http://phys.org/news/2013-06-internatio ... heory.html (http://phys.org/news/2013-06-international-team-big-theory.html)
Quote(Phys.org) —An international team of scientists using the most powerful telescope on Earth has discovered the moments just after the Big Bang happened more like the theory predicts, eliminating a significant discrepancy that troubled physicists for two decades. The discovery will be published in the international journal Astronomy & Astrophysics on June 6.
One of the most important problems in physics and astronomy was the inconsistency between the lithium isotopes previously observed in the oldest stars in our galaxy, which suggested levels about two hundred times more Li-6 and about three to five time less Li-7 than Big Bang nucleosynthesis predicts. This serious problem in our understanding of the early Universe has invoked exotic physics and fruitless searches for pre-galactic production sources to reconcile the differences.
The team, led by Karin Lind of the University of Cambridge, has proven the decades-old inventory relied on lower quality observational data with analysis using several simplifications that resulted in spurious detections of lithium isotopes.
Using observations of ancient stars with W. M. Keck Observatory's 10-meter telescope and state-of-the-art models of their atmospheres has shown that there is no conflict between their lithium-6 and lithium-7 content and predictions of the standard theory of Big Bang nucleosynthesis, restoring thus the order in our theory of the early universe.
The discovery that the universe was expanding by Edwin Hubble in the 1920s and subsequent observations suggest the universe began about 13.8 billion years ago in an event called the Big Bang. The fundamental observations that corroborate the Big Bang are the cosmic microwave radiation and the chemical abundances of the light elements described in the Big Bang nucleosynthesis theory.
"The predictions of Big Bang nucleosynthesis have been one of the main successes of the standard Big Bang model," said lead author Lind. "Our findings remove much of the stark tension between 6Li and 7Li abundances in stars and standard BBN, even opening up the door for a full reconciliation. This further consolidates a model resting heavily on the pillars of the cosmic microwave background and the expanding Universe."
Taking accurate measurements of lithium-6 and lithium-7 in old stars is extremely challenging, both from a theoretical and observational perspective, in particular for lithium-6, because being the less abundant isotope of lithium, its signature is very weak. The required data can only be obtained with the largest telescopes on Earth such as the Keck Observatory on the summit of Mauna Kea, Hawaii equipped with the powerful High Resolution Echelle Spectrometer (HIRES) spectrograph to disperse the stellar light into its constituent colors and absorption features.
The best part of this for me is that is shows the scientists involved are challenging their own work, and looking for more evidence to either bolster or disprove their basic assertions. Go science!
Well ...
No one actually doubted it before. The consensus was just that there was something we weren't getting. And that turns out to be correct - what we weren't getting was accurate data.
Of course, theists can jump on this as some sort of "proof" that science isn't reliable.
Quote from: "stromboli"http://phys.org/news/2013-06-international-team-big-theory.html
Quote(Phys.org) —An international team of scientists using the most powerful telescope on Earth has discovered the moments just after the Big Bang happened more like the theory predicts, eliminating a significant discrepancy that troubled physicists for two decades. The discovery will be published in the international journal Astronomy & Astrophysics on June 6.
One of the most important problems in physics and astronomy was the inconsistency between the lithium isotopes previously observed in the oldest stars in our galaxy, which suggested levels about two hundred times more Li-6 and about three to five time less Li-7 than Big Bang nucleosynthesis predicts. This serious problem in our understanding of the early Universe has invoked exotic physics and fruitless searches for pre-galactic production sources to reconcile the differences.
The team, led by Karin Lind of the University of Cambridge, has proven the decades-old inventory relied on lower quality observational data with analysis using several simplifications that resulted in spurious detections of lithium isotopes.
Using observations of ancient stars with W. M. Keck Observatory's 10-meter telescope and state-of-the-art models of their atmospheres has shown that there is no conflict between their lithium-6 and lithium-7 content and predictions of the standard theory of Big Bang nucleosynthesis, restoring thus the order in our theory of the early universe.
The discovery that the universe was expanding by Edwin Hubble in the 1920s and subsequent observations suggest the universe began about 13.8 billion years ago in an event called the Big Bang. The fundamental observations that corroborate the Big Bang are the cosmic microwave radiation and the chemical abundances of the light elements described in the Big Bang nucleosynthesis theory.
"The predictions of Big Bang nucleosynthesis have been one of the main successes of the standard Big Bang model," said lead author Lind. "Our findings remove much of the stark tension between 6Li and 7Li abundances in stars and standard BBN, even opening up the door for a full reconciliation. This further consolidates a model resting heavily on the pillars of the cosmic microwave background and the expanding Universe."
Taking accurate measurements of lithium-6 and lithium-7 in old stars is extremely challenging, both from a theoretical and observational perspective, in particular for lithium-6, because being the less abundant isotope of lithium, its signature is very weak. The required data can only be obtained with the largest telescopes on Earth such as the Keck Observatory on the summit of Mauna Kea, Hawaii equipped with the powerful High Resolution Echelle Spectrometer (HIRES) spectrograph to disperse the stellar light into its constituent colors and absorption features.
The best part of this for me is that is shows the scientists involved are challenging their own work, and looking for more evidence to either bolster or disprove their basic assertions. Go science!
I don't want to get into it now because I don't have the evidence handy, buy they completely ignore any evidence that contradicts the theory. For example: the blue shifting of galaxies. And how in the world could the theory be falsified they don't try to do it and ignore evidence? Stephen Hawking now says the universe has no beginning in a singularity from his understanding of quantum mechanics, or end, and just is. But nobody is listening. I'll get back on this on a different thread. Bill
Quote from: "Solitary"I don't want to get into it now because I don't have the evidence handy, buy they completely ignore any evidence that contradicts the theory. For example: the blue shifting of galaxies.
I call bullshit on that!
Have I inadvertently opened a can of worms? :shock:
Quote from: "stromboli"http://phys.org/news/2013-06-international-team-big-theory.html
Quote(Phys.org) —An international team of scientists using the most powerful telescope on Earth has discovered the moments just after the Big Bang happened more like the theory predicts, eliminating a significant discrepancy that troubled physicists for two decades. The discovery will be published in the international journal Astronomy & Astrophysics on June 6.
One of the most important problems in physics and astronomy was the inconsistency between the lithium isotopes previously observed in the oldest stars in our galaxy, which suggested levels about two hundred times more Li-6 and about three to five time less Li-7 than Big Bang nucleosynthesis predicts. This serious problem in our understanding of the early Universe has invoked exotic physics and fruitless searches for pre-galactic production sources to reconcile the differences.
The team, led by Karin Lind of the University of Cambridge, has proven the decades-old inventory relied on lower quality observational data with analysis using several simplifications that resulted in spurious detections of lithium isotopes.
Using observations of ancient stars with W. M. Keck Observatory's 10-meter telescope and state-of-the-art models of their atmospheres has shown that there is no conflict between their lithium-6 and lithium-7 content and predictions of the standard theory of Big Bang nucleosynthesis, restoring thus the order in our theory of the early universe.
The discovery that the universe was expanding by Edwin Hubble in the 1920s and subsequent observations suggest the universe began about 13.8 billion years ago in an event called the Big Bang. The fundamental observations that corroborate the Big Bang are the cosmic microwave radiation and the chemical abundances of the light elements described in the Big Bang nucleosynthesis theory.
"The predictions of Big Bang nucleosynthesis have been one of the main successes of the standard Big Bang model," said lead author Lind. "Our findings remove much of the stark tension between 6Li and 7Li abundances in stars and standard BBN, even opening up the door for a full reconciliation. This further consolidates a model resting heavily on the pillars of the cosmic microwave background and the expanding Universe."
Taking accurate measurements of lithium-6 and lithium-7 in old stars is extremely challenging, both from a theoretical and observational perspective, in particular for lithium-6, because being the less abundant isotope of lithium, its signature is very weak. The required data can only be obtained with the largest telescopes on Earth such as the Keck Observatory on the summit of Mauna Kea, Hawaii equipped with the powerful High Resolution Echelle Spectrometer (HIRES) spectrograph to disperse the stellar light into its constituent colors and absorption features.
The best part of this for me is that is shows the scientists involved are challenging their own work, and looking for more evidence to either bolster or disprove their basic assertions. Go science!
Theism adapts through marketing, not testing, and does not adapt to improve, but to prop up bad claims. So it simply keeps putting different color cloths on the same skunk arguments.
Science however demands the strict quality control that once something is busted, you discard the bad data. And the only way to insure the most accurate answers is to kick the ever living shit out of the claim with testing, control groups and peer review.
Theism is nothing more than human projecting their own childish desires on the world around them.
And how can anyone think they are special in a universe this size? No we are merely lucky, but even with our species existence, that "luck" also comes with very harsh conditions for many and the ultimate finite existence as well, like our planet and sun will die too.
Theism cheapens reality by concocting bullshit answers to reality. It is like trying to look into deep space with a kaleidoscope instead of a telescope.
Knowing reality is much more awesome, both in its constructive and destructive reality, than the ancient myths of scientifically ignorant humans.
Quote from: "Solitary"they completely ignore any evidence that contradicts the theory. For example: the blue shifting of galaxies.
The blueshifting can be explained: most of these are galaxies nearby. They are blueshifted, meaning they are moving closer to us, as a result of the gravitational pull between galaxies. The ouliers also can be explained. Take an explosion as an analogy - the BB is not an explosion -- but for the purpose here, we can draw some conclusions. In an explosion, particles will fly out, but on occasions some of these will collide and deflect in weird angles. Similarly, in the initial stage of the BB, some clusters of matter might have deviated from the normal course either through collisions or very strong gravitational pull of nearby galaxies, so that today they are moving towards us. But notice, the number of blueshifting galaxies is extremely small, and so this does not put the BBT in jeopardy.
QuoteAnd how in the world could the theory be falsified they don't try to do it and ignore evidence?
Which evidence is being ignored?
QuoteStephen Hawking now says the universe has no beginning in a singularity from his understanding of quantum mechanics, or end, and just is. But nobody is listening.
A lot of people are listening to Hawking, but most of the theists listening are howlering that this is nonsense. Of course, if you don't understand the physics, Hawking will sound like nonsense.
So the raisons in a loaf of bread rising scenario for the Big bang is misleading then? The Big Bang says that space is expanding not the galaxies. If space is expanding how could a blue shift happen and galaxies that are red shifting collide which they do even in space that is expanding faster and faster, and thus gravity gets weaker? I agree if space is expanding slower than gravitational affects there will be blue shifts. I'm always surprised that atheist are skeptical of religions, but not science. Like I said I'll get back with a post on this subject when I have time and try to find evidence I can't for now.
I've always been of the opinion that good science tries to falsify its data and theories, not just keep finding evidence to support the theory. This is the very reason evolution is considered fact now, because every piece of evidence that was found to falsify it has been explained, and all evidence from various fields of science have confirmed it with new evidence.
I've changed my mind, I can't find the evidence that I had that has been lost, so I will post my opinion and those of scientist on the latest evidence for the Big Bang and what is actually believed now at this thread which is appropriate.
Today, cosmologist can provide a variety of plausible, mathematical precise scenarios for an uncreated universe that violate no known laws of physics. Further more, despite the well-confirmed big bang, the universe, defined as all there is, had no beginning and thus no end
or Creator. The so-called proofs that the universe cannot be eternal are erroneous.
While there is no serious disagreement that our universe began with the big bang, nothing forbids it, and indeed modern cosmology suggests, an eternal multiverse containing many universes besides our own. I can see the rabbit pulled out of the hat. In any case, the claim that time did not exist until it was created in a big bang is incoherent. You can't have creation if you have no time.
Photons out number the atoms by a factor of a billion, and they are random to one part in one thousand. The universe is mostly random motion, and because we live in a tiny pocket of complexity, we wrongly assume the universe is highly ordered. Modern cosmology today views the universe as probably eternal, having no beginning and no end. While the big bang is the origin of our universe , nothing forbids the existence of a prior universe or, many other universes.
The idea behind the big bang was first proposed by an astronomer and Belgian Catholic priest Georges-Henri Lemaitre. Einstein told him his math was correct, but his physics abominable. In Einstein's gravitational equation, the cosmological constant is equivalent to an energy density in a vacuum, that is, space without matter. This number is 120 orders of magnitude higher than what is observed. Such a value is so high it would result in a universe that would expand so rapidly that galaxies would have no time to form.
Modern cosmology does not require that everything that exists began with a big bang. Hawking and Penrose long ago admitted that their 1970 theorem proving the universe began in a singularity, while not "mathematically" erroneous, did not apply to the origin of the universe.
This was based on Einstein's general relativity if it was correct. In the end their work was generally accepted and now days nearly everyone assumes the universe started with a big bang.
It is ironic that Hawking can't convince other physicist that there is in fact no singularity at the beginning of the universe because it disappears once quantum effects are taken into account. Decide for yourself. Mine is just an opinion, or not, like always. 8-) Bill
Quote from: "Jason78"Quote from: "Solitary"I don't want to get into it now because I don't have the evidence handy, buy they completely ignore any evidence that contradicts the theory. For example: the blue shifting of galaxies.
I call bullshit on that!
What are you calling bullshit on, the existence of blue shifting galaxies or that they contradict big bang theory?
Quote from: "Solitary"So the raisons in a loaf of bread rising scenario for the Big bang is misleading then?
Analogies are often used in science to illustrate a particular point, and is rarely meant to be used for some other points. Needless to say that any analogy is only valid to a certain extent.
QuoteIf space is expanding how could a blue shift happen and galaxies that are red shifting collide which they do even in space that is expanding faster and faster, and thus gravity gets weaker? I agree if space is expanding slower than gravitational affects there will be blue shifts.
