Doer
Well-Known Member
He seems to have no idea what he's talking about. Evading the scene? I have a life. He's the meglo here. Very entertaining.
The direction of the big bang
- Thread starter high|hgih
- Start date
He seems to have no idea what he's talking about. Evading the scene? I have a life. He's the meglo here. Very entertaining.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
I had tried to point this out earlier. Positing a privileged frame of reference is the same as resurrecting the notion of an aether.
At that point, the edifice collapses with a ponderous inevitability. You did by main force what I tried to do with elegance.
Doer
Well-Known Member
And yet if space turns out to be bendy and there is a Higgs field, the idea of a cosmic constant, which Einstein rejected, could still be in play. In fact, the expansive nature of Dark Energy, seems to be what Einstein found so preposterous in his math.
Aether is a fine a word, as any. Remember, the EM is postulated to be everywhere. It's the medium for radio, etc. Waves propogate against the EM field and the energy is passed. It's like sonar thru water. EM is the "water" for radio in vacuum. Something is acting as the the water for gravity waves, we think, The Higgs Field?
And matter does appear to make Space act like a gel that can compress. Why matter would moves easier and always toward other matter, in "thicker" Space?.....well, a Nobel Prize awaits.
EDIT: It wants to clump together, matter does. It wants to increase its affinity to clump even more. Only velocity can keep it apart. And that's from our shoes to the orbits of galaxies. Is it the affinity to control the wild effect of spacetime thru gravity? Gravity = Black Holes as the ultimate fate, but perhaps not the only fate. The other is worse from Matter's point of view. Annihilation. Matter could be trying to "escape" Dark Energy. Gravity as a survival mechanism for Matter?
What we call entropy appears, now to be, a race between two forces. Dark Energy and Matter. Can all the matter be collapsed into a Black Holes before Dark Energy can create the uniform quantum uncertainty? It does this by simply making distance and duration, too great, to hold Matter together. Space itself had changed dimension such that the Strong and Weak atomic forces can't keep it together, is the model.
I've read one view that equates this to a life cycle. If a universe can make Black Holes well enough, it can blow off entire universes from the "bottom" of it biggest Holes. It collects Matter and Fruits, as it were, mathematically speaking. In this model Dark Energy is the Death of the particular Universe's, blood line, if it can't spawn for some Quantum reason with the necessary Forces. And it's eventually, the natural death of the Parent Universe. Not so sad, considering the richness of Multi-verses, spawned by her.
Aether is a fine a word, as any. Remember, the EM is postulated to be everywhere. It's the medium for radio, etc. Waves propogate against the EM field and the energy is passed. It's like sonar thru water. EM is the "water" for radio in vacuum. Something is acting as the the water for gravity waves, we think, The Higgs Field?
And matter does appear to make Space act like a gel that can compress. Why matter would moves easier and always toward other matter, in "thicker" Space?.....well, a Nobel Prize awaits.
EDIT: It wants to clump together, matter does. It wants to increase its affinity to clump even more. Only velocity can keep it apart. And that's from our shoes to the orbits of galaxies. Is it the affinity to control the wild effect of spacetime thru gravity? Gravity = Black Holes as the ultimate fate, but perhaps not the only fate. The other is worse from Matter's point of view. Annihilation. Matter could be trying to "escape" Dark Energy. Gravity as a survival mechanism for Matter?
What we call entropy appears, now to be, a race between two forces. Dark Energy and Matter. Can all the matter be collapsed into a Black Holes before Dark Energy can create the uniform quantum uncertainty? It does this by simply making distance and duration, too great, to hold Matter together. Space itself had changed dimension such that the Strong and Weak atomic forces can't keep it together, is the model.
I've read one view that equates this to a life cycle. If a universe can make Black Holes well enough, it can blow off entire universes from the "bottom" of it biggest Holes. It collects Matter and Fruits, as it were, mathematically speaking. In this model Dark Energy is the Death of the particular Universe's, blood line, if it can't spawn for some Quantum reason with the necessary Forces. And it's eventually, the natural death of the Parent Universe. Not so sad, considering the richness of Multi-verses, spawned by her.
