Questions on the big bang expanding universe.

[Native]

You do realise that weight is the force gravity exerts on a given mass, don't you? No gravity, no weight.

I do realise that the subjective term of "weight" isn´t a fundamental force and so should you. Masses only exerts affects on other masses via an extra EXTERNAL added energy of motion to the first mass. And BTW, you cannot even explain dynamically and consistently WHAT force your talking of.

Apparently you don´t respect my decision here.

For the respect of @ben d´s OP, I hold my gravitational horses for the time being. So I´ll just skipp your next #857 and await the return of ben d. to comment on my #847 to wich you too are welcome with a reply.

End of this discussion with you too.

 

[shunyadragon]

I do realise that the subjective term of "weight" isn´t a fundamental force and so should you. And BTW, you cannot even explain dynamically and consistently WHAT force your talking of.

Apparently you don´t respect my decision here.


End of this discussion with you too.

You need to work on your terminology, and basic physics.

 

[Native]

You need to work on your terminology, and basic physics.

Your quoting out of context don´t do anything good for your own terminology and if you understand "basic physics" feel free to explain dynamically what "the force of gravity" consists of.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Here´s a very relevant question regarding the OP in this thread.

Subject: The Hubble Space Telescope findings questions the standing Big Bang ideas of formation and time.

According to the standing ideas of Big Bang Nucleosynthesis, galaxies were the last objects to be formed but - once again - astronomers are surpriced by new observations of an elliptical galaxy which shouldn´t be there according to the BB Nucleosynthesis.

View attachment 46381

Quoting from the Hubble Site Website:
“Astronomers using NASA's Hubble Space Telescope as a "time machine" have obtained the clearest views yet of distant galaxies that existed when the universe was a fraction of its current age.

A series of remarkable pictures, spanning the life history of the cosmos, are providing the first clues to the life history of galaxies. The Hubble results suggest that elliptical galaxies developed remarkably quickly into their present shapes.

However, spiral galaxies that existed in large clusters evolved over a much longer period - the majority being built and then torn apart by dynamic processes in a restless universe.

Astronomers, surprised and enthusiastic about these preliminary findings, anticipate that Hubble's observations will lead to a better understanding of the origin, evolution, and eventual fate of the universe.

The Hubble observations challenge those estimates for the age of the universe that do not allow enough time for the galaxies to form and evolve to the maturity seen at an early epoch by Space Telescope”.
--------------
So, we have an elliptical galaxy which was at stage "when the universe was a fraction of its current age" whereas "normal" spiral galaxies takes much more time to evolve according to the BB Nucleosynthesis ideas.

Quote:
"Astronomers, surprised and enthusiastic about these preliminary findings, anticipate that Hubble's observations will lead to a better understanding of the origin, evolution, and eventual fate of the universe". (My bolded underlining)

As either the cosmological "timing and age of the Univers" or the assumed "formational process of the Universe" is wrong (and maybe both), it will be very interesting how astronomers and theoretical physicisist reacts on this.

What can a better understanding of the origin and evotution be when the assumed BB Nucleosynthesis don´t follow the BB time scales and vise versa?

Will the scientists act accordingly to the scientific rules and methods and revise or entirely discard the contradicted BB ideas?

Or do they just add further assumptions and make exceptions of more strange "dark matters" as usual?

I would expect that the 'you can not teach an old dog new tricks' adage will prevail, most everyone who has been filtering reality through the lens of their bb belief since it was taught to them, will continue to try and refute and/or stall accepting any new evidence they see as threatening their cherished belief. To be brutally honest, we all tend to do this sort of thing, it is not too dissimilar to the process known as the five stages of grief (What to Know About the Five Stages of Grief), except the loved one lost in this case is one's own cherished long held belief. We all deep down know that the space age is upon us and it is very early days, I suspect that almost all the sacred cows of contemporary science will fall by the way side as the new knowledge drowns the denials, the anger, the bargaining, and the depression, until acceptance prevails.

 

[ratiocinator]

I would expect that the 'you can not teach an old dog new tricks' adage will prevail, most everyone who has been filtering reality through the lens of their bb belief since it was taught to them, will continue to try and refute and/or stall accepting any new evidence they see as threatening their cherished belief.

New evidence? Now that I'd be interested in. Old intuition, not so much....

 

[Ben Dhyan]

New evidence? Now that I'd be interested in. Old intuition, not so much....

Old intuition claims could possibly fall under the denial position, I hope the anger position doesn't follow.

 

[shunyadragon]

Your quoting out of context don´t do anything good for your own terminology and if you understand "basic physics" feel free to explain dynamically what "the force of gravity" consists of.

Gravity doe snot consist of anything. Science is descriptive of the nature of gravity.

Gravity is the attractive relationship between bodies of mass in a time/space universe described by Newton. At present science considers space/time and gravity a natural consequence ot Quantum Mechanics and Quantum Gravity on the macro scale.

Science is descriptive not definitive of the nature of our physical existence nothing less and nothing more.

 

[ratiocinator]

Old intuition claims could possibly fall under the denial position, I hope the anger position doesn't follow.

I tried, but you just don't seem to understand the difference between actual science and evidence and all the stuff you just want to be true.

Also, I don't really understand why the science deniers so desperately want things to be a certain way. All I've ever wanted was to understand the way things are. I'd actually love a genuine, evidence based, scientific revolution (like relativity and quantum mechanics at the start of the 20th century) that overturned everything that I thought I understood - that's something the science deniers just don't seem to get.

It really isn't that I think I know "the truth" and I'm not prepared to change, it really is that what you offer is just tired old, seen it all before, evidence denying nonsense - sorry.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I tried, but you just don't seem to understand the difference between actual science and evidence and all the stuff you just want to be true.

Also, I don't really understand why the science deniers so desperately want things to be a certain way. All I've ever wanted was to understand the way things are. I'd actually love a genuine, evidence based, scientific revolution (like relativity and quantum mechanics at the start of the 20th century) that overturned everything that I thought I understood - that's something the science deniers just don't seem to get.

It really isn't that I think I know "the truth" and I'm not prepared to change, it really is that what you offer is just tired old, seen it all before, evidence denying nonsense - sorry.

I actually understand your position, you are conservative, there is nothing wrong with that. But surely you do not think that your present understanding based on evidence to date is final, that no new evidence exists that will ever come to light that will require you to change. That's what this is about. The fact that those producing the new evidence are ahead of the curve is not necessarily a case of being intuitive, just that they access to the latest scientific data such as latest Hubble and soon to be James Webb Space Telescope data for example. Hang on to your hat!

 

[ratiocinator]

I actually understand your position, you are conservative...

Quite the opposite, actually.

But surely you do not think that your present understanding based on evidence to date is final, that no new evidence exists that will ever come to light that will require you to change.

Of course I don't - I just said as much.

That's what this is about.

It so definitely isn't.

The fact that those producing the new evidence are ahead of the curve is not necessarily a case of being intuitive...

It's actually quite comical that you think you and the other deniers are "ahead of the curve" or have produced any new evidence. I'm sorry but you've shown no understanding of evidence or how science works, and at every turn you and Native have tried to push your own obvious agendas, rather than following the evidence.

There are problems and questions with our current understanding (nobody would seriously deny it) but people who latch on to those and just claim that it shows that what they don't like is wrong and that it must support what they do like, are simply not doing science - they are doing faith (in their intuitions).

 

[gnostic]

I would expect that the 'you can not teach an old dog new tricks' adage will prevail, most everyone who has been filtering reality through the lens of their bb belief since it was taught to them, will continue to try and refute and/or stall accepting any new evidence they see as threatening their cherished belief. To be brutally honest, we all tend to do this sort of thing, it is not too dissimilar to the process known as the five stages of grief (What to Know About the Five Stages of Grief), except the loved one lost in this case is one's own cherished long held belief. We all deep down know that the space age is upon us and it is very early days, I suspect that almost all the sacred cows of contemporary science will fall by the way side as the new knowledge drowns the denials, the anger, the bargaining, and the depression, until acceptance prevails.

You are projecting.

The only ones here are in denial of the available evidence and data, are you and Native.

Neither of you understand the concept of evidence...you are making the same mistakes as young earth creationists and ID creationists, projecting your own ignorance upon others.

I don’t what cosmological concept you accept, and I don’t know if you are adherent to the same cosmology as Native (which is the Electric Universe), but I don’t really care.

From what I’ve read from your replies, past and present, you don’t even understand basic physics, you cannot learn from your mistakes. So I don’t see how you can even judge which cosmology correct or incorrect, and you have no businesses telling others here who understand physics better than you, which is correct, when you are in denial that others have presented evidence in front of you.

 

[Polymath257]

Just this:

You can not make any cosmologcal E&M conclusions and calculations on cosmological motions without including the concept of Plasma Cosmology. Likewise you cannot judge E&M matters and Plasma Cosmology by comparing these to what is thought in "gravity cosmology". You simply have to think philosophically different.

No, you have to explain the actual observations, no matter what philosophy you use. And Plasma Cosmology simply doesn't provide the details that match observations.

 

[Native]

I would expect that the 'you can not teach an old dog new tricks' . . .

If that´s the case, we all can kiss an evolution in standing cosmology goodbye.

If even scientific discoveries as posted on my #847 cannot make cosmological proponents to think otherwise and indepently for themselves, the highly worshipped scientific method is nothing worth at all.

Then this scientific method only can be used to smack otherwise opposing thinkers in their heads and nothing more.

 

[Polymath257]

When an mature apple fall to the ground, it´s because its stem no more can hold the apple because of the pressure from the weight of the atmosphere.

Conclusion: E&M governs the apple production and the weight of the atmosphere makes apples to fall down. There is no Newtonian gravity at all.

Wow. Just wow.

No, the pressure of the atmosphere does NOT make the apple fall to the ground. In fact, if the apple is in the air, the pressure of the air on the apple balances: the pressure from below matches that from above.

Here's a simple observation: if you produce a vacuum on Earth and let something fall in that vacuum, it will fall *faster* than it does in the air. This alone is enough to show the quoted material is nonsense.

At this point, you have shown you know *nothing* about even basic physics and are thereby unqualified to carry on an actual discussion of cosmology.

 

[Native]

Gravity doe snot consist of anything. Science is descriptive of the nature of gravity.

Gravity is the attractive relationship between bodies of mass in a time/space universe described by Newton. At present science considers space/time and gravity a natural consequence ot Quantum Mechanics and Quantum Gravity on the macro scale.

Instead of your constantly bablings about what gravity hypothetically is THOUGHT to be, EXPLAIN dynamically what KIND OF FORCE it is.

 

[Polymath257]

Instead of your constantly bablings about what gravity hypothetically is THOUGHT to be, EXPLAIN dynamically what KIND OF FORCE it is.

To a first approximation (a very good one),

F=GMm/r^2

Along with the general

F=ma,

all of the rest follows.

 

[Polymath257]

Instead of your constantly bablings about what gravity hypothetically is THOUGHT to be, EXPLAIN dynamically what KIND OF FORCE it is.

It is clear you don't understand the concept of 'force', as it is understood in physics, at all.

 

[ratiocinator]

If even scientific discoveries as posted on my #847 cannot make cosmological proponents to think otherwise and indepently for themselves, the highly worshipped scientific method is nothing worth at all.

You do realise that you linked to a 26 year old article that actually supports the BB model, don't you?

 

[Native]

It's actually quite comical that you think you and the other deniers are "ahead of the curve" or have produced any new evidence. I'm sorry but you've shown no understanding of evidence or how science works, and at every turn you and Native have tried to push your own obvious agendas, rather than following the evidence.

Well, if you don´t like to listen to @ben d or me, just read my post in #847 in where the article contents is way ahead of your goood self and of the authors in the article.

Waht are your conclusion of this article?

 

[Native]

You are projecting.

You are projecting your own projections - as usual