One does not exclude the other. Most galaxies are receding from us. The few that don't can be explained by local conditions.
QuoteI'm always surprised that atheist are skeptical of religions, but not science. Like I said I'll get back with a post on this subject when I have time and try to find evidence I can't for now.
Are we talking about atheists or scientists? Perhaps those atheists who do not question science might feel they are not competent to do so. They rely on them because (1) science has made its marks , and (2) that science has a mechanism of self-correction, that religion doesn't have. So they take the attitude: if science has it wrong for now, some smart scientist will fix it. Religion is based on dogma, and there is enormous resistance to change that. One would have to leave that particular denomination, and start a new one - why there are 33,000 christian denominations at last count.
QuoteI've always been of the opinion that good science tries to falsify its data and theories, not just keep finding evidence to support the theory. This is the very reason evolution is considered fact now, because every piece of evidence that was found to falsify it has been explained, and all evidence from various fields of science have confirmed it with new evidence.
Finding evidence to support a theory, and falsification are two different activities.
QuoteThe universe is mostly random motion, and because we live in a tiny pocket of complexity, we wrongly assume the universe is highly ordered.
Our theory tells us the the universe had to start with high order, and since the BB, its disorder is on the increase.
QuoteThe idea behind the big bang was first proposed by an astronomer and Belgian Catholic priest Georges-Henri Lemaitre. Einstein told him his math was correct, but his physics abominable. In Einstein's gravitational equation, the cosmological constant is equivalent to an energy density in a vacuum, that is, space without matter.
Einstein put in the CC because in his times, galaxies were not known to be receding. But he knew his cosmological model would be highly unstable. So the CC was introduced to put stability in his model. It's only when Hubble demonstrated with a stack of data that the universe was expanding that Einstein realized that his equations did in fact lead to an expanding universe, and so he though his CC was a blunder. But now, with the universe accelerating, that CC has been resuscitated.
I don't know what Einstein told Lemaitre.
QuoteThis number is 120 orders of magnitude higher than what is observed. Such a value is so high it would result in a universe that would expand so rapidly that galaxies would have no time to form.
You're conflating two things. That order of magnitude comes from QFT. If the CC from GR is given a value of 1, the calculated QFT vacuum energy would be 10[sup:22qjed79]120[/sup:22qjed79], clearly a mismatch.
QuoteModern cosmology does not require that everything that exists began with a big bang. Hawking and Penrose long ago admitted that their 1970 theorem proving the universe began in a singularity, while not "mathematically" erroneous, did not apply to the origin of the universe.
This was based on Einstein's general relativity if it was correct. In the end their work was generally accepted and now days nearly everyone assumes the universe started with a big bang.
*** my underlining.
Except for Reinhartd and Turok ( Cyclic theory using Brane theory), Randal-Sundrum's model in 5 dimensions, Smolin's Fecund Theory, Penrose's CCC theory, to name a few.
QuoteIt is ironic that Hawking can't convince other physicist that there is in fact no singularity at the beginning of the universe because it disappears once quantum effects are taken into account. Decide for yourself. Mine is just an opinion, or not, like always. 8-) Bill
Other physicists have no problems with Hawking. The general public, hmm, that's another matter.
Quote from: "Colanth"Well ...
No one actually doubted it before. The consensus was just that there was something we weren't getting. And that turns out to be correct - what we weren't getting was accurate data.
Of course, theists can jump on this as some sort of "proof" that science isn't reliable.
And that will only show that they are dishonest assholes. Of course they will.
Quote from: "PopeyesPappy"Quote from: "Jason78"Quote from: "Solitary"I don't want to get into it now because I don't have the evidence handy, buy they completely ignore any evidence that contradicts the theory. For example: the blue shifting of galaxies.
I call bullshit on that!
What are you calling bullshit on, the existence of blue shifting galaxies or that they contradict big bang theory?
Blue shifting galaxies are real, but they don't contradict the BBT.
Joseph, are you a scientist? You seem like one. xD
/is a compliment
Quote from: "GurrenLagann"Joseph, are you a scientist? You seem like one. xD
/is a compliment
Thanks, I try my best. I also run this blog (//http://soi.blogspot.ca/), often seen on this forum. :-D
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"Quote from: "PopeyesPappy"What are you calling bullshit on, the existence of blue shifting galaxies or that they contradict big bang theory?
Blue shifting galaxies are real, but they don't contradict the BBT.
Yea, Andromeda is a blue shift galaxy. It is moving towards us. As you said before there are other phenomena that cause blue shift in the light from distant galaxies.
Question for you Joseph. We detect light emitted from a galaxy exactly one billion years ago. How far away was the galaxy when the light was emitted and how far away is it now?
Quote from: "PopeyesPappy"Quote from: "Jason78"Quote from: "Solitary"I don't want to get into it now because I don't have the evidence handy, buy they completely ignore any evidence that contradicts the theory. For example: the blue shifting of galaxies.
I call bullshit on that!
What are you calling bullshit on, the existence of blue shifting galaxies or that they contradict big bang theory?
I smell an argument that is arguing over details.
There has been lots of data between Darwin and DNA, just like the data between Galileo and Hubble. But the hiccups inbetween do not negate the building blocks, which is what this article was saying.
It certainly is a mandate in science that all competing claims have the tires kicked. But over all long term we progress.
We still know that the big bang is fact and none of this negates that.
No one's ignoring blue shift. Andromeda's heading toward us, but the galaxy as a whole is expanding. Andromeda's in our local group. The velocity of its heading toward us far exceeds the velocity of the expansion of space on a local scale.
Quote from: "Jason78"Quote from: "Solitary"I don't want to get into it now because I don't have the evidence handy, buy they completely ignore any evidence that contradicts the theory. For example: the blue shifting of galaxies.
I call bullshit on that!
Can you give evidence for what you said? A good theory should be falsifiable, how can the big bang theory and what happened billions of years ago and based on general relativity and mathematics which is questionable with regard to a singularity, and that doesn't take into account quantum mechanics be falsified? God did it? Bill
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"You're conflating two things. That order of magnitude comes from QFT. If the CC from GR is given a value of 1, the calculated QFT vacuum energy would be 10120, clearly a mismatch.
Thanks for an intelligent response with no cussing or name calling.
QuoteAre we talking about atheists or scientists
? I did say atheist. Does one have to be an expert to be skeptical? Are atheist theologians that question religion?
QuoteFinding evidence to support a theory, and falsification are two different activities.
I believe that was just my point, evidence that supports a theory should be falsifiable to be good science.
QuoteOur theory tells us the universe had to start with high order, and since the BB, its disorder is on the increase.
This is true, but that doesn't mean it started with an infinite singularity.
QuoteYou're conflating two things. That order of magnitude comes from QFT. If the CC from GR is given a value of 1, the calculated QFT vacuum energy would be 10120, clearly a mismatch.
You are probably correct on that. My information is from from physicist Hugh Ross and physicist Leonard Susskind, as well as a friend that is a physicist, that are all Christian apologists.
I sure wish I had my original papers on the subject. All I can give is my understanding, opinions, and what modern physicists have to say about it. Nice math answer! I guess I'm done with this thread. I'll see what other controversies I can come up with---do we have freewill? :-$ And are people determined to show we do? [-( Solitary
Quote from: "PopeyesPappy"Question for you Joseph. We detect light emitted from a galaxy exactly one billion years ago. How far away was the galaxy when the light was emitted and how far away is it now?
We can only tell what distance it was when the light was emitted and when it was received here. What happened in the meantime, we don't have any formula for that.
Quote from: "Solitary"Are we talking about atheists or scientists
?
QuoteI did say atheist. Does one have to be an expert to be skeptical? Are atheist theologians that question religion?
Good point. But I did say that non-scientist atheists most likely rely on the fact that science has a self-correcting mechanism. Scientists are eager to prove that other scientists are wrong. Imagine if you did prove that Einstein was wrong, you'be in line for the Nobel prize and world famous. OTOH, if you tried to prove your local minister wrong, you would probably be banned from that congregation.
QuoteQuoteFinding evidence to support a theory, and falsification are two different activities.
I believe that was just my point, evidence that supports a theory should be falsifiable to be good science.
I belive this is not quite right. It's not that every single evidence should be falsifiable, but that the theory should be falsifiable. For example, finding a rabbit fossil in the precambrian area would falsify the theory of evolution, but not that every single fossil found should be falsifiable.
QuoteQuoteOur theory tells us the universe had to start with high order, and since the BB, its disorder is on the increase.
This is true, but that doesn't mean it started with an infinite singularity.
Most scientists are aware that a singularity is a mathematical point, not a real point. And if a theory contains one, it's a red flag telling us that the theory is incomplete and needs major modifications.
QuoteWhich evidence is being ignored?
There are galaxies older than the universe for one, and the radiation from the Big Bang is older is another one.
Scientist claims entire universe existed before Big Bang Cosmic radiation discovered by NASA is older than Big Bang Universe left "trail" of radiation forming in concentric circles
Professor Roger Penrose says that cosmic radiation discovered by one of NASA's telescopes is older than the Big Bang.
The researcher shows that the cosmic radiation background (CMB) formed in concentric circles that had cooled to a temperature of -270C over the 14 billion years since the universe came into being.
Prof Penrose and his colleague Professor Vahe Gurzadyan of the Yerevan State University in Armenia claim to have 12 examples of the circles, some of which have five rings - meaning that the objects had five massive events in their history.
The rings appear around clusters of galaxy where the background radiation is incredibly low.
The scientists believe the circles are imprints of violent gravitational forces generated by black holes that existed long before the Big Bang.
The research casts doubt upon the widely-held theory that the universe has continued to expand since the Big Bang and will continue to do so until it ceases to exist.
Prof Penrose says that his research shows that all matter in the universe will eventually be consumed by black holes, leaving only energy behind which will in turn trigger the next Big Bang.
"In the scheme that I'm proposing, you have an exponential expansion but it's not in our aeon - I use the term to describe [the period] from our Big Bang until the remote future," Prof Penrose told the BBC.
"I claim that this aeon is one of a succession of such things, where the remote future of the previous aeons somehow becomes the Big Bang of our aeon."
The European Space Agency (ESA) has released the most detailed map of the cosmic microwave background ever created, and there may be evidence of physics that took place before the Big Bang. The ESA's findings call into question how much we really know about the formation of the universe.
This map is based on the first 15.5 months of data from the ESA's Planck space telescope, which was launched in 2009 to investigate the origins of the universe. Planck uses two instruments to make measurements of the universe and can detect the first light ever produced. Its high-frequency instrument measures from 83 GHz to 1 THz and contains an array of 52 bolometric detectors operated at 0.1K. Its low-frequency instrument measures from 27 to 77 GHz and contains an array of 22 tuned radio receivers operated at 20K. The telescope features a 1.9 m × 1.5 m primary mirror with a 1.5 m projected aperture.
The anisotropies of the cosmic microwave background as observed by Planck. Image: ESA and the Planck Collaboration.
The radiations measured by Planck resulting from the Big Bang are called the cosmic microwave background. The cosmic microwave background shows the universe when it was just 380,000 years old (when photons were able to start moving freely) and indicates small temperature fluctuations that correspond to areas of slightly different densities, which can be considered the "seeds" of today's stars and galaxies.
The Planck telescope maps these fluctuations across the sky with better resolution and sensitivity than the two previous missions, which were launched by the United States. According to the standard model of cosmology, these fluctuations occurred immediately after the Big Bang and were stretched to cosmologically large scales during a short time of accelerated expansion known as inflation. The inflationary theory attempts to explain the expansion of the universe.
What concerns scientists is that Planck has found unexpected large-scale anomalies in the sky, including a large cold region, stronger fluctuations in one half of the sky than the other, and less light signal than expected across the entire sky. "If we see these strange patterns that are not expected in the simplest inflationary theories, it may be that we've been fooled ? that inflation didn't happen," said George Efstathiou, professor of astrophysics at the University of Cambridge. "It's possible that there was some phase of the universe before the Big Bang happened where you can track the history of the universe to a pre-Big Bang period."
The inflation theory was invented to explain why the temperature of the cosmic microwave background appeared to be uniform throughout the universe. Now that Planck has found the temperature is not as uniform as previously thought and it is possible that inflation may not have happened, a great deal of conversation will result. If it is determined that the Big Bang was not the beginning of space and time, it's back to the drawing board for much of the cosmology community.
I've already pointed out that the universe is eternal and not created. Bill
QuoteMost scientists are aware that a singularity is a mathematical point, not a real point. And if a theory contains one, it's a red flag telling us that the theory is incomplete and needs major modifications.
And yet the original Big Bang theory said the universe started with a singularity. I'm not aware a singularity is a mathematical "point." I thought in math it was a singular point and in astronomy it was a the mathematical representation of a black hole. The math backing up the Big Bang has a singularity in it, that cannot be ignored because it shows the theory needs major modifications which have been done now.
QuoteI belive this is not quite right. It's not that every single evidence should be falsifiable, but that the theory should be falsifiable. For example, finding a rabbit fossil in the precambrian area would falsify the theory of evolution, but not that every single fossil found should be falsifiable
Absolutely! And the fact that the Big Bang has a singularity in it is like finding a fossil in the wrong time period. The very reason I am skeptical of the theory as it was originally and why evidence that contradicts the theory should not be ignored. Thanks for all your input with intelligent arguments. Bill
@ Solitary
I'm not a big fan of an infinitely small singularity or inflation. I prefer the Big Bang happening over a larger area which would negate the need for inflation.
From what I have read Penrose does not claim the concentric circles in the CMB as evidence the Big Bang never happened. He cites them of evidence of cyclic universe which has experienced multiple Big Bang type events. Neither does he claim that the CMB in these areas is older than the universe. Rather he claims the circles are the result of disturbances in space time that are the remnants of earlier events. The radiation itself is the remnant of our Big Bang.
Thanks for your response! This an interesting subject. The evidence coming in is coming in faster than the theory can be modified. It is still my "opinion" that the universe just is with no creation or astronomical singularity. When anyone finds new thoughts by cosmologist on the new evidence, or their own opinions on this subject, post it here. I'm interested. Bill
Quote from: "Solitary"QuoteWhich evidence is being ignored?
There are galaxies older than the universe for one, and the radiation from the Big Bang is older is another one.
The WMAP results in 2003 suggest that the Universe is older than what we had calculated, so those discrepancies have disappeared.
QuoteScientist claims entire universe existed before Big Bang Cosmic radiation discovered by NASA is older than Big Bang Universe left "trail" of radiation forming in concentric circles
Professor Roger Penrose says that cosmic radiation discovered by one of NASA's telescopes is older than the Big Bang.
The researcher shows that the cosmic radiation background (CMB) formed in concentric circles that had cooled to a temperature of -270C over the 14 billion years since the universe came into being.
Prof Penrose and his colleague Professor Vahe Gurzadyan of the Yerevan State University in Armenia claim to have 12 examples of the circles, some of which have five rings - meaning that the objects had five massive events in their history.
The rings appear around clusters of galaxy where the background radiation is incredibly low.
The scientists believe the circles are imprints of violent gravitational forces generated by black holes that existed long before the Big Bang.
The research casts doubt upon the widely-held theory that the universe has continued to expand since the Big Bang and will continue to do so until it ceases to exist.
Prof Penrose says that his research shows that all matter in the universe will eventually be consumed by black holes, leaving only energy behind which will in turn trigger the next Big Bang.
"In the scheme that I'm proposing, you have an exponential expansion but it's not in our aeon - I use the term to describe [the period] from our Big Bang until the remote future," Prof Penrose told the BBC.
"I claim that this aeon is one of a succession of such things, where the remote future of the previous aeons somehow becomes the Big Bang of our aeon."
Penrose's claims have been debunked.
See:
(1) nhttp://arxiv.org/abs/1012.1268 (nhttp://arxiv.org/abs/1012.1268)
(2) http://arxiv.org/abs/1012.1305 (http://arxiv.org/abs/1012.1305)
QuoteThe European Space Agency (ESA) has released the most detailed map of the cosmic microwave background ever created, and there may be evidence of physics that took place before the Big Bang. The ESA's findings call into question how much we really know about the formation of the universe.
This map is based on the first 15.5 months of data from the ESA's Planck space telescope, which was launched in 2009 to investigate the origins of the universe. Planck uses two instruments to make measurements of the universe and can detect the first light ever produced. Its high-frequency instrument measures from 83 GHz to 1 THz and contains an array of 52 bolometric detectors operated at 0.1K. Its low-frequency instrument measures from 27 to 77 GHz and contains an array of 22 tuned radio receivers operated at 20K. The telescope features a 1.9 m × 1.5 m primary mirror with a 1.5 m projected aperture.
The anisotropies of the cosmic microwave background as observed by Planck. Image: ESA and the Planck Collaboration.
The radiations measured by Planck resulting from the Big Bang are called the cosmic microwave background. The cosmic microwave background shows the universe when it was just 380,000 years old (when photons were able to start moving freely) and indicates small temperature fluctuations that correspond to areas of slightly different densities, which can be considered the "seeds" of today's stars and galaxies.
The Planck telescope maps these fluctuations across the sky with better resolution and sensitivity than the two previous missions, which were launched by the United States. According to the standard model of cosmology, these fluctuations occurred immediately after the Big Bang and were stretched to cosmologically large scales during a short time of accelerated expansion known as inflation. The inflationary theory attempts to explain the expansion of the universe.
What concerns scientists is that Planck has found unexpected large-scale anomalies in the sky, including a large cold region, stronger fluctuations in one half of the sky than the other, and less light signal than expected across the entire sky. "If we see these strange patterns that are not expected in the simplest inflationary theories, it may be that we've been fooled ? that inflation didn't happen," said George Efstathiou, professor of astrophysics at the University of Cambridge. "It's possible that there was some phase of the universe before the Big Bang happened where you can track the history of the universe to a pre-Big Bang period."
The inflation theory was invented to explain why the temperature of the cosmic microwave background appeared to be uniform throughout the universe. Now that Planck has found the temperature is not as uniform as previously thought and it is possible that inflation may not have happened, a great deal of conversation will result. If it is determined that the Big Bang was not the beginning of space and time, it's back to the drawing board for much of the cosmology community.
I've already pointed out that the universe is eternal and not created. Bill
None of that puts the BBT in jeopardy. Scientists are gathering information, which is what they're supposed to do. That is the way a model gets either refined or is put away if the evidence are contradictory to the theory. Most scientists believed that the BBT is a description of the universe from 13,8 billion years ago to the present day. But that leaves the door open that this is just a phase, and perhaps, the universe was undergoing a different phase prior to the 13.8 billion years. On that there are many theories besides Penrose who are betting what that theory is, Reinahrdt and Smolin, to name a couple.
Quote from: "Solitary"QuoteMost scientists are aware that a singularity is a mathematical point, not a real point. And if a theory contains one, it's a red flag telling us that the theory is incomplete and needs major modifications.
And yet the original Big Bang theory said the universe started with a singularity. I'm not aware a singularity is a mathematical "point." I thought in math it was a singular point and in astronomy it was a the mathematical representation of a black hole. The math backing up the Big Bang has a singularity in it, that cannot be ignored because it shows the theory needs major modifications which have been done now.
Hmm, that is not quite right. The BBT has a singularity, and that's why it is considered as incomplete. The BBT is derived from GR, and GR fails miserably at the Planck scale as it ignores quantum effects. Perhaps, if a quantum theory of gravity is developped we may possibly escape this singularity.
QuoteAbsolutely! And the fact that the Big Bang has a singularity in it is like finding a fossil in the wrong time period. The very reason I am skeptical of the theory as it was originally and why evidence that contradicts the theory should not be ignored.
That would be the wrong analogy. More to do with QM. See above answer.
:) Thanks for the info and update. It's nice having a rational disagreement and having new evidence presented. Am I wrong with thinking the universe we are in is unbounded, eternal, and not created from an astronomical singularity, but just is, and ever changing? 8-) Bill
:-D This is so exciting I'm going to add more wood to the fire. From the internet:
In order for inflation theory to work—and it was confirmed as being a reality yesterday—"that split-second of expansion may not stop elsewhere like it does in the observable universe," the scientists say. "That means," notes AP, "there are places where expansion is zooming fast, with an infinite number of universes that stretch to infinity."
So the idea of an infinite number of universes existing in parallel to our own universe is now no longer the stuff of sci-fi, but the most likely reality as interpreted by our most advanced science.
"You can get very, very strange answers to problems when you start thinking about what different observers might see in different universes," Efstathiou said.
What concerns scientists is that the Planck telescope has found unexpected large-scale anomalies in the sky, including a large cold region, stronger fluctuations in one half of the sky than the other, and less light signal than expected across the entire sky.
"If we see these strange patterns that are not expected in the simplest inflationary theories, it may be that we've been fooled ? that inflation didn't happen," said George Efstathiou, professor of astrophysics at the University of Cambridge. "It's possible that there was some phase of the universe before the Big Bang happened where you can track the history of the universe to a pre-Big Bang period."
The inflation theory was invented to explain why the temperature of the cosmic microwave background appeared to be uniform throughout the universe. Now that Planck has found the temperature is not as uniform as previously thought and it is possible that inflation may not have happened, a great deal of conversation will result. If it is determined that the Big Bang was not the beginning of space and time, it's back to the drawing board for much of the cosmology community.
Isn't science fun? Bill
If your head has stopped spinning carry on!
How is time passing now and during the formation of our universe?
Is time a general property of nature or is it invented by us to describe processes in nature? Is it a property of material or is it only invented by us? And, what is the meaning of the passing of time? Is time always passing with the same speed 300,000 Kilometers a second? Can our measure of time on an atomic clock be considered as an inherent property of nature?
We can say time is passing as changes occur, events happen. Changes in energy, location, motion, composition. In these changes some energy is needed. If the inherent energy of a specific physical process which is used to carry out the change in the state of material is higher the change occurs in a shorter time.
Is time also quantized. Therefore, a quantum of time belongs to a quantum of energy at a specific radiation frequency or wavelength.
It can be shown that time is a phenomenon inherent in physical processes because there is a direct connection between time and energy involved in physical processes. This relationship presents strict connection between energy and time.
How about the formation of Earth when it was erupted from the Sun. At that time the Earth had an extremely high nuclear activity. Its nuclear processes had an extremely high energy and consequently the changes in the state of the Earth were carried out in an extremely short time.
This has to be taken into consideration when the age of our universe and earth are estimated.
The relationship between energy and time is applied for a material object having relativistic speed with a velocity approaching the speed of light in vacuum.
In that case the mass of the material is increased and the use or deliver of the same amount of energy will occur during a longer interval of time. In other words, at relativistic speed, time is slowed down, the same action needs longer time. That is in complete agreement with general relativity theory.
The universe seems to be showing its age, now calculated at 13.8 billion years, 80 million years older than scientists had thought. It's got about 3.2 per cent more width, it has more matter than dark energy, and it is expanding about 3.1 per cent more slowly. I'm getting a headache now. :rolleyes: Bill
Quote from: "Solitary":-D This is so exciting I'm going to add more wood to the fire. From the internet:
In order for inflation theory to work—and it was confirmed as being a reality yesterday—"that split-second of expansion may not stop elsewhere like it does in the observable universe," the scientists say. "That means," notes AP, "there are places where expansion is zooming fast, with an infinite number of universes that stretch to infinity."
So the idea of an infinite number of universes existing in parallel to our own universe is now no longer the stuff of sci-fi, but the most likely reality as interpreted by our most advanced science.
"You can get very, very strange answers to problems when you start thinking about what different observers might see in different universes," Efstathiou said.
What concerns scientists is that the Planck telescope has found unexpected large-scale anomalies in the sky, including a large cold region, stronger fluctuations in one half of the sky than the other, and less light signal than expected across the entire sky.
"If we see these strange patterns that are not expected in the simplest inflationary theories, it may be that we've been fooled ? that inflation didn't happen," said George Efstathiou, professor of astrophysics at the University of Cambridge. "It's possible that there was some phase of the universe before the Big Bang happened where you can track the history of the universe to a pre-Big Bang period."
The inflation theory was invented to explain why the temperature of the cosmic microwave background appeared to be uniform throughout the universe. Now that Planck has found the temperature is not as uniform as previously thought and it is possible that inflation may not have happened, a great deal of conversation will result. If it is determined that the Big Bang was not the beginning of space and time, it's back to the drawing board for much of the cosmology community.
Inflation Theory came forth in the 1970's, and Alan Guth is the guy who put it out. It is a theory that was added by hand to the original BBT in order to explain three things (1) flatness, (2) horizon, and (3) the lack of magnetic monopoles. So it was welcomed as a great success. But in the intervening times, a lot of things happened - the internet, better satellite communication, and the launching of several telescopes in outer space unimpeded by the diffraction of light from our atmosphere. So now, we are finding that the universe is not as uniform as it was believed in those days. And there was always that uneasiness with the BBT starting from a singularity - as I pointerd out, this means the theory is incomplete. So the data coming from those space telescopes seem to indicate that there are signs of pre-bang activities still in our past and hopefully these will make a difference in how we need to amend the present paradigm. And I believe this is welcoming news.
QuoteIsn't science fun? Bill
If your head has stopped spinning carry on!
How is time passing now and during the formation of our universe?
Is time a general property of nature or is it invented by us to describe processes in nature? Is it a property of material or is it only invented by us? And, what is the meaning of the passing of time? Is time always passing with the same speed 300,000 Kilometers a second? Can our measure of time on an atomic clock be considered as an inherent property of nature?
We can say time is passing as changes occur, events happen. Changes in energy, location, motion, composition. In these changes some energy is needed. If the inherent energy of a specific physical process which is used to carry out the change in the state of material is higher the change occurs in a shorter time.
Is time also quantized. Therefore, a quantum of time belongs to a quantum of energy at a specific radiation frequency or wavelength.
It can be shown that time is a phenomenon inherent in physical processes because there is a direct connection between time and energy involved in physical processes. This relationship presents strict connection between energy and time.
Just Noether's theorem tells us that a time translation symmetry yields the conservation of energy. So we know for quite a long time that energy and time are intimately linked.
QuoteHow about the formation of Earth when it was erupted from the Sun. At that time the Earth had an extremely high nuclear activity. Its nuclear processes had an extremely high energy and consequently the changes in the state of the Earth were carried out in an extremely short time.
This has to be taken into consideration when the age of our universe and earth are estimated.
Nuclear activity and time are not related in any way.
QuoteIn that case the mass of the material is increased and the use or deliver of the same amount of energy will occur during a longer interval of time. In other words, at relativistic speed, time is slowed down, the same action needs longer time. That is in complete agreement with general relativity theory.
Time dilation is strictly a phenomenon between different observers who are moving with respect to each other. It has nothing to do with energy.
QuoteThe universe seems to be showing its age, now calculated at 13.8 billion years, 80 million years older than scientists had thought. It's got about 3.2 per cent more width, it has more matter than dark energy, and it is expanding about 3.1 per cent more slowly. I'm getting a headache now. :rolleyes: Bill
All these measurements are within a range of precision. As our measuring devices get better, those measurements will be better and better refined. Part of the territory.