Chief Walkin Eagle
Well-Known Member
Lol its good to know that I'm on your mind when we are not conversing.
high|hgih
Well-Known Member
I'm a little behind. So what you guys are saying is that the big crunch/big bang theory is wrong. And the Dark Matter theory is more plausible. And it is basically where energy just forms, and pushes the galaxies apart. And sooner or later, no stars are going to be visible due to how far away they are. Is this because they are separating faster than the speed of light? Confusseeddddd, I need to do more reading.. But for now until I feel like it Id rather discuss it on here.
I had a theory the other night, givin that bigbang/bigcrunch theory was correct that the universes outside of our universe are constantly doing this cycle. And they zip around in random patterns. Now if youve ever read about String Theory(Me, of course I hardly know anything about it buuuttt....) then one of the parts I remember is that inside of quarks there are vibrant strings right? And they randomly jiggle around. Now what if, since space and time DO NOT exist in between the universes doing this cycle. What if those universes are actually strings in our life. And there is some crazy explanation as to where since there is no time and space,it is actually possible that HUGE/tinytinytiny universes(including our own) are currently making up the tiniest atomic particle, and ALSO making up the huge universes as they are? Just like a loop. Ive always believed in some kind of loops theory, but that theory makes made more sense to me than any other loop theory Ive come up with.
I had a theory the other night, givin that bigbang/bigcrunch theory was correct that the universes outside of our universe are constantly doing this cycle. And they zip around in random patterns. Now if youve ever read about String Theory(Me, of course I hardly know anything about it buuuttt....) then one of the parts I remember is that inside of quarks there are vibrant strings right? And they randomly jiggle around. Now what if, since space and time DO NOT exist in between the universes doing this cycle. What if those universes are actually strings in our life. And there is some crazy explanation as to where since there is no time and space,it is actually possible that HUGE/tinytinytiny universes(including our own) are currently making up the tiniest atomic particle, and ALSO making up the huge universes as they are? Just like a loop. Ive always believed in some kind of loops theory, but that theory makes made more sense to me than any other loop theory Ive come up with.
high|hgih
Well-Known Member
Really.. Sooner or later, if the theory of gravity is right then the universe will become a singularity again though.. Once all stars are sucked into black holes, and then the more massive black holes consuming the less massive, all making one black hole making the universe a singularity. I dont know, I need to talk about it with you guys so I can get a more clear thought level on the whole thing.
Seedling
Well-Known Member
Except that's not the way gravity works. You (and current scientific theory) have it wrong. Mass does not come together, mass moves apart, and rightfully so, since the second law of thermodynamics states that entropy always INCREASES. That means mass gets less dense over time by means of expanding its volume.
So for instance, the planets in our solar system and our sun are one and the same object. The solar system is the sun, with its outer most boundary being the least dense area, naturally, since the density order of the universe is for the core of an object to be the most dense, and as the distance from the core increases, the density decreases. It's an "outward" flow of mass, and as the mass gets further away it gets less dense.
So is that just a bunch of BS? NO! What it means is that the planets came from the sun, and they continue to get further away from the sun as time marches on. That also means that all the mass surrounding a black hole in a galaxy came from that black hole. The core of the galaxy being the most dense (black hole) and the outer boundary of the galaxy being the least dense. Everything moves AWAY from the core as the core itself gets less dense by expanding its volume. Mass evolves to space! The earth came from the sun.
high|hgih
Well-Known Member
That makes sense. Funny, thats the exact opposite of my thought process. Put a new twang on it though.
I just read some thing about negative energy, and it is formed in between two attracting pieces of mass in a vacuum. In this negative energy, light can actually flow faster than its original speed. If two normal pieces of mass attract, then how is the sun pushing planets away? How are Galaxies pumping stars out? Where do the stars come from?
I just read some thing about negative energy, and it is formed in between two attracting pieces of mass in a vacuum. In this negative energy, light can actually flow faster than its original speed. If two normal pieces of mass attract, then how is the sun pushing planets away? How are Galaxies pumping stars out? Where do the stars come from?
eye exaggerate
Well-Known Member
...my current understanding of things is that every single thing is a sexual interaction. From the 'bonds' to the bondage I guess
lol: I kidding)...but really, It's pretty amazing to think that what keeps things going here on earth is sex. We hold tensions, and or reproduce. Maybe the quantum level doesn't know why it does what it does either. Drive. <-- That's the deal on this side of the beyond. (imo)
guy incognito
Well-Known Member
Entertaining thread. Seedling, you might want to tone it down about 6 notches. You are being uber obvious as a troll and/or dangerous retard.
mindphuk
Well-Known Member
I used a car as an example because I was using a traditional thought experiment. Keep in mind, the principle of relativity has been around a lot longer than Einstein's explicit use. It goes back to Galileo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galilean_invariance) and applies to Newtonian mechanics as well. All it means is that physical laws must look the same to one observer as they do to another.
