Thanks To Science

[kwlyon]

The observable predictions that are "spot on" cannot be attributed to a Big Bang without a leap of faith, wasn't that what the
LHC was going to settle? Something about a God particle?

gray

I think it should be pointed out that the "Big Bang Theory" does not actually address the creation of the universe (or anything beyond the point where classical physics begins to fail). It only serves as a model which describes how the universe has apparently developed AFTER whatever event occurred. The LHC is hoped to provide evidence for the existence of the Higgs Boson. This is supposed to clarify a lot of things but they are quite out of my field and I am relatively ignorant. I would rather not babble on about the topic until I look into it...however I don't think this has much to do with the veracity of the big bang but rather something to do with explaining the matter/antimatter asymmetry which is NOT explained by the big bang model. But I am not sure.

Kevin

[L.Wood]

.

Gray-

It's as if science shot an arrow into the wall and then painted a bull's eye target around it with mathematics and conjecture.

'stuff you should have learned in school if you had paid attention:'

No, "it" isn't that way. Science observed, deducted, then drew conclusions, not the other way around.

.

[graybear13]

Having a supernatural God (Big Bang) that no one can convince you doesn't exist....sounds familiar somehow.
The observable predictions that are "spot on" cannot be attributed to a Big Bang without a leap of faith,...

Perhaps you should acquaint yourself with the reasons/evidence for why the Big Bang is the prevailing theory (and essentially the only game in town). Notice: That Lamaitre may have had religious motivations, is not, and would not, ever have anything to do with such a list:

a) Large-scale homogeneity
b) Hubble Diagram
c) Abundances of light elements
d) Existence of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation
e) Fluctuations in the CMBR
f) Large-scale structure of the universe
g) Age of stars
h) Evolution of galaxies
i) Time dilation in supernova brightness curves
j) Tolman tests
k) Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect
l) Integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect
m) Dark Matter
n) Dark Energy

Some of these were predicted by BB theory and have since been confirmed. Each one of the above is carefully explained, in laymen's terms here.

As we say to the creationists... what have you got in support of your "theory?" Or do you even have one? (They don't).

Thanks for the link Darrel, that really helps!

I have no quarrel with any of the proofs on your list; but it's the assertion that I question. Is it, BBT or one of the 'alternative cosmological models' or something else?

I think it's really about...Where did the hydrogen come from that produced the 'stellar nucleosynthesis that became the creation.

I saw a really cool video the other day, I think it was on science channel, of two galaxies colliding. In the video the galaxies were rendered with Dark Matter surrounding them. As the the hard stuff in the galaxies collided and slowed down the Dark Matter kept going at the same speed as before the collision. Like two bowls of water coming together, the water would keep going and slosh. This seems to support my assertion that Dark Energy, Dark Matter, and Matter are all the same 'stuff' just in different states of flux; like steam, liquid water, and ice. The matter would be the ice, the Dark Matter would be liquid, and the Dark Energy would be gaseous.

Dark Energy moving through the liquid state (Dark Matter) becomes hydrogen and then everything else. How this 'stuff' moves from one state to another is the big question. I have some ideas having to do with vortexes as the source of the pressure from Dark Energy and Dark Matter to move to a solid state.

If I am correct in my assertion this would solve the problem between GR and QM. Think of all the space that has been discovered inside of atoms as Dark Energy and Dark Matter trying to move toward the solid state.

The other part of the big question is 'what created the Dark Energy and set it in motion?' A question for another time, I think. We don't need a creation point to figure out the process of creation.

gray

[Savonarola]

The matter would be the ice, the Dark Matter would be liquid, and the Dark Energy would be gaseous.

But water vapor doesn't pass through ice or liquid water. How, then, is your analogy supposed to work?

Dark Energy moving through the liquid state (Dark Matter) becomes hydrogen and then everything else.

By what mechanism? What evidence do you have for this position? Once hydrogen is created in this manner, how does it become everything else? I might as well say, "Then, leprechauns start jumping out of your butt. Then, they throw a party. But because it's a leprechaun party, they don't invite you."

I have some ideas having to do with vortexes ...

Yeah, we've been over this. Even you don't know what your ideas are. First they're gravity vortices, then they're not, then they're "SWDKWII," so now you just couch your lack of evidence in the descriptor "dark." It would be one thing if some of your ideas were somewhat supported and needed more research, but you have no support whatsoever. Zip, zilch, zero.

If I am correct in my assertion this would solve the problem between GR and QM.

Please explain how.

Think of all the space that has been discovered inside of atoms as Dark Energy and Dark Matter trying to move toward the solid state.

You seem to be using "solid" in an interchanging, equivocating way. Earlier you refer to it as if it's a state of matter, but elsewhere you seem to consider "solid" as the alternative to "Dark." You'll have to be clear if you want people to understand you.

We don't need a creation point to figure out the process of creation.

Fine, but the evidence still points to a "creation point." Just because you don't like it doesn't make it untrue.

[graybear13]

The matter would be the ice, the Dark Matter would be liquid, and the Dark Energy would be gaseous.

But water vapor doesn't pass through ice or liquid water. How, then, is your analogy supposed to work?

Dark Energy moving through the liquid state (Dark Matter) becomes hydrogen and then everything else.

By what mechanism? What evidence do you have for this position? Once hydrogen is created in this manner, how does it become everything else? I might as well say, "Then, leprechauns start jumping out of your butt. Then, they throw a party. But because it's a leprechaun party, they don't invite you."

I have some ideas having to do with vortexes ...

Yeah, we've been over this. Even you don't know what your ideas are. First they're gravity vortices, then they're not, then they're "SWDKWII," so now you just couch your lack of evidence in the descriptor "dark." It would be one thing if some of your ideas were somewhat supported and needed more research, but you have no support whatsoever. Zip, zilch, zero.

If I am correct in my assertion this would solve the problem between GR and QM.

Please explain how.

Think of all the space that has been discovered inside of atoms as Dark Energy and Dark Matter trying to move toward the solid state.

You seem to be using "solid" in an interchanging, equivocating way. Earlier you refer to it as if it's a state of matter, but elsewhere you seem to consider "solid" as the alternative to "Dark." You'll have to be clear if you want people to understand you.

We don't need a creation point to figure out the process of creation.

Fine, but the evidence still points to a "creation point." Just because you don't like it doesn't make it untrue.

States of matter, solid, liquid, gas, plasma...are like the states of swdkwii (stuff we don't know what it is), dark energy,dark matter, and matter. All of the states of matter are contained within the 'solid' state of swdkwii. Read about 'The life and death of stars' http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universal/rel_stars.html. Somehow hydrogen appears and then somehow that hydrogen is compressed to the point it fuses and explodes into helium...

I am suggesting that vortexes cause the fusion; first vortexes of the dark energy and dark matter produce hydrogen and then they cause the creation of helium and so on to all of the elements and ultimately to all matter.

Vortexes are phenomenon in nature that can cause compression. From water spouts to black holes they create low pressure and gravity. What would a small black hole be on the Fugita scale an F2000?

The creation of matter is exactly the same as what we see in the creation of stars and galaxies. It's all one motion.

Mathematics tells us that a black hole can crush atoms by the force of its gravity. If most of what is being pushed into a black hole is hydrogen it seems logical that hydrogen fusion would take place first and atoms of helium would form...then a black hole being fed mostly fed by helium would form producing the next heaviest element and so on.

You are right...I don't like searching for a creation point. I think it is a waste of time. To suggest that you are searching for a point in time when time began seems like chasing the end of a rainbow. I have faith that it is there and that's good enough for me.

The God particle is the swdkwii. What it is and where it comes from is unknowable to us at our present level of evolution. IMHO

gray

[Savonarola]

States of matter, solid, liquid, gas, plasma...are like the states of swdkwii (stuff we don't know what it is), dark energy,dark matter, and matter.

You keep saying that we don't know what it is, but then you claim to know what it is. That's asinine. You also completely ignore my objection to your analogy regarding states of matter.

All of the states of matter are contained within the 'solid' state of swdkwii.

This has no meaning. According to you, it's matter, but we don't know what it is -- or at the very least, you're classifying it in the same category of "unknownness" as dark matter, which is absurd. And according to you, gases and liquids are solid SWDKWII. That's also absurd.

Where are your data? Where is your evidence? Where are your mathematical models?

Somehow hydrogen appears...

What do you mean, "somehow it appears"? It's what coalesced into the star in the first place.

I am suggesting that vortexes cause the fusion;

But we can explain the fusion without referring to vortices. Your hypothesis falls to Occam's razor immediately out of the chute.

first vortexes of the dark energy and dark matter produce hydrogen

Not only do you have no evidence, there is evidence against this. We look at dark matter and never see hydrogen come from it.

From water spouts to black holes they create low pressure and gravity.

But gravity exists in the absence of dark matter. There is no reason to posit that corties of dark matter/energy are responsible for "creating" gravity, and there is reason to reject that position.

The creation of matter is exactly the same as what we see in the creation of stars and galaxies. It's all one motion.

No, they're very different, for the simple reason that some of our observations of forming stars have nothing to do with dark matter/energy.

Mathematics tells us that a black hole can crush atoms by the force of its gravity....

And this whole paragraph of yours can be adequately explained without referring to dark matter/energy. Why do you insist on adding superfluous components?

To suggest that you are searching for a point in time when time began seems like chasing the end of a rainbow.

It's not a chase; that's where the evidence leads us.

I have faith that it is there and that's good enough for me.

Faith has no place in science.

The God particle is the swdkwii.

And dark matter is the SWDKWII. And dark energy. And vortices, and black holes, and unicorns, and leprechauns at the end of the rainbow, and xi, and reiki, and accupuncture, and homeopathy, and any other thing you want to arbitrarily call unknown. Talk is cheap. Show us a model supported by math and/or data.

[kwlyon]

Ohhhh:( That Poor horse....I hope PETA doesn't read this forum....

[graybear13]

I have faith that it is there and that's good enough for me.

Faith has no place in science.

Faith-1. A confident belief in the truth, value, or
trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or
material evidence.

You have 'faith' in the idea of a big bang causing
this existence. I do not.

You have such 'faith' in mathematics, if it tells you
that singularity exists a split second before the
big bang or at the end of a black hole,you believe
it blindly. That doesn't make it true any more
than my 'faith' in vortexes as the cause of this
existence does.

I'm not saying my 'faith' is better than
your 'faith' but I do have one thing in my favor...logic!

What I'm talking about is obviously beyond your ability
to comprehend until you let go of your faith in the big
bang.

"I suppose you could never prove to the mind of the
most ingenious mollusk that such a creature as a
whale could exist." Emerson

You sir are a very ingenious mollusk, I'm sure, but
what you see is only the shadow of the whale I assure you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_of_the_Cave

E+V'=M

E... energy
V'... vortical motion
M... mass

"Existence is its own Evidence" labelwench

gray

[graybear13]

Ohhhh:( That Poor horse....I hope PETA doesn't read this forum....

"The old gray mare she ain't what she used to be..."

"you can lead a horse to water
but you can't make him drink."

"You can lead a whore to culture
but you can't make him think."

gray

[Savonarola]

Faith-1. A confident belief in the truth, value, or
trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or
material evidence.

Here's the problem. You're pretending that (1) and (2) are identical. They're not. You're using the word "faith" in an equivocating way.

You have such 'faith' in mathematics, if it tells you that singularity exists a split second before the
big bang or at the end of a black hole,you believe it blindly.

No, I don't believe it blindly; I understand the evidence. (You do not.)

That doesn't make it true any more than my 'faith' in vortexes as the cause of this existence does.

You're right in that my believing something doesn't make it any more true. The difference is that my position has evidence while your faith in vortices does not. That is, if you insist on calling what I have "faith," it is a different sort of "faith" than yours.

I'm not saying my 'faith' is better than your 'faith'

At the very least, you're saying that my faith is equally blind as your faith. That's simply not true.

but I do have one thing in my favor...logic!

No, you really don't, and we've been over this. You're using an argument from ignorance using "dark matter/energy/SWDKWII" as your source of magical explanation.

What I'm talking about is obviously beyond your ability to comprehend until you let go of your faith in the big bang.

I'm quite capable of considering your position without presuming the truth of the BBT. Your position has no merit regardless of whether BBT is true.

You sir are a very ingenious mollusk, I'm sure, but what you see is only the shadow of the whale I assure you.

Ah, now if I were to accept that statement without the evidence that I'm repeatedly requesting, that'd be faith.

"Existence is its own Evidence" labelwench

of existence. Not of a relationship. That's the part you need to support with evidence. But we know you won't.

[graybear13]

Faith-1. A confident belief in the truth, value, or
trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or
material evidence.

Here's the problem. You're pretending that (1) and (2) are identical. They're not. You're using the word "faith" in an equivocating way.

You have such 'faith' in mathematics, if it tells you that singularity exists a split second before the
big bang or at the end of a black hole,you believe it blindly.

No, I don't believe it blindly; I understand the evidence. (You do not.)

That doesn't make it true any more than my 'faith' in vortexes as the cause of this existence does.

You're right in that my believing something doesn't make it any more true. The difference is that my position has evidence while your faith in vortices does not. That is, if you insist on calling what I have "faith," it is a different sort of "faith" than yours.

I'm not saying my 'faith' is better than your 'faith'

At the very least, you're saying that my faith is equally blind as your faith. That's simply not true.

but I do have one thing in my favor...logic!

No, you really don't, and we've been over this. You're using an argument from ignorance using "dark matter/energy/SWDKWII" as your source of magical explanation.

What I'm talking about is obviously beyond your ability to comprehend until you let go of your faith in the big bang.

I'm quite capable of considering your position without presuming the truth of the BBT. Your position has no merit regardless of whether BBT is true.

You sir are a very ingenious mollusk, I'm sure, but what you see is only the shadow of the whale I assure you.

Ah, now if I were to accept that statement without the evidence that I'm repeatedly requesting, that'd be faith.

"Existence is its own Evidence" labelwench

of existence. Not of a relationship. That's the part you need to support with evidence. But we know you won't.

I am not equivocating at all. It just seems that way
because I am talking about the dual nature of the BBT
and therefore the dual nature of your faith in it.
Your faith in BBT is well founded (def. #1) up to the point
where 'fuzzy' math takes over...according to BBT
somewhere around 400,000 years after the big event.
From that point back BBT takes you on a wild goose
chase looking for a God particle that doesn't exist,
and singularity that is the suspension of all logic.
Having faith in wild geese would be 'def. #2.

My concept E+V'=M doesn't have that problem, it is
logical all the way through (def. #1).

"Faith is a knowledge within the heart beyond the reach of
proof. Doubt is a pain too lonely to know that faith is
his twin brother." Gibran

gray

[Doug]

"Faith is a knowledge within the heart beyond the reach of proof. Doubt is a pain too lonely to know that faith is his twin brother." Gibran

gray

"Knowledge within the heart beyond the reach of proof" is right. It is conviction based on ignorance, stubborness, and in many cases desperation. It is the arrogance of trying to create the universe in man's image.

Doubt is not the twin brother of faith. Doubt is the father of knowledge, with investigation as the mother.

[Savonarola]

Your faith in BBT is well founded (def. #1) up to the point where 'fuzzy' math takes over...according to BBT somewhere around 400,000 years after the big event.

Just because you don't understand subatomic particles doesn't mean that nobody does. In fact, there are lots of things that people understand that you don't.

My concept E+V'=M doesn't have that problem, it is logical all the way through (def. #1).

No, it's really not. As has been stated repeatedly, you have no evidence and no proposed mechanism, and you have evidence against your position.

[graybear13]

My concept E+V'=M doesn't have that problem, it is logical all the way through (def. #1).

No, it's really not. As has been stated repeatedly, you have no evidence and no proposed mechanism, and you have evidence against your position.

Yes, it really is.

The proposal mechanism is black hole mathematics (-) singularity.
It's really just BBT mathematics in the opposite direction....right?

If I have evidence against my position show it to me.

gray

[Dardedar]

Until Graybear responds to the very reasonable and basic background request Dr. Harter made of him on May 17, 2009, and thereby demonstrate at least a tiny flyspeck of knowledge on topics he pretends to have a working understanding of, I see no reason any of his mutterings on such advanced and specialized fields should be treated with any more time or respect than one would accord a person who would leap around in public while making farting noises by cupping their hand under their arm pit.

I apologize for the run on sentence.

[graybear13]

Until Graybear responds to the very reasonable and basic background request Dr. Harter made of him on May 17, 2009, and thereby demonstrate at least a tiny flyspeck of knowledge on topics he pretends to have a working understanding of, I see no reason any of his mutterings on such advanced and specialized fields should be treated with any more time or respect than one would accord a person who would leap around in public while making farting noises by cupping their hand under their arm pit.

I apologize for the run on sentence.

Thank you Darrel,

Dr. Harter knows well that I am not trained in these things.
That does not mean I don't understand their bottom line.

E+V'=M

gray

[kwlyon]

E+V'=M

gray

I have a competing theory. I would like to randomly assert that E=MCVagina. I base this on absolutely nothing and no, I will not share with you the derivation. I can think of no conceptual understanding that arises from my theory, however your theory is equally pointless and likely invalid and hey, mine is sexier:)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvjDr8KKtsE

By the way, Dar, thanks for reminding me of that little trick. I haven't had such fun in YEARS! My wife, however, is somewhat annoyed with you. She has been listening to three solid hours of armpit noises now....

[graybear13]

The effect of mass is the function of energy and vortical motion...E + V' = M

Makes more sense than... big bang + God particle = mass,
unless you believe mass is an illusion.

"A mind that is stretched by an experience can never go back to its old dimensions."

"All that I know I learned after I was thirty."

gray

[kwlyon]

Makes more sense than... big bang + God particle = mass,

How so? I mean, aside from the fact that this is a gross oversimplification of multiple fields I see no difference in M=E+V' and big bang + God particle = mass or, for that matter, E=mcVagina. They all seem equally nonsensical. The fact is we have no idea why mass arises. Even the Higgs, if it exist, does not explain WHY mass arises. If I understand it correctly, and I may not, it is merely the mediator by which mass is exchanged...just as charge is exchanged by a W or color is exchanged by a gluon. The experimental verification of the weak interaction does not at all explain the existence of charge. The discovery of the Higgs will not explain the existence of mass. We have no idea why mass arises in particle creation/interactions. My point is that your assertion that M=E+V' is of no explanatory value. It does not explain mass, nor anything else so far as I can tell.

[graybear13]

"Common sense is not so common." Voltaire