Do you believe it?
gotta get this science forum rolling somehow
:7detective:
Printable View
Do you believe it?
gotta get this science forum rolling somehow
:7detective:
Put it like this.
There is a factory that produces blank white paper, the only paper in the whole building. Now throw in some dynamite and blow it up. Once thing settle down you'll find a brand new fresh dictionary amid all the rubble created by the dynamite and blank white paper.
On a more scientific level...no.
I agree it sounds very unlikely, but unlikely things have to happen sometimes otherwise they're impossible and as many say, nothing is impossible.
Seeing as you said no, how do you think the universe came into being?
Going from the scientiffic formulas, you can pretty much say that the Big Bang explains what we see in the universe most correctly, because something must explain the Hubble law (increased red-shift with increased distance) and things like the microwave radiation.
That doesn't mean that it needs to feel like it makes sence for our understanding, partically before you've gotten everything on a satifying level of understanding, because some things really doesn't, particulary in quantum physics (and that's the level the Big Bang is on). Like electrons wave-interacting with themself. :inquisitive:
That is true but we are talking about an explosion that created the intricate and complicated world we live in. Look at how the earth sits and rotates. And degree fast or slightly tipped off balance and we're all dead. Even the slightest bump or whatever and we're kaput.Quote:
Originally Posted by Elite Ferret
We'll I believe in the idea of a greater being (God), who created the universe and also us. And science is a way of explaining things or trying to find out how the world we live in works. Take for instance the human body (or you). Look at how complicated and interconnected everything is. It's hard to believe that we came from fish or whatever. Yea there is some evolutionary process in the human body, as with all animals, that allow them to adapt to new surroundings. But nothing from molecules, to fish, to monkeys, to us. I believe that God created the universe, but made it so that it could function on it's own without Him having to meddle with it all the time, and a good example is that of the human race and how it has grown, expanded, and adapted with the changing earth.Quote:
Seeing as you said no, how do you think the universe came into being?
Hope that was kinda clear.
O and so what do you think?
Personally I cannot comprehend God, it is not within my understanding of the universe and so it logically appears to me that there is no God. I agree with the Big Bang due to things such as Red Shift, mentioned by Ironside, but the intricacy of it all does make me wonder sometimes. I suppose you could say I'm an agnostic that leans towards atheism.
I'd just like to remind everyone that while this forum has been provided for your sciency needs, it is still an offshoot of The Frontroom. As such, while it is perfectly fine to discuss the science of the big bang and the beginning of the universe in general, if this turns into a big Science Vs Religion prizefight, it will be moved to the backroom. We've done that sort of debate a million times anyway, so I hope we'll stick with the science here.
Thank you, normal service is now resumed.
What makes you think that the result of the Big Bang is so perfect?Quote:
Originally Posted by Decker
Under your analogy, our universe may well be nothing more than rubble and singed sheets of paper. How can you say that what we have is so complex when you have not experienced the things that may be even more complex?
Also, it beats the idea of a perfect dictionary just popping into view? Or a perfect dictionary having existed all along (which is so logically unsound, but I won't have that argument again).
I hope this post made sense. ~:)
The thing to remember with Big Bang and science is that we're still not close (relativly) to get an explaination on what happened at time 0. And while there's certainly room for a god running Sim Universe, we're not at the point we can say what the odds is. To get closer you'll need to quantify gravity and that's what the theory of everything is about.
Or to upt it differently we're are not in the state where we can determine if the Big Bang makes as much sence as Decker's explosion or as lighting a lightbulb.
I'm just putting in the way that the Big Bang has been described.Quote:
Originally Posted by Craterus
I'm no scientist or anything, but I have seen tv shows, read articles, and seen things that make me realize that things, no matter how small, all intertwine. Just look at the human body.Quote:
Under your analogy, our universe may well be nothing more than rubble and singed sheets of paper. How can you say that what we have is so complex when you have not experienced the things that may be even more complex?
It's an analogy. A complex book out of simple things. Look at how the universe works or our world for that matter. It's just a simple analogy that's all.Quote:
Also, it beats the idea of a perfect dictionary just popping into view? Or a perfect dictionary having existed all along (which is so logically unsound, but I won't have that argument again).
I get it a lil... hope I answered well enough for ya :2thumbsup:Quote:
I hope this post made sense. ~:)
Well, I'll try and keep it hopefully, in the periphery.Quote:
Originally Posted by Big King Sanctaphrax
Hey… didn’t see this until today.
Firstly I have seriously doubts about the Big Bang theory. I am not saying I have the answer to the origin of our universe either. As some of you might remember I had a discussion going on this very subject in the ‘Does God Exist’ thread.
I was merely playing an apologist there as I find religion interesting.
In truth I am an agnostic and that means I should have all such question on a pending status.
Current Science is moving away from the perfect singularity that expanded aka. Big Bang.
Other explanation caters for the red shift and the other phenomena believed to have originated in such an event. I call it an event. By doing so we are all back in the cause event, cause event and first cause, first event routine. We will run into problems. If we need an uncaused reality why can’t that be the universe itself? It was never created; it has always been in one form or another or at least a part of the multiverse.
If we take God away from the equation, we should be very open for extra terrestrial life.
Having downloaded the World Wide Telescope (Thanks Papewaio) and read about the telescopes I realized just how probable that events such as transpired here on Tellus could very well have happened in the countless other galaxies around us.
No one really knows how big our universe is, but we like to define its size. And we do so by saying – this is as far as we can see and that is what we define as the edge of our universe.
Currently that is 78 billion light-years. Yes it is defined by the Hubble telescope.
In 1995 Hubble stared 10 days on an empty spot on our night sky. What came out of that picture was an image of at least 3000 galaxies. The image is called Hubble Deep field.
In 2003 Hubble tried it again on a different patch of seemingly empty space; this time with different filters. It stared on the spot for 11 days revealing an image 78 billion light-years away (take the length with a grain of salt as claims vary). This image contained at least 10 000 galaxies.
If we consider that our galaxy the milky way to have at least 500 000 000 000 solar systems with potential planets like our solar system, it will dawn on you the staggering numbers that lies around us on every pixel of dark space we can see on the night sky. That everything was contained in a perfect singularity at plank time is in my ears sure lunacy.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
https://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y2...p_field_02.jpg
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elite Ferret
Epic start: opening the science forum with beliefs? :beam:
Not being a cosmologist, I'll not throw in my two cents. However, as observations goes on, the Big Bang theory just gets stronger and stronger; to my knowledge, reading astronomical journals.
That is not a valid analogy. Some time after the big bang, matter started to codensate, creating helium and hydrogen, which in turn condensated into giantic gas clouds. These gas clouds contiuned to grow in mass until the pressure got so high in the center of mass that fusion started, and a star had been born. Some of these stars died as supernovas, and in the later stages of a supernova process, the star creates elements heavier than oxygen through fusion; elements that the everything around us are made out of.Quote:
Originally Posted by Decker
Around newer generations of stars, the dust cloud now contains heavier elements and not just hydrogen and helium. In these dust rings, matter start to accrete producing proto planets, which in turn accrete to create planets. Provided that the correct elements are present, and that the surface conditions on these planets are favourable, life will arise.
And there we are. The text above illustrates that nothing was random; when you drop a ball, it will fall to ground because there is gravity. If you unleash a big bang given the laws of this universe, you'll end up with planets and life.
Well, this is the science forum, so I don't understand what God is doing here :shrug:
I for one, must admit that I don't know too much about this Big Bang theory.
What made scientists come to this conclusion?
Is the universe, according to scientists, still expanding after the big bang?
Which tools/methods do scientists use to measure this?
Will the universe one day, start getting smaller again? I mean, will it implode, only to explode (a new big bang) once again? Is it possible that there is a gigantic perpetuum mobile of imploding/exploding (Big Bang) of the universe?
According to scientists, does the universe stop? Is there a limit? Is that limit all planets, rocks, stars, whatever is floating around and beyond that, there is just space, with nothing in it?
I'm intrigued by black holes, but I must admit that I don't know very much about them.
I'm really interested in all this, but never got around actually studying this, so please, if there's someone who knows alot of astrology/astronomy/physics/whichevers scientific branch studies this subject, enlighten me.
And I beg thee, keep religion out of it. We have the backroom for that :bow:
Not really qualified to answer; but I'll give it a go.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andres
Since the universe is expanding, it should be safe to assume that it must have something to expand into; and what it expand into is nothingness. No matter, no energy, no time. That means that if you magically somehow should pop up outside the universe, and looked in the direction of which the universe expands from, you'd not see anything since no light has reached your position yet; and when it does, the universe itself has expanded to your position also. I wonder if not the first light that reached you would be the flash from the BB itself.
I think the big bang is by far a biased scientific approach to the creation of the universe, as the complexities of which cannot be even be fathomed by any mortal human being today. I'm definitely with Sigurd on this one, there is no such thing as "the end" there was never a such thing as the creation, as universes must have been there before even our concept of the universe, even if the big bang were true, were there other "big bangs" before that? Thats not even brining god into question on this one. Because there is no way it can be tested, the Big Bang will also be a theory, and most scientists regard it as that, it just is, because thats the best we've got, since it makes some sense compared to other testable methods. I'm just content living here on poor ol' earth, plying my way through life, raising kids, and hoping that there are indeed powers that be, that will protect us. I'm not just enlightened enough to look into the skies and see the great complexity that lies in front of me.
Is this expansion slowing down and will it eventually stop or will it continue at the same pace for eternity/until the borders of this nothingness have been reached? Has this been measured? What methods did they use?
IIRC there are two main pieces of evidence in favour of the Big Bang theory:
* Galactic red shift of galaxies
* Cosmic microwave background
The red shift is the observation that the light observed from distant galaxies is shifted towards the red (low energy) end of the spectrum. This effect is analogous to the Doppler shift observed with sound, e.g. if a car is driving away from you, the sound it makes is at a lower pitch than if it is driving towards you. The fact that the light is red-shifted is evidence that the galaxies are moving away from us at great speed. Specifically, the more distant a galaxy is, the faster it is moving away from us. The implication of this observation is that the galaxies are all moving outwards from some central point.
The cosmic microwave background refers to the observation that we observe a roughly constant level of microwave radiation everwhere in space; this observation is consistent with the prediction of residual radiation from the Big Bang; the amount by which this radiation has been red-shifted is the main piece of evidence used to estimate the age of the universe in the Big Bang theory (thought to be roughly 14 billion years).
As for whether the universe will continue to increase, I am no expert but I think this is not known for certain. The two important factors are the mass of the universe and its rate of expansion; for a heavy universe, the force of gravity will eventually overcome the expansion and it will collapse; for a light universe, it will continue expanding forever.
The rate of expansion is easy enough to measure, since it is related to the same red-shift observations I mentioned earlier. The hard bit is estimating the mass of the universe, especially since the bulk of the mass seems to be made up of so-called "dark matter" and "dark energy", which cannot be observed directly but whose presence must be inferred from the behaviour of nearby galaxies.
I admit I am not a cosmologist but I must say I was not aware of any known theory which explains these observations better than the Big Bang hypothesis. If anyone can suggest or link to one I would be interested to read it.
I am a little confused by those suggesting that the theory cannot be tested; the Big Bang theory makes predictions about observable quantities, which we can then look for. If we find them (e.g. the CMB) it is evidence in favour of the theory, if we do not, it disproves the theory. What other method of testing is there?
This is the thing Andres... depending on where you measure the speed might vary.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andres
It is called an expansion, but many have the wrong idea about what this expansion is all about. Some have used the analogy of the ant on a balloon which is inflating. The ant does not perceive the motion. Every object it has contact with on this balloon is stationary. They don't move. Yet every day it takes longer to travel to X even though X claims he never moved.
Teachers are teaching wrong things if they say that the Galaxies move trough space at such and such speed. It is the universe surrounding it which expands thus “creating” more space between the stationary objects. This expansion has relative speeds as I mentioned. The formula used to determine the speed other galaxies moves away from us is v = Hd where v is the recession velocity and d is the distance from us. H is the Hubble constant.
A galaxy depending on the distance from us moves say: 1000 m/s and another double the distance away moves away at a speed of 2000 m/s. Another factor called the Hubble distance says that stellar bodies beyond the distance of 14 billion light years move away from us at speeds above that of the speed of light.
The way I understand it, it is space itself that is expanding and not the stellar bodies flying away from us in space. And Viking’s empty space outside the universe is his own thoughts. The expansion theory makes it clear it is not so.
I didn't say that there is any space outside the universe; I stated that there is nothing; as a response to if the universe has an end. Nothing as in no time, no matter, no energy = nothing, it doesn't exist; not as in vacuum, which is something.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sigurd Fafnesbane
Yes, sorry, this is what I meant. I should have said that galaxies appear to be moving away at great speed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sigurd Fafnesbane
At the same time, galaxies do move relative to each other. E.g. the Milky Way might collide with the Andromeda galaxy in three billion years; and at the same time the Milky Way is moving towards theQuote:
Originally Posted by Sigurd Fafnesbane
Great Attractor at a great speed.
I don't know enough, and never will, to make a truly informed opinoin; however I am willing to go along with the vast majority of physicists who do believe that the Universe was created in such a way.
So yes, absolutely I believe in it.
Sigurd is covering the red-shift pretty well and this explains most of your questions. In principle the lightwaves themself streches out with expanding space.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andres
The biggest proof of Big-Bang instead of an evergrowing universe is the backround radiation. Basically when the universe was created it was very hot and then after cooling down to about 3000Kelvin, the universe stopped being a plasma (everything is ionized) and became transparent, creating the first light that could travel some distance. With time the wavelength has been stretched out into the form we see today on about 3K (the universe has then becamed about 1000 larger since then).
A plasma isn't tranparent because the photons will be immidiatly absorbed and then released again in a plasma, this is why the sun looks massive for example.
As for the momment it seems that the universe is expanding faster and faster (this is observed with fairly high certaincy), driven by the dark energy (that's basically "if we put a number into this equation, then the equation will follow what we see"), that scientists have no idea what it is. Simply put as it is now it basically says that the more vacuum that's created the more energy that will push all objects away from eachother will exist.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andres
As you can guess don't be surprised if that field ends up completly rewritten within a few decades.
Short answer: None got any idea.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andres
Longer answer: The Universe is the boundry of our physical laws and also time as we percive it so it's pretty hard to say what's outside, or if outside actually can exist.
Short note, it's an area in space where the gravity is so strong that things needs to travel faster than light to escape the gravity (at this point matter as we know it is destroyed and what is then left is unknown). It can be of any size, but quantum mechanics tells us that the very small ones will vaporize very quckly by the Hawking radiation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andres
Again, what does this dubious big bang thiny and god have in common, other than Monsignor Georges Henri Joseph Eduard Lemaitre?
About the size of the universe. I believe could say this:
imagine that the whole universe only consisted out of you (and that you for one reason simply would be able to survive), then the size of the universe would exactly be your bodies size. Let's say you walk (I don't know how you did it but you walked) a bit. The universe still remains as big, it doesn't grow, as you had nothing to move away from. You could say the universe moved with you. However if the universe only consisted out of us two. And you would walk away from me, the universe did expand, cause you had something to move away from. Because your position changed relatively from something else.
However if we wouldn't be able to see each other, and have nothing to relatively orientate us on. Now If I'd walk away from you, did you move? You could say you moved further from the middle of the universe. And I wouldn't even have noticed I moved. Nor did you for that matter.
Now you see it easily gets complicated. even with just the two of us. (And none of us is even female!). Now consider the fact that our universe contains an uncountable amount of 'objects', that space, nor time is linear and that everything is relative. Things become complicated, and it's hard to tell what is moving, what is not. How fast is this moving? How big is the universe?
So then...
is that the natural, moral, or metaphysical aspect of quantum mechanics?
Actually as theories go the Big Bang (its sensationalist name after the fact) is fairly simple compared with say Gravity (Special Relativity) and Schrodingers equation (oh the joys of finding the 0 points on a tripal integral of sodium in a magnetic field... I still can remember the agony if not the how).
Anyhow the thing is to this theory is that not only was energy and matter created so was time. Time is a physical entity just like energy and matter... there is no time before the universe, it is a property of this universe.
Some of the other things that the 'Big Bang' Theory help us determine is the amount of neutrons to protons (decay rates), why there is so much hydrogen vs other elements.
And combine the 'Big Bang' Theory with what we know about star formation (main sequence stars and others particularly the giants) and creation of elements beyond carbon and then beyond iron it gives us information to the ratios of other elements. These then can tell us that our star is a third generation star (at least) because of elements with a proton number more then iron.
Well then,
if time is indeed a physical entity...
...what are time's physical attributes?
what's the physical attributes of space?
You could compare time as a sort of space. you can move in it, and it can be bend. The problem lies in the way we look at time, the way we percieve it. Could you imagine a 4D world with an extra dimension in space? No, because you are too used to your 3D world. It's the same with time, we're too used to our perception of time.
But just as there could be a universe with 4 dimensions in space, there you could as well have a universe without time. Why should there be time? Because you're used to the fact that there is time? Just as you're used to the fact that there's 3 dimensions in space, or that there's space? Space and time are nothing more and nothing less than properties of universe.
Also Time and space is very much connected, interwoven, what's the word?
Or to use a dull scifi quote: "free your mind". Cause that's usually the problem with this kind of stuff. It's hard to imagine such abstract things.
Actually, the question was not about space, it was directed at Papewaio's statement that 'Time is a physical entity just like energy and matter'...Quote:
Originally Posted by Moros
Yet, as you say...
the problem with describing the physical attributes of time is, it's we humans that imagine such as an abstract. It is not that time has physical attributes, per se. Rather it is a process, that humans perceive within a relative context. If one changes the context, ones perception of the process is thus altered.
As we perceive it, time has no physical attributes, as a process that represents change, or in a greater context the interaction of energy and mass. Simply put, it is = in the mass–energy equivalence statement. Still, I'm very sure that I'm so incorrect.
One of my dull quotes: "a mind too free, is bound to wander."
Returning to the big bang, I've yet to see any argument that adequately supports it?
Many examples of supporting evidence have been given in this thread (galactic red shift, cosmic microwave backgroud, ratio of protons/neutrons, agreement of predicted age of universe with age of oldest known stars). What more would be needed to convince you? Perhaps you could give an example of something which you might consider sufficient proof, if it were observed?Quote:
Originally Posted by cmacq
The Big Bang theory is the simply the theory which explains the above observed phenomena most accurately and with the fewest assumptions. Thus is it accepted as the correct theory. Of course, if another theory is found which can explain the observations better or with fewer assumptions, it will replace the Big Bang theory; however I am unaware of any predictions made by the Big Bang theory which are not observed.
As you may understand there are several reasons why redshift does not support the big bang theory. Turning to CMB, I think you’re actually referring to cosmic inflation. More simply, an exercise in how one provides another theory that works well on paper, but may not in fact explain the observation. Finally, by ratio of protons/neutrons I assume you’re citing BBN? So, there are those that view these three as proof??? Actually, because of the conceptual flaw that is inherit, I find it difficult to comprehend that anyone could except, let alone believe in the big bang, as opposed to any other theory.
This is of course my opinion, and you are welcome not share it.
I'd like you to prove that time isn't a physical entity, then you can move onto mass and length.Quote:
Originally Posted by cmacq
And your better theory is? The Big Bang is like knowing that stones drop, I wouldn't rate it the same as Newton's Laws or the more refined Special Relativity... Its the current best fit, I'm sure many want to see a better model (one based on functions not empirical evidence... there is a snobby preference that mathematically derived and then supported by evidence is more 'pure' then just fitting out the puzzle).Quote:
Originally Posted by cmacq
Actually I'd say the ratio of hydrogen to helium is more along fitting the model of the Big Bang while the ratio of protons to neutrons would give us a length of time before the universe cooled down... horse vs cart ideas/ outcomes vs facts kind of thing... the model explains why we have massive amounts of hydrogen vs the rest, while the ratio of protons to neutrons gives us a timing.Quote:
Originally Posted by cmacq
"Time" You want me to prove something that exists as a perception, only in the human mind? Actually, I cut to the chase rather than deal with a horsecart, and sorry, but I don't have the time to untangle the rest of this twisted thread, just yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
Have a good day.
Time is a non-quantifiable item and it cannot be considered a true physical entity, like mass.
Time is non-definable.
In what way is time non-quantifiable? There are plenty of ways of measuring it objectively and we can define universal standard units for it. What other way of deciding whether something is physical or not is there other than whether we can measure it or not?
As for mass, it is not anywhere near as straightforward a concept as you might think. It seems like an intuitive concept because we all grow up with the notion that objects are heavy, but when you start to think about what it means and where it comes from it's not at all obvious. In fact in quantum field theories it is generally much more sensible to construct a theory where all the particles appear massless. We have to sneak the mass of the particles in "through the back door" via some contorted means such as the Higgs mechanism (hence why the search for the Higgs boson is so important). Time, meanwhile, is a relatively straightforward and rigidly defined concept.
I utterly disagree.Quote:
Originally Posted by edyzmedieval
Stephen Hawking defines time as an essential part of fixing an exact location in space. How can something undefinable be used as a precise tool of definition?
If you can tell the hour, then you can define it.Quote:
Originally Posted by edyzmedieval
At least for me.
I'm sorry, but if that logic were used, wouldn't human language also then become a tangible element of the mass-energy equivalence?
How can you "measure" language? It is an inherently subjective concept.
You can measure time however. If I measure the half-life of a given substance on opposite sides of the world I will get the same result (assuming I didn't **** up the experiment).
Why is measuring the time with a clock somehow more vague or subjective than measuring a length with a ruler?
Time is a fundamental unit. GPS would not work unless time could be measured and the effects of Relativity taken into account.
CBR
Or measuring the perceived phonetic value of a syllable and representing it as a symbol?Quote:
Originally Posted by Poor Bloody Infantry
Everything that humans perceive are inherently subjective, including measuring and representing the perception of time with symbols?
Actually, your GPS wouldn't work if it didn't have batteries.Quote:
Originally Posted by CBR
Nice try...
I think you may have meant, establishing a relative geographic point of reference, not GPS?
This of course is determined not by time as a physical entity, rather it is established through the repeated triangulation of distance using light from a given point to a reflector and back again. The internal atomic clock doesn't measure time as a physical entity, rather it measures the distance from point A to B, C, D, E, and F; based on a property of light, as understood within this context. One may note that with the example provided, time or the temporal duration, is the abstract used as a ruler and not the property of the entity, actually being measured. This particular example may also bring into sharp relief that, as a construct of the human mind, time has by far more semblance than substance.
best to all
CmacQ
You pull that off and I'll ask Tosa to award you an Org. Nobel Prize.Quote:
Originally Posted by cmacq
I think that reasoning can only fly if you're being sucked into an existential vacuum.Quote:
Originally Posted by cmacq
From wiki: LanguageQuote:
Originally Posted by cmacq
Properties of language
A set of agreed-upon symbols is only one feature of written language; all languages must define the structural relationships between these symbols in a system of grammar. Rules of grammar are what distinguish language from other forms of communication. They allow a finite set of symbols to be manipulated to create a potentially infinite number of grammatical utterances.
Another property of language is that the symbols used are arbitrary. Any concept or grammatical rule can be mapped onto a symbol. Most languages make use of sound, but the combinations of sounds used do not have any inherent meaning - they are merely an agreed-upon convention to represent a certain thing by users of that language. For instance, there is nothing about the Spanish word nada itself that forces Spanish speakers to use it to mean "nothing". Another set of sounds - for example, English nothing - could equally be used to represent the same concept. Nevertheless, all Spanish speakers have acquired or learned that meaning for that sound pattern. But for Slovenian, Croatian, Serbian/Kosovan or Bosnian speakers, nada means "hope".
However, even though in principle the symbols are arbitrary, this does not mean that a language cannot have symbols that are iconic of what they stand for. Words such as "meow" sound similar to what they represent (see Onomatopoeia), but they do not necessarily have to do so in order to be understood. Many languages use different onomatopoeias as the agreed convention to represent the sounds a cat makes.
Ah, very good. I thought you were off on some grammar = mass trip. :beatnik2:
My apologies.
I think that languaje can't be bring to this discussion, as we are discussing the Big Bang, and not the apparition of humans, which is related, but that would be going out of topic.Quote:
Originally Posted by cmacq
No I meant exactly what i said. GPS would not work without batteries, solar cells, thrusters, gyroscopes, radio etc etc. We could put all that into a box and call it GPS but it would not provide us with a position unless we had a way of measuring time.Quote:
Originally Posted by cmacq
"something that exists as a perception, only in the human mind" and yet we have a definition of a Second and it is an SI unit.
CBR
Right you are, was using language as an example, bad me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Caius
Again, a bit off topic, but somewhat related, no???Quote:
Originally Posted by CBR
So as a pettifore, I'm sure I didn't make myself well understood, yet the Global Positioning System works through the repeated triangulation of distance using messages from a number of space based GPS satellites and a set of ground based control stations; to a hand held receiver component. The ground based control stations are important as they establish the Universal Time Coordinated (UTC), the satellites position, and Nav data.
The process
Initially, a range, or the approximate measurement of the distance between a given satellite and a hand held receiver(GPS) is calculated. This is based on the speed of the Nav messages sent from the GPS satellites, as established by the UTC offset by the local time of the GPS. Next, an ephemeris from the Nav message is downloaded to calculate the satellite's precise position, which is established by the various ground based control stations.
After the ranges of as few as four satellites has been established, the receiver calculates a relative point of reference by proportionally estimating an intersection of the ranges against the known Nav data and the difference between UTC and the time indicated by the GPS. With each set of four satellites, the distance is triangulated to provide a geometric vector, based on the relative orbital positions of these satellites and the sundry factors listed above.
Using the weighted average of the satellite positions and the temporal offsets, the GPS receiver establishes which data sets are used and how to calculate the estimated position. Finally, as the GPS establishes a finished set of calculations, it expresses this estimated geographic position as a set of coordinates; either latitude/longitude, UTM, or a system specific to a given nation.
Again, this method of establishing a geographic point of reference, doesn't measure time as a physical entity, rather it measures the distance, based on a property of message (light speed), as understood within a given context. A subtly indeed, but the distance between points is established, by measuring the temporal interval of light traveling between said points. I think I may have left out a few things, here and there, so correct me, please.
Best to all
CmacQ
edyzmedieval said "Time is a non-quantifiable item" and "Time is non-definable" and you said time "exists as a perception, only in the human mind"
So something that cant be quantified nor defined. Thats hardly how time is seen in physics is it? The reason I mentioned GPS was simply because it even has to take Relativity into account for it to work.
Although I thought it was quite amazing when something, that cannot be defined, have to calculated with such precision, I guess that was not a good example. So I'll just sit back and wait for the other theories that are better than the Big Bang Theory.
CBR
e = mc^2
Energy = mass x velocity of light x velocity of light.
velocity = distance / time
Energy = mass x distance x distance / (time x time)
Mass =( Energy x time x time ) / (distance x distance)
Mass, Energy, Space and Time are all parts of the same coin.
Time is certainly quantifiable. I think what Edyz may have been getting at, is that time exists in different dimensions, and although it can be accurately measured, the perceived notion of time is rather unending.
E.G. I can measure the time it would take me to get to the Grocery Store and back home, as it is valid.
We can measure the time that our Solar System has been in existence
We Can Measure the time that our Galaxy has been in existence
But we cannot measure the time that our universe has been in existence, as theoretically speaking, We don't have an exact pin-point on when the creation of our universe even began, and we're not 100% sure of how it began. However, there was a beginning and therefore time exists albeit on shaky non-linear pattern with neither a measureable beginning nor an end.
Same applies to space... where is the 0,0,0 point?
Agreed, the arguments being put forward to suggest time is a subjective concept seem to me to apply equally well to space, mass, electric charge and indeed any physical observable you care to mention.
The implication seems to be that we should reject the notion of objective reality entirely, in which case it becomes rather pointless trying to do science at all, or any kind of rational enquiry about our universe for that matter.
Indeed. Space is relative too, not just time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
Here, you are using the perception of distance and velocity to calculate the time needed to travel (mass and energy) from point A=home(mass) to B=grocery(mass) to A=home(mass). As far as time as a dimension, yes time is indeed a dimension, of measurement similar to distance, velocity, and weight. And, all of this seems to go straight to the heart of the current discussion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wakizashi
As far as I understand, in physics the meaning of the term 'dimension' relates to the nature of 'a measurable quantity' of either mass or energy. The term doesn't imply that these dimensions per se, are physical entities. Herein, another word for 'dimension' is 'fundamental unit,' which is a unit for describing physical quantities from which every other unit can be generated, as they relate to mass or energy. In the language of measurement, quantities are quantifiable perceptions of time, distance, velocity, momentum, and weight; related only to the application or interaction of mass and energy and described as units of measure. For example, the perception of time and distance has no meaning unless it relates to either mass or energy, as this pretains to a state of matter, which can be called a physical entity. I hope this may help, as I did leave a few things out because I don't want to cloud this issue with more semantics. Of course, I am most likely very wrong.
As we have but very small parts of a huge puzzle, what does it all mean, that is the question???Quote:
Originally Posted by Wakizashi
best to all
CmacQ
Guys, one question:
if there are special machines (those REALLY exist, saw it in a magazine) that can make the same effect as the Big Bang, why doesn't is a new Universe or something?
I assume you are talking aboutQuote:
Originally Posted by Caius
So then, what about black holes?
The "end of the world":ers forget to mention that the same theories that predict that the LHC will create black holes, also predict that it will occur black holes of the same size quite often in the atmosphere due to cosmic radiation collisions.Quote:
Originally Posted by cmacq
I'll let you predict odds of the LHC spelling the end of the world due to that. :book:
Toss me a bone here people...
Right than, what may the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), black holes, type Ia supernovas, and the Planck Time element of the Big Bang Theory (BBT) all have in common? This is one of the many reasons why I can't buy into the overall BBT. I won't even start with the PC bull that as a giant social cockroach has eaten away the intent of the copernican principle.
You tell me. I'm not sure how you link Ia supernovas and black holes together with the BBT.Quote:
Originally Posted by cmacq
The LHC will try to get high enough energy to be compareable with the Plank Time, that is when all the fundamental forces ( gravity, electromagnetism strong and weak interaction forces) couldn't be differented from eachother. Or to be more exact, after the Plank Time in the BBT was when you could separate gravity from the rest.
Black holes are simply gravity wells that light cannot escape from, although mass as we know it cannot exist inside it either.
Ia supernova is simply a supernova that occurs when a white dwarf has gathered enough mass from its neighbour in a binary system, this will happen at a speciffic mass. This makes them really good to meassure distances.
I'm not sure were you're going with the copernican principle, are you claiming that Earth is special in it's place of the universe or?
I can go into things that a theory about the universe needs to explain, but I start with asking you if you consider universe to be eternal or not? Gives me different focus points.
No I'm not saying that the Earth is a special place to view the universe, as actually I think it to be an extremely poor place to view the universe. But recently the copernican principle has been subverted to mean that the Earth is as good as any other place to view the universe. It simply is not. As an example, its a bit akin to studing the marketing of fine foods in New York City in AD 2005, from the inside of a rice cake, thats being baked in a stone oven in 14th century BC western China. The copernican principle was not intented to mean that there are not far better places to view the universe than Earth.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironside
For the other, come on, toss me a bone here, they all seem to have something in common.
best to all
CmacQ
As we are pretty much stuck inside the universe the only true downside Earth have as a single point observation place is that the milky way is in the way. Having multiple observation points would help of course, but that's a bit hard to fix.Quote:
Originally Posted by cmacq
They are theories? :thinking2:Quote:
Originally Posted by cmacq
So, I wonder what effect might the milky way have on very distant incoming light and other sundrys?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironside
There are always theories. What might they be? They all have a small little something in common.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironside
George Smoot and his team discovered a background radiation of 3Kelvin in the universe. These are the so-called "wrinkels in time", which are the left overs of the massive warmth radiation that was transmitted in the in the first 10^-43 seconds of the universe. Smoot won the Nobleprize in Physics for this discovery.Quote:
Originally Posted by cmacq
For a good and very accessible book I must refer to that "Wrinkels in Time", written by George Smoot and Keay Davidson. It only requires a very basic knowlegde to understand and gives a good overview of all the theories about the universe, as well as telling the story of the search and finding of this back ground radiation.
