Jump to content


Photo

A Universe From Nothing


  • Please log in to reply
202 replies to this topic

#61 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 24 November 2009 - 06:54 PM

I don't have to show you space is curving.  It's a major component of general relativity which has proven itself right over and over again.

View Post


Oh, since its a major component of an unobservable opinion, it is then a fact? :lol:

#62 Guest_Darkness45_*

Guest_Darkness45_*
  • Guests

Posted 24 November 2009 - 07:33 PM

We've observed starlight bend around our Sun during the 1919 eclipse, the amount of the bend only works in a curved space. Also, the orbit of Mercury was accurately predicted by general relativity, while the Newtonian view of a non-curved space is inaccurate at predicting the orbital path of Mercury.

#63 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 24 November 2009 - 07:39 PM

We've observed starlight bend around our Sun during the 1919 eclipse, the amount of the bend only works in a curved space. Also, the orbit of Mercury was accurately predicted by general relativity, while the Newtonian view of a non-curved space is inaccurate at predicting the orbital path of Mercury.

View Post


Again, this doesn't prove bent space, only bent light. Bent space is yet just an opinion.

#64 A.Sphere

A.Sphere

    AKA st_dissent

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 683 posts
  • Interests:physics, mathematics, history, bicycling, hiking, traveling, cooking, the Korean language (Han Gul)
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Mississippi

Posted 24 November 2009 - 07:46 PM

Again, this  doesn't prove bent space, only bent light. Bent space is yet just an opinion.

View Post


It is not bent light. There is no known way to explain this with electromagnetism. Why is light bending? What bends the light? Can you provide us with theory that explains this as well as GR? Can you explain why this affect is stronger closer to massive objects rather than far away? Light has no mass so it certainly isn't affected by Newtonian gravitational forces. So have a go Ron - lets hear your theory.

But remember GR already helps us explain a plethora of phenomena with stunning accuracy - it is much more than an opinion. It is a scientific theory. Theory is as good as it gets in science.

#65 A.Sphere

A.Sphere

    AKA st_dissent

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 683 posts
  • Interests:physics, mathematics, history, bicycling, hiking, traveling, cooking, the Korean language (Han Gul)
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Mississippi

Posted 24 November 2009 - 07:53 PM

And is therefore is an unobserved  hypothesis. We can see light being bent  by gravitation. Much like it is apparently bent by water and prisms. But, I would wonder… Can you provide a picture of space being bent?

View Post


No...It is not "bent" by gravitation as it it optically bent by a prism. The two phenomena are completely unrelated. When light is "bent" about a mass there is no index of refraction because there is no medium that it is traveling through.

The hypothesis is that space-time is has structure - curvature. Using this hypothesis we are able to surmise certain characteristics about the universe that should be true if space-time has geometry. We then look for these characteristics. If we find them, the hypothesis of space-time structure becomes a theory of space-time structure. After that it is tested again and again... GR was formulated as a space-time geometrical explanation of gravity and it has been highly successful. Again I ask...what more can you ask for in a theory? A picture :lol: ? I am glad you weren't in charge of validating germ theory while it was being developed. lol.

#66 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 25 November 2009 - 09:34 AM

And is therefore is an unobserved  hypothesis. We can see light being bent  by gravitation. Much like it is apparently bent by water and prisms. But, I would wonder… Can you provide a picture of space being bent?

View Post

Posted Image

#67 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 25 November 2009 - 10:34 AM

Posted Image

View Post


I don't see bent space in that picture, just the occupation of that space with Galaxies and stars.

#68 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 25 November 2009 - 10:35 AM

Posted Image

View Post


Sorry Jason, that's light, not space. Thanks for proving my point. <_<

#69 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 25 November 2009 - 10:37 AM

No...It is not "bent" by gravitation as it it optically bent by a prism.  The two phenomena are completely unrelated.  When light is "bent" about a mass there is no index of refraction because there is no medium that it is traveling through.

The hypothesis is that space-time is has structure - curvature.  Using this hypothesis we are able to surmise certain characteristics about the universe that should be true if space-time has geometry.  We then look for these characteristics.  If we find them, the hypothesis of space-time structure becomes a theory of space-time structure.  After that it is tested again and again...  GR was formulated as a space-time geometrical explanation of gravity and it has been highly successful.  Again I ask...what more can you ask for in a theory?  A picture  <_<  ?  I am glad you weren't in charge of validating germ theory while it was being developed. lol.

View Post



So the Idea that Bent Light by gravitation is just an assumption??? I thought black holes were strong enough to gravitationally pull the light toward's them... thus bending the light, and if light can be bent, then it's speed would also logically be affected as this would not just be an optical illusion of the eye or telescope, but would actually be happening.

Gravity bending light is the same as light being bent. Something has to do the bending.

#70 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 25 November 2009 - 10:42 AM

No...It is not "bent" by gravitation as it it optically bent by a prism. 

View Post


It doesn’t matter how it appears to be bent. The fact remains that it still appears to be bent.

The two phenomena are completely unrelated.  When light is "bent" about a mass there is no index of refraction because there is no medium that it is traveling through.

View Post


Actually, no they are not. The medium (light) still appears to be bent. It doesn’t matter the cause because the medium is the relative (or relating) factor. Therefore, they are, in fact, related.

The hypothesis is that space-time is has structure - curvature.  Using this hypothesis we are able to surmise certain characteristics about the universe that should be true if space-time has geometry.  We then look for these characteristics.  If we find them, the hypothesis of space-time structure becomes a theory of space-time structure.  After that it is tested again and again...  GR was formulated as a space-time geometrical explanation of gravity and it has been highly successful.  Again I ask...what more can you ask for in a theory? 

View Post


I like the way you attempt to make a hypothesis a fact without the observable. You are attempting to say space is bent, without observing space being bent. The only apparent observable phenomenon is light, not space. Therefore you are speculating, not proving.

Nice try…

#71 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 25 November 2009 - 01:05 PM

GR explains gravity as nothing other than a curvature of space itself. Proving space is curved by proving gravity exists is as circular as reasoning gets. Can anyone fail to understand the appeal of GR among the faithful?

#72 Guest_Darkness45_*

Guest_Darkness45_*
  • Guests

Posted 25 November 2009 - 01:28 PM

The effect of mercury's orbit can be calculated two different ways, one from the standard Newtonian gravity, and the other from GR. These are two different equations with two different answers. When you look at the actual orbit of mercury, GR predicts the orbit very accurately, while the standard Newtonian gravity cannot.

Likewise, the same is true for the bending of light around massive objects. Two different equations, two different models. In GR, the light bends more than in gravity. When we look at the evidence, it again supports GR as the amount of bend in the light mirrors that of GR.

The image by Jason is a good example of gravitational lensing. If you look closely you can see streaks of light going around in a circle centered around a massive object (elliptical galaxy, which is the most massive type of galaxy). These streaks are congruent with the predictions of GR.

#73 Guest_tharock220_*

Guest_tharock220_*
  • Guests

Posted 25 November 2009 - 02:49 PM

Sorry Jason, that's light, not space. Thanks for proving my point.  :rolleyes:

View Post


Are you attacking general relativity and you don't even understand it?? That picture is a demonstration of gravitational lensing which Einstein's theory predicted before it was ever observed.

#74 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 25 November 2009 - 04:17 PM

The effect of mercury's orbit can be calculated two different ways, one from the standard Newtonian gravity, and the other from GR. These are two different equations with two different answers. When you look at the actual orbit of mercury, GR predicts the orbit very accurately, while the standard Newtonian gravity cannot.

View Post

We can take a scientific approach to the issue of mankind's capacity to calculate orbits accurately. Just look at the satellites they put up. They either fall back down, or require continual adjustments.

Mercury's orbit can be calculated with greater precision under Newton if one treats the sun as a large body rather than a point. The calculations are more tedious, however. According to Einstein himself, the simpler, less accurate Newtonian method was the one he "defeated".

http://www.marxists....lative/ap03.htm

According to Newtonian mechanics and Newton's law of gravitation, a planet which is revolving round the sun would describe an ellipse round the latter, or, more correctly, round the common centre of gravity of the sun and the planet. In such a system, the sun, or the common centre of gravity, lies in one of the foci of the orbital ellipse in such a manner that, in the course of a planet-year, the distance sun-planet grows from a minimum to a maximum, and then decreases again to a minimum.


Even so, anyone thinking even the simplest method gave poor results has a false impression. The margins-of-error involved are quite small.

None of the methods mentioned attempt to account for the gravitational interactions of all the other planets and moons. None account for magnetism either (it's stark verboten to even suggest magnetism might play a role). Perhaps that's why none actually match up perfectly with observations. Or maybe the calculations of the mass of the bodies might be off somewhere. Whoever figures out all the problems and obtains perfect accuracy might be up for a Nobel Prize, one supposes, provided their politics are acceptable to the committee...

#75 Guest_martemius_*

Guest_martemius_*
  • Guests

Posted 25 November 2009 - 04:31 PM

Mercury's orbit can be calculated with greater precision under Newton if one treats the sun as a large body rather than a point. The calculations are more tedious, however. According to Einstein himself, the simpler, less accurate Newtonian method was the one he "defeated".

http://www.marxists....lative/ap03.htm

According to Newtonian mechanics and Newton's law of gravitation, a planet which is revolving round the sun would describe an ellipse round the latter, or, more correctly, round the common centre of gravity of the sun and the planet. In such a system, the sun, or the common centre of gravity, lies in one of the foci of the orbital ellipse in such a manner that, in the course of a planet-year, the distance sun-planet grows from a minimum to a maximum, and then decreases again to a minimum.

View Post

:rolleyes: That's not what Einstein was saying at all. Really, I'm not even sure how you got that from the given excerpt. Einstein was just describing how Newtonian mechanics predicts an elliptical orbit, which has nothing to do with what you're claiming...

#76 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 25 November 2009 - 04:44 PM

Are you attacking general relativity and you don't even understand it??  That picture is a demonstration of gravitational lensing which Einstein's theory predicted before it was ever observed.

View Post


Okay, I can see why you are being so defensive and all... You think I'm attacking your theological stance on GR. But I'm not, so listen closely (a-hem) I said, the picture doesn't show space being bent. And it doesn't... So please, don't get bent about it.

#77 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 25 November 2009 - 05:10 PM

:lol:  That's not what Einstein was saying at all. Really, I'm not even sure how you got that from the given excerpt.  Einstein was just describing how Newtonian mechanics predicts an elliptical orbit, which has nothing to do with what you're claiming...

View Post

:o Silly contentless contention, eh? If you're familiar with the forum rules, you understand why I don't reply in kind. Well, that's one reason among a few I come up with.

But as long as I'm posting, I'll include this, from a different chaper, with my bold:

In the second place our result shows that, according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity and to which we have already frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity.

http://www.marxists....lative/ch22.htm

Not that anyone'll care any more than before, but it does partially explain why the assumption is so dear to the faithful, and cannot be acknowledged as such.

#78 Guest_martemius_*

Guest_martemius_*
  • Guests

Posted 25 November 2009 - 05:54 PM

:lol:  Silly contentless contention, eh? If you're familiar with the forum rules, you understand why I don't reply in kind. Well, that's one reason among a few I come up with.

But it's not a reason - Newtonian mechanics in any form simply isn't consistent with the orbit of Mercury. General relativity is.

Besides, your quote from Einstein was utterly irrelevant to what you were saying.

But as long as I'm posting, I'll include this, from a different chaper, with my bold:

http://www.marxists....lative/ch22.htm

Not that anyone'll care any more than before, but it does partially explain why the assumption is so dear to the faithful, and cannot be acknowledged as such.

View Post

I fail to see how that's relevant to the thread. Yes, special relativity assumes that the speed of light is constant. While we have good reason to believe that, we can't derive it from previous principles, which is why we have to make it an axiom or assumption and not a theoretical result in and of itself. But still - we have good reason to believe that.

#79 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 25 November 2009 - 06:51 PM

I fail to see how that's relevant to the thread.  Yes, special relativity assumes that the speed of light is constant.  While we have good reason to believe that, we can't derive it from previous principles, which is why we have to make it an axiom or assumption and not a theoretical result in and of itself.  But still - we have good reason to believe that.

View Post

Mighty convenient failure, that.

Assumptions are not compulsory. We who do not choose to make your assumption are not obliged to accept your conclusion(s). 2 + 2 = ?

No - I'm still to cryptic for the stubborn. Those who do not assume "c is constant" don't have to buy any Einsteinian bunk. They are free to acknowledge observations of light traveling at all sorts of speeds. They don't have to believe in bent space, 5 spatial dimensions, big bangs, or any of the rest of the junk derived from the assumption.

As for the "good reasons" for the belief, I think they're pretty easy to spot! Without that key assumption, cosmic evolution is dead in the water.

#80 Guest_martemius_*

Guest_martemius_*
  • Guests

Posted 25 November 2009 - 07:27 PM

And yet I'm still to hear any good reason for a variable speed of light.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users