Subatomic vs Gravitational forces

[davo789]

My position is that some of what is purported to be true, isn't logical.

Tired of this thread as I am, your one post here explains everything. "Isn't logical" to YOU. I have no idea what your background in physics is, but this really is a very complicated theory which people have spent the best part of a century trying to figure out. And maybe they are wrong, and perhaps there are one or two holes in the theory, but these holes are so subtle that only the people who are working at the forefront of this theory really understand them. I really think you need to do some reading for yourself, because to me and Drakkith and all the other people who have tried to help you out, the things we have said make perfect sense. Once you really understand what's going on, phrases like "the Big Bang occurred everywhere" are just a logical manifestation of the theory itself.

 

[zeffur7]

At what point did you specify that you wanted that information?

I must admit this thread has drifted quite far from my original post. Sorry for that.

Like most people, when I receive information that is apparently illogical and I haven't yet read anything that provides me with a good explanation for how it could be reasonable, I tend to have doubts and questions. I also tend to try to understand by using visual tools to understand better. I guess that c/should have been the point at which you or anyone else may have noticed that I'm the type of person who won't settle for such an answer when by itself and with some explanation still seems illogical.
You and others in this thread have come to believe (accept as true) such things--perhaps based on lesser/more information than has been shared in this thread.

99% of your posts have been you claiming that what we were explaining was illogical and couldn't be possible.

Remember, the BBT is just a theory. Even the article that I cited above clearly points out its weaknesses. Debates and alternate theories on this subject are far from over.

Do you really think that is going to motivate me to go sift through the internet to find references for you?

No. I was hoping someone more knowledgeable on the subject than me would be aware of the document that I cited above. Apparently, that wasn't true, so some of us spent more time than we needed to because we took a different initial path.

This whole situation could have been avoided had you simply said: "That doesn't seem logical to me..."

I did in affect do that very thing. To which you became a bit upset because I wasn't just accepting what you & some others claim IS true,... based on a lot of better minds than ours claiming it is true. I think at that point it should have been clear to you that better information was required in order for me to see how they arrived at their conclusions. Reading wiki articles doesn't always provide that type of information.

And honestly your overall attitude suggested to me that you wouldn't have believed any references I linked anyways, so why would I spend the time and effort searching for them?

That's a bit of an unnecessary lash, although I know you are frustrated, so I'll just take it, if it helps.

Edit: Also, I did provide links to wikipedia a couple of times. They had references at the bottom of those articles. Did you happen to look at those?

No, I did not notice a url to the article that I cited above. YOUR reference to an old forum thread was the beginning of me finding the article that I cited to you in this thread. Thanks for that url, btw.

 

[zeffur7]

Tired of this thread as I am, your one post here explains everything. "Isn't logical" to YOU. I have no idea what your background in physics is, but this really is a very complicated theory which people have spent the best part of a century trying to figure out. And maybe they are wrong, and perhaps there are one or two holes in the theory, but these holes are so subtle that only the people who are working at the forefront of this theory really understand them.

I'm sorry you and Drakkith became frustrated. I think you wrote well why this can be a frustrating topic to discuss "this really is a very complicated theory which people have spent the best part of a century trying to figure out. And maybe they are wrong, and perhaps there are one or two holes in the theory, but these holes are so subtle that only the people who are working at the forefront of this theory really understand them." Perhaps it was naive of me to think someone in this forum might be able to explain those subtleties well enough so that what appears to be an illogical claim, can be considered quite rational within the construct of how mankind arrived at such conclusions.

...to me and Drakkith and all the other people who have tried to help you out, the things we have said make perfect sense. Once you really understand what's going on, phrases like "the Big Bang occurred everywhere" are just a logical manifestation of the theory itself.

As I wrote to Drakkith (above this post) "You and others in this thread have come to believe (accept as true) such things--perhaps based on lesser/more information than has been shared in this thread." My path to understanding required more information.

Thanks again to everyone who contributed to this thread.

 

[Drakkith]

Zeffur, here's how I see this. You came here wanting to know something and you got an answer that made no sense to you. So you tried to visualize it by explaining it the way you did. However to us that view is incorrect so we pointed it out. Here's where I see the problem started. Instead of simply asking why it didn't make sense you continually tried to tell us that your view was the only one that made sense because things "had to be that way". Do you not see the problem with this and how it could have been avoided by just asking how it worked?

I did in affect do that very thing. To which you became a bit upset because I wasn't just accepting what you & some others claim IS true,... based on a lot of better minds than ours claiming it is true. I think at that point it should have been clear to you that better information was required in order for me to see how they arrived at their conclusions. Reading wiki articles doesn't always provide that type of information.

Why didn't you say so? You used one of wiki's articles earlier in the thread so I had no way of knowing you wanted something else. Also, don't ever assume that someone knows what you want. It was very much not clear what you wanted. Remember that this is an online forum and unless you make yourself VERY clear then it is unlikely that anyone will be able to guess what you want.

If your interested you can pick up a book on Relativity at any local bookstore or online that should explain some of this and why it's like that. I like the following, though it is an introduction, so if your looking for something more advanced then it isn't for you. Here: Introducing Relativity: A Graphic Guide

 

[zeffur7]

Zeffur, here's how I see this. You came here wanting to know something and you got an answer that made no sense to you. So you tried to visualize it by explaining it the way you did. However to us that view is incorrect so we pointed it out. Here's where I see the problem started. Instead of simply asking why it didn't make sense you continually tried to tell us that your view was the only one that made sense because things "had to be that way". Do you not see the problem with this and how it could have been avoided by just asking how it worked?

The "had to be that way" was referring to my visualization methodology as it being able to be used to plot the world lines of the visible objects in our observable universe back to the origin (i.e. location of the singularity) of where all those objects came from before they are where they are (relatively speaking) now. That origin, mapped within the framework of the volume of our observable universe as a relative reference, is a good approximation of where it all came from since the expansion of space began. If those visible objects are moving away from each other due to the expansion of space then clearly they would be moving towards each other to a point of coalescence, if we created a model & reversed the expansion rate of the universe.

The problem to me seems to be that neither you nor Davo789 seemed to originally understand what I was trying to explain. Then as I refined my explanation, YOU essentially stated what I explained "is wrong" -- without explaining WHY you thought it was wrong. Which essentially means you either didn't/don't know how to explain why it is wrong or that you are merely trying to get me to "just accept" what others claim is true--without the details of why they have reached the conclusions that they have reached. Clearly neither was acceptable to me. To Davo789's credit, he at least had the good sense to state plainly "...this really is a very complicated theory which people have spent the best part of a century trying to figure out. And maybe they are wrong, and perhaps there are one or two holes in the theory, but these holes are so subtle that only the people who are working at the forefront of this theory really understand them." Kudos to him for being wise enough to get to what you still don't seem to want to acknowledge.

Furthermore, you still didn't seem to comprehend what I was stating even after I provided a url to you to show you that someone from NASA had created an image that was similar to what I had described to you. It then looked like you tried the 'I'm frustrated tact' which was like "You just have to accept what we tell you IS true. It doesn't really matter that it is illogical...hey Quantum Mechanics is illogical too, just roll with it like the rest of us." ;)
Once again, not acceptable to me.

If you['re] interested you can pick up a book on Relativity at any local bookstore or online that should explain some of this and why it's like that. I like the following, though it is an introduction, so if your looking for something more advanced then it isn't for you. Here: Introducing Relativity: A Graphic Guide

Thanks for the suggestion, but it isn't something of interest to me at this time.

Once again, thanks for your contributions to this thread.

To anyone who is currently reading (or who may come across) this thread, here is a url to a goldmine of information: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm

Peace to all.