Magnetic field is not something abstract it has true, physical influences, while true space is 100% void, it is not made of anything while magnetic field is, as mucha s electric field.
The Big Bang Theory is the biggest lie in the western world
- Thread starter Gravage
- Start date
- Status
Magnetic field is not something abstract it has true, physical influences, while true space is 100% void, it is not made of anything while magnetic field is, as mucha s electric field.
Can you answer these for me please?
In your link with Garbage, oops sorry Gravage, are you the particle or antipartical?
Also is it possible for one to disappear and the other to remain?
Would the remaining one expand as a universe?
Or would both be required to destroy each other?
To G.
I know a blind person who went to France Paris and was given frogs legs to eat. He trusted those who served him they were legs from frogs.
When he opened a tin to serve others while he could not prove they were legs from frogs he trusted those around him who knew about such things because they had equipment to detect such a item.
To p
Think it is about time to accept G is blind to science and does not trust those with the detection equipment he lacks.
Trusting Humpty Dumpty with still thinking Poe
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
You assert, without support, that: "for any event to take place it must be preceded by potential." If you read - and take in - the link, you will see this is not how some cosmologists see it.
I suggest you deal with this first, before going on to your beloved metaphysical speculations about mathematics.
Please note it will be important that you tell us clearly, when you speak of "potential", whether you mean this in its scientific sense or its literary sense. I always have the feeling with you that you flip-flop between different usages of terms and thereby tend to reach unsupportable conclusions.
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mario-livio/is-our-universe-the-ultim_b_2123732.html
Is Our Universe the Ultimate Free Lunch?
The inflationary model (described in my previous post, “What Did Go ‘Bang’ in the Big Bang?“) suggested an elegant solution to the puzzle of why our universe is expanding. The model relies on the fact that a region of space filled with a peculiar state called “false vacuum” experiences rapid expansion due to a repulsive gravitational force. But what happened before that? How did the universe get to that state?
Naïvely, one would expect that a universe which began from a singularity — a state of infinite matter density and infinite curvature — would collapse rather than expand, since the gravitational attraction of the matter would overwhelm the repulsive force. Before the 1980s, the prevailing views were that the universe was already expanding (albeit in a more leisurely manner) even before inflation, thus diluting matter to the point where the false vacuum started to dominate. However, this was not a satisfactory picture, since it required an unexplained expansion that existed before inflation.
We can understand the problem with a simple model of a closed, spherical universe, which is filled with vacuum energy (that generates repulsive gravity) and matter (that creates attractive gravity). Let’s examine this universe when it is momentarily at rest — neither expanding nor contracting. Cosmic evolution from there on will depend crucially on the size of the universe at that instant. According to Einstein’s General Relativity, if the cosmic radius is very small, attractive gravity will win and this universe will collapse to a point. If the radius is very large, repulsive gravity will have the upper hand, and inflation will ensue.
In classical physics, the universe could not pass from a collapsing state to an inflating one without the infusion of some energy into it (which the assumption of a pre-inflation expansion attempted to do). However, in 1982 my colleague Alex Vilenkin, a physicist at Tufts University, suddenly had a brilliant realization. In quantum mechanics — the theory of the subatomic world — even processes that are forbidden by classical physics have a certain probability of occurring. This phenomenon is known as quantum tunneling, and it is being routinely observed in radioactive decays and in solid-state physics. Because of its probabilistic nature, quantum mechanics reveals that even a universe that would have been destined to collapse in classical General Relativity could actually tunnel (albeit with a small probability) to the other side, and emerge as an inflating universe.
That is, our universe could have started out as a speck doomed to collapse to a singularity, but instead it tunneled through the energy barrier to a larger radius, initiating inflation (Figure 1). But this was not all. Vilenkin demonstrated mathematically that the probability for tunneling did not vanish even when he took the initial size of the universe to be zero. In other words, the universe could tunnel to some radius that allowed it to inflate from literally nothing!
There is something I need to explain here. “Nothing” is not the same as the vacuum. The physical vacuum, or empty space, is very rich. It has energy, and virtual particles and antiparticles continually appear and disappear in it. Einstein taught us that it can also warp and stretch. By “nothing” I mean that neither space nor time exist. Put differently, if we were to go back in time from the present, Vilenkin’s scenario demonstrated that we would reach a beginning — a point beyond which spacetime did not exist.
Two questions immediately arise: (1) What about conservation of energy? (2) Why did the universe appear at all? As it turns out, conservation of energy is not a problem. While all the mass in our universe has positive energy, the gravitational attraction has a negative energy associated with it, which precisely balances the positive one. The total energy of our universe is precisely zero, so that there is no problem with the universe materializing out of nothing. Why did the universe appear? Because the laws of physics allowed it to. In quantum mechanics, any process has a certain probability of occurring, and no cause is needed. You will notice, however, that we do have to assume that the laws of physics continue to apply even when there is nothing. I shall return to this assumption in a future post.
I do not want to leave you with the impression that Vilenkin’s scenario of spacetime tunneling from nothingness into existence is an established fact. At this point it is no more than an attractive speculation that is consistent with the laws of physics. But it addresses what is arguably the biggest question of them all: How did it all begin?
Figure 1. A schematic of the quantum tunneling from literally nothing, that may have given birth to our spacetime. Credit: Pam Jeffries.
One more thing about quantum fluctuations: mathematics is wrong here, because of the simple fact that the same can be said for electrically neutral atom-that it has no energy-but it has energy otherwise there would not be any nuclear energy-it is not created from nothing, the energy is in the field-that's one 2: quantum fluctuations are basically pairs of particle antiparticle collision-and yet we know very well that matter-antimatter collision leads to transformation to "pure" energy, not to creation of energy-basically what happens inside the electrically neutral atom similar (not the same) to when particles/anti-particles collide with each other-the energy does not come from nothing, it comes from the energy field which is still something and with energy.
And mathematical creating something from nothing is not an idiotism?
Whoever thinks that something can come from nothing, has to be really naive and not very smart.
Can you answer these for me please?
In your link with Garbage, oops sorry Gravage, are you the particle or antipartical?
Also is it possible for one to disappear and the other to remain?
Would the remaining one expand as a universe?
Or would both be required to destroy each other?
To G.
I know a blind person who went to France Paris and was given frogs legs to eat. He trusted those who served him they were legs from frogs.
When he opened a tin to serve others while he could not prove they were legs from frogs he trusted those around him who knew about such things because they had equipment to detect such a item.
To p
Think it is about time to accept G is blind to science and does not trust those with the detection equipment he lacks.
Trusting Humpty Dumpty with still thinking Poe
That's simply classic matter-antimatter/attraction collision, not a big deal, sure it will nullify but it will be transformed into enerrgy, or I should say in the energy of radiation.
First of all, singularity is not infinite it is dimensionless-what part of dimensionless don't you understand-and something that is dimensionless does not exist, plain and simple. Again you are giving more and more useless and baseless and abstract math that is wrong approach, I don't care what the math says, I care about collecting real-world evidences and after collecting them creating hypotheses that are rational, rather than irrational-mathematics when you don't have enough evidences creates simply more and more irrational BS that has nothing to do with reality.
And qwho is saying that at the singularity all the laws of physics break down-no, it does not only the mathematic equations break down, but that's not the break down of physics, it's the breakdown of mathematics, because whenever so far has been resulted in infinite values and zeroes-in the real world, it has always been proven to be wrong, so is this fictional, non-existent, dimensionless singularity.
I missed nothing, I simply have recognised the fact that you most likely have an agenda [religious] and you are contravening rules by pushing alternative nonsense in the mainstream science threads.
Needless to say as I mentioned before, what you or any other baggage laden Tom, Dick or Harry claims, means nothing in the greater scheme of things, despite the efforts you are putting into your anti science crusade, which has not been reported yet.
You are the one who is quating BS conclusions from mathematical equations-that is not science, mathematics is not science, once again, it has nothing to do with science-how much do I need to repeat myself?
We need evidences, real-world, directly observable evidences, not some calculations based on monkeys who create their own hypotheses and says mathematics is correct because it's always proven, and yet it cannot be proven in any way in any experiment-if you cannot observe directly anything-today's experiments are full of math and statistics-that's not evidence, that's self-deception/wishful thinking.
Last edited:
And everything is based on wishful thinking and self-deception, only mathematics and statistics, that have created this chaos of abstract entities that do not exist in the real universe-that's not science, that's trickery.
Again hypotheses without the real evidences, only statistical and mathematical mumbo-jumbo that can realistically never be truly proven, usage of statistics and mathematics and the lack of direct observational evidence, proves that Higgs field/boson are scientific/actually religious fan fiction/wishful thinking, and nothing more, it's ok to have these hypotheses anyone has the right to have hypotheses on their own, but none has the right to claim that he/she/they have proven the existence of any of these models, since scientists are blind, and cannot actually directly observe what exactly they observe inside all of the experiments they make.
This is why I gave examples of true, real-world indian story of blind people who thought that elephant's ear was just rough leaf-because they could not directly observe the entire elephant-the entire elephant here represents the entire objective reality, while elephant's ear only it's tiny pieace of objective reality-and that's why everything scientists think they know is 100% wrong, since they can only directly see/observe only the slightiest piece of the entire objective reality, those same scientists would claim that elephant's ear is actually a rough leaf-based on what they can actually directly observe.
Last edited:
You mean like this?
http://fisica.ciencias.uchile.cl/~gonzalo/cursos/termo_II-04/seminarios/EJP_Stenger-bigbang_90.pdf
The Universe: the ultimate free lunch:
Abstract.
It is commonly believed that the origin of the Universe must have involved the violation of natural laws, particularly energy conservation and the second law of thermodynamics. Here is it shown that this need not have been the case, that the Universe could have begun from a state of zero energy and maximum entropy, and then naturally evolved into what we see today without violating any known principles of physics. The fundamental particles and the force laws they obey then come about through a series of random symmetrybreaking phase transitions during the period of exponential expansion in the first fraction of a second after the Universe appears as a quantum fluctuation.
Again that is the conclusion in mathematics-where exactly is the real-world evidence, I'm sick and tired of unprovable, abstract hypotheses, all this is 100% wrong, because the Big bang hypothesis fails on one single test that I mentioned before so many times: expanding and existing 3d universe cannot exist in/inside non-existence that is 100% dimensionless, only inside something that already exists-everyone forget this crucial part of Big bang hypothesis, everyone; and that alone 100% proves that energy conservation is not violated, second law of thermodynamics is not violated at all, ever.
Is this the stuff which comes out from the back of my pet Duckaphant and mum kindly cleans up for me?
Humpty Dumpty dislikes cleaning up
And I see that you again fail to see how important is to say to scientists how much their model is wrong because it is based totally wrong assumptions that if the universe expands, it is expanding inside something, there is something outside the expanding universe there was something before the big bang.
But all of these hypotheses are based on mathematics not one real-world evidences, have you ever considered why you cannot find the theory of everything-because there are wrong things that cannot be united, because there are so many things that we don't know about it, as well as the fact the universe does not and cannot come and did not come from absolutely nothing.
For example space does not expand or contract, it is the trajectories of objects that bend, not the space itself, the distance between 2 points/objects is not space-it is simply the distance-space/void is something that exists everywhere between 2 objects/points and outside 2 objects, space does not contract or expand because it is the void and it is not made/created from anything that is physical, 2 objects are approaching t each other and moving away from each other-that's not space.
I know and I read those observation of support of the current model of the time-but what all scientists fail to see is the fact that things like red shift and CMBR are not absolute evidences of anything-there should also be central shockwaves from the big bang, and they have never been detected and they can never be directly detected, red shift was beaten by Arp, while CMBR has been beaten by the arguments and evidences that exploding stars, planets all give off some sort of radiation.
I just don't see this as credible and there are too many questions left, plus there are so many errors, as many as you want.
All of these "evidences" are based on mathematics, they are not based on direct observational evidence-and this is why Big Bang model cannot be called scientific hypothesis, pseudoscientific hypothesis, which is ok, unless, you claim you have the evidences to support Big bang model-but these evdiences are all abstract and mathematical-they are not real.
Some of the evidences that are mathematical are disproven by the fact that they are simply wrong and cannot exist in the real world-dimensionless singularity, universe that is created out of absolutely nothing, universe that was very small, inflation, dark matter, dark energy, Higgs boson/field-these are all hypotheses that are unporvable, and if they elements of Big bang model are unporvable and actually some of them are 100% disproven, than relying on such model is relying on absolutely wrong hypotheses that eventually leads to the collapse of the model.
Plus, Big Bang model fails in its most crucial fact that the universe did not come from nothing, but from something and if it really expands (assuming this is not some mathematical mumbo-jumbo, we cannot know this ever for sure, so this is another pure speculation based only on calculations, because we cannot directly observe expansion in any way) is expanding into something that exists and does have dimensions!
You and the rest of the forum simply ignore these facts and repeat what Big Bang religion assumes.
danshawen
Valued Senior Member
If if if the Big Bang is religion disguised as Science it is doing a bang up job.
I have not heard of any Big Bang church.
Don't know of any Big Bang ministry.
No Big Bang Sunday TV program begging for money to
Well done.
- spread the word
- save the children
- help refugees
- build water pumps for African villages
- feed the hungry.
Poe as Humpty
Humpty as Poe
Spot the difference.
Scientists, engineers, and astronomers tend to be a little sensitive to such things ever since Galileo's valid criticism of Pope Urban for being a Ptolemist landed him under house arrest, burned all of the books he had published, and restricted him teaching anything vaguely Copernican for the rest of his life.
Today, all of the graphs and charts and satellite images show that global warming is trending toward global catastrophe, yet the scientists who point this out are chastised, removed from advisory positions and subjected to undeserved discrimination because they wrote papers critical of energy policies that will hasten the pace of this environmental disaster.
So, you don't see any connection at all I take it? Scientists should not be harassed for their ideas by those not trained to do science, and certainly not by religious leadership posing as scientists. Today, there are religious diploma mills that turn out armies of folks with authentic looking scientific credentials who are nothing of the sort. Anyone who believes the entire fossil record is fake, or that we never went to the moon, or that the Earth is flat is no scientist.
This is principally the reason some real scientists believe their influence extends even to the teaching of things like the Big Bang theory, which by its nature and import on religious ideas, has some elements unaccustomed to the usual rigors of scientific inquiry. Any of paddoboy's responses to this thread demonstrate what this kind of criticism looks like.
Faith or religion is not a disqualification to doing good science, but training in scripture as though it were science, or a disposition to bring religious, if not moral, priorities to that line of work probably should be, particularly when it runs afoul of the methodology of science. We scientists never accept scripture or anything else as fact until or unless we have tested its veracity.
Last edited:
I am not exactly sceptical of global warming as such.
Looking back records of various types point to the earth getting hotter and cooler a few times.
Think the sceptics are sort of wondering how much of human activity can be sheeted to the warming.
When volcanoes erupt they put out vast amounts of bad stuff which dwarfs our output.
Also looking back a few ice ages what caused the earth to warm that time when no humans present.
Think removable of various scientist looks political.
All of the parameters need to be collated and studied which takes money, time and resources which are currently in short supply.
While I think the data being collected is better than studying the entrails of chickens and Tarot cards I am not exactly confident of the interpretation.
Imagine you have just got the latest ubeut info from 300,000 monitors world wide and extending into space.
Run through the computer and get graphs showing earth warming.
This is cutting edge science you have in your hand.
Wouldn't there be a little bit of 'I could be the first to report this and save the world'.
Look at the evidence (all perfectly legit no one has doctored or faked them), project into the future and you become Chicken Little.
Another aspect. For something to become warmer there must be an input of heat. This applies equally to your cup of tea or the earth.
Where is the extra heat coming from? The sun has not gone nova. Oh that's right CO² traps the heat.
But wouldn't that only work for a short time before the heat radiated out from earth re balances?
I don't really see scientist being
scared-e-cats.
And I don't see them having the format of a religion as I have outlined.
One aspect of The Church of The Test Tube and of the Petri Dish and of The Cyclotron is you don't see scientist denouncing the Pope's belief in god.
When god believers think they are scientists all bets and gloves are off.
Might even see a classic dual with evidence at 10 paces.
Humpty Dumpty bed now
Made it
Lie in it
Poe already sleeping
ZzzzChicken Little looking for her tin foil hat.
Don't understand the post.
Doubtful if will understand the article.
If "The Big Bang - Religion disguised as science?" is the question my answer is no.
If I thought the original person who started the thread was Machiavellian my answer would still be no.
But I would take closer look at following post (I have)
Seems the turn of the thread tries to quote the science of Big Bang and shoehorn in religion 'thought of it first'.
Hey may be we do have a Machiavellian practitioner in our mist.
Should the thread be renamed 'The Big Bang - Religion trying to steal it from Science?' ?
My answer then would be yes.
Humpty just saying.
Poe just saw another Duckaphant walk by.
You are 100% wrong.
The answer is yes Big bang is religion, but religion based on mathematics and statistics and not by the real evidence, electric universe model at least has real-world evidences that can be tested, Big Bang cannot, and if some model cannot be tested, it should be abandoned forever.
In science Mathematics is equal to what God is for religion-that's not science, it is faith in both mathematics and statsitics that they can solve everything, and yet the evidences they represent are not testable in a real world-they are all abstract, mathematical, statistical, but you cannot directly observe anything to directly prove or to directly disprove the Big Bang model, which is why the model is not scientific one, but religious.
As you can see here from your own links, these are all both mathematical and statistical pseudo-evidences, there are not real and direct observational evidences, just pure statistics and mathematics.
Plus:
Statistics used as weapon:
http://electric-cosmos.org/Bayes.pdf
And instead of just accusing all other people that they are cranks including Halton Arp, you should listen to his lectures, instead of critisizing:
Scientists should be harrased even by those who are not trained to do a science for their ideas when they claim that their ideas are proved, and yet go there and see they are not proven in any way, they are mathematically and statistically proven (or disproven for that matter), and when you say mathematically and statistically proven/disproven this is not science it's pseudo-evidence-even people who are not trained science can see these major and key differences.
Plus, even people who are trained can see the holes in the models if you explain them scientific models thorougly.
Because science is all about speculation, scientists can be harassed for their ideas by even those who are not trained in science because science today is mostly mathematics and statistics-that is not science, science is all about real-world evidences and real-world facts (not some matehamatical and statistical mumbo-jumbo) and everyone can understand what is not correct and what is correct, if you explain them enough.
This is why I can understand those who claim that global warming is not real, personally in my area nothing has changed that would prove that gw has shown its effects, as long as we can have winter in winter, I don't see this a big deal, and all data that is shown is pure exaggeration, because sure there is some warming but not the warming that would cause so much panic, besides today warm, tomorrow cold, you never when will global warming become global cooling, the problem is there are too many statistical BS, and less real data to create any conclusions about any hypothesis.
If you cannot know for sure what kind of weather you can expect tomorow, how exactly can you say that this is going to be exactly like scientists say that it is going to be-wrong approach, because you cannot predict anything what is going to be in the next 100 years.
Well at least someone did say it, although most I'm sure recognise that fact.
No, I'm actually a 100% correct, and more to the point is yourself running a baggage laden crusade.Maths is the language of physics, that which you appear so ignorant in.
People like you who are competent only in lengthy bluster and unsupported nonsense, are able to post whatever claims they like on forums such as this, as is any other Tom, Dick, and Harry: A pity as I said before, that your nonsense is destined to die in oblivion along with the Electric/Plasam universe hypothetical.
You now appear delusional as well as being a conspiracy monger...I mean do you really believe you are harassing anybody? Stroking your own religiously biased ego perhaps, is all that you are doing.Science continues as per normal, unaware of the nonsense that you and other cranks and quacks periodically litter forums such as this with.
The above highlighted by me to illustrate the depths and lengths that stupidity and religious agenda and bias can affect someone.
Sad.The evidence is here in this thread regarding yourself and the seemingly evangelistic crusade you are now conducting to protect the religiously inspired myth that governs your life.
I'll let your peers and mine on this forum judge as to your crank nature.
Like I said, and as illustrated in my reputable links, Arp died a loser, after his interpretations were invalidated many times.
ps: Despite your blustering banter and rhetoric, the last time I looked, [yesterday], the BB still is accepted as the overwhelming evidenced based model for the evolution of spaetime/Universe.
Last edited:
- Status