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"Quote from: "PopeyesPappy"Question for you Joseph. We detect light emitted from a galaxy exactly one billion years ago. How far away was the galaxy when the light was emitted and how far away is it now?
We can only tell what distance it was when the light was emitted and when it was received here. What happened in the meantime, we don't have any formula for that.
That is what I'm asking. If it took 1 billion years for the light to get here, where was the source in relation to us when the light was emitted? Where is the source is relation to us when the light arrives?
I have a couple of problems figuring this out for myself. The math is beyond my skill set, and my calculator crashes and burns when I try to plug in really small numbers (rate of expansion 7 x 10[sup:3c6i60hu]-7[/sup:3c6i60hu] m/s per meter) and really big numbers (speed of light in m/s, seconds in a billion years) in the same calculation.
Quote from: "PopeyesPappy"Quote from: "josephpalazzo"Quote from: "PopeyesPappy"Question for you Joseph. We detect light emitted from a galaxy exactly one billion years ago. How far away was the galaxy when the light was emitted and how far away is it now?
We can only tell what distance it was when the light was emitted and when it was received here. What happened in the meantime, we don't have any formula for that.
That is what I'm asking. If it took 1 billion years for the light to get here, where was the source in relation to us when the light was emitted? Where is the source is relation to us when the light arrives?
I have a couple of problems figuring this out for myself. The math is beyond my skill set, and my calculator crashes and burns when I try to plug in really small numbers (rate of expansion 7 x 10[sup:2p97oz4v]-7[/sup:2p97oz4v] m/s per meter) and really big numbers (speed of light in m/s, seconds in a billion years) in the same calculation.
Well that's the thing about Relativity: we only know about an object if that object has emitted a signal (photons) and we then receive them. If the galaxy is 1 billion years away,meaning that the photons were emitted that long ago, we have no way of knowing what has happened in those years. The galaxy could have exploded into billions of fragments at one point in time, and we won't know until we get the picture of that explosion sometimes in the future.
Now you could calculate theoretically its position, but one major hurdle is that we know the present value of the Hubble's constant, but we really don't know its value in the past, let alone 1 billion years ago. BTW, the Hubble constant is misleading as it isn't a real constant. But Hubble had no idea at the time of his discovery. So one of the main concern, well two main concerns: (1) evaluate the present value of the Hubble constant as precisely as possible; (2) find how it varies with time, and that has lot of wranglings. It's far from obvious how this would go. The discovery of an accelerating universe has further complicated that task.
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"Just Noether's theorem tells us that a time translation symmetry yields the conservation of energy. So we know for quite a long time that energy and time are intimately linked.
Right!
QuoteNuclear activity and time are not related in any way.
You are saying that after your quote above? Any activity would involve time, including nuclear energy.
QuoteTime dilation is strictly a phenomenon between different observers who are moving with respect to each other. It has nothing to do with energy.
I agree it is between different observers, but any material object that approaches the speed of light would be observed to have its time dilated and also have more energy. Speed, time, and energy are all closely related. Just because time is dilated by observers doesn't change that fact.
As always, these are just my opinion, or not. Thanks for you input! Bill
OK then let's make an assumption that the rate of expansion has been constant at 67 kilometers per megaparsec per second for the last billion years.
Quote from: "Solitary"Quote from: "josephpalazzo"Just Noether's theorem tells us that a time translation symmetry yields the conservation of energy. So we know for quite a long time that energy and time are intimately linked.
Right!
QuoteNuclear activity and time are not related in any way.
You are saying that after your quote above? Any activity would involve time, including nuclear energy.
"Time translation" is an entirely different concept than "time dilation". The only common thing is the word "time". But in terms of the concept, one has nothing to do with the other.
QuoteQuoteTime dilation is strictly a phenomenon between different observers who are moving with respect to each other. It has nothing to do with energy.
QuoteI agree it is between different observers, but any material object that approaches the speed of light would be observed to have its time dilated and also have more energy.
Sorry, it doesn't work like that. If you would go to Alpha centauri at near the speed of light, say 99% of c, you would find that your trip, according to your clock, to have taken 2 years. But according to an observer on earth, you took 4 years. That's what time dilation is: a moving clock slows down. This does not affect how much energy you would need to go there
QuoteSorry, it doesn't work like that. If you would go to Alpha centauri at near the speed of light, say 99% of c, you would find that your trip, according to your clock, to have taken 2 years. But according to an observer on earth, you took 4 years. That's what time dilation is: a moving clock slows down. This does not affect how much energy you would need to go there
You are comparing apples to oranges, and reversing the scenario. I'm very much aware what time dilation is and why. Of course time dilation doesn't affect energy, but energy sure affects time dilation by the energy on the material object.
I agree almost with what you say, only because I haven't worked out the math for your figures. However, according to Einstein it would take an infinite amount of energy to go the speed of light, and anything less would also take a lot of energy, so how does energy not effect time dilation? An infinite amount of energy on a material object will have zero time on an observers clock, and the object observer would see no difference on his clock. You are saying all this doesn't require a change in energy? :-s Bill
Quote from: "PopeyesPappy"OK then let's make an assumption that the rate of expansion has been constant at 67 kilometers per megaparsec per second for the last billion years.
By definition of the Hubble constant
(1) H = v[sub:95kyh845]object[/sub:95kyh845]/d[sub:95kyh845]object[/sub:95kyh845]
or v[sub:95kyh845]object[/sub:95kyh845] = H d[sub:95kyh845]object[/sub:95kyh845]
(2) How far was the object,
d[sub:95kyh845]object[/sub:95kyh845] = ct
Substitute (2) into (1),
(3) v[sub:95kyh845]object[/sub:95kyh845] = Hct
How far did the object move since then?
(4)d[sub:95kyh845]new[/sub:95kyh845] = v[sub:95kyh845]object[/sub:95kyh845]t = (Hct) t = Hct[sup:95kyh845]2[/sup:95kyh845] = 20 Million light-years.
EDIT: equation #
Quote from: "Solitary"QuoteSorry, it doesn't work like that. If you would go to Alpha centauri at near the speed of light, say 99% of c, you would find that your trip, according to your clock, to have taken 2 years. But according to an observer on earth, you took 4 years. That's what time dilation is: a moving clock slows down. This does not affect how much energy you would need to go there
You are comparing apples to oranges, and reversing the scenario. I'm very much aware what time dilation is and why. Of course time dilation doesn't affect energy, but energy sure affects time dilation by the energy on the material object.
