ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
It's been demonstrated for all sorts of physic processes, like the decay times for particles, for example.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
In the beginning there was no beginning !
- Thread starter TheBrokenSoul
- Start date
-
- Tags
- creationism
It's been demonstrated for all sorts of physic processes, like the decay times for particles, for example.
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
Yet you have already admitted that you have no understanding of the theory you're saying is wrong:-
TheBrokenSoul
Active Member
Yes the timing dilation has been demonstrated and tested several time. They even took atomic clocks on an aeroplane and flew them around the world . When they returned to the stationary clock , there was a difference in frequency timing .
It's been demonstrated for all sorts of physic processes, like the decay times for particles, for example.
Einstein also came up with a light clock thought experiment that demonstrated an angular path of light takes more time to travel than a linear path , hence GPS system .
However , time itself , the measure of history , is constant and measured at 1.s of history per 1.s of time passed measure .
As I said something else you don't understand .
TheBrokenSoul
Active Member
Maths is measures , physics is physics , I don't need to know that particular math because that isn't what I am contesting . I know Einsteins work very well .
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
No wonder you get everything wrong. The theories of physics are expressed in mathematics. If you don't understand the mathematics, you don't understand the theory. It's the mathematics that allows them to make precise predictions that can be tested observationally and/or experimentally. Your vague hand-waving would be useless even if it wasn't so obviously wrong.
If you knew GR, as applied to cosmology, at all well, you'd have recognised the formula immediately.
It's no coincidence that almost all the people like you on forums, who think they know better than modern science (and let's face it, they're two a penny), can't do the maths. You can't hope to replace something if you don't understand it and don't understand why it is accepted. Both those require an understanding of the maths.
TheBrokenSoul
Active Member
Answer me this , what has maths got to do with space existing before the big bang ? What has math got to do with the absence of physical properties of space ?
What has math got to do with gravitational mechanism ? What has math got to do with what time is ? What has math got to do with understanding physics correctly ?
I think you mean my physics because there is no useful maths is unimportant ?
The importance is a correct understanding and you are going to loathe that the speed of light is zero ?
TheBrokenSoul
Active Member
Star date : 23/11/2021 light update
TheBrokenSoul
Active Member
Update physical proof
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
Maths allows us to extrapolate well tested theories to other situations.
Maths can construct models of space-time, define how they behave, make precise predictions of what to expect, so the the model can be compared with reality using experiments and observations, to confirm its accuracy.
Maths can construct models the mechanism of gravitation, define how it behaves, make precise predictions of what to expect, so the the model can be compared with reality using experiments and observations, to confirm its accuracy.
See above about space.
Maths is the language of physics. Without it, you cannot construct exact models and make precise predictions of what to expect that can be tested against reality to see if the models are accurate or not. Without maths, there can be no useful applications in technology. Without the maths of quantum mechanics and relativity, we could never have produced modern electronics and the GPS system.
Without maths, you're simply not doing physics. There is no way to make precise predictions that can be tested. At best, all you're doing is untestable, totally useless, hand-waving and guessing.
TheBrokenSoul
Active Member
Maths is a measure of physics , physics is the process and maths is fitted to the process . I disagree , understanding the physics correctly is a foremost before even atttempting a measure . Some tech requires trial and error etc , it isn't all about maths .
Besides my earlier equation I provided was correct and equals 1 over time , I have provided some maths that explains a singularity . So how is my math any less when it gives the right answer ?
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
TheBrokenSoul
Active Member
Yes I have , the initial high dense state of matter that was the epoch of time has to have a bond
0.5+0.5/V = 1/t
Then for an expansion the singularity requires inflow energy
micro bang energy 0.5/V + 0.5/V
Put the two together
(0.5+0.5/V)(0.5/V+0.5/V)=1/t
Or if you want it in energy terms
E=mc^3
Evidence : Cosmic background radiation is electromagnetic radiation
https://www.google.com/search?q=cos...IQkEAHS1dDhQQ_h16BAgjEAE#imgrc=UubO4A4yXybMEM
https://www.google.com/search?q=cos...IQkEAHS1dDhQQ_h16BAgkEAE#imgrc=mcXTUwGveDQyDM
https://www.google.com/search?q=cos...IQkEAHS1dDhQQ_h16BAghEAE#imgrc=LCCQ05Mm_A_S2M
https://www.google.com/search?q=cos...IQkEAHS1dDhQQ_h16BAgbEAE#imgrc=-creCYTuC6SpiM
https://www.google.com/search?q=cos...IQkEAHS1dDhQQ_h16BAgXEAE#imgrc=VfxhDVNzc8sVSM
https://www.google.com/search?q=cos...IQkEAHS1dDhQQ_h16BAgUEAE#imgrc=gKzXJPCCOFOeWM
View all
The cosmic microwave background (CMB, CMBR), in Big Bang cosmology, is electromagnetic radiation which is a remnant from an early stage of the universe, also known as "relic radiation". The CMB is faint cosmic background radiation filling all space. ... This glow is strongest in the microwave region of the radio spectrum.
Last edited:
TheBrokenSoul
Active Member
star date 23/11/2021 update
The relic radiation preceded the Big Bang and was the inflow energy that caused the singularity outflow of energy . Additional proof , space pre-existed a Big Bang event .
The relic radiation preceded the Big Bang and was the inflow energy that caused the singularity outflow of energy . Additional proof , space pre-existed a Big Bang event .
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
Just meaningless. What do you mean by "bond", what is V, why 0.5, 0.5 of what, and why does whatever all of this means equal 1/t?
But then we have
So, since 0.5+0.5/V = 1/t (first equation), we get (1/t)(0.5/V+0.5/V)=1/t, so (0.5/V + 0.5/V) = 1, but 0.5/V+0.5/V = 1/V so 1/V = 1, so V=1. Substitute back into 0.5+0.5/V = 1/t, we get 1 = 1/t , so t=1.
So, to summarise:
"0.5+0.5/V = 1/t" means "1 = 1",
"micro bang energy 0.5/V + 0.5/V" means "micro bang energy 1", and
"(0.5+0.5/V)(0.5/V+0.5/V)=1/t" means "1x1 = 1".
Now do you see what I mean by gibberish?
TheBrokenSoul
Active Member
Not at all , try to understand it is very simple but at least you are getting the right result .
Try to imagine a balloon inflating , we give it one puff of air , the balloon expands slightly but remains one balloon , it does not matter how many more puffs of air we put into the balloon , the balloon always remains 1 balloon .
This is the same with space-time , xyzt is single manifold of measure , no matter how much energy is put into the system and the measure expands , xyzt will always be a whole , 1 .
Ok , so you ask what is 0.5 ?
0.5 represents half of the components that could possibably form a singularity .
In the beginning there was no beginning because space was never absent , the epoch of time began with ''relic radiation'' being sparsely spread throughout space , a density that is negliable .
The ''relic radiation'' consists of two opposite signed mono-poles of electromagnetic radiation that unless simultaneously manifesting at the same position , would self annhilate because there was no strong bond. 0.5/V and 0.5/V both been opposite signed but representing half .
The epoch of time began when both opposite signed mono-poles manifested simultaneously at the same point (x0,y0,z0) forming the first stable mass .0.5+0.5/V
Then in an instant , all the pre-existing ''relic radiation'' came rushing in , attracted to the mass , (0.5+0.5/V)(0.5/V+0.5/V)= 1/t or in expansional energy E=mc^3
Maybe you will undertsand this better !
Last edited:
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
No, it's still meaningless.
Your equations are meaningless identities, they tell us exactly nothing. Well, except for E = mc^3 which is unequivocally wrong. How do I know? Because they represent different types of physical things.
Energy (E) is measured in Joules which are kg m^2 s^-2, whereas mc^3 is kg m^3 s^-3 (because c is a velocity in m s^-1).
Which means you understand NOTHING about how general relativity is applied to cosmology.
This is the *metric* that describes the expansion of space: metric expansion.
No, you provided a few claims with no support. But it is clear that you don't understand the theory you are criticizing.
As described by the metric above.
The metric above directly contradicts your claims.
So you don't think atoms exist? Even though we have actually imaged them?
Then why does the quark model work so well in predicting new particles? What is it that scatters things from *within* the proton?
But you previously confused neutrons with simply protons plus electrons, thereby ignoring spin (neutrons have spin 1/2 and both protons and electrons do also, so the composite cannot have a spin 1/2). You also need to deal with the fact that a proton/electron combination of that size is unstable: the electron would NOT stay that close (which is why atoms are so much bigger than nuclei).
TheBrokenSoul
Active Member
Where do I say that atoms don't exist ? I said I don't agree with model .
We can image atomic latices but we cannot observe the components of the atom . Particle physics is mostly hypothetical for your information .
New particles such as the Boson are based on CERNS work but any new particles discovered by the process they use is fictascious because E=mc^2 will only result in fragmentation of the existing particles they collide .
A Neutron in the atomic model is not required as a proton plus an electron does form a neutral particle . An atom is effectively a Neutron particle .
Last edited:
TheBrokenSoul
Active Member
But it doesn't mean an expansion of space in the sense that you and others are thinking . It is an expansion of length to be precise .
Recap this model: (x1,x2,x3,,,,,,,,,,,x^n) and recap '' the observation in physical cosmology that galaxies are moving away from Earth at speeds proportional to their distance. In other words, the farther they are the faster they are moving away from Earth. ''
Last edited: