Notices
Results 1 to 25 of 25
Like Tree5Likes
  • 2 Post By Daecon
  • 1 Post By Dywyddyr
  • 1 Post By Cogito Ergo Sum
  • 1 Post By Dywyddyr

Thread: keeping with the laws of physics to explain all things

  1. #1 keeping with the laws of physics to explain all things 
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    2720'06.53"N 8232'48.35"W
    Posts
    176
    I have never been a believer in the big bang theory. If there was a singularity that exploded, what force would have caused it to explode? Using the Doppler effect to prove an expanding universe might not be effective because the light traversing inter-galactic space my have the blue end of the spectrum filtered by debris, gravity and even the light emitted from our own star? As for black holes, could be a large mass of only the heaviest of elements, spinning so fast that the lighter elements get thrown out to the edge of it's gravity well creating a friction filled boundary which transmits it rotation outward through the galaxy. It just seems to me that too many of these phenomena are explained by abandoning the known laws of physics.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Professor Daecon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    1,274
    The Big Bang theory is the best idea we've got so far, based on the observable evidence.

    If it was against the laws of physics, we'd be using a different theory.


    RedPanda and Cogito Ergo Sum like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,658
    Quote Originally Posted by keeseguy View Post
    It just seems to me that too many of these phenomena are explained by abandoning the known laws of physics.
    What arrant nonsense: they are explained by using the known laws of physics.

    On the other hand, as an example of something "explained by abandoning known laws" try this:
    As for black holes, could be a large mass of only the heaviest of elements, spinning so fast that the lighter elements get thrown out to the edge of it's gravity well creating a friction filled boundary which transmits it rotation outward through the galaxy.
    DogLady likes this.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Professor Daecon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    1,274
    I just got your name. It's the Hyrulian version of Batman, isn't it?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,658
    Quote Originally Posted by Daecon View Post
    I just got your name. It's the Hyrulian version of Batman, isn't it?
    Whut?
    I had to Google "Hyrulian", apparently something to do with Legend of Zelda: never played it it, never seen it, wouldn't recognise it if I tripped over it.
    FYI "Dywyddyr" predates Zelda by at least 10 years.
    Although the Batman connection is flattering...
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    2720'06.53"N 8232'48.35"W
    Posts
    176
    I lean more towards the concept that the universe had no beginning. Perhaps it is like the world around us, always evolving. Death and rebirth. If a black hole was a singularity, could it be destroyed and leave behind debris we would have encountered?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    2720'06.53"N 8232'48.35"W
    Posts
    176
    I do believe Einstein believed in a cyclical universe. Because death and rebirth are observable truths, big bang just sounds like rubbish every time I hear it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,658
    Quote Originally Posted by keeseguy View Post
    I lean more towards the concept that the universe had no beginning.
    Why?
    What evidence leads you to this belief?

    If a black hole was a singularity, could it be destroyed and leave behind debris we would have encountered?
    What?
    What "debris" would you get from a singularity?
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,658
    Quote Originally Posted by keeseguy View Post
    I do believe Einstein believed in a cyclical universe.
    No: he considered it.
    Slight difference.
    oscillating universe theory briefly considered by Albert Einstein in 1930 theorized a universe following an eternal series of oscillations, each beginning with a big bang and ending with a big crunch
    Note that the Big Bang is still in there.

    Because death and rebirth are observable truths, big bang just sounds like rubbish every time I hear it.
    Um, doesn't a "birth" mean that there's a beginning? (Even if it's only at the start of each cycle).
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,493
    Quote Originally Posted by keeseguy View Post
    I have never been a believer in the big bang theory.
    And we should care because ?

    If there was a singularity that exploded,
    That isn't what the big bang theory says, so I wouldn't worry about it.

    Using the Doppler effect to prove an expanding universe might not be effective because the light traversing inter-galactic space my have the blue end of the spectrum filtered by debris, gravity and even the light emitted from our own star?
    There is a big difference between red-shift and filtering. (And it isn't the Doppler effect.)

    If you shift the frequencies then the distinctive patterns of lines and frequencies in the spectrum will all be moved. If you filter the light, then some frequencies will be removed and others will be there unchanged.

    As for black holes, could be a large mass of only the heaviest of elements, spinning so fast that the lighter elements get thrown out to the edge of it's gravity well creating a friction filled boundary which transmits it rotation outward through the galaxy.
    Sorry, I can't make any sense of that.

    It just seems to me that too many of these phenomena are explained by abandoning the known laws of physics.
    Perhaps if you knew what the big bang theory was about, what the evidence for it is, and a little bit of basic physics, then you might not have so many problems with it.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Moderator Moderator Cogito Ergo Sum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    2,507
    Member keeseguy, it should be noted that an introduction containing speculations that go against modern cosmology are not well received.
    Make no mistake, we are certainly open to new ideas (that may or may not challenge previous ideas). However, it should be noted that the Big Bang theory, as any other scientific theory, has heaps of empirical and theoretical support and it takes more than speculations to challenge it.

    It is advisable to read this thread: The basis of modern cosmology
    I hope it enriches your knowledge.
    keeseguy likes this.
    "The only safe rule is to dispute only with those of your acquaintance of whom you know that they possess sufficient intelligence and self-respect not to advance absurdities; to appeal to reason and not to authority, and to listen to reason and yield to it; and, finally, to be willing to accept reason even from an opponent, and to be just enough to bear being proved to be in the wrong."

    ~ Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Being Right: 38 Ways to Win an Argument (1831), Stratagem XXXVIII.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,493
    Quote Originally Posted by keeseguy View Post
    I lean more towards the concept that the universe had no beginning.
    Quite possibly.

    Perhaps it is like the world around us, always evolving.
    And the big bang model describes the evolution of the universe.

    If a black hole was a singularity, could it be destroyed and leave behind debris we would have encountered?
    No.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,493
    Quote Originally Posted by keeseguy View Post
    Because death and rebirth are observable truths, big bang just sounds like rubbish every time I hear it.
    That is a complete non-sequitur.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,658
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by keeseguy View Post
    Because death and rebirth are observable truths, big bang just sounds like rubbish every time I hear it.
    That is a complete non-sequitur.
    Pfft. Leaves turn brown in the Autumn.
    That surely proves the BB.
    RedPanda likes this.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    2720'06.53"N 8232'48.35"W
    Posts
    176
    Our galaxie is scheduled to collide with Andromeda, no? What will happen when the super massive blackholes merge? Will they (it) double it's gravitational effect on the space around it? What will happen to the surrounding gallaxies?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    4,422
    What does this have to do with your other unsupported claims and assertions?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,658
    Here we go,
    Step 1) Post nonsense and deride science.
    Step 2) Ignore replies and post more.
    Step 3) Persist in ignoring replies and simply add more questions.
    Above all else don't provide ANY support for the initial (or subsequent) claims.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    2720'06.53"N 8232'48.35"W
    Posts
    176
    I just don't understand how I can see galaxies that are hundreds of time more massive then our own. That are supposidly moving away from eachother, yet we as small as we are are going to crash into another meager body. Why hasn't the universe devoured itself by now?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Moderator Moderator Cogito Ergo Sum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    2,507
    Quote Originally Posted by keeseguy View Post
    I just don't understand how I can see galaxies that are hundreds of time more massive then our own. That are supposidly moving away from eachother, yet we as small as we are are going to crash into another meager body. Why hasn't the universe devoured itself by now?

    If I am not mistaken, the space itself between the galaxies is stretching, rather than galaxies rushing away from one another due to expansion.
    The collapse of the universe does not occur due to dark energy that 'overrides' the force of gravity on large scales[verification needed].
    About the alleged collision between our own Galaxy and Andromeda, I cannot state something meaningful.

    Wikipedia should have some articles that might answer your questions.
    In the meantime, could you please elucidate the link between posts #15 and #18 and your O.P.?
    "The only safe rule is to dispute only with those of your acquaintance of whom you know that they possess sufficient intelligence and self-respect not to advance absurdities; to appeal to reason and not to authority, and to listen to reason and yield to it; and, finally, to be willing to accept reason even from an opponent, and to be just enough to bear being proved to be in the wrong."

    ~ Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Being Right: 38 Ways to Win an Argument (1831), Stratagem XXXVIII.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,493
    Quote Originally Posted by keeseguy View Post
    Our galaxie is scheduled to collide with Andromeda, no? What will happen when the super massive blackholes merge?
    It is very unlikely that any stars will directly collide and extremely unlikely that the black holes will come close enough to merge.

    Will they (it) double it's gravitational effect on the space around it?
    They merged black hole would (obviously) have the sum of the masses of the two black holes and, therefore, the sum of the gravitational effects.

    What will happen to the surrounding gallaxies?
    This would be a very dramatic even releasing large amounts of energy so the nearby galaxies would see something almost unique.

    But what does any of this have to do with your original point?
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,493
    Quote Originally Posted by keeseguy View Post
    I just don't understand how I can see galaxies that are hundreds of time more massive then our own.
    Why not? (Actually, I have no idea if there are galaxies hundreds of time more massive than ours. But if there are, I can't see any obvious problem with that.)

    That are supposidly moving away from eachother, yet we as small as we are are going to crash into another meager body.
    The galaxies in our local cluster are all orbiting around one another. This means they travel in complicated (chaotic) paths which leads to occasional collisions.

    Other clusters are far enough away that they are receding due to cosmological expansion.

    Why hasn't the universe devoured itself by now?
    Because it is expanding?
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,810
    Quote Originally Posted by keeseguy View Post
    I have never been a believer in the big bang theory. If there was a singularity that exploded, what force would have caused it to explode? Using the Doppler effect to prove an expanding universe might not be effective because the light traversing inter-galactic space my have the blue end of the spectrum filtered by debris, gravity and even the light emitted from our own star? As for black holes, could be a large mass of only the heaviest of elements, spinning so fast that the lighter elements get thrown out to the edge of it's gravity well creating a friction filled boundary which transmits it rotation outward through the galaxy. It just seems to me that too many of these phenomena are explained by abandoning the known laws of physics.
    You're busy demonstrating that you don't know what the known laws of physics are.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,658
    Quote Originally Posted by keeseguy View Post
    Why hasn't the universe devoured itself by now?
    Because it had a mid-morning snack and isn't hungry yet.
    Are you intending to keep trolling?
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    KJW
    KJW is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    1,134
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by keeseguy View Post
    Will they (it) double it's gravitational effect on the space around it?
    They merged black hole would (obviously) have the sum of the masses of the two black holes and, therefore, the sum of the gravitational effects.
    ... but far from the collision, the gravitation will be more-or-less the same after the collision as before the collision.
    There are no paradoxes in relativity, just people's misunderstandings of it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,172
    MODERATOR ACTION : I think this is much more suitable for the "Personal Theories & Alternative Ideas" section than it is for "Introductions". Moved.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. laws of physics
    By lilypad in forum Introductions
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: December 10th, 2013, 08:42 AM
  2. Replies: 19
    Last Post: August 29th, 2012, 02:43 AM
  3. Will there be any more laws of physics?
    By emygirl691 in forum Physics
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: August 6th, 2012, 06:22 PM
  4. Replies: 10
    Last Post: May 29th, 2007, 07:37 AM
  5. Laws of Physics
    By Terry Arceneaux in forum Physics
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: October 11th, 2006, 07:32 AM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •