Origins of the Universe, Big Bang or No Bang.

[harrycostas]

G'day from the land of ozzzzz

Speedfreek said, that its the path that one twin takes that alteres the time.

In actual fact its the velocity/acceleration/gravity that alters the matter and this alters the time.
This is supported by many papers as been a scientific fact.

Hello Ramparts, there are other search links such as:
It repeats the arXiv links and a hundred odd more papers.

The SAO/NASA Astrophysics Data System
http://www.adsabs.harvard.edu/
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-b ... &version=1

Please do not think that I post these links to show that I'm smart, that is not the case and also I'm not that smart. Just like sharing the reading that I do.

 

[csmyth3025]

by harrycostas » Tue Aug 25, 2009 2:36 am

Please do not think that I post these links to show that I'm smart, that is not the case and also I'm not that smart. Just like sharing the reading that I do.

Harry,

If you're "...not that smart..." and you actually understand "...the reading that I do..." then your a genius in my book. On the other hand, if you really do read through all the scientific papers you provide links to and don't understand what your reading, then you're just wasting your time. As I said before, you'd be better off taking a giant step back and start reading some introductory textbooks on math and physics.
Chris

 

[drwayne]

by drwayne » Sun Aug 23, 2009 11:30 am
I have run into several posters over the years that think that adding a link somehow
adds to the gravitas of their argument. I remember one fellow who, in defending a proposition posted a
series of links that had absolutely nothing to do with the point being argued. When I pointed this out
to him (gently, assuming that he had made an honest mistake), he went ballistic. Obviously he was not
expecting people to follow and read his links, simply to assume that it was evidence for the point he
was making.

Hmm... Since this tactic has been tried before I guess I'll have to rewrite my Doctoral Thesis

Chris

Take a whack at mine while you are at it too sir.



Wayne

 

[origin]

Please do not think that I post these links to show that I'm smart, that is not the case and also I'm not that smart. Just like sharing the reading that I do.

You can relax, I do not think you have to worry about people thinking you are smart. The fact that you post articles that have nothing to do with your point or you post articles that refute your point indicates quite enough for people to draw the obvious conclusion.

 

[SpeedFreek]

G'day from the land of ozzzzz

Speedfreek said, that its the path that one twin takes that alteres the time.

In actual fact its the velocity/acceleration/gravity that alters the matter and this alters the time.
This is supported by many papers as been a scientific fact.

:roll:

Yes, it is scientific fact. And what do you think it is that defines someone's path through space-time, relative to the path someone else takes? Think deeply now....

Also, I did not say "it is the path one twin takes that alters the time" at all. I said it is the difference in the paths that the twins (both of them!) take through space-time. Do you actually read what people write? Do you think the way I put it is equivalent to the way you misquoted my statement?

Harry, I can assure you I do understand the true nature of the "paradox" of the twins. I fully understand and accept the mainstream view of the situation. But I am still left wondering what the problem you have with it is?

 

[origin]

Harry, I can assure you I do understand the true nature of the "paradox" of the twins. I fully understand and accept the mainstream view of the situation. But I am still left wondering what the problem you have with it is?

I am left with the inescapable conclusion that Harry has no idea what the 'main stream' view is but he sure as hell knows it's wrong.

Quite difficult to argue with him over that position...

 

[drwayne]

As I mumbled earlier, the alternative explanation that some seek to make is that through a process
as yet to be defined, clocks in motion change their physical properties in such a way as to have their operation
change in a way that is not distinguishable from the predictions of SR, regardless of the method the
clock uses to measure time.

 

[SpeedFreek]

As I mumbled earlier, the alternative explanation that some seek to make is that through a process
as yet to be defined, clocks in motion change their physical properties in such a way as to have their operation
change in a way that is not distinguishable from the predictions of SR, regardless of the method the
clock uses to measure time.

Sorry Wayne, I wasn't ignoring your earlier comment, I was waiting for Harry state how he thought it all worked.

If your post reflects Harry's position then it begs the question - clocks in motion, relative to what?

(All the clocks on Earth are in motion, relative to somewhere else!)

And if the method that clocks use to measure time is based on the duration of events at the subatomic level, then of course all atoms (and not just those atoms used by the clocks) are similarly affected - the proponents of this idea should consider the implications here.

As light has been found to always move 300,000 km/s faster than whoever is measuring it, however fast that observer is themselves moving relative to something else, we know there is no absolute frame of reference, no "luminiferous ether" or such-like.

A lot of people think that acceleration is simply the answer - the twin who accelerated is, after all, the twin who aged less. But this thought experiment goes a lot deeper than that. You can solve the "paradox" without using acceleration, using 3 travellers in purely inertial frames of reference, in empty space, where each frame of reference considers themselves to be at rest and the others to be the ones who are moving.

You have Alice, who thinks she is at rest and sees Bob come coasting past at a relativistic speed, relative to herself. Bob recedes for a while until he passes Carl, who is coming the other way. Alice sees Carl as he passes her. They can all see what each others clocks are doing as they pass each other, and all of them can individually consider themselves to be the one at rest and that it is the others that are moving.

But from Alice's point of view, Carl becomes the "returning twin" for Bob! The numbers all pan out as we would expect (to Alice, the sum of the elapsed times for Bob's and Carl's clocks, from when Bob passed her until Carl returned, adds up to less than the elapsed time on her own clock), but there was no acceleration at the "turn-around", Carl simply reads Bobs clock and sets his own to match... :shock:

 

[harrycostas]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzz

If you think that I'm wasting your time, why respond. I know I'm not smart, does not mean I do not understand the paper. If you wish to be a critic, be a critic on science and not the person.

This paper may give some form of understanding of the Twin Pardox if it is a Pradox or not.
http://aps.arxiv.org/abs/0804.2008
The Twin Paradox Revisited and Reformulated -- On the Possibility of Detecting Absolute Motion

Authors: G. G. Nyambuya, M. D. Ngobeni
(Submitted on 12 Apr 2008 (v1), last revised 6 Sep 2008 (this version, v3))

Abstract: The famous twin paradox of the Special Theory of Relativity by Einstein (1905) is revisited and revised. This paradox is not a paradox in the true sense of a paradox but a reflection of a misunderstanding of the problem and the Principle of Relativity. The currently accepted solution to this takes into account the accelerations and deceleration of the traveling twin thus introducing an asymmetry that solves the paradox. We argue here that, with the acceleration and deceleration neglected, the problem is asymmetric hence leading to the same conclusion that the traveling twin will age less than the stay at home. We introduce a symmetric twin paradox whose solution can not be found within the currently accepted provinces of the STR if one adopts the currently accepted philosophy of the STR namely that it is impossible for an inertial observer to determine their state of motion. To resolve this, we present (in our modest view) a simple and convincing argument that leads us to conclude that it must be possible for an inertial observer to determine their own state of motion. With this, we are able to solve the symmetric twin paradox. The fact that it is possible for an inertial observer to determine their state of motion -- brings us back to the long rejected idea of an all pervading and permeating medium -- the Aether, namely the Lorentz luminiferous Aether. An experiment capable of validating or invalidating this claim is suggested.

This apparent paradox arises from an incorrect application of
the Principle of Relativity to the description of the story by the
traveling twin’s point of view and the widely accepted resolution
of this apparent paradox goes as follows. From his [Taurwi]
point of view, the argument goes; his non-adventurous
stay-at-home brother is the one who travels backward on the
receding Earth, and then returns as the Earth approaches the
spaceship again, while in the frame of reference fixed to the
spaceship, the astronaut twin is not moving at all. It would
then seem that the twin on Earth is the one whose biological
clock should tick more slowly, not the one on the spaceship.
The “flaw” in the reasoning is that the Principle of Relativity
only applies to frames that are in motion at constant velocity
relative to one another, i.e., inertial frames of reference. The
astronaut twin’s frame of reference, is a noninertial system,
because his spaceship must accelerate when it leaves, decelerate
when it reaches its destination, and then repeat the whole
process again on the way back home. Their experiences are
not equivalent, because the astronaut twin feels accelerations
and decelerations thus leading to the conclusion that the traveling
twin will be younger when they are reunited. Given this
solution and that this typically presented in books that deal
with the STR at length, it is suprising that some notable authors
(see e.g. Kark 2007) still regard the twin paradox as a
paradox.
The real trick is the accelerations and decelerations experienced
by the traveling twin; these bring about the asymmetry
which leads to Taurwi being the one that experiences the time
dilation. From the purely idealized point of view, we can neglected
these accelerations and decelerations. If we did this –
will the scenario be symmetric? Since it is these accelerations
and decelerations that bring in the asymmetry, it must follow
that we must have a paradox because symmetry ought in this
case to be restored thus leading to a real paradox.

 

[harrycostas]

G'day

What is the bottom line?

Relativity is not violated and the Twin Paradox is not a paradox in this situation because one of the Twins is not in an inertial frame.

 

[origin]

G'day

What is the bottom line?

Relativity is not violated and the Twin Paradox is not a paradox in this situation because one of the Twins is not in an inertial frame.

I have no idea what you believe, your arguments wander off the path so much your point is incomprehensible.

Here is the 'main stream' view:
The twin paradox is called a paradox because the seemingly symetric roles played by the twins leads to an asymetric result in their aging.

It is not really a paradox because they really have asymetric roles, which is due to the inertial reference frame differences resulting from the accleration by the traveling twin.

No it is not really a paradox and of course relativity is not violated.

Do you agree or disagree with this assessment or would you like to post a link to mating habits of harbor seals?

 

[SpeedFreek]

If you wish to be a critic, be a critic on science and not the person.

This paper may give some form of understanding of the Twin Pardox if it is a Pradox or not.
http://aps.arxiv.org/abs/0804.2008
The Twin Paradox Revisited and Reformulated -- On the Possibility of Detecting Absolute Motion

It has been known for nearly a century that there is no paradox. The question is not whether there is a paradox or not (there is not), the question is why there is no paradox.

On first impressions, the paper is particularly badly written. It has been out there for a year and a half, and after three editorial revisions (the last of which was nearly a year ago) it still has not been picked up for publication. As it stands, it doesn't stand up to peer-review. Even I can refute it!

It fails badly on page 4, where the authors claim that, in their "symmetric" twin paradox:

If V is the speed with which the Earth bound observers (family and friends) see the twins travel at, then, according to the twins in their own respective frames of references, the Earth is receding at a speed V and the other twin is receding from them at a speed 2V.

This is of course false, and is probably one of the many reasons why this paper failed peer review (it gets worse as the paper goes on). The twins paradox is only relevant when the twins are moving at relativistic speeds, and relativistic speeds are not additive between the twins! If the twins are both moving away from Earth at 0.75 c, one twin does not see the other receding at 1.5 c!

Therefore, the paper violates Relativity.

 

[SpeedFreek]

In relation to my post before last:

It is the change in reference frames that solves the paradox. This can be due to someone turning round and coming back (acceleration), or it can be done by the transfer of information from one inertial reference frame to another (synchronising clock readings between purely inertial frames moving in opposite directions). The result of either is time-dilation relative to a distant observer.

What is equivalent between the two is the path that the clocks take, through space-time!

 

[harrycostas]

G'day Origin

It seems from your statement that you agree with what I said.

 

[csmyth3025]

G'day Origin

It seems from your statement that you agree with what I said.

As far as I can tell, Harry, you've posted links in support of "what you said" that represent every conceivable permutation of both relativistic and "alternate" explanations of the so-called "Twin Paradox". If the most current "what you said" is that there is, and never was, any real "Twin Paradox" to resolve then I think most of us agree.

Chris

 

[origin]

G'day Origin

It seems from your statement that you agree with what I said.

I stated (in a very general way) what we have learned from physics and relativity. Frankly, I no longer have the faintest idea what your point is or what your position is. If you agree with what I wrote then it appears, mind you appears, that you agree with the 'mainstream' view.

I hold little hope though, I fear in your next post you will state something outlandish and back it up with a random link - but one can hope.

 

[godsrockgirl777]

personnally i dont think there was a big bang. it doesnt explain how water or life for that matter made it to earth. and come evolution??? not likely!!!

 

[csmyth3025]

personnally i dont think there was a big bang. it doesnt explain how water or life for that matter made it to earth. and come evolution??? not likely!!!

Fair enough. Now we know that you don't believe that there was a big bang. Do you have any thoughts on how the universe originated?

Chris

 

[harrycostas]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzz

There is no Origin to the universe only to the origin of the evolutioary parts within the universe.

We can follow and observe the evolutioary phases of galaxy formation and star phase changes.

We have observed how matter degenerates to the core within large stars and during supernova ejected out and during nucleosynthesis reforming elements. This is probably one of the most import cyclic activities that is responsible for reforming star clusters and galaxies.

 

[SpeedFreek]

personnally i dont think there was a big bang. it doesnt explain how water or life for that matter made it to earth. and come evolution??? not likely!!!

I didn't know the Big Bang was supposed to explain how water or life appeared on Earth, or was supposed to explain evolution, except of course for the evolution of the universe, which the theory actually describes pretty well.

 

[harrycostas]

G'day

Speedfreek said:

I didn't know the Big Bang was supposed to explain how water or life appeared on Earth, or was supposed to explain evolution, except of course for the evolution of the universe, which the theory actually describes pretty well.

Many Theories describe their ideas pretty well. The problem is the word pretty, makes them look attractive and easier for a person to agree with.

The BBT does that pretty good.

 

[SpeedFreek]

The current best "Big Bang" model in cosmology, the Lambda-CDM concordance model, fits very well with our observations of the universe.

In fact, as I write this, there is no other theory that fits better.

Many Theories describe their ideas pretty well. The problem is the word pretty, makes them look attractive and easier for a person to agree with.

Any decent theory has to describe its own ideas properly, it is whether they describe things we can observe or test for that makes them successful.

As for making the theory look attractive and easier for a person to agree with, I would have thought that was the last thing you would say about Big Bang theories! Something coming from nothing? A universe with no centre or edge? A beginning of time? Both space and time being individually relative? No absolute notions of time or space and thus no absolute sense of simultaneity?

First the skeptics question these ideas as nonsensical, and thus question the theory, and now they say the theory has been made to look attractive and easy to agree with?!?

:roll:

 

[harrycostas]

G'day Speedfreek

Do you understand how matter forms and recycles?

 

[SpeedFreek]

Hello Harry!

I do actually understand what has been observed and how it is interpreted.

Do you understand how the universe expands, while "matter forms and recycles", as you put it? How the whole process of star and galaxy formation and the formation of the heavier elements that were ejected from supernovae that make up the later generations of stars (and their planets) that populate galaxies as time goes on, happens in a universe that is expanding?

Why is there an abundance of light elements in the most distant galaxies? Why did the heavier elements not appear until later in the history of the universe (and thus, are seen only in galaxies that are closer to us)? The explanation is simple - the universe used to be simpler, because it was younger.

Why does the apparent angular diameter of objects increase once you look at objects with redshifts above z~1.6? The explanation is simple - these objects increase in apparent size because they were actually closer to us when they emitted the light we see. So when the universe was younger, it was also smaller.

The goal of science to is find the simplest explanation for what we see, and for that explanation to be able to make predictions of what else we should see. You will not find a simpler model that can explain both these relationships - the abundances of light elements versus redshift, and the anglular diameter distance versus redshift. Both these relationships, when considered against the luminosity - redshift relationship, show us a universe that is evolving as it expands.

 

[harrycostas]

G'day Speedfreek

You said

Do you understand how the universe expands, while "matter forms and recycles", as you put it? How the whole process of star and galaxy formation and the formation of the heavier elements that were ejected from supernovae that make up the later generations of stars (and their planets) that populate galaxies as time goes on, happens in a universe that is expanding?

We do have expansion that can be explained by jet formation small and very large that effect the formation of super clusters of clusters of galaxies. We also understand the formation of the elements upto Fe and Ni within the solar envelope and the heavier elements formed in the later phases of Stars. There is a never ending cycle of events that evolves stars and galaxies.

Why is there an abundance of light elements in the most distant galaxies? Why did the heavier elements not appear until later in the history of the universe (and thus, are seen only in galaxies that are closer to us)? The explanation is simple - the universe used to be simpler, because it was younger.

You are mistaken, the heavier elements are also found in deep field studies.

Why does the apparent angular diameter of objects increase once you look at objects with redshifts above z~1.6? The explanation is simple - these objects increase in apparent size because they were actually closer to us when they emitted the light we see. So when the universe was younger, it was also smaller.

In a cyclic process you do not have an age difference, there is no younger or older. As for redshift, the data is undergoing a review. The intrinisc extreme magnetic properties of supernova are being taken into consideration.

The goal of science to is find the simplest explanation for what we see, and for that explanation to be able to make predictions of what else we should see. You will not find a simpler model that can explain both these relationships - the abundances of light elements versus redshift, and the anglular diameter distance versus redshift. Both these relationships, when considered against the luminosity - redshift relationship, show us a universe that is evolving as it expands.

If it can be explained by science then thats OK. But I disagree with your opinion. Observations to this date show a clustering effect in all images. The images show the formation of small and large jets reforming their surrounds. You need to research galaxy evolution.