Curious about big bang.

[silylene old]

<font color="yellow">the laws of physics say that if something that is spinning breaks apart all of the pieces will also spin the same direction <br />. a ferris wheel barely spins at any speed. that doesnt have enough speed or mementum to cause what im saying. example...you spin a bike tire horizontally anything on the tire liek mud will fly off spinning in the same direction. its got nothing to do with atoms. (sorry my vocabulary isnt as big as some of the ppl here ) </font><br /><br />Actually, the laws of physics tell us that the pieces will fly off in a straight line, tangential to the circle of the spin. Pieces don't continue to "spin the same direction". <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center"><em><font color="#0000ff">- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -</font></em> </div><div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center"><font color="#0000ff"><em>I really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function.</em></font> </div> </div>

 

[rebarman]

i believe God left science in a way to discover God and his amazing works...therefore when i discuss God is a science forum...i am dicussing a link with sience...and christianity is not a religion...its a relationship....if thats what you were reffering to

 

[yevaud]

No, the discussion of religion in a pure science forum. This is not generally allowed here. However, we have the "Free Space" and "Phenomena" forums where this is permitted. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[jost]

Religious beliefs?? No, My beliefs are based on the unabibility of science to prove anything other than creation correct, the unability of science to discredit anything biblical, and SCIENCES ability to prove the Bible correct.

 

[drwayne]

You have been told twice now by a member of the Mission Control team to desist from such posts in this section.<br /><br />This is not the place for them, and that decision is not up for discussion.<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[jost]

You close minded ignorant people, creation science is just as much a science as anything else, <br /><br /> 1.<br /> 1. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.<br /> 2. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.<br /> 3. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.<br /><br />Then again I'm sure you all have witnessed the BB, Evolution, and other theories, so I suppose you win.<br /><br />Just keep this in mind, it's better to believe creation science and christiantity and find out later that your wrong, then to not believe and find out later that your wrong.

 

[drwayne]

JoSt will be taking some time off now.<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[jost2]

Oh right, I've been frozen because I want to look at all spectrums? is that it? Like come on if someone can use scientifical evidence rather than quoting the bible at you, isn't it worth taking a look at? Rather then just brushing it aside as "Religion" like the scientific community ALWAYS does? Besides as far as I am concerned the BBT and Evolution are both just as religious if not more then creation, since it takes more belief and faith in something that can't be proved. Just open up your mind a little bit, if someone starts using the bible as their source of "proof" thats one thing, but when someone is trying to use science, at least take a look at it, or be labelled as ignorant because of your predetermined beliefs

 

[bonzelite]

<font color="yellow"> Besides as far as I am concerned the BBT and Evolution are both just as religious if not more then creation, since it takes more belief and faith in something that can't be proved. Just open up your mind a little bit, if someone starts using the bible as their source of "proof" thats one thing, but when someone is trying to use science, at least take a look at it, or be labelled as ignorant because of your predetermined beliefs</font><br /><br />i agree with you a lot, but drop the bible study hour. a good tactic is, if you want to refute or debate here, at least use the official sciences against the ones who believe in them without digressing into god or creation as it is described in the bible. or take it to phenomena <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

 

[CalliArcale]

Getting back to the topic.....<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>in my opinion, the idea that sound/radio wave doppler shifts are due to increasing or decreasing distances of relative motions of craft, and the light red or blueshifting is further due to this hypothetical "fabric of space-time" expanding," is, in my opinion, erroneous and contradictory.<br /><br />in my opinion they are either both due to space-time streching, or they are not. yet, in my opinion, the mixing of the two ideas --increasing space-time strechting for one, and a doppler shift to due motion of the objects only-- is, in my opinion, a contradiction indicative of a misunderstanding of redshift. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Doppler shifting is due to relative motion. That's as close to fact as fact gets.<br /><br />Now, the question is what causes that motion. It is impossible to distinguish between two things moving apart due to expansion of spacetime and two things moving apart because they just happen to be going that way. The idea of an expanding spacetime hinges largely on the peculiar observation that almost everything in the universe is receding from us at a curiously consistent rate. The alternative seems to be an enormous coincidence.<br /><br />BTW, if the expansion of the universe is the correct answer, you are correct that it would Doppler shift other waves as well. However, we cannot test this. Sounds transmitted through Earth's atmosphere do not transmit far enough for there to be a measurable shift purely due to the theoretical expansion of the universe. Other pressure waves are not easy to detect, and there is no good baseline -- we can't tell what they *should* be, so we can't tell whether or not they are Doppler shifted. (The nice thing about star spectra is that the emission lines are very well understood, so there is a good solid baseline.)<br /><br />So electromagnetic radiation is pretty much all that can be used at present to test this ob <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[CalliArcale]

BTW, the Hubble Constant (derived from these curiously consistent redshifts) is said to describe the rate of expansion of the universe. It is used to determine the distance to a remote object by its redshift. But how do we know that what value the Hubble Constant has? The answer relies on a special kind of star called a Cepheid. This is a type of very predictable variable star. It can be used as a "standard candle" -- you know how bright it ought to be if it were right in front of us, so you can determine its distance based on how bright it appears to be here on Earth (based on the principle that the intensity of light diminishes proportionally to the inverse square of the distance). There are other "standard candles" -- certain types of supernova, for instance. By comparing the redshifts of various standard candles, scientists can compute the Hubble Constant. The value is likely to be continually refined as more and more standard candles are discovered, as as they themselves are better understood. This is part of the reason scientists get so excited about distant supernovas, actually. Not only is it a chance to study stellar evolution, but it can have enormous implications for cosmology.<br /><br />BTW, "standard candle" just means a known light source. You're pretty sure how bright it really is, so you can use it to compare against other things. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[bonzelite]

<font color="yellow"><br />Doppler shifting is due to relative motion. That's as close to fact as fact gets. </font>---right. i have no problem with that.<br /><font color="yellow"><br />Now, the question is what causes that motion.</font>----right. and probes/craft are transmitting back to us doppler shifted due to their relative motions to earth or the sun or whatever.<br /><br /><font color="yellow"> It is impossible to distinguish between two things moving apart due to expansion of spacetime and two things moving apart because they just happen to be going that way. </font>----you're assuming that "spacetime" is expanding, and, for that matter, even exists at all. you can distinguish between them by throwing overboard the entire idea of "spacetime expansion." as this may be entirely bogus. and probably is. light from galaxies redshifted is due to "spacetime expansion," but radio signals from craft are not? <br /><br /><font color="yellow">BTW, if the expansion of the universe is the correct answer, you are correct that it would Doppler shift other waves as well. However, we cannot test this.</font>-------all the more reason to dump spacetime, as it does not describe the nature of radio waves from craft, does it? nope. it is entirely irrelevant to such things. if it were relevant, then they would refer to all EM spectral waves as "stretched by spacetime," as they declare radio, xrays, gamma, and photons to be <i><b>all the from the same EM spectrum.</b></i><br /><br /><font color="yellow"><br />So electromagnetic radiation is pretty much all that can be used at present to test this observationally.</font>-----and visible light is EM. and it is an absolute contradiction that what is utilized in practice, ie, radio waves, sound waves, etc, are explained to be doppler shifted due to their relative motions <i>and not to spacetime expanding, which is accepted as FACT,</i> and that the "untestable" premise of "spacetime

 

[derekmcd]

Bonze... you are really stretching trying to 'rock the boat'. In this thread, you claim the expansion of space/time is "BS". In a another thread concerning gravity and your theory that the earth is expanding in accordance with Einstein's Equivalence Principle you completely rely on expansion or else the moon and earth would expand into each other. Your opinions are just that... opinions. You haven't offered anything to refute either theory. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[bonzelite]

<font color="yellow"> you completely rely on expansion or else the moon and earth would expand into each other. Your opinions are just that... opinions. </font><br /><br />yes. in my opinion. i use that phrase to preface my statements. you're very perceptive. <br /><br />the moon and the earth do expand into each other. and this geometry creates the orbit of the moon around the earth. and the earth expanding to the sun, and the sun to the earth, keeps these bodies in orbit. there is no gravity in my opinion, only acceleration. gravity is not a force that attracts from within an object, or at a distance tugging on something. there is only geometric acceleration due to expansion or free-floating conditions. newton is not describing "why" anything works. his assumptions are erroneous, in my opinion, heavily relying on prior geometric explanations, with the introduced idea of "gravity" to explain the "real reasons." and this is false. <br /><br />newtons "laws" erode because they are incorrect models of reality, not describing whatsoever reality. it is time for him to be put on a back shelf. <br />

 

[alokmohan]

Cngrats.It covers intellignt design guys too.

 

[CalliArcale]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p><font color="yellow">It is impossible to distinguish between two things moving apart due to expansion of spacetime and two things moving apart because they just happen to be going that way.</font>----you're assuming that "spacetime" is expanding, and, for that matter, even exists at all. you can distinguish between them by throwing overboard the entire idea of "spacetime expansion." as this may be entirely bogus. and probably is. light from galaxies redshifted is due to "spacetime expansion," but radio signals from craft are not?<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Dude, I was trying to give room for your opinion, and you took it as a contradiction!<br /><br />I'll try again:<br /><br />Doppler shifting is due to two things moving in relation to one another. <i>It does not matter what is causing the relative motion.</i> It works regardless of whether it's expanding spacetime or proper motion. So yes, there can be Doppler shifting due to spacetime expansion <i>and</i> proper motion. I do not understand why you think this is a contradiction.<br /><br />An analogy:<br /><br />If a speaker playing A above middle C (frequency = 440) is fixed to a car which drives away from you at 50 MPH, you will not hear A. You will hear a lower pitch, due to the Doppler shift.<br /><br />If a speaker playing A above middle C is fixed to the ground and you drive away from it at 50 MPH, you will not hear A. You will hear a lower pitch, due to the Doppler shift.<br /><br />If a speaker playing A above middle C is fixed to the ground and you are fixed to the ground and a cataclysmic event rends the ground asunder, moving both you and the speaker apart at equal rates such that the relative velocity of the speaker to you is 50 MPH, you will not hear A. You will hear a lower pitch, due to the Doppler shift.<br /><br />It does not matter what causes the motion. The Doppler shift applies in all cases. Doppler shift frankly tells you abso <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[alokmohan]

Every point in the universe is center relative to frame of reference of the observer.

 

[mikelawre]

It's an interesting debate. Can I throw in another bone? Most people do not accept the idea of tired light. But if you consider the parametrisation of volume and viscosity in powers of mass, then their product is a constant. This suggests that there is a universal viscosity or drag affecting all moving particles. This further implies that there must be a maximum velocity for all particles (light speed for photons) and that certain particles will show this drag as a loss of frequency dependent on distance travelled. A red shift if observed using photons. So in addition to gravitational red shift (caused by having to overcome a gravitational field to escape) and doppler red/blue shift, there is tired light redshift. So the problem may be a lot more complex.<br /><br />Mike

 

[bonzelite]

IMHO, there is no maximum velocity for photons. being that they are known and allegedly observed to go only "c" does not preclude anything else, them included, from going beyond this --as everything is free-floating and without gravity. we have simply not yet observed a physical object, ie, a "rocket" or "asteroid" from going c and beyond, but nothing is to preclude it's velocity from well overriding c, as everything is governed, at the basic level, by geometric expansion and acceleration, in a gravity-free and eternal space, and nothing more. <br /><br />the universal constant, of my concern, affecting objects is the universal expansion rate of atoms. and the subsequent acceleration of these particles from their centers of mass, upon expansion.