Another Brick for a Wall...An origin of time and space

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

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2832
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Another Brick for a Wall...An origin of time and space

Post by -1- » Tue Mar 26, 2019 11:45 am

Scott Mayers wrote:
Mon Mar 25, 2019 1:52 pm
-1- wrote:
Mon Mar 25, 2019 8:32 am
Scott Mayers wrote:
Sun Mar 24, 2019 7:05 am
And not that most images of space are just as often touched up artistically for color and sparkling effects for demonstrating their beauty.
(I think you wanted to write "And note that most images...")

The artistically enhanced images still ought not to be anti-scientific like the rays coming out from behind this unfortunately depicted black hole.
Yes, the word was "note".

I'm guessing the first image I showed was demonstrating gravitational lensing that occurs, not rays.

But if you are saying it is anti-science, are you saying artistic rendering of Nature is blasphemous like drawing a picture of Mohammad? :P
You don't read so well. Not ALL artistic rendering of science is blasphemous. Only those which depict instances of nature which do not correspond to science or to observed reality AND claim that the picture is a true representation of reality.

I think it was pretty clear from the outset that this is what I had meant.

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2832
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Another Brick for a Wall...An origin of time and space

Post by -1- » Tue Mar 26, 2019 11:49 am

Scott Mayers wrote:
Mon Mar 25, 2019 1:44 pm
-1- wrote:
Mon Mar 25, 2019 8:30 am
Scott Mayers wrote:
Sun Mar 24, 2019 7:05 am
If by 'tiny' you are meaning small by volume, this is counter to our understanding of "massive".
Not really. The atomic boundaries of repulsion (that determines the size of atoms) can be crushed by gravitational force. Therefore where one atom occupies X space, in the same volume more than one crushed (invardly imploded) atoms can be fitted.
You accept that all 'matter' can exist at one point? Prove this happens locally (and thus empirically.)

The concept of 'matter' to exist at a point with no space undefines matter as "that which occupies space." If it can have mass without space, then mass is NOT that which occupies space. Why would you think we should presume some odd nature of a black hole rather than something less weird by default?
Hunnybunny... there is space BETWEEN sub-atomic particles. That space can be reduced or eliminated.

I sort of assumed you had an elementary knowledge of quantum physics. You keep trying your best to disprove this belief of mine.

This is elemental knowledge that every kid by grade seven has learned. I am sure I am not to blame for assuming you had this knowledge.

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2832
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Another Brick for a Wall...An origin of time and space

Post by -1- » Tue Mar 26, 2019 11:54 am

Scott Mayers wrote:
Mon Mar 25, 2019 1:32 pm
-1- wrote:
Mon Mar 25, 2019 8:35 am
Scott Mayers wrote:
Sun Mar 24, 2019 7:05 am
It is also a pipe dream to think that actual fusion might get to some degree of energy that it all of a sudden breaks the general laws we already know to have some 'escape' point that permits perpetual energy.
This may or may not be true, but at any rate it's a Strawman argument as a reply to my post, as I never proposed such an energy source as you describe.

It is actually slightly insulting to me to have you insinuate that I have "pipe dreams" which I never voiced. Condescending and a Strawman.
I wasn't referring to you! :roll: I was referring to the actual experiments going on to attempt to make fusion feasible as some potential energy source.
Okay, thank you for explaining, but then again, you need to make your references clearer, because you connect laterally things in your thought processes that your readers are unaware of. You need to tell us these things, to avoid misunderstanding.

Again, it's the same sort of thing as your use of pronouns without clearly pointing to antecedents: your brain may work well, but your transitioning your thoughts to communicated writing lacks describing many of the connections of what you refer to, which is automatic for you to comprehend, but it is unknowable by your readers. So you must, as a writer, tell your readers where your connections lie. This is a burden all writers must bear.

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2832
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Another Brick for a Wall...An origin of time and space

Post by -1- » Tue Mar 26, 2019 11:58 am

-1- wrote:
Tue Mar 26, 2019 11:45 am
I'm guessing the first image I showed was demonstrating gravitational lensing that occurs, not rays.
Then it's even worse than I had observed. Lensing distorts as if looking through a concavely cut or convexly cut lens, but lensing does not create outbound rays of light and shadow.

Just look at the picture.

Scott Mayers
Posts: 1403
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Location: Saskatoon, SK, Canada

Re: Another Brick for a Wall...An origin of time and space

Post by Scott Mayers » Tue Mar 26, 2019 2:21 pm

-1- wrote:
Tue Mar 26, 2019 11:45 am
Scott Mayers wrote:
Mon Mar 25, 2019 1:52 pm
-1- wrote:
Mon Mar 25, 2019 8:32 am

(I think you wanted to write "And note that most images...")

