Terry Sampson
Well-Known Member
This thread is a One-on-One Thread, by Invitation Only. If you haven't been invited into it, somebody's gonna whack you.
@ratiocinator @Polymath257 @Terry Sampson
Recapitulation of Terry's position [from the "Big Bang: Whodunit?" Thread]
@ratiocinator @Polymath257 @Terry Sampson
Recapitulation of Terry's position [from the "Big Bang: Whodunit?" Thread]
- In Post #5 of the Big Bang: Whodunit? thread, T.S. wrote: "The Big Bang is a crock of malarkey".
- In Post #7 of the same thread, Polymath 257 asked: "what, precisely, do you think the Big Bang theory says and why it is a crock?"
- In Post #11, I replied:
- Not so precisely, it says that the universe initially was a singularity: i.e. an infinitely dense point of something (i.e. matter, space, and time or spacetime), which began to expand and has been expanding ever since it began to expand. The singularity has no "outside", only "inside". The age of the universe is calculated based on its rate of expansion.
- Why do I think the theory is a crock? Because, as I understand it, the theory is rooted in Einstein's Theory of General Relativity (a.k.a. General Theory of Relativity [GTR]) which builds on/adds to his Theory of Special Relativity (a.k.a. Special Theory of Relativity [STR]). And, in STR, the doctrine of length contraction is a conjecture without evidence and in conflict with a similar doctrine of length contraction believed to be true by Neo-Lorentzian quasi-relativists, which is more correct than STR's version but still wrong because the Neo-Lorentzians don't subscribe to Newton's Absolute Space and Absolute Time.
- In Post #15, ratiocinator wrote: "Both special and general relativity are supported by plentiful evidence and in fact the GPS system needs to take both into account to get its timings right (source)."
- To which I replied in Post #20: "Strap on yer helmet, buckle yer seat-belt, and get a grip on yer steering wheel, kid. ... How comfortable are you with rudimentary Einstein's STR stuff, ... minimal calculations required?"
- To which ratioccinerator responded, in Post #32: "Go right ahead..."
- And Polymath257 added, in Post #34: "I'm quite comfortable with both SR and GR. Let's see what you got."
- Then I wrote, in Post #42:
- Sorry, I was busy trying to find old stuff I needed. If I can't find it, I'll have to redraw what I need. Eventually, I'll get it all out here: piece by piece, probably. So, don't hold your breath waiting for me. I'll eventually lay out all my cards, ... when I can find them or make new ones.
- Just so's you know up front: I consider the forthcoming exchange to be a "win" for me. Either I make a case for my "inflammatory antirelativist position", in which case "I win", or you show me where I'm wrong and I finally get the information that I have wanted for so long that enables me to put my complaint against STR to rest ... and "I win".
- Sorry, I was busy trying to find old stuff I needed. If I can't find it, I'll have to redraw what I need. Eventually, I'll get it all out here: piece by piece, probably. So, don't hold your breath waiting for me. I'll eventually lay out all my cards, ... when I can find them or make new ones.
- Those are essentially the exchanges which inspired this thread.
- In spite of my ambitious claim in Post #5, i.e. "The Big Bang is a crock of malarkey", my focus in this thread will be substantially more narrow, to wit: STR's Doctrine of Length Contraction.
Last edited: