If energy and matter can be likened to a country, then spacetime can be likened to a world.
As far as whether spacetime is infinite or not, I would like to find out more about branes. I am uncertain whether these create boundaries upon an universe and thereby restrict it to a size less than infinity.
Cosmology
Cosmology
OpenMind wrote: If energy and matter can be likened to a country, then spacetime can be likened to a world.
As far as whether spacetime is infinite or not, I would like to find out more about branes. I am uncertain whether these create boundaries upon an universe and thereby restrict it to a size less than infinity.
I think I can help you out here, Branes, refer to the various dimensional modes of the "strings" that are proposed as the fundamental particles of m-theory. I think they go all the way up to tenbrane structures (I think so anyway). Its proposed that the various configurations of these things and their vibrational states account for the fundamental force and matter particles we observe (And a lot we don't). I do know that the math associated with them is so hard that nobody can actually do it, so even as a theory the whole thing is a bit tenuous. Its an intriguing area, but to be honest I'm still trying to come to terms with quantum mechanics without panicking. Though you kind of have to accept the whole QM way of looking at things if you wanna go with these branes, so I'm not sure if you would really be into them.
As far as whether spacetime is infinite or not, I would like to find out more about branes. I am uncertain whether these create boundaries upon an universe and thereby restrict it to a size less than infinity.
I think I can help you out here, Branes, refer to the various dimensional modes of the "strings" that are proposed as the fundamental particles of m-theory. I think they go all the way up to tenbrane structures (I think so anyway). Its proposed that the various configurations of these things and their vibrational states account for the fundamental force and matter particles we observe (And a lot we don't). I do know that the math associated with them is so hard that nobody can actually do it, so even as a theory the whole thing is a bit tenuous. Its an intriguing area, but to be honest I'm still trying to come to terms with quantum mechanics without panicking. Though you kind of have to accept the whole QM way of looking at things if you wanna go with these branes, so I'm not sure if you would really be into them.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Cosmology
i heard the oversimplified version of, a 3 dimensional membrane made of energy 'floating' in 5D space.
Cosmology
Galbally wrote: I think I can help you out here, Branes, refer to the various dimensional modes of the "strings" that are proposed as the fundamental particles of m-theory. I think they go all the way up to tenbrane structures (I think so anyway). Its proposed that the various configurations of these things and their vibrational states account for the fundamental force and matter particles we observe (And a lot we don't). I do know that the math associated with them is so hard that nobody can actually do it, so even as a theory the whole thing is a bit tenuous. Its an intriguing area, but to be honest I'm still trying to come to terms with quantum mechanics without panicking. Though you kind of have to accept the whole QM way of looking at things if you wanna go with these branes, so I'm not sure if you would really be into them.
Thanks for that G. This actually opens up more questions in my mind and I will have to delve deeper. Like you, though, I'm no expert in this area and have no intention of exploding my 'brane'.
Thanks for that G. This actually opens up more questions in my mind and I will have to delve deeper. Like you, though, I'm no expert in this area and have no intention of exploding my 'brane'.
Cosmology
the theory behind this is all realy easy enough to understand, well most of it.
its the bloody maths thats the problem.
its the bloody maths thats the problem.
Cosmology
OpenMind
Branes
reply
You have to go on planet ET and get in touch with him for an understanding.
Alfred
spacetime
reply
Can you provide a 'visual' in words for this ST?
I use visualization for a lot of my comprehension of understanding physics.
Alfred
heard the oversimplified version of, a 3 dimensional membrane made of energy 'floating' in 5D space.
reply ...Ha Ha.
Mike CT
Branes
reply
You have to go on planet ET and get in touch with him for an understanding.
Alfred
spacetime
reply
Can you provide a 'visual' in words for this ST?
I use visualization for a lot of my comprehension of understanding physics.
Alfred
heard the oversimplified version of, a 3 dimensional membrane made of energy 'floating' in 5D space.
reply ...Ha Ha.
Mike CT
Cosmology
Mike CT wrote:
Alfred
spacetime
reply
Can you provide a 'visual' in words for this ST?
I use visualization for a lot of my comprehension of understanding physics.
Mike CT
am i to be describing spacetime or a certain aspect of it.
Alfred
spacetime
reply
Can you provide a 'visual' in words for this ST?
I use visualization for a lot of my comprehension of understanding physics.
Mike CT
am i to be describing spacetime or a certain aspect of it.
Cosmology
Alfred wrote: the theory behind this is all realy easy enough to understand, well most of it.
its the bloody maths thats the problem.
Amen to that Alfred, I got as far as differential field equations and realized I would never be a good physicist, so what do physicists who can't add do? Become chemists! And what do chemists who want a more exciting life do, become biologists! Don't mind me I'm just bitter.
I have to say though, I do grasp the concepts fine, but, I do find it hard to visualize 6-D Calabi-Yau spaces as would most normal human beings I imagine. I also think that Feynman once said "If you are not disturbed by quantum mechanics, then you havn't fully grasped it yet". D'know what? he was dead right.
its the bloody maths thats the problem.
Amen to that Alfred, I got as far as differential field equations and realized I would never be a good physicist, so what do physicists who can't add do? Become chemists! And what do chemists who want a more exciting life do, become biologists! Don't mind me I'm just bitter.
I have to say though, I do grasp the concepts fine, but, I do find it hard to visualize 6-D Calabi-Yau spaces as would most normal human beings I imagine. I also think that Feynman once said "If you are not disturbed by quantum mechanics, then you havn't fully grasped it yet". D'know what? he was dead right.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Cosmology
Mike I just read your post about what you term "lightwave expansion". I have to say I find it difficult to see what your getting at because a lot of it seems that you are confusing a lot of the terms.
Lets take photons, do you accept that the idea of photons is an integral part of quantum mechanics? I think you have stated previously that you believe in the model of the atom as proposed by Niels Bohr, which is a point particle interpretation of atomic structure. However, you then go on to discuss photons as if you accept their existence, but if you do, then you have also to accept the debrogilie/fenyman waveform/probability nature of the electron. These are two contradictory ideas.
On your main argument, there are (currently) two major sources of impirical evidence (along with quite a lot of minor evidence also) for the BB, one obviously is the observed redhift in other galaxies, the other is the cosmic background radiation, predicted by QM and subsequently confirmed by Penzias and Wilson, accidentally. The observed nature and temperature of the radiation is more or less exactly what cosmolgists predicted. There is of course the thing with inflation, the Horizon problem, which I personally find inelegant as a theory though I will accept it till something better comes along. But to me the evidence seems pretty solid. I mean the whole idea of their being such a BB was an anathema to scientists including Einstein, but general relativity implied that this was the case and the evidence seems to confirm it, your thoughts sir.
Lets take photons, do you accept that the idea of photons is an integral part of quantum mechanics? I think you have stated previously that you believe in the model of the atom as proposed by Niels Bohr, which is a point particle interpretation of atomic structure. However, you then go on to discuss photons as if you accept their existence, but if you do, then you have also to accept the debrogilie/fenyman waveform/probability nature of the electron. These are two contradictory ideas.
On your main argument, there are (currently) two major sources of impirical evidence (along with quite a lot of minor evidence also) for the BB, one obviously is the observed redhift in other galaxies, the other is the cosmic background radiation, predicted by QM and subsequently confirmed by Penzias and Wilson, accidentally. The observed nature and temperature of the radiation is more or less exactly what cosmolgists predicted. There is of course the thing with inflation, the Horizon problem, which I personally find inelegant as a theory though I will accept it till something better comes along. But to me the evidence seems pretty solid. I mean the whole idea of their being such a BB was an anathema to scientists including Einstein, but general relativity implied that this was the case and the evidence seems to confirm it, your thoughts sir.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Cosmology
Alfred and Galbally
I will answer this post tomorrow since it requires a lot of explaining.
Mike CT
I will answer this post tomorrow since it requires a lot of explaining.
Mike CT
Cosmology
Alfred quote
am i to be describing spacetime or a certain aspect of it
reply
I just cannot visualize spacetime as an image. I define space as a dimension between objects. I define time as ‘uniform unwavering motion’. So the closest thing that identifies ST is the light year which incorporates both words. This can happen because the velocity of light is a fixed constant. Any variation in motion would be void.
This is all I can say about ST.
Galbally
Amen to that Alfred, I got as far as differential field equations and realized I would never be a good physicist, so what do physicists who can't add do? Become chemists! And what do chemists who want a more exciting life do, become biologists! Don't mind me I'm just bitter.
I have to say though, I do grasp the concepts fine, but, I do find it hard to visualize 6-D Calabi-Yau spaces as would most normal human beings I imagine. I also think that Feynman once said "If you are not disturbed by quantum mechanics, then you havn't fully grasped it yet". D'know what? he was dead right.
Reply
Quantum physics is a very simple concept. Planck transformed light from a wave to a particle (photon). That pertains to light as we see it. EM energy has its continuous waves also such as radio waves But these waves do not convey any intelligence.
They can only do this if they are modulated by changing the amplitude or frequencies.
The complicated part of QM is when the derivatives like Schroedingers equations replaced the ‘binary nature’ of the HA.
Bohr was the first to use the Planck constant in his formulas and he solved the hydrogen spectrum by portraying it as a planetary model. Of course this simple model had to be replaced by the Shroedinger orbitals model. This is what complicated the Quantum theory..
Another example of complicating a theory is Einsteins ‘spacetime’. This supposedly replaced Newtons gravity which is a proven theory resulting from two experiments by Cavendish and Boys’.
Feinman who introduced the ‘virtual photon’ as a critic of QM along with Einstein were obviously wrong in doing so because QM is one of the most successful theories in physics. Feinmans virtual photon is nothing but a replacement for a ‘magnetic’ interaction between two charged components..
Galbally quote
Mike I just read your post about what you term "lightwave expansion". I have to say I find it difficult to see what your getting at because a lot of it seems that you are confusing a lot of the terms.
Lets take photons, do you accept that the idea of photons is an integral part of quantum mechanics? I think you have stated previously that you believe in the model of the atom as proposed by Niels Bohr, which is a point particle interpretation of atomic structure. However, you then go on to discuss photons as if you accept their existence, but if you do, then you have also to accept the debrogilie/fenyman waveform/probability nature of the electron. These are two contradictory ideas.
Reply
I believe in the Bohr model when it applies to the HA only. The electron is not a wave. It is a point particle that has mass, size, charge and density. It only ‘moves’ in a wave when near another charged particle. DeBroglies idea applies to an elliptical electron orbit as a departure from a true sign wave and its energy levels. That does not change the electron to a wave because it radiates a slight waveform in its orbital states.
You should be familiar with the simple field patterns that high school physics has shown. The expansion between the magnetic poles and the electric charges is the result of mutual repulsion between similar “virtual charged particles’ according to the Law of similar and opposite charges and polar orientations.
This force is real because of its ‘action at a distance’ reactions. Maxwell equations incorporated these laws when his formulas explain the nature of these field patterns. I visualize these electric fields as uniformally spaced virtual charges surrounding the electron that are the transmitters of these photons through the fields and subsequently through space.
I also visualized how the photon is generated by the HA.
The electrons return to its original orbit after absorbing a photon creates an emission photon. These orbital changes create a magnetic pulse that ‘condenses’ a packet of virtual charged particles that is then transmitted through the electric field. Since these VCP’s are compacted by the magnetic pulse, they will then start to mutually repel each other to create an expansion of the pulse while it transits through the field. This is my theory of a real photon as generated by the HA.
Galbally quote
On your main argument, there are (currently) two major sources of impirical evidence (along with quite a lot of minor evidence also) for the BB, one obviously is the observed redhift in other galaxies, the other is the cosmic background radiation, predicted by QM and subsequently confirmed by Penzias and Wilson, accidentally. The observed nature and temperature of the radiation is more or less exactly what cosmolgists predicted. There is of course the thing with inflation, the Horizon problem, which I personally find inelegant as a theory though I will accept it till something better comes along. But to me the evidence seems pretty solid. I mean the whole idea of their being such a BB was an anathema to scientists including Einstein, but general relativity implied that this was the case and the evidence seems to confirm it, your thoughts sir.
Reply
The BB originated in the mind of Georges Lemaitrae and others. This is purely subjective. It is possible that Lemaitrae was aware of the Slipher redshift observations at that time but it could have been coincidental as well.
So the redshift observations seemed to give support to the Lemaitrae idea. This then was adopted as an expanding universe, based on these redshift observations. BUT and a very important but, these RSO’s implied that we were in the center of the universe. Of course, the scientists did not want a repeat of the geocentric theory which was discredited so they created the cause of this redshift as an expansion of space as Lemaitrae suggested but without the ‘primeval atom’ of his as the origin of his universe.
The idea then did away with the central location by implying that every point in space would then be central to the observer.
