The Big Bang as evidence for God

[ThePainefulTruth]

You can't understand such sources. I've already asked you to demonstrate that you can understand sources beyond Wikipedia. You can't even formulate any entangled system, you can't describe how Cramer disagrees with the single popular source you rely on to fake some semblance of understanding of physics, you can't use terminology correctly, you can't demonstrate you can even understand any description of basic physics because you don't understand the mathematics necessary even for Newtonian mechanics (let alone modern physics), and you have demonstrated you can't understand or speak to the actual theories you inaccurately describe.

How can you keep dancing around the facts you're trying so hard to ignore. I present again, in direct opposition to your statements:

"In December 2012, a research team in China announced that it had produced measurements of the phase lag of Earth tides during full and new moons which seem to prove that the speed of gravity is equal to the speed of light. This means that if the Sun suddenly disappeared, the Earth would keep orbiting it normally for 8 minutes, which is the time light takes to travel that distance."

"In February 2016, the Advanced Laser Interferometer Gravitational Wave Observatory team announced that they had detected gravitational waves from a black hole collision. On September 14, 2015, LIGO registered gravitational waves for the first time, as a result of the collision of two black holes 1.3 billion light-years from Earth."

 

[Ben Dhyan]

You can't teach an old old dog new tricks...that's why science advances in academic circles so slowly....the old generation has to pass way to allow the new to take roots...

 

[idav]

Why? The geometry of the standard examples of time dilation is based upon the Pythagorean theorem and triangles. Simply put, the distance traversed by light that travels up and down in a moving reference frame will trace out a triangle according to an observer stationary with respect to that reference frame.
Time dilation concerns the agreement or disagreement among observers in various reference frames. It isn't intrinsic to time, space, or spacetime (i.e., there isn't any effect, phenomenon, or process in physics that describes the general dilation of time; it results from the constancy of light, the assumption that the laws of physics are the same in every (inertial) reference frame, and the resulting differences in the distance traversed by light as measured by different observers).


What theory in physics are you using to assert there is any such thing? Space is never dilated. This isn't even a misunderstanding of an actual concept from special relativity the way you are misunderstanding time dilation, it's just a fiction (completely made-up). There's no such thing as "space dilation". I'm no even sure where you are getting the terminology, let alone the notion.


In spacetime, everything is always in many places at once. This isn't a violation of spacetime, it's a fundamental implication of 4D geometry in which one dimension is time. Every particle, object, system, etc., is located at every point it will ever be at all at once. This is because "at once" means "at a single moment in time", but there are no moments in time in spacetime. Every point describes a unique spatial and temporal set of coordinate values. So, for example, you can pick an arbitrary value for "time" and depending upon how you "slice up" spacetime the same particle will be in infinitely many different points.

So you would agree time dilation is real, in theory if we could get close enough to a black hole, the rest of the universe around you would be speeding up. The speed of light isn't what makes that possible because super mass of a black hole does the same thing and black holes are sucking the light back.

Space dilation is the same cause it is connected to time. You can't say time dilation exists without affecting space ie. spacetime. I know you think its mumbo jumbo but warp drive is theoretically possible via wormholes.

A wormhole or Einstein–Rosen bridge is a hypothetical topological feature that would fundamentally be a shortcut connecting two separate points in spacetime. A wormhole, in theory, might be able to connect extremely far distances such as a billion light years or more, short distances such as a few feet, different universes, and different points in time. A wormhole is much like a tunnel with two ends, each at separate points in spacetime.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wormhole

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

You can't teach an old old dog new tricks...that's why science advances in academic circles so slowly....the old generation has to pass way to allow the new to take roots...

Generally true, but I'd like to claim myself as something of an exception, of which I'm sure there are more. Although I laid the foundations for learning, creativity and keeping an open-while-skeptical mind when I was young, Genuine learning (acquiring evidence and facts on which to exercise that open mind) didn't really start until I was older.......ish. Surprisingly, some (a few) of my abilities started to greatly improve (spelling being an example of something bad to start and trending toward the worse). I think technology, especially computers (with spellcheck) and the Internet, played an important part in that.

As Ben Franklin (who could well have had a similar story) said, "Some people die at 25 but aren't buried until 75". I started moldering at 25, but parts were resurrected at 55, or thereabouts......or son'thin.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

How can you keep dancing around the facts you're trying so hard to ignore.

I'm not ignoring anything. You're understanding of the topics you are dealing with is so fundamentally limited that your "facts" amount to quote-mining Wikipedia to attempt to make points that you can't even understand. I already tried to give you the benefit of the doubt by asking you to present BASIC quantum mechanics in the unambiguous formalism that ANY interpretation deals with, and you ignored the post because you can't. You don't understand what you are talking about. Your ability to deal with gravitation, quantum mechanics, etc., limited to quote-mining Wikipedia. The "facts" I am supposedly ignoring involve your basic ignorance to understand what the simplistic sources you quote-mine actually mean, as they are intended for people like you who haven't a clue what they are talking about.

I present again, in direct opposition to your statements:

"In December 2012, a research team in China announced that it had produced measurements of the phase lag of Earth tides during full and new moons which seem to prove that the speed of gravity is equal to the speed of light. This means that if the Sun suddenly disappeared, the Earth would keep orbiting it normally for 8 minutes, which is the time light takes to travel that distance."

This is not in opposition to any statement I made. You have misunderstood a simplification because you can't deal with actual physics. I never said that the effect of gravitation isn't equal to the speed of light. I described how gravity is treated in various theories (Newtonian mechanics, particle physics, general relativity, etc.) AND SPECIFICALLY DERIVED GRAVITATINAL WAVES AS TRAVELLING AT THE SPEED OF LIGHT.
However, as you can't understand even the simplified mathematics for linearized spacetime metrics producing gravitational waves, you must repeat your little quote-mining approach to pretending you have some clue what you are talking about.
And I'm supposed to take you seriously because you can quote-mine Wikipedia, you read Kastner's popular text rather than the technical one, and you can't even describe an entangled system (OR ANY SYSTEM) in quantum mechanics, let alone quantum field theory.

You dance around my posts by relying on the only thing you can do: quote-mind simplistic sources because you are not familiar with the physics literature and you lack the basic capacity to understand any of it anyway.

 

[idav]

"In December 2012, a research team in China announced that it had produced measurements of the phase lag of Earth tides during full and new moons which seem to prove that the speed of gravity is equal to the speed of light. This means that if the Sun suddenly disappeared, the Earth would keep orbiting it normally for 8 minutes, which is the time light takes to travel that distance."

"In February 2016, the Advanced Laser Interferometer Gravitational Wave Observatory team announced that they had detected gravitational waves from a black hole collision. On September 14, 2015, LIGO registered gravitational waves for the first time, as a result of the collision of two black holes 1.3 billion light-years from Earth."

Gravity is proportional to the mass of the object. Heavier masses make gravity stronger than the speed of light in black holes.

This second statement shows that black holes have gravity but I think we know that. More importantly though it is detection of "gravity waves" which we managed to observe at the point of the big bang.
http://www.space.com/25088-gravitational-waves.html

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

So you would agree time dilation is real

Absolutely, yes.

in theory if we could get close enough to a black hole, the rest of the universe around you would be speeding up.

This isn't exactly time dilation. But more importantly, again it describes how an observer would view things. It is NOT a description of an effect that somehow manipulates, changes, alters, etc., the fabric of spacetime.

The speed of light isn't what makes that possible because super mass of a black hole does the same thing and black holes are sucking the light back.

The only way the universe can appear to speed up, slow down, or do anything is if we can "see". How do you see? Light enters your retina and trigger action potentials in receptor neurons that travel to your occipital lobe.

Space dilation is the same cause it is connected to time.

Space dilation is a product of your imagination. You can't even find a wiki page describing this so-called process. You just made it up. You've misunderstood relativity. It's that simple.

You can't say time dilation exists without affecting space ie. spacetime.

Sure you can. Time dilation concerns the differences between measurements of observers, NOT some process that alters space, time, or spacetime. You've taken a phenomenon that describes the difference between e.g., observer A and observer B, and instead of understanding what this involves you've interpreted it to mean that it doesn't involve the observation but describes a process which affects time or spactime. It doesn't.
In fact, if it did, it would contradict the entirety of special relativity AND general relativity. This is because relativity is RELATIVISTIC. Time intervals APPEAR TO BE DIFFERENT TO DIFFERENT OBSERVERS BECAUSE THE OBSERVATION OF TIME IS RELATIVE. If time dilation actually affected spacetime, IT WOULD MEAN THAT IT WAS NOT relativistic, because the affect would exist FOR ANY OBSERVERS.

 

[idav]

Sure you can. Time dilation concerns the differences between measurements of observers, NOT some process that alters space, time, or spacetime. You've taken a phenomenon that describes the difference between e.g., observer A and observer B, and instead of understanding what this involves you've interpreted it to mean that it doesn't involve the observation but describes a process which affects time or spactime. It doesn't.
In fact, if it did, it would contradict the entirety of special relativity AND general relativity. This is because relativity is RELATIVISTIC. Time intervals APPEAR TO BE DIFFERENT TO DIFFERENT OBSERVERS BECAUSE THE OBSERVATION OF TIME IS RELATIVE. If time dilation actually affected spacetime, IT WOULD MEAN THAT IT WAS NOT relativistic, because the affect would exist FOR ANY OBSERVERS.

The affect would exist from a third observer that would see one object slowing down and another object speeding up time keeping it relativistic. It isn't relative to an observer but relative to amount of mass.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

This second statement shows that black holes have gravity but I think we know that. More importantly though it is detection of "gravity waves" which we managed to observe at the point of the big bang.
http://www.space.com/25088-gravitational-waves.html

They used that because gravity waves are so hard to detect directly, as your article says. And the article doesn't say we've detected gravity waves from the Big Bang, but that the detection of gravity waves is the "smoking gun" for the Big Bang.

 

[Ouroboros]

time does not exist

Then "First" doesn't exist either.

 

[McBell]

I can't stop you from thinking whatever you want, no matter how irrational..

careful, your transference is showing.

 

[McBell]

Generally true, but I'd like to claim myself as something of an exception, of which I'm sure there are more.

No big surprise there.
I mean, you are just full of bold empty claims...

 

[idav]

They used that because gravity waves are so hard to detect directly, as your article says. And the article doesn't say we've detected gravity waves from the Big Bang, but that the detection of gravity waves is the "smoking gun" for the Big Bang.

Fair enough. We only need to confirm what we are able to observe.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

No big surprise there.
I mean, you are just full of bold empty claims...

Fair enough. We only need to confirm what we are able to observe.

True.

 

[Thief]

Then "First" doesn't exist either.

no you don't.....regression is a fair line of thought....
Someone had to be First

 

[Thief]

Fair enough. We only need to confirm what we are able to observe.

so seeing is believing?
and all the things you can't see.....just aren't there....??????????????

 

[Thief]

You can't teach an old old dog new tricks...that's why science advances in academic circles so slowly....the old generation has to pass way to allow the new to take roots...

oh.....win by default....
the 'other guy' failed to show!

 

[Ben Dhyan]

oh.....win by default....
the 'other guy' failed to show!

Haha...something like that....but there are other factors in play....

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." - Upton Sinclair.

“The amount of energy necessary to refute bulls**it is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it.” :- Alberto Brandolini

 

[idav]

so seeing is believing?
and all the things you can't see.....just aren't there....??????????????

I'm not that naive.

 

[Ouroboros]

no you don't.....regression is a fair line of thought....
Someone had to be First

First in what? There's no first if there's no line.