JustJoe

1 minute ago, Lorentz Jr said:

You say the dumbest things sometimes, Joe. If two light beams leave Earth and the sun at the same time, observers on the sun and Earth will see those beams at the same time. That's what you said. But it's obvious, and it has nothing to do with the transit time, except that it's the same (except for a tiny gravitational correction) in both directions.

I say correct things , my diagram shows exactly what you mentioned . 

1 minute ago, MigL said:

OMFG !
Can you see air ????
Yet we are able to build planes that use properties of air to stay aloft and fly.
What the hell are you talking about

 

Phi probably has more Physics knowledge in the nail of his left pinky finger than you have in your head.
About the only good thought you've had since you joined is that we might as well ban you.

You can't see space for crying out loud , look up how we see if you don't beleive me . You can't see air for the same reason , air does not reflect or emit visible light . 

3 minutes ago, Lorentz Jr said:

No offense, buddy, but you're talking about yourself. 😉

I talk about real physics not made up stuff , why are you defending outright lies ? 

Space cannot reflect or emit light , humans percieve space , they can't observe it . If there was no visible matter we'd see nothing but darkness . 

5 hours ago, Phi for All said:

!

Moderator Note

From now on, if your post contains one of these famously ignorant assertions that force the rest of the members to correct you, or wonder why you aren't reading the supporting material, I'm tossing it to the Trash Can. We tried to give you some leeway, but you really are wasting everyone's time. 

 

Might as well ban me if on here you are going to ignore the actual physics and make up a load of rubbish . You know very well how we see and how we observe visible matter . You know very well that space does not emit or reflect light . 

I don't want to be part of a forum that is going to directly lie to people just to keep a theory ''alive'' . 

No offense but you are making this forum come across as ''religious'' rather than scientific . 

I also suggest other members quit this forum because it is nothing more than an American power trip ! 

27 minutes ago, swansont said:

!

Moderator Note

A key in discussing this is in quantifying the results. Something you continue to avoid doing, and has been pointed out as a requirement for you to discuss this topic.

 

Again , another moderator who wants to preach instead of discussing . Tm is right what he said about scientists

23 minutes ago, Lorentz Jr said:

8.3 😋

Not true 

6 minutes ago, Eise said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Observational_evidence

 

''Observations of distant galaxies and quasars show that these objects are redshifted:'' 

Observations of space isn't possible so how can anyone conclude an expansion of space ? 

If redshift is deemed to be a Doppler like effect , then the observations show receding galaxies rather than an expansion of space . 

The measure between distant galaxies can expand but in no way does this imply an actual expansion of space itself . 

Also what do you mean by redshift exactly ? Does science observe 750nm or there about ? 

2 minutes ago, MigL said:

You, and Joe, are free to believe whatever you want.
But this is a science forum, so when you, and Joe, want to discuss the available observational evidence, and the conclusions that can possibly be drawn from it, I will participate.

Until then, I will bitch and complain that you, and HijackJoe, are wasting everyone's time.

Ok, let us discuss the alledged evidence that space itself is expanding . Please provide evidence for this ? 

Space cannot be observed because it does not emit or reflect light , Hubble does not observe space , it observes observable matter and the light from this matter . 

Just now, Genady said:

I'm talking about time coordinate that appears in a space-time metric.

I understand time is a dimension and the expansion is equal and proportional to the time dimension . Within nanoseconds of the BB , the hot dense state had gained a volume and this is what I'm talking about . There is no need to imply that space had gained a volume ? 

Just now, Genady said:

Apology accepted. Perhaps I should've clarified that the "point" I've mentioned is a "point in time". 

In my opinion time is only relative to matter and in regards to the point in time you provided , I see that as related to the expansion of the dense state rather than the space . 

m/V  rather than m/0 if there is no space . 🤔

1 minute ago, mistermack said:

 From what I've read, space is expanding now, and expanded rapidly in the early stages of the big bang. So projecting backwards, it seems to have come from nothing.

