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
Steve3007
Posts: 5088
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: Does Science Contradict Itself With the Big Bang?

Post by Steve3007 » August 1st, 2017, 12:11 pm

Ranvier:
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.
I expect you're probably talking about "dark energy" or some such thing. That's too advanced a concept for me to get my little brain around at this stage. I only studied physics up to undergraduate level so, to me, energy is the thing that is measured in Joules (or Ergs for the older ones) and is the output from various equations. Dark Energy is above my pay grade. Since graduating (a long time ago) I haven't even read enough popular physics books to get the gist of it, I'm afraid.
GR is a perfect example that accurate predictive calculations confirmed by observation doesn't necessarily reflect the reality.
From this and your other comments just before it, it looks to me as though you believe in some kind of Platonic-style "reality" that exists independent of any observations, yes? Otherwise, in what sense could a theory which fits our observations nevertheless "not reflect 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.
Well, as you'll know, the energy of a photon of light is a very simple linear function of its frequency. And the de Broglie wavelength of a particle with mass, like an electron, is a very simple function of its momentum. Does that help in any way?

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

Re: Does Science Contradict Itself With the Big Bang?

Post by -1- » August 1st, 2017, 12:27 pm

"We should also contact NASA with this revelation because asteroids are nonsensical situation."

Ranvier... are you saying this because asteroids exist in vacuum, in the vacuum of the cosmos? And I had just said (earlier) that vacuum lacks any physical, that is, solid, liquid or gaseous matter?

You are rather quizzical, and you force us to nail down what you say... bit tiresome, but you are a VERY nice person, and you express your frustrations in non-aggressive, kind, humorous and non-confrontational ways. You are made of EQ itself. Whereas I get visibly upset if somebody says something nonsensical, and i charge like the light brigade. Like a bull, like a bullet, running down the hall, faster than a cannon ball.

So... to make a short story long, asteroid's surroundings are the vacuum, but the actual volume of space asteroids occupy is not a vacuum. They exist surrounded by vacuum, but they are not part of the vacuum.

-- Updated 2017 August 1st, 12:31 pm to add the following --

Please change "They exist surrounded by vacuum, but they are not part of the vacuum." into "They each individually exist surrounded by vacuum, but they each are not part of the vacuum."

I had to say this, because you could have misconstrued that I meant (which I did not) the Asteroid Belt being non-vacuous; there is indeed vacuum between asteroids.
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 » August 1st, 2017, 10:54 pm

Steve3007
Yes, I was referring to dark matter and dark energy... Don't be so modest, there aren't many people that I can talk to about this.
GR is a perfect example that accurate predictive calculations confirmed by observation doesn't necessarily reflect the reality.

From this and your other comments just before it, it looks to me as though you believe in some kind of Platonic-style "reality" that exists independent of any observations, yes? Otherwise, in what sense could a theory which fits our observations nevertheless "not reflect reality"?
No, not exactly. We make our empirical observations using all the tools at our disposal. That allows us to accurately describe our physical reality as we perceive it. GR offers accurate calculations (without which we wouldn't have GPS) that is confirmed by ALL observations, yet I will not be wrong in saying that there is no spacetime. If we change they way we describe gravity, there is no need for the concept of spacetime.
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.

Well, as you'll know, the energy of a photon of light is a very simple linear function of its frequency. And the de Broglie wavelength of a particle with mass, like an electron, is a very simple function of its momentum. Does that help in any way?
Not quite, light is a constant acceleration even though we describe light in terms of velocity of specific wavelength and frequency. This gives us a sphere of surface area of distance where photon can be expressed within the radius of speed of light but that is NOT space. Space is given by extra dimension of convergent acceleration of light with anisodensity (gravity). You can think of this in terms of seeing our plant as blurred image that spans each second a radius of speed of light but this image becomes more focused as you get closer to the gravitational center that accelerates inward with speed of light. In other words our planet travels at that speed of light but due to anisodensity we perceive only 9.81 m/s^s at the surface. Time slows down as we move closer to the seed of light or as we move closer to extreme anisodensity such as in the black hole. If we were to accelerate our planet, the anisodensity (gravity) would increase towards the core. Each additional acceleration would require more and more force to increase that rise in gravity. This is perceived as inertia of gravity that resists further acceleration. This could be visualized with a bullet fired close to the speed of light...we would observe that such bullet would be "glowing" increasing in surface area but the "volume" would be decreasing towards the center of "mass". In other words the frequency of anisodensity would be very high with very short wavelength.

-- Updated August 1st, 2017, 10:59 pm to add the following --

-1-
Don't get angry, it's not good for your health...other than that I enjoy each and every post you submit :)

Steve3007
Posts: 5088
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: Does Science Contradict Itself With the Big Bang?

Post by Steve3007 » August 3rd, 2017, 3:59 am

Ranvier:
Yes, I was referring to dark matter and dark energy... Don't be so modest, there aren't many people that I can talk to about this.
It's not false modesty. My knowledge of the concept of dark matter is the same as any other layman - whatever can be picked up with a quick google search. It would be foolish of me to pretend otherwise. As I said, a proper understanding of such concepts and all of the long train of evidence and reasoning that lead to their being deemed to be useful is the subject of very advanced physics. Way beyond mere undergraduate level. I think one of the most important steps in trying to make sense of what the specialists in any given subject are saying is a recognition of what we don't know. There is a strong tendency in human nature to say: "I don't fully understand what the specialist in subject X is saying, therefore the specialist is talking nonsense. Probably with some kind of ulterior motive."
No, not exactly. We make our empirical observations using all the tools at our disposal. That allows us to accurately describe our physical reality as we perceive it. GR offers accurate calculations (without which we wouldn't have GPS) that is confirmed by ALL observations, yet I will not be wrong in saying that there is no spacetime. If we change they way we describe gravity, there is no need for the concept of spacetime.
In those last two sentences you said two distinct things. You said "there is no spacetime" and then you said "there is no need for the concept of spacetime." I think those are two distinct propositions and it is my view that the first one is irrelevant and possibly doesn't mean much. What do you mean by "there is no spacetime"? I think the only question that makes any sense is whether the concept of spacetime (or any other concept) is useful. So I can accept that your last sentence might be true, but to demonstrate its truth you'd have to come up with a theory that does everything GR does, and more, in terms of successfully describing/predicting observations and which, in special cases, does not contradict other successful theories, but which doesn't need the concept of spacetime.

-- Updated Thu Aug 03, 2017 9:00 am to add the following --

Sorry, I said "dark matter" there when I meant "dark energy". See, I even get the terms mixed up!

-- Updated Thu Aug 03, 2017 9:21 am to add the following --

Ranvier: When I have time, later today, I'll address the rest of your post. The only way I'll be able to do that is to break it down into small pieces and address the pieces individually. So I'll start with the sentence:

"Not quite, light is a constant acceleration even though we describe light in terms of velocity of specific wavelength and frequency."

and go on from there. Sorry if you think that's too reductionist an approach. (Some people do.) But it's the only way I can think of to try to make sense of propositions such as the one I've quoted here.

-- Updated Thu Aug 03, 2017 2:20 pm to add the following --

---

OK. Here we go.
Not quite, light is a constant acceleration even though we describe light in terms of velocity of specific wavelength and frequency.
I don't know what you mean by "light is a constant acceleration". Acceleration is rate of change of velocity. Light is a phenomenon that has been described in various different terms over the years as various observations of its apparent properties have been made. Among them are the classical laws of electromagnetism (Maxwell's equations). In this classical description it's an interaction between varying electric and magnetic fields. And then you move forward through history and see it described in terms of packets of these interactions called photons, and start usefully thinking of them as massless particles. And so on. I don't really understand how that can be summarised by saying that "light is a constant acceleration". How is that expression useful for describing any of the observations that are attributed to EM waves? In what sense is light a constant "rate of change of velocity"?
This gives us a sphere of surface area of distance where photon can be expressed within the radius of speed of light but that is NOT space.
The grammar of this sentence makes it very difficult for me to follow. I don't know what you mean by "a sphere of surface area of distance" or "where photon can be expressed within the radius of speed of light". What does it mean to "express" a photon? Circles and spheres have radii. The speed of light is a numerical quantity. How can that have a radius?

Are you trying to say that light emitted from a point radiates isotropically (in all directions equally) and that the wavefront therefore forms a sphere whose radius increases at the speed of light? Are you then saying that the volume enclosed by that sphere cannot usefully be labelled with the word "space"?
Space is given by extra dimension of convergent acceleration of light with anisodensity (gravity).
Sorry, I don't understand any of the grammar in this sentence either! "Extra dimension of convergent acceleration"? I don't know what that term could mean.
You can think of this in terms of seeing our plant[planet?] as blurred image that spans each second a radius of speed of light but this image becomes more focused as you get closer to the gravitational center that accelerates inward with speed of light.
Again, very difficult to understand, but it sounds like you're saying that it's useful to think of the Earth as travelling at the speed of light ("spans each second a radius of speed of light" - is that what you mean by this?). I don't know what you mean by "getting closer to the gravitational centre". Centre of what?
In other words our planet travels at that speed of light but due to anisodensity we perceive only 9.81 m/s^s at the surface.
9.81 m/s2 is (approximately) the acceleration due to gravity at the surface of the Earth. It's the rate of change of velocity of an object in free fall close to the Earth's surface. I don't see how you are relating that to the Earth travelling.

OK. I'll leave it there for now.

Eduk
Posts: 1789
Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
Favorite Philosopher: Socrates

Re: Does Science Contradict Itself With the Big Bang?

Post by Eduk » August 3rd, 2017, 9:36 am

Steve you clearly understand far more about dark energy than the layman. Even the simple understanding that you have little to no understanding is far better than the average huge overestimated understanding of the layman. You have at least glimpsed what you don't understand. Which is more than I can say.

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

Re: Does Science Contradict Itself With the Big Bang?

Post by -1- » August 3rd, 2017, 11:36 am

Telling someone not to be angry is one of the most dependably sure-fire ways to make him or her even angrier. :-)

(Whereas telling someone not to be happy works.... the emotional entropy in our universe of emotions.)
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 » August 3rd, 2017, 1:38 pm

-1- wrote:Telling someone not to be angry is one of the most dependably sure-fire ways to make him or her even angrier. :-)

(Whereas telling someone not to be happy works.... the emotional entropy in our universe of emotions.)
I learned something new about anger, good to know. In my perception anger is a physiological response to our state of mind. There is not much to be done about the epinephrine released from the adrenal glands other than consciously affect our thoughts. I apologize for ignorance of my statement that had opposite effect than intended. Instead, I will continue with my sarcasm in reversed psychology of telling you not to be so happy :)

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

Re: Does Science Contradict Itself With the Big Bang?

Post by -1- » August 3rd, 2017, 2:27 pm

EY, Ranvier, I don't know if that's going to work... I think you need double- or even triple-negations used in reverse psychology on me. I have never counted. But a friend of mine once used five-tuple of reverse in a psychologically motivating argument (he said he'll driver over me with a steam-roller and then reverse back and do it once more, and repeat this about seven times... as he twiddled the key to the new and shiny steam-roller his rich daddy had bought for him.)

I think that was the first and so far the only time that I with all honestly and with eager alacrity shut my mouth without really wanting to.
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 » August 3rd, 2017, 2:55 pm

Steve3007 wrote:
Not quite, light is a constant acceleration even though we describe light in terms of velocity of specific wavelength and frequency.
I don't know what you mean by "light is a constant acceleration". Acceleration is rate of change of velocity. Light is a phenomenon that has been described in various different terms over the years as various observations of its apparent properties have been made. Among them are the classical laws of electromagnetism (Maxwell's equations). In this classical description it's an interaction between varying electric and magnetic fields. And then you move forward through history and see it described in terms of packets of these interactions called photons, and start usefully thinking of them as massless particles. And so on. I don't really understand how that can be summarised by saying that "light is a constant acceleration". How is that expression useful for describing any of the observations that are attributed to EM waves? In what sense is light a constant "rate of change of velocity"?
Logical question...where you intuitively understand the answer. We should discuss what's "matter" and what exactly do we mean by a particle-wave but if you should think of light as a photon, you can imagine that such photon emitted at point A could be found anywhere on the sphere of 4Pi r^2 at point B, where r is the distance light travels in one second (299792458m). Light is at a constant velocity of the speed of light but for each second the surface area will increase x4 times where the light can be "pick up" at point B, that's acceleration at a constant velocity. Not a perfect analogy but we can use sound to visualize this... If one fires a short ping of sound, it will travel at a specific velocity (depending on air pressure and temperature) each second in three dimensional space, where such "ping" can be picked up as a "particle" of energy anywhere on the surface of a sphere with radius of sound wave. This is not a measure of "volume" of space but a distance where the ping can be picked up. The volume can be measured by the compression wave of atoms of air with increasing strength at the source of the ping. Another analogy could be made with Earth that constantly accelerates towards the Sun due to Sun's gravity of 274 m/s^2 but this results only in Earth's constant velocity of angular momentum of around 29820 m/s. The reason why Earth doesn't just travel towards the Sun but remains in a nice stable orbit is because Sun constantly "travels" away from Earth as well as Earth accelerates away towards its own gravity in balance with Sun's gravity. Now, we can use (rightfully so) GR as geometric representation of spacetime as very accurate representation of what we observe but spacetime does not explain gravity. Moreover, spacetime is only useful when we attempt to describe "the large" objects with potential to "bend" spacetime, although we know that any particle regardless of size must express gravitational force. One can even go as far as to propose that gluons are similar to microgravity expressed differently as the "strong force".

Steve3007 - Please continue asking questions, it helps. I can very well be completely wrong.

-- Updated August 3rd, 2017, 3:16 pm to add the following --
-1- wrote:EY, Ranvier, I don't know if that's going to work... I think you need double- or even triple-negations used in reverse psychology on me. I have never counted. But a friend of mine once used five-tuple of reverse in a psychologically motivating argument (he said he'll driver over me with a steam-roller and then reverse back and do it once more, and repeat this about seven times... as he twiddled the key to the new and shiny steam-roller his rich daddy had bought for him.)

I think that was the first and so far the only time that I with all honestly and with eager alacrity shut my mouth without really wanting to.
That is my problem, I never want to shut people in expressing their thoughts...even though sometimes I should.

Steve3007
Posts: 5088
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: Does Science Contradict Itself With the Big Bang?

Post by Steve3007 » August 4th, 2017, 2:51 am

Ranvier:

Sorry, I hope this doesn't sound rude and can be taken as constructive criticism, but I'm afraid I find your language just too garbled to be able to make any sense of what you're saying. You may well have something interesting to say, but the constant mismatching of concepts makes it impossible (for me at least) to work out what that is. But I will try again.
Logical question...where you intuitively understand the answer.
I really don't! When you say "light is a constant acceleration" I really don't understand what you mean, in the same way that I wouldn't know what you meant if you said "a fish is a constant car". It looks to me like an inappropriate equation of two different concepts.
We should discuss what's "matter" and what exactly do we mean by a particle-wave
Yes, we certainly could do that. It's been discussed in depth in loads of topics in this website before.
but if you should think of light as a photon, you can imagine that such photon emitted at point A could be found anywhere on the sphere of 4Pi r^2 at point B, where r is the distance light travels in one second (299792458m)
Yes.
Light is at a constant velocity of the speed of light but for each second the surface area will increase x4 times where the light can be "pick up" at point B, that's acceleration at a constant velocity.
Yes, it traveled at constant velocity from A to B. Yes, B could be any point in an area of 4pi r2. Still nothing that suggests to me that the statement "light is a constant acceleration" makes sense.
Not a perfect analogy but we can use sound to visualize this... If one fires a short ping of sound, it will travel at a specific velocity (depending on air pressure and temperature) each second in three dimensional space, where such "ping" can be picked up as a "particle" of energy anywhere on the surface of a sphere with radius of sound wave.
Yes ok. The energy of the "ping" is distributed over the surface of a sphere.
This is not a measure of "volume" of space but a distance where the ping can be picked up.
What is not a measure of the volume of space?
The volume can be measured by the compression wave of atoms of air with increasing strength at the source of the ping.
I don't understand this sentence. If we wanted to measure the volume of a sphere we'd use the equation 4/3 pi r3.
Another analogy could be made with Earth that constantly accelerates towards the Sun due to Sun's gravity of 274 m/s^2 but this results only in Earth's constant velocity of angular momentum of around 29820 m/s.
No it doesn't! It results in constant speed and changing velocity. You'll recall that velocity is a vector quantity consisting of both speed (which is a scalar quantity) and direction. An object moving in a circle (for any reason, not just because it is attracted by a force such as gravity towards the centre of the circle) is constantly changing direction of travel. Acceleration is rate of change of velocity (and is also a vector). The acceleration vector points towards the centre of the circle. This is something we learn in high school physics.
The reason why Earth doesn't just travel towards the Sun but remains in a nice stable orbit is because Sun constantly "travels" away from Earth as well as Earth accelerates away towards its own gravity in balance with Sun's gravity.
No it isn't. The statement "the Earth accelerates away towards its own gravity" makes no sense to me. Where is this "its own gravity" towards which the Earth is accelerating?
Now, we can use (rightfully so) GR as geometric representation of spacetime as very accurate representation of what we observe but spacetime does not explain gravity.
To be honest, I think you need to get your head around Newton's law of universal gravitation and Newton's laws of motion before moving on to the much more advanced subject of General Relativity. Your muddle over velocity, speed and acceleration suggests to me that you may not have done that. Again, sorry if I'm misjudging you here.

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 » August 4th, 2017, 5:43 am

I don't mind judgement, although let us agree that I'm trying to describe things differently than what we had learned in high school. The only time I used the term speed was in reference to the speed of light, which has no vector...unless we're discussing a laser beam. If we'll insist on describing reality in Classical Newtonian terms or in terms of Einsteins General Relativity, then we can accurately describe gravity but we will fail to explain gravity.

Let me ask you a few questions:
What is the volume of a beach ball with mass of 40g and radius of 10cm?
If you were to mark to pints on a balloon and continue to deflate that balloon at a constant rate of 10cm in radius, what would be the effect on those to points?
What is the reason for an object to move in a "circle" around another object? Why is it at a specific distance from that object?

Steve3007
Posts: 5088
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: Does Science Contradict Itself With the Big Bang?

Post by Steve3007 » August 4th, 2017, 6:07 am

I don't mind judgement, although let us agree that I'm trying to describe things differently than what we had learned in high school.
Yes, I do understand that. But in order to make any sense we have to at least start from what we learned in high school and build from there. Just as we have to start with the English language that we learned as infants. Otherwise we have no language in which to communicate. We learn in high school the basic functional definitions of words like velocity and acceleration. If you're going to immediately abandon those definitions then I have no way to understand you.
The only time I used the term speed was in reference to the speed of light, which has no vector...unless we're discussing a laser beam. If we'll insist on describing reality in Classical Newtonian terms or in terms of Einsteins General Relativity, then we can accurately describe gravity but we will fail to explain gravity.
Do you understand the point I made about you being factually incorrect to describe the Earth as having a constant velocity in its orbit around the Sun? Do you accept the standard distinction between velocity and speed and the standard mathematical definition of a vector and a scalar? It's these basics of the language of physics and mathematics that we need to first establish. Are we talking the same language?
What is the volume of a beach ball with mass of 40g and radius of 10cm?
Assuming the beachball is perfectly spherical. The mass is irrelevant to the volume. Volume = 4/3 pi r3 = 4188 cm3 (to the nearest cm3).
If you were to mark to pints [two points?] on a balloon and continue to deflate that balloon at a constant rate of 10cm in radius, what would be the effect on those to points?
10cm is not a rate of deflation. Do you mean something like 10cm per second?

Those two points would move closer together at a constant speed, relative to each other, which would be directly proportional to their original distance from each other. If they were at maximum distance from each other (i.e. on opposite sides of the ball) they would move together at twice the rate at which the radius of the ball is reducing. 20cm per second.

Is the related to your statement that "light is a constant acceleration"?
What is the reason for an object to move in a "circle" around another object? Why is it at a specific distance from that object?
There could be many reasons for an object to move in a circle around another object. Generally speaking, they are united by the concept of an isotropic force. When you say "why is it a specific" distance, do you mean "why is it a constant distance"? If so, it's because the force is isotropic.

Footnote: In general, planets do not orbit the Sun in circles. They orbit approximately in ellipses (Kepler). But of course this is still not quite true. They are also perturbed slightly from perfectly elliptical orbits by other planets (and by everything else in the Universe!).

-- Updated Fri Aug 04, 2017 11:36 am to add the following --
If we'll insist on describing reality in Classical Newtonian terms or in terms of Einsteins General Relativity, then we can accurately describe gravity but we will fail to explain gravity.
Here, we're back to the question of what it means to "describe" and what it means to "explain". We've touched on this before. But before entering into it, I think I do need to establish whether we're speaking the same language - i.e. whether we're using the terminology of physics and mathematics in the same way. As far as I'm aware, I'm using standard definitions of these kinds of terms that can be looked up. If you're not, then you're going to have to first define your terms.

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 » August 5th, 2017, 3:48 am

Steve3007
I must concede, my language skills are not sufficient to express my thoughts. You're right, I should had been more careful in the proper use of concepts of physics. I take privilege of walking away with grace.

Steve3007
Posts: 5088
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: Does Science Contradict Itself With the Big Bang?

Post by Steve3007 » August 5th, 2017, 5:39 am

Ranvier.
Thank you anyway for the conversation.

The problem with my reductionist approach to posts that I struggle to understand is that when I pull them to pieces and try to understand the sentences individually (as I did earlier) it's too much like a cold, humourless dissection. Kind of makes me feel guilty. Perhaps there should be a more "holistic" way of understanding posts. But I can't really think of one.

Post Reply