So let's try this again. You and I are in space, maybe in an EVA suit, traveling toward one another at a constant velocity of 99% of the speed of light. There are no planets or stars visible, we are in intergalactic space, the only reference to determine that you or I are even moving is that we can see each other. I measure you coming toward me at about .99c and you therefore must be measuring the same thing. We both have flashlights. How do you determine that you are the one that is stationary and I am moving, i.e. that your frame is the correct one? How do you know that I'm not traveling at .49c and you at .5c? Of course it doesn't actually matter as there is no such thing as non-relative motion or a special frame of reference because there is nothing in empty space that can be referenced, like the luminiferous aether. So in this scenario, how would you prove to me that you are stationary and your measurement of light is the correct one and mine in in error. The answer you have basically given is that we both turn on our flashlights and the one that measures c at 300,000 km/s is the correct one. There's the rub. If your belief in some absolute space is true, then we should be measuring the speed of light differently at different directions the earth is moving when orbiting the sun. When going one direction against the fixed space that you claim is present we should get one result and 6 months later we should get another, and the guy in the space suit that positioned himself near the sun would get a third. You are basically ruling out any long range radio communication with my friend in another galaxy because his galaxy is whizzing by us at tremendous speeds yet he thinks his galaxy is the stationary one and ours is the one that is moving... what a fool, huh?
Do you deny you are moving at great speeds through space while sitting in your house typing this now? Tell me the exact velocity of the frame you are now in. Don't forget to take into account what time of year it is because sometimes the earth is moving in the same direction as the spiral arms of the Milky Way are moving and sometimes the opposite. I can't wait to hear how fast we are actually going, especially considering the expansion of space has been accelerating since the Big Bang.
Yet unless there is something inherent in space we can measure against, like the aether, how can we know our velocity?
As explained, it's not a principle of Einstein, it's a self-evident fact about measuring invariant speed. It is impossible to tell if I am moving or I am completely still and everything else is moving. You keep failing to explain how we are supposed to know anything about the absolute velocity of any frame if it is not relative to anything.
Sure an invisible dragon might not be able to be falsified yet we didn't arrive at thinking there is an invisible dragon based on evidence. It is funny how you completely ignore my comments about time dilation, which can be measured and is intrinsically linked to length contraction.
Who's x and y axis? Mine or yours? If I appear to be moving diagonally from your POV, that's two axises. Of course from my POV, your apparent movement is on one axis only because the Cartesian grid I setup is shifted 45 degrees from the one you are using. Oh, wait, you can just turn your head a bit and I'm no longer going diagonally but straight from left to right.
Well I'm still waiting for you to give us your magical answer of how you determine anywhere has zero velocity. I have already demonstrated that you can pick a point in space and I can show that you are in motion. Of course that can only be done in space where there are other things to measure your relative motion against.
Incorrect. The speed of light has been measured. It was discovered, not defined.
Correct. So now back to you and I in empty space with flashlights. We BOTH must get the same measurement for the speed of light, even though we are approaching each other at 99& of that speed. My flashlight beam is traveling at 300,000 km/s same as yours, yet we both feel like we are standing still so we each think the other is the one that is moving and if each of us are carrying light clocks, it will appear to each of us that the other person's clocks have slowed down and if each of us were carrying a one meter metal rod, it MUST appear to each of us that the other guy's is shorter than our meter.
mindphuk
Well-Known Member
The second law applies to closed systems. The universe as a whole is always increasing entropy but that doesn't preclude local areas of increased order. The universe will eventually experience heat death, the highest level of entropy but that doesn't mean that currently gravity cannot create a star.
Our solar system used to be a big dust cloud, a state of high entropy. However, at some point, the force of gravity acted on it that created a local area of lower entropy when our star formed at the center.
There's no such thing as black holes if Einstein was wrong.
Doer
Well-Known Member
See, he somehow thinks science is arguing with HIM, over right and wrong. Joan d'Arc might agree with that kind of logic, but not Science.
There is no right and wrong in Science only the current Understanding and that's what makes him wrong in layman's terms.
Mass moves outward? Against gravity? In motion, mass exchanges energy to slow the rotation of the parent body and the orbit does move out.
Our moon was much closer, maybe even 50,000 miles. But, earth was rotating much faster. Conservation of Momentum is all that this concept is. Just some snake oil with window dressing to say it's the Correct way to perceive orbital
gravity mechanics.
It just does not play in the galactic scale. The outer reaches are rotating way too fast, and don't meet the Conservation of Momentum rule. It's how we discovered Dark Matter.
And, others, please don't fall into the lazy trap that some PhDs will figure it all out. By the time you learn what was figured out, they will have moved on.
Big Bang has tried to included Dark Matter and Energy, I just consider the math quite torturous, and not KISS, not Occam's Razor. But, that's the Theory and neither right or wrong.
So, no one but the truly lost will say there is any absolute Scientific proof of anything.
There is no right and wrong in Science only the current Understanding and that's what makes him wrong in layman's terms.
Mass moves outward? Against gravity? In motion, mass exchanges energy to slow the rotation of the parent body and the orbit does move out.
Our moon was much closer, maybe even 50,000 miles. But, earth was rotating much faster. Conservation of Momentum is all that this concept is. Just some snake oil with window dressing to say it's the Correct way to perceive orbital
gravity mechanics.
It just does not play in the galactic scale. The outer reaches are rotating way too fast, and don't meet the Conservation of Momentum rule. It's how we discovered Dark Matter.
And, others, please don't fall into the lazy trap that some PhDs will figure it all out. By the time you learn what was figured out, they will have moved on.
Big Bang has tried to included Dark Matter and Energy, I just consider the math quite torturous, and not KISS, not Occam's Razor. But, that's the Theory and neither right or wrong.
So, no one but the truly lost will say there is any absolute Scientific proof of anything.
Doer
Well-Known Member
Well, you are mixing up a lot of Scientific thinking here, but, generally, pretty close to understanding the problem. We just don't know.
The vast, beyond imagination could instantly become tiny, beyond imagination, because the random fluctuation in Quantum pairs mean Locality as well and Causality (before/after) becomes indeterminate. Information exchange restraints, of the speed of light, are gone. Light is gone. There is no relativity (to what?)
So, the Universe could collapse instantly into the actual beginning state, not just a state similar to the initial Big Bang. But, the actual Bang just repeats itself. Non-causal means an instant (in the Now) reversion to the initial state. 40 billion years as if it never happened. The Universe just kills the old time line and starts again.
The Greeks seemed quite sure that "Time" was a repeating cycle. Maybe they were on to something?
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Imo the question moots itself. At an atomic level there is no difference between alive and otherwise. Life organizes itself at the molecular level on up. Molecules and crystals are the highest level of organization in which atoms participate in a way that depends on their properties. Molecules are not alive, and neither are crystals. Large complex assemblies of molecules combine and confederate to form organelles etc. cn...my current understanding of things is that every single thing is a sexual interaction. From the 'bonds' to the bondage I guess
...but really, It's pretty amazing to think that what keeps things going here on earth is sex. We hold tensions, and or reproduce. Maybe the quantum level doesn't know why it does what it does either. Drive. <-- That's the deal on this side of the beyond. (imo)
guy incognito
Well-Known Member
You guys are all wrong. Gravity is just a concept created by the man to hold us down. Not me though. *puff, puff*
*floats away*
*floats away*
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Lightweight. cn
Heisenberg
Well-Known Member
[video=youtube;M9iJMWJdyw8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9iJMWJdyw8[/video]
If you want to hear an actual physicist address some of these issues.
If you want to hear an actual physicist address some of these issues.
mindphuk
Well-Known Member
Hmm, seedling seems to be evading this discussion. Wasn't that the term he used when he accused Doer of not answering his questions? Ironic isn't it.
Maybe he now understands the futility of his argument and is too arrogant to admit he's wrong. Of course, there's always the possibility that he's such an idiot that he still thinks he's right and Galileo and all of the scientists since are wrong. Maybe he's right and we have another Nobel Prize winner in our midst. Amazing how many of them are on RIU.
Maybe he now understands the futility of his argument and is too arrogant to admit he's wrong. Of course, there's always the possibility that he's such an idiot that he still thinks he's right and Galileo and all of the scientists since are wrong. Maybe he's right and we have another Nobel Prize winner in our midst. Amazing how many of them are on RIU.