The artistically enhanced images still ought not to be anti-scientific like the rays coming out from behind this unfortunately depicted black hole.
Yes, the word was "note".

I'm guessing the first image I showed was demonstrating gravitational lensing that occurs, not rays.

But if you are saying it is anti-science, are you saying artistic rendering of Nature is blasphemous like drawing a picture of Mohammad? :P
You don't read so well. Not ALL artistic rendering of science is blasphemous. Only those which depict instances of nature which do not correspond to science or to observed reality AND claim that the picture is a true representation of reality.

I think it was pretty clear from the outset that this is what I had meant.
If it was pretty 'clear' why would you require saying it?

I always understood most color images of space is artificial. But if you want to present a model based upon science that is itself attempting to relate to the reality, the artistic additions are often the way to present the significance of the reality the scientist wants to present. Most of the collection of information used by the astrophysicist used to infer what the reality is are INDIRECT, like how surrounding stars' Doppler effect may point towards some common direction to indicate the effect of some shared gravity.

Scott Mayers
Posts: 1403
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Location: Saskatoon, SK, Canada

Re: Another Brick for a Wall...An origin of time and space

Post by Scott Mayers » Tue Mar 26, 2019 2:46 pm

-1- wrote:
Tue Mar 26, 2019 11:49 am
Scott Mayers wrote:
Mon Mar 25, 2019 1:44 pm
-1- wrote:
Mon Mar 25, 2019 8:30 am

Not really. The atomic boundaries of repulsion (that determines the size of atoms) can be crushed by gravitational force. Therefore where one atom occupies X space, in the same volume more than one crushed (invardly imploded) atoms can be fitted.
You accept that all 'matter' can exist at one point? Prove this happens locally (and thus empirically.)

The concept of 'matter' to exist at a point with no space undefines matter as "that which occupies space." If it can have mass without space, then mass is NOT that which occupies space. Why would you think we should presume some odd nature of a black hole rather than something less weird by default?
Hunnybunny... there is space BETWEEN sub-atomic particles. That space can be reduced or eliminated.

I sort of assumed you had an elementary knowledge of quantum physics. You keep trying your best to disprove this belief of mine.

This is elemental knowledge that every kid by grade seven has learned. I am sure I am not to blame for assuming you had this knowledge.
The definition of "matter" with respect to physics is
matter is... a physical substance in general, as distinct from mind and spirit; (in physics) that which occupies space and possesses rest mass, especially as distinct from energy.
My point is that if the meaning of matter requires occupying space as its functional definition, it is DEPENDENT upon space to pre-exist and not the other way around. Also note how matter is just a form of energy. Energy is a measure of change (via work being done) that requires a dependence upon time to also exist. So since matter is dependent upon SPACE and, as energy is dependent upon TIME, both space and time MUST be infinite in some form if matter and energy are to be conserved. Thus the idea of a singularity is illogical unless it is just an 'illusion' by perspective. (something that should appeal to your disapproval of taking artistic license to scientific interpretation)

Thus a Big Bang interpretation is at fault for presuming some instantaneous 'pop' into existence of some fixed quantity of matter and/or energy.

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2832
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Another Brick for a Wall...An origin of time and space

Post by -1- » Tue Mar 26, 2019 4:37 pm

Scott Mayers wrote:
Tue Mar 26, 2019 2:21 pm
-1- wrote:
Tue Mar 26, 2019 11:45 am
Scott Mayers wrote:
Mon Mar 25, 2019 1:52 pm

Yes, the word was "note".

I'm guessing the first image I showed was demonstrating gravitational lensing that occurs, not rays.

But if you are saying it is anti-science, are you saying artistic rendering of Nature is blasphemous like drawing a picture of Mohammad? :P
You don't read so well. Not ALL artistic rendering of science is blasphemous. Only those which depict instances of nature which do not correspond to science or to observed reality AND claim that the picture is a true representation of reality.

I think it was pretty clear from the outset that this is what I had meant.
If it was pretty 'clear' why would you require saying it?

I always understood most color images of space is artificial. But if you want to present a model based upon science that is itself attempting to relate to the reality, the artistic additions are often the way to present the significance of the reality the scientist wants to present.
If it was pretty 'clear' why did I have to repeat it? My guess would be your writing / reading impediment.

