Jump to content


Photo

A Universe From Nothing


  • Please log in to reply
202 replies to this topic

#81 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 25 November 2009 - 09:55 PM

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.

View Post


Black holes do not bend light. Light cannot be bent unless it is reflected or refracted which requires a change in index of refraction.

Black holes are extrememly warped space around a massive object. The space that the light travels through in the vicinity of the massive object is therefore curved. An observer not occupying the same curved space would see light curving around the object.

Nothing is being bent. There is no way to describe Gravity's effect on light with electromagnetism. We can explain it quite well with general relativity.

#82 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 25 November 2009 - 10:03 PM

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


Appears is the key word. However, it isn't bent like one bends a piece of metal. It isn't optically bent as in light changing direction.

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.


This is absolute nonsense. Please explain in detail how the optical "bending" of light is related to what we see in gravitational lensing other than the fact that you think they visually look the same. If you can't do that then you might as well quit arguing.

I like the way you attempt to make a hypothesis a fact without the observable.


I like the way you do not have the faintest notion of what you are talking about an yet you continue to type. The observable is gravitational lensing - the appearence of light changing direction in the vicinity of a mass. The explanation is general relativity which states that space is being curved in the vicinity of the mass. The science is sound.

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.


Well - there are no proofs in science my friend. Only theories. Light is observed curving around a mass and there is NO EXPLANATION of this phenomenon outside of GR. The theory is that space time is curved which has observable consequences that when looked for are found. This is science. This is how science has always been defined.

Nice try…


:lol:

#83 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 25 November 2009 - 10:10 PM

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.

View Post


So Ron, what is your explanation for why the light in that picture is distorted the way it is in complete agreement with relativity?

#84 b00tleg

b00tleg

    BANNED

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 119 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Meridian, Idaho

Posted 25 November 2009 - 10:24 PM

Appears is the key word.  However, it isn't bent like one bends a piece of metal.  It isn't optically bent as in light changing direction.
This is absolute nonsense.  Please explain in detail how the optical "bending" of light is related to what we see in gravitational lensing other than the fact that you think they visually look the same.  If you can't do that then you might as well quit arguing.
I like the way you do not have the faintest notion of what you are talking about an yet you continue to type.  The observable is gravitational lensing - the appearence of light changing direction in the vicinity of a mass.  The explanation is general relativity which states that space is being curved in the vicinity of the mass.  The science is sound.
Well - there are no proofs in science my friend.  Only theories.  Light is observed curving around a mass and there is NO EXPLANATION of this phenomenon outside of GR.  The theory is that space time is curved which has observable consequences that when looked for are found.  This is science.  This is how science has always been defined. 
:lol:

View Post


Perhaps Ron can explain why light being "bent" by gravity isn't a more common occurence...

#85 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 25 November 2009 - 10:28 PM

GR explains gravity as nothing other than a curvature of space itself.


Correct.


Proving space is curved by proving gravity exists is as circular as reasoning gets.


Nobody is doing this. GR can be used to make specific predictions - for example - gravitational lensing. Gravitational lensing is the apparent curving of light around a massive object. This phenomenon is not explained by any other theory of gravity (including Newton). This phenomenon is also not explained by electromagnetism or any other theory of physics. Only GR has been able to explain it.

This is not circular reasoning.


Can anyone fail to understand the appeal of GR among the faithful?


:lol:

#86 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 25 November 2009 - 10:50 PM

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.


Sattelites that require adjustments need them because of drag with molecules from the atmosphere that they orbit in. The atmosphere does not end in a discrete barrier - it conintues to spread out thinning until it is gone. The sattelits orbit through a thin atmosphere. This is well known stuff - engineers have been dealing with it for quite sometime.

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.


:lol: You are becoming the king of linking and quoting things that do not support what you say. Not at any point in your link or your quote does Einstein day that he defeated a less accurate form of Newton's laws.

I personally know Newton's laws inside and out. I have studied them in their pure form and their modified form. All versions of Newton's laws of mechanics fail to properly calculate the proper orbit of Mercury. Please link the maths if you continue down this line of debate. It should be easy to find if you know it. Of course if you are simply making stuff up like you usually do (which I suspect) then you will find nothing.

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


The amount Newton's theory is off is significant enough to be measurable and was a major cause for concern.

From here:

As seen from Earth the precession of Mercury's orbit is measured to be 5600 seconds of arc per century (one second of arc=1/3600 degrees). Newton's equations, taking into account all the effects from the other planets (as well as a very slight deformation of the sun due to its rotation) and the fact that the Earth is not an inertial frame of reference, predicts a precession of 5557 seconds of arc per century. There is a discrepancy of 43 seconds of arc per century.

This discrepancy cannot be accounted for using Newton's formalism. Many ad-hoc fixes were devised (such as assuming there was a certain amount of dust between the Sun and Mercury) but none were consistent with other observations (for example, no evidence of dust was found when the region between Mercury and the Sun was carefully scrutinized). In contrast, Einstein was able to predict, without any adjustments whatsoever, that the orbit of Mercury should precess by an extra 43 seconds of arc per century should the General Theory of Relativity be correct.


It wasn't much but it should have been a measurable effect. And it was measured. And it was off by the amount predicted using GR.

None of the methods mentioned attempt to account for the gravitational interactions of all the other planets and moons.


:lol: :o

CTD you have once again shown me that you have no clue what you are talking about. Both theories take into account the gravitational interactions of the other sources in our solar systems. Only one theory, GR, does so correctly. In fact, both theories predict a precession BECAUSE of the other planets in the solar system. However, Newton's theory does so incorrectly.


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...


:blink: :blink: Do you just type this stuff as you think of it? Please back up each statement in this paragraph with a paper please.

#87 CTD

CTD

    Banned

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

Posted 26 November 2009 - 12:45 PM

So Ron, what is your explanation for why the light in that picture is distorted the way it is in complete agreement with relativity?

View Post

What's to explain? Any distortion whatsoever, or no distortion at all would be interpreted as "in complete agreement with relativity".

What's more, there exist such pictures which are openly admitted to disagree with the straightforward "predictions". I suspect this is one of them, in fact. Estimates are made of the mass of the object, based on brightness. It is calculated how much "distortion" should be observed. The distortion is greater than the amount GR "predicts" for the "observed" mass. Then here comes the fun: this discrepancy is proudly presented as "evidence for dark matter".

#88 CTD

CTD

    Banned

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

Posted 26 November 2009 - 12:59 PM

What's to explain? Any distortion whatsoever, or no distortion at all would be interpreted as "in complete agreement with relativity".

What's more, there exist such pictures which are openly admitted to disagree with the straightforward "predictions". I suspect this is one of them, in fact. Estimates are made of the mass of the object, based on brightness. It is calculated how much "distortion" should be observed. The distortion is greater than the amount GR "predicts" for the "observed" mass. Then here comes the fun: this discrepancy is proudly presented as "evidence for dark matter".

View Post

Ha! So easily confirmed

http://occamsmachete.com/?p=15

http://metousiosis.c...ark-matter-map/

A clear demonstration of the incorrectness of GR is flipped and spun by simple, straightforward misinterpretation into "evidence for GR".

The only thing these people care about when it comes to falsifiability is how to dodge it.

#89 Guest_Darkness45_*

Guest_Darkness45_*
  • Guests

Posted 26 November 2009 - 07:20 PM

So what do you propose to explain gravitational lensing other than a combination of GR and dark matter with visible matter?

There are other reasons why scientists think dark matter is out there besides gravitational lensing being more than what it should be if you take only visible matter. For example, the amount of mass required to keep our galaxy structurally stable is much higher than all the visible matter added together. If I remember correctly our galaxy has to be ruffly 70% dark matter, otherwise our galaxy will crumble apart.

#90 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 26 November 2009 - 07:51 PM

So what do you propose to explain gravitational lensing other than a combination of GR and dark matter with visible matter?

There are other reasons why scientists think dark matter is out there besides gravitational lensing being more than what it should be if you take only visible matter. For example, the amount of mass required to keep our galaxy structurally stable is much higher than all the visible matter added together. If I remember correctly our galaxy has to be ruffly 70% dark matter, otherwise our galaxy will crumble apart.

View Post

So you are saying matter we can not see is there because what we can see doesn't account for the stability of the universe.

So we have discovered that the seen universe--if that's all there is--would be physically impossible?

The scripture predicted that long before Hutton, Lyell, Lamarck, Darwin, or Einstein.

#91 CTD

CTD

    Banned

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

Posted 26 November 2009 - 08:15 PM

So what do you propose to explain gravitational lensing other than a combination of GR and dark matter with visible matter?

View Post

Out-of-focus light is all there is to explain. Unless you can demonstrate "gravitational lensing". Guess you're never going to get Ron's point...

If I remember correctly our galaxy has to be ruffly 70% dark matter, otherwise our galaxy will crumble apart.

View Post

Who says it isn't "crumbling apart"?

#92 Guest_Darkness45_*

Guest_Darkness45_*
  • Guests

Posted 26 November 2009 - 08:30 PM

So you are saying matter we can not see is there because what we can see doesn't account for the stability of the universe.


Not the universe, but the galaxy.

So we have discovered that the seen universe--if that's all there is--would be physically impossible?


Maybe, maybe not. This "dark matter" could just be massive black holes and what not. And this is all just the best model scientists have come up with. I know there is a new model that accounts for all the observations without the use of dark matter or dark energy. Although that is all I know, besides that this model is in its infancy, only time will tell how well it stands up to scientific scrutiny.

The scripture predicted that long before Hutton, Lyell, Lamarck, Darwin, or Einstein.

View Post


I'm not sure this is a triumph of scripture. When the big bang had the scientific consensus the Pope at the time hailed it as the proof of the point of creation and God Himself, as the model before than was a steady state model. The Pope was then asked by one of the Catholic astronomers to quit saying that science has proven the existence of God, because science could one day disprove the big bang, and then where would people's faith go? So I would be very hesitant to assert that this is proof of God, or a victory for scripture, and as I've stated earlier dark matter may become obsolete in our thinking of the universe.

#93 Guest_Darkness45_*

Guest_Darkness45_*
  • Guests

Posted 26 November 2009 - 08:40 PM

Out-of-focus light is all there is to explain. Unless you can demonstrate "gravitational lensing". Guess you're never going to get Ron's point...


The picture clearly shows gravitational lensing. Ron's point is that all we see is light bending, not space itself. Never mind that light goes in a straight path! So how is the light "out-of-focus"? GR predicted this and explains this phenomena accurately, Newtonian mechanics does not.

Who says it isn't "crumbling apart"?

View Post


By that I mean with the amount of visible matter we see in the galaxy, all the stars in the spirals should essentially spin off and out of the galaxy, this would mean we would as well since we are on one of the spirals. Since everything is intact and appears to be staying intact, this implies that there is more mass in the galaxy than what we can visibly see. Are you saying that the galaxy is "crumbling apart"? Why have you come to this conclusion?

#94 CTD

CTD

    Banned

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

Posted 26 November 2009 - 10:20 PM

The picture clearly shows gravitational lensing. Ron's point is that all we see is light bending, not space itself. Never mind that light goes in a straight path! So how is the light "out-of-focus"? GR predicted this and explains this phenomena accurately, Newtonian mechanics does not.

View Post

Keep your own arguments straight, will you? IF the "GR prediction" was "accurate", there would be no "evidence of dark matter" in the picture.

You wouldn't be one of those I hear about who reject the law of non-contradiction, would you?

Who says it isn't "crumbling apart"?

By that I mean with the amount of visible matter we see in the galaxy, all the stars in the spirals should essentially spin off and out of the galaxy, this would mean we would as well since we are on one of the spirals. Since everything is intact and appears to be staying intact, this implies that there is more mass in the galaxy than what we can visibly see. Are you saying that the galaxy is "crumbling apart"? Why have you come to this conclusion?

View Post

And how long would it take for the stars in the spirals to spin off and out? They've only been observing them a little while, you realize. The "appearances" you speak of involve some pretty hefty assumptions.

I'm not saying the galaxy is crumbling apart; I haven't access to big telescopes myself, and I don't know of anyone who's investigated. I know evotime is assumed by dark matter advocates, as is a total lack of any influence other than gravity.

#95 Guest_tharock220_*

Guest_tharock220_*
  • Guests

Posted 26 November 2009 - 11:09 PM

So you are saying matter we can not see is there because what we can see doesn't account for the stability of the universe.

So we have discovered that the seen universe--if that's all there is--would be physically impossible?

The scripture predicted that long before Hutton, Lyell, Lamarck, Darwin, or Einstein.

View Post


Dark matter is just used to help explain our universe. Scientists don't exactly know what it is, it's just part of our current model to explain the universe.

Darwin and Lamarck said nothing about cosmology, by the way.

#96 Guest_Darkness45_*

Guest_Darkness45_*
  • Guests

Posted 27 November 2009 - 12:28 AM

Keep your own arguments straight, will you? IF the "GR prediction" was "accurate", there would be no "evidence of dark matter" in the picture.

You wouldn't be one of those I hear about who reject the law of non-contradiction, would you?


Not at all, read what I said carefully. The phenomena of gravitational lensing is accurately predicted by GR, not necessarily the exact numbers in calculations. Whether GR is the whole picture or not (it's not), it explains things much better than Newtonian mechanics can, which means GR is the better scientific theory than Newton's theory of gravity, as it can't explain anything about gravitational lensing.

And how long would it take for the stars in the spirals to spin off and out? They've only been observing them a little while, you realize. The "appearances" you speak of involve some pretty hefty assumptions.


I don't know off the top of my head, but I guess it is more than 10,000 years if that's what you're going for.

I'm not saying the galaxy is crumbling apart;


Fair enough.

#97 CTD

CTD

    Banned

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

Posted 27 November 2009 - 12:40 PM

Not at all, read what I said carefully. The phenomena of gravitational lensing is accurately predicted by GR, not necessarily the exact numbers in calculations. Whether GR is the whole picture or not (it's not), it explains things much better than Newtonian mechanics can, which means GR is the better scientific theory than Newton's theory of gravity, as it can't explain anything about gravitational lensing.

View Post

You might as well give up. If the predictions were accurate, as you claim, there'd be no evidence in that pic for "dark matter". "Exact numbers" quibbling won't cut it either, as the prediction of GR is way, way, way off. All who know about the issue know this, so either you're ignorant or this is consistent with attempting to give an inaccurate impression to those who aren't familiar with "dark matter".

You're also wrong about Newtonian physics. Instead of simply regurgitating hype, I suggest investigating at least a little. It really doesn't take all that much, and you might enjoy the opportunity to not be wrong.

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

It may be added that, according to the theory, half of Figure 05 this deflection is produced by the Newtonian field of attraction of the sun, and the other half by the geometrical modification (" curvature ") of space caused by the sun.



#98 b00tleg

b00tleg

    BANNED

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 119 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Meridian, Idaho

Posted 27 November 2009 - 01:16 PM

You might as well give up. If the predictions were accurate, as you claim, there'd be no evidence in that pic for "dark matter". "Exact numbers" quibbling won't cut it either, as the prediction of GR is way, way, way off. All who know about the issue know this, so either you're ignorant or this is consistent with attempting to give an inaccurate impression to those who aren't familiar with "dark matter".

You're also wrong about Newtonian physics. Instead of simply regurgitating hype, I suggest investigating at least a little. It really doesn't take all that much, and you might enjoy the opportunity to not be wrong.

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

It may be added that, according to the theory, half of Figure 05 this deflection is produced by the Newtonian field of attraction of the sun, and the other half by the geometrical modification (" curvature ") of space caused by the sun.

View Post


Who are you to tell anyone to give up? If you don't like the debate, don't participate.

#99 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 28 November 2009 - 12:46 AM

Dark matter was introduced to account for missing mass in the universe. There are several reasons why physicists think there is missing mass: 1. orbital velocities of galaxies in clusters 2. rotational speeds of galaxies 3. temperature distributions of hot gas in galaxies and galactic clusters. They did not initially believe it to exist because of gravitational lensing however.

If the culprit responsible has a mass it ought to be detectable via gravitational interactions as predicted using general relativity. So physicists looked and low and behold they found gravitational lensing caused by dark matter (like in the picture before). According to GR there should be a mass there but we cannot detect it except through its gravitational interactions. Gravitational lesning is NOT restricted to dark matter objects.

There have been attempts to modify gravitational theories so that the effects of dark matter are normalized out....for example, MOND theory. However, it is riddled with problems, one of them being that we seem to see gravitational interaction of dark matter at the galactic level.

CTD, or the website that he takes his ideas from, would have you believe that it is obvious that Dark Matter is an error. Current dark matter observations suggests that there isn't a problem with GR but rather there is some actual stuff that we can't see that has mass.

#100 Guest_Darkness45_*

Guest_Darkness45_*
  • Guests

Posted 28 November 2009 - 05:50 AM

You might as well give up. If the predictions were accurate, as you claim, there'd be no evidence in that pic for "dark matter". "Exact numbers" quibbling won't cut it either, as the prediction of GR is way, way, way off. All who know about the issue know this, so either you're ignorant or this is consistent with attempting to give an inaccurate impression to those who aren't familiar with "dark matter".


So what do you propose to explain everything we see other than your "out-of-focus light" idea?

I have a feeling you've either lumped me into the ignorant or misleading category already. Out of curiosity, which one is it?

You're also wrong about Newtonian physics. Instead of simply regurgitating hype, I suggest investigating at least a little. It really doesn't take all that much, and you might enjoy the opportunity to not be wrong.


I am in denial so deeply I refuse to accept reality and anything that will compromise my view of the universe, thanks for trying though.

It may be added that, according to the theory, half of Figure 05 this deflection is produced by the Newtonian field of attraction of the sun, and the other half by the geometrical modification (" curvature ") of space caused by the sun.


I am somewhat compelled to ask if you know what this quote means? It means Newton was wrong, and wasn't completely correct, thus the need for Einstein's theory of relativity.

There's a reason why everyone (or nearly everyone) who has made astronomy their profession since Einstein has agreed that GR works and is a valid theory. These are some of the most gifted minds of the century coupled with the education and direct observations to make these decisions. Don't you think that it is a little strange that every contemporary astronomer accepts GR if it is obvious to any laymen that it is totally and utterly wrong? I don't think you can just wave this away with some conspiracy lightly.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users