Please Demonstrate
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-11-2014, 08:48 AM
RE: Please Demonstrate
(20-11-2014 08:33 AM)cjlr Wrote:  
(19-11-2014 07:17 PM)Free Wrote:  They all accept the Big Bang without evidence, so what's the problem with what I accept, champ?

This is fractally wrong.

Are you telling me that they do not assume the Big Bang happened based upon their evidence?

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-11-2014, 08:57 AM
RE: Please Demonstrate
(20-11-2014 08:48 AM)Free Wrote:  
(20-11-2014 08:33 AM)cjlr Wrote:  This is fractally wrong.

Are you telling me that they do not assume the Big Bang happened based upon their evidence?

No? By what insane light does my denying a ridiculous claim of yours constitute making another ridiculous claim?

I am addressing what you said. Literally. To wit,
(19-11-2014 07:17 PM)Free Wrote:  They all accept the Big Bang without evidence...
(20-11-2014 08:48 AM)Free Wrote:  Are you telling me that they do not assume the Big Bang happened based upon their evidence?

You don't say? Hmm...

(19-11-2014 07:17 PM)Free Wrote:  They all accept the Big Bang without evidence...
(20-11-2014 08:48 AM)Free Wrote:  Are you telling me that they do not assume the Big Bang happened based upon their evidence?
(19-11-2014 07:17 PM)Free Wrote:  without evidence
(20-11-2014 08:48 AM)Free Wrote:  their evidence

This puzzles me. Could you explain?

Notwithstanding the difference between an assumption and a conclusion, of course...

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-11-2014, 09:05 AM (This post was last modified: 22-11-2014 10:56 AM by Free.)
RE: Please Demonstrate
(20-11-2014 08:57 AM)cjlr Wrote:  
(20-11-2014 08:48 AM)Free Wrote:  Are you telling me that they do not assume the Big Bang happened based upon their evidence?

No? By what insane light does my denying a ridiculous claim of yours constitute making another ridiculous claim?

I am addressing what you said. Literally. To wit,
(19-11-2014 07:17 PM)Free Wrote:  They all accept the Big Bang without evidence...
(20-11-2014 08:48 AM)Free Wrote:  Are you telling me that they do not assume the Big Bang happened based upon their evidence?

You don't say? Hmm...

(19-11-2014 07:17 PM)Free Wrote:  They all accept the Big Bang without evidence...
(20-11-2014 08:48 AM)Free Wrote:  Are you telling me that they do not assume the Big Bang happened based upon their evidence?
(19-11-2014 07:17 PM)Free Wrote:  without evidence
(20-11-2014 08:48 AM)Free Wrote:  their evidence

This puzzles me. Could you explain?

Notwithstanding the difference between an assumption and a conclusion, of course...

Taken in the context of this discussion it should have been understood that the "without evidence" was intended to refer to the singularity itself.

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-11-2014, 09:21 AM
RE: Please Demonstrate
I'd like to ask a question, theoretically.

Let us hypothesize that a Big Crunch and/or Big Bounce could happen, or has already happened.

I somewhat image some kind of a massive singularity present in an already existent universe. So my question would be this.

Is it reasonable to hypothesize that an extremely massive singularity known as the Big Crunch would have enough gravitational/electromagnetic/gravio-electromagnetic power to compress space?

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-11-2014, 09:56 AM
RE: Please Demonstrate
(20-11-2014 09:21 AM)Free Wrote:  I'd like to ask a question, theoretically.

Let us hypothesize that a Big Crunch and/or Big Bounce could happen, or has already happened.

I somewhat image some kind of a massive singularity present in an already existent universe. So my question would be this.

Is it reasonable to hypothesize that an extremely massive singularity known as the Big Crunch would have enough gravitational/electromagnetic/gravio-electromagnetic power to compress space?

Yabut, even according to LQC there really IS no "singularity" that happens, because as that state is approached, (but not "allowed") the bounce begins. The answer to your question is (I think, but would want one of the more advanced Physicists to confirm) is "yes", but ...

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-11-2014, 10:41 AM
RE: Please Demonstrate
(20-11-2014 09:56 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(20-11-2014 09:21 AM)Free Wrote:  I'd like to ask a question, theoretically.

Let us hypothesize that a Big Crunch and/or Big Bounce could happen, or has already happened.

I somewhat image some kind of a massive singularity present in an already existent universe. So my question would be this.

Is it reasonable to hypothesize that an extremely massive singularity known as the Big Crunch would have enough gravitational/electromagnetic/gravio-electromagnetic power to compress space?

Yabut, even according to LQC there really IS no "singularity" that happens, because as that state is approached, (but not "allowed") the bounce begins. The answer to your question is (I think, but would want one of the more advanced Physicists to confirm) is "yes", but ...

Even in your scenario, as the state is being approached I hypothesize that space is being compressed upon the approach.

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-11-2014, 10:21 AM
RE: Please Demonstrate
Another hypothetical question:

Some scientists hypothesize that the expansion happened faster than the speed of light, so here's my problem with that.

Let us, for example, assume that the expansion happened at 10 X the speed of light. If this were true, then the observable universe would only be about 1.5 billion years old, would it not?

Since we are seeing objects that are 14.5 billion light years away and hypothesizing that the expansion was 10 X the speed of light, then those observable objects could only be 1.45 billion years old, imo.

So how do we see the light from those objects that are 14.5 billion light years away if they are only 1.45 billion years old?

Could the answer be that the light from those objects was stretched like space purportedly was?

Curious questions ...

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-11-2014, 10:34 AM
RE: Please Demonstrate
(25-11-2014 10:21 AM)Free Wrote:  Another hypothetical question:

Some scientists hypothesize that the expansion happened faster than the speed of light, so here's my problem with that.

Let us, for example, assume that the expansion happened at 10 X the speed of light. If this were true, then the observable universe would only be about 1.5 billion years old, would it not?

First problem: nobody assumes the expansion happened at a uniform 10c.

So right away, this isn't speculating based on evidence, it's groundless hypothetical freewheeling...

(25-11-2014 10:21 AM)Free Wrote:  Since we are seeing objects that are 14.5 billion light years away and hypothesizing that the expansion was 10 X the speed of light, then those observable objects could only be 1.45 billion years old, imo.

See above. That is not what anyone supposes. If anyone did so suppose then they might - might - reach that conclusion. But they don't.

(25-11-2014 10:21 AM)Free Wrote:  So how do we see the light from those objects that are 14.5 billion light years away if they are only 1.45 billion years old?

Due not only to metric expansion, but relativistic effects in general, to say the age or distance of objects on cosmological scales does not mean what you - on pure naive intuition - might think it does. Human intuition cannot describe phenomena on a cosmic scale.

We have two primary measures for distant objects (and that's distance in spacetime, not either/or). One is redshift, and the other is luminosity - simply put, the "farther" a ray of light has travelled, the dimmer it gets. Certain astronomical phenomena always occur at the same intensity at source, and so their relative apparent brightness is a very powerful measure.

(25-11-2014 10:21 AM)Free Wrote:  Could the answer be that the light from those objects was stretched like space purportedly was?

Curious questions ...

That is what cosmological redshifting is.

If the space over which a ray travels is expanding then the ray must expand with it. This decreases its frequency - visible light moves towards the red end of the spectrum (hence, you know, redshifting). Most observation occurs at other wavelengths in any case, but the principle is the same.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-11-2014, 10:52 AM
RE: Please Demonstrate
(25-11-2014 10:34 AM)cjlr Wrote:  
(25-11-2014 10:21 AM)Free Wrote:  Another hypothetical question:

Some scientists hypothesize that the expansion happened faster than the speed of light, so here's my problem with that.

Let us, for example, assume that the expansion happened at 10 X the speed of light. If this were true, then the observable universe would only be about 1.5 billion years old, would it not?

First problem: nobody assumes the expansion happened at a uniform 10c.

So right away, this isn't speculating based on evidence, it's groundless hypothetical freewheeling...

(25-11-2014 10:21 AM)Free Wrote:  Since we are seeing objects that are 14.5 billion light years away and hypothesizing that the expansion was 10 X the speed of light, then those observable objects could only be 1.45 billion years old, imo.

See above. That is not what anyone supposes. If anyone did so suppose then they might - might - reach that conclusion. But they don't.

(25-11-2014 10:21 AM)Free Wrote:  So how do we see the light from those objects that are 14.5 billion light years away if they are only 1.45 billion years old?

Due not only to metric expansion, but relativistic effects in general, to say the age or distance of objects on cosmological scales does not mean what you - on pure naive intuition - might think it does. Human intuition cannot describe phenomena on a cosmic scale.

We have two primary measures for distant objects (and that's distance in spacetime, not either/or). One is redshift, and the other is luminosity - simply put, the "farther" a ray of light has travelled, the dimmer it gets. Certain astronomical phenomena always occur at the same intensity at source, and so their relative apparent brightness is a very powerful measure.

(25-11-2014 10:21 AM)Free Wrote:  Could the answer be that the light from those objects was stretched like space purportedly was?

Curious questions ...

That is what cosmological redshifting is.

If the space over which a ray travels is expanding then the ray must expand with it. This decreases its frequency - visible light moves towards the red end of the spectrum (hence, you know, redshifting). Most observation occurs at other wavelengths in any case, but the principle is the same.

But my point was that some scientists do theorize that expansion happened faster than the speed of light. The 10 X scenario was just for illustrative purposes to demonstrate that the observable universe may not be anywhere near the age it is theorized to be.

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-11-2014, 02:28 PM
RE: Please Demonstrate
(25-11-2014 10:52 AM)Free Wrote:  But my point was that some scientists do theorize that expansion happened faster than the speed of light.

Indeed, and I didn't deny that. It is not just some scientists who agree with that model, but the vast majority (glossed here, for example). Sure. So what?

But I was pointing out that your speculating as to the consequences of a model is entirely irrelevant if your "model" is something you just plain made up.

(25-11-2014 10:52 AM)Free Wrote:  The 10 X scenario was just for illustrative purposes to demonstrate that the observable universe may not be anywhere near the age it is theorized to be.

My explanation alluded to the fact that there are multiple avenues of investigation and data open to us, and they all agree. Our current favoured theoretical framework is that which provides the best account of available data. Standard cosmology does this extremely well.

What I did explicitly state was that "age" does not mean what you think it means in a cosmological context. "Distance" does not mean what you think it means in a cosmological context. Naive human intuition is not useful at such scales. This is an extremely important thing to acknowledge, but you seem very reluctant to do so.

Did you read the link I included? The data given for distance/age of far off cosmological objects already accounts for the kind of trivial "but it doesn't obey my naive feels" objections you raise.
(I find this applies rather a lot to any sort of scientific or statistical analysis - if your objection only took five seconds to think of, chances are somebody else has already considered it)

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: