The beginners guide to light!

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience' started by amber, Jan 31, 2018.

  1. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,686
    There was no space in which we place the big bang.
    Alex
     
    Dywyddyr likes this.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. amber Registered Member

    Messages:
    323

    When the big bang implies there was no time, no space, nothing, are they really considering this ?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. amber Registered Member

    Messages:
    323
    Elastic bands expand, I am sorry , but to say a distance increase is the same as something expanding is totally inadequate for somebody trying to learn about the Universe. It is very ambiguous when you consider an elastic band expanding.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,686
    Of course you can question and I am trying to explain the way of things.

    I can understand how you are approaching things and your logic is reasonable if we only were talking about an explosion on Earth or in already existing space...
    But we are talking big bang cosmology and its fundamental premise is that the event creates space and time...the big bang does not expand into any pre existing space..thete was no pre existing space.
    But dont worry it is hard to conceive but at least you should now understand what the model lays out.
    Alex
     
  8. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,731
    What?
    I have no idea what you mean, nor how what I said applies.
    (And I'm now 99.99% certain that you are, in fact, a sockpuppet of Theorist-Constant).
     
  9. amber Registered Member

    Messages:
    323
    But what if the creator of the big bang theory thoughts were limited and when they considered nothing, all they could see was Dy's wall?
     
  10. amber Registered Member

    Messages:
    323
    You told me that we do not see space, that if there were no objects we would see nothing , like a wall in front of us. When considering nothing in the big bang notion, is this nothing really just your wall?
     
  11. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,731
    That's because you (apparently) thing of space having "physicality". Space is the absence of things. (For information: elastic bands stretch, they expand in length but shrink in width/ thickness).
    Try a dictionary, again:
    Expand: to increase in extent, size, volume, scope, etc.
    I.e. an increase.
     
  12. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,731
    Not what I said. If we COULD see space THAT would be the "wall".
    If there were no objects then we'd see nothing because there'd be nothing to see. But that wouldn't be like a wall.

    No.
     
  13. amber Registered Member

    Messages:
    323
    I do not think space has physicality. I am just confused why we say space is expanding, but thank you I now understand the intent of it.
     
  14. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,731
    Because it IS expanding.
     
  15. amber Registered Member

    Messages:
    323
    You say no, did you consider that nothing means 0 dimension and when you said we would see nothing would also mean 0 dimension?

    I could not distinguish between the two .
     
  16. amber Registered Member

    Messages:
    323
    Yes its expanding now you have explained the content, thanks.
     
  17. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,731
    You've lost me. Again.
    Nothing would have zero dimensions but "seeing nothing" (as in if there were nothing there to see) doesn't mean zero dimensions - as in "there's nothing in the cupboard" does not mean that there are no dimensions involved.
     
  18. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,686
    The big bang is a model...a scientific model that seeks to explain reality in a limited way.
    I have aspects I find difficult to accept but my acceptance is of the model and my discussion is on what the model suggests.
    My personal preference is absolutely different but ee discuss the model not what I like and dislike.
    The big bang has an initial period where things hrew from something very small to everything in a split second...I dont like that part of the theory but my likes or dislike is irrelevant.
    One must remember we could take a different model which says in effect that space and time has always existed, called the steady state model, but the observations suggest the steady state is not consistent with observation.
    Probably the first thing to get your head around is the concept of scientific models..the big bang is a model..it could be adjusted..for example the inflationary epoc could change...which is my hope but its all we have at the moment.
    Think about this once there was a model that placed the Earth at the center of things...clearly not reality but as a model it worked..it works today to make predictions as to where Saturn will be next Tuesday..it works so it is a good model
    ...even though it is not describing the solar system with a Sun at the center.
    Scientific models are built on a theory that is able to make predictions.
    I could model the universe using hirses to explain the passage of the stars and it would be a usful model if it could predict that Zaturn will be seen in my scope next Tuesday. ..
    Read all you can on...first Carl Popper..philosophy of science...and also the requirements of a theory and a scientific model.
    Alex
     
  19. amber Registered Member

    Messages:
    323
    I know seeing nothing does not mean there is zero dimension which is kind of my point. When you can not see anything in space you obviously can't see any distance , direction, you can't see any dimensions. My opinion is that in the big bang theory, the nothing in that of 0 dimension is a limitation in the thinking, they considered nothing as 0 dimensions without considering nothing in the sense of not being able to see anything.
    The big bang then being a light expansion revealing the distance that was there to begin with.
     
  20. amber Registered Member

    Messages:
    323
    I actually like the split second part but for different reasons than the big bang.
     
  21. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,686
    Well there are those who think the big bang hints at creation...it dose not...it simply says we can explain the evolvement of the universe but we offer nothing as to the explanation of its creation.

    The Catholic Church says the big bang is fine with them and not inconsistent with their belief but thats them...they offer a reason for creation but the big bang offers zip as to creation. Even the priest does not include creation in his approach he deals with the evolvement only.

    The main reason I really dont like the big bang is the idea came from a catholic priest who seemed to like the idea of the pagan concept of a cosmic egg and a point of creation...but what I like or dislike has o effect on the model.


    But the model uses the theory of general relativity in support...well tested and so we take it as most reliable...and with that various outcomes can be modelled...it is about what models seem to work.
    Alex
     
    Last edited: Feb 2, 2018
  22. amber Registered Member

    Messages:
    323
    I agree, a model is a model but I cannot see why it would be a problem to discuss the model and the intent of the model. In the model my opinion is that seeing nothing in our thoughts to conclude in the beginning there was nothing is not quite the same as nothing.
     
  23. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,731
    That's your (uninformed) opinion. It's not what the science says.

    No.
     

Share This Page