Proof? I. Newtons three laws of motion: 1.First law: An object remains at rest or at a constant velocity (uniform motion), with respect to an inertial reference frame, unless acted upon by a force [2][3] 2.Second law: The acceleration of a body is directly proportional to, and in the same direction as, the net force acting on the body, and inversely proportional to its mass. Thus, F = ma, where F is the net force acting on the object, m is the mass of the object and a is the acceleration of the object. 3.Third law: When one body exerts a force on a second body, the second body simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction to that of the first body. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newtons_laws
II. Gravity is the weakest force in the universe: Gravitational force is 10 thousand billion billion billion billion times weaker than the Electromagnetic force http://www.scienceiq.com/Facts/WeakForce.cfm
So it stands to reason that if all matter was once centrally located and compacted together and then exploded at the speed of light, all of those particles should still be traveling in their original vectors at the same speed. If we apply Newton's laws and the law of conservation of momemtum, we should easily see that NOTHING should EVER SPEED UP without additional force being applied.
It has been proposed that parts of that matter has bumped into other parts repeatedly over time and has created planets, etc. These parts were supposedly drawn together by GRAVITY. We know that gravity is the WEAKEST FORCE IN THE UNIVERSE. So how did the weakest measurable force known to science overcome the inertia of matter moving in infinite directions at the speed of light?
My professor likes to talk about his Firebird. I sent him a link to my GTO Fiero build. His response, if any, will tell me how social he may want to be with students. If it seems favorable, I'll e-mail a copy of my conclusions. I don't know if it would go over so well in class.
Originally posted by Boostdreamer: It has been proposed that parts of that matter has bumped into other parts repeatedly over time and has created planets, etc. These parts were supposedly drawn together by GRAVITY. We know that gravity is the WEAKEST FORCE IN THE UNIVERSE. So how did the weakest measurable force known to science overcome the inertia of matter moving in infinite directions at the speed of light?
It just doesn't add up scientifically.
MATTER DOES NOT MOVE AT ANYWHERE NEAR LIGHT SPEEDS
space/time can and does move at light speed or greater but space/time does not have mass
small bits transfer the small inertia to the larger mass planets are plastic, they deform from impacts forming craters that also absorbs inertia the bit that impacts gets hot and melts more energy lost
no old guy in a beard needed
IP: Logged
11:37 PM
Jun 29th, 2013
Khw Member
Posts: 11139 From: South Weber, UT. U.S.A. Registered: Jun 2008
So it stands to reason that if all matter was once centrally located and compacted together and then exploded at the speed of light, all of those particles should still be traveling in their original vectors at the same speed. If we apply Newton's laws and the law of conservation of momemtum, we should easily see that NOTHING should EVER SPEED UP without additional force being applied.
It has been proposed that parts of that matter has bumped into other parts repeatedly over time and has created planets, etc. These parts were supposedly drawn together by GRAVITY. We know that gravity is the WEAKEST FORCE IN THE UNIVERSE. So how did the weakest measurable force known to science overcome the inertia of matter moving in infinite directions at the speed of light?
It just doesn't add up scientifically.
I think that you are trying to use Newton's three classical laws of motion in a regime where they did not (and do not) apply. After the Big Bang, it wasn't a case of matter moving outwards in all directions with respect to a central point at the origin of an inertial reference frame. It was space itself that was expanding--as it continues to expand with every passing second. Space itself expands, and matter is dragged along with it.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 06-29-2013).]
MATTER DOES NOT MOVE AT ANYWHERE NEAR LIGHT SPEEDS
space/time can and does move at light speed or greater but space/time does not have mass
small bits transfer the small inertia to the larger mass planets are plastic, they deform from impacts forming craters that also absorbs inertia the bit that impacts gets hot and melts more energy lost
no old guy in a beard needed
I didn't mention any old guy with a beard. I didn't offer any alternate theories. I just showed that this one is fatally flawed. The speed at which the particles were initially moving is irrevelant. Speed of light or the speed of my grandma's Buick. That is COMPLETELY beside the point that matter SHOULD NOT be speeding up. It should also not be changing from moving in a straight line to moving in swirling patterns know as galaxies, solar systems, etc.
I understand the CONCEPT of planets, etc, being formed by collisions, impacts and craters and such. The problem is that if everything was initially moving in a straight line away from the point of the origin of the Big Bang, why did those particles change direction? Once again, gravity is the WEAKEST measurable force known to science so I think we can rule it out.
People used to think that when a person sneezed, his/her soul was temporarily ejected from his/her body. They were afraid that demons would be waiting to snatch up your exposed soul when you sneezed, so they started saying "bless you" to distract the demons until your soul could return to your body.
