Common misconceptions about the big bang

[linwood]

Yes, but those photons going to the blackhole we wouldn't have seen anyway... It is the photons coming towards us, that we can notice.. Either by reflection wich as you state doesn't happen.. But direct emmision in our direction is a whole different story, vector wise, yes?

The light emitted by a black hole reacts the same as anything else within it`s event horizon.

It is trapped, it may have begun to come toward us but was unable because of the gravitational pull.

So we can`t see them either.

I do believe a it is theorized some light might escape and we may be able to see a "corona" but I don`t know about that.

 

[TranceAm]

The light emitted by a black hole reacts the same as anything else within it`s event horizon.

It is trapped, it may have begun to come toward us but was unable because of the gravitational pull.

Whoho.. Wait a minute, there is a slight difference from a sideways gravitational pull that "bends" Light, and a complete 180 degree change of direction towards the source of gravity.

Remember we are still in this context:
"Just because something has 0 mass does not mean it cannot be affected by a gravitational field. It just means the amount of force applied to the particle with 0 mass is 0."

Now, for the light to be pulled back.. There has to be more force then 0......

 

[linwood]

Ok so bear with me.

It`s my understanding that gravity has affect on the velocity of light(photons) not its mass (if any).

So I don`t really think it matters considering the speed of light is a constant and it`s velocity is attained immediately it would be pulled back to the singularity the instant it began to leave .

In essence it never really got started.

Now, for the light to be pulled back.. There has to be more force then 0......

Hmm..I dunno.
I`m the ignorant one here remember?

 

[TranceAm]

Ok so bear with me.

>It`s my understanding that gravity has affect on the velocity of light(photons) not its mass (if any).

>So I don`t really think it matters considering the speed of light is a constant and it`s velocity is attained immediately it would be pulled back to the singularity the instant it began to leave .

So what generates a photon?
And what is the katalyst for a Photon to be generated?
Are these particles and katalysts present in a blackhole with very dense mass that is collapsed onto itself?

>In essence it never really got started.

>Hmm..I dunno.
>I`m the ignorant one here remember?

Me neither, that is why I ask ignorant questions.
And you are teaching me.

 

[linwood]

So what generates a photon?
And what is the katalyst for a Photon to be generated?

There are many different ways to produce photons, but all of them use the same mechanism inside an atom to do it. This mechanism involves the energizing of electrons orbiting each atom's nucleus. How Nuclear Radiation Works describes protons, neutrons and electrons in some detail. For example, hydrogen atoms have one electron orbiting the nucleus. Helium atoms have two electrons orbiting the nucleus. Aluminum atoms have 13 electrons orbiting the nucleus. Each atom has a preferred number of electrons orbiting its nucleus.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/light4.htm

[/quote]

Are these particles and katalysts present in a blackhole with very dense mass that is collapsed onto itself?

Due to the very nature of a black hole I don`t think we can know exactly what is present within one unless and until we are lucky enough to watch one being formed by the contraction of a start upon itself.

I suppose we can assume the properties that are present in a star are present in a black hole.

I just don`t think we`ll ever convince anyone to go gather this info.

 

[Nick Soapdish]

Whoho.. Wait a minute, there is a slight difference from a sideways gravitational pull that "bends" Light, and a complete 180 degree change of direction towards the source of gravity.

It is an interesting hypothesis. However, I do not think it would be possible for a photon to be emitted in a way that it would not be swayed one way or another. For any given atom, the direction of the emission would have to be exactly opposite the center of the gravitational pull. But even then, there are slight gravitational pulls from the rest of the Universe that will gently tug it one way or the other ... just enough to swing it back around.

 

[oracle]

Linwood,

This has been an entertaining discussion. I will concede that just because something does not exist in our models of the Universe does not imply that it can't exist in the real Universe. I think we have agreed to this all along.

Our point of disagreement is instead more specific, and that is whether space goes on and on forever. I suppose I could try and summarize the difference by stating that you believe space is fundamental, and objects can only exist because they have a space to live in. My perspective is that objects are fundamental, and that space is created when one or more objects exists.

I think space and matter have to be born at the same time, they are inseperable.

 

[oracle]

I wouldn't make a distinction about whether light is accelerated or decelerated. Assuming light continues through the same substrate, it will always have the same velocity. When we say it accelerates, it is really turning direction.

The Event Horizon has to do with escape velocity. If the speed of light is not a sufficient escape velocity, photons will swing back into the black hole (or orbit it very closely).

Perhaps Light is not de-accelerated, it just takes the shortest path on the spacetime distortion. In the case that it gets sucked in a black hole, it will shoot out on the other side as subatomic particles. That is why I suggest a "phantom universe". I would have to show a diagram of what I mean. A black hole compresses, and you don't know where the heck it goes. Simply put, everything goes on an opposite side. What I am suggesting is that in order for a force to exist, there must be an anti-force that exists simultaneously at the same time, that is why we have antimatter and matter and why they never collide into each other. So to me, a black hole is gravitation shifting into anti-gravitation, pulling in spacetime. It simply shifts, like a spinning top were to suddenly spin from its upright axis, and shift to the exact opposite possition. It's like the negatives of a film, and all of a sudden we are seeing the opposite side, the negatives.

