1. ## Re: Big Bang wrong?

You're learning. For example, you just learned the fallacy of trying to prove a negative. Taking knowledge you learn enables you to learn faster and faster. You have Time to learn
For example, let me take One Line from a post you made above, and address it.
Originally Posted by Eleftherios Karagiannis
The speed of light is not constant, proven by water.
This is false.
The speed of light is constant. However, you provide an example of how light appears to bend if you place a drinking straw in a glass of water.
But this is a misconception. Light always moves at "c." Always. That never changes.
But... your example suggests that it does... so what is going on there?
Conservation Of Energy is what is going on, there.
So, let's take a closer look at that glass of water... get really, really close, to where you are not looking at the glass or the water, anymore, but the atoms that compose those materials.
Wait a moment and soon enough, a Photon comes along. It is moving at "c."
When it hits an atom, the photon is absorbed into the atom and that energy is transferred to the electron which jumps into a Higher Energy State. The photon has ceased to exist. It is either moving at "c" or it is not in existence.
But Energy Must be conserved, so... the atom releases a photon to rid itself of that energy, the electron drops back down to a lower energy state and the released photon continues along the original trajectory.
So, you see, the photon never moved at any speed other than "c."
Instead, there is a delay created that gives the illusion that light was slowed down.
To put this into an analogy:
Let's say you have a car that moves at either 0 kph or 100 kph. It does not accelerate. If it is stopped, it's speed is zero. If it is in motion at all, it's speed instantly jumps to 100 kph.
You take this car to the desert and starting at a starting line, drive toward an end goal 100 kilometers away.
It takes one hour to reach your goal.
Now, we repeat the process only this time, we put in traffic lights.
When the car is stopped at a traffic light, there is a delay in its arrival at the goal. When the light turns green, it instantly jumps to 100kph toward the next light where it becomes zero again, waiting on the light to change and enduring another delay.
The trip takes more than one hour due to the delays but the car always moved at 100kph when in motion.
The flaw of the analogy in that the photon does Not Exist when the red light hits... but you get the idea.
-The traffic signals are the Atomic interactions
-The car is the photon
-The speed of the car represents "c."
If this helps you to understand why it is that light can appear to slow down even though light always moves at "c" then you are one more step toward understanding the world around you and ready to take another step.

2. ## Re: Big Bang wrong?

I read that in a science article, the same the general public reads. I assumed they actually measured it. That is the problem for me, one article says one thing and another contradicts it. I know that is science, but it hard for me to know what is what, or even tell a difference.

When it hits an atom, the photon is absorbed into the atom and that energy is transferred to the electron which jumps into a Higher Energy State. The photon has ceased to exist. It is either moving at "c" or it is not in existence.

This is my attempt to argue, the best I can do. Does the photon lose all its energy? How can we be sure? Based on what you wrote about absolute zero, something should remain to keep the photon in existence, or that may be possible, if not required.

Light enters the water and bends; the photon only goes down so deep then changes. What affects the photons to change and what happens to them next?

A thing popping into and out of existence defies the universe recycling. How can the universe recycle empty or none?

I know that is not what you mean based on the car example. But still, one minus one claims otherwise.

3. ## Re: Big Bang wrong?

Originally Posted by Eleftherios Karagiannis
I read that in a science article, the same the general public reads. I assumed they actually measured it. That is the problem for me, one article says one thing and another contradicts it. I know that is science, but it hard for me to know what is what, or even tell a difference.
This is not an uncommon problem... and part of the cause is that news articles are not written by scientists. They are written by reporters and those reporters may not fully understand what it is that they are reporting.
Another problem is misunderstanding or misconceptions about the terms or words used. Improper wording can radically change how an article is perceived.
In the case of light moving at "c," a person may word it such that a lab technician was able to "Slow light down" using an exotic gas and lasers. Because to them, they see a result where there is a great delay in light reaching the target and it makes sense to them to think that the photons were slowed, somehow.
In language, there are many inaccuracies that remain, at least in English... Saying the "Sun comes up" for example instead saying, "The Earth rotates into the rays of the Sun."

Originally Posted by Eleftherios Karagiannis
This is my attempt to argue, the best I can do. Does the photon lose all its energy?
The photon transfers all its energy to the electron and ceases to exist. Electrons and photons are alike in this regard and look at the thread about Absolute Zero:
One of the necessary ingredients to 'make' an electron or photon is momentum. Without momentum, they cannot exist.
Originally Posted by Eleftherios Karagiannis
How can we be sure? Based on what you wrote about absolute zero, something should remain to keep the photon in existence, or that may be possible, if not required.
What I wrote in the Absolute Zero thread refers to the electron which has mass.
The photon, however, does not have mass and there is the difference between them. There is no mass with the photon to interfere with either conservation of momentum or conservation of energy.
Energy and momentum can be conserved without the photon needing to exist in order to account for mass. Since, the photon ingredients include only momentum, instead of mass.
But the electron has mass...
As to how can we be sure? The evidence sure supports it from decades worth of experiments and studies, including many still on going at Cern and various other colliders.
Additionally mathematical theory predicts and verifies the observed behavior. In short, these actions can be modeled using mathematics. Once you have a mathematical model, you try to verify what it says will happen in a physical lab experiment. The results matched the predictions. You can google search for Experiments in Conservation in momentum if you would like in depth details but I warn you... it's pmath heavy. Your eyeballs might vomit.
Originally Posted by Eleftherios Karagiannis
Light enters the water and bends; the photon only goes down so deep then changes. What affects the photons to change and what happens to them next?
The light appears to bend because the delays in the photon transmission cause more time to pass before the photons reach your eye.
As to the rest of the question; that is exactly what I answered in the previous post. Do you need more details?

Originally Posted by Eleftherios Karagiannis
A thing popping into and out of existence defies the universe recycling.
I do not understand what you mean by recycling.
Originally Posted by Eleftherios Karagiannis
I know that is not what you mean based on the car example. But still, one minus one claims otherwise.
If I can be harshly blunt... one minus one has no relevance. It's something you made up off your head without rigorous scientific study. I have no reason to include it in anything I explain since it simply is not science.

4. ## Re: Big Bang wrong?

Originally Posted by Neverfly

I do not understand what you mean by recycling.

If I can be harshly blunt... one minus one has no relevance. It's something you made up off your head without rigorous scientific study. I have no reason to include it in anything I explain since it simply is not science.
Nature is science. I am not a scientist, you are. This is the best I can do.

One cell splits into two, what is the math equation?

A) 0+2=2
B) 1+1=2
C) Chance
D) 1=2
E) Others?

Two cells, one enters the other, you can see the one cell inside the other, what is the math equation?

A) 0+1=1
B) 1-1=0
C) Chance
D) 2=1
E) Others?

That is what nature does. I did not make that up in my head, the answers I did, as well as the rest below.

The Math of Time, the instant of change between what was and will be, described mathematically.
The math of merging, One minus one = one plus one.
The math of splitting, One plus one = one minus one.
The solution of math is one. The solution of logic is two. 2=2, balance in opposites.

You must apply relative and not ignore it. One minus one describes two possibilities, not one subtracting itself. When and how can an apple subtract itself? It cannot. Another possibility subtracts the apple, like decay or me.

When the photon enters the atom, the photon and the atom become one, one point in space. Mathematically, no different than when I eat an apple, or when something first enters the earth’s gravity, two into one point in space. Not from empty or none. The math of merging.

When the photon leaves the atom, mathematically, is no different than one cell splitting into two, or something leaving the earth’s gravity. One point in space is now two separate points in space. It is possible that the atom is creating a new photon, like the sun, but that energy first came from somewhere else, not from empty or none. The math of splitting.

It just depends what possibilities I choose to describe and when.

Recycling, I am sure there is a scientific term for it. I just know it. The energy comes from somewhere and goes somewhere, and round and round it goes. And that includes matter. Empty and none cannot do that and does not exist in nature. Unless I believe I can see empty or none, and that requires ignoring relative. It is a point of failure. When I eat an apple, math and time do not stop; it goes on in my body. It is how I grow bigger and stronger and avoid the doctor, as the saying goes. An x-ray or MRI might help. That is the best I can describe it, I know it stinks.

I was hoping a scientist would try something different. It’s just words, and not very many of them. If you refuse to consider anything else, great, it is your choice. If I am wrong, great, I have more to learn. I am not afraid to fail in thought, and that has served me well in my life, and still does.

Be loving, be caring, be humble, be giving, nothing wrong with that, unless I believe I am done achieving. It has nothing to do with science or math, but it is part of learning. Everything is; the right and the wrong.

5. ## Re: Big Bang wrong?

Originally Posted by Eleftherios Karagiannis
One cell splits into two, what is the math equation?

A) 0+2=2
B) 1+1=2
C) Chance
D) 1=2
E) Others?
This is not correct... a cell is neither a 0, 1, 2... A cell is made of a lot of molecules. Think of them as "bricks." If I build a construct of a cell out of "Bricks," there would be a minimum number of bricks required to make it like a cell. This means there would be a minimum number of bricks needed for that cell to be able to divide. That cell would need to gather and store many bricks before it could split into two cells.

Originally Posted by Eleftherios Karagiannis
Two cells, one enters the other, you can see the one cell inside the other, what is the math equation?
See what I said above.

Originally Posted by Eleftherios Karagiannis
That is what nature does. I did not make that up in my head
Yes, you made it up in your head. The assignment of a complex and molecule heavy cell as simply "1" is not accurate for any real scientific description. Unless you are counting a number of cells for a specific task.
For example, 1 man plus one woman = 1 baby. It seems accurate, but is not. 1 man plus 1 woman may equal 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9... It depends. A woman may die in childbirth or deliver octoplets.
Avoiding simplicity, we see that a human is not an individual unit:
A person is just a colony of cells. We are not individuals. As colonies, we carry on the necessary behaviors to ensure the survival and well being of that colony. Including its nourishment, population maintenance and growth and supply provision. Some rebel cell colonies do not follow the rules our body requires as a society - by being cancerous. In failing to die at the right time, in failing to halt growth, those rebellious cells endanger the entire colony.
Originally Posted by Eleftherios Karagiannis
The math of merging, One minus one = one plus one.
The math of splitting, One plus one = one minus one.
The solution of math is one. The solution of logic is two. 2=2, balance in opposites.
As outlined above, you are not describing nature mathematically.
Your model is entirely too vague, too simplistic and not applicable to most actual situations because it ignores the actual numerical values.
But, it also demonstrates your curiosity, your desire to understand the universe and your desire to organize it into models and that is an admirable thing. What you are trying to do is what scientifically minded people have been doing since we first developed into what we now call Homo Sapiens. So, I say the above not to discourage, but rather to encourage you to take it much further than you have so far.
You have an inquisitive mind- it just needs development and more information.
For example:

Originally Posted by Eleftherios Karagiannis
One minus one describes two possibilities, not one subtracting itself.
In this case, your curiosity hints at the necessity of the "Wave Function."
Originally Posted by Eleftherios Karagiannis
When and how can an apple subtract itself? It cannot. Another possibility subtracts the apple, like decay or me.
And here you acknowledge the complexity of a complex system.

Originally Posted by Eleftherios Karagiannis
When the photon enters the atom, the photon and the atom become one, one point in space. Mathematically, no different than when I eat an apple, or when something first enters the earth’s gravity, two into one point in space. Not from empty or none. The math of merging.
Here you acknowledge that something does not come from nothing. However, the term "One point in space" is inaccurate and very misleading...

Originally Posted by Eleftherios Karagiannis
When the photon leaves the atom, mathematically, is no different than one cell splitting into two, or something leaving the earth’s gravity.
It is quite different, I am sorry. Your simplified terms do not accurately describe these interactions.
As an example, let me give you the formula for the photon/electron interaction:

where T is the Maxwell stress tensor, F is the force density, S is the Poynting vector, c is the speed of light, and S/c2 is the momentum density. Now, this is the relativistic formula, using Maxwell and Einsteins equations and a simplified version can be used but...
As you can see... this is not 1+1=2.
Again, this is not meant to discourage. Rather, it is to demonstrate that specific and precise measurements are required for precise observations. The above formula looks daunting at first but it is actually a pretty simple calculation and is not difficult to simplify to easier terms, even, if you can learn to understand it to the same moderation you learned how to do long division. It requires similar amounts of effort.
I like the way you are thinking. But that, in itself, is never good enough. You are on the right track, the right path, but being on the right path is not enough by itself. You must go as far as you can on your path. You must do things to further your position on that path. You can never be content to sit still or think you have gone far enough.
Originally Posted by Eleftherios Karagiannis
Recycling, I am sure there is a scientific term for it. I just know it. The energy comes from somewhere and goes somewhere, and round and round it goes.
Ah.
Scientific names for it... Conservation of Energy.
Or as above, conservation of momentum. Be specific.
Originally Posted by Eleftherios Karagiannis
And that includes matter. Empty and none cannot do that and does not exist in nature. Unless I believe I can see empty or none, and that requires ignoring relative. It is a point of failure. When I eat an apple, math and time do not stop; it goes on in my body. It is how I grow bigger and stronger and avoid the doctor, as the saying goes. An x-ray or MRI might help. That is the best I can describe it, I know it stinks.
It does stink... But you described it well enough that I can see exactly what you are talking about. IT gave me some idea of how you think and view the world.
Like, you say when you eat an apple, you are absorbing some of its mass. Eating it simply introduced those molecules to your body. Your cells used some of them to gather bricks. Those cells divided to make a muscle larger or to replace dead cells.
You are saying that the concept of "zero" does not apply to the physical world, only to mathematical models.
And I would say you are making sense.

Originally Posted by Eleftherios Karagiannis
If I am wrong, great, I have more to learn. I am not afraid to fail in thought, and that has served me well in my life, and still does.

Be loving, be caring, be humble, be giving, nothing wrong with that, unless I believe I am done achieving. It has nothing to do with science or math, but it is part of learning. Everything is; the right and the wrong.
Well Said.
You could make a great scientist. If you wanted to.

6. ## Re: Big Bang wrong?

Originally Posted by Neverfly
You could make a great scientist. If you wanted to.
Thank you for being kind, but I know me, I do ten dumb things a day, at least.

Thank you for trying to help me, but please consider this:

The universe is expanding faster, in other words, not constant. The speed of light is constant. My logic sees a problem with that.

I see nature as that simple, but I do have a simple mind, that is my problem, only I can fix. At least try. My problem is my age. I’m afraid that time has passed. Unless you can figure out time travel, but you have to do it quick.

Thank you again.

7. ## Re: Big Bang wrong?

Originally Posted by Eleftherios Karagiannis
Thank you for being kind, but I know me, I do ten dumb things a day, at least.
Is that all? Psh. I got that beat, easy.
Originally Posted by Eleftherios Karagiannis
The universe is expanding faster, in other words, not constant. The speed of light is constant. My logic sees a problem with that.
What would be the problem with it? The nature of either? A problem with how one could be constant and the other not?
That the Universe could expand to where parts of it could never ever be seen from Earth? Well, that has happened, already.
There is a great deal that has expanded out past the threshold of how far back we can see. It gets worse and you're going to hate me for this but... It's receding at speeds faster than light, too.
Originally Posted by Eleftherios Karagiannis
My problem is my age. I’m afraid that time has passed. Unless you can figure out time travel, but you have to do it quick.
Ohh... I already did. That's how I got here from the future. I didn't like it much, then... Too crowded. Decided to move back here instead. I was a little disappointed to learn I missed the dinosaurs... But I decided to stay in this time anyway when I found out there are plenty of people around that are just like them.

8. ## Re: Big Bang wrong?

Originally Posted by Neverfly
Is that all? Psh. I got that beat, easy.
I like betting, I do it almost everyday, of course I lose, but not always.

Originally Posted by Neverfly
What would be the problem with it? The nature of either? A problem with how one could be constant and the other not?
That the Universe could expand to where parts of it could never ever be seen from Earth? Well, that has happened, already.
There is a great deal that has expanded out past the threshold of how far back we can see. It gets worse and you're going to hate me for this but... It's receding at speeds faster than light, too.
That just makes my head spin, I got you beat there.

Originally Posted by Neverfly
Ohh... I already did. That's how I got here from the future. I didn't like it much, then... Too crowded. Decided to move back here instead. I was a little disappointed to learn I missed the dinosaurs... But I decided to stay in this time anyway when I found out there are plenty of people around that are just like them.
So did I, great minds thinks alike, well at least your does. Mine just likes to spin and believes everything is still.

9. ## Re: Big Bang wrong?

Originally Posted by Eleftherios Karagiannis
That just makes my head spin, I got you beat there.
If spacetime is expanding and doing so over great distances, then the expansion effect increases over distance. It adds up.
Add it up enough and you will reach a distance where the speed of expansion equals the speed of light. Add it up some more and the speed exceeds the speed of light. Seems contradictory but this is permissible because it is spacetime itself that is propagating at that speed and not matter within spacetime.

10. ## Re: Big Bang wrong?

Originally Posted by Neverfly
If spacetime is expanding and doing so over great distances, then the expansion effect increases over distance. It adds up.
Add it up enough and you will reach a distance where the speed of expansion equals the speed of light. Add it up some more and the speed exceeds the speed of light. Seems contradictory but this is permissible because it is spacetime itself that is propagating at that speed and not matter within spacetime.
then the expansion effect increases over distance. Why would it do that? What force is causing that? I hope that is a right question or two.

What is space time made of? Energy? To me, magnetism being space time seems possible and has too many similarities to dark energy to ignore. Of course, I know next to nothing of each, only what I have heard. I am also guessing that magnetism is energy faster than light and that is why we can’t see it or measure it, only its effects.

Is it possible that the material that makes magnetism is not actually making the energy, but opening a window to a part of the universe we do not see? And that is how it rebalances itself?

I will need time to understand everything else you wrote above. I know you simplified everything as much as you can. I hope nobody told you this was going to be easy.

Page 3 of 4 First 1234 Last

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•