100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Is there a "before" the big bang? | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
And [metalwing] continue[s] to insult my intelligence with condescending comments like this: I think that's what all this is really about. MetalWing is frustrated by what he sees as your hardheadedness, and you are insulted by what you see as his being condescending. This isn't a good recipe for a productive, educational conversation about science. No. Metal never attempts to answer questions because he does not know the answers. So instead he immediately points the finger at my not being able to understand his non-explanation. He has never explained anything or answered any questions. The link you sent was perfectly understandable and it did NOT agree with what you and Metal are trying to say. It did NOT say that galaxies are actually moving faster than the speed of light. It said that they "appear" to be moving away faster than the speed of light. Why can't you and he just admit that you are not being clear or it is you that do not understand what you are even saying. I understand the article you linked to perfectly. It does not say any such thing as you and Metal are saying. It also does not say anything about a black hole sucking in space and time. A black hole suck in energy and matter which warps time and space. It warps time and space because energy and matter are what create time and space. You cannot affect time or space without energy and matter because without energy and matter it does not exist. This is fact. So go figure it out and you will find that I am right. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
gravity cannot effect time, because time is just a unit of measurement, like an inch... how can gravity affect something that is imaginary? Sometimes you ask really good questions, Moe. The beginning of the answer lies in semantics, and the meaning of the word 'time'. Time as a component of space/time is different than the system we use to measure the progress of the same. Gravity does not influence or determine human created labels - it influences actual time itself. This confusion between "the arbitrariness with which humans measure the passage of time" and "the idea that time itself is not real" has come up several times before in these thread. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There is no incident of any black hole sucking in empty space or time without involving matter and energy. Space/time does not and cannot exist without energy/matter. This is fact. You cannot prove otherwise. Einstein agrees. Wow you are really trying to milk that strawman for all its worth!  It doesn't matter whether space and time can be meaningfully defined absent of energy and matter, what matters is whether or not gravity can act directly on space and time. If there is no incidence of time and space without energy and matter there is no way you can know if gravity can act directly on it. The condition does not and cannot exist so it is a moot point. It is a meaningless unsupportable and unprovable claim. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
gravity cannot effect time, because time is just a unit of measurement, like an inch... how can gravity affect something that is imaginary? Sometimes you ask really good questions, Moe. The beginning of the answer lies in semantics, and the meaning of the word 'time'. Time as a component of space/time is different than the system we use to measure the progress of the same. Gravity does not influence or determine human created labels - it influences actual time itself. This confusion between "the arbitrariness with which humans measure the passage of time" and "the idea that time itself is not real" has come up several times before in these thread. Actual time? There is no "actual time" without energy and space. Even a Planck of time totally depends on energy (light) and space (distance traveled). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What scientists are describing is the 'appearance' of a black hole's affect on space and time.
But this affect is because of matter and energy. It is not because space and time are material things that can be affected by gravity. Without matter and energy, you cannot describe what (empty)space or time even is. It does not exist without energy and matter. This is fact. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If that's how you interpret the statements made in this thread, there is little more I can do for you. Understood. There is little more you can do for me. Therefore I reject your (and metalwing's) claim that a black hole can suck in empty space and time. You cannot explain it or back it up by describing the properties of empty space (void of matter and energy) and/or how gravity can affect it. You have also failed to explain the material properties of time that allow gravity to have any affect on it. These are extremely basic and simple questions. JB, if you can't understand the basics, the act of making up new theories based on your misunderstandings is pretty silly, not to mention arrogant. This is not a "new theory" at all. This is the way it is. Again your own arrogance causes you to speak to me as if I am ignorant or stupid. I am not. And I do not "misunderstand" basic physics or science. The link you sent me to explains it very well and simply and it is very easy to understand. It also does not say that galaxies are moving faster than the speed of light. It says that they APPEAR to be moving away from us faster than light. It does not say that they are actually moving faster than the speed of light. It says that they only appear to be. Quote Below: "As you look at galaxies further and further away, they appear to be moving faster and faster away from us. And it is possible that they could eventually appear to be moving away from us faster than light." The "appearance" of something is not an indication that they are actually moving faster than the speed of light. The article also said this: "You could use up all the energy in the Universe and still not be traveling at light speed." The article also states that dark energy (not empty space) is providing an additional accelerating force on the expansion of the universe. Dark energy. As quoted below: As you know, most of the galaxies in the Universe are expanding away from us because of the Big Bang, and the subsequent effects of dark energy, which is providing an additional accelerating force on the expansion of the Universe. And you continue to insult my intelligence with condescending comments like this: Here is a simple explanation of one concept that you seem to be completely unable to grasp. I am perfectly able to grasp that concept - as written in that article. What I can't grasp is your ridiculous claim that a black hole can suck up empty space/time in the absence of energy and matter. Energy and matter are always involved with warped space and time. There is no black hole in the universe that can or does suck in empty space or time because space and time do not exist without the presence of energy and matter. Here is how it works: The universe is first and foremost energy. From energy, comes matter. From matter comes space/time. Matter and energy effects (creates) spacetime. This is NOT a new theory. This is fact. This is simple logic and common sense. You speak as if there is a material entity called "space" and "time" that gravity can have some affect on. This is not true. Gravity can only affect energy and matter. Energy and matter effect (create) spacetime; and affect (warp and change) spacetime. That is my claim. That is fact. That is stupid. That you think it is "stupid" is irrefutable proof that you don't know what you are talking about. Ask a real scientist. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
so basically, since they (the scientists) can't be wrong, Where do you get that from? Nothing, anywhere, that anyone said implies that scientists can't be wrong. Science is all about finding out the ways that you've been wrong, and making it better. Really, Moe. Why would you say such a thing? This is a real question. How do you arrive at that? if you read the whole post i typed, it explained why i said that... they invent new, far fetched theories to explain something that may/ probably is not true to begin with... since i really do not believe in the big bang theory, they coming up with new theories to support it makes no sense to me... i feel in the next few years, they will realize their mistake and correct it...i'm looking for a scientist that is trying to disprove this theory, not prove it...by most of the scientists trying to prove the big bang theory, i feel they are digging themselves in a hole they cannot get out of. Oh I definitely read the entire post: so basically, since they (the scientists) can't be wrong, they invent more theories about the first theory that could be wrong, in order to keep the unprovable alive?... sometimes these theories are getting to be the same as religion, just getting further and further from the truth, which nobody knows... It just left me with question. I still have questions... like: Why do you think that scientists think they can't be wrong? It is true that the theory of the big bang has evolved, and that scientist have made small changes to the details to accommodate new information - but its not because they think they are always right, nor is it because they are overly attached to the theory. Its because (a) the basic reasons for postulating a big bang haven't changed and (b) the new information hasn't really challenged that basic idea. I still don't see any evidence, anywhere, that the scientific community sees itself as infallible. They do see that the evidence , so far, points strongly in that direction. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
i'm thinking that some of theories may be flawed, or that red shift is not a "good" way to measure distance... if gravity affects light, then the light particles would be bending around galaxies and black holes, not making a straight line... but light does not always travel in a straight line. then how do they know how far something is if the light is being bent, or not traveling in a straight line? JR is right, light does not always travel in a straight line. Check this out, this is awesome: http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/image_feature_575.html Moe, yes when light is bent without us knowing about it, it can throw off some of our measurements. But we can also use the bending of light to gain or improve other measurements. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Sun 11/06/11 12:01 PM
|
|
Is time slowing down?
"If time is indeed slowing down, so that according to this new suggestion our solitary time dimension is slowly turning into a new space dimension, then the far-distant, ancient stars seen by cosmologists would therefore, from our perspective, look as though they were accelerating." An interesting article on that: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/large-hadron-collider/3319218/Time-is-running-out-literally-says-scientist.html (One or two dimensions of time?) "However, he adds that the team is only assuming there is one dimension of time. Itzhak Bars of the University of Southern California in Los Angeles has put forward the bizarre suggestion that there are two dimensions of time, not the one that we are all familiar with." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A quote from:
http://www.universetoday.com/12563/will-time-be-replaced-by-another-space-dimension/ "The observed expansion of the universe (as discovered by Edwin Hubble in 1925) may in fact be a symptom of a “signature changing” brane. If our brane is mutating from time-like to space-like, observers in the Lorentzian universe should observe an expanding and accelerating universe, exactly as we are observing presently.Marc Mars goes on to detail that this theory can explain this ever increasing expansion, whilst keeping the physical characteristics of the cosmos as we observe today, without assuming any form of dark matter or dark energy is responsible." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
so basically, since they (the scientists) can't be wrong, Where do you get that from? Nothing, anywhere, that anyone said implies that scientists can't be wrong. Science is all about finding out the ways that you've been wrong, and making it better. Really, Moe. Why would you say such a thing? This is a real question. How do you arrive at that? if you read the whole post i typed, it explained why i said that... they invent new, far fetched theories to explain something that may/ probably is not true to begin with... since i really do not believe in the big bang theory, they coming up with new theories to support it makes no sense to me... i feel in the next few years, they will realize their mistake and correct it...i'm looking for a scientist that is trying to disprove this theory, not prove it...by most of the scientists trying to prove the big bang theory, i feel they are digging themselves in a hole they cannot get out of. Oh I definitely read the entire post: so basically, since they (the scientists) can't be wrong, they invent more theories about the first theory that could be wrong, in order to keep the unprovable alive?... sometimes these theories are getting to be the same as religion, just getting further and further from the truth, which nobody knows... It just left me with question. I still have questions... like: Why do you think that scientists think they can't be wrong? It is true that the theory of the big bang has evolved, and that scientist have made small changes to the details to accommodate new information - but its not because they think they are always right, nor is it because they are overly attached to the theory. Its because (a) the basic reasons for postulating a big bang haven't changed and (b) the new information hasn't really challenged that basic idea. I still don't see any evidence, anywhere, that the scientific community sees itself as infallible. They do see that the evidence , so far, points strongly in that direction. i'll clarify it... they keep trying to prove the big bang theory by adding other unsubstantial theories, like man did with the bible and other gods 3000 years ago. they are under the impression that there has to be a beginning to the universe, which there might be, but that may always be beyond our ways of getting to that information. years from now, when their tech gets better and their understanding gets better, they might have a plausible theory on how the universe was started/created. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
i'll clarify it... they keep trying to prove the big bang theory by adding other unsubstantial theories, like man did with the bible and other gods 3000 years ago. they are under the impression that there has to be a beginning to the universe, which there might be, but that may always be beyond our ways of getting to that information. years from now, when their tech gets better and their understanding gets better, they might have a plausible theory on how the universe was started/created. Thanks for clarifying. I do agree that we will likely, in the future, have a better understanding of how the universe started. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Since "before" and "after" have to do with time, and time did not exist until after the universe was spat out by the alleged "big bang" ..... then how can anyone talk about what went on or existed "before" the big bang? Time still does not exist. It is a human construct. But I like your point and, I believe, while the big bang may have happened, it was not the ultimate beginning. I do not understand why science and religion must be at odds on this. After all, imho, science is simply God's tool. The bible says that God created everything, but had it gone into detail as to the HOW, it would have confused more people than it helped. Science is real. The evidence is before us. But logic alone fails after a point. True existence is the physical AND the spiritual. Not merely one or the other. (Just my humble thoughts) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here is a very interesting website about the nature of time:
http://www.timephysics.com/what-causes-time.html |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If that's how you interpret the statements made in this thread, there is little more I can do for you. Understood. There is little more you can do for me. Therefore I reject your (and metalwing's) claim that a black hole can suck in empty space and time. You cannot explain it or back it up by describing the properties of empty space (void of matter and energy) and/or how gravity can affect it. You have also failed to explain the material properties of time that allow gravity to have any affect on it. These are extremely basic and simple questions. JB, if you can't understand the basics, the act of making up new theories based on your misunderstandings is pretty silly, not to mention arrogant. This is not a "new theory" at all. This is the way it is. Again your own arrogance causes you to speak to me as if I am ignorant or stupid. I am not. And I do not "misunderstand" basic physics or science. The link you sent me to explains it very well and simply and it is very easy to understand. It also does not say that galaxies are moving faster than the speed of light. It says that they APPEAR to be moving away from us faster than light. It does not say that they are actually moving faster than the speed of light. It says that they only appear to be. Quote Below: "As you look at galaxies further and further away, they appear to be moving faster and faster away from us. And it is possible that they could eventually appear to be moving away from us faster than light." The "appearance" of something is not an indication that they are actually moving faster than the speed of light. The article also said this: "You could use up all the energy in the Universe and still not be traveling at light speed." The article also states that dark energy (not empty space) is providing an additional accelerating force on the expansion of the universe. Dark energy. As quoted below: As you know, most of the galaxies in the Universe are expanding away from us because of the Big Bang, and the subsequent effects of dark energy, which is providing an additional accelerating force on the expansion of the Universe. And you continue to insult my intelligence with condescending comments like this: Here is a simple explanation of one concept that you seem to be completely unable to grasp. I am perfectly able to grasp that concept - as written in that article. What I can't grasp is your ridiculous claim that a black hole can suck up empty space/time in the absence of energy and matter. Energy and matter are always involved with warped space and time. There is no black hole in the universe that can or does suck in empty space or time because space and time do not exist without the presence of energy and matter. Here is how it works: The universe is first and foremost energy. From energy, comes matter. From matter comes space/time. Matter and energy effects (creates) spacetime. This is NOT a new theory. This is fact. This is simple logic and common sense. You speak as if there is a material entity called "space" and "time" that gravity can have some affect on. This is not true. Gravity can only affect energy and matter. Energy and matter effect (create) spacetime; and affect (warp and change) spacetime. That is my claim. That is fact. That is stupid. That you think it is "stupid" is irrefutable proof that you don't know what you are talking about. Ask a real scientist. I don't have to. I have posted hundreds of accurate scientific posts on Mingle and I don't post junk. You have posted, more false scientific claims than everyone else on the site put together. You add buzzwords of which you don't even know the meaning like "plasma" to explain things where you obviously have no understanding at all. You even mix quantum mechanic terms in conversations about general relativity (like this thread). Your posts speak for themselves, which is why you and some of your threads get thrown off of Mingle. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Time still does not exist. It is a human construct. Sigh. Lets look at time and space. The idea of measuring distance, and giving meaning to those measurements, is a human idea. The units we use to measure them are human created. But space itself is real. The distances (not the measurements of the distances, but the distances themselves) exist as real aspects of reality. Similarly, all clocks and calendars are human creations. (Except any clocks or calendars which are found to be creations of aliens or non-human animals.) The point is, clocks and calendars are made up. But just like space, time itself is real. It isn't absolute and universal, it doesn't proceed at the same pace in all places and circumstance, and you can't touch, but it is a real quality of our universe, and necessary to address if we are to have a coherent view of how our universe works. But I like your point and, I believe, while the big bang may have happened, it was not the ultimate beginning. I do not understand why science and religion must be at odds on this. I agree, science and religion need not be at odds. Scientists generally prefer not to make definite assertions about what is true in the absence of supporting evidence. Most claims about any causality preceding the big bang have no basis in evidence. Science is real. The evidence is before us.  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Time still does not exist. It is a human construct. Sigh. Lets look at time and space. The idea of measuring distance, and giving meaning to those measurements, is a human idea. The units we use to measure them are human created. But space itself is real. The distances (not the measurements of the distances, but the distances themselves) exist as real aspects of reality. Similarly, all clocks and calendars are human creations. (Except any clocks or calendars which are found to be creations of aliens or non-human animals.) The point is, clocks and calendars are made up. But just like space, time itself is real. It isn't absolute and universal, it doesn't proceed at the same pace in all places and circumstance, and you can't touch, but it is a real quality of our universe, and necessary to address if we are to have a coherent view of how our universe works. But I like your point and, I believe, while the big bang may have happened, it was not the ultimate beginning. I do not understand why science and religion must be at odds on this. I agree, science and religion need not be at odds. Scientists generally prefer not to make definite assertions about what is true in the absence of supporting evidence. Most claims about any causality preceding the big bang have no basis in evidence. Science is real. The evidence is before us.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Few accepted concepts:
1. We live in an expanding universe. 2. Mass radiates gravitons which interact with space. 3. Mass produces negative curvature in space.(General Relativity) 4 Time slows in negatively curved space. (General Relativity) 5. Time also slows in moving objects. (Special Relativity) 6. Forces reduce in strength as part of slowing of time. (From the thought experiment) The above concepts when combined with the following definition of time gives new insight into the laws of the universe: Time is the presence of motion and forces and is caused by the expansion of space 1. Gravitons radiating from matter (under the influence of expanding space) interact with space to slow its expansion. 2. Slower expansion produces negative curvature in space. 3. Motion is slower and forces are weaker where expansion of space is slower and this is perceived as slower time in gravity. 4. Total amount of motion and forces (i.e. Energy) imparted by expanding space to a mass is a constant (MC^2). Therefore when velocity of an object is increased the motion at the atomic level reduces and forces weaken in proportion, which is the observedslowing of time in moving bodies. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Sun 11/06/11 02:36 PM
|
|
Your posts speak for themselves, which is why you and some of your threads get thrown off of Mingle. Not true. I have not been thrown off Mingle. (And for you to even make that remark is rude and off topic.) I was merely restricted from posting for a week one time, and it had nothing at all to do with you. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Sun 11/06/11 02:43 PM
|
|
Since "before" and "after" have to do with time, and time did not exist until after the universe was spat out by the alleged "big bang" ..... then how can anyone talk about what went on or existed "before" the big bang? Time still does not exist. It is a human construct. But I like your point and, I believe, while the big bang may have happened, it was not the ultimate beginning. I do not understand why science and religion must be at odds on this. After all, imho, science is simply God's tool. The bible says that God created everything, but had it gone into detail as to the HOW, it would have confused more people than it helped. Science is real. The evidence is before us. But logic alone fails after a point. True existence is the physical AND the spiritual. Not merely one or the other. (Just my humble thoughts) "POSSIBLE DEFINITION OF TIME Time can be defined from many perspectives. From perception view point time is an emergent concept which our mind creates. Present is the consciousness or awareness of recording of memory into the brain. Past is just a record while future does not exist. From point of view of physics time is presence of motion and forces in the universe. Time involves all kinds of motion. The spin of particles and the motion of photons are time dependent. Gravitational force and electromagnetic forces are all part of time. As is the motion of celestial bodies the atoms and all other motion. We have partially understood the phenomenon of time. The next step is to find out what is the source of this motion and forces." http://www.timephysics.com/index.html |
|
|
|
|
