Relativity, version 2

[The Gregorian]

Except that there is evidence for the warping of space by massive objects, gravitational lensing springs to mind.

And, it's impossible for light to simply be affected by the force of gravity?

Yes, light bends around massive bodies. This is observable, got no problem with it. That in no way suggests that massive bodies bend space, let alone time.

Unless you'd like to present evidence that gravity bends time. Do tell.

 

[Alunyel]

Unless you'd like to present evidence that gravity bends time. Do tell.

It doesn't. Gravity is the result of objects with mass bending spacetime.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

[/color][/size][/size]And, it's impossible for light to simply be affected by the force of gravity?

Yes, light bends around massive bodies. This is observable, got no problem with it. That in no way suggests that massive bodies bend space, let alone time.

Unless you'd like to present evidence that gravity bends time. Do tell.

Which misses the point of evidence. Newtonian mechanics predicts that light is bent by gravity, but observations did not agree: while light is bent, it is not bent in the way predicted by Newton. On the other hand, Einstein's General Relativity does correctly predict how gravity bends light.

That, sir, is why it is evidence for general relativity (and, thus, the warping of spacetime). It's not that it predicts the same general effects, it's that it predicts exactly how big the effect is.

Now, if you can explain how the perihelion of Mercury precesses without general relativity, be my guest. But thus far, it's the only known explanation, and it's the only theory that gets it spot on.

 

[Doveaman]

The perihelion of Mercury would beg to differ.

The perihelion of Mercury is not evidence of warped space. This is just an assumption.

Peer-review is an important part of the scientific process, and serves to weed out pseudo-science.

Or rather, it serves to preserve pseudo-science.

Funny how you cited exactly none of this information. I'm curious: could you explain it yourself, without the use of cheesy Googlevideos?

Since you dismissed the video as cheesy I figured any follow up to the video would also be viewed as cheesy. I take it you are not into cheese.

The Big Bang theory is supported by a little more than just redshift . I've already mentioned the CMBR, but the distribution of elements and stellar dating are two other, independent lines of evidence that draw the same conclusion.

Without redshift big bang is busted.

Here's the real story of the big bang in a nutshell:

"Once upon a time, nothing went BANG!".

How do you explain that scientifically?

If you could cite examples of these quasar-galaxy pairs, I'll take a look.

I'm afraid I might be wasting good cheese.

High redshift quasar found in axial alignment with galaxy that possess substantially lower redshift.

Two galaxies of different redshifts, connected by a luminous bridge.

I am sure you know that any scientific claim must be falsifiable. To hold that redshift is an absolute indicator of distance must be to allow standards of evidence which will overturn that position. NGC 7603 is evidence which meets that standard, don't you think?

These are just two images of many. Big bang busted.

 

[Cabal]

Here's the real story of the big bang in a nutshell:

"Once upon a time, nothing went BANG!".

How do you explain that scientifically?

It wasn't nothing.

And it wasn't an explosion.

Please learn what the theory is before you criticise it.

 

[Doveaman]

It wasn't nothing.

And it wasn't an explosion.

Please learn what the theory is before you criticise it.

Forgive my ignorance.

Please enlighten me.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

The perihelion of Mercury is not evidence of warped space. This is just an assumption.

Do you even know how general relativity relates to Mercury? I'll give you a primer: the perihelion of Mercury precesses round the Sun, and, before Einstein, no one could explain why it moved at the rate it did: Newtonian models fell short. After Einstein formulated General Relativity, we suddenly had an explanation that accurately predicted Mercury's behaviour.

So, yes, it is evidence of General Relativity.

Or rather, it serves to preserve pseudo-science.

Yes, because it's peer-review that has led to people trying to pass Creationism or homoeopathy off as genuine science.

Since you dismissed the video as cheesy I figured any follow up to the video would also be viewed as cheesy. I take it you are not into cheese.

Which is why I asked for you to explain it in your owns words. I'll accept a video if it was filmed at, say, TED, but cheesy does not an argument make.

Without redshift big bang is busted.

