The Big Bang: Science's Greatest Blunder?

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by dkane75, Dec 20, 2007.

  1. Myles Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,553
    I knew you were bullshitting because I have measured the size of the holes in lightbulb glass and they are all the same size. Now, as the size of the photons increase with an increase in wattage, fewer can escape , so the public are being ripped off. Why have a 100-watt bulb when two 50-watt bulbs will give a a higher light output.

    Stop me if you've heard it. My favourite physics lesson was the one where I was asked to consider a perfectly smooth elephant of negligible weight.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. blobrana Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,214
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Myles Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,553
    Well said. Would you now please describe yourself in terms of what you are not. You can add it to your cv.

    I will do likewise and we can have some fun seeing the things we have not in common.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Read-Only Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,296
    If you actually intend to do that, I suggest you do so via PMs or, at the very least, start another thread. While the two you might find it interesting personally, many others would not and it certainly has NOTHING to do with the topic under discussion here.
     
  8. Myles Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,553
    We'll start another thread ifyou agree to join us. I've already written down 8.5K things I am not and the list is nowhere near complete.

    Alternatively we could start a thread on " What is humour "
     
  9. kaneda Actual Cynic Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,334

    I always hated that about mathsworld, where so many things have to be ignored to make something work. QM does that in some instances, even ignoring wrong results. But the gullible take it all in, as they are in turn, "taken in".
     
  10. kaneda Actual Cynic Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,334
    Photons are waves. Particles are matter so cannot travel at light speed. A photon travels through space as a wave travels through water, but there is no Brownian motion in space so they do not experience casual interference and lose cohesion. Their very cohesion causes some people to claim they are particles.

    Photons can be absorbed and re-emitted. This is common in glass but because of the number of times it happens, the process slows light down to half normal speed. Other materials tend to scatter, absorb or reflect photons so are translucent or opaque.
     
  11. kaneda Actual Cynic Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,334
    Oink! Oink Oink!


    If you behave like a pig, you get talked to like one.
     
  12. kaneda Actual Cynic Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,334

    So how many years did you spend at McDonalds again?

    I have given the polar and equatorial diameter of the Earth a number of times but it seems to be beyond your totally meagre comprehension to understand what I am trying to tell you.

    You LIED about ignoring me before but like herpes, you came back again.

    Give me a large fries, but wear your gloves.
     
  13. kaneda Actual Cynic Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,334
    I can't accept that gravity can be particles as they cannot travel at light speed. Or even as waves because like photons, they could not escape a black hole (unless you fudge using tunnelling but then again, why not have photons tunnel and so escape a black hole?). I think of gravity more as a hole in space. Not easy to explain.
     
  14. kaneda Actual Cynic Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,334
    I found it very hard going. I got about half way through and put it down. I might pick it up again some day.

    Cervantes mentions lots of other adventure books of the time in Don Quixote which are presumably now lost to us?
     
  15. dkane75 Registered Member

    Messages:
    33
    In order to be inspired to understand what I will be trying to explain, you should be unsatisfied that such a thing as "universal spatial expansion" can possibly be detected. In other words, if our dimensions are the absolute context in which we exist, then it follows that no measurable relativity can possibly comment on it.

    It is vital to realize how vastly different are the concepts of "absolute spatial dimensionality" and "relative spatial distance". The former is a foundational principle that allows for the very possibility of all subjective experience and the latter is a specific determination within a particular instantiation of this principle. The question of "universal expansion" undoubtedly falls under the purview of the principle of spatial dimensionality. Those who cannot understand this fact are susceptible to falling into the trap of confusing this objective principle for a subjective determination, and thus come under the illusion that the question of "universal expansion" is a sensible one. From this state of confusion, philosophically ungrounded interpretations of various phenomena are bound to follow.

    ***

    The crucial problem with explaining the galactic redshift phenomenon is the fact that light waves are purely a function of temporal dimensionality. That is, their behaviour cannot possibly be described in typical visual terms that will allow us to paint a "physical picture", for the sake of pedagogical purposes.

    While it is all too obvious that dimensional perspectivity is immediately intuitive (at least to those of us blessed with the sensation of sight) in terms of the world of every day visual experience, it is far from obvious how it relates to the very medium (electromagnetic radiation) that makes these experiences at all possible.

    In order to make the leap from the crude world of spatial dimensionality to the subtle world of temporal dimensionality, it is crucial to understand that "space" and "time" are simply different ways of referring to the singular notion of spacetime. In other words, it is just as appropriate to speak of an apparent increase in temporal context whenever one witnesses an apparent increase in spatial context. This simply means that, because the scale of spatial context changes in inverse proportion to the distance to the observer, it necessarily follows that temporal context behaves in precisely the same way.

    The result of this allows us to understand that, just as objects appear to spatially expand as they approach an observer, so too do light waves appear to temporally expand. We will then necessarily find that energy frequencies appear to be continuously increasing [edit], the closer that one is to the source of radiation.

    This phenomenon is "built in" to the nature of subjective dimensional experience, and is an addition to the already well understood phenomenon known as the Doppler effect, whereby relative velocities alter the measurements of received wavelengths. This effect applies only to a variable relationship, and for this reason, it does not result in any kind of predictable relationship (such as the strict linear relationship observed by Hubble).

    We now have at our disposal all of the conceptual tools needed to understand why such a phenomenon as the predictable lengthening of inter-galactic light waves is manifest.
     
    Last edited: Dec 28, 2007
  16. superluminal . Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,717
    So, your entire argument is base on simple perspective? Ok.

    I look at a tree up close. I then look at it farther away. It looks smaller. Good. What am I seeing the tree "with"? Photons, maybe?

    It is a very odd thing to say that just because photons are farther away that their wavelengths "appear" smaller. You do see the problem here? How do yo "see" a photon that is far away?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Question. Do you really think that the tree in my example is actually smaller when it's farther away from you?
     
  17. superluminal . Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,717
    Does anyone else ever notice that the ones with the astounding revelations feel the need to bury them in barely intelligible pages of verbage?

    I wonder why...
     
  18. losfomoT Unregistered User Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    125
    Translation: You will not even begin to understand me unless you are completely deluded.

    What do you mean by 'absolute context in which we exist'?

    And why does it follow that no measurable relativity can possibly comment on it?

    I think I must be lacking the inspiration mentioned in the first sentence.

    WAIT! I think I just had an epiphany. Let me take a crack at translating that first sentence again:

    Translation: In order to understand what I am about to say, you must already believe it yourself.



    What, exactly, are you saying in the body of your post? On one hand it looks like you agree with what creates redshift...

    But you think that is not the phenomenon responsible for the redshift that we see? You think that the redshift we see in the universe is simply due to the fact that objects are really far away and not moving?
     
  19. dkane75 Registered Member

    Messages:
    33
    I thought that you all might like to take a gander at this quote from a Scientific American article entitled, "Misconceptions about the Big Bang". (Source link.)

    While I am in no way ultimately agreeing with the author of this article, you must admit that it complicates the simple picture that the majority of Big Bang theorists are attempting to portray. While this guy says that cosmological redshift is not a normal Doppler shift, I am saying that it is not any kind of Doppler shift. It is simply the temporal manifestation of the observer's dimensional perspectivity.

    I still uphold that he is guilty of the sin of "objectivizing" the very context that allows there to be any sort of objective measurement.
     
  20. dkane75 Registered Member

    Messages:
    33
    You must pay much closer attention to my words.

    I am only talking about dimensional perspectivity. In other words, how things appear to our limited perspectives.

    Just as there is no "true" perspective of a tree, there also cannot be a "true" perspective of an energy wave.

    All of the confusion flows from the fact that the question of temporal perspectivity has never before been asked in such a rigorous way. (Which is bewildering because it has long been understood that "space" and "time" are simply different ways of referring to a singular spacetime.)
     
  21. Montec Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    248
    Hello all
    There are two known methods of producing red shifted EM spectra.
    One method involves separating the source and detector with an ever increasing distance. This is standard doppler shift from a receding source.
    The other method involves the doppler shift associated with gravity/time gradients. EM radiation escaping a gravity well will have a red shifted spectrum. IE going from a slower time rate to a faster time rate will generate a red shifted EM spectrum.

    The question I have is which method fits the observed red shift from distant sources with the least amount of assumptions.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  22. superluminal . Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,717
    Three. Cosmological redshift is similar to Doppler, but arises due to the expansion of spacetime.
     
  23. kaneda Actual Cynic Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,334
    Gravity acts on atoms themselves and slows down their movements, which some people believe is time dilation. If you move slower because of a higher gravity making you more massive so making it harder for you to move, how is that time slowing down?

    In a vacuum, light travels at 186,282 mps. If space is expanding by an atom's width over that distance in a second, light still travels at 186,282, and not 186,282 + an atom's width. Would some genius explain how the wavelength of photons can be stretched when nothing has changed for them?
     

Share This Page