The trouble here is that the Michelson-Morley experiment refutes this idea because it proved that there is no ether in space for the lightwaves to be expanded (note, the fields are not ‘intertwined’ with space but separate components around charged particles). So IMHO, the EoS as the cause of the redshift is falsified.
Now to the CMBR. This cannot be a remnant of the BB because the era when it originated (phase transfer) from the matter radiation had to be contaminated by some 'plasma' radiation. This then cannot be a perfect 'black body radiation' as it is portrayed.
This radiation can only be the thermalized equalibrium temperature of the interstellar and intergalactic particles that are mixed into this average radiation temperature according to the 2nd Law of thermodunamics where heat flows from hot to cold regions.
This can only happen in a SSU because in an expanding BBU, there would be insufficient time for this to happen because of the expanmding space that would slow this distribution of heat.
McKellar, in 1940 made an observation of a space molecule that had a space temperature of 2K.
The proponents of this CMB temperature predicted a temperature of 5K and later transformed to 10K.
So McKellars onservations in 1940 were far more accurate then the predicted temperatires of 10K about nine years later.
I am inclined to believe in the 'equaliized temperature' of the space rather than a remnant of the BB.
The idea of 'creation' out nothing but space for all the energy and matter is the most important reason for reputiating the BB.
Mike CT
am i to be describing spacetime or a certain aspect of it
reply
I just cannot visualize spacetime as an image. I define space as a dimension between objects. I define time as ‘uniform unwavering motion’. So the closest thing that identifies ST is the light year which incorporates both words. This can happen because the velocity of light is a fixed constant. Any variation in motion would be void.
This is all I can say about ST.
Galbally
Amen to that Alfred, I got as far as differential field equations and realized I would never be a good physicist, so what do physicists who can't add do? Become chemists! And what do chemists who want a more exciting life do, become biologists! Don't mind me I'm just bitter.
I have to say though, I do grasp the concepts fine, but, I do find it hard to visualize 6-D Calabi-Yau spaces as would most normal human beings I imagine. I also think that Feynman once said "If you are not disturbed by quantum mechanics, then you havn't fully grasped it yet". D'know what? he was dead right.
Reply
Quantum physics is a very simple concept. Planck transformed light from a wave to a particle (photon). That pertains to light as we see it. EM energy has its continuous waves also such as radio waves But these waves do not convey any intelligence.
They can only do this if they are modulated by changing the amplitude or frequencies.
The complicated part of QM is when the derivatives like Schroedingers equations replaced the ‘binary nature’ of the HA.
Bohr was the first to use the Planck constant in his formulas and he solved the hydrogen spectrum by portraying it as a planetary model. Of course this simple model had to be replaced by the Shroedinger orbitals model. This is what complicated the Quantum theory..
Another example of complicating a theory is Einsteins ‘spacetime’. This supposedly replaced Newtons gravity which is a proven theory resulting from two experiments by Cavendish and Boys’.
Feinman who introduced the ‘virtual photon’ as a critic of QM along with Einstein were obviously wrong in doing so because QM is one of the most successful theories in physics. Feinmans virtual photon is nothing but a replacement for a ‘magnetic’ interaction between two charged components..
Galbally quote
Mike I just read your post about what you term "lightwave expansion". I have to say I find it difficult to see what your getting at because a lot of it seems that you are confusing a lot of the terms.
Lets take photons, do you accept that the idea of photons is an integral part of quantum mechanics? I think you have stated previously that you believe in the model of the atom as proposed by Niels Bohr, which is a point particle interpretation of atomic structure. However, you then go on to discuss photons as if you accept their existence, but if you do, then you have also to accept the debrogilie/fenyman waveform/probability nature of the electron. These are two contradictory ideas.
Reply
I believe in the Bohr model when it applies to the HA only. The electron is not a wave. It is a point particle that has mass, size, charge and density. It only ‘moves’ in a wave when near another charged particle. DeBroglies idea applies to an elliptical electron orbit as a departure from a true sign wave and its energy levels. That does not change the electron to a wave because it radiates a slight waveform in its orbital states.
You should be familiar with the simple field patterns that high school physics has shown. The expansion between the magnetic poles and the electric charges is the result of mutual repulsion between similar “virtual charged particles’ according to the Law of similar and opposite charges and polar orientations.
This force is real because of its ‘action at a distance’ reactions. Maxwell equations incorporated these laws when his formulas explain the nature of these field patterns. I visualize these electric fields as uniformally spaced virtual charges surrounding the electron that are the transmitters of these photons through the fields and subsequently through space.
I also visualized how the photon is generated by the HA.
The electrons return to its original orbit after absorbing a photon creates an emission photon. These orbital changes create a magnetic pulse that ‘condenses’ a packet of virtual charged particles that is then transmitted through the electric field. Since these VCP’s are compacted by the magnetic pulse, they will then start to mutually repel each other to create an expansion of the pulse while it transits through the field. This is my theory of a real photon as generated by the HA.
Galbally quote
On your main argument, there are (currently) two major sources of impirical evidence (along with quite a lot of minor evidence also) for the BB, one obviously is the observed redhift in other galaxies, the other is the cosmic background radiation, predicted by QM and subsequently confirmed by Penzias and Wilson, accidentally. The observed nature and temperature of the radiation is more or less exactly what cosmolgists predicted. There is of course the thing with inflation, the Horizon problem, which I personally find inelegant as a theory though I will accept it till something better comes along. But to me the evidence seems pretty solid. I mean the whole idea of their being such a BB was an anathema to scientists including Einstein, but general relativity implied that this was the case and the evidence seems to confirm it, your thoughts sir.
Reply
The BB originated in the mind of Georges Lemaitrae and others. This is purely subjective. It is possible that Lemaitrae was aware of the Slipher redshift observations at that time but it could have been coincidental as well.
So the redshift observations seemed to give support to the Lemaitrae idea. This then was adopted as an expanding universe, based on these redshift observations. BUT and a very important but, these RSO’s implied that we were in the center of the universe. Of course, the scientists did not want a repeat of the geocentric theory which was discredited so they created the cause of this redshift as an expansion of space as Lemaitrae suggested but without the ‘primeval atom’ of his as the origin of his universe.
The idea then did away with the central location by implying that every point in space would then be central to the observer.
The trouble here is that the Michelson-Morley experiment refutes this idea because it proved that there is no ether in space for the lightwaves to be expanded (note, the fields are not ‘intertwined’ with space but separate components around charged particles). So IMHO, the EoS as the cause of the redshift is falsified.
Now to the CMBR. This cannot be a remnant of the BB because the era when it originated (phase transfer) from the matter radiation had to be contaminated by some 'plasma' radiation. This then cannot be a perfect 'black body radiation' as it is portrayed.
This radiation can only be the thermalized equalibrium temperature of the interstellar and intergalactic particles that are mixed into this average radiation temperature according to the 2nd Law of thermodunamics where heat flows from hot to cold regions.
This can only happen in a SSU because in an expanding BBU, there would be insufficient time for this to happen because of the expanmding space that would slow this distribution of heat.
McKellar, in 1940 made an observation of a space molecule that had a space temperature of 2K.
The proponents of this CMB temperature predicted a temperature of 5K and later transformed to 10K.
So McKellars onservations in 1940 were far more accurate then the predicted temperatires of 10K about nine years later.
I am inclined to believe in the 'equaliized temperature' of the space rather than a remnant of the BB.
The idea of 'creation' out nothing but space for all the energy and matter is the most important reason for reputiating the BB.
Mike CT
Cosmology
Hi Mike, I have looked at your ideas a bit more and will simply say I don't agree with them. I won't reiterate the standard model for you as you obviously know what it is and where it contradicts your ideas. I think your position on QM is a little naive, in that the problem with quantum mechanics when first formulated was that it could not accoount for many observational discrepancies, this is why people like schrodinger, heisenberg, and feynman revised the concept. To be honest I don't even think that there is much point in debating them as I think you are determined in your view, which is of course entirely appropriate. I will say that when the large hadron collider gets fired up in 2007, it may produce results that contradict what is currently the accepted framework.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Cosmology
Mike CT wrote: Alfred quote
am i to be describing spacetime or a certain aspect of it
reply
I just cannot visualize spacetime as an image. I define space as a dimension between objects. I define time as ‘uniform unwavering motion’. So the closest thing that identifies ST is the light year which incorporates both words. This can happen because the velocity of light is a fixed constant. Any variation in motion would be void.
This is all I can say about ST.
Spacetime is not something to be imagined, it's a mathematical framework for describing the position of objects whithin it. its like a 4D cartesian plane realy, the only difference is that this also appears to have energy within it.
Mike CT wrote: The idea of 'creation' out nothing but space for all the energy and matter is the most important reason for reputiating the BB.
Mike CT
who says it must be out of nothing?
why not from a membrane collision in 5D spacetime?
am i to be describing spacetime or a certain aspect of it
reply
I just cannot visualize spacetime as an image. I define space as a dimension between objects. I define time as ‘uniform unwavering motion’. So the closest thing that identifies ST is the light year which incorporates both words. This can happen because the velocity of light is a fixed constant. Any variation in motion would be void.
This is all I can say about ST.
Spacetime is not something to be imagined, it's a mathematical framework for describing the position of objects whithin it. its like a 4D cartesian plane realy, the only difference is that this also appears to have energy within it.
Mike CT wrote: The idea of 'creation' out nothing but space for all the energy and matter is the most important reason for reputiating the BB.
Mike CT
who says it must be out of nothing?
why not from a membrane collision in 5D spacetime?
Cosmology
Galbally
You are right. I do have a thorough understanding of the BB. That is the problem.
Alfred quote
who says it must be out of nothing?
why not from a membrane collision in 5D spacetime?
reply
Huh?
Mike CT
You are right. I do have a thorough understanding of the BB. That is the problem.
Alfred quote
who says it must be out of nothing?
why not from a membrane collision in 5D spacetime?
reply
Huh?
Mike CT
Cosmology
[QUOTE=Mike CT]Galbally
You are right. I do have a thorough understanding of the BB. That is the problem.
Hate to nitppick, but that isn't what I said. I don't think anyone really has a full understanding of the BB, no more than anyone could really instinctively understand a steady state, infinite universe. I think physics and mathematics help us to in someway grasp such huge concepts, but never really understand them, that would be hubris on an enormous scale. That is God's territory, not the hubris now, just the understanding bit.
You are right. I do have a thorough understanding of the BB. That is the problem.
Hate to nitppick, but that isn't what I said. I don't think anyone really has a full understanding of the BB, no more than anyone could really instinctively understand a steady state, infinite universe. I think physics and mathematics help us to in someway grasp such huge concepts, but never really understand them, that would be hubris on an enormous scale. That is God's territory, not the hubris now, just the understanding bit.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Cosmology
[quote=Mike CT]Galbally
You are right. I do have a thorough understanding of the BB. That is the problem.
Galbally quote
Hate to nitppick, but that isn't what I said. I don't think anyone really has a full understanding of the BB, no more than anyone could really instinctively understand a steady state, infinite universe. I think physics and mathematics help us to in someway grasp such huge concepts, but never really understand them, that would be hubris on an enormous scale. That is God's territory, not the hubris now, just the understanding bit.
reply
I am a firm believer in 'experimental physics' such as the Conservation Laws, the two gravity experiments, The Michelson-Morley experiments and etc.
I consider those to be more important than mathematics.
Mathematics is primarily a subjective construct. The 'string' theory and the 'inflation' theories are examples of unproven theories and yet are widely accepted.
I can accomplish more by 'visualising' somerthing than trying to understand a lot of symbols on a blackboard.
I can visualize the nature of a photon, a SSU, the concept of the HA and its EM interactions and etc.
I also look to Nature as GOD, not science. More specifically, the Natural Creative GOD that created the living.
This God did NOT create the physical universe because the Laws of Conservation imply that matter always existed. That is another reason why I believe in a SSU.
No beginning or end.
These Conservation Laws are more important to me than all the mathematics that science can INVENT.
Mike CT
You are right. I do have a thorough understanding of the BB. That is the problem.
Galbally quote
Hate to nitppick, but that isn't what I said. I don't think anyone really has a full understanding of the BB, no more than anyone could really instinctively understand a steady state, infinite universe. I think physics and mathematics help us to in someway grasp such huge concepts, but never really understand them, that would be hubris on an enormous scale. That is God's territory, not the hubris now, just the understanding bit.
reply
I am a firm believer in 'experimental physics' such as the Conservation Laws, the two gravity experiments, The Michelson-Morley experiments and etc.
I consider those to be more important than mathematics.
Mathematics is primarily a subjective construct. The 'string' theory and the 'inflation' theories are examples of unproven theories and yet are widely accepted.
I can accomplish more by 'visualising' somerthing than trying to understand a lot of symbols on a blackboard.
I can visualize the nature of a photon, a SSU, the concept of the HA and its EM interactions and etc.
I also look to Nature as GOD, not science. More specifically, the Natural Creative GOD that created the living.
This God did NOT create the physical universe because the Laws of Conservation imply that matter always existed. That is another reason why I believe in a SSU.
No beginning or end.
These Conservation Laws are more important to me than all the mathematics that science can INVENT.
Mike CT
Cosmology
I agree with Mike concerning visualisation. Mathematical equations are meaningless without some way of picturing the processes of QM. The visualisation process makes any understanding of QM that much easier, particularly as we deal with more complex processes.
Cosmology
OpenMind wrote: I agree with Mike concerning visualisation. Mathematical equations are meaningless without some way of picturing the processes of QM. The visualisation process makes any understanding of QM that much easier, particularly as we deal with more complex processes.
Yes thats all very well, but anyone can think anything, how do you actually prove it? This is a very old argument that goes back to the Ancient Greeks (who were very clever) who believed in the primacy of intellectual speculation over hard facts. It took 1,500 years for people to overturn some of their more nonsensical notions about the world, mostly because no one bothered to actually do the experiements or the hard maths. Fortunatly for us from about 1450 onwards that changed. Speculation is for theologians and philosophers, not scientists. Its a very useful tool for picturing difficult ideas, or developing theories, but without verification its worth exactly nothing, period. For instance, Einstein was a brilliant thinker in terms of his ability to visualize abstract ideas, but he had a thorough grounding in all aspects of classical physics and he wasn't exactly a slouch at algebra either. The only reason why his theories are accepted is that they accuractly predict observable and quantifiable phenomena. Maths and geometrical algebra is vital in modern science precisely because it is almost impossible for us to visualize things like subatomic matter or curved 3-d space.
Yes thats all very well, but anyone can think anything, how do you actually prove it? This is a very old argument that goes back to the Ancient Greeks (who were very clever) who believed in the primacy of intellectual speculation over hard facts. It took 1,500 years for people to overturn some of their more nonsensical notions about the world, mostly because no one bothered to actually do the experiements or the hard maths. Fortunatly for us from about 1450 onwards that changed. Speculation is for theologians and philosophers, not scientists. Its a very useful tool for picturing difficult ideas, or developing theories, but without verification its worth exactly nothing, period. For instance, Einstein was a brilliant thinker in terms of his ability to visualize abstract ideas, but he had a thorough grounding in all aspects of classical physics and he wasn't exactly a slouch at algebra either. The only reason why his theories are accepted is that they accuractly predict observable and quantifiable phenomena. Maths and geometrical algebra is vital in modern science precisely because it is almost impossible for us to visualize things like subatomic matter or curved 3-d space.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Cosmology
OpenMind wrote: I agree with Mike concerning visualisation. Mathematical equations are meaningless without some way of picturing the processes of QM. The visualisation process makes any understanding of QM that much easier, particularly as we deal with more complex processes.
mathematical equation do represent things that can be visualized.
problem is they are too complex to adequately put into words, so we sum it up in some symbols.
can you visualize the distortion of Spacetime by gravity without removing dimensions?
Maths can.
it's just an accurate way of 'visualizing' the things that are too hard to contemplate.
mathematical equation do represent things that can be visualized.
problem is they are too complex to adequately put into words, so we sum it up in some symbols.
can you visualize the distortion of Spacetime by gravity without removing dimensions?
Maths can.
it's just an accurate way of 'visualizing' the things that are too hard to contemplate.
Cosmology
Thanks Open Mind.
Galbally quote
Einstein was a brilliant thinker in terms of his ability to visualize abstract ideas, but he had a thorough grounding in all aspects of classical physics and he wasn't exactly a slouch at algebra either. The only reason why his theories are accepted is that they accuractly predict observable and quantifiable phenomena. Maths and geometrical algebra is vital in modern science precisely because it is almost impossible for us to visualize things like subatomic matter or curved 3-d space.
reply
I have no problem visualizing the HA. The problem is visualizing the 'orbitals'. Then you begin to have doubts.
Einstein had a problem in the beginning of his GR when he disovered that it would collapse. So he added the Lambda (CC). You know the rest.
Alfred quote
can you visualize the distortion of Spacetime by gravity without removing dimensions?
Maths can.
it's just an accurate way of 'visualizing' the things that are too hard to contemplate.
reply
No, I cannot.
When you try to visualize this distortion, you have problems with the influence of these distortions on a moving mass.
Are these distortions radial from the gravity source or layered? Or do they form a cross grid to represent the space influence?
When you imagine a moving mass to make it conform the the Keplerian orbital symetries, you have a problem when the mass is approaching and then receding. The imagionary influence on these movements do not conform because the mass is moving in opposite directions.
I hope you understand what I mean.
Mike CT
Galbally quote
Einstein was a brilliant thinker in terms of his ability to visualize abstract ideas, but he had a thorough grounding in all aspects of classical physics and he wasn't exactly a slouch at algebra either. The only reason why his theories are accepted is that they accuractly predict observable and quantifiable phenomena. Maths and geometrical algebra is vital in modern science precisely because it is almost impossible for us to visualize things like subatomic matter or curved 3-d space.
reply
I have no problem visualizing the HA. The problem is visualizing the 'orbitals'. Then you begin to have doubts.
Einstein had a problem in the beginning of his GR when he disovered that it would collapse. So he added the Lambda (CC). You know the rest.
Alfred quote
can you visualize the distortion of Spacetime by gravity without removing dimensions?
Maths can.
it's just an accurate way of 'visualizing' the things that are too hard to contemplate.
reply
No, I cannot.
When you try to visualize this distortion, you have problems with the influence of these distortions on a moving mass.
Are these distortions radial from the gravity source or layered? Or do they form a cross grid to represent the space influence?
When you imagine a moving mass to make it conform the the Keplerian orbital symetries, you have a problem when the mass is approaching and then receding. The imagionary influence on these movements do not conform because the mass is moving in opposite directions.
I hope you understand what I mean.
Mike CT
Cosmology
Mike CT wrote:
Alfred quote
can you visualize the distortion of Spacetime by gravity without removing dimensions?
Maths can.
it's just an accurate way of 'visualizing' the things that are too hard to contemplate.
reply
No, I cannot.
When you try to visualize this distortion, you have problems with the influence of these distortions on a moving mass.
Are these distortions radial from the gravity source or layered? Or do they form a cross grid to represent the space influence?
When you imagine a moving mass to make it conform the the Keplerian orbital symetries, you have a problem when the mass is approaching and then receding. The imagionary influence on these movements do not conform because the mass is moving in opposite directions.
I hope you understand what I mean.
Mike CT
ummm...well the point i was making is that we need the maths, and i need a diagram.
