Does Science Contradict Itself With the Big Bang?

Use this forum to discuss the philosophy of science. Philosophy of science deals with the assumptions, foundations, and implications of science.
Post Reply
User avatar
Ranvier
Posts: 538
Joined: February 12th, 2017, 1:47 pm
Location: USA

Re: Does Science Contradict Itself With the Big Bang?

Post by Ranvier » July 29th, 2017, 3:50 pm

Tough crowd...

Granted that it was my mistake to propose the new model here and in such incomplete format. I describe mass as energy frequency of density in space as convergent contraction (gravity) that explains observed zero net energy of the universe as both expending and contracting at the same time.
There are three possibilities for our Universe currently proposed:
a. open – accelerating forever
b. closed – collapsing on itself
c. Flat – currently supported by our scientific data that we observe in mapping the background radiation of space.
I'm proposing forth possibility of
d. a and b that results in observed c
There is no other way that I can think of that our current understanding or the big bang could explain expansion of Universe faster than light or what could possibly be the dark space of vacuum. What I'm able to show using this model is that our planet and Mars used to be a single planet and that Moon has actually very high (twice of Earth) gravitational density, implying that it came from the core of that original planet with orbital velocity of approximately 22,468 km/s at a distance of 360M km from the Sun.

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 879
Joined: December 1st, 2016, 2:23 am

Re: Does Science Contradict Itself With the Big Bang?

Post by -1- » July 29th, 2017, 4:20 pm

I am looking at your new model of the universe, Ranvier, and I keep looking and looking... and I don't see any cleavage.

What's the use of a model that has got no cleavage? What sort of a miss universe is that?

Jokes aside, I understood the concept to the point that A and B are occurring coincidentally, and it results in C, by way of perhaps B and C are occurring concurrently and therefore our perception is A.

But the rest is beyond me... I never understood AE's RT, so this is a similar paradigm inasmuch as i'd have insurmountable problems with understanding it... there are some paradigms I never could master, such as programming in LISP. In undergrad I took a course in it, and my classmates told me that the prof told them behind my back that I wrote a nice PL/I program using entirely LISP.
This search engine is powered by Hunger, Thirst, and a desperate need to Mate.

User avatar
Ranvier
Posts: 538
Joined: February 12th, 2017, 1:47 pm
Location: USA

Re: Does Science Contradict Itself With the Big Bang?

Post by Ranvier » July 29th, 2017, 4:28 pm

A. can't occur without B. hence we observe C, which is flat universe with zero net energy

Steve3007
Posts: 4902
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: Does Science Contradict Itself With the Big Bang?

Post by Steve3007 » July 30th, 2017, 5:04 am

Ranvier:
Tough crowd...
Well, I guess as a general rule, the tougher the crowd the more confident you can be of your ideas if they survive that crowd's scrutiny. The strongest ideas are those that have been tested and survived. Or something like that.
I describe mass as energy frequency of density in space as convergent contraction (gravity) that explains observed zero net energy of the universe as both expending and contracting at the same time.
I don't know what you mean by the quantity that you describe as "energy frequency of density in space as convergent contraction (gravity)" which you equate with "mass". That term doesn't really make any sense to me. Frankly, it kind of looks like a random collection of sciencey words.

User avatar
Ranvier
Posts: 538
Joined: February 12th, 2017, 1:47 pm
Location: USA

Re: Does Science Contradict Itself With the Big Bang?

Post by Ranvier » July 30th, 2017, 7:19 am

Can you imagine that everything that you perceive with your senses is just change of energy between states? What you see is a specific wavelength of light emitted from density of energy that absorbed white light. An apple on your hand is a force of energy density accelerating towards the planet's center of gravitational density. The sounds you hear, is an acoustic wave propagating through density of air to produce vibrations of your tympanic membrane in your ear that transfers that vibration to fluid in your cochlea in the middle ear that produces changes in electric potential in your vestibulo-cochlear nerve that is picked up as sound by the temporal lobe of your brain. All of these are changes in density and vibration of energy states of particle-waves (matter). I haven't used mass in any of these descriptions.

Eduk
Posts: 1633
Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
Favorite Philosopher: Socrates

Re: Does Science Contradict Itself With the Big Bang?

Post by Eduk » July 30th, 2017, 8:14 am

No I can't imagine that.

Steve3007
Posts: 4902
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: Does Science Contradict Itself With the Big Bang?

Post by Steve3007 » July 30th, 2017, 11:06 am

Please define the word "density".

-- Updated Sun Jul 30, 2017 4:22 pm to add the following --

I still don't know what you mean by the quantity that you describe as "energy frequency of density in space as convergent contraction (gravity)" (regardless of what you equate it to). And now you've added a load more garbled terminology. This sentence, for example: "An apple on your hand is a force of energy density accelerating towards the planet's center of gravitational density." also doesn't make sense. You're mismatching concepts because you don't know the definitions of the words that you're using. If you do that, nobody is going to have any use for your words, as Eduk demonstrated.

Burning ghost
Posts: 2213
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: Does Science Contradict Itself With the Big Bang?

Post by Burning ghost » July 30th, 2017, 1:56 pm

Ranvier -

I would honestly suggest going to a PHYSICS forum.
AKA badgerjelly

User avatar
Ranvier
Posts: 538
Joined: February 12th, 2017, 1:47 pm
Location: USA

Re: Does Science Contradict Itself With the Big Bang?

Post by Ranvier » July 30th, 2017, 4:06 pm

I already acknowledged that this isn't a proper forum to discuss such concepts...

Steve3007
It's my fault again in not properly defining density, which implies classical m/v. To avoid confusion I call it anisodensity as distribution of energy density in space. Volume is another concept that only applies to certain perception of energy (physical object). Flame from burning wood is felt over a distance, which is an energy change from potential energy of physical wood to kinetic energy of flame as light and heat. In essence you begin to feel burning wood over much greater volume of space. Volume becomes meaningless in such perception, similarly to Earth and gravitational field. How can we define volume of a planet that is "felt" throughout the universe. Well, since we can't exceed the speed of light it's practical to use volume of light to measure anisodensity of an object relative to frequency of light. More mumbling it may seem... Let there be light :) imagine that everything we perceive in our reality is light that accelerates in all "directions" of + and - infinity. We tend to think of light as accelerating outwards from the source but in reality light also accelerates "inward" or convergent to the center of gravitational anisodensity. We can then describe any energy change from the point of view of measure between such outward divergent radiation of light and inward convergent radiation as gravity. Good question btw, thank you Steve.

Steve3007
Posts: 4902
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: Does Science Contradict Itself With the Big Bang?

Post by Steve3007 » July 30th, 2017, 5:58 pm

Ranvier:
I already acknowledged that this isn't a proper forum to discuss such concepts...
I think it's as good a place as anywhere to discuss such concepts and you should ignore Burning ghost. If we had to remove ourselves to an entirely different forum every time the subject matter drifts slightly it would be very annoying. It's bad enough having to move to different topics because people deem the conversation to be "off topic".
It's my fault again in not properly defining density, which implies classical m/v.
It's a simple concept. It's mass per unit volume. I don't know what you've got against mentioning the word "mass". You seem happy to mention other physical concepts like energy, volume light, gravity and so on. What has mass done to offend you? Is it some kind of Catholic thing? :-)
To avoid confusion I call it anisodensity as distribution of energy density in space.
OK. That's fine. You've invented a new concept that you call "anisodensity". (I presume you've invented it because googling it yields no results). You've defined it here as "distribution of energy density in space". Are you sure you meant to include the word "density" in that definition? Maybe. Well I guess you might be defining it as something like energy per unit volume.

Anyway, before we go any further I think it's best to try to agree the best way to define physical concepts. I think the best way to define them is in terms of how they're measured or quantified. Energy, for example, is the result of various different equations. One of those is the classical equation for kinetic energy 1/2mv2. We can measure the mass (m) of an object by hanging it from a spring balance. We can measure its velocity (v) by looking at its position and then looking at its position a bit later (using clocks and rulers) to see if that position is different. We can then plug those into the equation to get this mysterious quantity that we're calling kinetic energy. We can then let the object do various things, like bouncing off other objects, and count up all the energy amounts again and find that, lo and behold, they're the same. So we can gradually form the idea that this energy concept, which looks like it's just the result of some equation, might actually usefully be regarded as a "thing".

And so on. Do you think defining concepts in terms of the way they're measured and quantified is sensible?

User avatar
Ranvier
Posts: 538
Joined: February 12th, 2017, 1:47 pm
Location: USA

Re: Does Science Contradict Itself With the Big Bang?

Post by Ranvier » July 30th, 2017, 7:47 pm

Of course it's sensible and it applies very nicely in particular set of circumstances. Classical mechanics is invaluable in measuring our physical reality or what we call objects and their interaction. Nice double entendre with mass...clever. However, in order to think of the Universe in terms of unified concept that applies to "the large" as well as "very small" we must think in different concepts that apply to both "dimensions". When you start thinking about other states of matter: liquid, gas, plasma, or Bose–Einstein condensates, then mass or volume become inadequate. I can't stress enough that we can't perceive energy directly, only change in energy states. For instance, a car battery has an electrical potential of 12V that can be used to do "work" but if we short it out it becomes just a useless object that still has tremendous amount of energy potential locked in in the molecular and atomic structure.

"OK. That's fine. You've invented a new concept that you call "anisodensity". (I presume you've invented it because googling it yields no results). You've defined it here as "distribution of energy density in space". Are you sure you meant to include the word "density" in that definition?"

Density is a measure of amount of mass per volume, anisodensity is a measure of energy distribution or particle-waves that change behavior as we move within space. I still haven't found a good way to explain anisodensity but imagine our atmosphere that changes in pressure as we move closer to Earth but same "air" (nitrogen, oxygen, noble gasses) would behave differently in vacuum of space.

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 879
Joined: December 1st, 2016, 2:23 am

Re: Does Science Contradict Itself With the Big Bang?

Post by -1- » July 30th, 2017, 11:08 pm

same "air" (nitrogen, oxygen, noble gasses) would behave differently in vacuum of space.

Vacuum means lack of any matter, be it solid, liquid, or gaseous.

So how air would behave in a vacuum is a completely nonsensical situation. I figure you meant to say how would air behave in a zero-gravity space. (That's also an impossibility... but never mind. If there is air, there is gravity... because air is made of matter, and all matter have m*ss)(I left he A out like Jews spell god G*d because to you mass is as unpronouncable as god is to Jews. :-) )

-- Updated 2017 July 30th, 11:09 pm to add the following --

and where there is mass, there is gravity.
This search engine is powered by Hunger, Thirst, and a desperate need to Mate.

User avatar
Ranvier
Posts: 538
Joined: February 12th, 2017, 1:47 pm
Location: USA

Re: Does Science Contradict Itself With the Big Bang?

Post by Ranvier » July 30th, 2017, 11:46 pm

What would I do without you...I like magic so I look forward to seeing a pickle jar with vacuum of nothing inside :) We should also contact NASA with this revelation because asteroids are nonsensical situation.

Steve3007
Posts: 4902
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: Does Science Contradict Itself With the Big Bang?

Post by Steve3007 » July 31st, 2017, 9:22 am

Ranvier:
(About defining concepts in terms of the way they're measured and quantified)
Of course it's sensible and it applies very nicely in particular set of circumstances. Classical mechanics is invaluable in measuring our physical reality or what we call objects and their interaction.
Are you saying that it only applies to particular circumstances, like the circumstances that are normally referred to as "classical mechanics"? If so, I'd have to disagree with you there. I'd say it applies to all physical circumstances. It's perhaps even more important when we start to look at circumstances that are far removed from direct human experience, like those covered by Quantum Mechanics and Relativity. After all, how else can you meaningfully define anything in the context of empirical science?
However, in order to think of the Universe in terms of unified concept that applies to "the large" as well as "very small" we must think in different concepts that apply to both "dimensions".
If you mean different from concepts that are defined in terms of measurement/observation, then I disagree again. Whether we're considering the very big, the very small or the medium-sized, the ultimate arbiter of our theories is what is observed or measured.
When you start thinking about other states of matter: liquid, gas, plasma, or Bose–Einstein condensates, then mass or volume become inadequate.
Mass and volume are relevant concepts to all the states of matter that you've mentioned there. I would note that volume is an inherently macroscopic, statistical type property, like temperature, pressure, density, entropy etc.
I can't stress enough that we can't perceive energy directly, only change in energy states.
What do you mean by "perceive directly"? If I look at an object am I perceiving it directly or am I perceiving it indirectly as a result of photons interacting with my retina which I assume to have been emitted or reflected from the object? Or even more indirectly via electrical impulses in my optic nerve which I assume to be caused by those photons? Does it matter?
For instance, a car battery has an electrical potential of 12V that can be used to do "work" but if we short it out it becomes just a useless object that still has tremendous amount of energy potential locked in in the molecular and atomic structure.
I don't get the relevance of this.
Density is a measure of amount of mass per volume, anisodensity is a measure of energy distribution or particle-waves that change behavior as we move within space. I still haven't found a good way to explain anisodensity but imagine our atmosphere that changes in pressure as we move closer to Earth but same "air" (nitrogen, oxygen, noble gasses) would behave differently in vacuum of space.
I don't understand how this definition of anisodensity works. What are the units of anisodensity? How would I go about measuring the anisodensity of the contents of the room I'm in now? What kind of instrument would I use?

User avatar
Ranvier
Posts: 538
Joined: February 12th, 2017, 1:47 pm
Location: USA

Re: Does Science Contradict Itself With the Big Bang?

Post by Ranvier » July 31st, 2017, 8:42 pm

All very good points and good questions. It's true that I've been working on this model for quite some time but it didn't come to the current conception until recently. Even Einstein took ten years to formulate his equations after conceiving his concept of spacetime, and let me tell you I'm no Einstein. I don't have a wife who is mathematics wizard either. All I would like to point out is that BB doesn't explain our empirical observation for zero net energy flat universe or the fact that using our current knowledge we can describe only 4% of our universe. We have fantastic theories that allow for creation of all of the modern technology I take for granted. However, it bothers me not knowing where did our Moon come from; why all the planets in our solar system are at such specific distances; why would light obey spacetime in observed lensing of light; why can't we exceed the speed of light yet quantum entanglement proves that it's possible. We rely on General Relativity because it's beautiful and allows us accurately predict movements of planets except for the fact that it doesn't make sense (it would take a while to spell out all the reasons why it doesn't make sense). GR is a perfect example that accurate predictive calculations confirmed by observation doesn't necessarily reflect the reality. All I can say about anisodensity at this moment is that "m" in E = mc^2 should be possible to be represented in same terms of wavelength and frequency as light... there goes my Nobel prize, lol

What do you mean by "perceive directly"? If I look at an object am I perceiving it directly or am I perceiving it indirectly as a result of photons interacting with my retina which I assume to have been emitted or reflected from the object? Or even more indirectly via electrical impulses in my optic nerve which I assume to be caused by those photons? Does it matter?


96% of energy of our universe can't be perceived directly... until we notice a change that can be measured! What we can perceive now (4%) is a constant change between states but not actual energy.

Post Reply