Is there such thing as "Creation"?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
13-11-2014, 10:44 AM
RE: Is there such thing as "Creation"?
(13-11-2014 10:40 AM)unfogged Wrote:  
(13-11-2014 10:08 AM)Free Wrote:  Therefore, I dare to assume with dogged determination.

That's the problem. Speculating freely is fine. Assuming freely is not.

Why not?

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-11-2014, 11:05 AM
RE: Is there such thing as "Creation"?
(13-11-2014 10:44 AM)Free Wrote:  
(13-11-2014 10:40 AM)unfogged Wrote:  That's the problem. Speculating freely is fine. Assuming freely is not.

Why not?

I thought you were open and skeptic in what you argued before?

Assuming anything without basis is applying skepticism poorly. Questioning and speculating are good, but there's no reason to assume something.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like ClydeLee's post
13-11-2014, 11:09 AM (This post was last modified: 13-11-2014 12:18 PM by Free.)
RE: Is there such thing as "Creation"?
(13-11-2014 11:05 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(13-11-2014 10:44 AM)Free Wrote:  Why not?

I thought you were open and skeptic in what you argued before?

Assuming anything without basis is applying skepticism poorly. Questioning and speculating are good, but there's no reason to assume something.

There is always a basis for my assumptions. What the point of contention is, is whether or not the basis is valid.

To assume without direct evidence is what inspires people to look for evidence or answers to either confirm or deny the validity of the assumption.

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-11-2014, 12:38 PM
RE: Is there such thing as "Creation"?
(12-11-2014 07:10 PM)Free Wrote:  
(12-11-2014 06:31 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Space is expanding everywhere within our current already existent universe.

Let's look at the theory of the Big Crunch and assume it could happen, or better yet, has already happened.

Considering that the Big Bang expanded space, then would it not be safe to assume that a Big Crunch would compress all space subject to its gravitational force?
With the Big Crunch idea, one would conclude that items which are further away from the point(s) of expansion would be traveling slower than those closer to the point of expansion, because gravity has had more time to slow them down. At some stage they stop and then they fall back towards the point of expansion.

However scientists have observed that items further away are traveling faster than items close by. Our universe is expanding at an accelerating rate. This observation contradicts the Big Crunch expectations.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-11-2014, 01:03 PM (This post was last modified: 13-11-2014 01:07 PM by Free.)
RE: Is there such thing as "Creation"?
(13-11-2014 12:38 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(12-11-2014 07:10 PM)Free Wrote:  Let's look at the theory of the Big Crunch and assume it could happen, or better yet, has already happened.

Considering that the Big Bang expanded space, then would it not be safe to assume that a Big Crunch would compress all space subject to its gravitational force?
With the Big Crunch idea, one would conclude that items which are further away from the point(s) of expansion would be traveling slower than those closer to the point of expansion, because gravity has had more time to slow them down. At some stage they stop and then they fall back towards the point of expansion.

However scientists have observed that items further away are traveling faster than items close by. Our universe is expanding at an accelerating rate. This observation contradicts the Big Crunch expectations.

It's almost like something is "pulling" those items further away.

If we theorize that "outside" the inflation an existence was present, and if that existence was some kind of electromagnetic force, then it would make perfect sense as to why those items would be traveling faster.

If those items were closer to the electromagnetic field, the attraction to it would be greater and therefore those items would move faster towards it than items that are not as distant.

Just a theory though, we do not know.

Imagine the point of origin of the Big Bang being surrounded by an electromagnetic field?

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-11-2014, 02:14 PM
RE: Is there such thing as "Creation"?
(13-11-2014 01:03 PM)Free Wrote:  
(13-11-2014 12:38 PM)Stevil Wrote:  With the Big Crunch idea, one would conclude that items which are further away from the point(s) of expansion would be traveling slower than those closer to the point of expansion, because gravity has had more time to slow them down. At some stage they stop and then they fall back towards the point of expansion.

However scientists have observed that items further away are traveling faster than items close by. Our universe is expanding at an accelerating rate. This observation contradicts the Big Crunch expectations.

It's almost like something is "pulling" those items further away.

If we theorize that "outside" the inflation an existence was present, and if that existence was some kind of electromagnetic force, then it would make perfect sense as to why those items would be traveling faster.

If those items were closer to the electromagnetic field, the attraction to it would be greater and therefore those items would move faster towards it than items that are not as distant.

Just a theory though, we do not know.

Imagine the point of origin of the Big Bang being surrounded by an electromagnetic field?

That's where Dark Energy ideas come into play. It's hypothesized as the current understood source for the why of the observations of things spreading apart further. There's excess gravity and it is pulled in ways that don't really make sense without this dark energy, whatever it is, being apart of the universe's process.

Electromagnitism is immensely more powerful than gravity in it's effects. It doesn't have as wide ranging across the universe effects though, if it was somehow effecting rates of speeds, it would be clearly noticeable as beyond the tugs of what gravity does.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ClydeLee's post
13-11-2014, 02:39 PM
RE: Is there such thing as "Creation"?
(13-11-2014 01:03 PM)Free Wrote:  It's almost like something is "pulling" those items further away.
No, it can't be that.

When you say "away" what is it that you think things are moving away from?
Please don't say the point of origin because we cannot trace the current trajectories backwards and agree upon a point of origin. If we attempt this then we come up with the answer that Earth is at the center of the universe and everything is moving away from us.


(13-11-2014 01:03 PM)Free Wrote:  If we theorize that "outside" the inflation an existence was present, and if that existence was some kind of electromagnetic force, then it would make perfect sense as to why those items would be traveling faster.
By your model you have Earth at the dead center of some very large hollowed out Sphere shell. You have this shell emanating some always attractive electromagnetic force and hence all energy and matter is accelerating towards it while Earth is perfectly balanced in the middle.

Problems with this model:
Electromagnetic for isn't always attractive, it has +ve and -ve charge, positives attract negatives, negatives attract positives, positives repel positives, negatives repel negatives. Within the universe we have substances that are positive, negative and neutral however they are all "attracted" to this great Shell (of your model).

Electromagnetic force does not have the range that gravity has. We wouldn't be getting this linear correlation of distance to speed that we are seeing.

It is highly unlikely that Earth is at the center of the universe. cljr has presented some studies that show it is impossible given observation from the background radiation that Earth is at the center.

Even if Earth was at the center, all it would take is a slight deviation and then over billions of years Earth would be moved well away from the center.


(13-11-2014 01:03 PM)Free Wrote:  Just a theory though, we do not know.

Imagine the point of origin of the Big Bang being surrounded by an electromagnetic field?
We know that your idea is incorrect.
Space is expanding uniformly everywhere. It is not being attracted to an "outside" force.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stevil's post
13-11-2014, 02:43 PM
RE: Is there such thing as "Creation"?
(13-11-2014 02:14 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(13-11-2014 01:03 PM)Free Wrote:  It's almost like something is "pulling" those items further away.

If we theorize that "outside" the inflation an existence was present, and if that existence was some kind of electromagnetic force, then it would make perfect sense as to why those items would be traveling faster.

If those items were closer to the electromagnetic field, the attraction to it would be greater and therefore those items would move faster towards it than items that are not as distant.

Just a theory though, we do not know.

Imagine the point of origin of the Big Bang being surrounded by an electromagnetic field?

That's where Dark Energy ideas come into play. It's hypothesized as the current understood source for the why of the observations of things spreading apart further. There's excess gravity and it is pulled in ways that don't really make sense without this dark energy, whatever it is, being apart of the universe's process.

Dark energy- if existing- appears to be sporadic and in random locations. I am curious as to whether or not its effects would be propulsive or magnetic.

The theory of dark energy does not seem to fit the model of how distant objects all appear to be accelerating. If magnetic, it would mean the dark energy would be a constant force surrounding the expansion. I submit it is possible, but since it is theorized that the observable universe is comprised of 68% dark energy all over the place, then why do we not see near objects accelerating?

Quote:Electromagnitism is immensely more powerful than gravity in it's effects. It doesn't have as wide ranging across the universe effects though, if it was somehow effecting rates of speeds, it would be clearly noticeable as beyond the tugs of what gravity does.

When we look at near objects they do not appear to be accelerating, perhaps suggesting that the electromagnetism in those areas may not be as abundant as perhaps it may be near the outer ridges of the expansion??

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-11-2014, 03:04 PM
RE: Is there such thing as "Creation"?
Free, I say this without malice, but your ideas about the physical nature of particles, forces, etc is like a caveman describing how a car works by only using his knowledge of sticks.

I had 3 yrs of university physics, 3 yrs university calculus, astronomy at it's most basic level and I still don't know shit.
What I do know is that people who live and breathe this stuff every day have a hard time dealing with the information they process because it's conceptually so different than how we view the world.

Some physicists have proposed an extra 10-14 dimensions just to make it make sense to them.
If you really want to begin to understand some of this stuff, you have to let go of your notions about our 3 dimensional experiences. We blow up a balloon and it expands into the air around it. Space/time isn't like that, as far as we know.

An expansion of space/time or the acceleration of the expansion is something we don't have a model for from WITHIN that expansion. We are within an event. Accepting that part is the first step into realizing we can't apply any information to that event by the same standards that we use each day. Our standards have an inside and an outside. Our standards don't have common things expanding and accelerating in their expansion. Our common standards don't have super position or entanglement or teleportation or tunneling through walls.

Granted, we have done experiments that show how these things work, but my point is on the larger scale, that our cars, our homes, our friends don't teleport. They don't have entanglement or super position. We can't tunnel in the way that particles can.

So, accept that which may seem strange and try hard to not put your own common assumptions into the mix.
If you can do this, then you may come to truly understand something primal about the universe.

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Rahn127's post
13-11-2014, 03:06 PM (This post was last modified: 13-11-2014 03:13 PM by Free.)
RE: Is there such thing as "Creation"?
(13-11-2014 02:39 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(13-11-2014 01:03 PM)Free Wrote:  It's almost like something is "pulling" those items further away.
No, it can't be that.

When you say "away" what is it that you think things are moving away from?
Please don't say the point of origin because we cannot trace the current trajectories backwards and agree upon a point of origin. If we attempt this then we come up with the answer that Earth is at the center of the universe and everything is moving away from us.

They are moving away from all objects- including earth- that are not accelerating. If we went 4 light years away, the appearance would be very much the same.

Quote:
(13-11-2014 01:03 PM)Free Wrote:  If we theorize that "outside" the inflation an existence was present, and if that existence was some kind of electromagnetic force, then it would make perfect sense as to why those items would be traveling faster.
By your model you have Earth at the dead center of some very large hollowed out Sphere shell. You have this shell emanating some always attractive electromagnetic force and hence all energy and matter is accelerating towards it while Earth is perfectly balanced in the middle.

No, I don't.

Quote:Problems with this model:
Electromagnetic for isn't always attractive, it has +ve and -ve charge, positives attract negatives, negatives attract positives, positives repel positives, negatives repel negatives. Within the universe we have substances that are positive, negative and neutral however they are all "attracted" to this great Shell (of your model).

Electromagnetic force does not have the range that gravity has. We wouldn't be getting this linear correlation of distance to speed that we are seeing.

It is highly unlikely that Earth is at the center of the universe. cljr has presented some studies that show it is impossible given observation from the background radiation that Earth is at the center.

Even if Earth was at the center, all it would take is a slight deviation and then over billions of years Earth would be moved well away from the center.

Firstly, I do not believe that earth is at the center at all. I have no idea where earth is positioned in the scheme of things.

Secondly, electromagnetic force may not need the range that gravity has, but is only affecting the distant objects because they, of themselves, are in range.

Quote:
(13-11-2014 01:03 PM)Free Wrote:  Just a theory though, we do not know.

Imagine the point of origin of the Big Bang being surrounded by an electromagnetic field?
We know that your idea is incorrect.
Space is expanding uniformly everywhere. It is not being attracted to an "outside" force.

The expansion of "space" is my entire problem with the expansion theory. Everything else is fine, but since we cannot actually observe space expansion, all we have to go on is the theory.

But also, I am not speaking of "space" itself being attracted to a possible outside force, but only the observable objects.

And also, if space is expanding uniformly everywhere, why then are near objects not also accelerating from each other?

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: