The Big Bang Theory-A Logical Proof

64 posts / 0 new
Last post
anonymous_coward
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 10 hours ago
Joined: 10/21/2016 - 12:18pm
You can't fool me, Melvin, I

You can't fool me, Melvin, I know that it's turtles all the way down (it's in the book).

pmconusa
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 1 hour ago
Joined: 04/20/2000 - 12:01am
What makes you think the

What makes you think the universe is contained in anything? Does everything have to have a beginning an end because certain things like plants and animals have a limited time of existence?

It has been determined that the speed of light is 186,000 miles/sec. That means anything traveling faster than that speed past a stationary object could not be seen. It does not mean that it is not there, just that we would not be able to see it. Neither does it mean that something cannot be travelling faster than that speed. You cannot see a bullet fired from a gun, no matter how concentrated on it you may be. It is not traveling at the speed of light and if it were fired in the dark all you would see is not the bullet but the light emitted by the burning gunpowder that launched it. You would hear the noise generated by the explosion but only if you were close enough before the sound wave dissipated below your ability to discern it. It would not be dissipated as rapidly in a vacuum but, what is a vacuum? It is the absence of anything. Has man been able to create a vacuum? The answer is no but we have come very close, so close we cannot measure the amount of something remaining, just like we cannot measure the amount of impurities in anything, but we can get close.

We don't accept on blind faith that a bullet has been fired from a gun because other senses have detected the consequences of the act of propelling a missile (bullet) from a gun. Why then can we not accept that the universe always was and is continuing to expand because we can observe its motion?

anonymous_coward
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 10 hours ago
Joined: 10/21/2016 - 12:18pm
" That means anything

" That means anything traveling faster than that speed past a stationary object could not be seen. It does not mean that it is not there, just that we would not be able to see it. Neither does it mean that something cannot be travelling faster than that speed."

No, it means you can't travel faster than the speed of light without going backwards in time. If you take a bullet and accelerate it, as you approach the speed of light, the bullet gains mass (in fact, it gains mass according to E=mc^2, where E is the energy used to accelerate the bullet), making it more and more difficult to accelerate.

Time for the bullet appears to pass slower and slower from our point of view, until it essentially slows to almost no passage as it approaches the speed of light.

Melvin Udall
Offline
Last seen: 14 hours 51 min ago
Joined: 05/01/2002 - 12:01am
The universe continually

The universe continually expands? Into what? A void? A cosmic nothing?

How can you tell if it expands if it has no outer boundary?

What do you mean by the term universe?

What is "space?"

Mainelion
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 5 hours ago
Joined: 08/11/2005 - 12:01am
Accelerating a bullet to

Accelerating a bullet to approach the speed of light would be a heck of a trick. The fastest bullet, when it leaves the muzzle, is on the order of 200,000 times slower than the speed of light.

Melvin Udall
Offline
Last seen: 14 hours 51 min ago
Joined: 05/01/2002 - 12:01am
There's a book in work on

There's a book in work on this subject and other physics revelations.

pmconusa
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 1 hour ago
Joined: 04/20/2000 - 12:01am
Mainelion: I didn't say that

Mainelion: I didn't say that a bullet has the speed of light, just that you cannot see it in flight because its speed is beyond the limits of the human eye.

pmconusa
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 1 hour ago
Joined: 04/20/2000 - 12:01am
Mel: To answer your

Mel: To answer your questions in order:
The universe is expanding as evidence by motion of the objects in it. For example, the earth rotates which implies some force acted upon it. Whether it is expanding or contracting is an issue for debate but my bet is on contraction because we seem to be catching up with what are called black holes.
It does have a boundary, it is infinity. What is infinity? It is unity with an infinite number of zeros. To understand the concept and for it to make sense one must assume there was always something and if one were to imagine its shape, it would be circular, like a ball with matter in the form of liquids, solids, gases and yes, energy, the four necessary forms of matter. The action of this combination is like a ball made of sponge in which are trapped the visible forms of matter; solids, liquids and gasses. In contraction, the liquids and gases convert to energy over time and when the temperature of the remaining matter approaches that of the space occupied by energy, it rapidly expands to start the cycle all over again. The timing of the transformation is infinite, that takes us back to what is infinity. It is a time beyond the comprehension of man.
This is why Einstein was in a quandary, because to posit this theory would be to deny God and the myth that He created the heavens and the earth. All attempts to prove his theory came up short until it was shown man could create matter and also destroy it but it took massive amounts of energy to do so and energy is mostly heat, a factor omitted from his original equation. He spent the remainder of his life searching for a so called “unified theory” that might explain the science and the existence of a God simultaneously. He failed as others have because they are unable to accept that both cannot coexist.
The universe is the totality of everything. Webster unfortunately includes the word creation that implies that at one time there was nothing.
Space is the area between objects. Outer space is obviously the area between objects in the universe. Unfortunately, we have also named these heavenly bodies. This implies of course that earth is a heavenly body to someone on another star, planet or moon and so far, we have not detected one.

Toolsmith
Offline
Last seen: 3 days 9 hours ago
Joined: 07/14/2016 - 11:22am
Euler's Equation doesn't

Euler's Equation doesn't suggest God so much as it suggests a relationship between e, i, and pi.

Melvin Udall
Offline
Last seen: 14 hours 51 min ago
Joined: 05/01/2002 - 12:01am
I believe there's a corollary

I believe there's a corollary that expresses the relationship between e, i, e, i, and oh.

Bruce Libby
Offline
Last seen: 6 hours 54 min ago
Joined: 01/17/2006 - 7:08pm
Mel collects anotehr one:

Mel collects another one:
Drum Roll and Rimshot!

anonymous_coward
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 10 hours ago
Joined: 10/21/2016 - 12:18pm
@Toolsmith: "Euler's Equation

@Toolsmith: "Euler's Equation doesn't suggest God so much as it suggests a relationship between e, i, and pi."

Yes, but it makes no logical sense that a constant of geometry (pi), the constants of basic arithmetic, and two constants that come from algebra should all fit together in a nice tidy equation. Clearly only a Supreme Deity of unlimited wisdom and intellect could have designed the universe that way.

Melvin Udall
Offline
Last seen: 14 hours 51 min ago
Joined: 05/01/2002 - 12:01am
That elegance thing always

That elegance thing always pops up to give one pause, doesn't it?

pmconusa
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 1 hour ago
Joined: 04/20/2000 - 12:01am
Anonymous: It appears you

Anonymous: It appears you know as little about science as you do economics. A bullet traveling faster than the speed of light cannot gain mass and it certainly would not be traveling back in time anymore than if you traveled faster than the speed of light and ended up back in the womb. The Progressives have really gotten to you.

By the way, I believe scientists at Zern have discovered that things can travel faster than the speed of light by stripping two particles from an atom and then stripping them into two. Like Einstein's equation, it flies in the face of conventional wisdom because it cannot be scientifically explained and has therefore not been made public. It appeared in an announcement soon after Zern started up and has been buried ever since. At the time it was described as an unexplainable phenomenon, much like the miracles performed by religious idols over the centuries.

If something is traveling at almost the speed of light and something is launched from it, it would have to be traveling faster in order to achieve separation. It is estimated that the earth is travelling through space at about 22,000 miles per hour and in order to launch a missile into space the missile must accelerate at that speed to escape earth.

Tom C
Offline
Last seen: 6 hours 15 min ago
Joined: 01/03/2006 - 6:00pm
you cannot see it in flight

you cannot see it in flight because its speed is beyond the limits of the human eye.

Does this mean you can't hear anything that goes faster than sound?

anonymous_coward
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 10 hours ago
Joined: 10/21/2016 - 12:18pm
@pmconusa:"Anonymous: It

@pmconusa:
"Anonymous: It appears you know as little about science as you do economics. A bullet traveling faster than the speed of light cannot gain mass and it certainly would not be traveling back in time anymore than if you traveled faster than the speed of light and ended up back in the womb. The Progressives have really gotten to you.