Alfred quote
can you visualize the distortion of Spacetime by gravity without removing dimensions?
Maths can.
it's just an accurate way of 'visualizing' the things that are too hard to contemplate.
reply
No, I cannot.
When you try to visualize this distortion, you have problems with the influence of these distortions on a moving mass.
Are these distortions radial from the gravity source or layered? Or do they form a cross grid to represent the space influence?
When you imagine a moving mass to make it conform the the Keplerian orbital symetries, you have a problem when the mass is approaching and then receding. The imagionary influence on these movements do not conform because the mass is moving in opposite directions.
I hope you understand what I mean.
Mike CT
ummm...well the point i was making is that we need the maths, and i need a diagram.
Cosmology
Alfred
Well, yes, Newtonian math and Planck math and Bohr's math are the basic math we need to understand most of the applications to the Universe which is my specialty.
These are the major sources of all the other maths.
But when you have theoretical maths like the inflation theory and the string theory then you have to judge for yourself whether to give them credibility.
Mike CT
Well, yes, Newtonian math and Planck math and Bohr's math are the basic math we need to understand most of the applications to the Universe which is my specialty.
These are the major sources of all the other maths.
But when you have theoretical maths like the inflation theory and the string theory then you have to judge for yourself whether to give them credibility.
Mike CT
Cosmology
Mike CT wrote: Alfred
Well, yes, Newtonian math and Planck math and Bohr's math are the basic math we need to understand most of the applications to the Universe which is my specialty.
These are the major sources of all the other maths.
But when you have theoretical maths like the inflation theory and the string theory then you have to judge for yourself whether to give them credibility.
Mike CT
Ah, now I'm starting to see. Now I'm not a mathematician but I do know that the math used in both quantum field theory and relativity are rock solid. I read some interesting stuff on inflation and the historical problems associated with localized symmetry breaking and Hawkings (and others) solutions to these problems. I think Mike that you have gone as far as you are comfortable with, namely classical physics and stopped there. Can't say I blame you many people feel the same, however, there are inescapable limitations to classical physics, which you have tried to overcome with your theories, to my mind, unsuccessfully.
Well, yes, Newtonian math and Planck math and Bohr's math are the basic math we need to understand most of the applications to the Universe which is my specialty.
These are the major sources of all the other maths.
But when you have theoretical maths like the inflation theory and the string theory then you have to judge for yourself whether to give them credibility.
Mike CT
Ah, now I'm starting to see. Now I'm not a mathematician but I do know that the math used in both quantum field theory and relativity are rock solid. I read some interesting stuff on inflation and the historical problems associated with localized symmetry breaking and Hawkings (and others) solutions to these problems. I think Mike that you have gone as far as you are comfortable with, namely classical physics and stopped there. Can't say I blame you many people feel the same, however, there are inescapable limitations to classical physics, which you have tried to overcome with your theories, to my mind, unsuccessfully.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Cosmology
Mike CT wrote: Alfred
Well, yes, Newtonian math and Planck math and Bohr's math are the basic math we need to understand most of the applications to the Universe which is my specialty.
These are the major sources of all the other maths.
But when you have theoretical maths like the inflation theory and the string theory then you have to judge for yourself whether to give them credibility.
Mike CT
do you realy think these theories would be so widely recognized and reguarded if there wasn't any credibility to them?
Well, yes, Newtonian math and Planck math and Bohr's math are the basic math we need to understand most of the applications to the Universe which is my specialty.
These are the major sources of all the other maths.
But when you have theoretical maths like the inflation theory and the string theory then you have to judge for yourself whether to give them credibility.
Mike CT
do you realy think these theories would be so widely recognized and reguarded if there wasn't any credibility to them?
Cosmology
I also look to Nature as GOD, not science. More specifically, the Natural Creative GOD that created the living.
This God did NOT create the physical universe because the Laws of Conservation imply that matter always existed. That is another reason why I believe in a SSU.
No beginning or end.
These Conservation Laws are more important to me than all the mathematics that science can INVENT.
Mike CT[/QUOTE]
I do not wish to debate the scientific issues with you any further, but I am intrigued with your ideas about God, if you feel unconfortable discussing this, that is fine. Namely that you believe that the Universe itself has existed for an infinite amount of time and that God is simply an actor within that universe. This would mean that God is not omnipotent, and may be simply one in a hierachy of supreme, but not infinitely powerful beings. This does beg the question, how is it that we and all the other matter in the known universe require a God to justify our existence, but somehow the universe itself does not? I find this concept difficult to understand.
This God did NOT create the physical universe because the Laws of Conservation imply that matter always existed. That is another reason why I believe in a SSU.
No beginning or end.
These Conservation Laws are more important to me than all the mathematics that science can INVENT.
Mike CT[/QUOTE]
I do not wish to debate the scientific issues with you any further, but I am intrigued with your ideas about God, if you feel unconfortable discussing this, that is fine. Namely that you believe that the Universe itself has existed for an infinite amount of time and that God is simply an actor within that universe. This would mean that God is not omnipotent, and may be simply one in a hierachy of supreme, but not infinitely powerful beings. This does beg the question, how is it that we and all the other matter in the known universe require a God to justify our existence, but somehow the universe itself does not? I find this concept difficult to understand.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Cosmology
Galbally wrote:
I do not wish to debate the scientific issues with you any further, but I am intrigued with your ideas about God, if you feel unconfortable discussing this, that is fine. Namely that you believe that the Universe itself has existed for an infinite amount of time and that God is simply an actor within that universe. This would mean that God is not omnipotent, and may be simply one in a hierachy of supreme, but not infinitely powerful beings. This does beg the question, how is it that we and all the other matter in the known universe require a God to justify our existence, but somehow the universe itself does not? I find this concept difficult to understand.
i personaly am an atheist and i recently discovered that i don't like religeous disscussion...but while where crossing this boundry i figure what the hell.
human beings cant contemplate the idea of a God, neither through imagination or mathematics. this is why i particularly don't like religeous disscussion as it involves speaking about the motives, intentions and concept of that which cannot be spoken of or contemplated to any degree of accuracy.
so why don't we stay in this universe for now before we venture on higher.
I do not wish to debate the scientific issues with you any further, but I am intrigued with your ideas about God, if you feel unconfortable discussing this, that is fine. Namely that you believe that the Universe itself has existed for an infinite amount of time and that God is simply an actor within that universe. This would mean that God is not omnipotent, and may be simply one in a hierachy of supreme, but not infinitely powerful beings. This does beg the question, how is it that we and all the other matter in the known universe require a God to justify our existence, but somehow the universe itself does not? I find this concept difficult to understand.
i personaly am an atheist and i recently discovered that i don't like religeous disscussion...but while where crossing this boundry i figure what the hell.
human beings cant contemplate the idea of a God, neither through imagination or mathematics. this is why i particularly don't like religeous disscussion as it involves speaking about the motives, intentions and concept of that which cannot be spoken of or contemplated to any degree of accuracy.
so why don't we stay in this universe for now before we venture on higher.
Cosmology
Galbally quote
I think Mike that you have gone as far as you are comfortable with, namely classical physics and stopped there. Can't say I blame you many people feel the same, however, there are inescapable limitations to classical physics, which you have tried to overcome with your theories, to my mind, unsuccessfully.
reply
I believe in the classical laws of physics because they resulted from experiment. This is a real bases for their existence.
I do not know what limitations you are referring to. My concepts went beyond the BB which has a lot of problems while ignoring these basic laws.
By visualising the HA, I explained why it does not collapse. I did not need QM's to determine why.
Einstein had a predicament from the very beginning when he needed the CC (Lambda) to save his theory. The BB saved it for him.
Feynmens 'virtual photon' does not exist. It is a substitution for a 'magnetic interaction' between two charged particles.
These complex mathematical derivitives from the classical solve only 'miniscule' problems that I think can be influenced by the mind.
The major problem of 'dark matter' has not been solved by these complex maths.
I solved that problem by the NASA observations of solar flares.
Alfred quote
do you realy think these theories would be so widely recognized and reguarded if there wasn't any credibility to them?
reply
You say you are an atheist. The bible is a fantasy (Genesis) created by humans. It obviously has the greatest credibility of all books. Yet you reputiate it.
Galbally quote
This would mean that God is not omnipotent, and may be simply one in a hierachy of supreme, but not infinitely powerful beings. This does beg the question, how is it that we and all the other matter in the known universe require a God to justify our existence, but somehow the universe itself does not? I find this concept difficult to understand.
reply
The physical and the living are not the same.
Stem cells (latest research) are capable of reproducing into different forms.
Atoms do not have this ability. They form complex structures but this is because of the 'intrinsic forces' within them. Biological creations are far more complex.
Alfred quote
so why don't we stay in this universe for now before we venture on higher
reply
That statement above is a big problem in our country (US). They (religions) ignore our Constitution and portray themselves as a 'higher law'. That is why I look to Nature as God. It is compatible with our Constitution because it grants total freedom (no laws) and free speech.
Mike CT
I think Mike that you have gone as far as you are comfortable with, namely classical physics and stopped there. Can't say I blame you many people feel the same, however, there are inescapable limitations to classical physics, which you have tried to overcome with your theories, to my mind, unsuccessfully.
reply
I believe in the classical laws of physics because they resulted from experiment. This is a real bases for their existence.
I do not know what limitations you are referring to. My concepts went beyond the BB which has a lot of problems while ignoring these basic laws.
By visualising the HA, I explained why it does not collapse. I did not need QM's to determine why.
Einstein had a predicament from the very beginning when he needed the CC (Lambda) to save his theory. The BB saved it for him.
Feynmens 'virtual photon' does not exist. It is a substitution for a 'magnetic interaction' between two charged particles.
These complex mathematical derivitives from the classical solve only 'miniscule' problems that I think can be influenced by the mind.
The major problem of 'dark matter' has not been solved by these complex maths.
I solved that problem by the NASA observations of solar flares.
Alfred quote
do you realy think these theories would be so widely recognized and reguarded if there wasn't any credibility to them?
reply
You say you are an atheist. The bible is a fantasy (Genesis) created by humans. It obviously has the greatest credibility of all books. Yet you reputiate it.
Galbally quote
This would mean that God is not omnipotent, and may be simply one in a hierachy of supreme, but not infinitely powerful beings. This does beg the question, how is it that we and all the other matter in the known universe require a God to justify our existence, but somehow the universe itself does not? I find this concept difficult to understand.
reply
The physical and the living are not the same.
Stem cells (latest research) are capable of reproducing into different forms.
Atoms do not have this ability. They form complex structures but this is because of the 'intrinsic forces' within them. Biological creations are far more complex.
Alfred quote
so why don't we stay in this universe for now before we venture on higher
reply
That statement above is a big problem in our country (US). They (religions) ignore our Constitution and portray themselves as a 'higher law'. That is why I look to Nature as God. It is compatible with our Constitution because it grants total freedom (no laws) and free speech.
Mike CT
Cosmology
The physical and the living are not the same.
Stem cells (latest research) are capable of reproducing into different forms.
Atoms do not have this ability. They form complex structures but this is because of the 'intrinsic forces' within them. Biological creations are far more complex.
Well yes biology is more complex, but hardly mystical. Cells are also made of atoms and follow the same laws of phyisics as everything else, they are just very highly organized groups of atoms. I'm not being a reductionist and saying that life is not important or unique, but it is as prosaic as all other matter is, there's nothing intrinsically special about it. You seem to be suggesting that there is something of the divine or ineffeible about life? To my mind either everything in the universe is divine or nothing is, God is either omnipitent or he does not exist, as a god who is not omnipitent could not be God as I picture him/her/it/what. I mean how could God be limited in his freedom of action?, what could prevent him from carrying out his will except a higher order of power or another "God" if you like? I don't see how anything could be explained otherwise.
Stem cells (latest research) are capable of reproducing into different forms.
Atoms do not have this ability. They form complex structures but this is because of the 'intrinsic forces' within them. Biological creations are far more complex.
Well yes biology is more complex, but hardly mystical. Cells are also made of atoms and follow the same laws of phyisics as everything else, they are just very highly organized groups of atoms. I'm not being a reductionist and saying that life is not important or unique, but it is as prosaic as all other matter is, there's nothing intrinsically special about it. You seem to be suggesting that there is something of the divine or ineffeible about life? To my mind either everything in the universe is divine or nothing is, God is either omnipitent or he does not exist, as a god who is not omnipitent could not be God as I picture him/her/it/what. I mean how could God be limited in his freedom of action?, what could prevent him from carrying out his will except a higher order of power or another "God" if you like? I don't see how anything could be explained otherwise.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Cosmology
Mike CT wrote:
reply
I believe in the classical laws of physics because they resulted from experiment. This is a real bases for their existence.
I do not know what limitations you are referring to. My concepts went beyond the BB which has a lot of problems while ignoring these basic laws.
By visualising the HA, I explained why it does not collapse. I did not need QM's to determine why.
Einstein had a predicament from the very beginning when he needed the CC (Lambda) to save his theory. The BB saved it for him.
Feynmens 'virtual photon' does not exist. It is a substitution for a 'magnetic interaction' between two charged particles.
These complex mathematical derivitives from the classical solve only 'miniscule' problems that I think can be influenced by the mind.
The major problem of 'dark matter' has not been solved by these complex maths.
I solved that problem by the NASA observations of solar flares.
but Einstein didn't create the big bang theory, hence there was no selfish motive behind the Big Bang. it just solved a lot of problems and so further study turned it into a credible theory.
you're comfortable with classical physics, keep in mind a lot of theories are developed from classical. how else would we get to the modern physics we have now.
Mike CT wrote: Alfred quote
do you realy think these theories would be so widely recognized and reguarded if there wasn't any credibility to them?
reply
You say you are an atheist. The bible is a fantasy (Genesis) created by humans. It obviously has the greatest credibility of all books. Yet you reputiate it.
the bible doesn't have nearly the same amount amount of credibility/ evidence to support it, it's just a philosophical theory that is protected from critisism by many factors. i'm not going to explain this because i angered a few people last time i did.
modern physics has more credibility.
Mike CT wrote: Alfred quote
so why don't we stay in this universe for now before we venture on higher
reply
That statement above is a big problem in our country (US). They (religions) ignore our Constitution and portray themselves as a 'higher law'. That is why I look to Nature as God. It is compatible with our Constitution because it grants total freedom (no laws) and free speech.
Mike CT
ok then you follow what you believe.
reply
I believe in the classical laws of physics because they resulted from experiment. This is a real bases for their existence.
I do not know what limitations you are referring to. My concepts went beyond the BB which has a lot of problems while ignoring these basic laws.
By visualising the HA, I explained why it does not collapse. I did not need QM's to determine why.
Einstein had a predicament from the very beginning when he needed the CC (Lambda) to save his theory. The BB saved it for him.
Feynmens 'virtual photon' does not exist. It is a substitution for a 'magnetic interaction' between two charged particles.
These complex mathematical derivitives from the classical solve only 'miniscule' problems that I think can be influenced by the mind.
The major problem of 'dark matter' has not been solved by these complex maths.
I solved that problem by the NASA observations of solar flares.
but Einstein didn't create the big bang theory, hence there was no selfish motive behind the Big Bang. it just solved a lot of problems and so further study turned it into a credible theory.
you're comfortable with classical physics, keep in mind a lot of theories are developed from classical. how else would we get to the modern physics we have now.
Mike CT wrote: Alfred quote
do you realy think these theories would be so widely recognized and reguarded if there wasn't any credibility to them?
reply
You say you are an atheist. The bible is a fantasy (Genesis) created by humans. It obviously has the greatest credibility of all books. Yet you reputiate it.
the bible doesn't have nearly the same amount amount of credibility/ evidence to support it, it's just a philosophical theory that is protected from critisism by many factors. i'm not going to explain this because i angered a few people last time i did.
modern physics has more credibility.
Mike CT wrote: Alfred quote
so why don't we stay in this universe for now before we venture on higher
reply
That statement above is a big problem in our country (US). They (religions) ignore our Constitution and portray themselves as a 'higher law'. That is why I look to Nature as God. It is compatible with our Constitution because it grants total freedom (no laws) and free speech.
Mike CT
ok then you follow what you believe.
Cosmology
Galbally and Alfred
The website below will take you to a religious discussion thread. I made two new posts on that thread regarding my religious views so that we can confine this site to cosmology since religion is a departure from cosmology.
Copy and paste to go there if you wish.
http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/forum ... .php?f=122
Regarding science, I still prefer to rely on experimental and observational data rather than subjective data (math) as a real source of science.
To Alfred....the only real data for BB support is the Doppler redshift observations and these were changed to EoS redshifts which is subjective. So to me, the BB has no real data for its acceptance. All the resulting data from the Doppler observations are sunjective with the 'back dating to the CMBR.
Mike CT
The website below will take you to a religious discussion thread. I made two new posts on that thread regarding my religious views so that we can confine this site to cosmology since religion is a departure from cosmology.
Copy and paste to go there if you wish.
http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/forum ... .php?f=122
Regarding science, I still prefer to rely on experimental and observational data rather than subjective data (math) as a real source of science.
To Alfred....the only real data for BB support is the Doppler redshift observations and these were changed to EoS redshifts which is subjective. So to me, the BB has no real data for its acceptance. All the resulting data from the Doppler observations are sunjective with the 'back dating to the CMBR.
Mike CT
Cosmology
the Big Bang has plenty of evidence, you just don't accept it either because you don't understand it or just shun it.
it works. observational evidence as well as theoretical evidence and a lot of brilliant minds puting in many hours of hard thinking, making many mistakes and trying different things has led them to this theory of the Universe called the Big Bang.
it was not just a fabrication of imagination, it is a theory of the universe that uses maths to draw a very accurate and elegant picture of our universe and a timeline of events in it. we don't yet have the full picture and the majority of the human race doesn't even have the abillity to begin looking at this picture. don't discount this theory because you can't see it.
it works. observational evidence as well as theoretical evidence and a lot of brilliant minds puting in many hours of hard thinking, making many mistakes and trying different things has led them to this theory of the Universe called the Big Bang.
it was not just a fabrication of imagination, it is a theory of the universe that uses maths to draw a very accurate and elegant picture of our universe and a timeline of events in it. we don't yet have the full picture and the majority of the human race doesn't even have the abillity to begin looking at this picture. don't discount this theory because you can't see it.
Cosmology
Alfred
I have a thorough understanding of the BB.
Like I said before, that is the problem.
There is no point in tryimg to convince me of its reality.
Mike CT
I have a thorough understanding of the BB.
Like I said before, that is the problem.
There is no point in tryimg to convince me of its reality.
Mike CT
Cosmology
i don't need to convince you of anything...i am convinced and so i don't care wether anyone else believes the same way.
that hasn't stopped me from shareing my point of view.
so explain to to why CMBR is not evidence for the Big Bang.
that hasn't stopped me from shareing my point of view.
so explain to to why CMBR is not evidence for the Big Bang.
Cosmology
Alfred
I just entered my SSU article on the 'science' website you spoke of and your supplied URL.
This new site will generate some new comments.
Mike CT
I just entered my SSU article on the 'science' website you spoke of and your supplied URL.
This new site will generate some new comments.
Mike CT