The Big Bang is Wrong

How does science work? And what's all this about quantum mechanics?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

davidm
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: The Big Bang is Wrong

Post by davidm »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Oct 31, 2017 3:27 pm
davidm wrote: Sun Oct 29, 2017 5:34 pm
As the linked article plainly states, gravitation waves are a prediction of general relativity, and not special relativity!

They are DIFFERENT THEORIES.
I understand they are different but Special relativity is relative to (pardon the pun) General Relativity.

Considering under Special Relativity that relativistic mass exists, and mass is determined by the force extended upon it by a gravitational field, the gravitional field must be relativistic by nature through Special Relativity.

Considering General Relativity predicts gravitational waves, special relativity must observe the gravitational waves as relative entities as extensions of matter itself.

Relativistic Mass, which Special Relativity observes, cannot exist without Relativistic Gravity waves as mass and gravity are inseparable in many degrees.
SR is restricted to flat local spacetimes without signifiant influence of gravity. SR does NOT predict gravity waves.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: The Big Bang is Wrong

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

davidm wrote: Tue Oct 31, 2017 6:38 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Oct 31, 2017 3:27 pm
davidm wrote: Sun Oct 29, 2017 5:34 pm

As the linked article plainly states, gravitation waves are a prediction of general relativity, and not special relativity!

They are DIFFERENT THEORIES.
I understand they are different but Special relativity is relative to (pardon the pun) General Relativity.

Considering under Special Relativity that relativistic mass exists, and mass is determined by the force extended upon it by a gravitational field, the gravitional field must be relativistic by nature through Special Relativity.

Considering General Relativity predicts gravitational waves, special relativity must observe the gravitational waves as relative entities as extensions of matter itself.

Relativistic Mass, which Special Relativity observes, cannot exist without Relativistic Gravity waves as mass and gravity are inseparable in many degrees.
SR is restricted to flat local spacetimes without signifiant influence of gravity. SR does NOT predict gravity waves.
I understand where you are going in regard to not "specifically" predicting gravity waves. What I don't understand is that it specializes in predicting relative mass, if I understand correctly, why not gravity waves by default? This is considering mass is determined by gravity waves. Is there something I am missing?
uwot
Posts: 6093
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: The Big Bang is Wrong

Post by uwot »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Nov 01, 2017 8:11 pm... considering mass is determined by gravity waves. Is there something I am missing?
All together now:
Mass is not determined by gravity waves.
Viveka
Posts: 369
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2017 9:06 pm

Re: The Big Bang is Wrong

Post by Viveka »

I find it funny that non-inertial reference frames in standard terminology refer to 'fictitious forces' which are so-called because the existence of absolute rotation would deny the idea that these forces, centrifugal or otherwise, are 'fictitious'.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: The Big Bang is Wrong

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

uwot wrote: Thu Nov 02, 2017 9:44 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Nov 01, 2017 8:11 pm... considering mass is determined by gravity waves. Is there something I am missing?
All together now:
Mass is not determined by gravity waves.
"the quantity of matter that a body contains, as measured by its acceleration under a given force or by the force exerted on it by a gravitational field."

https://www.bing.com/search?q=mass&qs=n ... 958A07D610
thedoc
Posts: 6473
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:18 pm

Re: The Big Bang is Wrong

Post by thedoc »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Nov 02, 2017 8:36 pm
uwot wrote: Thu Nov 02, 2017 9:44 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Nov 01, 2017 8:11 pm... considering mass is determined by gravity waves. Is there something I am missing?
All together now:
Mass is not determined by gravity waves.
"the quantity of matter that a body contains, as measured by its acceleration under a given force or by the force exerted on it by a gravitational field."

https://www.bing.com/search?q=mass&qs=n ... 958A07D610
Measured and Determined do not mean the same thing in this usage.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: The Big Bang is Wrong

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

thedoc wrote: Thu Nov 02, 2017 10:05 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Nov 02, 2017 8:36 pm
uwot wrote: Thu Nov 02, 2017 9:44 am
All together now:
Mass is not determined by gravity waves.
"the quantity of matter that a body contains, as measured by its acceleration under a given force or by the force exerted on it by a gravitational field."

https://www.bing.com/search?q=mass&qs=n ... 958A07D610
Measured and Determined do not mean the same thing in this usage.
Elaborate.
uwot
Posts: 6093
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: The Big Bang is Wrong

Post by uwot »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Nov 03, 2017 6:25 pm
thedoc wrote: Thu Nov 02, 2017 10:05 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Nov 02, 2017 8:36 pm"the quantity of matter that a body contains, as measured by its acceleration under a given force or by the force exerted on it by a gravitational field."

https://www.bing.com/search?q=mass&qs=n ... 958A07D610
Measured and Determined do not mean the same thing in this usage.
Elaborate.
Thanks for the clarification, doc. Yes, you can use 'determine' to mean 'calculate/measure', or 'cause'. Mass is not caused by gravitational fields (nor even waves); that's weight. But you can calculate the mass of something, from its weight, if you know the strength of the gravitational field. It's yer basic F=ma, where F is weight, m is mass and a is (the acceleration due to) gravity.
thedoc
Posts: 6473
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:18 pm

Re: The Big Bang is Wrong

Post by thedoc »

uwot wrote: Fri Nov 03, 2017 7:55 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Nov 03, 2017 6:25 pm
thedoc wrote: Thu Nov 02, 2017 10:05 pm

Measured and Determined do not mean the same thing in this usage.
Elaborate.
Thanks for the clarification, doc. Yes, you can use 'determine' to mean 'calculate/measure', or 'cause'. Mass is not caused by gravitational fields (nor even waves); that's weight. But you can calculate the mass of something, from its weight, if you know the strength of the gravitational field. It's yer basic F=ma, where F is weight, m is mass and a is (the acceleration due to) gravity.
You're welcome, the strength of some very strong gravitational fields can be determined from the gravitational waves, provided you know the distance to the source, (here I'm using determined in the sense of measuring).
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: The Big Bang is Wrong

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Mass is not determined by gravity waves but rather:

"In Einstein's theory of general relativity, gravity is treated as a phenomenon resulting from the curvature of spacetime. This curvature is caused by the presence of mass. Generally, the more mass that is contained within a given volume of space, the greater the curvature of spacetime will be at the boundary of its volume.[17] As objects with mass move around in spacetime, the curvature changes to reflect the changed locations of those objects. In certain circumstances, accelerating objects generate changes in this curvature, which propagate outwards at the speed of light in a wave-like manner. These propagating phenomena are known as gravitational waves."

This mass is "the quantity of matter that a body contains, as measured by its acceleration under a given force or by the force exerted on it by a gravitational field."

So mass can be measured through a gravitational field however mass forms the gravitational field.

Gravity "is a natural phenomenon by which all things with mass are brought toward (or gravitate toward) one another, including objects ranging from atoms and photons, to planets and stars."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity

This movement of mass, through gravity, in turn determines further mass. Considering mass manifests gravity, and mass affects further mass, how do gravity waves not determine in some degree mass considering "masses" form other "masses" through gravity (ex an apple falling and breaking on ground)

"In general terms, gravitational waves are radiated by objects whose motion involves acceleration and its change, provided that the motion is not perfectly spherically symmetric (like an expanding or contracting sphere) or rotationally symmetric (like a spinning disk or sphere). A simple example of this principle is a spinning dumbbell. If the dumbbell spins around its axis of symmetry, it will not radiate gravitational waves; if it tumbles end over end, as in the case of two planets orbiting each other, it will radiate gravitational waves."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_wave

It appears that gravitational wave are a result in a lack of "stability" within an inherent function of matter. Considering that mass inherently moves towards further mass, through gravity, how would the gravity waves not be determined as a "deficiency in the stability of matter" and in turn act as an equilibrium that prevents any form of "total unity" within the matter.

In simple terms how do gravity waves not act as a "fractures" which manifest through the matter as individual masses, (considering mass is in a constant state of flux)?
uwot
Posts: 6093
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: The Big Bang is Wrong

Post by uwot »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Nov 03, 2017 8:56 pm It appears that gravitational wave are a result in a lack of "stability" within an inherent function of matter.
Well, if you are going to cite as authoritative, wiki pages that refer to general relativity, it would probably help to rephrase the above, so that it says something like: It appears that gravitational waves are a result of collisions between massive objects. The energy this releases is dissipated through spacetime in the form of a wave.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Nov 03, 2017 8:56 pmConsidering that mass inherently moves towards further mass, through gravity, how would the gravity waves not be determined as a "deficiency in the stability of matter"
Unless you mean simply that material objects move around, and occasionally collide, I'm afraid I have no idea what you are on about.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Nov 03, 2017 8:56 pm...and in turn act as an equilibrium that prevents any form of "total unity" within the matter.
You mean 'Why isn't all matter in the same place?' If so, that was the part of GR that Einstein was least proud of. He claimed there must be a force (the cosmological constant) that exactly counteracted gravity, keeping the universe in equilibrium. Why the universe didn't all fall into one spot, because of gravity, had been a problem since Newton came up with his inverse square law, as most people, Einstein included, assumed the universe was the same size it had always been.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Nov 03, 2017 8:56 pmIn simple terms how do gravity waves not act as a "fractures" which manifest through the matter as individual masses, (considering mass is in a constant state of flux)?
I'm not sure that 'fractures' is quite the word. The universe doesn't really break, but it can be made to wobble.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: The Big Bang is Wrong

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

uwot wrote: Sat Nov 04, 2017 9:01 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Nov 03, 2017 8:56 pm It appears that gravitational wave are a result in a lack of "stability" within an inherent function of matter.