Here's the real story of the big bang in a nutshell:

"Once upon a time, nothing went BANG!".

How do you explain that scientifically?

You may as well ask an evolutionary biologist to scientifically explain "If we came from chimps, why are there still monkeys???".

Simple answer: that's not what the theory states. That's a textbook example of a strawman.

As Cabal rightly said, please learn what the theory is before you criticise it.

I'm afraid I might be wasting good cheese.

High redshift quasar found in axial alignment with galaxy that possess substantially lower redshift.

Two galaxies of different redshifts, connected by a luminous bridge.

Which presumes that all objects are the same distance from us, and are indeed connected by the 'luminous bridge'. Can you verify either assumption?

My guess: pure coincidence. Given the staggering amount of celestial bodies out there, is it so surprising that two of them appear within one second of arc of each other?

Our discussion has been done before. Read through this thread (it's only four pages ). Once you get past TS's incorrect use of the phrase 'ad hominem', you might get your questions answered.

I am sure you know that any scientific claim must be falsifiable. To hold that redshift is an absolute indicator of distance must be to allow standards of evidence which will overturn that position.

Agreed. A single, genuine counter-example is all that's required to disprove even the most well-evidenced of theories. Fossil bunnies in the pre-Cambrian, and all that.

NGC 7603 is evidence which meets that standard, don't you think?

It's intellectually dishonest plagiarise to plagiarise another website, don't you think?

Unless, of course, you are indeed Eric Flesch, in which case I hastily retract my previous remark .[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]

 

[The Gregorian]

Now, if you can explain how the perihelion of Mercury precesses without general relativity, be my guest. But thus far, it's the only known explanation, and it's the only theory that gets it spot on.

oh my goodness! Newton was off by 43 seconds of arc per century! Predicting only 5557 seconds of arc instead of 5600!? Stone him! He was off by 0.7%! As I said before, Einstein's numbers are more accurate. That doesn't mean he can make up whatever new explanation he wants.


On the topic of the big bang:


1: Conservation of angular momentum.
2: There are plenty celestial bodies rotating counter to one another. On a local scale, how many planets/moons in our own solar system move counter to the rest of us?

Just saying... if an explosion created our solar system, all debris would be rotating in the same direction.

 

[The Gregorian]

Forgive my ignorance.

Please enlighten me.

No see... It was all the mass in the universe compressed to an infinitely small point, smaller than a single atom. Keep in mind, if the mass of the earth were compressed to the size of a pea, it would have the density of a black hole. And we're talking the mass of all the black holes in the universe... along with all other material in the universe... condensed smaller than an atom (mind you... that is even smaller than a pea).

So... we take this infinitely dense object... and... with no outside forces or stimuli... one day it just... defies special relativity and all of Hawking's work, and all this matter is released with enough force and speed to not instantly get sucked back in due to the gravity.

See... we have evidence for every law of physics being completely disregarded because the universe is expanding. And, that's enough evidence for me.

 

[Doveaman]

No see... It was all the mass in the universe compressed to an infinitely small point, smaller than a single atom. Keep in mind, if the mass of the earth were compressed to the size of a pea, it would have the density of a black hole. And we're talking the mass of all the black holes in the universe... along with all other material in the universe... condensed smaller than an atom (mind you... that is even smaller than a pea).

So... we take this infinitely dense object... and... with no outside forces or stimuli... one day it just... defies special relativity and all of Hawking's work, and all this matter is released with enough force and speed to not instantly get sucked back in due to the gravity.

See... we have evidence for every law of physics being completely disregarded because the universe is expanding. And, that's enough evidence for me.

Sounds more to me like an infinite amount faith and not science. But, my faith is not that strong .

Woe is me, for I am undone.

 

[VirOptimus]

No see... It was all the mass in the universe compressed to an infinitely small point, smaller than a single atom. Keep in mind, if the mass of the earth were compressed to the size of a pea, it would have the density of a black hole. And we're talking the mass of all the black holes in the universe... along with all other material in the universe... condensed smaller than an atom (mind you... that is even smaller than a pea).

So... we take this infinitely dense object... and... with no outside forces or stimuli... one day it just... defies special relativity and all of Hawking's work, and all this matter is released with enough force and speed to not instantly get sucked back in due to the gravity.

See... we have evidence for every law of physics being completely disregarded because the universe is expanding. And, that's enough evidence for me.

*sigh*

This is a strawman of course.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

oh my goodness! Newton was off by 43 seconds of arc per century! Predicting only 5557 seconds of arc instead of 5600!? Stone him! He was off by 0.7%!

Indeed, which is a lot. Oh, but wait, was this meant to be an argumentum ad ridiculum? You'll have to try harder than that to troll this forum .

As I said before, Einstein's numbers are more accurate. That doesn't mean he can make up whatever new explanation he wants.

Actually, it does. His is the only explanation we have that fits the data. Thus, his is the most accurate theory that explains celestial motion. Protest all you want, but thems the facts.

On the topic of the big bang:


1: Conservation of angular momentum.
2: There are plenty celestial bodies rotating counter to one another. On a local scale, how many planets/moons in our own solar system move counter to the rest of us?

Just saying... if an explosion created our solar system, all debris would be rotating in the same direction.

A glancing blow by something heavy is all that's required to reverse the spin of an object. Have you never seen a game of pool?

No see... It was all the mass in the universe compressed to an infinitely small point, smaller than a single atom. Keep in mind, if the mass of the earth were compressed to the size of a pea, it would have the density of a black hole. And we're talking the mass of all the black holes in the universe... along with all other material in the universe... condensed smaller than an atom (mind you... that is even smaller than a pea).

So... we take this infinitely dense object... and... with no outside forces or stimuli... one day it just... defies special relativity and all of Hawking's work, and all this matter is released with enough force and speed to not instantly get sucked back in due to the gravity.

See... we have evidence for every law of physics being completely disregarded because the universe is expanding. And, that's enough evidence for me.

Strawmen do not an argument make. Please hang up, and try again.

To recap: your last two posts were basically an argumentum ad ridiculum, a non sequitur, and a lengthy strawman. Would you like to do a Godwin while you're at it?

 

[Chesterton]

To recap: your last two posts were basically an argumentum ad ridiculum, a non sequitur, and a lengthy strawman. Would you like to do a Godwin while you're at it?

"Relativity, sir, is worse than Hitler."

 

[Doveaman]

Do you even know how general relativity relates to Mercury? I'll give you a primer: the perihelion of Mercury precesses round the Sun, and, before Einstein, no one could explain why it moved at the rate it did: Newtonian models fell short. After Einstein formulated General Relativity, we suddenly had an explanation that accurately predicted Mercury's behaviour.

So, yes, it is evidence of General Relativity.

What do you mean by “predicted”? Do you mean he predicted the rate it would move before it began to move? Or was it that he created a mathematical equation that fit really well with how he already knew it moved?

Was it as if he saw a 4 floating in space and worked out a mathematical equation that fit really well with the 4? Like 2 + 2 = 4, or 2 x 2 = 4, or 6 – 2 = 4? I’m not sure how this is considered a prediction since the 4 was already there. But, I was never good at math, so maybe my math is off.

Yes, because it's peer-review that has led to people trying to pass Creationism or homoeopathy off as genuine science.

I think peer-review encourages it’s readers to rely on faith and not science.

Which is why I asked for you to explain it in your owns words. I'll accept a video if it was filmed at, say, TED, but cheesy does not an argument make.

I guess those many videos on the National geographic channel promoting fictitious big bangs, dark matter, dark energy, dark fabric and dark holes are not cheesy? Yeah, right.

You may as well ask an evolutionary biologist to scientifically explain "If we came from chimps, why are there still monkeys???".

I consider that a legitimate question.

Simple answer: that's not what the theory states. That's a textbook example of a strawman.

As Cabal rightly said, please learn what the theory is before you criticise it.

What more is there to learn about it?

The theory states there was a bang. The theory does not know what went bang or how it went bang, but they are convince it went bang despite all the evidence to the contrary, such as the images below.

Which presumes that all objects are the same distance from us,

No...Which concludes that some objects of different redshift are the same distance from us based on observable data.

High redshift quasar found in axial alignment with galaxy that possesses substantially lower redshift.

and are indeed connected by the 'luminous bridge'.

No...It concludes that some objects of different redshift are connected by luminous bridges based on observable data.

Two galaxies of different redshifts, connected by a luminous bridge.

Can you verify either assumption?

Those are your assumptions, not mine.

My conclusion has been confirmed by the images above, and many others like them, which you dismissed as “pure coincidence”.

My guess: pure coincidence.

At least you are honest enough to admit you are guessing. I think that about sums up your argument. The big bang theory is just a big guess.

Given the staggering amount of celestial bodies out there, is it so surprising that two of them appear within one second of arc of each other?

Was that another guess?

They are many more images that tell the same story as the images above, with scientific explanations that are not based on guess work, but I am not going to flood this thread with them.

The images above present observable evidence of objects of different redshift in close proximity to each other and to us which goes contrary to the redshift/big bang theory that says this can never be.

Our discussion has been done before. Read through this thread (it's only four pages ). Once you get past TS's incorrect use of the phrase 'ad hominem', you might get your questions answered.

There are no answers to the big bang question, there are only assumptions.

Agreed. A single, genuine counter-example is all that's required to disprove even the most well-evidenced of theories.

I don’t think you agree based on your rejection of observable data which you dismiss as "pure coincidence". Such data and the many others like them disprove the redshift/big bang theory, but you don’t agree.

It's intellectually dishonest plagiarise to plagiarise another website, don't you think?

Unless, of course, you are indeed Eric Flesch, in which case I hastily retract my previous remark .

Oh, dear! I forgot to include the quotation marks. How silly of me.

What I find interesting about many astrophysicists/cosmologists is that what they can't observe – big bang, dark matter, dark energy, dark fabric, and dark holes – they believe. But, what they do observe – the pairing and connection of objects having different redshift – they don’t believe.

It seems to me that scientific observations or lack thereof has become irrelevant in favor of wild guesses and exaggerated assumptions. All that is required is faith.

Tell you what, until you are able to come up with a better and more scientifically accurate rebuttal to the pairing and connection of objects of different redshift I will conclude that all you can do is guess.

In the mean time, and I also believe through out all time, big bang busted.

 

[Alunyel]

I think peer-review encourages it’s readers to rely on faith and not science.

Then I think you don't know what peer review is.

I consider that a legitimate question.

Then you clearly don't understand evolution. That question is a PRATT. We didn't evolve from apes anymore than great danes evolved from dogs. We are apes, just as great danes are dogs. You wouldn't ask "If great danes evolved from dogs, then why are there still dachshunds?"

What more is there to learn about it?

The theory states there was a bang. The theory does not know what went bang or how it went bang, but they are convince it went bang despite all the evidence to the contrary, such as the images below.

You could try learning that the theory doesn't state there was a bang? It was an expansion of spacetime, not an explosion, there was no "bang".

 

[Doveaman]

Then I think you don't know what peer review is.

I was referring to articles in Scientific Journals that have been peer reviewed.

The way I see it, if every legitimate scientists has to submit to peer review standard, then lots of faith is required, because many of the reviewers over there believe in a lot of science fiction.

Then you clearly don't understand evolution.

I clearly don't believe evolution.

You could try learning that the theory doesn't state there was a bang?

I guess the theory has been modified again. That's the problem with flawed theories, you have to keep modifying them to make sense of them but they never makes sense, so you modify them again and again and again. Eventually, you end up with a big bang without a bang.

It was an expansion of spacetime, not an explosion, there was no "bang".

Then why not just call it the "big expansion"?

 

[Cabal]

I was referring to articles in Scientific Journals that have been peer reviewed.

The way I see it, if every legitimate scientists has to submit to peer review standard, then lots of faith is required, because many of the reviewers over there believe in a lot of science fiction.

