Questions on the big bang expanding universe.

[ratiocinator]

I first made this comment way back #869... "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"

You in the very next comment #870 , totally ignoring the fact that I was referring to scientists with access to space acquired data, you posted this..."It's actually quite comical that you think you and the other deniers are "ahead of the curve"

My efforts to correct you by providing proper context of my original use of the expression "head of the curve" was in this comment.."Who said anything about I or anyone here being ahead of the curve, I was speaking about the new scientific discoveries being brought to light by scientists who are working with advanced space instruments producing new data."

Okay, well I may well have skipped over this, for which I apologise. Anything new from genuine scientists is always interesting but if you're expecting the basic BB model to be shown to be wrong, then don't hold your breath - there is a great deal of evidence for it already.

The nature of space-time, on the other hand, may get revised if/when we get a tested theory that combines GR with QFT. There are also maverick ideas being suggested already, see The End of Time by Julian Barbour or (for pretty much an opposite view) Time Reborn by Lee Smolin.

 

[Native]

And your point is what? This is another article that supports the BB model.

Do you wear spectacles which excludes critical issues in an article?

 

[Native]

Okay, well I may well have skipped over this, for which I apologise. Anything new from genuine scientists is always interesting but if you're expecting the basic BB model to be shown to be wrong, then don't hold your breath - there is a great deal of evidence for it already.

The nature of space-time, on the other hand, may get revised if/when we get a tested theory that combines GR with QFT. There are also maverick ideas being suggested already, see The End of Time by Julian Barbour or (for pretty much an opposite view) Time Reborn by Lee Smolin.

Are you now beginning to copy-paste and spamming your old arguments?

 

[ratiocinator]

Do you wear spectacles which excludes critical issues in an article?

Do feel free to point to anything in the article that questions the BB model.

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
This is not much different from some secteric religious belief societies.

"If you confirm a person´s perceptions, the person loves you - if you force a person to think about the perceptions, the person hates you".

You guys crack me up.

You certainly qualified the quoted sentence

You do not seem to understand that testing one's ideas constantly is the opposite of dogma. If anyone has dogmatic beliefs it is you since you refuse to test your ideas and accept them even after the errors are explained to you. That is dogma.

Beginning to address yourself now, are you? Well that´s a good beginning

 

[Native]

Do feel free to point to anything in the article that questions the BB model.

Feel free to read it and understand the implications yourself.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Okay, well I may well have skipped over this, for which I apologise. Anything new from genuine scientists is always interesting but if you're expecting the basic BB model to be shown to be wrong, then don't hold your breath - there is a great deal of evidence for it already.

The nature of space-time, on the other hand, may get revised if/when we get a tested theory that combines GR with QFT. There are also maverick ideas being suggested already, see The End of Time by Julian Barbour or (for pretty much an opposite view) Time Reborn by Lee Smolin.

Thank you ratiocinator, I suspected it may have been the case, I will grant you gentleman status like Polymath.

A quick read of their respective Wiki pages and I'm more with Smolin...but I like some of what Barbour says too. both have good insights.

Time Reborn - Wikipedia

The End of Time (book) - Wikipedia

 

[ratiocinator]

Do feel free to point to anything in the article that questions the BB model.

Feel free to read it and understand the implications yourself.

So you can't.

 

[Polymath257]

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

I didn´t say that. I said the weight of the Earth atmophere provides pressure on everything (with about 10 kg per square cm) But OK, changing air/weather pressures also has its obvious affects.

So what do you predict will happen to an apple in a vacuum on Earth? Will it fall faster, slower, or at the same rate?

This is a somewhat artificial way to test a 350 year old idea where such tests were´nt possible, but never mind:

What difference does the age make? Or, for that matter, whether the test was possible then? If it is possible now, it can be used to test the idea.

What happen with your apple if you take it way out beyond the influence of the Earth´s atmosphere and let it go?

Will it fall significantly faster to the Earth? Or will it float?

It depends on how much horizontal velocity it has. If it is at rest when let go, it will fall. It will initially fall at a slower rate than it would on Earth because the force of gravity will be less due to increased distance.

If there is significant horizontal velocity, it will go into orbit. But it won't float.

"My model" predict the latter. But on the Earth it will fall from the tree to the ground because of the weigth of the atmosphere - included the resistance influence.

Well, then your model has been shown to be wrong. Satellites put into space do NOT float. If they are moving fast enough, they go into orbit. If not, or if they are low enough for the atmosphere to provide friction, they will fall.

Besides this, your notion of "the apple will fall *faster* than it did in the air" clearly indicates the "airy/atmospheric" influence of force.

Yes, the atmosphere provides *friction*, which slows the rate at which things fall. if that friction is removed, the apple will fall faster.

 

[Polymath257]

Waht makes you believe that a weak force on the atomic basis can be very strong just by adding more atomic particles?

Because each particle adds some to the force. For small things like refrigerators, this total is small. For large things like the Moon or Earth, it is not.

The only thing which is strong about gravitaional assumptions is the hypnotical consensus confusion.

Yes, gravity is a weak force. But it adds up over all the mass that is there.

A small magnet acting on a piece of iron can counter the gravity of the whole Earth. But that magnet won't keep a piece of wood from falling.

 

[Polymath257]

IMO a "gravity force" isn´t different from the overall E&M forces and the "action at distance" is a misconception. Einsteins "curvature of spacetime" is even worse than the Newtonian gravity misconceptions. Quantum Mechanics is OK - if the term and consensus term of gravity is excluded from its hypothesis.

There is a clear difference between gravity and E&M forces. Take a strong magnet. It can prevent a piece of iron from falling on Earth, but it cannot prevent a piece of wood from falling. That is because the wood is not magnetic. The E&M force has almost no effect on it.

Atomic gases and "metallic particles" are basically binded together by the E&M forces on the plasma stages to build matter which again gives weight.

Plasma stages? What are those?

OK in large. But an "E&M photon particle" is way out of order. E&M frequenses are NOT particles but vawes which can affect particles.

So how do you explain the photoelectric effect and Compton scattering? Why do the electrons in the photoelectric effect act like they were hit by particles and not just influenced by waves?

 

[Native]

So you can't.

I can´t help you if you choose to avoid and ignore the questional implications in the article.

 

[Polymath257]

What a bad excuse for not investigating things yourself.

If you´ve done your own critical research instead of being at sleep with consensus doctrines, you could find numerous examples which questions the BB ideas and its connected Nucleosynthesis. Here´s one article posted 26 August, 2020.

India’s AstroSat Discovers An Ancient Galaxy; Findings Could Help Explain Origin of Light Post Big Bang - India’s AstroSat Discovers An Ancient Galaxy; Findings Could Help Explain Origin of Light Post Big Bang | The Weather Channel - Articles from The Weather Channel | weather.com

Exactly how does that discovery put the BB into question? If anything, it seems to fit right into our current understanding of the early universe.

 

[ratiocinator]

I can´t help you if you choose to avoid and ignore the questional implications in the article.

Look, anybody can link to an article and then say that it supports their view. I've read it and saw nothing in it that would bring BB cosmology into question, so I can only assume you've misunderstood something. Continuing to refuse to say what part of it you think questions the BB suggests to me that you are not confident that you've understood it yourself.

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
Waht makes you believe that a weak force on the atomic basis can be very strong just by adding more atomic particles?

Because each particle adds some to the force. For small things like refrigerators, this total is small. For large things like the Moon or Earth, it is not.

What? Are atomic particles which makes up refrigerators a force? What kind of an argument is this - unless you refers to the E&M forces in a refrigerator?

But any way, I understtand your argument: You take weak particles to make a strong force just because they´re assembled - and on the other hand you cant explain strict scientifically and dynamically what factually assembles the particles.

There is a clear difference between gravity and E&M forces.

You seem to be listening to the wrong sources Of course and logically the E&M principles works similar all over the places by different charges, frequensies and ranges.

I said:
Atomic gases and "metallic particles" are basically binded together by the E&M forces on the plasma stages to build matter which again gives weight.

Plasma stages? What are those?

We´ve been there several times before. 99,99 % in cosmos is on a plasma stage where the electric charges in atoms are affected by E&M forces. Here you have a real strong force.

I said:
OK in large. But an "E&M photon particle" is way out of order. E&M frequenses are NOT particles but vawes which can affect particles.

So how do you explain the photoelectric effect and Compton scattering? Why do the electrons in the photoelectric effect act like they were hit by particles and not just influenced by waves?

Because electrons reacts and "scatter" when meating other electromagnetic vawing and whirling fields.

This scattering is following the main principle of electricity inducing magnetic fields which induces electric currents which again induces magnetic fields and so on.

If light is "photon"-particles, you´ll have to empty your light bulbes frequently for particles

 

[Native]

Exactly how does that discovery put the BB into question? If anything, it seems to fit right into our current understanding of the early universe.

And:

Look, anybody can link to an article and then say that it supports their view. I've read it and saw nothing in it that would bring BB cosmology into question, so I can only assume you've misunderstood something. Continuing to refuse to say what part of it you think questions the BB suggests to me that you are not confident that you've understood it yourself.

Ups and excuse me :-( I´ve obviously posted a somewhat irrelevant link in from my collection.

It should have been this article, sorry.

Still, as long as different questions in a BB theory aren´t answered, all articles CAN in the princple be questioned.

 

[Native]

I said:
What happen with your apple if you take it way out beyond the influence of the Earth´s atmosphere and let it go?

Will it fall significantly faster to the Earth? Or will it float?

It depends on how much horizontal velocity it has. If it is at rest when let go, it will fall. It will initially fall at a slower rate than it would on Earth because the force of gravity will be less due to increased distance.

If there is significant horizontal velocity, it will go into orbit. But it won't float.

Oh please free me from such non sense metaphysical actions at different distances.

Just exchange the unnatural gravity law with the natural law of a atmospheric weight pressure which has same properties.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Waht makes you believe that a weak force on the atomic basis can be very strong just by adding more atomic particles?
The only thing which is strong about gravitaional assumptions is the hypnotical consensus confusion.

The explanation was there. But then you may have very poor math skills. That quite often accompanies science denial.

There is no anti gravity. That means that field affects can add only. There is no subtraction. With electric charges there is a plus and a minus. And the great strength of electromagnetism all but guarantees that large masses are very very close to being neutral or balanced. For example, the surface of the Earth has a charge of roughly -500,000 Coulombs. That sounds like a lot. But it only amounts to about seven moles of electrons. That is already a very low charge if you want to try to move the rather massive Earth with an external electric field, as some EU followers would. It is only seven moles of electrons. If that was all in the from of hydrogen atoms with one extra electron each it would weigh seven grams. I know you cannot concentrate electrons that much but it helps one to grasp that number.

But it gets worse. Most of that -500 kCoulombs is balanced by the atmosphere. The charge of the Earth with its atmosphere is about one Coulomb.

Is the Earth negatively or positively charged?

Try to move the Earth using only that charge.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I said:
What happen with your apple if you take it way out beyond the influence of the Earth´s atmosphere and let it go?

Will it fall significantly faster to the Earth? Or will it float?

Oh please free me from such non sense metaphysical actions at different distances.

Just exchange the unnatural gravity law with the natural law of a atmospheric weight pressure which has same properties.

There is no "natural law of an atmosphere"

There probably have been apples,or at least slices of apples in the ISS. Those are in orbit around the Earth. Do you understand orbits? Can you do the math.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Native said: ↑
This is not much different from some secteric religious belief societies.

"If you confirm a person´s perceptions, the person loves you - if you force a person to think about the perceptions, the person hates you".

You certainly qualified the quoted sentence

Beginning to address yourself now, are you? Well that´s a good beginning

Denial is also a typical trait of science deniers along with mathematical illiteracy.