No reflection, to be sure yet...Quote:
Originally Posted by Mediolanicus
Much cheapened in more recent times, as weren't Albert Gore II and Yasser Arafat provided with this once vaulted prize? If a person spends 20 years of their life looking for something very far away where no one else can go, isn't it just great they find it near the end? Sorry, can't address this right now, i've a few things to take care of. Maybe, there is another that might be more able at this time?
best to all
C macQ
The fact that he got a noble prize was not an argument, it was merely some information about the scientist.
Read the book, it give a good overview of all the theories about the universe (big bang and steady state being the most popular).
I agree that sometimes you only "find" what you search. But the fact is that the background radiation is there.
No ,they did not get the Nobel price in Physics, those 2 did get the Peace price, the only Nobel price that isn't a scientific one. :logic:Quote:
Originally Posted by cmacq
And the funny thing with cosmic radiation is that it was found by mistake by some other guys, years after it was predicted to exist by the Big Bang theory.
The milky way disturbs around 30-40% of the visual field, but that's very hard to avoid as you would otherwise need an observation point far outside a galaxy.Quote:
Originally Posted by cmacq
About distant light also being very old, it's pretty hard to avoid for a single point observer. The gravity pull isn't that great in the light coming from the sides and is the same on all light coming from that part of space.
Gravity? Astrophysics?Quote:
Originally Posted by cmacq
Unless you're going to give some more meat on this I'm gonna give this up, for all I know your connection could be so bizzare that I would laugh for a week if I heard it.
Oh, should I focus on things that indicates a non-eternal, non-steady state universe or should I focus on things indicating that universe was born through a Big Bang?
The former. So much more interesting and so much "closer" to us. The big bang (which was actually very small at the beginning and quite soundless) is something far away in time, which we are trying to reconstruct with what we now about the universe today.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironside
Which brings us to the theory of a non-eternal, non-steady universe.
And I think that theory pretty much proves the big bang too.
Please elaborate on the subject. You've got me interested. I know more than the average person of the subject (I learned it from a boo-que), but I always want to learn more.
Still off, but you may have been moving in the right direction, so I'll help a bit. In the most simple terms, think of the setting of a very little Bang and ask how is this different from that of the Big Bang. Then ask what was there before the Big Bang? Now ask if there was one Big Bang, could there have been others? What are the reasons pro and con considering morphology, distortion, relativity, prospective, and balance out all the nearby moving parts and a few of the variables. And, of course disregard all of the unknowns, as I'm sure these spare parts are of no importance, whatsoever.
Not to draw too fine a point about debate, but my address in a general sense, to the invocation of the Nobel, was designed to demonstrate its irreverence to the current discussion. Advancing this tact further, only serves to exacerbate this point.
Yes Ironside gravity, but please elaborate.
sorry no time right now to be less than cryptic
cheers
CmacQ
I must say, cmacq, I hope you can find some time at some point to set out clearly and explicitly your objections to the Big Bang, and to lay out your alternative theory which does a better job, together with your reasoning for it. I'm afraid I must say that I am a little stumped by how your "cryptic" questions are relevant.
Little Big Bangs? Would be very interesting to study one, but as no one knows a way of making one it doesn't seem like a very useful thing to speculate about (the LHC, contrary to popular belief, certainly does nothing of the sort).
Other Big Bangs, and possible other universes besides this one? Again an interesting hypothesis, but since we are restricted to observing in this universe, an ultimately untestable one. The same is true for discussion of what happened before the Big Bang.
I'm afraid that the Big Bang, flawed as you claim it is, is still the best (or at least, "least worst") theory that has thus far been suggested in this thread. Until you can suggest a better one the current theory stands regardless of its flaws.
Take the situation before the big bang :
We can't imagine that, but there must have been something. Although that something might qualify to us as nothing. This nothing doesn't obey any of the laws of nature we know and doesn't have any of the dimensions we know. There is no distance, no volume, no time.
Big Bang :
Something must have happened somewhere in this nothing, which made it, or part of it, into our universe. Or maybe our universe just developed inside this nothing. - insert theory that explains an expanding universe with a beginning -
Outside our universe :
Our universe is not endless, so there must still be "nothing" outside of it.
Our universe is, as far as we can calculate, limitless. Being all turned into itself (I can't explain this properly, I'm not an astrophysicist and not a native English speaker, but it has something to do with relativity).
Therefore we can't leave our universe. Therefore light can't leave the universe either and we can't see what's outside the universe.
Little big bangs :
There are many theories about parallel universes and other universes next to us. They all have one thing in common. We shall never even be able to form a hypothesis about it that can be supported by what we can know.
Birth - Grow - Shrink - Crush :
Also a popular theory is the theory that we are part of something recurrent.
But that would require that our universe implodes in the future. And considering with what we now know, that seems unlikely.
Although science doesn't know that much about this all.
If they calculate the stability of the universe, taking in account all the visible mass and the volume of the universe they can see, the solution tells us that the universe imploded seconds after it started to exist.
Hence the whole debate about "dark matter", which would be 99% of the whole mass in our universe.
These are just a few thoughts, any comments or corrections?
Sorry if there are any (language)mistakes, as I said, I'm not a native English speaker.
Anyway cmacq, I think the discussion you want, however interesting, is rather something for philosophers than for scientists.
Pardon, are you saying that the creation of something, in the form of an isolated flat bubble, out of nothing is called science?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mediolanicus
Anything that we can see, can be scientifically examined. The universe can be seen, so it can be scientifically examined. Your possible other big bangs can't be seen, and thus can't be scientifically examined.
That's what I mean.
I'm not saying the big bang is "the truth" either, but the consequences of "a beginning" are seen. And the big bang theory is just the name of most likely cause for these consequences.
And yes, this is science. The possible first minute of the big bang has been calculated using all the information they've got.
It's not the UC Berkeley's Chess And Science Club on weed that makes those theories.
What actually are you trying to say?
That we can't know?
True.
But we can't know that Ceasar conquered Gaul too, we can only presume, because he wrote a book and other people wrote books about him.
That the universe was created on 23th October, 4004BC at 9 o'clock in the morning? (date by Bishop James Ussher and Dr. John Lightfoot)
Anyway, that God (any God) created it?
You'd have to be God to know if you exist in the first place...
And what is your alternative theory? Please tell us. As you said "we are moving in the right direction." What is this "right direction"?
But don't just say things like "pfff, Nobel price... If Al Gore wins one, it's worth nought" and "pfff, you call that science?".
About these arguments I can only say one thing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teMlv3ripSM ;)
Oh, and cmacq, I noticed it sometimes could seem a bit like I'm attacking you, but that's not the case, I must assure you. Internet isn't very suitable for having such difficult argument.
Indeed, not to worry as I never take offense. I understand the nature of this media.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mediolanicus
No, but there have been some very important changes in how research funding is awarded in the last 30 yrs. Unfortunately, in far too many cases this has impacted on academic staffing based on personal attributes rather that merit. Often many perceive the need to make a big splash, or to draw attention, no matter what their data may actually indicate. Of course, as always this is overlaid by academic natural selection whereby survival is far more often based on theoretical conformity than objective analysis. Overall, this has significantly altered the direction and narrowed the scope of research in many fields.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mediolanicus
Personally, within my particular field I along with others, continue to work to correct interpretations of research conducted in the early 1990s. It was somewhat understood that there were significant problems with these interpretations at the time they were reviewed. Nonetheless, these interpretations have become somewhat imbedded in the literature. I addressed what I considered the most important aspect, the basic chronology, several years ago (I may add an endeavor that won me no new friends). However, if one were to check the current literature today, they will still find much of the corpus of the 1990s synthesis relatively intact (strangely with the inclusion of my chronology which on close inspection make the 1990 interpretations completely untenable). The real problem is that once something has been reviewed and gets into the literature it takes ten times more effort and time to correct the record. In fact, I’ve yet another meeting tomorrow morning in Phoenix that pertains to correcting that record.
Actually, the Gore Nobel is an excellent example in every detail, including the omission and falsification of critical data, of the altered direction and narrowed scope of research I reference above. By the way this Gore stuff has had its indirect impact on my research as well. Don’t fool yourself as in some disciplines; review for some researchers is little more than a rubber stamp or grammar/spell check. I think the real problem is that under current conditions, once a very marginal or entirely incorrect theory becomes imbedded it quickly worsens the scenario outlined above by further diverting and narrowing research to the point that may become nearly impossible to remove it from the literature.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mediolanicus
Sorry, I must run for now
CmacQ
You probably know several of these points, but they still need an explaination, that atleast a universe with a beginning gives.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mediolanicus
Olber's paradox. In short, if the universe is infinite, eternal and filled with stars, why can we se darkness in the sky?
The red-shift of course.
The hydrogen-helium concentration, it's about 75%-25%, impossible to get by star fusion of hydrogen, as the helium is fusioned to heavier compounds. An eternal universe would then need to create matter in that composition.
Population II and III stars, aka why does it only exist stars with lower amount of heavier compounds, that's small and appears old?
Why is it more and smaller galaxies in the old universe? Alternativly, why does this happen in a circular distance from Earth?
Bah I knew I should've checked it out, I meant population I and II stars, population III haven't been discovered yet (Thanks to the logic in astronomy it's the oldest ones).
:oops:
Some good points there Ironside.
Notable exception with the red-shift being the blue shift of part of the Andromeda galaxy.
I'm going to try and find something useful on those population II and III stars because that's the point about which I know very little.
Something with the oldest stars being superheavy or something or other is all I know.
CmacQ, I totally agree that nothing can be taken for granted. A theory stays a theory and in casu it is almost certainly not flawless. On the contrary. And any corrections, changes take a while to be accepted. That's a fact in all things of life, I guess.
What is your chronology? And how does it make the mainstream interpretations untendable?
Please share us your views.
My chronology pertained to a relatively unrelated field. If you are still interested I can PM you more information. I used it as an example of how the process works. Actually, near universal acceptance of this chronology occurred very quickly, as the data was very clear and my argument very convincing, but it took several years to amass the data and write. Now, to address the other points, as this is a numbers game and to remove any doubt, I've been collecting data for the last 11 yrs, and have just started the write-ups.
Returning to why I don't buy the BBT, given the nature of the event, why do some interior structures appear much older than the construct as a whole? The estimated date of the event is also not supported by the general morphologies of distant galaxies.
out the door
CmacQ
Well, you've got me interested, so if you find the time, please do PM me.