"In general terms, gravitational waves are radiated by objects whose motion involves acceleration and its change, provided that the motion is not perfectly spherically symmetric (like an expanding or contracting sphere) or rotationally symmetric (like a spinning disk or sphere). A simple example of this principle is a spinning dumbbell. If the dumbbell spins around its axis of symmetry, it will not radiate gravitational waves; if it tumbles end over end, as in the case of two planets orbiting each other, it will radiate gravitational waves."

The gravitational waves do not result from perfectly symmetrical motion but rather when an object is "off balance".



Well, if you are going to cite as authoritative, wiki pages that refer to general relativity, it would probably help to rephrase the above, so that it says something like: It appears that gravitational waves are a result of collisions between massive objects. The energy this releases is dissipated through spacetime in the form of a wave.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Nov 03, 2017 8:56 pmConsidering that mass inherently moves towards further mass, through gravity, how would the gravity waves not be determined as a "deficiency in the stability of matter"
Unless you mean simply that material objects move around, and occasionally collide, I'm afraid I have no idea what you are on about.

The masses movement towards other mass, through gravity, implies the mass itself is not strictly "stable" in the respect it is moving towards other "masses" as a potential form of "unity". Under relativity, gravity acts as "binding median" where all matter is attracted ot other matter. Considering the gravity waves result from an imbalance within the gravity field, with this gravity field being the definition of what a mass is, these gravity waves would result from a lack of balance within the gravitational field; therefore the mass.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Nov 03, 2017 8:56 pm...and in turn act as an equilibrium that prevents any form of "total unity" within the matter.
You mean 'Why isn't all matter in the same place?' If so, that was the part of GR that Einstein was least proud of. He claimed there must be a force (the cosmological constant) that exactly counteracted gravity, keeping the universe in equilibrium. Why the universe didn't all fall into one spot, because of gravity, had been a problem since Newton came up with his inverse square law, as most people, Einstein included, assumed the universe was the same size it had always been.

My point is why not the gravitational waves as one counterbalances?

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Nov 03, 2017 8:56 pmIn simple terms how do gravity waves not act as a "fractures" which manifest through the matter as individual masses, (considering mass is in a constant state of flux)?
I'm not sure that 'fractures' is quite the word. The universe doesn't really break, but it can be made to wobble.
Mass seperated from mass.
uwot
Posts: 6093
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: The Big Bang is Wrong

Post by uwot »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sat Nov 04, 2017 1:56 pmThe masses movement towards other mass, through gravity, implies the mass itself is not strictly "stable" in the respect it is moving towards other "masses" as a potential form of "unity".
I'm not sure what you mean by "stable". If you mean that massive objects move, that is blindingly obvious. If you mean the mass of moving objects changes, well yes; that's why even the LHC can't make Hadrons travel at light speed.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: The Big Bang is Wrong

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

uwot wrote: Sat Nov 04, 2017 7:45 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sat Nov 04, 2017 1:56 pmThe masses movement towards other mass, through gravity, implies the mass itself is not strictly "stable" in the respect it is moving towards other "masses" as a potential form of "unity".
I'm not sure what you mean by "stable". If you mean that massive objects move, that is blindingly obvious. If you mean the mass of moving objects changes, well yes; that's why even the LHC can't make Hadrons travel at light speed.
Yes, the "blindingly obvious" point I hold to of course, but also that the objects as "masses" themselves are in a continuous state of change. Mass changes (it is still mass of course), and I wonder...or maybe better yet am arguing...that this "change" is "stabilized" (as is slower in change) through the gravitational field, however the "gravity waves" effect mass itself since both are closely interconnected.

Look at it this way, the highest concentration of gravity waves appears around black holes correct? If that is the case, the fluctuation of mass is uniquely tied in to the nature of gravity waves considering black hole suck in and spit out matter (change it).

In lamence terms, using a metaphor, the gravity waves would be equivalent to a "fracture" in massive rock which in turn forms other rocks.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: The Big Bang is Wrong

Post by bahman »

Viveka wrote: Wed Oct 25, 2017 7:26 pm The Big Bang is nonsense; just a theistic model of genesis (not the biblical) with no scientific support. Dark matter hasn't been detected yet. And with gravitational waves the interferometer won't work because the space the laser beam is moving through, as well as the laser beam, will both ripple at the same time. It is like trying to knock a cowboy off his horse in a movie shown on a flexible screen TV by flexing the screen. And with the CMB: If the CMB is homogeneous, then the big bang is wrong due to the inhomogeneity of the universe. If the CMB is inhomogeneous, then the big bang is wrong due to there being no homogeneous temperature across the universe which would reflect the relic of the big bang's 'bang'. If anything, we should see the CMB refer to the interstellar medium.
Thus there is no room for the big bang, inhomogeneous or homogeneous CMB. Additionally, there are large-scale voids between matter that formed before the big bang's time of genesis allows, and these voids are interspersed with galaxies and superclusters that are connected by bridges of matter, but dark matter cannot model these bridges.
Time has a beginning. It is absurd to discuss of things before time. Therefore the universe has a beginning.
Post Reply