The Big Bang is Wrong

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

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Viveka
Posts: 369
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2017 9:06 pm

Re: The Big Bang is Wrong

Post by Viveka »

davidm wrote: Sun Oct 29, 2017 6:31 pm What is a fictitious force?
Haha. I just read that article before you posted it. I still can't understand why it's 'fictitious'. Is this termed such because it goes against Special Relativity? Or is it something else?

I'm beginning to believe that you, yourself cannot define it for me. I'm looking for an explanation, not some shitty article that never truly articulates why Centrifugal force is 'fictitious.'

Update:

I've found this tidbit:
"The force F does not arise from any physical interaction between two objects, but rather from the acceleration a of the non-inertial reference frame itself. "

Are they meaning that it contains no inertia or are they playing on definitons?
Viveka
Posts: 369
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2017 9:06 pm

Re: The Big Bang is Wrong

Post by Viveka »

Also, about Einstein:

"The principle of equivalence: There is no experiment observers can perform to distinguish whether an acceleration arises because of a gravitational force or because their reference frame is accelerating
— Douglas C. Giancoli Physics for Scientists and Engineers with Modern Physics, p. 155

What about other forces coming from Coulomb's Law of Electrostatics? Or Magnetism in James Clerk Maxwell's Electromagnetic Theory?

Also, I think that this also disproves Special Relativity and affirms an AEther:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_rotation
davidm
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: The Big Bang is Wrong

Post by davidm »

Viveka wrote: Sun Oct 29, 2017 6:50 pm
davidm wrote: Sun Oct 29, 2017 6:31 pm What is a fictitious force?
Haha. I just read that article before you posted it. I still can't understand why it's 'fictitious'. Is this termed such because it goes against Special Relativity? Or is it something else?
It's something else.
davidm
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: The Big Bang is Wrong

Post by davidm »

Viveka wrote: Sun Oct 29, 2017 8:22 pm Also, about Einstein:

"The principle of equivalence: There is no experiment observers can perform to distinguish whether an acceleration arises because of a gravitational force or because their reference frame is accelerating
— Douglas C. Giancoli Physics for Scientists and Engineers with Modern Physics, p. 155
we [...] assume the complete physical equivalence of a gravitational field and a corresponding acceleration of the reference system.
— Einstein, 1907
Also, I think that this also disproves Special Relativity and affirms an AEther:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_rotation
No.
User avatar
Greta
Posts: 4389
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: The Big Bang is Wrong

Post by Greta »

Eod: If that is the case, why not multiple big bangs in theory?

A: In a serial BB model, the fluctuations might not be able to inflate until the pre-inflated fluctuation has sufficiently dissipated.

Eod: If they dissipated to a zero dimensional point, as all true "dissipation" should maintain, the zero point will "restart" the flux as a relational tension with a theoretical ether.

A: The universe is not expected to revert to a big crunch so it will not return to the purported singularity state. Rather, dissipation is considered most likely to occur via heat death.
Viveka
Posts: 369
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2017 9:06 pm

Re: The Big Bang is Wrong

Post by Viveka »

davidm wrote: Sun Oct 29, 2017 8:36 pm
Viveka wrote: Sun Oct 29, 2017 8:22 pm Also, about Einstein:

"The principle of equivalence: There is no experiment observers can perform to distinguish whether an acceleration arises because of a gravitational force or because their reference frame is accelerating
— Douglas C. Giancoli Physics for Scientists and Engineers with Modern Physics, p. 155
we [...] assume the complete physical equivalence of a gravitational field and a corresponding acceleration of the reference system.
— Einstein, 1907
Exactly. So why not
Also, I think that this also disproves Special Relativity and affirms an AEther:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_rotation
No.
Nice argument. I'm sure you're correct simply because you said 'no' and quoted exactly the same thing except it came from Einstein.
Viveka
Posts: 369
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2017 9:06 pm

Re: The Big Bang is Wrong

Post by Viveka »

Viveka wrote: Sun Oct 29, 2017 8:22 pm Also, about Einstein:

"The principle of equivalence: There is no experiment observers can perform to distinguish whether an acceleration arises because of a gravitational force or because their reference frame is accelerating
— Douglas C. Giancoli Physics for Scientists and Engineers with Modern Physics, p. 155

What about other forces coming from Coulomb's Law of Electrostatics? Or Magnetism in James Clerk Maxwell's Electromagnetic Theory?

Also, I think that this also disproves Special Relativity and affirms an AEther:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_rotation
In fact, Absolute Rotation should rid us of this thing called 'fictitious force' that no one can truly explain to me what the heck it is.
Viveka
Posts: 369
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2017 9:06 pm

Re: The Big Bang is Wrong

Post by Viveka »

Greta wrote: Sun Oct 29, 2017 8:54 pm Eod: If that is the case, why not multiple big bangs in theory?

A: In a serial BB model, the fluctuations might not be able to inflate until the pre-inflated fluctuation has sufficiently dissipated.

Eod: If they dissipated to a zero dimensional point, as all true "dissipation" should maintain, the zero point will "restart" the flux as a relational tension with a theoretical ether.

A: The universe is not expected to revert to a big crunch so it will not return to the purported singularity state. Rather, dissipation is considered most likely to occur via heat death.
Don't you mean 'cold death?' The universe is expanding its acceleration, supposedly.
User avatar
Greta
Posts: 4389
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: The Big Bang is Wrong

Post by Greta »

Viveka wrote: Sun Oct 29, 2017 9:20 pm
Greta wrote: Sun Oct 29, 2017 8:54 pm Eod: If that is the case, why not multiple big bangs in theory?

A: In a serial BB model, the fluctuations might not be able to inflate until the pre-inflated fluctuation has sufficiently dissipated.

Eod: If they dissipated to a zero dimensional point, as all true "dissipation" should maintain, the zero point will "restart" the flux as a relational tension with a theoretical ether.

A: The universe is not expected to revert to a big crunch so it will not return to the purported singularity state. Rather, dissipation is considered most likely to occur via heat death.
Don't you mean 'cold death?' The universe is expanding its acceleration, supposedly.
Heat death is the usual name for it, but yes.
User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12314
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: The Big Bang is Wrong

Post by Arising_uk »

Honestly, to the interweeb philosophers it's like the history of philosophy never happened and the natural philosophers never existed.

If the Big Bang is wrong then become natural philosophers and prove it wrong in their language.
Viveka
Posts: 369
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2017 9:06 pm

Re: The Big Bang is Wrong

Post by Viveka »

Greta wrote: Mon Oct 30, 2017 2:40 am
Viveka wrote: Sun Oct 29, 2017 9:20 pm
Greta wrote: Sun Oct 29, 2017 8:54 pm Eod: If that is the case, why not multiple big bangs in theory?

A: In a serial BB model, the fluctuations might not be able to inflate until the pre-inflated fluctuation has sufficiently dissipated.

Eod: If they dissipated to a zero dimensional point, as all true "dissipation" should maintain, the zero point will "restart" the flux as a relational tension with a theoretical ether.

A: The universe is not expected to revert to a big crunch so it will not return to the purported singularity state. Rather, dissipation is considered most likely to occur via heat death.
Don't you mean 'cold death?' The universe is expanding its acceleration, supposedly.
Heat death is the usual name for it, but yes.
No, heat death would be the universe collapsing due to not enough dark energy and too much gravitational attraction.
davidm
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: The Big Bang is Wrong

Post by davidm »

Viveka wrote: Mon Oct 30, 2017 8:07 pm
Greta wrote: Mon Oct 30, 2017 2:40 am
Viveka wrote: Sun Oct 29, 2017 9:20 pm

Don't you mean 'cold death?' The universe is expanding its acceleration, supposedly.
Heat death is the usual name for it, but yes.
No, heat death would be the universe collapsing due to not enough dark energy and too much gravitational attraction.
No, Greta has it right. Heat death is when the universe reaches thermodynamic equilibrium (maximum entropy).
User avatar
Greta
Posts: 4389
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: The Big Bang is Wrong

Post by Greta »

Basically the universe is expected to keep expanding and cooling until galaxies themselves are pulled apart, when star systems, then the stars and planets themselves, and then after quadrillions of years even the black holes are expected to finally dissipate, leaving only stray, incredibly redshifted photons at impossible distances from each other.

Perhaps at some point, not necessarily right at the end, the universe may cool enough to allow for another big bang? It's all wildly speculative at this stage, having a sample size of just one, and we are still trying to come to grips with our single universe.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: The Big Bang is Wrong

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

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.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: The Big Bang is Wrong

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Greta wrote: Sun Oct 29, 2017 8:54 pm Eod: If that is the case, why not multiple big bangs in theory?

A: In a serial BB model, the fluctuations might not be able to inflate until the pre-inflated fluctuation has sufficiently dissipated.

And once the dissipation happens then what? Doe is prevent another big bang from occuring?

Eod: If they dissipated to a zero dimensional point, as all true "dissipation" should maintain, the zero point will "restart" the flux as a relational tension with a theoretical ether.

A: The universe is not expected to revert to a big crunch so it will not return to the purported singularity state. Rather, dissipation is considered most likely to occur via heat death.

Physicists are undecided whether this means the universe began from a singularity, or that current knowledge is insufficient to describe the universe at that time.

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

Any singularity which resulted in the big bang would, have to be in itself "eternal" and "stable" in some respect. This singularity would have to be as a result of an ethereal dimension in some degree as this is the only "dimension" that is equivalent to a singularity.

The big bang would have to result from a relational tension between the ether as a singularity and the apeiron as absence.

Simply put the big bang is a gradation of the ether through the relation of the apeiron to the ether without the ether being affected. The big bang is strictly an approximate structure of the ether as the ether reflects back randomness.

In separate terms it may simultaneously be viewed as the ether extending into itself with that act of self-reflection being related through the apeiron as flux. In simpler terms, Relative to the apeiron everything is in a state of flux as everything is divided through a zero dimensional perspective that does not allow for any form of stability to be observed.

The big bang is simply an observation of "singularity" to "multiplicity". The problem occurs in that infinite multiplicity eventually leads back to a singularity as both "1" and "infinity" are both elements of eachother and therefore are inseperable.



"
"The idea of heat death stems from the second law of thermodynamics, of which one version states that entropy tends to increase in an isolated system. From this, the hypothesis infers that if the universe lasts for a sufficient time, it will asymptotically approach a state where all energy is evenly distributed. In other words, according to this hypothesis, in nature there is a tendency to the dissipation (energy transformation) of mechanical energy (motion) into thermal energy; hence, by extrapolation, there exists the view that the mechanical movement of the universe will run down, as work is converted to heat, in time because of the second law."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_deat ... e_universe

The heat death is dependent upon an isolated measurement of the universe, where self-relation equates to continual division ad-infinitum (this may not be the language the physicists use, but it does not contradict them either) or a zero dimensional point is observed.

Considering that in my previous argument the zero dimensional point that all matter moves towards is what manifests the big bang through a relational tension with a 1 dimensional ether the universe is not specifically isolated in the manner that allows a continual entropic approach only.

In simple terms the tension between a 1 dimensional point and 0 dimensional point produces an infinite degree of grades, with this infinity cycling back to one.

0 dimensionality exists if and only if their is 1 dimensionality. 1 dimensionality allows for zero dimensionality but is not limited to it.



Even the entropy from the second law of thermodynamics, does not take into account where matter is produced or if it cycles through itself. I am not arguing against the law, but rather observing that physical laws are "relativistic" to eachother.


Post Reply