re stephen hawking refutation of big bang

Rick wrote:
Well, the definitions in those dictionaries are wrong, or are at least
confusing "sound" with "hearing". Sound IS a pressure wave,
whether or not anyone happens to hear it. *Hearing* is the act
of receiving it.

Ok. Then what about a bell ringing in a vacuum? A
ghost would say (has said), "Well, *I* can hear it!"
Therefore is hearing just the act of receiving it or
is it the act of receiving it through waves of pressure
in the *air*?

bjacoby

--
Due to SPAM innundation above address is turned off!

Rick wrote:

Well, the definitions in those dictionaries are wrong, or are at least
confusing "sound" with "hearing". Sound IS a pressure wave,
whether or not anyone happens to hear it. *Hearing* is the act
of receiving it.

Perhaps, but not all pressure waves are "sound". When their frequency
is too high or too low for us to hear, we call them respectively
"ultrasonic" or "subsonic". By analogy one might argue that if its
amplitude is too small to detect, a pressure wave shouldn't qualify
as a sound.

--
Odysseus

Rick wrote:

Well, the definitions in those dictionaries are wrong, or are at least
confusing "sound" with "hearing". Sound IS a pressure wave,
whether or not anyone happens to hear it. *Hearing* is the act
of receiving it.

Perhaps, but not all pressure waves are "sound". When their frequency
is too high or too low for us to hear, we call them respectively
"ultrasonic" or "subsonic". By analogy one might argue that if its
amplitude is too small to detect, a pressure wave shouldn't qualify
as a sound.

--
Odysseus

"Odysseus" wrote in message ...
Rick wrote:

Well, the definitions in those dictionaries are wrong, or are at least
confusing "sound" with "hearing". Sound IS a pressure wave,
whether or not anyone happens to hear it. *Hearing* is the act
of receiving it.

Perhaps, but not all pressure waves are "sound".

Obviously. But the point is, *all* sounds *are* pressure waves.
Ability or inability to receive them isn't relevant at all. E.g. a dog
sitting next to you is able to hear sounds well above the limit of
human hearing. Does that make such pressure waves any less
of a "sound" to the transmitter, or even to the dog? Nope.

When their frequency
is too high or too low for us to hear, we call them respectively
"ultrasonic" or "subsonic". By analogy one might argue that if its
amplitude is too small to detect, a pressure wave shouldn't qualify
as a sound.

See above. I argue that's a bunch of hooey.

Rick

"Odysseus" wrote in message ...
Rick wrote:

Well, the definitions in those dictionaries are wrong, or are at least
confusing "sound" with "hearing". Sound IS a pressure wave,
whether or not anyone happens to hear it. *Hearing* is the act
of receiving it.

Perhaps, but not all pressure waves are "sound".

Obviously. But the point is, *all* sounds *are* pressure waves.
Ability or inability to receive them isn't relevant at all. E.g. a dog
sitting next to you is able to hear sounds well above the limit of
human hearing. Does that make such pressure waves any less
of a "sound" to the transmitter, or even to the dog? Nope.

When their frequency
is too high or too low for us to hear, we call them respectively
"ultrasonic" or "subsonic". By analogy one might argue that if its
amplitude is too small to detect, a pressure wave shouldn't qualify
as a sound.

See above. I argue that's a bunch of hooey.

Rick

:-):


Jonathan Silverlight wrote:
In message , Ralph Hertle
writes

verbiage snipped.


Distant galaxies emit photons that travel eons before being received.
In the meantime the galaxies will have changed according to the powers
of change of its constituent parts.


That's irrelevant. We are seeing them as they were.



In effect, that's what I just said. I don't speak in university lock
step science-speak, and, also, what I say may not always be clear.

The images of distant objects that astronomers can compose are possible
due to the data from photon existents that were emitted long ago. As the
photons traveled the emitting objects have probably undergone changes,
If we could get closer to them today and to observe them, we could
probably see an entire collection of galaxies that are different from
what they were, but, nonetheless, galaxies that are governed by the same
properties of existents today as they were then.




We are seeing the
edge of an era when there were no stars,



That's what they said last year, and then the astronomers were able to
see fainter and more red-shifted objects. They missed seeing the
gigantic Crow galaxy. In a few years they may be able to create images
from photons that have been traveling possibly 20 or even 30 billion
years. Will they then say that the universe got bigger? Who knows what
they will cook up.

The idea that there is a substantive, dimensional or temporal limit on
the existence of entities in the universe is just plain fiction. A total
lie that they can in no way prove.

The claim that there is a limit to the size of the universe due to the
inability of scientists to see older and older photons that are in
weaker and weaker fluxes (presumably due to the inverse square law) is
simply false. You, or they, are saying, in effect, that because they
can't see something beyond a certain limit (say due to the equipment or
the incorrect logic that they are using) that the entities beyond seeing
simply don't exist. Reminds me of the expressway crashes in California
where motorists drive at speed into the fog without any idea that unseen
cars ahead are stopped on the roadway. The out of sight - out of mind
mentality is terribly unscientific.




[......] in fact no atoms (the
background radiation)



Don't tell me that the background radiation comes from the edge of the
universe or beyond. What about the radiant emissions of gravitational
existents?



[,,,,,] If you believe the images change en route there's
no point in looking.



I never said that. Check my grammar.

What I could have added was that during the time of flight of the
photons throughout eons of time since being emitted, the original
emitting entities, say molecules, stars, and galaxies, may have changed
many properties and relationships. The arrangement of the components
changes with time. ( Time being defined as the relative dimensional
motion of a selected physical existent, or of a concept of same, that is
compared as a numerical ratio to the dimensional motion of another
physical existent that is a standard reference.)

In what game arcade did you get that idea? The images don't travel
through space. In this context only photons travel through the void. It
is man who is able to compose patterns of photons based upon the
properties of the photons, say energy levels, and radiant trajectories,
into comprehensible images. That is not scientific to believe that
images, let alone formatted images, flow through space.




Whether the universe of the past was "totally unlike" the current
universe is a matter of fact only. Sure the particulars are changed
according to their forms, however, scientists have reported that the
ancient universe that is visible by means of photons that have
traveled the enormous distances across the universe is remarkably
similar to our current universe. Scientists are now constructing
telescopes that will be able to evidence even older photons, possibly
including red-shifted photons, in the IR and radio frequencies, for
example, and thus will be able to see even farther.


NO!



Are you saying that what we see of the universe of the past is NOT a
matter of fact?




The ancient universe as revealed in the Hubble Deep Fields is very
different to the universe we see now.



You are polarizing the discussion artificially. One must specify the
particular respect in which differences or similarities may be found. I
some ways some things appear different, and in others, similar. Those
pictures showed lots of galaxies - and, in that respect the ancient
objects were similar. Also, existence involves a continuity of the laws
of cause and effect, and that means a continual change of the
relationships of existents as time proceeds, so to say. In particular
details I would have to agree that there are lots of differences,
Insofar as more universal characteristics may be evaluated, for example,
whether, the universe out there at those immense distances did exist as
we see it, I would have to agree that the similarities are universal and
are the same.




And they are already seeing
red-shifted photons, at shifts of 5 and 6 (can't remember the current
record) They are seeing an era when quasars appeared, and a more recent
one with fewer quasars and not as many stars forming.



Star formation is fascinating to observe. Kudos to the astronomers.




Only the facts govern what we can know.


Indeed :-)



What the advocates of a universe that is claimed to have both
dimensional and temporal boundaries imply is that the universe appears
to be a number of billion years old from any viewpoint in the universe.
Which is impossible.

Some cites: the Law of Contradiction, and the Conservation of energy and
matter.

What they deny is that the universe is a continually existing plurality
of all existents. The universe continues to exist, They deny that that
the universe is eternal. They deny that cause-and-effect functions due
to the properties of all existents cause the changes of relationships of
all things. They deny that existence-based change is a result of the
properties of existents that exist in the universe.

Ralph Hertle

:-):


Jonathan Silverlight wrote:
In message , Ralph Hertle
writes

verbiage snipped.


Distant galaxies emit photons that travel eons before being received.
In the meantime the galaxies will have changed according to the powers
of change of its constituent parts.


That's irrelevant. We are seeing them as they were.



In effect, that's what I just said. I don't speak in university lock
step science-speak, and, also, what I say may not always be clear.

The images of distant objects that astronomers can compose are possible
due to the data from photon existents that were emitted long ago. As the
photons traveled the emitting objects have probably undergone changes,
If we could get closer to them today and to observe them, we could
probably see an entire collection of galaxies that are different from
what they were, but, nonetheless, galaxies that are governed by the same
properties of existents today as they were then.




We are seeing the
edge of an era when there were no stars,



That's what they said last year, and then the astronomers were able to
see fainter and more red-shifted objects. They missed seeing the
gigantic Crow galaxy. In a few years they may be able to create images
from photons that have been traveling possibly 20 or even 30 billion
years. Will they then say that the universe got bigger? Who knows what
they will cook up.

The idea that there is a substantive, dimensional or temporal limit on
the existence of entities in the universe is just plain fiction. A total
lie that they can in no way prove.

The claim that there is a limit to the size of the universe due to the
inability of scientists to see older and older photons that are in
weaker and weaker fluxes (presumably due to the inverse square law) is
simply false. You, or they, are saying, in effect, that because they
can't see something beyond a certain limit (say due to the equipment or
the incorrect logic that they are using) that the entities beyond seeing
simply don't exist. Reminds me of the expressway crashes in California
where motorists drive at speed into the fog without any idea that unseen
cars ahead are stopped on the roadway. The out of sight - out of mind
mentality is terribly unscientific.




[......] in fact no atoms (the
background radiation)



Don't tell me that the background radiation comes from the edge of the
universe or beyond. What about the radiant emissions of gravitational
existents?



[,,,,,] If you believe the images change en route there's
no point in looking.



I never said that. Check my grammar.

What I could have added was that during the time of flight of the
photons throughout eons of time since being emitted, the original
emitting entities, say molecules, stars, and galaxies, may have changed
many properties and relationships. The arrangement of the components
changes with time. ( Time being defined as the relative dimensional
motion of a selected physical existent, or of a concept of same, that is
compared as a numerical ratio to the dimensional motion of another
physical existent that is a standard reference.)

In what game arcade did you get that idea? The images don't travel
through space. In this context only photons travel through the void. It
is man who is able to compose patterns of photons based upon the
properties of the photons, say energy levels, and radiant trajectories,
into comprehensible images. That is not scientific to believe that
images, let alone formatted images, flow through space.




Whether the universe of the past was "totally unlike" the current
universe is a matter of fact only. Sure the particulars are changed
according to their forms, however, scientists have reported that the
ancient universe that is visible by means of photons that have
traveled the enormous distances across the universe is remarkably
similar to our current universe. Scientists are now constructing
telescopes that will be able to evidence even older photons, possibly
including red-shifted photons, in the IR and radio frequencies, for
example, and thus will be able to see even farther.


NO!



Are you saying that what we see of the universe of the past is NOT a
matter of fact?




The ancient universe as revealed in the Hubble Deep Fields is very
different to the universe we see now.



You are polarizing the discussion artificially. One must specify the
particular respect in which differences or similarities may be found. I
some ways some things appear different, and in others, similar. Those
pictures showed lots of galaxies - and, in that respect the ancient
objects were similar. Also, existence involves a continuity of the laws
of cause and effect, and that means a continual change of the
relationships of existents as time proceeds, so to say. In particular
details I would have to agree that there are lots of differences,
Insofar as more universal characteristics may be evaluated, for example,
whether, the universe out there at those immense distances did exist as
we see it, I would have to agree that the similarities are universal and
are the same.




And they are already seeing
red-shifted photons, at shifts of 5 and 6 (can't remember the current
record) They are seeing an era when quasars appeared, and a more recent
one with fewer quasars and not as many stars forming.



Star formation is fascinating to observe. Kudos to the astronomers.




Only the facts govern what we can know.


Indeed :-)



What the advocates of a universe that is claimed to have both
dimensional and temporal boundaries imply is that the universe appears
to be a number of billion years old from any viewpoint in the universe.
Which is impossible.

Some cites: the Law of Contradiction, and the Conservation of energy and
matter.

What they deny is that the universe is a continually existing plurality
of all existents. The universe continues to exist, They deny that that
the universe is eternal. They deny that cause-and-effect functions due
to the properties of all existents cause the changes of relationships of
all things. They deny that existence-based change is a result of the
properties of existents that exist in the universe.

Ralph Hertle

What I remember is that he was refering to the possibility of more than one
universe, at a time, and the possibility of recycling universes.


Arth6831 wrote:

recently i saw a newspaper article alluding to hawkings rejection of big
bang....about 8 yrs ago he was quoted as saying he could buy into many little
bangs, but not one big one
sounds to me like vindication of hoyle and narlikar.....oscillating universe
with creation events------bangs----at the minima,,,,,,every 200 billion
years....i know there is no support for big bang except in princeton and
nasa......when will they admit they have been lying to american schoolkids for
40 years???
art swanson