| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Ken S. Tucker" |
| Date: |
06 Aug 2005 03:19:07 PM |
| Object: |
Bjoern BBT flops yet again. |
This was posted in Talk Origins,
"Request for review and approval: Big Bang FAQ"
By Bjoern, got no response, gee wonder why...
I think the lack of response to the BBT article is because
it's largely superseded by more advanced thinking, specifically,
Golowich's et al "Gravitational scattering of quantum particles".
Therein they show how to find the "red-shift" is proportional
to the density of the universe, and find a basis for the cosmological
constant, confirmed by General Relativity and Quantum Theory.
The paper shows us how the BBT and expansion are only apparent
when a rush to judgement is done, which itself is an important
lesson.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Bjoern BBT flops yet again. |
17 Aug 2005 11:19:20 PM |
|
|
How does the causal horizon figure in????????
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Sefton" |
|
| Title: Re: Bjoern BBT flops yet again. |
07 Aug 2005 11:59:25 AM |
|
|
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
This was posted in Talk Origins,
"Request for review and approval: Big Bang FAQ"
By Bjoern, got no response, gee wonder why...
I think the lack of response to the BBT article is because
it's largely superseded by more advanced thinking, specifically,
Golowich's et al "Gravitational scattering of quantum particles".
Therein they show how to find the "red-shift" is proportional
to the density of the universe, and find a basis for the cosmological
constant, confirmed by General Relativity and Quantum Theory.
The paper shows us how the BBT and expansion are only apparent
when a rush to judgement is done, which itself is an important
lesson.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
Yes.
Space has density.
But the density is moving in all directions
simultaneously, and this determines Inertia
(and gravity).
John
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: Bjoern BBT flops yet again. |
08 Aug 2005 04:54:15 AM |
|
|
John Sefton wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
This was posted in Talk Origins,
"Request for review and approval: Big Bang FAQ"
By Bjoern, got no response, gee wonder why...
Liar. As everyone can freely see using Google Groups, I got several
responses. I also had nice e-mail conversation with Ned Wright and
Ryan Scranton, both cosmologists, about this.
I think the lack of response to the BBT article is because
it's largely superseded by more advanced thinking, specifically,
Golowich's et al "Gravitational scattering of quantum particles".
Therein they show how to find the "red-shift" is proportional
to the density of the universe, and find a basis for the cosmological
constant, confirmed by General Relativity and Quantum Theory.
The paper shows us how the BBT and expansion are only apparent
when a rush to judgement is done, which itself is an important
lesson.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
Yes.
Yes to all the above? So you support Golowich's proposal? Well, then
it should be no problem for you to provide a reference to the relevant
paper - which Ken didn't bother to do. I wonder why...
Space has density.
More to the point, matter and energy in space has density.
But the density is moving in all directions
simultaneously, and this determines Inertia
(and gravity).
Word salad.
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
| User: "Schoenfeld" |
|
| Title: Re: Bjoern BBT flops yet again. |
08 Aug 2005 09:57:15 AM |
|
|
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
John Sefton wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
This was posted in Talk Origins,
"Request for review and approval: Big Bang FAQ"
By Bjoern, got no response, gee wonder why...
Liar. As everyone can freely see using Google Groups, I got several
responses. I also had nice e-mail conversation with Ned Wright and
Ryan Scranton, both cosmologists, about this.
I think the lack of response to the BBT article is because
it's largely superseded by more advanced thinking, specifically,
Golowich's et al "Gravitational scattering of quantum particles".
Therein they show how to find the "red-shift" is proportional
to the density of the universe, and find a basis for the cosmological
constant, confirmed by General Relativity and Quantum Theory.
The paper shows us how the BBT and expansion are only apparent
when a rush to judgement is done, which itself is an important
lesson.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
Yes.
Yes to all the above? So you support Golowich's proposal? Well, then
it should be no problem for you to provide a reference to the relevant
paper - which Ken didn't bother to do. I wonder why...
Space has density.
More to the point, matter and energy in space has density.
Wrong. Space has intrinsic non-zero energy density by mere consequence
of the uncertainty principle. I thought you said you were qualified.
But the density is moving in all directions
simultaneously, and this determines Inertia
(and gravity).
Word salad.
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: Bjoern BBT flops yet again. |
09 Aug 2005 05:12:18 AM |
|
|
Schoenfeld wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
John Sefton wrote:
[snip]
Space has density.
More to the point, matter and energy in space has density.
Wrong.
No, right.
Space has intrinsic non-zero energy density by mere consequence
of the uncertainty principle.
Err, the density you talk about here is, *as you yourself say
in this sentence*, the density of *energy*, not the density of space.
Thanks for making my point for me.
I thought you said you were qualified.
Well, I said this because I am.
[snip]
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ken S. Tucker" |
|
| Title: Re: Bjoern BBT flops yet again. |
08 Aug 2005 02:21:59 PM |
|
|
Schoenfeld wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
John Sefton wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
This was posted in Talk Origins,
"Request for review and approval: Big Bang FAQ"
By Bjoern, got no response, gee wonder why...
Liar. As everyone can freely see using Google Groups, I got several
responses. I also had nice e-mail conversation with Ned Wright and
Ryan Scranton, both cosmologists, about this.
I think the lack of response to the BBT article is because
it's largely superseded by more advanced thinking, specifically,
Golowich's et al "Gravitational scattering of quantum particles".
Therein they show how to find the "red-shift" is proportional
to the density of the universe, and find a basis for the cosmological
constant, confirmed by General Relativity and Quantum Theory.
The paper shows us how the BBT and expansion are only apparent
when a rush to judgement is done, which itself is an important
lesson.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
Yes.
Yes to all the above? So you support Golowich's proposal? Well, then
it should be no problem for you to provide a reference to the relevant
paper - which Ken didn't bother to do. I wonder why...
AJP 1989, it's a famous paper Bjeorn missed again.
Space has density.
More to the point, matter and energy in space has density.
Wrong. Space has intrinsic non-zero energy density by mere consequence
of the uncertainty principle. I thought you said you were qualified.
Bjoern uses 1980 cosmology, and 25 years
of bandaids, and ear wax.
As I pointed out, the experts say BBT is dead.
Ken
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Bjoern BBT flops yet again. |
10 Aug 2005 08:24:14 AM |
|
|
As I pointed out in the meantime, the cosmological model I use
originated in about 1995 and is accepted by virtually all cosmologists.
So would you please retract your assertions? And would you please tell
me who these "experts" who say that the BBT is dead are? Provide some
names, please.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ken S. Tucker" |
|
| Title: Re: Bjoern BBT flops yet again. |
11 Aug 2005 10:13:53 AM |
|
|
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
Schoenfeld wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
John Sefton wrote:
[snip]
Space has density.
More to the point, matter and energy in space has density.
Wrong.
No, right.
Space has intrinsic non-zero energy density by mere consequence
of the uncertainty principle.
Err, the density you talk about here is, *as you yourself say
in this sentence*, the density of *energy*, not the density of space.
Thanks for making my point for me.
I thought you said you were qualified.
Well, I said this because I am.
No Bjoern you're not qualified not even close.
The Shapiro effect is vital to understanding light and gravity,
I had to explain it to you a few months ago. Now you claim
to be an expert, that proves you Bjoern are a QUACK.
Ned Wright also has serious problems understanding GR
and cosmology, as you do, but he's your hero, good start
to dead career.
Ken
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: Bjoern BBT flops yet again. |
11 Aug 2005 11:08:11 AM |
|
|
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
Schoenfeld wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
John Sefton wrote:
[snip]
Space has density.
More to the point, matter and energy in space has density.
Wrong.
No, right.
Space has intrinsic non-zero energy density by mere consequence
of the uncertainty principle.
Err, the density you talk about here is, *as you yourself say
in this sentence*, the density of *energy*, not the density of space.
Thanks for making my point for me.
I thought you said you were qualified.
Well, I said this because I am.
No Bjoern you're not qualified not even close.
You are not in the position to judge that.
OTOH, in the part of my Master exams dealing with relativity (both
special and general), I got an A.
The Shapiro effect is vital to understanding light and gravity,
I had to explain it to you a few months ago.
And I explained already in detail why not having detailed knowledge
of one special experiment which tests GR says precisely nothing about
my theoretical knowledge of GR.
You continue to ignore that simple argument.
Now you claim to be an expert,
Liar. I said I am *qualified*. Don't you know the difference?
that proves you Bjoern are a QUACK.
Ned Wright also has serious problems understanding GR
and cosmology, as you do,
ROTFL BITC!!! Thanks for this good joke, you really made my day!
Accusing a well-known, popular cosmologist of having serious problems
understanding GR and cosmology, that's *really* rich.
Man, you are *really* full of yourself. I think one should put your
picture into dictionaries under the words "ignorance" and "arrogance".
but he's your hero,
Wrong. Why do you think so?
good start to dead career.
Well, I don't plan to make a career in cosmology, I've already made
a career in theoretical chemistry, thanks.
BTW, you still have not told me who these "experts" who say that the
BBT is dead are. I wonder why...
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ken S. Tucker" |
|
| Title: Re: Bjoern BBT flops yet again. |
11 Aug 2005 02:22:10 PM |
|
|
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
Schoenfeld wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
John Sefton wrote:
[snip]
Space has density.
More to the point, matter and energy in space has density.
Wrong.
No, right.
Space has intrinsic non-zero energy density by mere consequence
of the uncertainty principle.
Err, the density you talk about here is, *as you yourself say
in this sentence*, the density of *energy*, not the density of space.
Thanks for making my point for me.
I thought you said you were qualified.
Well, I said this because I am.
No Bjoern you're not qualified not even close.
You are not in the position to judge that.
OTOH, in the part of my Master exams dealing with relativity (both
special and general), I got an A.
In my class you'd get an E.
The Shapiro effect is vital to understanding light and gravity,
I had to explain it to you a few months ago.
And I explained already in detail why not having detailed knowledge
of one special experiment which tests GR says precisely nothing about
my theoretical knowledge of GR.
You continue to ignore that simple argument.
I ignore you because you're a simple minded idiot.
that proves you Bjoern are a QUACK.
Ned Wright also has serious problems understanding GR
and cosmology, as you do,
ROTFL BITC!!! Thanks for this good joke, you really made my day!
Accusing a well-known, popular cosmologist
"popular", end... Bjoern decides science is based on
a popularity contest...
PLONK...
Ken
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: Bjoern BBT flops yet again. |
12 Aug 2005 04:27:02 AM |
|
|
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
Schoenfeld wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
John Sefton wrote:
[snip]
Space has density.
More to the point, matter and energy in space has density.
Wrong.
No, right.
Space has intrinsic non-zero energy density by mere consequence
of the uncertainty principle.
Err, the density you talk about here is, *as you yourself say
in this sentence*, the density of *energy*, not the density of space.
Thanks for making my point for me.
I thought you said you were qualified.
Well, I said this because I am.
No Bjoern you're not qualified not even close.
You are not in the position to judge that.
OTOH, in the part of my Master exams dealing with relativity (both
special and general), I got an A.
In my class you'd get an E.
Well, fortunately no one is mad enough to allow you teaching relativity.
The Shapiro effect is vital to understanding light and gravity,
I had to explain it to you a few months ago.
And I explained already in detail why not having detailed knowledge
of one special experiment which tests GR says precisely nothing about
my theoretical knowledge of GR.
You continue to ignore that simple argument.
I ignore you because you're a simple minded idiot.
1) The argument above is not "simple minded".
2) It's quite clear that you do *not* ignore me, as is quite
obvious from the fact that you post to this thread and the
related one in talk.origins.
that proves you Bjoern are a QUACK.
Ned Wright also has serious problems understanding GR
and cosmology, as you do,
ROTFL BITC!!! Thanks for this good joke, you really made my day!
Accusing a well-known, popular cosmologist
"popular", end... Bjoern decides science is based on
a popularity contest...
Say, do you have *really* severe reading comprehension problems,
or are you deliberately misrepresenting me?
PLONK...
The last resort of someone who lost every single argument.
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Schoenfeld" |
|
| Title: Re: Bjoern BBT flops yet again. |
08 Aug 2005 11:04:19 PM |
|
|
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
Schoenfeld wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
John Sefton wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
This was posted in Talk Origins,
"Request for review and approval: Big Bang FAQ"
By Bjoern, got no response, gee wonder why...
Liar. As everyone can freely see using Google Groups, I got several
responses. I also had nice e-mail conversation with Ned Wright and
Ryan Scranton, both cosmologists, about this.
I think the lack of response to the BBT article is because
it's largely superseded by more advanced thinking, specifically,
Golowich's et al "Gravitational scattering of quantum particles".
Therein they show how to find the "red-shift" is proportional
to the density of the universe, and find a basis for the cosmological
constant, confirmed by General Relativity and Quantum Theory.
The paper shows us how the BBT and expansion are only apparent
when a rush to judgement is done, which itself is an important
lesson.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
Yes.
Yes to all the above? So you support Golowich's proposal? Well, then
it should be no problem for you to provide a reference to the relevant
paper - which Ken didn't bother to do. I wonder why...
AJP 1989, it's a famous paper Bjeorn missed again.
Space has density.
More to the point, matter and energy in space has density.
Wrong. Space has intrinsic non-zero energy density by mere consequence
of the uncertainty principle. I thought you said you were qualified.
Bjoern uses 1980 cosmology, and 25 years
of bandaids, and ear wax.
As I pointed out, the experts say BBT is dead.
Ken
Anything said about planckian universe is entirely speculative. How can
one describe the universe so small without an understanding of Quantum
Gravity? I don't know how people manage to funding for that.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: Bjoern BBT flops yet again. |
09 Aug 2005 05:17:35 AM |
|
|
Schoenfeld wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
Schoenfeld wrote:
[snip]
Yes to all the above? So you support Golowich's proposal? Well, then
it should be no problem for you to provide a reference to the relevant
paper - which Ken didn't bother to do. I wonder why...
AJP 1989, it's a famous paper Bjeorn missed again.
If it's so famous, why is it not cited in all cosmology papers and
books I've ever read, and why do essentially all cosmologists still
support the BBT instead of Golowich's ideas?
Space has density.
More to the point, matter and energy in space has density.
Wrong. Space has intrinsic non-zero energy density by mere consequence
of the uncertainty principle. I thought you said you were qualified.
Bjoern uses 1980 cosmology,
Wrong. The Lambda Cold Dark Matter model which I use originated
approximately in the year 1995 and is the model currently used by
essentially all cosmologists.
Thanks to Ken for showing that he has no clue what he is talking
about, as usual.
and 25 years of bandaids, and ear wax.
As I pointed out, the experts say BBT is dead.
Ken mentioned no experts so far, only this Mr. Golowich, who is
no cosmologist.
Anything said about planckian universe is entirely speculative.
Well, good then that my BB FAQ is not about the "Planckian universe".
Thanks for showing that you either did not bother to look at it, or
were too dumb to understand it?
How can one describe the universe so small
"so small"? Are you also one of the *many* people who think that the
BB theory says that initially the universe was very small?
Thanks for showing that you, too, don't know what you are talking about.
without an understanding of Quantum
Gravity? I don't know how people manage to funding for that.
Err, hint: people who try to model these early times are essentially
doing research on Quantum Gravity.
Thanks one again for showing that you don't know what you are talking
about.
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ken S. Tucker" |
|
| Title: Re: Bjoern BBT flops yet again. |
09 Aug 2005 08:31:35 AM |
|
|
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
Schoenfeld wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
Schoenfeld wrote:
[snip]
Yes to all the above? So you support Golowich's proposal? Well, then
it should be no problem for you to provide a reference to the relevant
paper - which Ken didn't bother to do. I wonder why...
AJP 1989, it's a famous paper Bjeorn missed again.
If it's so famous, why is it not cited in all cosmology papers and
books I've ever read, and why do essentially all cosmologists still
support the BBT instead of Golowich's ideas?
Has Bjoern bothered to read the paper or does
he rely only quack cosmologists he parrots?
Ken
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Bjoern BBT flops yet again. |
10 Aug 2005 08:22:51 AM |
|
|
I read the paper. As usual, you totally misrepresented what it is
actually about. It has precisely nothing to do with redshift or the
cosmological constant.
What "quack cosmologists" do I "parrot", in your opinion, and which
cosmologists are *not* quacks, in your opinion?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ken S. Tucker" |
|
| Title: Re: Bjoern BBT flops yet again. |
09 Aug 2005 08:32:23 AM |
|
|
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
Schoenfeld wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
Schoenfeld wrote:
[snip]
Yes to all the above? So you support Golowich's proposal? Well, then
it should be no problem for you to provide a reference to the relevant
paper - which Ken didn't bother to do. I wonder why...
AJP 1989, it's a famous paper Bjeorn missed again.
If it's so famous, why is it not cited in all cosmology papers and
books I've ever read, and why do essentially all cosmologists still
support the BBT instead of Golowich's ideas?
Has Bjoern bothered to read the paper or does
he rely only quack cosmologists he parrots?
Ken
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ken S. Tucker" |
|
| Title: Re: Bjoern BBT flops yet again. |
09 Aug 2005 08:33:10 AM |
|
|
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
Schoenfeld wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
Schoenfeld wrote:
[snip]
Yes to all the above? So you support Golowich's proposal? Well, then
it should be no problem for you to provide a reference to the relevant
paper - which Ken didn't bother to do. I wonder why...
AJP 1989, it's a famous paper Bjeorn missed again.
If it's so famous, why is it not cited in all cosmology papers and
books I've ever read, and why do essentially all cosmologists still
support the BBT instead of Golowich's ideas?
Has Bjoern bothered to read the paper or does
he rely only quack cosmologists he parrots?
Ken
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Schoenfeld" |
|
| Title: Re: Bjoern BBT flops yet again. |
09 Aug 2005 08:07:09 AM |
|
|
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
Anything said about planckian universe is entirely speculative.
Well, good then that my BB FAQ is not about the "Planckian universe".
Thanks for showing that you either did not bother to look at it, or
were too dumb to understand it?
You got me there - I didn't bother reading your FAQ but if it talks
about the Big Bang without addressing the failure to describe the
universe within planck time age (which is unavoidable) then it isn't
much of a FAQ.
How can one describe the universe so small
"so small"? Are you also one of the *many* people who think that the
BB theory says that initially the universe was very small?
Thanks for showing that you, too, don't know what you are talking about.
Well if you mean to say that Big Bang theory does not require a
universe having age less than planck time (what I mean by small) then
you need to re-educate yourself on these matters quite dramatically.
without an understanding of Quantum
Gravity? I don't know how people manage to funding for that.
Err, hint: people who try to model these early times are essentially
doing research on Quantum Gravity.
Perhaps you can fill me in on how Big Bang - an inference from a
gravitational theory its observations - can be modelled or even
proposed without understanding that the true nature of that gravity?
Thanks one again for showing that you don't know what you are talking
about.
On the contrary.
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: Bjoern BBT flops yet again. |
09 Aug 2005 10:31:43 AM |
|
|
Schoenfeld wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
Anything said about planckian universe is entirely speculative.
Well, good then that my BB FAQ is not about the "Planckian universe".
Thanks for showing that you either did not bother to look at it, or
were too dumb to understand it?
You got me there - I didn't bother reading your FAQ but if it talks
about the Big Bang without addressing the failure to describe the
universe within planck time age (which is unavoidable) then it isn't
much of a FAQ.
It addresses this problem (not a "failure") and says that ideas about
the solution to this problem are so far still speculative. Just as you
said above.
How can one describe the universe so small
"so small"? Are you also one of the *many* people who think that the
BB theory says that initially the universe was very small?
Thanks for showing that you, too, don't know what you are talking about.
Well if you mean to say that Big Bang theory does not require a
universe having age less than planck time (what I mean by small)
"small" refers to *size* usually, not to time. You specifically said
that the universe was small, not that its age was small. Problems with
the English language? Or did you recognize your blunder and are now
trying to wiggle out of it?
[snip]
without an understanding of Quantum
Gravity? I don't know how people manage to funding for that.
Err, hint: people who try to model these early times are essentially
doing research on Quantum Gravity.
Perhaps you can fill me in on how Big Bang - an inference from a
gravitational theory its observations - can be modelled or even
proposed without understanding that the true nature of that gravity?
This does not even make sense grammatically.
And why do you think that we don't have a proper understanding of
gravity? What do you think is General Relativity about?
Thanks one again for showing that you don't know what you are talking
about.
On the contrary.
You showed it once again in this post.
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
| User: "Schoenfeld" |
|
| Title: Re: Bjoern BBT flops yet again. |
09 Aug 2005 08:48:29 PM |
|
|
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
Schoenfeld wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
Anything said about planckian universe is entirely speculative.
Well, good then that my BB FAQ is not about the "Planckian universe".
Thanks for showing that you either did not bother to look at it, or
were too dumb to understand it?
You got me there - I didn't bother reading your FAQ but if it talks
about the Big Bang without addressing the failure to describe the
universe within planck time age (which is unavoidable) then it isn't
much of a FAQ.
It addresses this problem (not a "failure") and says that ideas about
the solution to this problem are so far still speculative. Just as you
said above.
How can one describe the universe so small
"so small"? Are you also one of the *many* people who think that the
BB theory says that initially the universe was very small?
Thanks for showing that you, too, don't know what you are talking about.
Well if you mean to say that Big Bang theory does not require a
universe having age less than planck time (what I mean by small)
"small" refers to *size* usually, not to time. You specifically said
that the universe was small, not that its age was small. Problems with
the English language? Or did you recognize your blunder and are now
trying to wiggle out of it?
And yet another basic mistake made by Bjoern, this time in his own
field of research.
hint: a small universe is a young universe.
hint2: in the context of big bang theory, space and time are an
inseparable entity.
[snip]
without an understanding of Quantum
Gravity? I don't know how people manage to funding for that.
Err, hint: people who try to model these early times are essentially
doing research on Quantum Gravity.
Perhaps you can fill me in on how Big Bang - an inference from a
gravitational theory its observations - can be modelled or even
proposed without understanding that the true nature of that gravity?
This does not even make sense grammatically.
And why do you think that we don't have a proper understanding of
gravity? What do you think is General Relativity about?
The point I made was that you cannot use General Relativity to describe
the initial moments of the universe and these moments are the most
crucial. Since that is the case, the whole big bang theory is
speculative. Until Quantum Gravity is known or at least partially
known, then one cannot really speak about Big Bang other than in a
purely speculative context. It is rather strange to use Big Bang as a
canvas to study Quantum Gravity, since there is no assurances that
Quantum Gravity allows a Big Bang to begin with.
Not only that, but there is the whole missign mass problem with general
relativity and the failure to detect inferred matter (a.k.a dark matter
and other non-baryonic matters).
Thanks one again for showing that you don't know what you are talking
about.
On the contrary.
You showed it once again in this post.
On the contrary.
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: Bjoern BBT flops yet again. |
10 Aug 2005 05:01:56 AM |
|
|
Schoenfeld wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
[snip]
Well if you mean to say that Big Bang theory does not require a
universe having age less than planck time (what I mean by small)
"small" refers to *size* usually, not to time. You specifically said
that the universe was small, not that its age was small. Problems with
the English language? Or did you recognize your blunder and are now
trying to wiggle out of it?
And yet another basic mistake made by Bjoern, this time in his own
field of research.
hint: a small universe is a young universe.
Non sequitur.
Thanks *one again* for showing that you don't know what you are
talking about.
hint2: in the context of big bang theory, space and time are an
inseparable entity.
No, they aren't. Hint: space expands in the BBT, time doesn't. How could
this be possible if they are inseparable?
Thanks *one again* for showing that you don't know what you are
talking about.
[snip]
The point I made was that you cannot use General Relativity to describe
the initial moments of the universe
Agreed.
and these moments are the most crucial.
Why?
Since that is the case, the whole big bang theory is speculative.
A *marvelous* non sequitur.
Thanks *one again* for showing that you don't know what you are
talking about.
[snip]
Not only that, but there is the whole missign mass problem with general
relativity and the failure to detect inferred matter (a.k.a dark matter
and other non-baryonic matters).
All of that is adressed in my FAQ. Why don't you finally look at it
and educate yourself, instead of making a fool of yourself even more?
Thanks one again for showing that you don't know what you are talking
about.
On the contrary.
You showed it once again in this post.
On the contrary.
You continued to show this with this post.
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
| User: "Schoenfeld" |
|
| Title: Re: Bjoern BBT flops yet again. |
10 Aug 2005 07:23:45 AM |
|
|
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
Schoenfeld wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
[snip]
Well if you mean to say that Big Bang theory does not require a
universe having age less than planck time (what I mean by small)
"small" refers to *size* usually, not to time. You specifically said
that the universe was small, not that its age was small. Problems with
the English language? Or did you recognize your blunder and are now
trying to wiggle out of it?
And yet another basic mistake made by Bjoern, this time in his own
field of research.
hint: a small universe is a young universe.
Non sequitur.
You said:
" 'small' refers to *size* usually, not to time "
Anyone with a basic understanding of relativity could've seen that a
small universe as I said implies obviously that it is young. The
smaller the younger by trivial consequence of definition.
Just because it is not the standard terminology that you rote learned
it does not make it wrong. You need to learn to think for yourself and
not rely on the thoughts and assumptions of others.
Thanks *one again* for showing that you don't know what you are
talking about.
You, like a lot of other people on these groups, are incapable of
understanding what it is that you are supposed to know. All you do is
memorize words and phrases and equations used by others and proceed to
confuse them as the only way to describe a concept. This is not a good
approach, especially if you want to output original work.
hint2: in the context of big bang theory, space and time are an
inseparable entity.
No, they aren't. Hint: space expands in the BBT, time doesn't. How could
this be possible if they are inseparable?
Well if you don't understand that space and time are inseparable I
suspect you will run into much trouble in this field.
"The views of space and time which I wish to lay before you have sprung
from the soil of experimental physics, and therein lies their strength.
They are radical. Henceforth space by itself, and time by itself, are
doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the
two will preserve an independent reality." Hermann Minkowski, September
21, 1908.
Thanks *one again* for showing that you don't know what you are
talking about.
Aside from your spelling and grammar, coming from you that's a
compliment.
[snip]
Not only that, but there is the whole missign mass problem with general
relativity and the failure to detect inferred matter (a.k.a dark matter
and other non-baryonic matters).
All of that is adressed in my FAQ. Why don't you finally look at it
and educate yourself, instead of making a fool of yourself even more?
Reading a Big Bang FAQ written by someone who cant understand that a
"small universe" clearly implies a "young universe" and who can't
understand that space and time are inseparable is a bad idea. Either
1. you are incapable of understanding anything that you have not
already rote learned.
2. you are deliberately obfuscating and issuing insults (like a
troll).
I have always thought 2, but am now rather unfortunately suspecting
that it indeed is and has always been 1. <sigh>
Thanks one again for showing that you don't know what you are talking
about.
On the contrary.
You showed it once again in this post.
On the contrary.
You continued to show this with this post.
On the contrary.
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: Bjoern BBT flops yet again. |
10 Aug 2005 08:01:37 AM |
|
|
Schoenfeld wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
Schoenfeld wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
[snip]
Well if you mean to say that Big Bang theory does not require a
universe having age less than planck time (what I mean by small)
"small" refers to *size* usually, not to time. You specifically said
that the universe was small, not that its age was small. Problems with
the English language? Or did you recognize your blunder and are now
trying to wiggle out of it?
And yet another basic mistake made by Bjoern, this time in his own
field of research.
hint: a small universe is a young universe.
Non sequitur.
You said:
" 'small' refers to *size* usually, not to time "
Anyone with a basic understanding of relativity could've seen that a
small universe as I said implies obviously that it is young.
Anyone with a basic understanding of the Big Bang theory can see that
a small universe does *not* imply that it is young (provided that
"small" refers to the spatial size, not to "small age" or something
like that).
Thanks *one again* for showing that you have no clue what you are
talking about.
The smaller the younger by trivial consequence of definition.
Just because it is not the standard terminology that you rote learned
it does not make it wrong. You need to learn to think for yourself and
not rely on the thoughts and assumptions of others.
Thinking on my own does not imply accepting your nonsensical use of words.
Thanks *one again* for showing that you don't know what you are
talking about.
You, like a lot of other people on these groups, are incapable of
understanding what it is that you are supposed to know. All you do is
memorize words and phrases and equations used by others and proceed to
confuse them as the only way to describe a concept. This is not a good
approach, especially if you want to output original work.
*yawn*
Hint: if that were true, I would not have been able to obtain a PhD
and publish research papers on my own. But you are too dumb to
understand or even know that.
hint2: in the context of big bang theory, space and time are an
inseparable entity.
No, they aren't. Hint: space expands in the BBT, time doesn't. How could
this be possible if they are inseparable?
Well if you don't understand that space and time are inseparable I
suspect you will run into much trouble in this field.
Hint: I've had a lot of conversation with professional cosmologists in
my life, and several have already looked at my FAQ page (apparently
you still didn't bother). So far, all have agreed with what I wrote.
"The views of space and time which I wish to lay before you have sprung
from the soil of experimental physics, and therein lies their strength.
They are radical. Henceforth space by itself, and time by itself, are
doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the
two will preserve an independent reality." Hermann Minkowski, September
21, 1908.
You are confusing special with general relativity.
[snip]
Not only that, but there is the whole missign mass problem with general
relativity and the failure to detect inferred matter (a.k.a dark matter
and other non-baryonic matters).
All of that is adressed in my FAQ. Why don't you finally look at it
and educate yourself, instead of making a fool of yourself even more?
Reading a Big Bang FAQ written by someone who cant understand that a
"small universe" clearly implies a "young universe" and who can't
understand that space and time are inseparable is a bad idea.
Err, why don't you consider for a change the possibility that it might
be *you* who is wrong here? Again: several cosmologists have already
looked at my FAQ, and they don't disagree with what I wrote...
Either
1. you are incapable of understanding anything that you have not
already rote learned.
2. you are deliberately obfuscating and issuing insults (like a
troll).
Or 3. I am right, and either points 1 or 2 apply to you.
Judging from your posting history, I'll go with 3.
I have always thought 2, but am now rather unfortunately suspecting
that it indeed is and has always been 1. <sigh>
Hint: you are not in the position to judge my level of knowledge.
Thanks one again for showing that you don't know what you are talking
about.
On the contrary.
You showed it once again in this post.
On the contrary.
You continued to show this with this post.
On the contrary.
Well, you still continue.
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
| User: "TomGee" |
|
| Title: Re: Bjoern BBT flops yet again. |
10 Aug 2005 01:08:04 PM |
|
|
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
Schoenfeld wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
Schoenfeld wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
[snip]
Well if you mean to say that Big Bang theory does not require a
universe having age less than planck time (what I mean by small)
"small" refers to *size* usually, not to time. You specifically said
that the universe was small, not that its age was small. Problems with
the English language? Or did you recognize your blunder and are now
trying to wiggle out of it?
And yet another basic mistake made by Bjoern, this time in his own
field of research.
hint: a small universe is a young universe.
Non sequitur.
You said:
" 'small' refers to *size* usually, not to time "
Anyone with a basic understanding of relativity could've seen that a
small universe as I said implies obviously that it is young.
Anyone with a basic understanding of the Big Bang theory can see that
a small universe does *not* imply that it is young (provided that
"small" refers to the spatial size, not to "small age" or something
like that).
Thanks *one again* for showing that you have no clue what you are
talking about.
The smaller the younger by trivial consequence of definition.
Just because it is not the standard terminology that you rote learned
it does not make it wrong. You need to learn to think for yourself and
not rely on the thoughts and assumptions of others.
Thinking on my own does not imply accepting your nonsensical use of words.
Thanks *one again* for showing that you don't know what you are
talking about.
You, like a lot of other people on these groups, are incapable of
understanding what it is that you are supposed to know. All you do is
memorize words and phrases and equations used by others and proceed to
confuse them as the only way to describe a concept. This is not a good
approach, especially if you want to output original work.
*yawn*
Hint: if that were true, I would not have been able to obtain a PhD
and publish research papers on my own. But you are too dumb to
understand or even know that.
hint2: in the context of big bang theory, space and time are an
inseparable entity.
No, they aren't. Hint: space expands in the BBT, time doesn't. How could
this be possible if they are inseparable?
Well if you don't understand that space and time are inseparable I
suspect you will run into much trouble in this field.
Hint: I've had a lot of conversation with professional cosmologists in
my life, and several have already looked at my FAQ page (apparently
you still didn't bother). So far, all have agreed with what I wrote.
"The views of space and time which I wish to lay before you have sprung
from the soil of experimental physics, and therein lies their strength.
They are radical. Henceforth space by itself, and time by itself, are
doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the
two will preserve an independent reality." Hermann Minkowski, September
21, 1908.
You are confusing special with general relativity.
So, Boern, in GR, time and space are not interdependent, but in SR they
are?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Bjoern BBT flops yet again. |
10 Aug 2005 01:19:31 PM |
|
|
TomGee wrote:
So, Boern, in GR, time and space are not interdependent, but in SR they
are?
In Newtonian Machanics time and space are infinite and absolute.
In SR and GTR they are not.
TomGee needs to learn that one looks at things differently in different
theoretical contexts.
In GTR the rigid spacetime structure of SR is generalized. A. Einstein
arrived at this generalization on the basis of his "principle of
equivalence"--gravitation can be "locally" transformed away in a
freely falling, non-rotating system. This means that on the
infinitesimal scale, relative to a locally inertial system, that SR
remains valid. Special Relativity is a subset of General Relativity.
Can Special Relativity handle accelerations?
Ref: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/acceleration.html
The only sense in which special relativity is an approximation when
there are accelerating bodies is that gravitational effects such as
generation of gravitational waves are being ignored. But of course
there are larger gravitational effects being neglected even when
massive bodies are not accelerating and they are small for many
applications so this is not strictly relevant. Special relativity gives
a completely self consistent description of the mechanics of
accelerating bodies neglecting gravitation, just as Newtonian mechanics
did.
The difference between general and special relativity is that in the
general theory all frames of reference including spinning and
accelerating frames are treated on an equal footing. In special
relativity accelerating frames are different from inertial frames.
Velocities are relative but acceleration is treated as absolute. In
general relativity all motion is relative. To accommodate this change
general relativity has to use curved space-time. In special relativity
space-time is always flat.
See: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/acceleration.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "G=EMC^2 Glazier" |
|
| Title: Re: Bjoern BBT flops yet again. |
10 Aug 2005 02:05:51 PM |
|
|
Hi Sam TomG and Bjoern Why make things so tough? Just keep in mind
"time" is warp if its rate of passage differs from one location to
another. Einstien thought time was more important than space. I take the
opposite view. I like to think gravity,inertia,and motion are the
same thing. That makes easy thinking for me so that accelerating motion
is the source that creates the force to warp space and time.(I like
that) With that I created my faster than light theory that does not
upset Einstein's SR or GR My theory goes like this. "A spaceship
accelerating very close to light speed shortens space in the direction
it is going" TomG and Bjoern think about it. Sam no use you knocking
your brains out on my warping of space and time going from A to B faster
than light theory it would only upset you. After all its not in Google
yet. Bert.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Bjoern BBT flops yet again. |
10 Aug 2005 06:31:44 PM |
|
|
G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
Einstien thought time was more important than space.
No he didn't--if anything A. Einstein realized that time and space
were not independent of each other and that he had to deal with
spacetime.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "TomGee" |
|
| Title: Re: Bjoern BBT flops yet again. |
11 Aug 2005 10:50:57 AM |
|
|
Sam Wormley wrote:
TomGee wrote:
So, Boern, in GR, time and space are not interdependent, but in SR they
are?
In Newtonian Machanics time and space are infinite and absolute.
In SR and GTR they are not.
Worms, I hope you don't really think that is a proper response to my
question.
TomGee needs to learn that one looks at things differently in different
theoretical contexts.
No, not "one", fool, only "some". You are answering for Bjoern but
you're too small a fish to fry so I Won't post my reply to your stupid
claim above until we hear from Mr. Know-it-all Bjoern.
SNIPPED a whole lot of crapola from Worms, including the Baez website
which everyone knows has serious errors in it.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: Bjoern BBT flops yet again. |
11 Aug 2005 04:45:01 AM |
|
|
TomGee wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
Schoenfeld wrote:
[snip]
Well if you don't understand that space and time are inseparable I
suspect you will run into much trouble in this field.
Hint: I've had a lot of conversation with professional cosmologists in
my life, and several have already looked at my FAQ page (apparently
you still didn't bother). So far, all have agreed with what I wrote.
"The views of space and time which I wish to lay before you have sprung
from the soil of experimental physics, and therein lies their strength.
They are radical. Henceforth space by itself, and time by itself, are
doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the
two will preserve an independent reality." Hermann Minkowski, September
21, 1908.
You are confusing special with general relativity.
So, Boern, in GR, time and space are not interdependent, but in SR they
are?
Err, we were talking about "inseparable" above, not "interdependent".
Reading comprehension problems once again?
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
| User: "Schoenfeld" |
|
| Title: Re: Bjoern BBT flops yet again. |
11 Aug 2005 05:03:06 AM |
|
|
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
TomGee wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
Schoenfeld wrote:
[snip]
Well if you don't understand that space and time are inseparable I
suspect you will run into much trouble in this field.
Hint: I've had a lot of conversation with professional cosmologists in
my life, and several have already looked at my FAQ page (apparently
you still didn't bother). So far, all have agreed with what I wrote.
"The views of space and time which I wish to lay before you have sprung
from the soil of experimental physics, and therein lies their strength.
They are radical. Henceforth space by itself, and time by itself, are
doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the
two will preserve an independent reality." Hermann Minkowski, September
21, 1908.
You are confusing special with general relativity.
So, Boern, in GR, time and space are not interdependent, but in SR they
are?
Err, we were talking about "inseparable" above, not "interdependent".
Reading comprehension problems once again?
hint: you can't move through space without also moving through time.
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
