Questions on the big bang expanding universe.

[ratiocinator]

Waht are your conclusion of this article?

#878

 

[Native]

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.

Hov can you tell anything about sensible about cosmology if you just take the weakest force to rule everything?

 

[Native]

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

Well explain what the force in gravity consists of.

 

[Native]

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

So what? You´re constantly referring to an idea which is about 350 years old. Maybe you should concentrate on the surprising article context instead of datums?

 

[Polymath257]

Well explain what the force in gravity consists of.

Explain what you mean by the term 'consists of' in context.

Gravity is not 'made of' anything. If quantum mechanics is correct in this, it is the exchange of certain particles (gravitons), in a way similar to how the E&M force is the exchange of photons.

As an approximation, gravity is a curvature of spacetime produced by the presence of mass and energy.

To a slightly worse approximation, gravity is a force that acts at a distance.

 

[Polymath257]

So what? You´re constantly referring to an idea which is about 350 years old. Maybe you should concentrate on the surprising article context instead of datums?

Maybe you should look at more recent material that has mostly resolved those issues?

A LOT changed in cosmology about 20 years ago with the discovery of the accelerating expansion. if your source is prior to that, it is going to be mostly irrelevant.

 

[shunyadragon]

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

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.

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
Well explain what the force in gravity consists of.

Gravity is not 'made of' anything.

Well, then we totally agree in all "gravity accounts".

If quantum mechanics is correct in this, it is the exchange of certain particles (gravitons), in a way similar to how the E&M force is the exchange of photons.

Particles cannot make exchanges - only their E&M charges can make changes and it is nonsens to define electric frequensies as "photon particles".

 

[Native]

Maybe you should look at more recent material that has mostly resolved those issues?

What "resent material"?

A LOT changed in cosmology about 20 years ago with the discovery of the accelerating expansion. if your source is prior to that, it is going to be mostly irrelevant.

So you´re trying to explain away a genuine discovery with the assumption of "dark energy" which is just as illusive as "dark matter" and gravity?

 

[Polymath257]

Native said: ↑
Well explain what the force in gravity consists of.

Well, then we totally agree in all "gravity accounts".

And yet, it still exists.

Particles cannot make exchanges - only their E&M charges can make changes and it is nonsens to define electric frequensies as "photon particles.

Well, then, add E&M to the things you don't understand.

 

[Polymath257]

What "resent material"?

So you´re trying to explain away a genuine discovery with the assumption of "dark energy" which is just as illusive as "dark matter" and gravity?

No, I am pointing out that our understanding has changed since we found out that the expansion is accelerating. In particular, a lot of the ages given prior to that discovery are wrong.

Elliptical galaxies are mostly formed by the merger of other galaxies. That is why a very early elliptical galaxy is interesting, but not devastating, as you seem to think.

 

[Native]

Gravity is the attractive relationship between bodies of mass in a time/space universe

In the human attraction between the body mass in a man and a woman, this force is defined as being electric. Let that be a logical and natural hint for you

 

[Native]

And yet, it still exists.

Oh well, if it makes your day, we can agree that nothing excists.

 

[Polymath257]

Oh well, if it makes your day, we can agree that nothing excists.

No, gravity exists. It is a force between masses. it produces acceleration, which is a dynamical property and is observed.

E&M is another force. It also produces acceleration, but in chanrged particles.

Neither gravity nor E&M are 'made of' anything. They are both produced by the exchange of particles. Your denial of this simple fact doesn't change the fact that the description works.

Do you want to try to explain why things fall faster in a vacuum than they do in air if they fall because of air pressure?

 

[Polymath257]

In the human attraction between the body mass in a man and a woman, this force is defined as being electric. Let that be a logical and natural hint for you

And you think the analogy of the male-female attraction is relevant to physics????

 

[Native]

No, I am pointing out that our understanding has changed since we found out that the expansion is accelerating. In particular, a lot of the ages given prior to that discovery are wrong.

IMO it´s just the former assumptions which are taken over by new assumptions - without even explaning logically how and from where the force of an increasing expansion came from in the first place.

It´s all just more guesses and no logics - but at least it keeps anyone away from drinking in the pubs.

 

[Polymath257]

IMO it´s just the former assumptions which are taken over by new assumptions - withour even explaning logically how and from where the force of an increasing
expansion came from in the first place.

It´s all just more guesses and no logics - but at least it keeps anyone away from drinking in the pubs.

It's interesting that if you can twist things to support your view, it is an observation. if it can't, it is an assumption.

Not how science is done.

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
Oh well, if it makes your day, we can agree that nothing excists.

No, gravity exists. It is a force between masses. it produces acceleration, which is a dynamical property and is observed.

Can you come to agreement with yourself and explain "gravity force" consistently in the explanation line of the real fundamental E&M forces?

 

[Native]

It's interesting that if you can twist things

It´s called "alternative approaches" based on the unnatural statements and observed contradictions in standing cosmology.

 

[Polymath257]

It´s called "alternative approaches" based on the unnatural statements and observed contradictions in standing cosmology.

And yet you actually deny the observations, such as red shifts and accelerating expansion. You deny the basics of physics, such as the nature of forces, and the effects they have.

You don't even have an 'alternative approach' given that you cannot produce an actual model that gives accurate predictions. You cannot explain the motions even of the planets in our solar system based on your ideas, let alone the motions of stars in our galaxy. All you do is hand waving and saying stuff like 'rotation of the galaxy produces rotation in our solar system'. OK, if you claim that, make an actual mathematical model that agrees with observations.