In your opinion. And given that you haven't even the faintest notion what relativity involves, I'm not surprised it seems like scifi to you.

I clearly don't believe evolution.

I'm not surprised, if you insist on believing strawmen instead of the actual theory.

I guess the theory has been modified again.

No, it hasn't. You just need to keep up - or establish a basic knowledge of the theory in the first place.

That's the problem with flawed theories, you have to keep modifying them to make sense of them but they never makes sense, so you modify them again and again and again.

Completely untrue.

I'm sure you don't like people who have no knowledge of the Bible telling you what to think about it - why not extend the same courtesy to those who appreciate science, let alone those who actually work in it?

Eventually, you end up with a big bang without a bang.

Then why not just call it the "big expansion"?

It was dubbed the big bang over twenty years after the theory was first devised. And names aren't always literal descriptions in science - there's a particle whose quark content is "up-strange-bottom", but don't worry, it's not what you think.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Long post. Again. So... much... wrongness...

What do you mean by “predicted”? Do you mean he predicted the rate it would move before it began to move? Or was it that he created a mathematical equation that fit really well with how he already knew it moved?

He created a mathematical model, but not for the purpose of solving the Mercury problem. General relativity is an extension of special relativity, and is Einstein's way of generalising the latter to agree with Newtonian gravitation.

And by 'predicted', I mean 'You can take the equations of General Relativity and create a mathematically model of Mercury'. That's what a prediction is: using your hypothesis or theory to say something about the real world, and then going out and seeing if that really is how the real world is.

This is mathematics we're talking here. There's not exactly any room to fudge the numbers. Either General Relativity explains the perihelion of Mercury (thus acquiring a major line of evidence to support it), or it doesn't. Lo and behold, it does.

Was it as if he saw a 4 floating in space and worked out a mathematical equation that fit really well with the 4? Like 2 + 2 = 4, or 2 x 2 = 4, or 6 – 2 = 4? I’m not sure how this is considered a prediction since the 4 was already there. But, I was never good at math, so maybe my math is off.

Scientific nomenclature doesn't always coincide with the layman's. A 'theory' in science is something very different to a 'theory' in everyday speech (namely, the former is a testable, evidence explanation of events, while the latter is a (usually educated) guess).

I think peer-review encourages it’s readers to rely on faith and not science.

Do explain.

I guess those many videos on the National geographic channel promoting fictitious big bangs, dark matter, dark energy, dark fabric and dark holes are not cheesy? Yeah, right.

What does the National Geographic channel have to do with anything? Are you seriously defending your use of cheesy videos by pointing to a third party and going "See?! They do it too!"?

I consider that a legitimate question.

Then you don't understand the theory of evolution. Specifically, you fail to grasp that evolution doesn't say that humans came from chimps. Thus, the question is moot.

It's like asking, "If gravity says everything goes down, why don't Australians fall off the Earth?". It's an interesting question, but a moot one: gravity (or rather, the theory thereof) doesn't say everything 'goes down'.
At best, such questions expose the askers lack of understanding of the thing they're asking about, which helps people to better educate them.

What more is there to learn about it?

Since you've yet to get anything about it even remotely right... I'd say a lot.

The theory states there was a bang.

Nope.

The theory does not know what went bang

Nope.

or how it went bang,

Nope.

but they are convince it went bang

Nope.

despite all the evidence to the contrary, such as the images below.

Which you've yet to show is actually evidence against the Big Bang theory.

No...Which concludes that some objects of different redshift are the same distance from us based on observable data.

Which data, precisely? Can you demonstrate that the objects in question are indeed equidistant?

No...It concludes that some objects of different redshift are connected by luminous bridges based on observable data.

Which data, preciesly? Can you demonstrate that the luminous bridge does indeed connect all the objects in question?

My conclusion has been confirmed by the images above, and many others like them, which you dismissed as “pure coincidence”.

I hardly dismissed them. Anyone with a grasp of statistics could tell you that such an arrangement of objects is not proof that they are equidistant. The fact that they occupy the same solid angle of sky is just a curious phenomenon.

Next you'll be telling me the Moon and Sun are the same size because they take up roughly the same area of sky...

At least you are honest enough to admit you are guessing. I think that about sums up your argument. The big bang theory is just a big guess.

It's interesting you attack my choice of words, rather than the argument itself. Perhaps I should make myself more explicit:

"My theory is that the images do not show equidistant objects, but rather objects of varying distance in the same patch of sky".

Remember what we said about scientific nomenclature? Don't go thinking 'theory' means 'guess'...

Was that another guess?

It was a rhetorical question. Do the maths yourself, it's not hard.

They are many more images that tell the same story as the images above, with scientific explanations that are not based on guess work, but I am not going to flood this thread with them.

The images above present observable evidence of objects of different redshift in close proximity to each other and to us which goes contrary to the redshift/big bang theory that says this can never be.
There are no answers to the big bang question, there are only assumptions.
I don’t think you agree based on your rejection of observable data which you dismiss as "pure coincidence". Such data and the many others like them disprove the redshift/big bang theory, but you don’t agree.

Indeed I don't, because you've offered no evidence whatsoever that the objects are equidistant.

Oh, dear! I forgot to include the quotation marks. How silly of me.

Indeed. There are rules against plagiarism, both in this forum and in the legal system.

What I find interesting about many astrophysicists/cosmologists is that what they can't observe – big bang, dark matter, dark energy, dark fabric, and dark holes – they believe. But, what they do observe – the pairing and connection of objects having different redshift – they don’t believe.

Should that surprise you? Scientists believe what the evidence tells them, not what their own, fleshy eyes tell them.

It seems to me that scientific observations or lack thereof has become irrelevant in favor of wild guesses and exaggerated assumptions. All that is required is faith.

Uhuh. I suppose you believe it takes more faith to be an atheist as well, right? Bananas are the atheist's nightmare? That there are no transitional fossils?

Stop me when I get one wrong.

Tell you what, until you are able to come up with a better and more scientifically accurate rebuttal to the pairing and connection of objects of different redshift I will conclude that all you can do is guess.

Which is strange, because I've done the exact opposite of guess: I've rebutted your claim with a simple statistical argument. Nothing more scientific than cold, hard numbers.

 

[Doveaman]

Which data, precisely? Can you demonstrate that the objects in question are indeed equidistant?

Which data, preciesly? Can you demonstrate that the luminous bridge does indeed connect all the objects in question?

I often wonder when one ask to demonstrate a cosmic phenomenon what do they really mean.

Can you demonstrate big bang?

Can you demonstrate redshift equals distant/velocity?

 

[Doveaman]

In your opinion. And given that you haven't even the faintest notion what relativity involves, I'm not surprised it seems like scifi to you.

If you know an apple is red and someone told you it‘s blue, would that change the fact that it is red? It will still be red, and will continue to be red even though you may not have the faintest notion what blue is.

Since you know the apple is red, then, to you, anyone who says it is blue would be talking fiction.

I'm not surprised, if you insist on believing strawmen instead of the actual theory.

I’ve seen strawmen before. There's plenty of evidence for them.

Have you ever seen space or time in a bent position?

No, it hasn't. You just need to keep up - or establish a basic knowledge of the theory in the first place.

The basic knowledge of the theory is that there is no first place. Can you explain what led to the expansion of the universe?

Completely untrue.

I'm sure you don't like people who have no knowledge of the Bible telling you what to think about it –

Well, I don’t like it, but it still happens. I just ignore them.

why not extend the same courtesy to those who appreciate science, let alone those who actually work in it?

I do appreciate science. I am fascinated by science, just not flawed science. And I know of many people who work in flawed science. Some of them are my friends, and I do appreciate them, but not their science.

Some of them don’t appreciate my religion, either, but they do appreciate me.

It was dubbed the big bang over twenty years after the theory was first devised. And names aren't always literal descriptions in science - there's a particle whose quark content is "up-strange-bottom", but don't worry, it's not what you think.

Then what is it?