Sorry but this deserves some sort of sarcastic rimshot.

A bullet and anything else with mass cannot be accelerated to a velocity faster than the speed of light in a vacuum. Period. This is not liberal, conservative, or socialist, it's a fact. End of story.

(It is possible to go faster than the speed of light in a medium, like glass or water, since light travels more slowly there.)

By the way, I believe scientists at Zern have discovered that things can travel faster than the speed of light by stripping two particles from an atom and then stripping them into two. Like Einstein's equation, it flies in the face of conventional wisdom because it cannot be scientifically explained and has therefore not been made public. It appeared in an announcement soon after Zern started up and has been buried ever since. At the time it was described as an unexplainable phenomenon, much like the miracles performed by religious idols over the centuries.

First of all, it's CERN, not zern.

Second, that was caused by an error in their calculation:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light_neutrino_anomaly

If something is traveling at almost the speed of light and something is launched from it, it would have to be traveling faster in order to achieve separation. It is estimated that the earth is travelling through space at about 22,000 miles per hour and in order to launch a missile into space the missile must accelerate at that speed to escape earth."

This is incorrect. If you traveling at almost the speed of light and you launch something from it, it appears to be moving quickly relative to your frame of reference, but from the stationary frame of reference, it does not exceed the speed of light, as both time and length dilation affect the projectile.

In other words, if you are traveling at .9c (that is, 90% of the speed of light) and you are carrying a stick that is 1m long, to the stationary observer, the stick appears to be 43cm. A clock carried by the traveller will appear to run 2.3 times more slowly.

If you launch a projectile at .5c, the projectile as observed by the stationary observer would appear to be moving at .97c, following the equation here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity#Composition_of_velocities

If you are interested in learning more about special relativity, I would suggest taking a college course in it. Videos and articles don't really provide the kind of interactive discussion you need to really understand it.

pmconusa
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 1 hour ago
Joined: 04/20/2000 - 12:01am
If I told you there was you

If I told you there was you would ask me to prove it. Because I know there isn't you would ask me to prove a negative, which is impossible. So my answer to you is there was, but it fell down. The same answer to is there life on any other planet in space. The old saw is, if a tree falls in the forest, is there any sound? No one can prove there was or there wasn't except for the fact that when a tree falls next to you, you hear the sound it makes. There are some things you should believe simply because all the evidence points to it.

Melvin Udall
Offline
Last seen: 14 hours 51 min ago
Joined: 05/01/2002 - 12:01am
" There are some things you

" There are some things you should believe simply because all the evidence points to it."

Wow. One wonders how many "breakthroughs" would never have come to pass if the inquisitive mind was ruled by that statement.

pmconusa
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 1 hour ago
Joined: 04/20/2000 - 12:01am
The only breakthrough you

The only breakthrough you missed was criticizing my work before you understood it or didn't bother to read it.

Melvin Udall
Offline
Last seen: 14 hours 51 min ago
Joined: 05/01/2002 - 12:01am
The statement I cited

The statement I cited separates cleanly from whatever preceded it as a free-standing assertion.

Trees, forests, whatever.

Vikingstar
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 18 hours ago
Joined: 01/04/2003 - 1:01am
"For them to be equal you

"For them to be equal you must adhere to the theory that God created everything from nothing. I would then ask you where did God come from?"

You're not only causing physicists brains to hurt worldwide, you're making theologians cry tears of blood. God didn't "come from anywhere", God is by definition the uncreated First Cause (at least in Judeo-Christian theology). And Darwinism is on its way out in evolutionary science circles, been supplanted by "punctuated equilibrium" theories. But I'm sure that you, as the Revelator of All Truth,will have easy answers to enlighten the unwashed masses with.

Unless, of course, we stubbornly refuse to Buy the Book. No soup (oops,make that "truth") for you then.

Bruce Libby
Offline
Last seen: 6 hours 54 min ago
Joined: 01/17/2006 - 7:08pm
" Revelator of All Truth,will

" Revelator of All Truth,will have easy answers to enlighten the unwashed masses with."

Great words. Yes, I did use them .

These deserve a tympani roll and huge bass drum shot !

pmconusa
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 1 hour ago
Joined: 04/20/2000 - 12:01am
Tom; At least you have an

Tom; At least you have an open mind. Sound waves discernable to the human ear travel at about 1200 feet/second. Sound waves are dissipated by the atmosphere which is why when a sound is made at a distance, it is still be heard by those close enough to have the ear detect it before it is dissipated. Those sound waves do not dissipate in a vacuum but there is no such thing as a perfect vacuum because man cannot create one, nor can he achieve absolute temperature. Close yes, but never quite there.

People, like Anonymous, Mel and Bruce are not inquisitive enough to follow through to a logical conclusion based on fact and observation, being satisfied with the answers that suit them and of course cannot defend, leading to their usual mindless banter about the messenger being deranged or not possessed of their facts without stating them and opening themselves up to challenge.

Melvin Udall
Offline
Last seen: 14 hours 51 min ago
Joined: 05/01/2002 - 12:01am
Brevity is the soul of ....

Brevity is the soul of .... oh well, forget it.

I note that you offer no refutation of my comments, other than off-handed distractions and insults. Shall I assume then that they are irrefutable? That's the ploy that you use.

Bruce Libby
Offline
Last seen: 6 hours 54 min ago
Joined: 01/17/2006 - 7:08pm
For ( numerous times) I have

For ( numerous times) I have accepted you as the one with the truth .
Hence there is no need to do anything or respond on the topic since it is always wrong when one does.

I am not sure but we might be close to being described as ilk !
AC how would you feel about being ilk?

Vikingstar
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 18 hours ago
Joined: 01/04/2003 - 1:01am
Hey, just wait a minute...if

Hey, just wait a minute...if you guys get to be ilk,then I wanna be ilk, too. Revelator of All Truth, what say you? Who gets to be ilk?

Bruce Libby
Offline
Last seen: 6 hours 54 min ago
Joined: 01/17/2006 - 7:08pm
Vikingstar

Vikingstar
You are always welcome !

pmconusa
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 1 hour ago
Joined: 04/20/2000 - 12:01am
Anonymous: In areas where

Anonymous: In areas where there are no absolutes, such as the speed of light, errors are likely to occur do to the inability to measure accurately. For example the speed of light is given as 186,000 miles per second. Is it really 186.000.00000000001 or is it 185,999.99999999999999. Like pi, it can be a non-repeating, non-ending decimal fraction. In most cases the fraction 22/7 is close enough and is much easier to remember than 3.1416 etc. etc. Your hand held calculator for example, carries it only a fixed number of digits due to the limitation of the view screen. Scientists who need even more accuracy must rely on computers. Infinity is an unknown, in both directions. It is why you cannot define the largest or smallest number of anything because all you have to do is add another zero on either side of the decimal point.

It is why you cannot convince some people of the truth, because they have stopped thinking when they arrive at an answer that suits them.

Melvin Udall
Offline
Last seen: 14 hours 51 min ago
Joined: 05/01/2002 - 12:01am
Another ah ha moment to

Another ah ha moment to disabuse us of the values given to us by progressives in academia. I wonder what values they use at MIT.

anonymous_coward
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 10 hours ago
Joined: 10/21/2016 - 12:18pm
Actually the speed of light

Actually the speed of light is precisely defined as 299,792,458 m/s.

Why? Because they changed the definition of the meter to be how far light travels in a vacuum in 1/299,792,458 seconds.

Why did they change the meter from 1/10,000,000 of the distance from the pole to the equator to be a function of the speed of light? Because the speed of light is constant, a function of the electric and magnetic constants (see Maxwell's equations for more info).

Pages

Log in to post comments