Joined Apr 2011
L3: Novice
Forum Thread
Hello, My Name is Mike. I Give A Thesis As to Why Steven Hawking Could Be Wrong.
August 11, 2011 at
07:37 AM
in
Question
(10)
Now don't get me wrong, I used to think Steven Hawking was the smartest person ever. As someone else that is smart (me), I watch Discovery and TLC a lot - minus Kate Plus Eight hehe.. Anyways, let's get down to what is bothering me.
I was thinking the other day of the entire basis of why the Big Bang Theory is the top suggested theory going right now in the science realm. Let's ignore religion and let's use what we know. For those unaware, the Big Bang is basically the theory that everything originated from a single point so small and so tiny that you couldn't even see it with your own eyes. Let's put this into your mind.
Now the Big Bang is used mostly because of the Doppler Effect. No I ain't talking weather. I'm talking color shift. Basically things that move very fast away from you create a redshift (red color behind them). Those that are coming toward you fast create a blueshift (blue in front of them). So what scientist have done is examine the universe and see all this redshift everywhere. They basically have concluded that everything is moving away from us.
My problem is the following:
1) The Doppler Effect doesn't take into account the source point of view. Who is to say the Earth isn't the one moving away fast? If you want to include our solar system, let's say the Sun and the 8 planets are the ones moving away from everything else.
2) If everything is moving so far away from each other at such fast speeds, why is Steven Hawking even suggesting that we attempt to travel to other solar systems thousands of light years away from us (speeds we can't even come close to). By the time we reach where they were when we left earth, they will no longer be there, right? They are moving so fast to create a redshift that we would never make the destination. The travel time would be infinite.
3) Let's say that it is just our solar system moving away from everything else. That would destroy the Big Bang theory completely and then do away with the idea that we all originated from one single point in space. It also destroys Steven Hawking's theory that before the Big Bang, there was no space.
If this is too complicated for you to understand, let me know and I can explain more.
DISCUSS
I was thinking the other day of the entire basis of why the Big Bang Theory is the top suggested theory going right now in the science realm. Let's ignore religion and let's use what we know. For those unaware, the Big Bang is basically the theory that everything originated from a single point so small and so tiny that you couldn't even see it with your own eyes. Let's put this into your mind.
Now the Big Bang is used mostly because of the Doppler Effect. No I ain't talking weather. I'm talking color shift. Basically things that move very fast away from you create a redshift (red color behind them). Those that are coming toward you fast create a blueshift (blue in front of them). So what scientist have done is examine the universe and see all this redshift everywhere. They basically have concluded that everything is moving away from us.
My problem is the following:
1) The Doppler Effect doesn't take into account the source point of view. Who is to say the Earth isn't the one moving away fast? If you want to include our solar system, let's say the Sun and the 8 planets are the ones moving away from everything else.
2) If everything is moving so far away from each other at such fast speeds, why is Steven Hawking even suggesting that we attempt to travel to other solar systems thousands of light years away from us (speeds we can't even come close to). By the time we reach where they were when we left earth, they will no longer be there, right? They are moving so fast to create a redshift that we would never make the destination. The travel time would be infinite.
3) Let's say that it is just our solar system moving away from everything else. That would destroy the Big Bang theory completely and then do away with the idea that we all originated from one single point in space. It also destroys Steven Hawking's theory that before the Big Bang, there was no space.
If this is too complicated for you to understand, let me know and I can explain more.
DISCUSS
140 Comments
Your comment cannot be blank.
Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.
This possible existence of virtual particles does create measurable effects, most obviously the Casimir force, so for things that don't exist, they have some remarkably real effects. Take such an initial vacuum fluctuation, combine with an inflationary epoch, stir in our current best estimates for quark and lepton generations, and out precipitates a universe that is reasonably in line with the observed microwave background observations, measured levels of primordial deuterium, etc.
If space were itself static. However, space is itself expanding (not merely objects moving through it) which means that most of the universe is likely causally disconnected from ourselves and we cannot reach it no matter how fast we move. (However, that's nit-picking, because anything we can see is obviously not causally disconnected and not necessarily unreachable.)
Depends what you mean by "volume": if you mean "de Broglie wavelength," then it's a function of momentum and that's pretty well understood. If you mean why so many molecules of water fit in a measuring cup, that's just how the Pauli exclusion principle works on Fermions, and how that works is pretty well understood, too. (_Why_ fermions and bosons obey different statistics is another matter, but that's getting rather far afield.)
For all we know, at .00001 seconds after the big bang something that doesn't presently exist converted into some astronomical amount of energy that kept the rest of the Big Bang going, no?
That's definitely an ongoing process with quantum mechanics and cosmology. It's an ongoing challenge to come up with rules that give the right results here at home, but also work for the movement of the stars (and we get into stranger and stranger stuff--even today only 4% of the material that makes up the universe appears to be "normal" matter).
Even before that, though, we can still talk about the physics of the "Grand Unification Epoch" from 10^-43 to 10-^36 seconds and the Planck Epoch before that. It gets sketchier as you go back, but you can still make theories that make measurable predictions for how they would affect the universe today. There's a lot of head-scratching involved--and the technical advances necessary to create the instruments necessary to test the predictions--but you can still work on figuring out what was going on back when the universe looked very different from how it does today.
1) As for being 'smart', it was just a general idea and had nothing to do with what I watch on TV. I know some of the people here have researched me on the internet. If we are talking about pure academic smart, then I must admit I do have 2 degrees from 2 pretty good schools. You can find more info on Facebook if you find me - which really isn't that hard. I will not discuss my intelligence anymore on this site because on other forums I got a lot of people challenging me just because of what schools I graduated from and my degrees.
2) As for Doppler Effect, many on this thread are worrying about the details of the theory and not seeing the big picture. I saw some people compare Stargate or other fiction shows to this theory. My question is not about the theory details or itself. It is like me talking about gas cars vs electric and someone trying to prove me wrong about the proper combustion cycle of a gas engine. It is still running on gas despite the details. As for Doppler Effect, if planets and stars are moving so fast to force a redshift or blueshift, why would we even discuss the possibility of reaching any of these places. To create such an effect the speed they are traveling is several times faster than anything we would ever be able to create with the items on our planet. It has nothing to do with the details of the theory itself. As for comparing it to reaching Mars, I said in my post that our solar system is independent. Therefore reaching Mars which is orbiting the same planet we are isn't on the same level as to what I'm talking about. That involves only predicting the movement on 1 scale. I am talking about adding that 1 scale and then add the unknown ? scale of how fast planets are moving away from us in other parts of the solar system.
3) The other comments on here obviously aren't thinking on my same wave length.
Good day!
2) As for Doppler Effect, many on this thread are worrying about the details of the theory and not seeing the big picture. I saw some people compare Stargate or other fiction shows to this theory. My question is not about the theory details or itself. It is like me talking about gas cars vs electric and someone trying to prove me wrong about the proper combustion cycle of a gas engine. It is still running on gas despite the details. As for Doppler Effect, if planets and stars are moving so fast to force a redshift or blueshift, why would we even discuss the possibility of reaching any of these places. To create such an effect the speed they are traveling is several times faster than anything we would ever be able to create with the items on our planet. It has nothing to do with the details of the theory itself. As for comparing it to reaching Mars, I said in my post that our solar system is independent. Therefore reaching Mars which is orbiting the same planet we are isn't on the same level as to what I'm talking about. That involves only predicting the movement on 1 scale. I am talking about adding that 1 scale and then add the unknown ? scale of how fast planets are moving away from us in other parts of the solar system.
1) As for being 'smart', it was just a general idea and had nothing to do with what I watch on TV. I know some of the people here have researched me on the internet. If we are talking about pure academic smart, then I must admit I do have 2 degrees from 2 pretty good schools. You can find more info on Facebook if you find me - which really isn't that hard. I will not discuss my intelligence anymore on this site because on other forums I got a lot of people challenging me just because of what schools I graduated from and my degrees.
2) As for Doppler Effect, many on this thread are worrying about the details of the theory and not seeing the big picture. I saw some people compare Stargate or other fiction shows to this theory. My question is not about the theory details or itself. It is like me talking about gas cars vs electric and someone trying to prove me wrong about the proper combustion cycle of a gas engine. It is still running on gas despite the details. As for Doppler Effect, if planets and stars are moving so fast to force a redshift or blueshift, why would we even discuss the possibility of reaching any of these places. To create such an effect the speed they are traveling is several times faster than anything we would ever be able to create with the items on our planet. It has nothing to do with the details of the theory itself. As for comparing it to reaching Mars, I said in my post that our solar system is independent. Therefore reaching Mars which is orbiting the same planet we are isn't on the same level as to what I'm talking about. That involves only predicting the movement on 1 scale. I am talking about adding that 1 scale and then add the unknown ? scale of how fast planets are moving away from us in other parts of the solar system.
3) The other comments on here obviously aren't thinking on my same wave length.
Good day!
1) You can't stick your tongue out & look up at the same time, it's a physical impossibility.
2) All idiots after reading number 1, tried it.
3) You discover number 1 is a lie.
4) You are smiling now because you are an idiot.
5) You will soon copy & paste this elsewhere to catch other idiots.
6) There is still a stupid smile on your face.
I think
Mars ... is orbiting the same planet we are
On a more pressing note, Firefox doesn't think "bolded" is a word. Huh.
Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.
On a more pressing note, Firefox doesn't think "bolded" is a word. Huh.
Now try to enter the discussion overall.
You found a grammatical or term error. Congrats!
Now try to enter the discussion overall.
Also, if someone is going to tout how intelligent they are, it would be prudent to make sure that they don't make an error of that level. This isn't a spelling mistake, this is replacing the word "sun" with the word "planet." A simple proof read would have eliminated that, OR if you were so super intelligent, you wouldn't have made a mistake like that in the first place.
Either way, as far as anything involving you is concerned, there is no discussion to enter. It's like trying to explain thunder to a child - they have in their head what they think is right and no amount of explanation in terms of science is going to convince them otherwise. You just have to wait til they grow up.
Ok, we got someone making an attempt to take me reasonably. What you are saying though is that the frisbee (solar system, planet, or sun) you are trying to reach is coming back. I'm saying it can turn curve or whatever in its own solar system or galaxy and yet that entire galaxy can be moving away from you at astronomical speeds. You can chase and chase and predict all you want but it isn't coming back. It is like chasing a car on a highway when you got your feet and you are following a Ferrari. The Ferrari's absolute direction in the (X,Y,Z) plane is still a positive, a far bigger positive than you can ever create despite how close you get to either the X, Y, or Z coordinates. Your total velocity will never come close and the Ferrari will keep getting farther and farther away.
You found a grammatical or term error. Congrats!
Now try to enter the discussion overall.
Possibly. I am not the greatest public speaker but I am working on that.
Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.
One time this woman came in and the doctors all thought she was a male. They couldn't figure out what was wrong with "him" until "he" gave birth to a baby.
Hey, maybe it was Autumn!
I had several occasions where you could literally see a limb sticking out and my husband would be all freaked out and he'd say it reminded him of the alien movies.
The guy thing is weird. Maybe he was taking hormone supplements or started the process to become male.
I don't know, strange.
I don't know, too much stress for me, I wouldn't ever want to do it that way.
And I second that.
I have no idea why anyone bothers posting these lengthy replies to OP, he completely ignores any sort of logic and reason, and just continues believing in his own psychotic delusions.