Jump to content

Banner.jpg.b89429c566825f6ab32bcafbada449c9.jpg

Is the Moon moving away from Earth due to big bang inflation?

spartan45

Recommended Posts

Zakalwe

Zakalwe

Posted
Posted

Don't ya just love it when the intellectual collective of SGL all get together to denigrate another member for daring to be free thinking. Just an observation is all 

As someone else once said ....it's good to have an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall out......

It's hard sometimes to clearly identify the emotional meaning on forums and it's easy to misconstrue what appears (to the writer) to be a clear and succinct post with something a bit harsher. Personally I don't think that anyone denigrated Spartan45 at all. The content of his post wasn't that well worded (he or she acknowledges that) and it was shown to be in error. But I didn't see anyone denigrating the person.

  Just this year it was "proven" using accepted physics that fish cannot exist below 9,000m because of the effect on their molecules

That's interesting! Do you have a source for that please?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 97
  • Created
  • Last Reply
symesie04

symesie04

Posted
Posted

Hi Spartan and welcome to SGL. Just a couple of points to pick up on reference your replies. First off regarding the balloon experiment I think its fair to say it wasnt a failure in the laws of physics that resulted in a wrong assumption of the outcome being predicted. In fact it wasnt even a failure in our understanding in the laws of physics, it was a result of a failure in our understanding of the starting conditions for the experiment. The principle was sound hence why some garages offer to fill your wheels up with nitrous oxide instead of air, but misguided due to our lack of knowledge on the properties of the elements involved. 

Regard the fish. There seems to be a problem here i  suggest its the use of the word "proven". Its likely that science has suggested that given a set of starting conditions that no fish can survive over 9000m depth. Given this info it is likely that either the fish in question does not meet those starting criteria and has developed a adaptation that cheats our understanding of science or simply that the science is not "proven". It seems unlikely to me that anyone and certainly not the science community would accept something as proven when there is such tangible evidence to suggest otherwise.

Now the moon. The laws of physics surrounding the effect of the moons relationship with the earth are pretty well understood, after all science has been using them for years to send probes to far away worlds with precise trajectory let alone predict various observations in the nights sky. So armed with such knowledge (which has yet to be proved wrong when used in local orbital bodies trajectories) I suspect its pretty fair to say they have a good handle on what is causing the distance of the two bodies to increase. One would suspect that if a effect of a force that was unimagined when the law was first proposed was involved then the models would already be under some scrutiny. I think we may have lost a few more probes by now as well.

By the way that does not mean your feeling is wrong it just means that the current theory is the best we have until or if proved wrong. Its just that at present there is no evidence or observations that would suggest there is any reason to doubt the law. On the basis that it is used on a daily basis in the real world with precise results indicates thats it is likely right. However it is also conceivable that another theory could be proposed that would also tick all and both maybe championed by various camps or one may eventually oust the other as accepted theory. But either way any new theory would require a great deal of testing and meet various criteria before it could ever hope to challenge the current accepted theory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
symesie04

symesie04

Posted
Posted

Instinct tells me not to trust someone when they tell me their tiger is tame and I should take it for a ride. If it wasn't for instinct, the human race would not have survived day one. I think you greatly under estimate the importance of instinct

Reminds me of the classic Inspector Clusoe sketch "does your dog bite"

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JamesF

JamesF

Posted
Posted

Don't ya just love it when the intellectual collective of SGL all get together to denigrate another member for daring to be free thinking. Just an observation is all 

And as a further general observation not specifically directed at anyone posting in this thread...

If only it weren't so common for people to confuse "free-thinking" with "not thinking".

As I have said before, it seems to be a common ill of modern times that the mere ability to hold an opinion is accepted as giving it some sort of credibility.  I believe that if we are to progress beyond 'B' Ark material as a society, we need to knock that on the head.

James

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JamesF

JamesF

Posted
Posted

As I have said before, it seems to be a common ill of modern times that the mere ability to hold an opinion is accepted as giving it some sort of credibility.  I believe that if we are to progress beyond 'B' Ark material as a society, we need to knock that on the head.

Of course, by extension, anyone who disagrees with me on this is by definition holding an opinion that merits no credibility :D

James

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zakalwe

Zakalwe

Posted
Posted

Hi Spartan and welcome to SGL. Just a couple of points to pick up on reference your replies. First off regarding the balloon experiment I think its fair to say it wasnt a failure in the laws of physics that resulted in a wrong assumption of the outcome being predicted. In fact it wasnt even a failure in our understanding in the laws of physics, it was a result of a failure in our understanding of the starting conditions for the experiment. The principle was sound hence why some garages offer to fill your wheels up with nitrous oxide instead of air, but misguided due to our lack of knowledge on the properties of the elements involved. 

Regard the fish. There seems to be a problem here i  suggest its the use of the word "proven". Its likely that science has suggested that given a set of starting conditions that no fish can survive over 9000m depth. Given this info it is likely that either the fish in question does not meet those starting criteria and has developed a adaptation that cheats our understanding of science or simply that the science is not "proven". It seems unlikely to me that anyone and certainly not the science community would accept something as proven when there is such tangible evidence to suggest otherwise.

Now the moon. The laws of physics surrounding the effect of the moons relationship with the earth are pretty well understood, after all science has been using them for years to send probes to far away worlds with precise trajectory let alone predict various observations in the nights sky. So armed with such knowledge (which has yet to be proved wrong when used in local orbital bodies trajectories) I suspect its pretty fair to say they have a good handle on what is causing the distance of the two bodies to increase. One would suspect that if a effect of a force that was unimagined when the law was first proposed was involved then the models would already be under some scrutiny. I think we may have lost a few more probes by now as well.

By the way that does not mean your feeling is wrong it just means that the current theory is the best we have until or if proved wrong. Its just that at present there is no evidence or observations that would suggest there is any reason to doubt the law. On the basis that it is used on a daily basis in the real world with precise results indicates thats it is likely right. However it is also conceivable that another theory could be proposed that would also tick all and both maybe championed by various camps or one may eventually oust the other as accepted theory. But either way any new theory would require a great deal of testing and meet various criteria before it could ever hope to challenge the current accepted theory.

Great post!

The most powerful thing about the scientific method is that it changes it's view based on the results of observation, unlike a belief system that denies the results of observation in order to preserve that belief. So, if science "proves" that something is just so and later observation (repeatable, verifiable, testable observation!) show that not to be the case, then science and the scientific method will change its position. To be fair, most times though when the general public say things like "science proves" something or other, it's generally the case that they are incorrect and just repeating an old wives' tale.

The fact that the scientific method demands that it's position is based solely on repeatable, verifiable, testable observation is it's greatest strength and the development of this method, in my opinion, is probably mankind's single greatest achievement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JamesF

JamesF

Posted
Posted

The fact that the scientific method demands that it's position is based solely on repeatable, verifiable, testable observation is it's greatest strength and the development of this method, in my opinion, is probably mankind's single greatest achievement.

I have been wondering of late whether the scientific method isn't, in a basic form at least, absolutely intrinsic to what human beings are.  The scientific method embodies at some level a feedback mechanism intended to keep it on the right track.  Positive feedback reinforces confidence in the science, negative feedback forces a reassessment of the hypothesis, modification and repeated testing to generate further feedback.  But isn't that exactly how we do such much of our core learning, right down as far as talking and walking?  When it serves us so well in so many ways it seems odd that some people then wish to abandon it exactly where it's most valuable to us as a species.

James

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cath

Cath

Posted
Posted

Instinct tells me not to trust someone when they tell me their tiger is tame and I should take it for a ride. If it wasn't for instinct, the human race would not have survived day one. I think you greatly under estimate the importance of instinct

Oh I don't mean to belittle anyone, sorry if that's what it looked it.

As for if it's instinct or direct proof that we learnt that tigers bite, I'd say our long known knowledge about it is more to do with seeing others being eaten by them rather than instinct, though I could be wrong ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Knight of Clear Skies

Knight of Clear Skies

Posted
Posted

Don't ya just love it when the intellectual collective of SGL all get together to denigrate another member for daring to be free thinking. Just an observation is all 

I was aiming for humorously critical, sorry if it didn't come across that way.

Instinct tells me not to trust someone when they tell me their tiger is tame and I should take it for a ride. If it wasn't for instinct, the human race would not have survived day one. I think you greatly under estimate the importance of instinct

Trouble is, my instincts also tell me to run and hide whenever this fella pops up on the telly.

odd-tony-the-tiger.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Paul M

Paul M

Posted
Posted

Which makes me wonder... Is it amazing that homo sapiens happens to be around at a time when effects such as the "diamond ring" and the solar corona can be seen during a solar eclipse? Or is it precisely because the Moon happens to be that distance away that led to the conditions for us to evolve at this time?

James

Exactly my thoughts James.

Back in the day of my grandpa Trex the days were much shorter and the moon much bigger in the sky.

No annular eclipses for he.

Not for the first time do I think we hit the "sweet spot" in Earth's evolution!

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites
symesie04

symesie04

Posted
Posted

By the way Spartan please dont feel we were in anyway being abrupt or condescending in answering your post. Its just most of the loiterers of the science forum are of the "by the book" group, and quite rightly after all science wouldnt be science if it wasnt by the book. So the answers were merely pointing out why the current theory is in place and that there is a difference between theory and loose ideas. Not of course suggesting that you actually wanted your idea to be taken as theory. But it can be hard to determine someones demeanor from a written post and therefore can be a little off putting. But stick around they are good guys and gals here honest. Your get used to the tone and after a while will be able to predict some ones response it just becomes.....well...instinct   :grin:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Scott

Scott

Posted
Posted

Oh I don't mean to belittle anyone, sorry if that's what it looked it.

As for if it's instinct or direct proof that we learnt that tigers bite, I'd say our long known knowledge about it is more to do with seeing others being eaten by them rather than instinct, though I could be wrong ;)

Actually, I was referring to the fact that the man may be lying and my instinct tells me to err on the side of safety :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Macavity

Macavity

Posted
Posted

http://www.space.com/17884-universe-expansion-speed-hubble-constant.html

The most precise measurement ever made of the speed of the universe's expansion is in, thanks to NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope... Space itself is pulling apart at the seams, expanding at a rate of 74.3 plus or minus 2.1 km (46.2 plus or minus 1.3 miles) per second per megaparsec (a megaparsec is roughly 3 million light-years).

If the Earth-Moon system *were* being pulled apart by the "expansion of the universe", it should

be possible to calculate the current rate (m/s). How does this compare with the known value? ;)

Could such changes be measurable in a lab scale experiment? Spectral line frequency maybe?  

Please show all your workings clearly. Use both sides of the paper (simultaneously?) etc. etc. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JamesF

JamesF

Posted
Posted

http://www.space.com/17884-universe-expansion-speed-hubble-constant.html

If the Earth-Moon system *were* being pulled apart by the "expansion of the universe", it should

be possible to calculate the current rate (m/s). How does this compare with the known value? ;)

Could such changes be measurable in a lab scale experiment? Spectral line frequency maybe?  

Please show all your workings clearly. Use both sides of the paper (simultaneously?) etc. etc. :D

According to my "units" program, 400,000km (from memory that's the distance to the Moon, isn't it?) is 1.3x10-14 megaparsecs.

I think fingernails might beat the expansion of the universe by quite some margin on an Earth/Moon scale.

James

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Macavity

Macavity

Posted
Posted

As Eric Morcambe was wont to say (to Ernie Wise): "Then that's good enough for me!"  :p

According to my "units" program, 400,000km (from memory that's the distance to the Moon, isn't it?) is 1.3x10-14 megaparsecs. I think fingernails might beat the expansion of the universe by quite some margin on an Earth/Moon scale.

But now fairly convinced it is "small"... Quite an interesting little factoid after all though. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.