A Question for Curved Spacetime.

[MigL]

13 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

If you change the distribution of gravitational sources, then the geometry of spacetime will change accordingly, along with it.

Adding to Markus' point, if you consider space-time geometry as the 'field' in GR, then the analogy would be the effect on the EM field that you get when moving charges around ( minus the self interaction ).
The field, space-time geometry, changes with changes in the energy-momentum distribution.

 

21 minutes ago, J.Merrill said:

We can do experiments with objects and spin, to confirm some of these effects. But just because it works and observations match part of the assumptions doesn't mean anything. 

But it doesn't work at all.
Your example has a discernible center.
The Big Bang does not; it is happening everywhere.

[zapatos]

2 hours ago, J.Merrill said:

This cannot be argued I'm sorry.

 

Who in the hell put you in charge?

2 hours ago, J.Merrill said:

No this is not accurate at all.

Of course it is. What exactly do you think the BB is?

 

2 hours ago, J.Merrill said:

We are observing conditions that lead us to believe the big bang is a possible origin of the Universe. 

The BB does not go back to t=0.

[J.Merrill]

12 hours ago, zapatos said:

Who in the hell put you in charge?

Of course it is. What exactly do you think the BB is?

 

The BB does not go back to t=0.

If the BB could only be proved and not falsified it would not be a theory.

Theories are verifiable and falsifiable, that is why they are theories. 

If they get proven to be Factual well then that means they cant be falsified. It is called the BB THEORY for a reason.

Again this can't be argued. And I refuse to argue over it. Its a meaningless discussion.

No one put me In charge but you clearly miss the underlining Theory part.

 

   

[mistermack]

4 hours ago, J.Merrill said:

If the BB could only be proved and not falsified it would not be a theory.

Theories are verifiable and falsifiable, that is why they are theories. 

If they get proven to be Factual well then that means they cant be falsified. It is called the BB THEORY for a reason.

Again this can't be argued. And I refuse to argue over it. Its a meaningless discussion.

No one put me In charge but you clearly miss the underlining Theory part.

You are using some very odd logic around the word "falsified".

If you say you have a theory, that one plus one equals two, then although it appears correct, it is capable of being falsified. If someone can prove that one plus one equals three, then they have falsified the theory. The phrase "capable of being falsifed" does not mean "false" as you are arguing. It just means, if it were to be false, there is a theoretical possibility of proving that. Even if that method is not availabe at the present.

And unfasifiable means that a theory, by it's very nature, can never be shown to be false.

So falsifiable/unfalsifiable doesn't equate to right/wrong. It's about whether there is a theoretical MEANS available to show if it's right or wrong.

[Bufofrog]

5 hours ago, J.Merrill said:

No one put me In charge but you clearly miss the underlining Theory part.

It seems that you are missing the point, theories are the highest level of confidence in science.  There is no 'proven' explanations of phenomena in science.

[zapatos]

6 hours ago, J.Merrill said:

Again this can't be argued. And I refuse to argue over it. Its a meaningless discussion.

No one put me In charge but you clearly miss the underlining Theory part.

The fact that you think the BB was an event that ended over 13 billion years ago shows a serious lack of understanding on your part. It would behoove you to cease dictating what is and is not up for discussion when you are missing so much basic information. It is making you look foolish.

[Eise]

3 hours ago, J.Merrill said:

Again this can't be argued. And I refuse to argue over it. Its a meaningless discussion.

Well, my fingers are burning to show how wrong you are. But when you do not want to discuss on a discussion forum, I am wondering what you are doing here. Giving arguments is the alpha and omega of philosophy, and the alpha and tau of science (and the tau and the omega of science is experiment and observation).

[J.Merrill]

7 hours ago, mistermack said:

You are using some very odd logic around the word "falsified".

If you say you have a theory, that one plus one equals two, then although it appears correct, it is capable of being falsified. If someone can prove that one plus one equals three, then they have falsified the theory. The phrase "capable of being falsifed" does not mean "false" as you are arguing. It just means, if it were to be false, there is a theoretical possibility of proving that. Even if that method is not availabe at the present.

And unfasifiable means that a theory, by it's very nature, can never be shown to be false.

So falsifiable/unfalsifiable doesn't equate to right/wrong. It's about whether there is a theoretical MEANS available to show if it's right or wrong.

There is not odd logic here and if people want to -rep someone with a different opinion that's fine I really don't care.

 

A theory can never be proven, but must be "testable" through observation or experimentation. And despite some notable problems, BB Theory has remained largely consistent with the observations.

As I stated we are only observing  things that lead us to accept the BB as a possibility.

Scientist observer and search for more evidence to further help explain the origins of out universe all the time. We as humans use methods around us we have devolved over time to conduct these test. (science).

So when one comes up with a very well mapped out theory like the BB. They are tieing together loose ends with things we believe to understand how it works. 

Isaac Newton was a prime example of this.

Newton's law of gravitation, statement that any particle of matter in the universe attracts any other with a force varying directly as the product of the masses and inversely as the square of the distance between them.

So  then here came Albert Einstein and said nope gravity is not a force that affects only things with mass.

And gravitational lensing was a prime example on how this was FALSE.

And the Fact Black Holes have an effect on light.

He theorized that can warp, bend it, push , or pull it space. Gravity was just a natural outcome of a mass's existence in space (Einstein had, with his 1905 Special Theory of Relativity, added time as a fourth dimension to space, calling the result space-time.

 

So its not that Einstein proved newtons math equaled an impossible number in the context of 2+2 =5.

But rather implied, if the math is wrong here and you cant correct the mistake and still verify the theory. Then its like claiming 2+2 = 5. And that's False.

[Bufofrog]

3 minutes ago, J.Merrill said:

As I stated we are only observing  things that lead us to accept the BB as a possibility.

It is much more than a possibility, it is a theory that matches observation.

4 minutes ago, J.Merrill said:

Newton's law of gravitation, statement that any particle of matter in the universe attracts any other with a force varying directly as the product of the masses and inversely as the square of the distance between them.

So  then here came Albert Einstein and said nope gravity is not a force that affects only things with mass.

And gravitational lensing was a prime example on how this was FALSE.

Newtons theory of gravity is not false, the theory that has limited applicability compared to GR, it is certainly not false.

[J.Merrill]

6 hours ago, Eise said:

Well, my fingers are burning to show how wrong you are. But when you do not want to discuss on a discussion forum, I am wondering what you are doing here. Giving arguments is the alpha and omega of philosophy, and the alpha and tau of science (and the tau and the omega of science is experiment and observation).

 

In this context we are assuming observations we link with knowledge we have acquired over time, we believe to be right further verifies assumptions we make.

Sure we do this all the time that's part of science and its fun!

Some times limited knowledge of what we think we know vs what we actually know conflict.

Where would physics be today if we still held so tightly to gravity only affecting things with mass.

Fg= m¹*m²/r² Newton proposed this and it worked!!! Until we discovered EVIDENCE it was a limited source of information's. What we accepted and thought we understood, based on what works is in my opinion what's wrong with science in the sense we just assume we are right.

OOOPS back to the drawing board said Einstein because light is affected by gravity.

There are things we can prove in science. And there are things we just assume we understand but we use knowledge we think we fully understand to have a clasp on things.

Discussions can be had on a forum with out its turning into some egotistical ad hominin  barrage of insults directly to an individual. And with out seeming extremely aggressive in text Context matters. If we want to have a meaningful disagreement, that's fine but when anyone resorts to name calling of classifying one as something. That is not worth my time.

[zapatos]

9 minutes ago, J.Merrill said:

if people want to -rep someone with a different opinion that's fine I really don't care.

Another sign you are blissfully unaware. The neg reps are not  for having "a different opinion".

[J.Merrill]

3 hours ago, Bufofrog said:

It is much more than a possibility, it is a theory that matches observation.

This is like me saying, photons are conscious of being observed because of how they behave in the double slit experiment when being observed, ( aka the duality problem) that has not been explained and completely understood. 

So that theory matches observations. 

See the problem here?

3 hours ago, zapatos said:

Another sign you are blissfully unaware. The neg reps are not  for having "a different opinion".

Well shoot I must be wrong again HAHAHA . I must be blissfully unaware of what I'm typing! Please.

I encourage that you read the start of this forum, I was quite honest with myself in limited knowledge I process and I was inadvertently attacked when asking for an explanation, simply because one assumed my questions were aggressive. What kind of world is this.

6 hours ago, zapatos said:

The fact that you think the BB was an event that ended over 13 billion years ago shows a serious lack of understanding on your part. It would behoove you to cease dictating what is and is not up for discussion when you are missing so much basic information. It is making you look foolish.

Have you ever thought that the BB was multiple events that will happen and one will continue to happen , assuming our observations are correct and correspond with it in theory. Oh wait that is the BB

We are currently in  universe we believe to be expanding based on observations.

But the beginning of the BB was an explosion  resulting in the first bit of expansion. 

This extremely dense point exploded with unimaginable force, creating matter and propelling it outward to make the billions of galaxies of our vast universe. Astrophysicists dubbed this titanic explosion the Big Bang.

So yes there was an event that took place, it had a beginning the fact that the universe is still expanding is a direct result of that event.  

Ad hominem at its finest, direct insults just wont cut.

[zapatos]

50 minutes ago, J.Merrill said:

But the beginning of the BB was an explosion

If you are going to continue to lecture to those here it would help if what you said was correct. The beginning of the BB was most certainly NOT an explosion.

[J.Merrill]

3 hours ago, zapatos said:

If you are going to continue to lecture to those here it would help if what you said was correct. The beginning of the BB was most certainly NOT an explosion.

I am not lecturing anyone, and have only used Deductive reasoning to make an argument valid in my favor, and to dismiss common knowledge as if it doesn't exist is quite baffling to me. 

 

The universe began, scientists believe, with every speck of its energy jammed into a very tiny point. This extremely dense point exploded with unimaginable force, creating matter and propelling it outward to make the billions of galaxies of our vast universe. Astrophysicists dubbed this titanic explosion the Big Bang

This is how it is explained. So the explanation is wrong then by default ? That does not make any sense at all. 

So out side of this what is the beginning of the BB do you propose. 

 

Edited June 22, 2022 by J.Merrill

[Phi for All]

4 minutes ago, J.Merrill said:

The universe began, scientists believe, with every speck of its energy jammed into a very tiny point. This extremely dense point exploded with unimaginable force, creating matter and propelling it outward to make the billions of galaxies of our vast universe. Astrophysicists dubbed this titanic explosion the Big Bang

So out side of this what is the beginning of the BB do you propose. 

You're wrong. It's a rapid expansion of all there is, NOT an explosion into another space with a center of the explosion. The universe is all there is. It's a tough concept, and you're not the first to get it wrong. You're not even the most stubborn. Many people waste their lives on misunderstandings, and we're hoping that's not going to happen with you.

[zapatos]

5 minutes ago, J.Merrill said:

The universe began, scientists believe, with every speck of its energy jammed into a very tiny point. This extremely dense point exploded with unimaginable force, creating matter and propelling it outward to make the billions of galaxies of our vast universe. Astrophysicists dubbed this titanic explosion the Big Bang

 

Wrong on so many counts. Please do a little research before continuing to spout misinformation.

Condescension is a bad look for anyone, but especially for those who speak from ignorance.

[Phi for All]

12 minutes ago, J.Merrill said:

The universe began, scientists believe,

BBT isn't about the beginning of the universe. It doesn't even encompass the beginning of time as we know it. 

14 minutes ago, J.Merrill said:

Astrophysicists dubbed this titanic explosion the Big Bang

Fred Hoyle was a mathematician and astronomer, not an astrophysicist, and NOT a supporter of BB theory. He supported the steady state model, and came up with the name "Big Bang" as mockery of the theory, because like you he thought it was about an explosion rather than a rapid expansion.

Gosh, have you counted how many posts you have, and how many of them contain incorrect information? Your signal to noise ratio isn't good. You make a LOT of assertions that are wrong, and then seem to move on to the next before acknowledging your mistakes. 

 

[Moontanman]

On 6/19/2022 at 3:43 PM, joigus said:

 

Another aspect I would like to point out is that mass is not the source of the gravitational field. It's energy-momentum that plays that role.

 

Can you give a link to that idea? I'd like to study it a bit. 

[J.Merrill]

4 hours ago, Phi for All said:

BBT isn't about the beginning of the universe. It doesn't even encompass the beginning of time as we know it. 

Fred Hoyle was a mathematician and astronomer, not an astrophysicist, and NOT a supporter of BB theory. He supported the steady state model, and came up with the name "Big Bang" as mockery of the theory, because like you he thought it was about an explosion rather than a rapid expansion.

Gosh, have you counted how many posts you have, and how many of them contain incorrect information? Your signal to noise ratio isn't good. You make a LOT of assertions that are wrong, and then seem to move on to the next before acknowledging your mistakes. 

 

Who besides you mentions Fred Hoyle? 

 

[zapatos]

11 minutes ago, J.Merrill said:

Who besides you mentions Fred Hoyle? 

 

Everyone who knows it is not true that "Astrophysicists dubbed this titanic explosion the Big Bang".

Edited June 22, 2022 by zapatos

[J.Merrill]

Okay how about this could you enlighten me on the BB.

Because any text book and or article I have read about the BB, specifically describes it as an explosion in in return is the reason behind the expansion the universe. 

Some just refer to it as a point that began to expand and is continuing to do so, but when asked the reasoning behind it they describe it as an explosion that took place?. 

 

For example this one I just typed in What is The Big Bang Theory.

And there are many results that come up and none of them discredit the idea of an explosion that took place, as a matter of speaking this explosion is the reasoning behind the rapidly expanding universe according to what i read. And the idea behind the presence of dark matter is the reason why the expansion is accelerating. 

https://www.exploratorium.edu/origins/cern/ideas/bang.html

[Phi for All]

3 minutes ago, J.Merrill said:

Okay how about this could you enlighten me on the BB.

You've demonstrated zero capacity for enlightenment. Even now, it's obvious you can't even be bothered to look up who Fred Hoyle was. It might make you feel better to stick to the pop-sci descriptions you've read about, but it makes it difficult to discuss the actual science with you.

[J.Merrill]

3 hours ago, Phi for All said:

You've demonstrated zero capacity for enlightenment. Even now, it's obvious you can't even be bothered to look up who Fred Hoyle was. It might make you feel better to stick to the pop-sci descriptions you've read about, but it makes it difficult to discuss the actual science with you.

I have demonstrated zero capacity for enlightenment lol!

Okay you act like a child that has to resort to personal insults to make your arguments some how logical.

You have demonstrated zero understanding of what it is I asked in the first place as well as so many other people on here wrapped up in their opinions. 

Half the people that responded to me asking for a better understanding of photons, chose to insult me instead.

So rather than point me in the right direction and revert my attention to what actually is, some of you reply with other questions that test my logical thinking.

Rather than just tell me why it is not the case, and give me an example of what is in fact a more appropriate way to interpret things, that I just don't understand fully.

 

And I clearly listed why I didn't understand it, I was clear to also mention I am aware what I'm questioning and why.

It is a result of a limited understanding in the first place. And I Had one person that gave a good explanation, the rest just bathed in the ability for themselves to directly insult me. As one said to me " Sound like religious guilt"  as to assume I have Religious thoughts that cloud my judgment. 

HOW PATHETIC. I will take my limited Knowledge and what I know I don't understand and get a meaning full answer from people that don't take pride in downgrading others.

And some one dared to say I was narcissistic!!!! BAHUMBUG 

I learned a few different things  here thanks to a few people those individuals know who you are!  So thank you for that! But I will now exercise my right to leave.

Edited June 22, 2022 by J.Merrill

[MigL]

I'm sorry if we have failed you in your quest to understand photons and the Big Bang Theory.

perhaps, read through these two articles, and ask questions ( don't make assertions ) about the things you don't fully understand.

Photon - Wikipedia

"A photon (from Ancient Greek φῶς, φωτός (phôs, phōtós) 'light') is an elementary particle that is a quantum of the electromagnetic field, including electromagnetic radiation such as light and radio waves, and the force carrier for the electromagnetic force. Photons are massless,^[a] so they always move at the speed of light in vacuum, 299792458 m/s (or about 186,282 mi/s). The photon belongs to the class of bosons."

and

Big Bang - Wikipedia

"The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model explaining the existence of the observable universe from the earliest known periods through its subsequent large-scale evolution.^[1][2][3] The model describes how the universe expanded from an initial state of high density and temperature,^[4] and offers a comprehensive explanation for a broad range of observed phenomena, including the abundance of light elements, the cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation, and large-scale structure."

Lets take this opportunity to both learn from our mistakes.

[zapatos]

1 hour ago, J.Merrill said:

And the idea behind the presence of dark matter is the reason why the expansion is accelerating. 

Again, NO. That is incorrect.

1 hour ago, J.Merrill said:

Rather than just tell me why it is not the case, and give me an example of what is in fact a more appropriate way to interpret things, that I just don't understand fully.

 

I guess I figured that after you "REFUSED" to discuss conflicting ideas with me you weren't really interested.

1 hour ago, J.Merrill said:

Okay you act like a child that has to resort to personal insults...

LOL! You're killing me Smalls!