"Most of the collection of information used by the astrophysicist used to infer what the reality is are INDIRECT, like how surrounding stars' Doppler effect may point towards some common direction to indicate the effect of some shared gravity." This is granted. You can't depict gravity, force, speed, electromagnetic radiation, current, etc. etc. etc. But what an artist does depict, ought not to be anti-scientific.

It does not matter what the picture shows, it can't depict gravity, speed, work, capacity, or force. If an artist, even on the instruction of the scientist, puts in some "effects" into the picture, then it has to be interpreted from visual representation to what the dang thing wants actually to depict; and anything that needs to be interpreted can be, and justifiably so, interpreted wrongly.

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2832
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Another Brick for a Wall...An origin of time and space

Post by -1- » Tue Mar 26, 2019 4:48 pm

Scott Mayers wrote:
Tue Mar 26, 2019 2:46 pm

My point is that if the meaning of matter requires occupying space as its functional definition, it is DEPENDENT upon space to pre-exist and not the other way around. Also note how matter is just a form of energy. Energy is a measure of change (via work being done) that requires a dependence upon time to also exist. So since matter is dependent upon SPACE and, as energy is dependent upon TIME, both space and time MUST be infinite in some form if matter and energy are to be conserved. Thus the idea of a singularity is illogical unless it is just an 'illusion' by perspective. (something that should appeal to your disapproval of taking artistic license to scientific interpretation)

Thus a Big Bang interpretation is at fault for presuming some instantaneous 'pop' into existence of some fixed quantity of matter and/or energy.
You have an extremely good point until you come to the claim that there was a singularity, and that matter instantaneously "pooped" into existence. I agree wholeheartedly with what you said preceding the claim for singularity and "poop".

However. There WAS matter present in space before the Big Bang. According to the Big Bang Theory (BBT).

The correct wording of the BBT never assumed a singularity. It is probably the theists or the unsuspecting and not learned philosophers who spread the faulty and nefariously cheap idea that the BBT did assume a singularity.

The BBT does declare that there was material, matter; it was all the matter that we observe in the known universe, but not in a point form, but in a condensed state; that is, the space between sub-atomic particles and likely between sub-nuclei particles were eliminated so that matter was extremely dense. The entire matter-hold of the known and visible universe was contained in a thimble-sized expanse.

This blew up for some reason. We don't know what had preceded the bang, we don't know why matter blew up. The gravitational force holding it together was enormous. So it had to be something of enormous energy to blow this massive thing apart, and send its component bits hurtling into space.

Scott Mayers
Posts: 1403
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Location: Saskatoon, SK, Canada

Re: Another Brick for a Wall...An origin of time and space

Post by Scott Mayers » Tue Mar 26, 2019 5:27 pm

-1- wrote:
Tue Mar 26, 2019 4:37 pm
Scott Mayers wrote:
Tue Mar 26, 2019 2:21 pm
-1- wrote:
Tue Mar 26, 2019 11:45 am

You don't read so well. Not ALL artistic rendering of science is blasphemous. Only those which depict instances of nature which do not correspond to science or to observed reality AND claim that the picture is a true representation of reality.

I think it was pretty clear from the outset that this is what I had meant.
If it was pretty 'clear' why would you require saying it?

I always understood most color images of space is artificial. But if you want to present a model based upon science that is itself attempting to relate to the reality, the artistic additions are often the way to present the significance of the reality the scientist wants to present.
If it was pretty 'clear' why did I have to repeat it? My guess would be your writing / reading impediment.
Please don't insult me or I won't waste my own time with you. I don't know if (or why) you are reading into what I say as insulting to you personally but you are clearly doing so to me. You're the one who is anonymous here. So you require the default to be more respectful considering you lack accountability to who your are. You don't need to read into what I say as directing any intentional insult to anyone particular unless I can literally identify them. If I have any 'insult' of other viewpoints, they are of the viewpoints themselves, not to the persons holding them.
-1- wrote: "Most of the collection of information used by the astrophysicist used to infer what the reality is are INDIRECT, like how surrounding stars' Doppler effect may point towards some common direction to indicate the effect of some shared gravity." This is granted. You can't depict gravity, force, speed, electromagnetic radiation, current, etc. etc. etc. But what an artist does depict, ought not to be anti-scientific.

It does not matter what the picture shows, it can't depict gravity, speed, work, capacity, or force. If an artist, even on the instruction of the scientist, puts in some "effects" into the picture, then it has to be interpreted from visual representation to what the dang thing wants actually to depict; and anything that needs to be interpreted can be, and justifiably so, interpreted wrongly.
I don't disagree with what you mean. The best we can do is let others know when or where they are taking artistic license. Context is important. I complained to a particular scientist who specializes in promoting the ideas in science through his documentaries. He responded in respectful acknowledgement but pointed out that while I may be correct, the intent of his works were only to introduce the subject to those less informed. While such artistic license may come across misleading, the context of the targeted audience needs to be understood. In actual scientific presentations, they are more data driven and much harder to convey the overall results without using artistic models to communicate when transferred to a broader audience. But don't presume the particular artistic representations is wrong just because they use indirect inferences of the whole when the details involved are so much more dull and hard to 'visualize' without knowing the more imposing language of the math and logic used within these areas.

Scott Mayers
Posts: 1403
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Location: Saskatoon, SK, Canada

Re: Another Brick for a Wall...An origin of time and space

Post by Scott Mayers » Tue Mar 26, 2019 6:01 pm

-1- wrote:
Tue Mar 26, 2019 4:48 pm
Scott Mayers wrote:
Tue Mar 26, 2019 2:46 pm

My point is that if the meaning of matter requires occupying space as its functional definition, it is DEPENDENT upon space to pre-exist and not the other way around. Also note how matter is just a form of energy. Energy is a measure of change (via work being done) that requires a dependence upon time to also exist. So since matter is dependent upon SPACE and, as energy is dependent upon TIME, both space and time MUST be infinite in some form if matter and energy are to be conserved. Thus the idea of a singularity is illogical unless it is just an 'illusion' by perspective. (something that should appeal to your disapproval of taking artistic license to scientific interpretation)

Thus a Big Bang interpretation is at fault for presuming some instantaneous 'pop' into existence of some fixed quantity of matter and/or energy.
You have an extremely good point until you come to the claim that there was a singularity, and that matter instantaneously "pooped" into existence. I agree wholeheartedly with what you said preceding the claim for singularity and "poop".

However. There WAS matter present in space before the Big Bang. According to the Big Bang Theory (BBT).

The correct wording of the BBT never assumed a singularity. It is probably the theists or the unsuspecting and not learned philosophers who spread the faulty and nefariously cheap idea that the BBT did assume a singularity.

The BBT does declare that there was material, matter; it was all the matter that we observe in the known universe, but not in a point form, but in a condensed state; that is, the space between sub-atomic particles and likely between sub-nuclei particles were eliminated so that matter was extremely dense. The entire matter-hold of the known and visible universe was contained in a thimble-sized expanse.

This blew up for some reason. We don't know what had preceded the bang, we don't know why matter blew up. The gravitational force holding it together was enormous. So it had to be something of enormous energy to blow this massive thing apart, and send its component bits hurtling into space.
If "matter" existed prior to space and time, then "matter" is not defined correctly. And as I've already pointed out, if you default to treat "matter" as energy, then that also points out how this theory is even more ridiculous. You can't have something that pops (not "poops") a special quantity into reality without special pleading. The default should not be a Big Bang type theory LOGICALLY over the Steady State types because it begs things in the past had a magical reality indifferent to one asserting there was a real time in the past here on Earth that God 'popped' mankind into a sudden existence and then accelerated, inflationary style, because some god dictated, "be fruitful and multiply".

Don't play ignorance* with some predetermined belief THAT the universe blew up but that we just don't know why. It is the claim THAT our Universe blew up that is questionable in the first place.

Edit: * no I'm not calling you ignorant but that the BBT is 'ignorantly' presuming we can be permitted to interpret observations pointing to some strange origins as though the interpretation itself of those observations were definitively correct without a doubt. The ignorance is then further heightened when it THEN all of a sudden throws its hands in the air by adding that 'WE' just don't know what came before that point. "WE" already agree to the latter point about our limitations beyond the apparent singularities. The question is about the interpretation that presumes the appearance IS the reality via those who prefer the sudden explosion as what such appearances certify. It to me is like judging a book's contextual reality by its the appearance of its cover. And then to further assert that it is even true to BE a 'cover' of some book at all when we can't open it to reveal pages it may or may not hold is also presumptuous.

Scott Mayers
Posts: 1403
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Location: Saskatoon, SK, Canada

Re: Another Brick for a Wall...An origin of time and space

Post by Scott Mayers » Mon Apr 08, 2019 10:54 pm

UPDATE for a side discussion with "-1-" about the images of black holes...

I just saw an announcement on CBC news that a picture has been directly made of a black hole.

For a more detailed explanation, see First ever picture of a Black Hole

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests