Questions on the big bang expanding universe.

[ValdresRose]

As has already been explained, this is entirely the wrong picture. It's not that something 'exploded' at a point in space and stuff expanded from it into something that already existed. It's space itself that is expanding (points within it are getting further apart) and it doesn't need anything to expand into (it might already be infinite anyway). There is no point of origin (or, to look at it another way, everywhere is the point of origin). If we look back in time, points within space get closer together, and eventually the distance between them will approach zero.

Very good. Now where in this paradigm does matter arise? We have this space, and matter, how are they interacting? Without logic to back this up, I am of the opinion that the Universe is not particulate in nature. The particles arise from something that was originally there. That original 'something' promotes the 2 fields, electro-magnetic and gravitation.

 

[gnostic]

I think the universe expands and contracts, it respirators. We ae observing its current expansion cycle.

According to 1980s addition to the theory, within the fraction of a second of the initial expansion of the universe, the universe underwent exponential expansion due to the inflationary field.

This period was known as the Inflationary Epoch, starting at around 10^-36 second after the Big Bang, ending about 10^-33 or 10^-32 second after the Big Bang.

Then the universe slowed to normal expansion.

9 billion years later, the expansion of space pick up speed, and have been accelerating ever since (meaning to the present day).

Since the observable universe existed, there have been no “contracting” of space. The expansion has never stopped.

 

[ratiocinator]

Very good. Now where in this paradigm does matter arise?

It's a little uncertain, but here is a summary of the current ideas: Chronology of the universe - The very early universe.

We have this space, and matter, how are they interacting?

According the field equations of general relativity.

Without logic to back this up, I am of the opinion that the Universe is not particulate in nature.

While logic is useful and necessary, if we want to know about the real world, we need evidence, which we have. Not sure what you mean by "particulate in nature" - all particles are excitations of quantum fields.

That original 'something' promotes the 2 fields, electro-magnetic and gravitation.

You missed out the two nuclear forces. See the chronology link above.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Only in the same sense as there is nothing on the surface of the earth that is north of the north pole. It doesn't mean that something came from nothing because nothing never existed. "Before the BB" does not refer to a time, just as "north of the north pole" doesn't refer to a place on the surface of the earth.

It appears to be you who are doing that - I said that I didn't know if there was a reason why the space-time existed or even if it was a valid question. It's you who wanted to answer it.

I suspect I know somewhat more than most on the subject. To the extent it has a shape, an electron is considered to be a point, and it is an excitation of a quantum field.

So time started, but there was no source, no cause for it to start because nothing existed to start it. Now is that is spooky science, how is that falsifiable science, am I being unscientific?

I read that an electron has a cloud like form and I think Polymaths once told me also.(Btw, a little anecdote. When I was training in electronics in the days of tubes/valves, if you removed the positive voltage from the anode, you could see clearly a cloud of electrons build up around the thoriated tungstan filament. The cloud was sufficiently dense with electrons emitted from the cathode that it partially obscured vision through it.) In any case, in an annihilation scenario wrt an electron and positron, obviously the 'point' or 'cloud' is transformed into energy in the form of gamma rays, This sort of leads me to consider an electron being constituted of smaller 'points' that are an excitation of a quantum field.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Are you in the habits of contradicting yourself, or in the habits of moving the goalposts, @ben d?

You wrote in 2 posts below, that it was never about religion but it all about “logic” (highlighted in red):


But in the above post you want evidence to meet your agenda or your personal preference (highlighted in violet).

Evidence is part of the observed reality, in which some models are used to explain the reality, and not simply because what you want.

You only care about your fantasy, not the reality.

Any model can be potentially right or factual or it could be potentially wrong or false...hence the needs for evidence, observation and testing.

And there are standards in science, that proposed models must all pass requirements of the standards.

Since the physical cosmology - the study of the origin and evolution and the nature of the observable universe - comprise of multi-disciplines in physics (eg astronomy, astrophysics, Relativity, Particle Physics, Quantum Physics, etc), then they would all fall under both PHYSICAL SCIENCES and NATURAL SCIENCES.

Meaning, The standards for natural sciences, are -

• Methodological Naturalism,
• Falsifiability,
• Scientific Method,
• Peer Review.

Essential to all of the above, the models (eg hypotheses) must be testable and tested, and the only way to test these models, are through observations and evidence.

It is the reality of the evidence that will weed out weak or false hypotheses, or verify hypotheses being possible candidates of scientific theory. But that’s only possible if a hypothesis passed all 3 requirements: being falsifiable/testable, tested (Scientific Method) and reviewed by independent scientists (Peer Review).

The evidence are what needed to objectively determine the values of the models, and not wants of yours.

Then in the next 2 posts, you speak of “intuition”:

You do you realize “logic” is about “conscious reasoning”, while intuition “is not conscious reasoning”, don’t you?

If you are being “logical” than you are not using “intuition”. And if you are being “intuitive”, you are not using “logic”.

LOGIC and INTUITION are opposite to each other. You are being contradicting.

And as far as from the 4 quotes above, you have not being logical.

Gnostic, you ramble on so, you should imho learn to be more succinct. I think your peeve about me mixing religion and science is best captured with this......"The evidence are what needed to objectively determine the values of the models, and not wants of yours." (Btw, trying to help you improve your English, I would write is thus, The objective evidence is what determines the value of the models, not your biased judgement.)

So yes, I agree with you, biases prevent an objective assessment of any and all judgements, not only in science but in all areas of life. So biases can and do also affect the judgment by one person of another person's ability to judge objectively. For example if you did not like my critical judgement of say, a certain bb creation model, you may imagine that my judgment is biased regardless of its merit, because of your bias.

 

[ValdresRose]

In any case, in an annihilation scenario wrt an electron and positron, obviously the 'point' or 'cloud' is transformed into energy in the form of gamma rays, This sort of leads me to consider an electron being constituted of smaller 'points' that are an excitation of a quantum field.

Could you sort of elaborate on that sentence, or two sentences if the comma was a mistake. Please fill me in on excitation of a quantum field. Another question, would it be safe to rightly say, "into photons with the wave length of gamma rays"?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Could you sort of elaborate on that sentence, or two sentences if the comma was a mistake. Please fill me in on excitation of a quantum field. Another question, would it be safe to rightly say, "into photons with the wave length of gamma rays"?

Yes the comma between sentences should have been a period.

We will have to ask ratiocinator concerning an electron as an exctitation of a quantum field as I was using his description of an electron as a point and an excitation of a quantum field in his reply on the subject of what an electron was. I personally tend to visualize all particles as a sort of spherical standing waves of em energy at the much smaller wave lengths existing in the omnipresent space. This view however is not main stream science.

Re basically photons with wavelength of gamma waves sounds about right to me, but I will defer to the scholars if there is a problem with it.

 

[ratiocinator]

So time started, but there was no source, no cause for it to start because nothing existed to start it. Now is that is spooky science, how is that falsifiable science, am I being unscientific?

It looks like you're still thinking of time in the Newtonian sense. Time is a direction through a manifold, if it hits an "edge" in the past direction then you can't go back any further. Causality can only happen within (space-)time. The manifold is just a four-dimensional object or shape. It didn't start.

I read that an electron has a cloud like form and I think Polymaths once told me also.

I think you're referring to it interacting with virtual particles from the vacuum. In that sense it is surrounded by a cloud. See: Science : More to electrons than meets the eye

In any case, in an annihilation scenario wrt an electron and positron, obviously the 'point' or 'cloud' is transformed into energy in the form of gamma rays, This sort of leads me to consider an electron being constituted of smaller 'points' that are an excitation of a quantum field.

Gamma rays aren't energy, they have energy (sorry, I get pedantic about that). The current theory (the standard model) has electrons as fundamental. It's not correct to think the (gamma ray) photons where part of the electron or positron before the collision. If you do the annihilation at higher energies you can get different particles such as B mesons or W and Z bosons (Electron–positron annihilation - Wikipedia).

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
No not if the teachers, students and proponents lacks a critical and logical sense.

The problem here is that anybody can say that there are logical problems but, in practice, you have totally failed to point out any.

Well, that could be a problem yes. Another huge problem is that when links to problems are totally ignored by someone who don´t like - or aren´t intellectual able - to criticise the theories.

 

[Native]

LOGIC and INTUITION are opposite to each other.

No, they are COMPLEMENTARY to each other.

A test of logic and intuition here:
1) You have our planetary system motion around the Sun as certain example of orbital motion.
2) You have another system of starry orbital motion around the Milky Way center.

The logical and intuitive question is this:
Why is "dark matter" required in the galactic orbital motion and not in the orbital motion in the solar system which is a part of the galactic orbital motion?

What are your logical and intuitive conclusions of this?

 

[ratiocinator]

Another huge problem is that when links to problems are totally ignored by someone who don´t like - or aren´t intellectual able - to criticise the theories.

But you haven't provided any such links. As I said, the video you linked is scientifically illiterate and contains obvious lies. My offer still stands: if you want to pick something from it you think is legitimate, then I'll happily address it directly.

The reason I'm not taking it point by point is that there is simply too much nonsense. The first bit attempted to confuse the notions of vectors, coordinates, dimensions, and number lines. There simply is no confusion, they all fit together just fine. Only the illiterate or dishonest would say that there was. It's an obvious attempt to befuddle people who don't understand mathematics and science.

 

[ratiocinator]

No, they are COMPLEMENTARY to each other.

A test of logic and intuition here:
1) You have our planetary system motion around the Sun as certain example of orbital motion.
2) You have another system of starry orbital motion around the Milky Way center.

The logical and intuitive question is this:
Why is "dark matter" required in the galaxy as the Solar system is integrated in the galactic orbital motion?

Intuition is completely useless in this situation - you actually need mathematical physics.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I think you're referring to it interacting with virtual particles from the vacuum. In that sense it is surrounded by a cloud. See: Science : More to electrons than meets the eye

I have read that these virtual positrons in the vacuum that cloud around electrons in any object at rest, are the cause of inertia. It requires an energetic force to break free when a body at rest moves. A classic example is the person standing in a train carriage when the trains moves off, gravity tends to keep the feet stuck to the floor but the virtual positrons surrounding the electrons in the upper body cause it to be 'stuck' in place and therefore it tends to stay behind. Ask most people about this experience and they think it is caused by gravity but in fact it is inertia of the upper torso wanting to stay put due to the virtual positrons. I understand this inertia can be measured to be the same as in space as on the surface of Earth.

 

[ratiocinator]

I have read that these virtual positrons in the vacuum that cloud around electrons in any object at rest, are the cause of inertia. It requires an energetic force to break free when a body at rest moves. A classic example is the person standing in a train carriage when the trains moves off, gravity tends to keep the feet stuck to the floor but the virtual positrons surrounding the electrons in the upper body cause it to be 'stuck' in place and therefore it tends to stay behind. Ask most people about this experience and they think it is caused by gravity but in fact it is inertia of the upper torso wanting to stay put due to the virtual positrons. I understand this inertia can be measured to be the same as in space as on the surface of Earth.

What!? Inertia has nothing to do with virtual particles.

 

[Native]

So how do we resolve this? Has it been determined where the point of origin was, i.e., where the Supermassive Stellar Body actually existed and what direction it was going when it appeared to explode? Certainly we can't assume the SMSB was stationary.

It´s all nothing but a huge cosmological confusion. Everything in cosmos is observed with the Earth as the center and all cosmic measurements are connected to the speed of light and to the human concept of "time".

These human made methods of course gives the "scientific" impression that everything is moving away and that everything once were assembled in a hypothetical Big Bang point.

In fact cosmological science are seriously fooling themselves and all others to by their unnatural speculations.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

What!? Inertia has nothing to do with virtual particles.

You must live a sheltered life, the explanation of virtual particles as the cause of inertia has been around a long time.

Here, catch up... http://cds.cern.ch/record/385263/files/9904036.pdf?version=1

Section 6

In1994 a new theory of inertia (ref. 5) was proposed by Haisch, Rueda, and Puthoff which is known here as the HRP Inertia. This event marked a revolution in the way we think about inertia. They argued that inertial force originates from the activity of the virtual particles that fills the perfect vacuum surrounding a mass. They suggested that it is this ever-present sea of energy that resists the acceleration of a mass, and so creates the Newtonian force of inertia. They have found a model of inertia that is traceable to the particle level, which is manifestly compatible with CA theory. Inertia is now the result of quantum particle interactions.

Haisch, Rueda, and Puthoff have come up with a new version of Newton's second law:F=MA. As in Newton’s theory, their expression has ‘F’ for force on the left-hand side and‘A’ for acceleration on the right. But in the place of ‘M’, there is a complex mathematical expression tying inertia to the properties of the vacuum (ref. 5). They found that the fluctuations in the vacuum (virtual photons) interacting with the charge particles of matter in an accelerating mass give rise to a magnetic field, and this in turn, creates an opposing force to the motion. Thus electrical forces or photon exchanges are ultimately responsible for the force of inertia!

They reasoned that the more massive an object, the more ‘partons’ it contains; and the more partons a mass contains means more individual (small) electrical forces from the vacuum are present and the stronger the reluctance to undergo acceleration. But, when amass is moving at a constant velocity, inertia disappears, and there is no resistance to motion in any direction as required in special relativity

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
Another huge problem is that when links to problems are totally ignored by someone who don´t like - or aren´t intellectual able - to criticise the theories.

But you haven't provided any such links.

For the third time - "List of Cosmological Problems # General Relativity".

Native said: ↑
No, they are COMPLEMENTARY to each other.

A test of logic and intuition here:
1) You have our planetary system motion around the Sun as certain example of orbital motion.
2) You have another system of starry orbital motion around the Milky Way center.

The logical and intuitive question is this:
Why is "dark matter" required in the galactic orbital motion as the Solar system is integrated in the galactic orbital motion?

Intuition is completely useless in this situation - you actually need mathematical physics.

Not in the first place, you don´t. You have to have an INTUITIVE IDEA of WHAT you´re going to calculate before doing that.

But fine with me: Calculate how and why different orbital pattern motions in the galaxy and the solar system works in this "closed" system.

 

[ratiocinator]

You must live a sheltered life, the explanation of virtual particles as the cause of inertia has been around a long time.

...and are still nothing but speculation. We don't have a tested theory that unites quantum theory with general relativity (which is what would be needed). EMQG (on which this seems to be based) isn't even listed in most modern summaries.

 

[ratiocinator]

For the third time - "List of Cosmological Problems # General Relativity".

And yet again: so what? It's a list of open questions in cosmology. It would be incredible if there weren't open questions. What do you expect me to say about them? None of them support the utter nonsense in the video you posted, for example.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

...and are still nothing but speculation. We don't have a tested theory that unites quantum theory with general relativity (which is what would be needed). EMQG (on which this seems to be based) isn't even listed in most modern summaries.

Theory, hypothesis, speculation, guessing, all a part of the process of science, in a particular sequence of course. It is still early days in the space age, lots of pet theories are going to be abandoned along the way. Hold on to your hat!