### Author Topic: Big Bang theory Gains New Evidence  (Read 10473 times)

#### josephpalazzo

##### (No subject)
« Reply #30 on: June 09, 2013, 11:24:46 AM »
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.

#### Solitary

##### (No subject)
« Reply #31 on: June 09, 2013, 11:34:52 AM »
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!

Quote
Nuclear 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.

Quote
Time 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
There is nothing more frightful than ignorance in action.

#### PopeyesPappy

##### (No subject)
« Reply #32 on: June 09, 2013, 11:42:57 AM »
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.
Save a life. Adopt a Greyhound.

#### josephpalazzo

##### (No subject)
« Reply #33 on: June 09, 2013, 03:31:29 PM »
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!
Quote
Nuclear 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.
Quote
Quote
Time dilation is strictly a phenomenon between different observers who are moving with respect to each other. It has nothing to do with energy.
Quote
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.

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

#### Solitary

##### Re: Big Bang theory Gains New Evidence
« Reply #34 on: June 09, 2013, 04:27:28 PM »
Quote
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

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
There is nothing more frightful than ignorance in action.

#### josephpalazzo

##### (No subject)
« Reply #35 on: June 09, 2013, 04:28:34 PM »
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 #
« Last Edit: June 09, 2013, 05:05:02 PM by josephpalazzo »

#### josephpalazzo

##### (No subject)
« Reply #36 on: June 09, 2013, 04:39:31 PM »
Quote from: "Solitary"
Quote
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

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

#### Brian37

##### (No subject)
« Reply #37 on: June 09, 2013, 05:52:32 PM »
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?
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers." Obama

#### hillbillyatheist

##### (No subject)
« Reply #38 on: June 09, 2013, 08:50:04 PM »
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!

like my posts and thoughts? then check out my new blog. you can subscribe via email too, so that when its updated, you\'ll get an email, letting you know.

.

#### Solitary

##### (No subject)
« Reply #39 on: June 10, 2013, 01:48:50 AM »
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"
Quote from: "Solitary"
Quote
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

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

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
There is nothing more frightful than ignorance in action.

#### josephpalazzo

##### (No subject)
« Reply #40 on: June 10, 2013, 07:24:38 AM »
Quote from: "Solitary"
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"

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.

`The object doesn't shrink for a person going along with it. `
Length contraction does happen.

Quote
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?"

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.

Quote
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

Yes, ignorance is bliss.

#### GurrenLagann

##### Re: Big Bang theory Gains New Evidence
« Reply #41 on: June 10, 2013, 05:59:05 PM »
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?
Which means that to me the offer of certainty, the offer of complete security, the offer of an impermeable faith that can\'t give way, is the offer of something not worth having.
[...]
Take the risk of thinking for yourself. Much more happiness, truth, beauty & wisdom, will come to you that way.
-Christopher Hitchens

#### Brian37

##### Re: Big Bang theory Gains New Evidence
« Reply #42 on: June 12, 2013, 09:03:03 AM »
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!

Theism teaches you to beat people into not questioning. Science teaches you to beat the shit out of the claim, not the questioner.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers." Obama

#### hillbillyatheist

##### Re: Big Bang theory Gains New Evidence
« Reply #43 on: June 12, 2013, 09:33:40 AM »
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
like my posts and thoughts? then check out my new blog. you can subscribe via email too, so that when its updated, you\'ll get an email, letting you know.

.

#### Colanth

##### Re: Big Bang theory Gains New Evidence
« Reply #44 on: June 12, 2013, 07:39:25 PM »
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!

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 ...)
Afflicting the comfortable for 70 years.
Science builds skyscrapers, faith flies planes into them.

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk