The Big Bang is Wrong

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

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Greta
Posts: 4389
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: The Big Bang is Wrong

Post by Greta »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sat Oct 28, 2017 3:07 pm
Greta wrote: Sat Oct 28, 2017 1:32 pm
Viveka wrote: Thu Oct 26, 2017 9:50 pm

Why don't you present an argument instead of telling me to read someone's work? Or at least give a synopsis of what his work is and what it entails for my argument.
Are you aware of the concept of primordial fluctuations?
Flux, or movement, resulting in matter right?

With matter fundamentally being both actual and potential movement resulting in further matter (in over simplified terms) ?

"Since the fluctuations are believed to arise from inflation, such measurements can also set constraints on parameters within inflationary theory."

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

Matter is strictly perpetual movement then. Agree/Disagree?
Nice way of looking at it. As far as I know that seems to be true.
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 1:00 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sat Oct 28, 2017 3:07 pm
Greta wrote: Sat Oct 28, 2017 1:32 pm
Are you aware of the concept of primordial fluctuations?
Flux, or movement, resulting in matter right?

With matter fundamentally being both actual and potential movement resulting in further matter (in over simplified terms) ?

"Since the fluctuations are believed to arise from inflation, such measurements can also set constraints on parameters within inflationary theory."

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

Matter is strictly perpetual movement then. Agree/Disagree?
Nice way of looking at it. As far as I know that seems to be true.
If that is the case, why not multiple big bangs in theory?

This is considering:

1) Matter manifests itself as perpetual flux.

2) Matter exists if and only if their is time as time is "fluxing" space.

3) Matter manifests itself as perpetual time.

4) Perpetual time is contradictory as time is finite space (considering all finite things require movement in order to exist.) To argue for perpetual time would be to argue for infinite limits.

5) In order to avoid this contradiction time would have to "cycle" through itself in order to "move past" itself. This would result in multiple dimensions of time. In simpler terms the "movements" of "movements".

6) These multiple cycles of time would have to result in multiple big bangs in theory as time has both beginning and end, with the end being a potential beginning ad infinitum.

7) These big bangs would be both micro and macro cosmic in nature as time is strictly a particulate of itself in its relation to (or movement towards) an ethereal dimension as potential unity.

Agree/disagree/needs clarity?
thedoc
Posts: 6473
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:18 pm

Re: The Big Bang is Wrong

Post by thedoc »

If the Big Bang theory is wrong then all of science is wrong, science deniers should all take a flying jump, scientists themselves are already trying to disprove the theories and have a lot better equipment. Science deniers have significantly inferior equipment, their brains.
Viveka
Posts: 369
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2017 9:06 pm

Re: The Big Bang is Wrong

Post by Viveka »

Arising_uk wrote: Sun Oct 29, 2017 12:56 am
Viveka wrote:...
You're darn right it's an observation of 'positive' and 'negative'--results that disprove Einstein and affirm an AEther--that is.

Just think if LIGO was made back when the Michelson-Morley experiment was occurring: Einstein would have had his shit blasted to the garbage bin!
Do you seriously think that is the LIGO results contradicted the MM experiment and proved the existence of an ether the physicists there would not have been crowing about it to the heavens? As at the very least it would be worth a Nobel prize.
The reason they aren't 'crowing about it to the heavens' is because it is believed that it proves gravitational waves and therefore Einstein's SR. If anyone knew the history of the concept of the AEther, it would show that Lorentz Transformations were made due to the null result of the MM experiment, to explain why there was a null result. Now that we have LIGO which is a super MM experiment, we can disprove Einstein as well as Lorentz Transformations.
User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12314
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: The Big Bang is Wrong

Post by Arising_uk »

Viveka wrote:The reason they aren't 'crowing about it to the heavens' is because it is believed that it proves gravitational waves and therefore Einstein's SR. If anyone knew the history of the concept of the AEther, it would show that Lorentz Transformations were made due to the null result of the MM experiment, to explain why there was a null result. Now that we have LIGO which is a super MM experiment, we can disprove Einstein as well as Lorentz Transformations.
You seriously telling me you think the physicists working on LIGO don't know the history of Physics?

That if they could prove Einstein wrong they'd not do so?

Are you a physicist?
User avatar
Greta
Posts: 4389
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: The Big Bang is Wrong

Post by Greta »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sun Oct 29, 2017 1:12 am
Greta wrote: Sun Oct 29, 2017 1:00 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sat Oct 28, 2017 3:07 pmFlux, or movement, resulting in matter right?

With matter fundamentally being both actual and potential movement resulting in further matter (in over simplified terms) ?

"Since the fluctuations are believed to arise from inflation, such measurements can also set constraints on parameters within inflationary theory."

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

Matter is strictly perpetual movement then. Agree/Disagree?
Nice way of looking at it. As far as I know that seems to be true.
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:1) Matter manifests itself as perpetual flux.

2) Matter exists if and only if their is time as time is "fluxing" space.

3) Matter manifests itself as perpetual time.

A: In a pre BB flux there would actually be local time in the sense that chaotic fluctuations would each happen in their own infinitesimal "local" time, just that there's no clock, which requires some level of order - be it decay, orbits or rotation of particles with which time would be measured or considered to be meaningful. The BB didn't seem to create time so much as its own time/s.
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 7:35 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sun Oct 29, 2017 1:12 am
Greta wrote: Sun Oct 29, 2017 1:00 am Nice way of looking at it. As far as I know that seems to be true.
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.

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. This is considering the ether, in theory would be one dimensional. What we understand of flux is in reality a tension between "1" (unity) and "0" (absence) and in this respect material reality would be the [.....] of [1.....0] as [.....] would be equivalent to a gradation of unity as "particulate".

If that makes sense, I might have been too vague.


Eod:1) Matter manifests itself as perpetual flux.

2) Matter exists if and only if their is time as time is "fluxing" space.

3) Matter manifests itself as perpetual time.

A: In a pre BB flux there would actually be local time in the sense that chaotic fluctuations would each happen in their own infinitesimal "local" time, just that there's no clock, which requires some level of order - be it decay, orbits or rotation of particles with which time would be measured or considered to be meaningful. The BB didn't seem to create time so much as its own time/s.

I don't see how the pre-big bang flux could not have a been a prior big bang. It is considering the perpetual movement of matter manifests through a duality of linear and cyclical movement with these movements themselves being composed of further movements...ad infinitum.

Size is relevant when matter is observed relative to matter, so locality in in regards to anything infinitesimalism in theory would strictly be a relation of points which "move". In this respect the big bang and "time" are inseperable, as you suggest. I think where we differ, and it is only a very small degree, is that I believe it is inevitable that time must cycle through itself in order to manifest "further time".

If this is truth, than in theory, the laws of physics go through cycles and what may be true for x cycle may not be equivalent to y cycle. However they should contain a degree of relational symmetry as the cycles of time cannot exist without further cycles of time. In these respects the "laws" of physics are relevant for certain cycles of time and may not be the exact same for a seperate cycle.

This is considering the big bang, and the corresponding multiple big bangs, are strictly the relation of zero dimensional points as linear space. Each big bang would in theory create a new set of "lines and points".

Take for example the tree. A tree is composed of a branching form and function. A tree is still a tree, but the form and function of the branching differs and in these respects we get Oak, Maple, Pine, etc. The tree is still a tree, however their are difference in degrees of the tree. Physics, through the multiple big bangs (which could be happening simultaneously in different time dimensions) would be like the trees. Each being different grades of eachother but fundamentally being composed of the same geometry.


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 2:40 am
The reason they aren't 'crowing about it to the heavens' is because it is believed that it proves gravitational waves and therefore Einstein's SR.
Gravitational waves have nothing to do with SR.
If anyone knew the history of the concept of the AEther, it would show that Lorentz Transformations were made due to the null result of the MM experiment, to explain why there was a null result. Now that we have LIGO which is a super MM experiment, we can disprove Einstein as well as Lorentz Transformations.
Right-o. :roll:
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 4:42 pm
Viveka wrote: Sun Oct 29, 2017 2:40 am
The reason they aren't 'crowing about it to the heavens' is because it is believed that it proves gravitational waves and therefore Einstein's SR.
Gravitational waves have nothing to do with SR.

Really?

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/12/scie ... stein.html

If anyone knew the history of the concept of the AEther, it would show that Lorentz Transformations were made due to the null result of the MM experiment, to explain why there was a null result. Now that we have LIGO which is a super MM experiment, we can disprove Einstein as well as Lorentz Transformations.
Right-o. :roll:
davidm
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: The Big Bang is Wrong

Post by davidm »

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

They are DIFFERENT THEORIES.
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 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.
However if there are non-inertial reference frames, then that disproves SR because of its first postulate.

I don't claim to understand General Relativity: I've been reading and I can't figure out why an frame is non-inertial because it rotates. I thought that acceleration would occur in order for it to be non-inertial. However, a centrifugal force can become rotation at a velocity, which would mean if I were to cut the rope to a ball that I am rotating about my head then it wouldn't fly away accelerating but rather at a velocity. So, how in the heck is centrifugal force an acceleration?
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 5:52 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.
However if there are non-inertial reference frames, then that disproves SR because of its first postulate.
No, it is not disproved because of the first postulate.
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 5:58 pm
Viveka wrote: Sun Oct 29, 2017 5:52 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.
However if there are non-inertial reference frames, then that disproves SR because of its first postulate.
No, it is not disproved because of the first postulate.
Can you respond to the rest of my post? I'm interested if you know the meaning of fictitious force and non-inertial reference frames and how they refer to centrifugal force.
Viveka
Posts: 369
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2017 9:06 pm

Re: The Big Bang is Wrong

Post by Viveka »

I think I was being really dull because I just now realized that velocity is not just the rate of motion, but also the direction of motion. So, centrifugal force is an acceleration because of the constant change of direction. So, according to Einstein in Special Relativity, all inertial frames are invariant in direction as well as speed, both having to be constant. Therefore, what is a fictitious force? And how does this fictitious force explain centrifugal force?
davidm
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: The Big Bang is Wrong

Post by davidm »

Post Reply