I think that this is what the "great attractor" is and why the universe is spongy/stringy in structure, because that is the cause of a macroscopic gravitation called spacetime, and spacetime and gravity has a "mass" of it's, not literally mass, but a pull created by a singularity. What we have is a collapse, and that is why our local cluster is being pulled toward the great attractor with an accleration in time. I think ultimately the cosmic background radiation can tell us how the universe is structured. Since the radiation is everywhere, that means the bang is everywhere. Perhaps the "great attractor" is the pull to another side, the "big crunch". You get a collapse everywhere of glaxy clusters, which causes the universe to look spongy with large space pockets. When the bang happened, you get the exact opposite where there are no large amounts of these pockets. So to me, it looks like it's shifting, and the big bang is what we are being pulled into. I'm not sure, but I would have to look more into this, after all this is just my hypothesis.

If you notice, the cosmic background radiation looks just like a map of Earth's magnetic poles when there is a great shifting. When north and south pole shift, you get massive fluctations when it begins that reversal. When this occurs, north and south pole changes simultaneously everywhere, and during this time, compasses will be obsolete.

In the background radiation, you see some minute fluctuation occuring. I think this is a big clue to how the universe is structured. To me, it would be like a massive fluctuation or shifting of spacetime that occures everywhere simultaneously, which causes a mirage in the expansion and compression of spacetime. Also from what I think, when a big crunch occures, it will cause things to "accelerate", not "de-accelerate".

 

[oracle]

This page basically shows what 4-dimensions look like. We can't actually see in 4-dimensional space, we can only see shadows. This is basically what spacetime is like.

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.gg.caltech.edu/~dhl/images/BGtori.jpg&imgrefurl=http://emsh.calarts.edu/~mathart/sw/HyperCosta/HyperCosta.html&h=512&w=640&sz=22&tbnid=VePwK_M9LYgJ:&tbnh=108&tbnw=135&start=2&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dhypersphere%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D

 

[Nick Soapdish]

I understand. However, For a photon to be swayed one way or another is only valid, if you see a photon as a 3d "particle" moving in a 2d diagram.

I can't help but seeing a photon as a (And this is hard to explain, so bare with me.)
in a globeform extending wave form from the center where the photon was generated.
Like gravity is "emitted" from the gravity source.

Am I wrong seeing it as a 3d event? And if it is a 3d event, then there should be part of the photon wave directly going out of the black hole's hole. (IF there is any light emitted in a black hole.)

I'm not sure what "globeform extending wave form" is. Anyway, you may be familiar with quantum physics. You can only know what the photon's position or the photon's energy level, but not both at the same time. If we are concerned with the direction of the photon, we must regard it as a particle (position), and not a wave form (energy).

If we view the atom from which the photon emerges as a sphere, then there must be some point along the surface of that sphere from which the photon is released. Furthermore, there must be a single specific point on that sphere that represents the direction to the center mass of the black hole. Those two points must be directly opposite in your proposition.

I hope that addresses your points.

Further, I don't think that the slight gravitational forces from outside the blackhole have any influence until the light would have left the intense high gravity of the black hole?
Or is there a contradiction in this thought? (Afterall this would mean, that gravity from external sources can influenze what goes on INSIDE a black hole and thus overide its own gigantic gravity.)

Certainly the gravitational pull of outside gravitational fields would pale in comparison to the massive field projected by the black hole, however, the photon would still be affected by them.

 

[TranceAm]

I'm not sure what "globeform extending wave form" is. Anyway, you may be familiar with quantum physics. You can only know what the photon's position or the photon's energy level, but not both at the same time. If we are concerned with the direction of the photon, we must regard it as a particle (position), and not a wave form (energy).

Agree.. But its position is all positions on a expanding sphere (That's the word I needed.) with as center the point where it originated.

>If we view the atom from which the photon emerges as a sphere, then there must be some point along the surface of that sphere from which the photon is released. Furthermore, there must be a single specific point on that sphere that represents the direction to the center mass of the black hole. Those two points must be directly opposite in your proposition.

>I hope that addresses your points.

Yes, but you don't address when exactly that condition is met.

>Certainly the gravitational pull of outside gravitational fields would pale in comparison to the massive field projected by the black hole, however, the photon would still be affected by them.

1 Is this another example where infinite (In small force.) is valid, instead of dissed because it ain't noticable? Can science make up their mind?
2 So we can influenze what goes on IN a black hole?

 

[Nick Soapdish]

Yes, but you don't address when exactly that condition is met.

I had proposed that this condition could not be met because other gravitational influences would bend the photon, regardless which direction it originally emerged, to the point where it would be spun back into the black hole.

1 Is this another example where infinite (In small force.) is valid, instead of dissed because it ain't noticable? Can science make up their mind?
2 So we can influenze what goes on IN a black hole?

The acceleration on the photon by the black hole would not be infinite, it would be finite (even if the density of the black hole were considered to be infinite).

Think of it this way. When you shine a flashlight here on Earth, you do not see the light from the flashlight bending towards the Earth. However, it is bending, its just the amount of the bend is so incredibly small it is not detectible. That is because it only takes 0.00000001 seconds for that light to travel 10 feet, and during that time the light would only drop 0.0000000000000001 feet due to the Earth's gravity.

 

[linwood]

The Particle is God

No one has ever seen God.
No one has ever seen The Particle.

God is infinite.
The Particle is infinite.

God created the universe.
The Particle created the universe.

God surrounds us.
The effects of The Particle surround us.

God dictates the movements of the universe.
The Particle dictated the movements of the universe.

God is accepted on faith
The Particle is accepted on faith.

The properties of God are accepted on faith
The properties of The Particle are accepted on faith

The priests of God tell me not to ask questions.
The priests of The Particle tell me not to ask questions.

I am ridiculed and pitied for doubting God.
I am ridiculed and pitied for doubting The Particle.

God did it!!
The Particle did it!!

The word of God requires special knowledge to comprehend.
The word of The Particle requires special knowledge to comprehend.

Nothing existed prior to God
Nothing existed prior to The Particle.

God contradicts himself.
The Particle contradicts itself.

God sacrificed himself for us.
The Particle sacrificed itself in order for us to exist.

Challenging the validity of a property of God often brings impossible, twisted, or incomprehensible excuses in a tone that rings of arrogance.
Challenging the validity of a property of The Particle often brings impossible, twisted, or incomprehensible excuses in a tone that rings of arrogance.

Followers of God will twist natural law to enable God to exist.
Followers of The Particle will twist natural law to enable The Particle to have existed.

People have been persecuted for providing evidence against the necessity for God.
People have been persecuted for providing evidence against the necessity for The Particle.

Open your heart and God will come to you.
Open your mind and The Particle will come to you.

God is not constrained by natural law
The Particle is not constrained by natural law.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Ugh, I posted a big long reply, but it got lost somewhere in the expanse of cyberspace. :banghead3

Oh well....I'll make this brief. *Loud sigh of relief from everyone*

No one has ever seen God.
No one has ever seen The Particle.

Nor has anyone seen photons, or life on another planet. What does this say about their existence? Nothing.

God is infinite.
The Particle is infinite.

Just not eternal. In any case, space is infinite. What does this say about its existence? Nothing.

God created the universe.
The Particle created the universe.

Was there a point behind this unwarranted anthropomorphisization?

God surrounds us.
The effects of The Particle surround us.

The effects of gravity surround us. The effects of electromagnetism surround us.

God dictates the movements of the universe.
The Particle dictated the movements of the universe.

That's like saying a cloud "dictates" the falling of rain. This is more unwarranted anthropomorphisization.

God is accepted on faith
The Particle is accepted on faith.

The properties of God are accepted on faith
The properties of The Particle are accepted on faith

Define "faith".

The priests of God tell me not to ask questions.
The priests of The Particle tell me not to ask questions.

I am ridiculed and pitied for doubting God.
I am ridiculed and pitied for doubting The Particle.

God did it!!
The Particle did it!!

The actions of those who support a theory have nothing to do with whether or not the theory is scientific (or true, for that matter). Perhaps the first step toward ending what you perceive to be pity and ridicule is to avoid this kind of veiled ad hominem and actually say something substantive.

The word of God requires special knowledge to comprehend.
The word of The Particle requires special knowledge to comprehend.

Yes, astrophysics does require special knowledge to comprehend, as does algebra. It is important to make a distinction, of course, between the "special knowledge" gained from education and that gained from divine Revelation.

Nothing existed prior to God
Nothing existed prior to The Particle.

I have difficulty imagining any explanation for the origins of the universe--other than an infinite chain of events--that does not stipulate something to which nothing existed prior.

God contradicts himself.
The Particle contradicts itself.

Our description of light contradicts itself, but that does not make it inaccurate.

God sacrificed himself for us.
The Particle sacrificed itself in order for us to exist.

More unwarranted anthropomorphisization.

Challenging the validity of a property of God often brings impossible, twisted, or incomprehensible excuses in a tone that rings of arrogance.
Challenging the validity of a property of The Particle often brings impossible, twisted, or incomprehensible excuses in a tone that rings of arrogance.

People have been persecuted for providing evidence against the necessity for God.
People have been persecuted for providing evidence against the necessity for The Particle.

Poorly veiled ad hominem.

Followers of God will twist natural law to enable God to exist.
Followers of The Particle will twist natural law to enable The Particle to have existed.

Actually, I'm not sure the first statement is accurate, much less relevant.

Open your heart and God will come to you.
Open your mind and The Particle will come to you.

God is not constrained by natural law
The Particle is not constrained by natural law.

Self-serving dribble.

What are you trying to say here, linwood--that an infininitely dense universe is not certain, that it is not reasonable, that it is not scientific, and/or that it is not true?

 

[linwood]

Nor has anyone seen photons, or life on another planet. What does this say about their existence? Nothing.

Exactly, you state The Particle exists with no basis for that statement.

The effects of gravity surround us. The effects of electromagnetism surround us.

Yes and those effects can be and are often measured.
Has anyone measured an infinately dense particle or anything infinately dense for that matter"

Define "faith".

I`m sorry, I meant "Blind Faith or "Revealed Faith".

The actions of those who support a theory have nothing to do with whether or not the theory is scientific (or true, for that matter). Perhaps the first step toward ending what you perceive to be pity and ridicule is to avoid this kind of veiled ad hominem and actually say something substantive.

I have been giving substantive ideas and no one has yet to provide anymore evidence for The Particle than a theist can for God.
I notice you fail to address anything I`ve put forth in this thread with anything other than ad hominum and obfuscation yourself.
I do apologise for the ad hominum on The Particle.
:biglaugh:
However you yourself are guilty of ridiculing without support for your assertions.
In this thread even.

It is important to make a distinction, of course, between the "special knowledge" gained from education and that gained from divine Revelation.

Yes, I know.
I also know of no astrophysisist who has any actual knowledge of The Particle.
Stating it`s existnece as evidence of anything is indeed either ..
1.Revealed faith
2.Intentional misdirection
3.Screwy terminolgy.
I prefer to believe it`s #3 for the scientists themselves.
I believe it`s # 1 for many who misunderstand their models.

I have difficulty imagining any explanation for the origins of the universe--other than an infinite chain of events--that does not stipulate something to which nothing existed prior.

I have trouble thinking of it any other way myself.
Tell me, where is the evidence The Particle was the beginning of this "infinite chain of events"?

Our description of light contradicts itself, but that does not make it inaccurate.

No it doesn`t but you can see and manipulate light so we already have empiraical evidence of it`s existence.

Poorly veiled ad hominem.

I would suggest you look up the definition of ad hominem then tell me who I am discrediting.
Insulting The Particle does not qualify as ad hominem and I take it back..I`m not sorry.

Actually, I'm not sure the first statement is accurate, much less relevant.

You`ve got to be kidding me.

Was there a point behind this unwarranted anthropomorphisization?

yes there is.
The point is that i`m not the one guilty of anthropomorphisization.
(I had to look that up by the way thanks for the education)
I am not the one who has given The particle these characteristics.
I`m just making note of them.
I would love it if you could actually supply evidence that they are "Unwarranted" instead of just making a claim with no support for that claim.

Self-serving dribble.

Perhaps but continuing to use ad hominem to argue against my point is not supporting your position.
It does nothing for your position.
Supplying supporting evidence or conceding The Particle is fantastical extrapolation would serve you better.

What are you trying to say here, linwood--that an infininitely dense universe is not certain, that it is not reasonable, that it is not scientific, and/or that it is not true?

I am trying to say that it is just as possible that and infintely fat Leprechaun exploded and began the expansion of our universe as it is this infinately dense Particle did so.

So far you haven`t given me any reason to think otherwise.

What I`m saying is that when you get right down to it you have no more reason to believe in The particle than you do to believe in God yet you don`t believe in God but have faith in The Particle.

Odd that.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Exactly, you state The Particle exists with no basis for that statement.

No, the following is what I state: since we know the universe has been expanding for 14 billion years minus 3 minutes, it seems reasonable to assume that it was expanding 3 minutes before that as well. IF this assumption is correct, it would seem that the infinite volume of the universe was, at one point in its history, infinitely dense.

Notice the contrast between what I state, and what you state I state.

Yes and those effects can be and are often measured.
Has anyone measured an infinately dense particle or anything infinately dense for that matter"

Yes, it it possible to take measurements of black holes which give the mass, and to express their volumes as the limit as V approaches zero, which means the density is infinite (Density = Mass/Volume, and any number divided by an infitesimally small number becomes infinite).

I`m sorry, I meant "Blind Faith or "Revealed Faith".

It's neither, it's inductive reasoning. I'll explain below.

I have been giving substantive ideas and no one has yet to provide anymore evidence for The Particle than a theist can for God.

Well, there is evidence, the question is how reliable is it? For example, let's say we see a rock falling from the sky. We know from Newton's laws that the reason the rock is falling is because of the Earth's gravity. Now, unless some unknown force(s) acted upon the rock 3 seconds ago, we also know that the rock was falling 3 seconds ago and it's height was greater than the height at which we first observed it. Obviously we don't know whether or not unknown forces were acting on the rock 3 seconds ago (if we knew about them, they wouldn't be "unknown"). However, acknowledging that our knowledge is limited should not stop us from coming up with the best explanation possible, and since we have no evidence of any force other than gravity acting upon the rock, it seems reasonable to assume that the rock was falling 3 seconds ago.

The only way the rock could have not been falling 3 seconds ago is if some other force had been acting on it to counteract the force of gravity, so if someone were to claim that the rock was not falling 3 seconds ago I would ask that person "What force do you propose counteracted the force of gravity, and what evidence do you have for the existence of such a force?" Perhaps that person could then point to a plane, and note that according to calculation, 3 seconds ago the plane and the rock occupied the same position....so maybe the rock was dropped from the plane. In that case, the force counteracting gravity 3 seconds ago would have been the force exerted upward by the pilot's hand just before he released the rock.

However, if that person could not point to any plane or any other evidence of other force(s) to counteract gravity, I would conclude that the rock (to the best of my knowledge) was falling 3 seconds ago, and occupied a height greater than that at which I observed the rock initially.

Getting back to the business of the big bang: what you appear to be doing is the same as the person who claims the rock was not falling 3 seconds ago. When you, linwood, agree that the universe has been expanding for 14 billion years minus 3 minutes, but disagree that the universe has been expanding for 14 billion years, you are proposing the prior existence (and inexplicable disappearance) of some force(s) which counteracted the the expansion of the universe. The question, then, is what was this force, and what evidence do you have to support its existence?

I notice you fail to address anything I`ve put forth in this thread with anything other than ad hominum and obfuscation yourself.

Please quote the ad hominem.

I do apologise for the ad hominum on The Particle.
:biglaugh:
However you yourself are guilty of ridiculing without support for your assertions.
In this thread even.

Some comments warrant ridicule...like ones about how scientists can't possibly find the mass of black holes.

Yes, I know.
I also know of no astrophysisist who has any actual knowledge of The Particle.

And I know of no one who has any "actual knowledge" of the collision which (theoretically) formed Earth's moon. But that doesn't mean that it isn't a good theory.

I have trouble thinking of it any other way myself.

In other words, your comparing the theoretical infinite density of the ancient universe to the infinity of God was meaningless.

Tell me, where is the evidence The Particle was the beginning of this "infinite chain of events"?

To answer this question I would have to have an education in physics far beyond the conservation laws of energy and momentum, which were the subjects of an exam I took just this evening (and on which, I fear, I did rather poorly ).

No it doesn`t but you can see and manipulate light so we already have empiraical evidence of it`s existence.

No, we can only see visible light. Even when you look a picture taken by X-Ray, you are not seeing X-Rays. That's the beauty of science....we can "figure out" even those things that are not accessible to us via our senses. At any rate, you appear to concede that contradictory things can accurately describe reality.

I would suggest you look up the definition of ad hominem then tell me who I am discrediting.

According to dictionary.com, "The phrase now chiefly describes an argument based on the failings of an adversary rather than on the merits of the case" These statements...

Challenging the validity of a property of God often brings impossible, twisted, or incomprehensible excuses in a tone that rings of arrogance.
Challenging the validity of a property of The Particle often brings impossible, twisted, or incomprehensible excuses in a tone that rings of arrogance.

People have been persecuted for providing evidence against the necessity for God.
People have been persecuted for providing evidence against the necessity for The Particle.

...do not address the claim but failures of those who support the claim. I called it poorly veiled ad hominem, and I stand by that.

yes there is.
The point is that i`m not the one guilty of anthropomorphisization.
(I had to look that up by the way thanks for the education)
I am not the one who has given The particle these characteristics.
I`m just making note of them.
I would love it if you could actually supply evidence that they are "Unwarranted" instead of just making a claim with no support for that claim.

Please quote those who claim that a Particle "created" or "dictated" anything, or that it "sacrificed itself" for our existence.

Perhaps but continuing to use ad hominem to argue against my point is not supporting your position.
It does nothing for your position.
Supplying supporting evidence or conceding The Particle is fantastical extrapolation would serve you better.

It was not ad hominem. I didn't call you self-serving dribble, I called your comments self-serving dribble. You know I think better of you than that.

I am trying to say that it is just as possible that and infintely fat Leprechaun exploded and began the expansion of our universe as it is this infinately dense Particle did so.

We have evidence of space expanding, and we have evidence of the rock falling....got any evidence for this Leprechaun of yours?

So far you haven`t given me any reason to think otherwise.

What I`m saying is that when you get right down to it you have no more reason to believe in The particle than you do to believe in God yet you don`t believe in God but have faith in The Particle.

Odd that.

Please answer the question. I'll color code it for clarity, as it is important to distinguish between the terms I'm using here: are you trying to say that an infininitely dense universe is not certain, that it is not reasonable, that it is not scientific, that it is not true, or a combination of these?

 

[linwood]

No, the following is what I state: since we know the universe has been expanding for 14 billion years minus 3 minutes, it seems reasonable to assume that it was expanding 3 minutes before that as well. IF this assumption is correct, it would seem that the infinite volume of the universe was, at one point in its history, infinitely dense.

Why?
Why is it not reasonable to suggest that the matter of the universe began expanding from a "highly" dense state?
Why must it be "dense" at all why couldn`t all of this mass been positioned in one part of space before expansion began in it`s current volume?
Where does this "Infinate" claim come from?
Why must The Particle be infinitesimal in size?
Why must it be infinite in density?
These two claims would appear to contradict each other.
You`re aslo assuming the exact historical rate of expansion has been calculated perfectly.
Thats highly improbable.

Notice the contrast between what I state, and what you state I state.

I don`t see a contrast.
You still haven`t provided evidence for The Particle`s existence let alone it`s properties of infinite density and infinitesimal size.
All you seem to have supported is my claim that The Particle is "fantastical extrapolation".

Yes, it it possible to take measurements of black holes which give the mass, and to express their volumes as the limit as V approaches zero, which means the density is infinite (Density = Mass/Volume, and any number divided by an infitesimally small number becomes infinite).

The above is evidence of my claim that you obfuscate and mislead.
Black holes aren`t infinately dense.
Extremely dense..yes.
Infinitely dense ..no
Their mathematical models may show them to be so but the reality is that they have not been calculated to infiniate density.
If can show me the documentation to support the infinite density of a black hole I`ll concede the entire argument.

However, acknowledging that our knowledge is limited should not stop us from coming up with the best explanation possible, and since we have no evidence of any force other than gravity acting upon the rock, it seems reasonable to assume that the rock was falling 3 seconds ago.
.......
However, if that person could not point to any plane or any other evidence of other force(s) to counteract gravity, I would conclude that the rock (to the best of my knowledge) was falling 3 seconds ago, and occupied a height greater than that at which I observed the rock initially.

I agree with that but when all you are extrapolating about that rocks prior 3 seconds is that it was probably falling for that time.
What you extrapolate for the first 3 seconds of universal expansion should be that it was expanding for those three seconds.
However you do more than that.
You presume not only the 3 second expansion but also an infinitesimal particle and an infinately dense particle.
How does the knowledge we have provide support for these last two phenomena?

Getting back to the business of the big bang: what you appear to be doing is the same as the person who claims the rock was not falling 3 seconds ago.

No, this is misleading.
What I am doing is simply stating that there is no reason to believe that rock was dropped by a infinitesally small flying Leprechaun.

continued

 

[linwood]

you are proposing the prior existence (and inexplicable disappearance) of some force(s) which counteracted the the expansion of the universe.

Please explain how I am doing this?
I don`t see it.
I haven`t disagreed that the universe could have been expanding for any time before 14 billion years ago..not once.
I don`t see why the expansion of the universe for that time period is evidence of The Particle and you still haven`t given me any.
You`re doing an excellent job of avoiding the point though..I`ll give you that.

The question, then, is what was this force, and what evidence do you have to support its existence?

The answer would be "I don`t know" and my lack of evidence is evidence for my conclusion but I fail to see how I`ve proposed the prior existence of anything.
Please clarify.

Some comments warrant ridicule...like ones about how scientists can't possibly find the mass of black holes.

I`ve made no such comments.
I`ve stated that they have not found their mass to be infinite.
Please provide evidence that they have.
You attempt to put words in my mouth to dispell my argument.
I will state agin that you would be better served by providing evidence for The Particle or concededing it is fantastical extrapolation.

You`ve done neither .

And I know of no one who has any "actual knowledge" of the collision which (theoretically) formed Earth's moon. But that doesn't mean that it isn't a good theory.

Good theories have evidence to support them.
What evidence is there of the existence of The Particle.
All you`ve given me here is matter expansion and the proposed age of that expansion.
Nothing you`ve stated gives any support to an infinitely dense particle.

In other words, your comparing the theoretical infinite density of the ancient universe to the infinity of God was meaningless.

Agian you seek to obfuscate and mislead by putting words in my mouth.
I`d almost prefer you stick to ad hominum.
My agreement to your previous statement ..

I have difficulty imagining any explanation for the origins of the universe--other than an infinite chain of events--that does not stipulate something to which nothing existed prior.

In no way adds credence to your assertion of The Particle or negates my comparison of it to a deity.
In fact the way you`ve avoided the one single question in order to harmonize numerous other parts of the Big Bang theory (That I don`t disagree with) may be a talent you learned in the Biblical debates forum by watching the fundies expertise.

Tell me, where is the evidence The Particle was the beginning of this "infinite chain of events"?

To answer this question I would have to have an education in physics far beyond the conservation laws of energy and momentum, which were the subjects of an exam I took just this evening (and on which, I fear, I did rather poorly

So you can`t answer the only question I`ve really asked about the Big Bang yet you wish to ridicule my questioning of it in the first place.
Thats so familiar, where have I seen that before?
Oh yes..religion!!
Thats where I`ve seen that before.

Spinks, we both know you`re smarter that that.
If there was evidence of The Paricle you would have seen it or you would be able to point me to it at the very least.
We also both know the concept of The Particle was founded on mathmatical theory that is still being tested and confirmed.

No, we can only see visible light. Even when you look a picture taken by X-Ray, you are not seeing X-Rays. That's the beauty of science....we can "figure out" even those things that are not accessible to us via our senses. At any rate, you appear to concede that contradictory things can accurately describe reality.

Yes when those contradictory things have some verifiable evidence to support them.
The Particle has none.
X-Rays have support, The Particle does not

We have evidence of space expanding, and we have evidence of the rock falling....got any evidence for this Leprechaun of yours?

Yep, the expansion of the universe and the fact that the rock was probably falling 3 seconds before it was observed.
It`s every bit as good as yours
That was the point.
The fact that the universe is expanding is not evidence of an infinitely dense particle.
It`s not evidence of an infinitesimal particle.
It is however convincing evidence that.."The Universe is Expanding and probably has been for a long time."
I`ll give it that, it supports no theory of a beginning of that expansion like The Particle.

Please answer the question. I'll color code it for clarity, as it is important to distinguish between the terms I'm using here: are you trying to say that an infininitely dense universe is not certain, that it is notreasonable, that it is not scientific, that it is not true, or a combination of these?

Yes to a point.
I`m not stating that it is not true simply because I cannot know if it is true or not.
No one can, however if evidence could be obtained to show it even possibly was then I would concede its probabilty
I am stating that I have no idea why science states that it is true when they have no evidence to support it.
Nor am I stating it is unscientific simply because it`s presumpton seems to be necessary to explore this particular theory of the beginning.
I am stating that it is not reasonable because there is no evidence of anything ever existing that compares to its properties nor any need to invent unobserved properties without basis.
The Big Bang could very well be "true" without The Particle and at least to an extent probably is.
It is most definately not certain.

You should read this thread Spinks we`ve been over all of this.

So for my 10 cent question yet again.
Do you have any evidence of The Particles existence?

I`ll throw a second question in for free just because I want your earlier statement clarified.
Has any black hole been evidenced to have infinate density?

I`ll have you know Spinks I`m up to about $6.50 in this thread alone.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

No, the following is what I state: since we know the universe has been expanding for 14 billion years minus 3 minutes, it seems reasonable to assume that it was expanding 3 minutes before that as well. IF this assumption is correct, it would seem that the infinite volume of the universe was, at one point in its history, infinitely dense.

Why?
Why is it not reasonable to suggest that the matter of the universe began expanding from a "highly" dense state?

It's not unreasonable to suggest that, but it would be unreasonable to suggest that and not give any support for it, and then assert that better-supported explanations are equivalent to positing God's existence. The math implies that, unless some unknown force(s) acted on the universe during those first 3 minutes (it was during this time that the universe was so dense no light escaped that we can detect now), the universe was infinitely dense about 14 billion years ago. If you believe the math is wrong, bring out the evidence for the aforementioned force(s).

Why must it be "dense" at all why couldn`t all of this mass been positioned in one part of space before expansion began in it`s current volume?

I'm not sure what you're asking. Space is isotropic, with galaxy clusters in all directions. There is no "one part of space" that is dramatically different from all other parts of space.

Where does this "Infinate" claim come from?

It comes from calculation, as does the claim that the rock was 45m higher 3 seconds ago.

Why must The Particle be infinitesimal in size?
Why must it be infinite in density?
These two claims would appear to contradict each other.

Density = Mass/Volume. If the volume is the limit of a number that approaches zero (infitesimally small), then the Density is infinite. Please explain how this is a contradiction.

You`re aslo assuming the exact historical rate of expansion has been calculated perfectly.
Thats highly improbable.

It's highly improbable that "the exact historical rate of expansion has been calculate perfectly," yes. It is not high improbable, however, that the historical expansion has been calculated to a good approximation. In any case, the rate of expansion only tells us how long ago the distance between galaxies was zero--not whether or not the distance was ever zero...so this really isn't relevant to our discussion.

Notice the contrast between what I state, and what you state I state.

I don`t see a contrast.

Look again.

you state The Particle exists with no basis for that statement.

No, the following is what I state: since we know the universe has been expanding for 14 billion years minus 3 minutes, it seems reasonable to assume that it was expanding 3 minutes before that as well. IF this assumption is correct, it would seem that the infinite volume of the universe was, at one point in its history, infinitely dense.

You still haven`t provided evidence for The Particle`s existence let alone it`s properties of infinite density and infinitesimal size.
All you seem to have supported is my claim that The Particle is "fantastical extrapolation".

Without going into details about cepheid variables and type 1A supernovae, we can use observations of them to calculate the relative speeds of the galaxies, the current distances between galaxies, and the acceleration of the expansion of the universe. These observations are evidence. This information can be used to calculate the distances between galaxies at any point in time in the past. When astrophysicists plug in the numbers, they get distance between galaxies = 0 at t = about 14 billion years ago.

Yes, it it possible to take measurements of black holes which give the mass, and to express their volumes as the limit as V approaches zero, which means the density is infinite (Density = Mass/Volume, and any number divided by an infitesimally small number becomes infinite).

The above is evidence of my claim that you obfuscate and mislead.
Black holes aren`t infinately dense.
Extremely dense..yes.
Infinitely dense ..no
Their mathematical models may show them to be so but the reality is that they have not been calculated to infiniate density.
If can show me the documentation to support the infinite density of a black hole I`ll concede the entire argument.

Well if we're talking about the density within the event horizon, then yes you are correct. However, my understanding is that within the event horizon calculation shows that there exists a singularity of infinite density. Here is what space.about.com has to say:

"Because this dying star has such huge mass, it becomes too strong for even neutrons to resist. It eventually collapses down to one incredibly dense point, called a singularity. This singularity is surrounded by an event region in which the gravity is so strong that nothing, not even light, can escape.

Anything that crosses a black hole's event horizon is crushed into an incredibly dense singularity."
From: http://space.about.com/library/weekly/aa101802a.htm

Here is what www.space.com has to say:

"At the center of a black hole is a point called a singularity, where matter is crushed to infinite density. Space and time are infinitely curved. Things are just plain weird.
This view is based on a solution to Einstein's equations of general relativity found by German astrophysicist Karl Schwarzschild..."

The article goes on to point out that not all black holes are alike. The black holes with an infinitely dense singularity are a certain kind of black holes that were not rotating before their collapse. Here is the link: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/blackhole_travel_030404.html

So the documentation lies in the equations submitted by Einstein and the calculations done by Schwarzchild. Perhaps now you could support your assertion that belief in a singularity is like belief in God by explaining which equations calculate God's existence.

I agree with that but when all you are extrapolating about that rocks prior 3 seconds is that it was probably falling for that time.

That is not all I am "extrapolating" about the rock. I am also saying that given a few unknowns, the height of the rock 3 seconds ago can be calculated.

What you extrapolate for the first 3 seconds of universal expansion should be that it was expanding for those three seconds.
However you do more than that.
You presume not only the 3 second expansion but also an infinitesimal particle and an infinately dense particle.
How does the knowledge we have provide support for these last two phenomena?

It's in the math, linwood. If two galaxies are receeding from each other at a relative speed of v, with constant acceleration a, at a distance d, then two kinematic equations can be combined to give:

d(final) = d(initial) + (v - at)t + (1/2)a(t^2)​

Knowing d(final), v, and a, you could graph the above for d(initial) in terms of t and find when, if ever, d(initial) was equal to zero (or you could solve for t with the quadratic formula). This is an oversimplification of the receeding galaxies, I'm sure, but it's the same principle: equations describe nature, and if you can figure out some parts of nature you can calculate other parts. The observations that indicate some values A are evidence for the calculated values B. Obviously I'm no astrophysicist and I can't perform the calculations that imply the universe was infinitely dense 14 billion years ago...but the calculations are there. You have not, in fact, supplied much of anything that indicates those calculations are wrong other than your own incredulity.​

​

​

Getting back to the business of the big bang: what you appear to be doing is the same as the person who claims the rock was not falling 3 seconds ago.

No, this is misleading.
What I am doing is simply stating that there is no reason to believe that rock was dropped by a infinitesally small flying Leprechaun.

Now you're just being disingenuous. A flying leprechaun is a seperate entity from the rock, but a rock at a higher position is still a rock, and an infinitely dense universe is still a universe. A Leprechaun could have started the universe at a high density, then let it expand from there....but now you're adding unnecessary entities.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

you are proposing the prior existence (and inexplicable disappearance) of some force(s) which counteracted the the expansion of the universe.

Please explain how I am doing this?
I don`t see it.
I haven`t disagreed that the universe could have been expanding for any time before 14 billion years ago..not once.
I don`t see why the expansion of the universe for that time period is evidence of The Particle and you still haven`t given me any.
You`re doing an excellent job of avoiding the point though..I`ll give you that.

Thank you. If you agree that the universe has always been expanding, then what's the problem? If two objects have always been moving away from each other, then the distance between them must have been zero at some point in their past. Imagine a balloon being filled with air....simply "rewind the film" in your mind, and you can see the sides of the balloon all come together. Now you might object that the balloon doesn't really get down to the infitesimally small size of a singularity. Well, that's because the difference between the balloon and the universe is that the balloon has not always been expanding at a constant rate: the acceleration was not constant because the forces acting on the balloon were not constant--you started filling the balloon with air at a certain time, and before that time the forces acting on the balloon were different. But if the balloon had been expanding always at a constant rate, and you "rewind the film" in your head, you can see the balloon shrinking down to an infinitely small point.

To assert that the balloon was never infinitely dense is to assert that it has not been inflated at a constant acceleration in the past, and since Force = mass x acceleration, this means that there has been a change in net force acting on the balloon in the balloon's history (e.g. someone's hand holding the balloon tightly, then letting it go and allowing it to be filled with air). You suggest that the universe was never infinitely dense, so either
a) The universe was very dense, then a force appeared and the universe suddenly started expanding
or
b) The universe was very dense, and an expansion force and an equally strong force countering the expansion were acting on it, then suddenly the counteractive force disappeared and the universe expanded

You have already said you agree the universe has always been expanding, which eliminates a). The question, then, is what evidence do you have for the counteractive force posited in b)?

Some comments warrant ridicule...like ones about how scientists can't possibly find the mass of black holes.

I`ve made no such comments.

You callin' me a liar? From post #47 of this thread:

While we may be able to determine "how big" a black hole is by watching its affects on it`s surrounding we have no way to know the mass of any black hole and we cannot begin to calculate the density of anything until we know what its mass is.

I`ve stated that they have not found their mass to be infinite.
Please provide evidence that they have.

I'm not arguing that the mass of any black hole is infinite, I'm arguing that the mass can be found, and that the size of the event horizon can be found, and that if you calculate the repulsion forces amongst atomic particles and the gravitational force of an object with a big enough mass inside a small enough event horizon, you will find that the gravitational force is larger than the repulsion forces, and therefore there is nothing to prevent particles from occupying the same position in space, crushing the matter down to an infinitely dense singularity (whew!). The above is, I realize, an explanation of the evidence, and not evidence itself. If you really want hard data, perhaps you could email NASA and ask for the luminosity of some black holes as measured by the Hubble, and do the calculations yourself. As for myself, I'll tentatively accept the current interpretation of the evidence by those who are knowledgable in the subject, and I'll distinguish this tentative acceptance from dogmatic belief in Deity by pointing out that the latter has no Hubble measurements, no equations, no calculations to support it.

And I know of no one who has any "actual knowledge" of the collision which (theoretically) formed Earth's moon. But that doesn't mean that it isn't a good theory.

Good theories have evidence to support them.
What evidence is there of the existence of The Particle.
All you`ve given me here is matter expansion and the proposed age of that expansion.
Nothing you`ve stated gives any support to an infinitely dense particle.

"The Particle" is the calculated density of the universe about 14 billion years ago, and this calculation comes from other values (like the distances between galaxies, their accelerations) which are calculated based on observation. Again, evidence for A is evidence for that which is calculated from A.

In other words, your comparing the theoretical infinite density of the ancient universe to the infinity of God was meaningless.
Agian you seek to obfuscate and mislead by putting words in my mouth.
I`d almost prefer you stick to ad hominum.
My agreement to your previous statement ..

I have difficulty imagining any explanation for the origins of the universe--other than an infinite chain of events--that does not stipulate something to which nothing existed prior.

In no way adds credence to your assertion of The Particle or negates my comparison of it to a deity.

Please explain what substantive message (if any) was expressed by "Nothing existed prior to God. Nothing existed prior to The Particle."

Tell me, where is the evidence The Particle was the beginning of this "infinite chain of events"?
To answer this question I would have to have an education in physics far beyond the conservation laws of energy and momentum, which were the subjects of an exam I took just this evening (and on which, I fear, I did rather poorly

So you can`t answer the only question I`ve really asked about the Big Bang yet you wish to ridicule my questioning of it in the first place.
Thats so familiar, where have I seen that before?
Oh yes..religion!!
Thats where I`ve seen that before.

I have not ridiculed your questioning the Big Bang, though I admit I have been a bit impatient when you misunderstand some things. Frankly, I think you should reread your posts concerning those arrogant, dogmatic Particle-worshippers and ask yourself "Who is ridiculing whom?"

Spinks, we both know you`re smarter that that.
If there was evidence of The Paricle you would have seen it or you would be able to point me to it at the very least.
We also both know the concept of The Particle was founded on mathmatical theory that is still being tested and confirmed.

Certainly. But earlier you said it can't be falsified. You equated it to blind faith in God. How can something unfalsifiable be "tested and confirmed"?