I agree almost with what you say, only because I haven't worked out the math for your figures. However, according to Einstein it would take an infinite amount of energy to go the speed of light, and anything less would also take a lot of energy, so how does energy not effect time dilation? An infinite amount of energy on a material object will have zero time on an observers clock, and the object observer would see no difference on his clock. You are saying all this doesn't require a change in energy? :-s Bill
The amount of energy would depend on the the load ( spaceship with everything inside), how fast you want to go and for how long. Non-relativistic,
E = Fd = Fvt
Now, at speed near the speed of light, there is a relativistic correction,
E = ?Fvt, where ? = (1 - v[sup:1cjihzh9]2[/sup:1cjihzh9]/c[sup:1cjihzh9]2[/sup:1cjihzh9])[sup:1cjihzh9]-½[/sup:1cjihzh9].
So as v ? c, then ? ? ?. So the energy will also tend to infinity. But none of that has anything to do with time dilation, but everything with Lorentz transformation Laws.
What does this have to do with the absurd being absurd?
It is a mandate that science kick each other about the face and knees and in the balls to insure quality of data, but how does this relate to the cosmic sky daddy bullshit we all have to battle needlessly every day?
Quote from: "Brian37"It is a mandate that science kick each other about the face and knees and in the balls to insure quality of data,
pictured: Science!(//http://th04.deviantart.net/fs70/200H/f/2012/270/9/2/ballbusting_image_manipulation_by_krockspecht-d5g2jdk.jpg)
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"Quote from: "Solitary"QuoteSorry, it doesn't work like that. If you would go to Alpha centauri at near the speed of light, say 99% of c, you would find that your trip, according to your clock, to have taken 2 years. But according to an observer on earth, you took 4 years. That's what time dilation is: a moving clock slows down. This does not affect how much energy you would need to go there
You are comparing apples to oranges, and reversing the scenario. I'm very much aware what time dilation is and why. Of course time dilation doesn't affect energy, but energy sure affects time dilation by the energy on the material object.
I agree almost with what you say, only because I haven't worked out the math for your figures. However, according to Einstein it would take an infinite amount of energy to go the speed of light, and anything less would also take a lot of energy, so how does energy not effect time dilation? An infinite amount of energy on a material object will have zero time on an observers clock, and the object observer would see no difference on his clock. You are saying all this doesn't require a change in energy? :-s Bill
The amount of energy would depend on the the load ( spaceship with everything inside), how fast you want to go and for how long. Non-relativistic,
E = Fd = Fvt
Now, at speed near the speed of light, there is a relativistic correction,
E = ?Fvt, where ? = (1 - v[sup:3ckev8wf]2[/sup:3ckev8wf]/c[sup:3ckev8wf]2[/sup:3ckev8wf])[sup:3ckev8wf]-½[/sup:3ckev8wf].
.
You can fool people here with your equations and take what I say out of context instead of answering my questions by being disingenuous, but you don't fool me. The Lorentz transformations are not laws but mathematical equations describing what an observer would see an object do when approaching the speed of light. The object doesn't shrink for a person going along with it. And the time would slow down to an observer, but not for the person going the same speed. This all results in the twin paradox where an astronaut accelerating to a nearby star will be younger when he returns to the earth than those that stay on the earth.
Lorentz was attempting to explain the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment in terms of objects contracting and clocks slowing down when they moved through the ether that was assumed to exist at the time. Einstein provided proof that absolute time should be abandoned. This contradicts what you said," But none of that has anything to do with time dilation." This is what I asked:"You are saying all this doesn't require a change in energy?" All it requires as an answer is yes or no, not a bunch of abstract equations that most people don't understand. This topic is getting out of hand, so I won't post at it anymore. Bill
Quote from: "Solitary"Quote from: "josephpalazzo"The amount of energy would depend on the the load ( spaceship with everything inside), how fast you want to go and for how long. Non-relativistic,
E = Fd = Fvt
Now, at speed near the speed of light, there is a relativistic correction,
E = ?Fvt, where ? = (1 - v[sup:2z1s3xwo]2[/sup:2z1s3xwo]/c[sup:2z1s3xwo]2[/sup:2z1s3xwo])[sup:2z1s3xwo]-½[/sup:2z1s3xwo].
You can fool people here with your equations and take what I say out of context instead of answering my questions by being disingenuous, but you don't fool me. The Lorentz transformations are not laws but mathematical equations describing what an observer would see an object do when approaching the speed of light.
Why would I want to fool anyone?
Sometimes these equations are called Lorentz transformations Laws, or Lorentz transformations Equations or just Lorentz transformations. They deal with observers in different inertial frames.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation)
The object doesn't shrink for a person going along with it. Length contraction does happen.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Length_contraction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Length_contraction)
QuoteLorentz was attempting to explain the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment in terms of objects contracting and clocks slowing down when they moved through the ether that was assumed to exist at the time. Einstein provided proof that absolute time should be abandoned. This contradicts what you said," But none of that has anything to do with time dilation." This is what I asked:"You are saying all this doesn't require a change in energy?"
Though Lorentz discovered the length contraction and time dilation of the Michelson-Morley experiment, he couldn't present any unified theory. It was Einstein who reasoned what was happening with a particle decaying, and when he solved that he got E = mc[sup:2z1s3xwo]2[/sup:2z1s3xwo], realizing that matter could be converted to energy and vice-versa. This was derived without the time dilation or length contraction, but simply looking at the decay from two different reference frames.
See: http://soi.blogspot.ca/2013/06/einstein ... ation.html (http://soi.blogspot.ca/2013/06/einsteins-derivation-of-famous-equation.html)
QuoteAll it requires as an answer is yes or no, not a bunch of abstract equations that most people don't understand. This topic is getting out of hand, so I won't post at it anymore. Bill
Yes, ignorance is bliss.
Wait, did someone say length contraction doesn't occur?
...Who are you, William Lane Craig or one his mobs of A-theory of time wackos? :cry:
Quote from: "hillbillyatheist"Quote from: "Brian37"It is a mandate that science kick each other about the face and knees and in the balls to insure quality of data,
pictured: Science!
(//http://th04.deviantart.net/fs70/200H/f/2012/270/9/2/ballbusting_image_manipulation_by_krockspecht-d5g2jdk.jpg)
Theism teaches you to beat people into not questioning. Science teaches you to beat the shit out of the claim, not the questioner.
Do claims have knees, balls and faces? LOL
Read the part of you I quoted along with that picture and you'll see why I posted that.
I thought your analogy was funny and I gave it a visual, Because I'm a smart ass and that's what I do. :P
Quote from: "Brian37"Quote from: "hillbillyatheist"Quote from: "Brian37"It is a mandate that science kick each other about the face and knees and in the balls to insure quality of data,
pictured: Science!
(//http://th04.deviantart.net/fs70/200H/f/2012/270/9/2/ballbusting_image_manipulation_by_krockspecht-d5g2jdk.jpg)
Theism teaches you to beat people into not questioning. Science teaches you to beat the shit out of the claim, not the questioner.
Religion teaches the same thing as science. It also teaches that the Bible (or whichever holey book it's pushing) is fact, not claims. (Not saying they're right, just saying ...)