...
Photon Propagation : Straightline or Helix ?
- Thread starter The God
- Start date
...
here is one: " There are Members of this Forum that "speculate?", and allow said "speculation" to influence their interpretation of different Theories/Scenarios - but the fact of the matter is that the BB theory has some aspects that must be "accepted" or "assumed" to be true - on faith(?) alone. "
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/black-holes-a-opposed-to-the-big-bang.145854/#post-3294771
i will show more, be patient.
another( indirect ):
" you fail to understand that the Big Bang Theory has at it's basis, the "assumption" that whatever was or was not in existence immediately prior to the "Event" was and is NOT SOMETHING THAT WE CAN DEFINE, period. "
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/black-holes-a-opposed-to-the-big-bang.145854/page-2#post-3294847
again, be patient-- i am almost at the direct ones.
Last edited:
His comment inferring that he did not accept the BB or thought it was wrong, was made about 18 months, 2 years ago, during his period of great interest in all I ever said.
I appreciate your efforts krash but wouldn't be too concerned: So don't trouble yourself too much. He certainly made the comment though, and even if you do find it, his record for playing with words etc, will just create more excuses for him to pontificate and obfuscate and be a total waste of cyber space.
Thanks again.
another one:
DMOE response to it--
" theorist-constant12345, the video is what I refer to as Pop-Science Entertainment.
It appears to present, to me at least, an easily processed simple version of the speculative nature of the BB theory, ala Physicists Hawking, Kaku and Krauss.
I would not consider it to be anything more than "entertainment".
Given that, I would find it somewhat "Odd" if anyone DID NOT find some things in it "contradictory" and "question(able)".
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/big-bang-clarification.145169/#post-3280102
" theorist-constant12345, the video is what I refer to as Pop-Science Entertainment.
It appears to present, to me at least, an easily processed simple version of the speculative nature of the BB theory, ala Physicists Hawking, Kaku and Krauss.
I would not consider it to be anything more than "entertainment".
Given that, I would find it somewhat "Odd" if anyone DID NOT find some things in it "contradictory" and "question(able)".
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/big-bang-clarification.145169/#post-3280102
ahh, you mean that topic he created:
"Big Bang: How the Universe was created"
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/big-bang-how-the-universe-was-created.142328/
along with the very post of?
Sorry, krash661, but that is in no way supports paddoboy's claim : "It's obvious where you are coming from as being one who has rejected/dismissed/doubts the BB in past debates."
If you simply read the OP and the first 7 Posts of that Thread : http://www.sciforums.com/threads/big-bang-clarification.145169/#post-3280102 , you will plainly see that I was not, did not, nor had not "rejected/dismissed/doubts(doubted) the BB".
Those comments were about the content of the video that "theorist-constant12345" had Posted in the OP. Oddly enough my sentiments about the content of the video were basically agreed upon by numerous other Members of this Forum, including Dywyddyr, Kristoffer and in Post #7...paddoboy himself !
So...sorry, krash661...
yes-yes-- of course that is exactly what you will say, except those 3 examples are able to be read--no matter what you continue to publicaaaly tell yourself..
(shrusgs)-- carry on
ahh you mean this line?
" It appears to present, to me at least, an easily processed simple version of the speculative nature of the BB theory "
spec·u·la·tive
ˈspekyəˌlādiv,ˈspekyələdiv/
adjective
- 1.
engaged in, expressing, or based on conjecture rather than knowledge.
con·jec·ture [kən jékchər]
(plural con·jec·tures)
n
1. guesswork: the formation of judgments or opinions on the basis of incomplete or inconclusive information
- The origin of this ritual is a matter of conjecture.
3. mathematics science unproved theorem: a theorem in science or mathematics that has still to be proved
na·ture
ˈnāCHər/Submit
noun
1.
the phenomena of the physical world collectively, including plants, animals, the landscape, and other features and products of the earth, as opposed to humans or human creations.
"the breathtaking beauty of nature"
synonyms: the natural world, Mother Nature, Mother Earth, the environment; More
2.
the basic or inherent features of something, especially when seen as characteristic of it.
(shrugs) -- nice attempt though. again, carry on.
Last edited:
Again thanks for your efforts krash, you have obviously made the point I was inferring.
Not sure if that was the exact one I was remembering but the true agenda is obvious. Thanks.
In response to the question asked by ISDAMan : " How is the big bang supposed to have exploded?"
My full response Post #8 : " ISDAMan, you ask a question that, sincerely, at this time, cannot be answered!
The Big Bang Theory posits that what existed prior to the BB is an "unknown" entity. That is, whatever "it" was, was and still is, beyond our ability to "KNOW"!!
There are Members of this Forum that "speculate?", and allow said "speculation" to influence their interpretation of different Theories/Scenarios - but the fact of the matter is that the BB theory has some aspects that must be "accepted" or "assumed" to be true - on faith(?) alone."
Again, krash661, paddoboy agreed with and expanded upon my response in his Post#11 of that same Thread : "Let me tell you some scientific facts ISDAMan.
The BB is well supported by evidence, so much so, that even the Catholic church recognises it along with the certainty of Evolution.
Why it banged and how it banged is still a mystery, but a mystery science/cosmology is continually working on. Science and cosmology in particular make plenty of logical reasonable assumptions, just as most disciplines anywhere make. Science can also logically and reasonably speculate on other issues.
The BB being a evolution of space and time in the first instant, was assumed to be driven by a CC or even some other DE component.
After the initial imputus and inflation, the density of the matter/energy within the then Universe was acting to slow it down.
This slowing continued for a few billion years.
As the Universe/spacetime expanded the "constant nature of the CC or DE component, was gradually acting over a Universe/spacetime that was getting less and less dense. [same matter/energy content and gravity...larger spacetime/Universe due to expansion]
This has lead to the recent discovery of an acceleration on the expansion rate, which is assumed to be driven by the DE component.
We do not as yet know the true nature of this DE component, but most assume it to be the CC of Einstein fame.
There my dear friend [and other doubting Thomas's] is the basic reasonable assumptions as to what has happened since that first momentous beginnings 13.83 billion years ago." - paddoboy's Post #11 of : http://www.sciforums.com/threads/black-holes-a-opposed-to-the-big-bang.145854/#post-3294771
And again, krash661, you selectively quote...for whatever reason...
- from : http://www.sciforums.com/threads/black-holes-a-opposed-to-the-big-bang.145854/page-2#post-3294847
ISDAMan's query (from his Post #23): "So I have to get good enough to ask a question?"
My response Post #31 : "No, ISDAMan, that is not what I am trying to say.
What I am trying to say is that to be able to competently refute any Theory - you must first fully understand the Theory.
Your "question" seems to indicate that, for whatever reason, you fail to understand that the Big Bang Theory has at it's basis, the "assumption" that whatever was or was not in existence immediately prior to the "Event" was and is NOT SOMETHING THAT WE CAN DEFINE, period.
Therefore, any "question" pertaining to what was Prior to the Big Bang...is not answerable by the Big Bang Theory."
And, oddly enough, once again, krash661,...paddoboy immediately responded with his Post #32, where again he agreed and expanded : "According to the BB there was nothing before it, since time evolved at the BB, along with space.
Anything esle is speculative..."
- from : http://www.sciforums.com/threads/black-holes-a-opposed-to-the-big-bang.145854/page-2
krash661, anyone reading this Thread has access to those Linked Threads and can read them for themselves. Those same Readers can easily discern that what is being Posted by me is entirely in alignment with the Big Bang Theory - and is also agreed upon by paddoboy.
...
Last edited:
Again, paddoboy, with the childish "emojis"...Again thanks for your efforts krash, you have obviously made the point I was inferring.
Not sure if that was the exact one I was remembering but the true agenda is obvious. Thanks.
Have you actually re-read the full Links that kras661 Linked to?
They do not in any way support your spurious allegation from your Post #91 : "It's obvious where you are coming from as being one who has rejected/dismissed/doubts the BB in past debates."
paddoboy, any and all who read these Threads can easily see what you and krash661 are doing...
Last edited:
Back on content.
The fact remains that according to the WMAP and other experiments, the universe/spacetime is seen to be topologically flat.
This logically means that if two beams of light/photons are emitted parallel, they will remain parallel.
That despite plenty of obfuscation and moving of goal posts by some, is the crux of this thread and remains as generally accepted by mainstream science.
The fact remains that according to the WMAP and other experiments, the universe/spacetime is seen to be topologically flat.
This logically means that if two beams of light/photons are emitted parallel, they will remain parallel.
That despite plenty of obfuscation and moving of goal posts by some, is the crux of this thread and remains as generally accepted by mainstream science.
no need for your pathetic nonsense( no need for your pathetic hand waving i-ether.)-- i have shown what you have claimed is false.
(shrugs)and also, what is with this term "pop-science?", i am glad science is popular.
no need for your pathetic nonsense( no need for your pathetic hand waving i-ether.)-- i have shown what you have claimed is false.
and also, what is with this term "pop-science?", i am glad science is popular.
Sorry, krash661, but it was not me that made the claim - it was paddoboy in his Post #91 : "It's obvious where you are coming from as being one who has rejected/dismissed/doubts the BB in past debates."
- from Post #91 : http://www.sciforums.com/threads/photon-propagation-straightline-or-helix.156350/page-5
Ergo : Your Posted "evidence!!??" krash661, has only shown that what paddoboy claimed is false...
paddoboy has tacitly admitted that he was only attempting to cast aspersions upon and defame me...are you now doing the same?
...done with this...
no need for your pathetic nonsense( no need for your pathetic hand waving i-ether.)-- i have shown what you have claimed is false.
(shrugs)yes-- yes i am--except i have clearly done it with your own typed words.
(shrugs)Done with this??
post 90:
And no I have not admitted anywhere tacitly or otherwise, anything other than what I said re you at one time posting that you either did not support the BB, or found it unacceptable or words to that same effect.
And while you still refuse to admit to the fact that according to WMAP and its data, that we live in a topologically flat universe, and that subsequent logical fact that in such a case, two light beams emitted parallel will remain parallel.
no need for your pathetic nonsense( no need for your pathetic hand waving i-ether.)-- i have shown what you have claimed is false.
yes-- yes i am--except i have clearly done it with your own typed words.
Not much more need be said on this krash, as past interactions with him, have revealed the mentality we are dealing with.
back on track.......
https://www.quora.com/If-space-is-c...lines-curve-if-they-were-extended-long-enough
The 'straight' line of common intuition is in fact a special case of a type of curve known as ageodesic. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geo...) It is actually geodesics that represent the shortest distance between any two points in a space of a given geometry. The straight line is simply the geodesic for flat Euclidean space. It also has the special property that, for any two points in Euclidean space, the straight line between them is unique; there is only one such line. However, there may be many geodesics between two points in a curved space - even an infinite number, as in the case of the great circles on a sphere connecting the north and south poles.
The concept of geodesics found an important application in Einstein's General Relativity (GR), where they replaced the straight line in Newton's First Law of Motion - 'Any body not being acted upon by an external force remains at rest or in a uniform state of motion in a straight line' - and enabled Einstein to rewrite this as the Law of Geodesic Motion - 'Free-falling objects (i.e. objects not experiencing an external force) move along geodesic paths in curved spacetime.(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gra...).
As long as light is traveling through the vacuum of space, in fact as anything is travelling through the vacuum of space, it will continue to move in straight lines. As WMAP determined, our universe/spacetime is overall topologically flat within very tiny error bars, which in effect means that if two rays of light are emitted parallel, they will stay parallel, never diverging or converging: in effect, there is nothing to cause it/them to alter there directions.
[1]Newton’s First Law states that a body will continue moving in a straight line if there are no forces acting upon it.
[2] GR entails the fact that light travels in geodesic paths in curved spacetime, or the shortest path between emitter and receiver.
https://www.quora.com/If-space-is-c...lines-curve-if-they-were-extended-long-enough
The 'straight' line of common intuition is in fact a special case of a type of curve known as ageodesic. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geo...) It is actually geodesics that represent the shortest distance between any two points in a space of a given geometry. The straight line is simply the geodesic for flat Euclidean space. It also has the special property that, for any two points in Euclidean space, the straight line between them is unique; there is only one such line. However, there may be many geodesics between two points in a curved space - even an infinite number, as in the case of the great circles on a sphere connecting the north and south poles.
The concept of geodesics found an important application in Einstein's General Relativity (GR), where they replaced the straight line in Newton's First Law of Motion - 'Any body not being acted upon by an external force remains at rest or in a uniform state of motion in a straight line' - and enabled Einstein to rewrite this as the Law of Geodesic Motion - 'Free-falling objects (i.e. objects not experiencing an external force) move along geodesic paths in curved spacetime.(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gra...).
As long as light is traveling through the vacuum of space, in fact as anything is travelling through the vacuum of space, it will continue to move in straight lines. As WMAP determined, our universe/spacetime is overall topologically flat within very tiny error bars, which in effect means that if two rays of light are emitted parallel, they will stay parallel, never diverging or converging: in effect, there is nothing to cause it/them to alter there directions.
[1]Newton’s First Law states that a body will continue moving in a straight line if there are no forces acting upon it.
[2] GR entails the fact that light travels in geodesic paths in curved spacetime, or the shortest path between emitter and receiver.
Yes, paddoboy, I was done.
Then you decided to cast aspersions against me and attempt to defame me in your Post #91 : "It's obvious where you are coming from as being one who has rejected/dismissed/doubts the BB in past debates."
Yes, paddoboy, you did...
My Post #114 : So...for the third time, paddoboy...
Citation needed.
Please provide "quoted" passages from Posts Authored by me that support your ^^above quoted^^ Ad Hominem assertion.
You have made these spurious allegations that you, twice so far, refuse to support.
Any and all Readers of this Forum are well aware of what you are doing.
By failing to Cite any passages from Posts authored by me, that fully support your allegations, you are tacitly admitting that you are intentionally Posting False statements simply to cast aspersions upon and intended to defame another Member of SciForums.
So far, paddoboy, you have failed to Cite any passages from Posts authored by me, that fully support your allegations...
Ergo : You, paddoboy, are tacitly admitting that you are intentionally Posting False statements simply to cast aspersions upon and intended to defame another Member of SciForums.
That point was settled prior to my Post #90...you even used the Link I supplied (instead of one of the three links that you flooded the Thread with!) : http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_shape.html
To Wit : "Recent measurements (c. 2001) by a number of ground-based and balloon-based experiments, including MAT/TOCO, Boomerang, Maxima, and DASI, have shown that the brightest spots are about 1 degree across. Thus the universe was known to be flat to within about 15% accuracy prior to the WMAP results. WMAP has confirmed this result with very high accuracy and precision. We now know (as of 2013) that the universe is flat with only a 0.4% margin of error. This suggests that the Universe is infinite in extent; however, since the Universe has a finite age, we can only observe a finite volume of the Universe. All we can truly conclude is that the Universe is much larger than the volume we can directly observe."
- the ^^above quoted^^ from, and more at Link : http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_shape.html
...sad, paddoboy, that you have no other recourse than to Post further childish Ad Hominem attacks...