From what I have read there is no evidence that space is expanding or has ever expanded in any way . There is evidence by the Hubble observation that observable matter is receding away from our observation position . Space itself isn't observable by any means because it does not emit or reflect light . 

3 minutes ago, Genady said:

I said nothing about before BB, nothing about starting of space, and didn't imply "tiny" or "outside". 

''Space existed at the time of BB (the "~10^-43" point). The BB has happened everywhere in that space.''

I thought you did imply this , perhaps I misunderstood your post , my apologies . 

Just now, Genady said:

I said nothing about nowhere.

Those who imply space itself started from the big bang are implying before the big bang nowhere existed , i.e there was no space . 

Yourself implied a tiny spec of space that outside of that tiny spec was no space , nowhere . 

2 minutes ago, Genady said:

Space existed at the time of BB (the "~10^-43" point). The BB has happened everywhere in that space.

Right , so you are saying a tiny tiny portion of space existed before the big bang that was surrounded by nowhere ? 

Sorry but it sounds absurd because it is absurd . Nobody can prove that nowhere ever ''existed'' , it is more likely that there was somewhere meaning lots more space than a tiny tiny portion . 

Just now, Intoscience said:

Nowhere, 

This sounds absurd I know,  but the hot dense state came into existence at the same time as spacetime and rapidly expanded, like really rapidly. Its hard for us to conceptualise something that is beyond our imagination and/or descriptions.   

I can conceptualise the big bang but not without there being space . I actually think the author messed up , they should of said there was the absence of light and matter rather than the absence of space which is absurd in my opinion . 

A hot dense state has to occur somewhere is my belief because nowhere doesn't exist . 

3 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

. Also it is theorised that space and time came into existence at this point.

I have heard that too but it doesn't seem right that there could be a hot dense state without any space . Where would this hot dense state be ? 

13 minutes ago, tmdarkmatter said:

So, an all-knowing scientist/prophet has written the holy text of the big bang theory and we should all believe, because those who do not believe in the exact wording shall be punished. Intepretations of the holy words are not allowed, nor any type of criticism, especially, if you are not familiar with the higher spheres of cosmology and do not hold a certain title granted by exclusive members of this high society. Is this the science we deserve after paying our taxes? Lol (common, this is a little joke, please laugh)

It really isn't like that at all . A scientist or scientists  had an idea that over time they turned it into a theory by supporting evidence and general concensus . We all know that the big bang theory may not be exact but so far it is the best available theory unless you know one better ? 

In science they aren't really that bothered about a beginning because the present is always more important . You don't pay taxes  for theories such as the big bang , you pay taxes for medical science and many other science applications that have real world uses . 

Your device you are communicating on now is a product of science and research for example . 

5 minutes ago, tmdarkmatter said:

Well, infinite is a strong word. That´s why I used the term "almost infinite". 

I am not great with wording either but almost infinite isn't possible because there is no end to something that is infinite . 

I think a highly dense state is the big bang wording and if you put your own words in , some people on here may not understand your question . Also you mention blackholes , I don't think the big bang mentions black holes either FYI . 

1 minute ago, joigus said:

  

Hey, I've got one:

 

There once was a man with a doubt

All the mistakes pointed out

He asked left and right

He wasn't too tight

But his questions were nothing about

 

I hope it helps.

That's quite poetic , well done . 

Do you know much about this supposedly aether ? Is the modern version dark energy ? 

7 minutes ago, tmdarkmatter said:

According to the current model, an almost infinite amount of mass was compressed to a small dot,

Hello , I'm not totally clued up but I don't think the big bang theory says that . It says something like the universe started from a high temperature , high density state . It doesn't mention infinite as far I know . There is also lots of evidence apparently . 

9 minutes ago, joigus said:

Found this definition by one such Jason Preston at Quora that I like, and think is relevant to this discussion:

https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-examples-of-sophistry

There once was a great artist who knew it was always better to start with a blank canvas . He knew that for every dot he painted , that dot would remain fixed in position on the canvas for all of time . 

I am not really clever but it seems to me that lots of scientists believe there is a fixed dot that they call an aether . 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Hauksbee

Could we add some blades and let the wind do the work ? 

5 hours ago, swansont said:

No, it doesn’t. Not according to mainstream physics.

Our rules require you to have a model and evidence in order to advance this as speculation.

I withdraw the statement , it was silly of me to say such a thing without any sort of evidence , my apologies .

1 hour ago, exchemist said:

It depends on your neurological reference frame.

What is one of them ? 

10 minutes ago, Genady said:

This is right. The weight is electrical grounding. No questions here.

Of course to extend on this , the Earths EM field acts as a gravitational field . If any object is within the fields magnitude , it can ''communicate'' through the ''wire'' to the ground . 

Note words in '''' are not exact definition and are a comparitive . 

4 minutes ago, studiot said:

Gosh and I though that some scholars received a thorough grounding in the classics.

Forget the word even in its scientific use it has nothing to do with whatever you are asking about.

You might like to be informed that mechanics and electrics are different sciences following different physical laws.

You cannot explain all of mechanics in terms of electrics or all of electrics in terms of mechanics.

That is why science recognises four fundamental forces operating in the universe , gravity and the 'electric force' being two of them.

But then that is only when working within the force model of things.

There are several other models with different interpretations.

I don't try to explain the mechanics of everything using only electro dynamics . The electrodyamics of a moving body is not the reason for orbits . 

13 minutes ago, swansont said:

 

An object at rest has no net force on it. How is that analogous to electrical grounding?

 

An object has a weight , an acting force measured in Newtons . I am explaining the weight is electrical grounding but I am not using grounding strict to definition . 

''Grounding, also called earthing, is a therapeutic technique that involves doing activities that “ground” or electrically reconnect you to the earth. This practice relies on earthing science and grounding physics to explain how electrical charges from the earth can have positive effects on your body.30 Aug 2019'' 

Obviously ignore the therapeutic technique part . 

12 minutes ago, Lorentz Jr said:

 

And this is a good place to start. How do you define "grounded" and "the grounding process"? Citing meanings in electrostatics and aviation is worthless in discussions about gravity and bulk matter.

Ok, I'll try to explain better . 

An object at inertial rest relative to the surface of a large mass can be viewed as being grounded to the surface . The conserved internal charge of the object  undergoing a grounding process than can be viewed as the conserved internal charge of the object being attracted to the conserved internal charge of the ground . This grounding process resulting in a radius between object and the surface of r=0km . 

10 minutes ago, studiot said:

 

In fact the correct implication is that scientists use particular definitions of many if not most words so that they are not confused with everyday definitions or if there are multiple definitions the appropriate one is chosen.

 

 

Ok, I understand this but if there isn't already a scientific meaning then how is a person suppose to describe something without using everyday words ? 

3 minutes ago, studiot said:

Can you please explain in detail the steps of reasoning that led you to this curious conclusion.

I would conclude something quite different from the information you have supplied.

Please note for the record I am referring solely to grounding, not balloons, walls, forces, balanced etc.

Yes , I started a thread in another section that asked a question about Earths conductance and in that thread a grounding process was explained that was based on electrical dissipitation . I then considered aeroplanes are grounded so used this word as a comparitive . 

Grounding and grounded both have the word ground in it , I  would assume the reader should automatically associate the thread with the ground . 

All ''loose'' objects are grounded in my opinion by the grounding process . Perhaps more in science terms I should of said inertial rest relative to the ground . 

Just now, Lorentz Jr said:

It's up to the repliers to present the facts to you. If you're unable to understand them or unwilling to accept them, that's your business.

Ok, I understand that but are you saying that students should never question presented facts when they can think of a counter argument that may disprove those facts ? 

I have presented two queries of the balloon and plasma ball and unless these queries are satisfied with a rational answer , then I will never understand how science can say the force between two atoms is balanced . 

I understood your F+F-=F+F- = 0 net force so please give me some credit when I offer counter argument . 

I provided F ≠ F- proven by the balloon