People used to think that when a person sneezed, his/her soul was temporarily ejected from his/her body. They were afraid that demons would be waiting to snatch up your exposed soul when you sneezed, so they started saying "bless you" to distract the demons until your soul could return to your body.
What?! It doesn't work?! YOU MEAN THE DEMONS ARE STILL IN MEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!????????????????
Last i heard photons and tachyons are still considered matter.
Depends on when you measure their mass/energy ratio. Photons speed up, gain mass, lose energy, slow down, lose mass, gain energy... Same with electrons and every other form of mass. Is all of mass traveling at the speed of light? Or just the components?
IP: Logged
02:12 PM
Wichita Member
Posts: 20709 From: Wichita, Kansas Registered: Jun 2002
Just like the higgs was fantasy. Even if we don't yet have the technology to prove it, If the math holds, i don't call it a fantasy.
No the higgs is a real particle many theoretical physic's guys said there has to be a higgs particle because it does other real things it was a missing bit of the real universe a tachyon is like a unicorn something that never existed and there is no real evidence for it at all
No the higgs is a real particle many theoretical physic's guys said there has to be a higgs particle because it does other real things it was a missing bit of the real universe a tachyon is like a unicorn something that never existed and there is no real evidence for it at all
Have a nice day.
IP: Logged
04:00 PM
Wichita Member
Posts: 20709 From: Wichita, Kansas Registered: Jun 2002
I understand the CONCEPT of planets, etc, being formed by collisions, impacts and craters and such. The problem is that if everything was initially moving in a straight line away from the point of the origin of the Big Bang, why did those particles change direction? Once again, gravity is the WEAKEST measurable force known to science so I think we can rule it out.
Why can we rule out gravity? Take your explanation of the Big Bang - and all matter is moving away at a fixed speed in a straight line. What forces are acting on those particles after the Big Bang? None, unless they impact one another. Inertia is all that's keeping them moving, right? Gravity always acts on all matter. If two particles are close together, gravity is going to make them tend to converge instead of continue unaffected or diverge. In your example, gravity may be the "weakest" force, but it may also be the "ONLY" force acting on it.
If you jump out of a tree, do you ignore gravity because it's the weakest measurable force known to science? If not, at what point can you start ignoring it?
IP: Logged
06:30 PM
Blacktree Member
Posts: 20770 From: Central Florida Registered: Dec 2001
In the Big Bang, matter didn't just get flung out into space like an explosion. If that were all that happened, then yes gravity would eventually slow the matter down and pull it back in. But that's not all that happened. The fabric of time and space itself was coming into existence, and being pushed outward as more space-time fabric issued forth. So not only was the matter moving in relation to the space-time fabric, but the fabric itself was expanding and carrying the matter along with it, at faster-than-light speed, as the fabric itself was expanding.
Think of it this way: You might be sitting in your chair as you're reading this post on your computer. You don't feel like you're moving very fast. But in reality, you're zooming along at over 675,000 miles an hour (no, that's not a typo! ). Not only is the Earth's rotation moving you along at almost a thousand miles an hour (depending on what latitude you're on), but the Earth's orbit around the Sun, the Solar System's orbit around the galactic center, and the velocity of the galaxy itself are also contributing to your velocity.
Matter getting swept along as the space-time fabric expands also does not "feel" like it's moving along at mind-boggling speed. So even though the fabric of time and space itself may have once expanded faster than light, the matter residing in the space-time fabric was not (at least, not relative to the space-time fabric). So technically, the "light speed barrier" was not broken. And even though gravity wants to pull the matter back together, the force causing space-time fabric to expand is stronger. If it weren't stronger than gravity, the Big Bang probably wouldn't have happened in the first place.
[This message has been edited by Blacktree (edited 06-29-2013).]
Why can we rule out gravity? Take your explanation of the Big Bang - and all matter is moving away at a fixed speed in a straight line. What forces are acting on those particles after the Big Bang? None, unless they impact one another. Inertia is all that's keeping them moving, right? Gravity always acts on all matter. If two particles are close together, gravity is going to make them tend to converge instead of continue unaffected or diverge. In your example, gravity may be the "weakest" force, but it may also be the "ONLY" force acting on it.
If you jump out of a tree, do you ignore gravity because it's the weakest measurable force known to science? If not, at what point can you start ignoring it?
Have you ever seen a baby shake a rattle? That force is stronger than gravity. There should be NO force acting on the particles after the bang. They should not be impacting each other. They should all be moving in straight lines away from the center of the bang. No particle should be able to "catch up to" another particle if they were all displaced by the same force. Once set into motion, they should remain in motion in the original direction at the same speed. There is no provision for particles bumping. Where would the bump come from?
Even if there was a bump, for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. The only two particles that COULD bump are the ones in nearly parallel trajectories. When and if they do collide, they should repel each other with an equal magnitude. Like a stone skipping on water they should bounce apart. There would never be enough perpendicular force to cause a crater.
Even if this DID happen, how can the randomness of the space debris be explained? It was an explosion, right? Just how many years did it take for all that matter to get moving and still be going? Why isn't all matter at a relatively similar distance from the bang center? Why isn't there a large and ever-expanding void at this center?
Even if the particles were ejected into space in a controlled time-lapse way which created the spacing of the galaxies as we know it, how did the straight line vectors of these particles get transformed into orbits? How did straight line vectors get transformed into swirls such as pinwheel galaxies?
Think about two guns, six inches apart being fired horizontally on Earth. The Earth has much more gravity than the bullets and the bullets are pulled to earth rather than to each other. Their attraction to each other can not overcome the inertia they have. Inertia is MUCH stronger than gravity.
Even if we can ignore all these previous things, how is it possible that all matter is speeding up? Constant acceleration REQUIRES constant force being applied. There is no other way around it. What force is out there that is constantly impacting all matter equally in all directions? You might suggest a black hole but if it is pulling us toward it, what is on the other side of the universe pulling that stuff the opposite way? Another black hole? What about all the innumerable directions in space that matter is accelerating towards? All black holes? The universe is surrounded by infinite black holes? I don't buy that.
Aren't black holes supposed to be created by stars that collapse? If that is so, how did those stars get out there so far ahead of everything else, die out, and all consistantly form black holes that are conveniently waiting to collect us? Anyone that can swallow all of that garbage needs to give lessons to Jay Carney!
Inertia is not a "force." It is kinetic energy. Force = mass * acceleration. If it's moving at a constant speed, there is no acceleration and therefore no force being exerted. Gravity, no matter how weak, will exert a tiny force. It's very small, but in the absence of any other forces, it's the largest force in the equation.
Take your 2 gun example. Yes, they fall to the earth because the earth is so much more massive, it's gravitational pull is much greater. Take the earth out of the equation and fire them parallel in a vacuum (assuming perfectly parallel trajectories and identical mass and velocity). Over time, the gravity between the two bullets will draw them together. It may take years. Centuries, or even millennia. A tiny force exerted over a long period of time can have a large overall effect.
I don't know about matter accelerating, but if the universe began at a central point with the big bang, then according to classical physics the matter that is farther away from that center is moving faster than the matter closer to the center, unless there is some other phenomenon at work.
IP: Logged
01:01 AM
Marvin McInnis Member
Posts: 11599 From: ~ Kansas City, USA Registered: Apr 2002
There should be NO force acting on the particles after the bang.
So you say. If you're going to invoke the laws of physics, then you have to consider all of them, not just those that support your argument. Gravity may indeed be weak, but it is the strongest force that acts over the vast distances of the universe, and even a weak force like gravity that has been acting for billions of years can have major effects. Galaxies and the stars that comprise them are adequate proof of that. You can't just choose to ignore gravity; weak is not the same as nonexistent.
quote
Think about two guns, six inches apart being fired horizontally on Earth. The Earth has much more gravity than the bullets and the bullets are pulled to earth rather than to each other.
No. The gravitational attraction between the two bullets is exactly the same as it would have been if your experiment were conducted in deep space, away from any massive body. The fact that the Earth's much larger attraction ends the experiment in only a second or two does not diminish that fact. If the experiment were conducted under conditions that allowed it to continue for a few million years, you would indeed be able to observe the two bullets attracting each other.
Imagine that your two guns were above the Earth's atmosphere and fired the bullets horizontally at exactly, as luck would have it, orbital velocity. The two bullets would orbit the Earth forever, since their centrifugal acceleration exactly matches the gravitational acceleration. Again, in this condition (and absent other perturbations) if you observed long enough you would indeed be able to observe and measure displacements due to the gravitational attraction between the two bullets.
quote
I don't buy that.
Believe what you want, but that doesn't mean it's not true. Of course, you are welcome to use scientific methods to disprove it if you can, but philosophical arguments alone won't do. That said, no scientist believes that we already know everything there is to know about the universe.
quote
Originally posted by TK:
You should write that up for peer review!
X2. But I bet those pesky secular humanists would never allow it.
[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 06-30-2013).]
(I didn't see it.)
I don't know if it would go over so well in class.
). Not only is the Earth's rotation moving you along at almost a thousand miles an hour (depending on what latitude you're on), but the Earth's orbit around the Sun, the Solar System's orbit around the galactic center, and the velocity of the galaxy itself are also contributing to your velocity.
