.talkorigins.org and read *all* of the articles there.
That will keep you busy for some days...
> My point is that science is used to generate arguements in behalf of a
> godless beginning of existence.
Science deals only with natural explanations, since supernatural events
can't be studied with the methology of science. And science found such
natural explanations for a lot of things which were previously
considered to be the work of god(s). If you have a problem with that,
then apparently your faith is rather weak.
> I say that the highest science (which
> describes accurately the nature of free space) makes it obvious that what
> ever evolutionary model is set forth requires an already existant free
> space.
What "highest science" is that which achieves such marvelous things?
> Gravity, mass, energy, space-time are all predicated on events occuring in
> relation to the ether.
Unsupported, baseless assertion.
> Mass increases with velocity.
Yes, indeed. Nice that we agree on that.
> Electrons are moving
> at high velocities in (from our perspective) circular orbitals.
Wrong. If they would do that, they would radiate off electromagnetic
radiation, and spiral into the nucleus.
> The
> gravitational effect of matter seems to be due to the mass of the atom
> interacting with free space.
Again, marvelously vague.
> The mass of the electrons and vibrating protons and neutrons
What is vibrating there?
> is due to the interaction of their velocities with free
> space.
Still marvelously vague.
> This gives them their mass. It is a system that we percieve as
> material existence. It could all be EMR.
How?
> Light has mass.
<http://www.physics.adelaide.edu.au/~dkoks/Faq/Relativity/SR/light_mass.html>
> Light has velocity.
Finally something we can again agree upon.
> Light's path is changed as
> gravitational fields change the nature of free space, the medium through
> which light propagates. Light is EMR and has the properties of matter.
What properties of matter does light have? For starters, it has neither
rest mass nor charge.
> All EMR travels at c, even the fields in a 120V 60Hz line transformer.
Fields in a transformer are not radiation.
> Light is EMR and has mass.
Wrong. See above.
> This relationship strongly suggests that all
> material existence is EMR
Why?
> in forms that we cannot understand because we are
> wasting so much time on all this quark and quantum theory.
Hint: these theories are the best theories we have, were tested hundreds
of thousands of times, and have never given a wrong prediction. Just
dumb luck, eh?
> It is good for
> what it is good for, but it will never get us where we need to go.
Unsupported, baseless assertion.
> We need to prove or disprove whether electrons and all other forms of matter
> are small
We know quite well that electrons are small (smaller than about 10^(-18)
m). That is shown by scattering experiments, which are based on
electrodynamics.
> (or mabey huge and dimensionally distorted) circular and
> self-sufficent webs of light.
Where would their charge, rest mass and magnetic moment then come from?
> Light travels at "c" because this is the standard propagaton velocity
> (from our perspective, from our reference point).
Would that be different from other reference points? From which, why,
and how do you know?
> The redshift is due to
> the gravitational effect upon the propagation medium, the ether.
Yet another unsupported assertion.
> Gravity
> itself appears to be as result of mass interacting with free space.
Still marvelously vague.
>>>EMR propagates through some type of universal format.
>>
>>Ever heard of the Michelson-Morley experiment?
>
>
> Yes, amazing, but ineffective. It may have worked, but due to factors that
> had a cancelling effect there was no drift (for lack of the proper term)
> detected for planet earth.
What cancelling factors are these?
>>>The "ether" surely exists or there would not be a reference point called
>>>"c". MH
>>
>>"c" is not a reference *point*. What do you mean?
>
>
> "Point" here means a place in the theory that is a reliable constant Not a
> geometric point, a reference point. A point of reference. A place in the
> theory that has a definable quantity. Relativity is based on "c" being
> constant.
You might try being more precise. Constant with respect to what? Do you
know the answer to that question?
> AE said that there was no proof of this, the value of "c". It
> was chosen to be the constant, but it does work out in the equations.
Huh?
> It is
> the maximum theoretical obtainable velocity in mass-energy conversion.
> It can also be mesured, so it seems to be a reliable constant.
So, why does the existence of this "reference point" imply the existence
of an ether?
> If anyone made it through this, thanks for reading it. If I read everything
> three times I could see what I was trying to say. I hope that it is
> basically sound according to theory.
Sorry, but it consisted mainly of unsupported assertions, plain denial
of well-established theories, some totally vague statements, and some
misrepresentations of what science actually says.
> Comments are welcome, if they aren't based on tons of geometry.
> Regards, Mark
What's your problem with geometry?
Bye,
Bjoern
- Next message: robert j. kolker: "Re: Article: A Century of Einstein"
- Previous message: Bjoern Feuerbacher: "Re: Important question"
- In reply to: truegridtz: "Re: What before big bang?"
- Next in thread: truegridtz: "Re: What before big bang?"
- Reply: truegridtz: "Re: What before big bang?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
