Philosophy Now Forum

Posted: **Sun Feb 19, 2012 1:25 am**

How can anyone on this forum possibly challege somebody like astrophysicist Stephen Hawking on this issue? It's absolutely and laughably insane!
Encyclopedia.com
Stephen William Hawking
The theories of British physicist and mathematician Stephen William Hawking (born 1942) placed him in the great tradition of Newton and Einstein. Hawking made fundamental contributions to the science of cosmology—the study of the origins, structure, and space-time relationships of the universe.

Posted: **Sun Feb 19, 2012 1:41 am**

SpheresOfBalance wrote:The flaw I see, reduces their "observational evidence" that you speak of, to a guessing game, with only a 'theory' to back it up. Before I buy into anything, it has to be a concrete observation, with all ambiguity negated, otherwise it could be swampland you're buying.

I did, and I'll reproduce it for clarity before I address it.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:So is it the movement that causes the disparity, or is it the intensity of earths gravitational pull due to proximity? Or could there be another force that's accountable?

There's no claim that it is any force but either way I don't see why it matters what it is if it can be observed and predicted.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:In this case, is it time that shows the variance, or the clock? Among these possibilities, how could one possibly discern, which created the difference?

We know there is a measurable difference though and if we believe the clock is accurately recording time in it's frame of reference then Einstein's theories offer what is considered to be the most plausible explanation for this. His theories may be completely wrong and our descendents may laugh at our ignorance but until then they appear to be the best we have. I couldn't even pretend to challenge Einstein's theories on any technical level so I feel I have no alternative but to accept the advice of others who are more technically capable. It doesn't mean that I believe they can't be wrong though it just means that if someone is going to prove them wrong it isn't going to be me.

Posted: **Sun Feb 19, 2012 1:46 am**

bobevenson wrote:How can anyone on this forum possibly challege somebody like astrophysicist Stephen Hawking on this issue? It's absolutely and laughably insane!
Encyclopedia.com
Stephen William Hawking
The theories of British physicist and mathematician Stephen William Hawking (born 1942) placed him in the great tradition of Newton and Einstein. Hawking made fundamental contributions to the science of cosmology—the study of the origins, structure, and space-time relationships of the universe.

And it's absolutely laughably insane, that some people are like fish in their comfortable shoal, as if there are no dolphins, gannets or whales! You've been netted, weighed, and found to be wanting!

Posted: **Sun Feb 19, 2012 2:37 am**

My Screw UP!

Posted: **Sun Feb 19, 2012 2:41 am**

SpheresOfBalance wrote:
John wrote:
SpheresOfBalance wrote:The flaw I see, reduces their "observational evidence" that you speak of, to a guessing game, with only a 'theory' to back it up. Before I buy into anything, it has to be a concrete observation, with all ambiguity negated, otherwise it could be swampland you're buying.
I did, and I'll reproduce it for clarity before I address it.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:So is it the movement that causes the disparity, or is it the intensity of earths gravitational pull due to proximity? Or could there be another force that's accountable?
There's no claim that it is any force but either way I don't see why it matters what it is if it can be observed and predicted.
Here let me explain it to you: John (clock) runs the 50 yard dash in exactly 30 seconds (time). When he runs it, the run is exactly the same, track (speed), shoes (gravity) cloths (magnet moment), such that every time he runs it, his time is exactly 30 seconds. Now we take him to another track made of a different substance that reduces traction (different speed as a function of a moving aircraft), put him in new shoes with worse traction (different gravitational pull as a function of altitude), in different cloths with a lesser wind resistance (different magnetic moment as a function of altitude), and for the shits and giggles I hold on to his shirt just for a split second as the pistol is fired. In every instance of the race he comes in at .02 nanoseconds slower than at the other track with the other conditions. Is he slower because of the track surface, shoe traction, wind resistance, or the fact that I held his shirt? And you can't say all of them, you have to pick one, to be consistent in the analogy. Now do you see why it matters? When you have a comparative test, with multiple variables that can effect the results, you cannot truthfully attest to which variable was the cause of the fluctuating results, unless all but one can be eliminated.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:In this case, is it time that shows the variance, or the clock? Among these possibilities, how could one possibly discern, which created the difference?
We know there is a measurable difference though and if we believe the clock is accurately recording time
There is no such thing as a clock that records time. In all cases clocks merely measure the rate of change of an object, whether it be the swing of a pendulum, or the decay of a particle.
in it's frame of reference then Einstein's theories offer what is considered to be the most plausible explanation for this.
They are mathematical 'models.'
His theories may be completely wrong and our descendents may laugh at our ignorance but until then they appear to be the best we have. I couldn't even pretend to challenge Einstein's theories on any technical level so I feel I have no alternative but to accept the advice of others who are more technically capable.
Currently, not me either, I'm not necessarily contesting his mathematical 'models.' I'm contesting what they pertain to in actuality. Did he model the math to an idea, or visa versa?
It doesn't mean that I believe they can't be wrong though it just means that if someone is going to prove them wrong it isn't going to be me.
Currently, not me either!

But that does not change the fact that I see a flaw in the observational proof as it's called, in which case only a mathematical model stands with an explanation of what it's of, which is called a theory, and for good reason!

Blame my stubbornness, for sticking to my guns, in the understanding of the flaw I see, on those physicists that continue to believe in time travel, as that's what started me researching time. Time traveling is for wankers!

Posted: **Sun Feb 19, 2012 3:07 am**

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Here let me explain it to you: John (clock) runs the 50 yard dash in exactly 30 seconds (time). When he runs it, the run is exactly the same, track (speed), shoes (gravity) cloths (magnet moment), such that every time he runs it, his time is exactly 30 seconds. Now we take him to another track made of a different substance that reduces traction (different speed as a function of a moving aircraft), put him in new shoes with worse traction (different gravitational pull as a function of altitude), in different cloths with a lesser wind resistance (different magnetic moment as a function of altitude), and for the shits and giggles I hold on to his shirt just for a split second as the pistol is fired. In every instance of the race he comes in at .02 nanoseconds slower than at the other track with the other conditions. Is he slower because of the track surface, shoe traction, wind resistance, or the fact that I held his shirt? And you can't say all of them, you have to pick one, to be consistent in the analogy. Now do you see why it matters? When you have a comparative test, with multiple variables that can effect the results, you cannot truthfully attest to which variable was the cause of the fluctuating results, unless all but one can be eliminated.

I think the analogy is false because you are comparing relativistic time dilation with a force that acts against an action taking it longer to complete a given amount of work than it otherwise would and no one is claiming that any force causes the phenomena. It looks like you are wedded to a classical model of physics and have a problem with the idea that time may appear to progress at different rates in different frames of reference and whilst I agree that such an idea is inherently counter intuitive it has been demonstrated experimentally to the best of our current capabilities.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:
John wrote:in it's frame of reference then Einstein's theories offer what is considered to be the most plausible explanation for this.
They are mathematical 'models.'

Which have so far proven to be accurate where they can be tested.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:
John wrote:His theories may be completely wrong and our descendents may laugh at our ignorance but until then they appear to be the best we have. I couldn't even pretend to challenge Einstein's theories on any technical level so I feel I have no alternative but to accept the advice of others who are more technically capable.
Currently, not me either, I'm not necessarily contesting his mathematical 'models.' I'm contesting what they pertain to in actuality. Did he model the math to an idea, or visa versa?

I'm only interested in the predictive accuracy of the models as a "best available" explanation.

Posted: **Sun Feb 19, 2012 6:13 am**

John wrote:
SpheresOfBalance wrote:Here let me explain it to you: John (clock) runs the 50 yard dash in exactly 30 seconds (time). When he runs it, the run is exactly the same, track (speed), shoes (gravity) cloths (magnet moment), such that every time he runs it, his time is exactly 30 seconds. Now we take him to another track made of a different substance that reduces traction (different speed as a function of a moving aircraft), put him in new shoes with worse traction (different gravitational pull as a function of altitude), in different cloths with a lesser wind resistance (different magnetic moment as a function of altitude), and for the shits and giggles I hold on to his shirt just for a split second as the pistol is fired. In every instance of the race he comes in at .02 nanoseconds slower than at the other track with the other conditions. Is he slower because of the track surface, shoe traction, wind resistance, or the fact that I held his shirt? And you can't say all of them, you have to pick one, to be consistent in the analogy. Now do you see why it matters? When you have a comparative test, with multiple variables that can effect the results, you cannot truthfully attest to which variable was the cause of the fluctuating results, unless all but one can be eliminated.
I think the analogy is false because you are comparing relativistic time dilation with a force that acts against an action taking it longer to complete a given amount of work than it otherwise would and no one is claiming that any force causes the phenomena. It looks like you are wedded to a classical model of physics and have a problem with the idea that time may appear to progress at different rates in different frames of reference and whilst I agree that such an idea is inherently counter intuitive it has been demonstrated experimentally to the best of our current capabilities.
Clocks don't record time, John! You can think what you want, but my points are right on 'time,' so to speak.

I believe I know more about relativity than you do.

Say you're in a space ship smack dab in the middle of an infinite universe, and there is nothing else anywhere. You are the only thing. Where are you, how fast are you going, and what is your trajectory? Oh yea, and what "time" is it?

SpheresOfBalance wrote:
John wrote:in it's frame of reference then Einstein's theories offer what is considered to be the most plausible explanation for this.
They are mathematical 'models.'
Which have so far proven to be accurate where they can be tested.

You didn't answer my question, which shall answer this. Did he fit the model to an idea or visa versa?

SpheresOfBalance wrote:
John wrote:His theories may be completely wrong and our descendents may laugh at our ignorance but until then they appear to be the best we have. I couldn't even pretend to challenge Einstein's theories on any technical level so I feel I have no alternative but to accept the advice of others who are more technically capable.
Currently, not me either, I'm not necessarily contesting his mathematical 'models.' I'm contesting what they pertain to in actuality. Did he model the math to an idea, or visa versa?
I'm only interested in the predictive accuracy of the models as a "best available" explanation.

And I'm only interested in the truth!

Edit: Redundant verbiage.

Posted: **Sun Feb 19, 2012 8:52 am**

John wrote:So against a vast body of scientific evidence you can offer a paper from one minor physicist?

Now, maybe Michael Lewis is correct but as I don't personally have the experimental apparatus, the telescopes or, quite honestly, the maths and physics knowledge to dispute the dominant position of astrophysicists the only sensible option is to accept what they say while remaining aware that the theories may change.

Let's be brutally honest about this: the level of understanding you need of maths and physics to have a valid opinion on interpreting the observed phenomena or producing a new theory in this field is extremely demanding and I very much doubt any of the dissenters here have anywhere near approaching the required expertise.

I find it is always a mistake to assume you can know another's ability ,
without spending a lot of time testing them yourself,
I have my own skill set which work well for me , I'm a sprinter by nature,
I like to race out ahead of the pack and be the first to draw conclusions,
with the least amount of information , thats my skill ,
I don't sit and ponder endlessly on one issue,
I don't know about you John , but I have a huge general knowledge,
mechanic , electrician, general handyman ,most sports ,
and the things we need to do for our health diet exercise etc
knowledge of the universe can be approached from many angles ,
I have a basic understanding of the bbt , tor,
but to that we have to ad political interference ,religious prejudice,
agenda , as much as people will dispute it , we are nearly all here with an agenda , mines obvious , whats yours John,,??
are you like Chaz and see yourself here as the defender of reality/sanity
So there are some fairly strange claims made by the bb theorists,
we can explain the red shift without movement,
but no they want movement to be the cause,???
the bbt requires there to be a finite universe ,
when I hear a sane explanation of a finite universe ,
I might!!! think about that one , but I havn't yet
the most obvious explanation for how all this matter came to be here,
is it always was and it just keeps getting re-arranged,
the alternative is that you got something from nothing,
which is a fairly old but true science principle ,
that you can't do that , you can't get a universe from nothing,,!!!
if you want to stick to the facts , the most likely explanation ,
using the observational data currently ,
there is no expanding universe , and there was no big bang,,!!!!

Posted: **Sun Feb 19, 2012 5:46 pm**

bobevenson wrote:How can anyone on this forum possibly challege somebody like astrophysicist Stephen Hawking on this issue? It's absolutely and laughably insane!
Encyclopedia.com
Stephen William Hawking
The theories of British physicist and mathematician Stephen William Hawking (born 1942) placed him in the great tradition of Newton and Einstein. Hawking made fundamental contributions to the science of cosmology—the study of the origins, structure, and space-time relationships of the universe.

If these notables had a complete package , the whole story ,
I might find this bbt a little more plausible ,
fact is it's full of errors and holes , assumptions and contradictions ,
Einstein clearly states , light is the cosmic speed limit ,
and the bbt must break that rule to create the universe as we see it today,
there are galaxies 26 billion light years from the point of origin/singularity,
and they are supposed to have got there in less than one billion years ,
at least 26 times the speed of light???
there are large clusters of galaxies that have obviously spent a lot of time gathering and forming clusters , these structures are formed from gravity ,
not some unidentified dark energy, gravity pulling them together,
this pattern exists throughout the universe ,
and is not consistent with an expanding universe model ,
there are lots of problems with the bbt
Sir Fred Hoyle , another famous brit , coined the term bb,
also does not accept the bbt,
the main problem with the bbt , is we have to imagine most of it,
there is no proof for Hubbles red shift , and thats all they have got ,
a claim with no proof , for something illogical ,
not supported by the current observational data ,
breaks more laws of physics than it supports ,
if you look at it without prejudice or desire to see one result or the other,
it is one of the least supported, least likely,most incomplete,
models of the universe you could imagine ,
it's absolute bollocks , if you can swallow the bbt,
why not save yourself some thinking and just say god did it,
they are both about as believable ,unproven , fantasy,
if we have to imagine most of it ,
what the hell do we have science for,,????

Posted: **Sun Feb 19, 2012 10:18 pm**

Godfree wrote:...
there are galaxies 26 billion light years from the point of origin/singularity,
...

I thought the point was that there is no 'point of origin' in the sense of a point of origin in our space and time?

Posted: **Sun Feb 19, 2012 11:32 pm**

SpheresOfBalance wrote:I believe I know more about relativity than you do.

That may well be true but it's not me you have to know more than.

Posted: **Mon Feb 20, 2012 9:23 am**

John wrote:
SpheresOfBalance wrote:I believe I know more about relativity than you do.
That may well be true but it's not me you have to know more than.

That's not true. I don't have to be smarter than Einstein or the gents that did the observational tests to find a flaw with it. The flaw may be real or unreal. It could be due to my ignorance of certain information, that I have yet to uncover. But what you and others must understand is that it's called "Einsteins 'Theory' of Relativity" for a reason. And if you can't address my points specifically, then I see no reason in defending Einstein, other than a bout of hero worship.

John, I'm not saying that I do know more than you, as how could I possibly 'know' that?

But I would like you to answer the hypothetical questions below. I'm really not seeking answers for my edification here, but I believe it shall put things into their proper perspective. You should, however post you answers or a dialog as to your view of them, call me curious.

Say you're in a space ship smack dab in the middle of an infinite universe, and there is nothing else anywhere. You are the only thing. Where are you, how fast are you going, and what is your trajectory? Oh yeah, and what "time" is it?

Posted: **Mon Feb 20, 2012 9:45 am**

Say you're in a space ship smack dab in the middle of an infinite universe, and there is nothing else anywhere. You are the only thing. Where are you, how fast are you going, and what is your trajectory? Oh yeah, and what "time" is it?[/quote]
I'm in my space ship ,
how fast I was going would be calculated from how much and when I last used the engine , and which direction I pointed in then ,ie, which piece of nothing,,!!
and the time is on the ship clock ,,is that am,or pm,,???
but we can communicate these big ideas quicker ,
by just saying , with no reference point ," how can you know,
time ,speed and direction ", like we can't decide where the middle is because we can't see the sides , from which to measure,
I will of course argue if there is nothing else in the universe ,
theres no point in going anywhere ,,,LOL

Posted: **Mon Feb 20, 2012 10:56 am**

Godfree wrote:Say you're in a space ship smack dab in the middle of an infinite universe, and there is nothing else anywhere. You are the only thing. Where are you, how fast are you going, and what is your trajectory? Oh yeah, and what "time" is it?

I'm in my space ship ,
how fast I was going would be calculated from how much and when I last used the engine , and which direction I pointed in then ,ie, which piece of nothing,,!!
and the time is on the ship clock ,,is that am,or pm,,???
but we can communicate these big ideas quicker ,
by just saying , with no reference point ," how can you know,
time ,speed and direction ", like we can't decide where the middle is because we can't see the sides , from which to measure,
I will of course argue if there is nothing else in the universe ,
theres no point in going anywhere ,,,LOL[/quote]

Exactly, time, speed and direction, really don't exist in my little hypothetical test, as they are all relative. The only thing you'll experience is your aging and death at the rate at which the chemical processes, sequentially break down. It's not a matter of time, it's a matter of sequential change over movement.

Posted: **Mon Feb 20, 2012 3:45 pm**

godfree's law of galaxy motion,,!!!
"All galaxies are moving towards their nearest galaxy"
it makes such sense I'm amazed they havn't realized before ,
gravity will eventually move the the most distant galaxies toward their nearest galaxy because there is no other force acting upon them .
when we look at the pattern of galaxies ,
they are clumping together , not expanding apart ,
huge strings , clumps and chains of galaxies , with big empty spaces inbetween
this process has been happening for a long time ,
in order to move all those galaxies together , a huge amount of time ,
more time than the 13.7 billion years the claimed age of the universe ,
which is also a silly claim ,the universe is clearly eternal,
always has been and always will be,,!!

Philosophy Now Forum

The Big Bang is Busted

Re: The Big Bang is Busted

Re: The Big Bang is Busted

Re: The Big Bang is Busted

Re: The Big Bang is Busted

Re: The Big Bang is Busted

Re: The Big Bang is Busted

Re: The Big Bang is Busted

Re: The Big Bang is Busted

Re: The Big Bang is Busted

Re: The Big Bang is Busted

Re: The Big Bang is Busted

Re: The Big Bang is Busted

Re: The Big Bang is Busted

Re: The Big Bang is Busted

Re: The Big Bang is Busted