Back to the beginning

[Locke]

stuff

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How can you even call it a "scientific" discussion when all you're doing is discussing imaginary facts? According to you, I could pose any statement as a perfectly logical counter to your argument. How is that a discussion? We're just making stuff up!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why is it that you don't actually believe in an absolute reality, but for the purposes of "scientific discussion," you pretend like you do? Are your views so inconsistent that you can't even live by them in a discussion?

[Death_By_Pod]

 

 

 

How can you even call it a "scientific" discussion when all you're doing is discussing imaginary facts? According to you, I could pose any statement as a perfectly logical counter to your argument. How is that a discussion? We're just making stuff up!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why is it that you don't actually believe in an absolute reality, but for the purposes of "scientific discussion," you pretend like you do? Are your views so inconsistent that you can't even live by them in a discussion?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well answer my question that I've asked you a few times now:

 

 

 

I say I'm standing still, someone on the moon will say I'm moving at 465m/s and someone on the sun will say I'm moving at 30km/s, so who is right according to your absolute reality?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

People might hold views like communism or libertarianism but don't live by them because they know that in reality it is impossible to reproduce these views ideally. In the perfect world I couldn't question someone's reality, however in order to do anything productive I assume that some of my views of reality are consistent with everyone.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

By the way thanks for taking this off-topic Ghost-Locke.

[Locke]

Well answer my question that I've asked you a few times now:

 

 

 

I say I'm standing still, someone on the moon will say I'm moving at 465m/s and someone on the sun will say I'm moving at 30km/s, so who is right according to your absolute reality?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Both are right (I'm assuming you've done the correct calculation). You're confusing two different ideas. One idea suggests that the laws of the physical universe are made to produce different results depending on where you are. The other idea, that you have also suggested, is that the laws of the physical universe are not actually factual.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The current known laws of the physical universe suggest that velocity is dependent on where you are, correct?

[Fuzimatt]

show me proof of god and i will believe

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

that doesn't mean jesus's bones for all we know he could have been like a magician today

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

and the bible doesn't count that was a book written by like 50 different people

[Death_By_Pod]

is that the laws of the physical universe are not actually factual.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Have you ever heard of Scientific Anti-Realism? It's one of the biggest topics (Scientific Realism/Anti-Realism) in the philosophy of science, and from the way it's going I doubt it's going to be resolved any time soon.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Say there is a theory, how can we evaluate any claims that it makes about objective truth? How can a subjective mind evaluate an objective claim/truth, wouldn't such an evaluation be a contradiction?

 

 

 

Newtonian Physics and Luminous Ether were long held to be objectively true, so why should I listen to your claims that this time your theory is really, really objectively true?

[Locke]

 

is that the laws of the physical universe are not actually factual.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Have you ever heard of Scientific Anti-Realism? It's one of the biggest topics (Scientific Realism/Anti-Realism) in the philosophy of science, and from the way it's going I doubt it's going to be resolved any time soon.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Say there is a theory, how can we evaluate any claims that it makes about objective truth? How can a subjective mind evaluate an objective claim/truth, wouldn't such an evaluation be a contradiction?

 

 

 

Newtonian Physics and Luminous Ether were long held to be objectively true, so why should I listen to your claims that this time your theory is really, really objectively true?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Exactly my point. How can you say "we know what happened at the beginning of the Universe" if you yourself don't actually know for sure?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So when you speak about what we "know" about the beginning of the universe...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

why should I listen to your claims that this time your theory is really, really objectively true?

[Death_By_Pod]

 

 

 

Exactly my point. How can you say "we know what happened at the beginning of the Universe" if you yourself don't actually know for sure?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So when you speak about what we "know" about the beginning of the universe...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

why should I listen to your claims that this time your theory is really, really objectively true?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'll post it again, I said at the end of my post: "That's the crux of my argument, it's absurd to even acknowledge something as being a reasonable explanation; anything is a reasonable explanation." How is this saying I know what happened at the beginning of the universe; stop putting words in my mouth. If you don't want to listen to what I say, don't; I never made claim to objectivity.

[Locke]

I'll post it again, I said at the end of my post: "That's the crux of my argument, it's absurd to even acknowledge something as being a reasonable explanation; anything is a reasonable explanation." How is this saying I know what happened at the beginning of the universe; stop putting words in my mouth. If you don't want to listen to what I say, don't; I never made claim to objectivity.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You keep confusing me.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

We have a way of which to access the universe, so we have a way in which to talk of the universe. On the other hand we don't have a way to access what happened before the universe so we can't possibly say anything useful about it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If it's all subjective, then how do you know that Ambassador doesn't have a way to access what happened before the universe and therefore what he can "possibly say anything useful" about.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Aren't you making very absolute statements there? If you feel as though I was putting words in your mouth, I'm sorry. But making absolute statements like that is exactly the same thing as saying you "know" something. If you are saying absolutely that Ambassador does not have a way to access what happened before the universe, then you are saying you know he doesn't.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm sorry my previous post slightly misquoted you, but you are still talking about knowledge that you don't even think you have.

[Death_By_Pod]

 

 

 

If it's all subjective, then how do you know that Ambassador doesn't have a way to access what happened before the universe and therefore what he can "possibly say anything useful" about.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well no one has made mention of such ways, so until someone does it's moot. If I can't use the same method of access and neither can anyone else, it's not going to be useful for discussion in this topic.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Aren't you making very absolute statements there? If you feel as though I was putting words in your mouth, I'm sorry. But making absolute statements like that is exactly the same thing as saying you "know" something. If you are saying absolutely that Ambassador does not have a way to access what happened before the universe, then you are saying you know he doesn't.

 

 

 

No I have the knowledge (I know that much), it's a question of whether everyone else has that knowledge. I can make absolute statements, it's a matter of whether they are consistent with everyone else; it's not like the world being relative, magically stops me from making absolute statements. Do I know that the poster doesn't have a way of knowing something that I don't, no; however I've seen many white swans in my life.

[Rebdragon]

show me proof of god and i will believe

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

that doesn't mean jesus's bones for all we know he could have been like a magician today

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

and the bible doesn't count that was a book written by like 50 different people

 

 

 

http://www.cygnus-books.co.uk/features/ ... -emoto.htm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And Jesus was a real man... his bones wouldn't prove or disprove the existence of a God.

[Locke]

Well no one has made mention of such ways, so until someone does it's moot. If I can't use the same method of access and neither can anyone else, it's not going to be useful for discussion in this topic.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's irrelevant anyway because if someone does find a way, it's relative.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No I have the knowledge (I know that much), it's a question of whether everyone else has that knowledge. I can make absolute statements, it's a matter of whether they are consistent with everyone else; it's not like the world being relative, magically stops me from making absolute statements. Do I know that the poster doesn't have a way of knowing something that I don't, no; however I've seen many white swans in my life.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's inconsistent. If the world is relative as a whole, then absolute statements can't happen. Period.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You are confusing having different perspectives, and have a relative world. Of course you can make absolute statements, but if the world is relative, the absolute statements are not true.

[Death_By_Pod]

.

 

 

 

That's inconsistent. If the world is relative as a whole, then absolute statements can't happen. Period.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You are confusing having different perspectives, and have a relative world. Of course you can make absolute statements, but if the world is relative, the absolute statements are not true.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's true, but that doesn't stop absolute statements being consistent with my reality. If I said "I'm standing still," that is an absolute statement which is true for "my reality." I don't give a toss what you think, if it's consistent or inconsistent with your reality; that isn't the point of an absolute statement. If someone is not moving with respect to myself, then the statement is also consistent, if not then it's not consistent. This isn't perspective, this is physical relativity.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Absolute statements are never true or false, they are only consistent or inconsistent with respect to a reality; it doesn't make absolute statements any less valid. I don't understand why you find this so hard to grasp.

[Locke]

 

.

 

 

 

That's inconsistent. If the world is relative as a whole, then absolute statements can't happen. Period.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You are confusing having different perspectives, and have a relative world. Of course you can make absolute statements, but if the world is relative, the absolute statements are not true.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's true, but that doesn't stop absolute statements being consistent with my reality. If I said "I'm standing still," that is an absolute statement which is true for "my reality." I don't give a toss what you think, if it's consistent or inconsistent with your reality; that isn't the point of an absolute statement. If someone is not moving with respect to myself, then the statement is also consistent, if not then it's not consistent. This isn't perspective, this is physical relativity.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Absolute statements are never true or false, they are only consistent or inconsistent with respect to a reality; it doesn't make absolute statements any less valid. I don't understand why you find this so hard to grasp.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I understand what you're saying, but you keep contradicting yourself.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If absolute statements can only be consistent with your reality, then when you say "we have a way to access the beginning of the universe" and "we don't have a way to access before the universe" you are making statements about multiple people's realities.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Also, if absolute statements are only consistent with reality, and only the person who makes the statement's reality is consistent with that statement, why would you ever read someone else's scientific findings? Those findings would only be consistent with their reality, not yours, and not anyone else you are trying to explain science to. Even further, Ambassador's points could never be wrong about what he believes is scientific because his reality is different and there's no way for you to know what his reality is like.

[SLOWSTORM]

 

 

 

 

Why are scientists trying to figure it out then?

 

 

 

 

 

 

They aren't, the big bang is what happens just after creation and we can infer about it through things like Microwave background radiation and galactic red shifting; how do you propose we find out what happened before the big bang? Basically science follows the following quote:

 

 

 

"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent." - Ludwig Wittgenstein

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It always amazes me how people can keep old ideas alive, which have been long proven wrong. Most real scientists (and by that, I mean ones who actually know what they believe, and why) dropped the big bang theory long ago. You may ask why, and voila, the light shall be shed.

 

 

 

First, Galactic Red Shift. We say they universe is enlarging, and we are moving away from a core. This has been reduced to mere conjucture, however, due to Molecular Hydrogen in Space. So we're unable to prove we are moving away from distant stars. :shock: As for Background Radiation, whose model does it fit, anyway? When the new data from Boomarang came in, these people kept their model, with yet more proof. However, Big Bang physicists had to develop the Inflationary Period Theory. That's all good, as theories change (that's why they're called theories, they haven't been proven using the Scientific Method) However, there are several huge problems with this model. The huge one is fairly obvious. What happens when anything goes faster than the speed of light? Yup, it goes backward in time. This easily solves the Second Law problem in relation to a winding-down of the universe, but also introduces an even larger problem.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Allow me to explain. We'll follow the life of one particle of premordial material under this model. Time zero - leaves from absolute center of the universe, at immense speed. Time however long it takes to get a body length out of the mass of premordial material(infinitesimally past zero) - breaks speed of light barrier, begins to go backward in time. Due to how much faster than light the particle is travelling, we are now back at time zero, and MOVING THROUGH SPACE. At the speed theorized, the particle will never slow down, due to a lack of other particles with which to collide. Logic dictates that two particles fired in a straight line at the same speed from the same point can never collide without outside interference (collision with other particles). Possible answer - the UMB (Universal Microwave Background) existed before anything else, and always has.

 

 

 

Ignoring problems in people's minds regarding infinite life particles, the UMB might eventually slow down the particles, BEFORE THEY WERE EMITTED. That brings us to Time immeasurably before zero - begin our reference of time. One particle is slowed enough by the UMB to collide with another, and soon they're all coming together. Masses attract, planets form, people start whining, and here we are.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Okay, where is the big problem? We solved the SECOND law problem by ignoring the FIRST law problem. Every particle of that matter came into being where and when it had not been before. This makes the closed system versus open system universe debate a moot point. Closed or open system, those particles simply came into being at that time and point in space.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This problem is still lacking a logical answer. There are a few more problems with this theory, as well, which may be solved in time, but until then, if this theory is correct, and the laws of thermodynamics are wrong, the origin of the universe has not happened yet. #-o

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So, how do we find out about what happened before the Big Bang? If this theory is correct, you're living it right now. :shock:

[warri0r45]

So what's your answer to the problem there slowstorm?

[Ambassadar]

Basically it all boils down to you have a few choices of what might have happened and all require a degree of faith to believe since none can be proven or disproven at this point. I tried to bring those options into as narrowed down and simple a form as I could.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What you asked though is basically the entire point of this thread. No one knows. It all boils down to what you place your faith in.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A large part of my motivation was I was sick of creationists and non-creationists flaming each other about being idiots. There are highly intelligent rational individuals on both sides of the debate with logical reasons for what they believe and we all need to respect each other when we talk or debate things.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just because a person believes in God or believes in some sort of big bang or energy leak from another universe doesn't mean they are dumb. I can understand how someone could put their faith in either one. I personally choose to put my faith in a creator since to me that is the most rational choice in my opinion. Someone else may choose to put their faith in something else. That is their choice and I am not going to look down on them for that as long as they have thought things through and aren't blindly following someone else's agenda. I just want to provoke thought for everyone and have this be a thread where we can question and explore what we see as the different possibilities. :D

[SLOWSTORM]

So what's your answer to the problem there slowstorm?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you mean my answer to the First Law Problem, the answer is that, short of a total rewrite of the First Law, there is no viable answer. BUT if the First Law were rewritten, it might read (in simple terms, not the equations) "The balance of matter and energy in the universe" (perhaps any system) "shall remain constant over time" Hmm. I need to work on this... :-k

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edit: I think you did a great job, Ambassadar. Good narrowing-down skills :wink:

[Death_By_Pod]

 

 

 

Why are scientists trying to figure it out then?

 

 

 

This has been reduced to mere conjucture, however, due to Molecular Hydrogen in Space. So we're unable to prove we are moving away from distant stars. :shock: As for Background Radiation, whose model does it fit, anyway? When the new data from Boomarang came in, these people kept their model, with yet more proof.

Doesn't take into account data from the Bullet Cluster, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullet_Cluster for a summary. The first site you gave was from a guy who doesn't understand and disbelieves in General Relativity, The Hydrogen explanation is just him trying to fit observation to his theory (it still doesn't and never will explain the Bullet Cluster). Neither authors are trained in astrophysics or astronomy; it's like getting a civil engineer to do the job of an aeronautical engineer since they are both engineers.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The huge one is fairly obvious. What happens when anything goes faster than the speed of light? Yup, it goes backward in time. This easily solves the Second Law problem in relation to a winding-down of the universe, but also introduces an even larger problem.

 

 

 

Particles don't go faster then the speed of light, the big bang wasn't a normal kind of explosion. During inflation the only thing exploding is space, not matter. Particles that go faster then the speed of light are only a theoretical situation and that they go back in time is also theoretical.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Possible answer - the UMB (Universal Microwave Background) existed before anything else, and always has.

 

 

 

Ignoring problems in people's minds regarding infinite life particles, the UMB might eventually slow down the particles, BEFORE THEY WERE EMITTED. That brings us to Time immeasurably before zero - begin our reference of time. One particle is slowed enough by the UMB to collide with another, and soon they're all coming together. Masses attract, planets form, people start whining, and here we are.

 

 

 

Do you even know what the CMB (what you call UMB) is? It has nothing to do with what you just said, your explanation doesn't make any sense at all.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Closed or open system, those particles simply came into being at that time and point in space.

 

 

 

The origin of the system doesn't matter, If I put some liquid in a Thermos (to stop heat escaping the container) and I could call the liquid as being in a closed system. I would then know that the liquid inside my Thermos would eventually reach an even temperature due to thermodynamic laws.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So, how do we find out about what happened before the Big Bang? If this theory is correct, you're living it right now. :shock:

Exactly, that's why it doesn't make sense to use a scientific explanation to discuss what happens before the big bang.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If absolute statements can only be consistent with your reality, then when you say "we have a way to access the beginning of the universe" and "we don't have a way to access before the universe" you are making statements about multiple people's realities.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Also, if absolute statements are only consistent with reality, and only the person who makes the statement's reality is consistent with that statement, why would you ever read someone else's scientific findings? Those findings would only be consistent with their reality, not yours, and not anyone else you are trying to explain science to. Even further, Ambassador's points could never be wrong about what he believes is scientific because his reality is different and there's no way for you to know what his reality is like.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's called discussion, in order to discuss some things I need to make some common ground (assumptions) over which to discuss. One of those things could be to legitimise the findings of people who work in the field. I haven't personally conducted many experiments, however the ones that I have done are consistent with current observation; I have no reason to doubt the findings I'm referring to.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

We are all practically at the same point in space, even though we might be different people we all live in the same environment. It wouldn't be much of a stretch to say that we see the same (or very similar) things; why would an atmosphere exist for someone but not another? For the sake of the topic I'm just going to assume that we see the same things; much in the same way you might assume that gravity is constant all over Earth or that we assume that the Earth is a perfect sphere.

[Locke]

It's called discussion, in order to discuss some things I need to make some common ground (assumptions) over which to discuss. One of those things could be to legitimise the findings of people who work in the field. I haven't personally conducted many experiments, however the ones that I have done are consistent with current observation; I have no reason to doubt the findings I'm referring to.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But even if you had conducted experiments, they would only be true for you. Why would you legitimize the statements of "someone who works in the field" when their discoveries only apply to their reality, and not yours?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And what is the point of "discussing" anyway if you are discussing from two different realities. I wouldn't propose to debate with someone about how heavy the object that is in our hands is if he is holding a watermelon and I'm holding an apple. It doesn't even make sense because the object he is talking about is so much heavier than the object I'm talking about. Why even discuss principles that you don't even know are true for your reality (they have only been tested in other realities) and might not be true for someone else's reality. That appears to be the most pointless activity I've ever heard of.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

We are all practically at the same point in space, even though we might be different people we all live in the same environment.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Is that an absolute statement about the nature of everyone's reality collectively?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It wouldn't be much of a stretch to say that we see the same (or very similar) things; why would an atmosphere exist for someone but not another? For the sake of the topic I'm just going to assume that we see the same things; much in the same way you might assume that gravity is constant all over Earth or that we assume that the Earth is a perfect sphere.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The rest of this paragraph you make assumptions based off of an absolute statement that is collective of everyone's reality, yet you don't think that's possible. That doesn't make sense.

[InfamousDuck]

Im atheist but my thoughts on god is this-

 

 

 

People made a god for happiness and safety,but not everyone agreed with the rules,so people made other gods to fit them(For instants islam,judaism and Christianity are all the same god just different rules,which i believe there are different rules because people didnt like the frist rules).There is no scientific proof to support there being a god,there may proof to support Jesus and other religious missiahs,but not to support the miracles they done.There however proof to support stuff like the big bang.Now some people dont believe in such god they just believe in a present.Well anyway thats my thoughts.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

~Dark~

[Death_By_Pod]

 

 

 

But even if you had conducted experiments, they would only be true for you. Why would you legitimize the statements of "someone who works in the field" when their discoveries only apply to their reality, and not yours?

Ever heard of practicality?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That appears to be the most pointless activity I've ever heard of.

And you think what your doing isn't pointless? Posting on an internet message board? Everything that you do on Earth is pointless, your just going to die; if you believe in an eternal afterlife it makes your life on Earth even more pointless and insignificant.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How pointless is arguing about Relativism or Universality, when you have no control over it, does it really matter in the end? If the tables were turned and there are only absolute positions it would in fact make discussion even more pointless since there is only one answer.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tell me an absolute frame of reference from which we can evaluate propositions and I'll be happy. The simple answer is you can't provide one and that's the downfall of Universality.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

People are irrational, we are full of biases such as cognitive and cultural biases; it would be absurd to suggest that we could somehow come to an absolute statement of truth.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Is that an absolute statement about the nature of everyone's reality collectively?

Yes.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The rest of this paragraph you make assumptions based off of an absolute statement that is collective of everyone's reality, yet you don't think that's possible. That doesn't make sense.

What actually makes sense in this world? Either I can wake up and be a sceptic towards everything and never get anywhere in my life or I can make reasonable assumptions to help reduce the need for scepticism. Just because it's not practical to be a 'pure' relativist, doesn't mean that it isn't any less plausible.

[Locke]

Ever heard of practicality?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's not practical because all you're doing is learning about other people's realities. How is that practical? It's not your reality.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And you think what your doing isn't pointless? Posting on an internet message board? Everything that you do on Earth is pointless, your just going to die; if you believe in an eternal afterlife it makes your life on Earth even more pointless and insignificant.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not so. First, I believe I'm expanding my knowledge. It's pointless for you because knowledge can't actually exist, especially concerning other people's realities. And according to my belief, which is an eternal after-life, my life here is very important. Just because you think it's insiginficant doesn't mean it is. Besides, how would you know whether my life is insignificant? It's my reality, not yours.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How pointless is arguing about Relativism or Universality, when you have no control over it, does it really matter in the end? If the tables were turned and there are only absolute positions it would in fact make discussion even more pointless since there is only one answer.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Like I said above, I'm expanding my knowledge and understanding of logic and rational concepts. It's pointless for you because you can't ever have knowledge since everything is relative. If the tables were turned (which I believe they are) there would only be one answer - thus leading to the discussion of finding the answer. Without an answer, which you believe, discussing is pointless because you can never learn anything from it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tell me an absolute frame of reference from which we can evaluate propositions and I'll be happy. The simple answer is you can't provide one and that's the downfall of Universality.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

An absolute frame of reference would be seeing it from beyond the physical realm, and of course we can't go there. I'm not suggesting our perception is absolute, what I'm saying is there are absolutes we can try to discover. For instance, you know that velocity is dependent on where you are. You know that without having to be in the perspective of both on earth and, let's say, on the moon.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This brings up the point about the difference between whether or not an absolute exists, and whether or not we can discover it. You are attempting to blend the two.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

People are irrational, we are full of biases such as cognitive and cultural biases; it would be absurd to suggest that we could somehow come to an absolute statement of truth.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Suggesting that we cannot come to an absolute statement of truth is an absolute statement of truth. Note: I'm not saying we will find any absolute statements about the universe, but believing that they exist pushes us towards a goal. Believing that there isn't makes discussing and "learning" pointless.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You claim they can't exist.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What actually makes sense in this world? Either I can wake up and be a sceptic towards everything and never get anywhere in my life or I can make reasonable assumptions to help reduce the need for scepticism. Just because it's not practical to be a 'pure' relativist, doesn't mean that it isn't any less plausible.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How are they reasonable? They aren't reasonable because that would assume there is some absolute standard that would make something reasonable. That's a blatant contradiction.

[SLOWSTORM]

Doesn't take into account data from the Bullet Cluster, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullet_Cluster for a summary. The first site you gave was from a guy who doesn't understand and disbelieves in General Relativity, The Hydrogen explanation is just him trying to fit observation to his theory (it still doesn't and never will explain the Bullet Cluster). Neither authors are trained in astrophysics or astronomy; it's like getting a civil engineer to do the job of an aeronautical engineer since they are both engineers.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I didn't take into account the data from the Bullet Cluster, because it was hardly relevant to the discussion at hand. However, I will attach an explanation at the end of this post. I referenced Paul Marmet on red shift due to Hydrogen molecules, not on dark matter. There are plenty more references I can put up, but the simple fact has been proven using the scientific method. Hydrogen molecules bend light red. Simple as that. As to his credentials, Check them out.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Paul Marmet (1932-2005)

 

 

 

B. Sc., Ph. D. (Physics), Laval University

 

 

 

O. C. (Order of Canada)

 

 

 

F. R. S. C.

 

 

 

Author of more than 100 papers in the field of Electron Spectroscopy.

 

 

 

Professor, Physics, Laval University, Qủ̮̩̉bec, Canada: 1962-83,

 

 

 

Senior Research Officer, National Research Council of Canada: 1983-90,

 

 

 

Visiting, Adjunct, Professor, University of Ottawa, 1990-99.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

He was the one of the most qualified people in Canada to write on this topic, a 21-year Professor in Physics who received the Order of Canada. If he doesn't understand General Relativity, who does? you? :lol: (according to this link you do not believe it, as it says "The laws of physics must be the same for all observers," and you believe in subjectivity) I submit that both my quoted authors were extensively studied in Astrophysics and Astronomy. Try reading the references from their papers. After all, the proof of the pudding is under the crust.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Particles don't go faster then the speed of light, the big bang wasn't a normal kind of explosion. During inflation the only thing exploding is space, not matter. Particles that go faster then the speed of light are only a theoretical situation and that they go back in time is also theoretical.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You are incorrect. :shame: Particles go faster than light past the event horizon of a Black Hole.

 

 

 

That aside, the Inflation Theory states that the border of the universe expanded at that rate. That would include all matter, simply in the form of particles. Allow me to explain some basic Physics. Matter is made up of molecules, which are made up of atoms, which are made up of Neutrons, Electrons, and Protons. Neutrons and Protons are made up of Quarks, while Electrons belong to a family called Leptons which also includes muons and taus. Thus Quarks and Leptons are the particles which make up matter. Quarks, Electrons, and Gluons are what comprised ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬ÅSpaceÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

[Death_By_Pod]

 

 

 

I didn't take into account the data from the Bullet Cluster, because it was hardly relevant to the discussion at hand. However, I will attach an explanation at the end of this post. I referenced Paul Marmet on red shift due to Hydrogen molecules, not on dark matter.

 

 

 

Marmet is using hydrogen as a replacement for CDM, the bullet cluster shows evidence of gravitational lensing by CDM so there is no need for a replacement; the other article's conclusion states that there is no evidence for CDM.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Paul Marmet (1932-2005)

 

 

 

B. Sc., Ph. D. (Physics), Laval University

 

 

 

O. C. (Order of Canada)

 

 

 

F. R. S. C.

 

 

 

Author of more than 100 papers in the field of Electron Spectroscopy.

 

 

 

Professor, Physics, Laval University, Qủ̮̩̉bec, Canada: 1962-83,

 

 

 

Senior Research Officer, National Research Council of Canada: 1983-90,

 

 

 

Visiting, Adjunct, Professor, University of Ottawa, 1990-99.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks for proving my point, an expert in electron spectroscopy doesn't make you an expert in astrophysics; much in the same way an aeronautical engineer isn't an expert on civil engineering.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How many of his spectroscopy papers were peer reviewed? Now how many of his Relativity papers are peer reviewed? The problem is this guy doesn't get his paper's on relativity peer reviewed, meaning he doesn't put his work under scrutiny by his peers. If he strongly believes that his work is true then why shouldn't they be checked for factuality? This source is as valid as any old crank; At least Alex Chiu has patents for his immortality ring, this guy has nothing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

He was the one of the most qualified people in Canada to write on this topic, a 21-year Professor in Physics who received the Order of Canada. If he doesn't understand General Relativity, who does? you? :lol:

 

 

 

Einstein was sceptical of Quantum Mechanics yet this doesn't invalidate his work in Relativity. This happens when you move to a wildly different framework, some people are just resistant to change and Marmet is one of those people (Marmet is a 73 year old guy who died a few years ago).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(according to this link you do not believe it, as it says "The laws of physics must be the same for all observers," and you believe in subjectivity)

 

 

 

That statement is true relative to the framework of Science and Physics.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I submit that both my quoted authors were extensively studied in Astrophysics and Astronomy. Try reading the references from their papers. After all, the proof of the pudding is under the crust.

 

 

 

Marmet's paper mostly references to his other non-peer reviewed work, with his other references having nothing to do with the technical parts of his work (such as an article saying that we detected hydrogen). The other paper references Boomerang data, when newer data on the bullet galaxy refutes the claim the paper makes. Did you even bother to look under the crust or do you just like making smarmy comments?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You are incorrect. :shame: Particles go faster than light past the event horizon of a Black Hole.

 

 

 

Where does it say anywhere on that page that objects past a event horizon travel faster then light? There is a mention of light travelling faster then light in a paper from 1784, however the article goes on to say that it was later shown that this was not the case. In the very same article it states verbatim that "relativity forbids anything from traveling faster than light" (under this section http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole#Mathematical_theory). Where on Earth are you getting this idea from, because it isn't from the link you provided.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That aside, the Inflation Theory states that the border of the universe expanded at that rate. That would include all matter, simply in the form of particles.

No it doesn't, inflation is the idea that space-time inflates at a speed greater than the speed of light. This explains why the universe is so homogeneous and isotropic, yet is able to be larger the speed of light permits. When the universe was small, it was completely in casual contact, thus being able to remain under relative homogeneity and isotropy. Inflation then rapidly expands the already casually contacted universe into what it is today, without creating contradiction.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Quarks, Electrons, and Gluons are what comprised ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬ÅSpaceÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

[SLOWSTORM]

 

 

 

Marmet is using hydrogen as a replacement for CDM, the bullet cluster shows evidence of gravitational lensing by CDM so there is no need for a replacement; the other article's conclusion states that there is no evidence for CDM.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Okay, letÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s talk about the facts. That molecular hydrogen has been found to be distributed through space is a fact. That molecular hydrogen can account for the missing mass in the bullet cluster (and other galaxies) is also a fact. You could even call it Dark Matter, though it would actually be simply virtually transparent matter.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gravitational Lensing only requires gravity; gravity is a result of mass; molecular hydrogen has mass. Therefore molecular hydrogen could cause Gravitational Lensing just as easily as mystical unseen matter. Why not believe the one that actually has scientific proof? You have faith in an unseen particle, but will not open your eyes to scientific proof. :shame:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Paul Marmet (1932-2005)

 

 

 

B. Sc., Ph. D. (Physics), Laval University

 

 

 

O. C. (Order of Canada)

 

 

 

F. R. S. C.

 

 

 

Author of more than 100 papers in the field of Electron Spectroscopy.

 

 

 

Professor, Physics, Laval University, Qủ̮̩̉bec, Canada: 1962-83,

 

 

 

Senior Research Officer, National Research Council of Canada: 1983-90,

 

 

 

Visiting, Adjunct, Professor, University of Ottawa, 1990-99.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks for proving my point, an expert in electron spectroscopy doesn't make you an expert in astrophysics; much in the same way an aeronautical engineer isn't an expert on civil engineering.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HmmÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâæ look up about 3 linesÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâæ There you go. What part of ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬ÅPh.D. in Physics from Laval U.ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