Does Einstein's T.R make any type of B.B. theory impossible?

[EarthScienceguy]

Question to debate

Does Einstein's theory of relativity make anytype of big bang scenario impossible?

Einstein's theory of relativity speaks of an universe in which past present and future all exist.

https://www.pbs.org/video/nova-the-fabr ... n-of-time/

starting at 19.00

If past, present and future can all exist then the Big Bang had to create not just the beginning of our present timeline but every moment every in our entire timeline. Everything that we perceive as happening in a logical chronological order would had to have been created by chance at the "big bang".

Talk about ludicrous speed.

If your answer is you have faith that science will one day come up with a solution, how would free will not be violated?

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 19 by Diagoras]

Firstly, I am not sure you understand what Einstein said in his special theory of relativity according to your following statement.

Firstly, Einstein famously formulated two theories of relativity: the first one being his ‘Special’ theory, which introduced the famous equation ‘E=mc^2’ to the world. Special Relativity shows that mass and energy are interchangeable (therefore as a consequence, nothing can move faster than light), and that time moves relative to the observer. The theory has been experimentally validated numerous times – for example in particle accelerators, where atoms reach close to lightspeed and behave exactly as predicted by the theory.

Both of Einstein's theories of relativity general and special had to do with frames of references in extreme conditions. The equation E=mc2 came in a later paper in 1904. E=mc2 is not part of relativity. Relativity is based on two postulates.

1. the laws of physics are invariant (i.e. identical) in all inertial frames of reference (i.e. non-accelerating frames of reference); and

2. the speed of light in a vacuum is the same for all observers, regardless of the motion of the light source or observer.

He then reasoned what had to change in order for the speed of light to stay constant in every reference frame. Einstein reasoned that for the above to occur time and space had to change moving frame of references. He concluded that as an object approaches the speed of light then space has to contract and time has to slow. If time can slow for different frames of references then one frame of reference can be in another's future and a different frame of reference can be in another's past. Therefore past present and future must exist.

If past present and future must exist the so called big bang had to create every point on the timeline at the same time. This idea pushes the big bang theory beyond possibility.

[Diagoras]

[Replying to post 19 by Diagoras]

Firstly, I am not sure you understand what Einstein said in his special theory of relativity according to your following statement.
<snip>
Both of Einstein's theories of relativity general and special had to do with frames of references in extreme conditions. The equation E=mc2 came in a later paper in 1904. E=mc2 is not part of relativity.

Thanks for checking that. You’re correct that the Special Theory was indeed written as a separate paper from the paper on mass-energy equivalence. Incidentally, both papers were published in 1905, not 1904.

Relativity is based on two postulates.

1. the laws of physics are invariant (i.e. identical) in all inertial frames of reference (i.e. non-accelerating frames of reference); and

2. the speed of light in a vacuum is the same for all observers, regardless of the motion of the light source or observer.

Agreed.

He then reasoned what had to change in order for the speed of light to stay constant in every reference frame. Einstein reasoned that for the above to occur time and space had to change moving frame of references. He concluded that as an object approaches the speed of light then space has to contract and time has to slow.

Again, agreed.

If time can slow for different frames of references then one frame of reference can be in another's future and a different frame of reference can be in another's past.Therefore past present and future must exist.

Unfortunately, this is a common misunderstanding and is wrong. To explain why, we need to understand ‘reciprocity’.

Imagine you and I are standing 100 yards from each other on a straight railroad. From my perspective, you ‘look’ tiny - if I hold up my finger and thumb I can ‘fit’ you between them. Meanwhile, from your own observational frame of reference, it’s me who is the tiny person while you are normal-sized.

Now I’ll get on the Relativity Express Train (RET) and start travelling towards you. The big clock on the front of the train ticks away at the normal rate from my perspective, but seems to be running slow from yours. However, your brand new, flashy Rolex that you wear on your wrist appears (to me) to be a fake, as it appears to be running slow.

Remember, from either perspective, the other person ‘appears’ to be the one who is moving faster, relative to the observer. Even though we both know that trains move and railroads don’t, we’d have the same effect if somehow the train was held stationary relative to the Sun while the Earth continued to rotate.

What we have here is an apparent paradox: we’re both ‘in each other’s past’. The proper time between two events is indicated by a clock present at both events, and the paradox can be resolved through examining all ‘possible’ proper times. There’s a good article on Wikipedia which gives a proper technical explanation (look for ‘Minkowski diagram’) here:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation

If past present and future must exist the so called big bang had to create every point on the timeline at the same time. This idea pushes the big bang theory beyond possibility.

<bolding mine>

Again, unproven. You’ve argued for presentism over eternalism as a philosophy of time, but you haven’t found fault with Einstein.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Diagoras]

Again, unproven. You’ve argued for presentism over eternalism as a philosophy of time, but you haven’t found fault with Einstein.

I am not saying there is any fault with Einstein's theories. What I am saying it that Einstein's theories supports creationism not naturalism.

On to your example:

Now I’ll get on the Relativity Express Train (RET) and start travelling towards you. The big clock on the front of the train ticks away at the normal rate from my perspective, but seems to be running slow from yours. However, your brand new, flashy Rolex that you wear on your wrist appears (to me) to be a fake, as it appears to be running slow.

Remember, from either perspective, the other person ‘appears’ to be the one who is moving faster, relative to the observer. Even though we both know that trains move and railroads don’t, we’d have the same effect if somehow the train was held stationary relative to the Sun while the Earth continued to rotate.

What we have here is an apparent paradox: we’re both ‘in each other’s past’. The proper time between two events is indicated by a clock present at both events, and the paradox can be resolved through examining all ‘possible’ proper times.

There is no such thing as universal simultaneity. If two observers are moving at different speeds whether they are going towards each other or not they will not agree on the when events happen in time. Both observes can agree that certain events happened but they will not agree on when said events happen.

https://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching ... index.html

Everybody and everything has its own time compared to everything else in the universe. One event my happen in another's future or in another's past. So past present and future have to exist.

[Divine Insight]

There is no such thing as universal simultaneity. If two observers are moving at different speeds whether they are going towards each other or not they will not agree on the when events happen in time. Both observes can agree that certain events happened but they will not agree on when said events happen.

This isn't true at all. In fact, this statement is totally incompatible with Einstein's Relativity.

What does not exist is any "Absolute Simultaneity based on Absolute Time". Actually once Einstein's theory is taken into account, then all observes agree on everything. The only difference is that they recognize that their clocks are running at different rates. And once that is taken into account then they will agree on everything. Even if one of them visually sees events occurring in reverse order they will ultimately both agree that the events did occur in the same order.

Einstein's theory actually tells us that what we see, may simply not be what actually happened.

Let's take the following example.

You launch a rocket from earth to the moon. The rocket contains a bomb. When it hits the moon it explodes. For you, it was crystal clear that you launched the rocket first and it exploded on the moon later.

Someone else in a moving frame of reference may visually see the rocket explode on the moon first, and then travel back to earth to land on the launching pad. They would no doubt need to be moving in an extremely complex manner to see this but in theory such a motion could be created.

So what really happened? Did you actually launch a rocket that eventually exploded on the moon? Or was there an explosion on the moon that created a pristine rocket that flew backwards toward the earth and landed safely on the launch pad full of fresh fuel?

There is nothing in Einstein's theory that suggests the latter could ever happen in anyone's frame of reference. But for someone in a really weird frame of reference this is how they might see thing unfold.

By the way, there is no possible way for this second observer to actually end up being on the launch pad on earth just before the rocket it about to be launched. They only way they could have possible observed this to occur in reverse order would require that they were close to the earth-moon system when the rocket exploded on the moon, and rapidly moved away from the earth-moon system to see the rocket fly backwards toward the earth.

So by the time they see the rocket actually land on the earth they would need to be looking at it through some seriously powerful telescopes.

In Einstein's theory you can't ignore the fact that observes who see things happen differently must also be moving vast distances relative to each other.

Moreover, if the two observers ever do return to the same location in space they would necessarily need to see everything unfold in the reverse order from how they originally saw it happen. In other words, if the observe in my above example were to actually return to earth to the launch pad, as they approached the earth they would again see the rocket travel. Only this time they would see the rocket travel from the earth and explode on the moon. By they time they actually reached the earth they would arrive at the launch pad a very long time after that event had even taken place.

Their clocks may no longer agree with the clocks at the launch pad, but that's no problem. That's due to time dilation and is fully explained by Einstein's Relativity.

Everybody and everything has its own time compared to everything else in the universe. One event my happen in another's future or in another's past. So past present and future have to exist.

But you are talking about past present and future as though they are "absolute". But that's exactly what Relativity does away with.

The reason people see things happening in at different "times" is precisely because they aren't all experiencing the same temporal flow.

What you are actually doing is trying to apply Einstein's Relativity to Newton's notion of Absolute Time. That's where you are going wrong.

[Diagoras]

[Replying to post 22 by EarthScienceguy]

One event (may) happen in another's future or in another's past.

Both events are in the other’s ‘past’. As time always appears to slow in the ‘other’ reference frame relative to either observer, you will never ‘jump ahead’ in time. This is the counter-intuitive aspect of reciprocity, and is fun to explore with various thought experiments. I enjoyed the ‘car in the garage’ example that you linked to, thank you. However, we’ve had over a hundred years to test it, and you have already accepted the validity of Einstein’s theories, so I’m having a hard time understanding what you are trying to achieve by claiming something which isn’t supported by the theory of Special Relativity.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 23 by Divine Insight]

EarthScienceguy wrote:

There is no such thing as universal simultaneity. If two observers are moving at different speeds whether they are going towards each other or not they will not agree on the when events happen in time. Both observes can agree that certain events happened but they will not agree on when said events happen.


This isn't true at all. In fact, this statement is totally incompatible with Einstein's Relativity.

Well talk to the professor at Pitt university he seems to agree with me. i think I would trust a professor at a major university before I would trust Wikipedia. Good luck with using Wikipedia in a research paper.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 24 by Diagoras]

You have not shown at all that my assertion is not supported by Relativity. In fact I have shown that relativity supports the creation theory not naturalism.

The only evidence you have cited is a WIKipedia article that you misinterpreted.

Come on you have to do better than that.

[Diagoras]

[Replying to post 24 by Diagoras]

You have not shown at all that my assertion is not supported by Relativity. In fact I have shown that relativity supports the creation theory not naturalism.

The only evidence you have cited is a WIKipedia article that you misinterpreted.

Come on you have to do better than that.

I note that in post 25, you commit the logical fallacy of appeal to authority. There’s no evidence provided that the Pitt University professor disagrees with Wikipedia, or a description of what you see as the latter’s errors. “My source is better than your source� is fairly meaningless without further corroboration.

When I said you were “claiming something which isn’t supported by the theory of Special Relativity� I was referring specifically to:

One event may happen in another’s future

This is simply wrong.

“Everyone has their own time� (you said). Well, in my train example, we will assume that you and I had agreed to meet at exactly ten o’clock. Before I board the train, we are stationary relative to each other, with synchronised watches.

Now, driving the train, I check my watch and time my arrival at the station to be exactly ten o’clock. As (relative to me) the station appears to whizz past the train (I don’t feel any speed as I’m at rest relative to the train), I notice with annoyance that your watch shows three minutes to ten, even though you’re giving me the thumbs up and a smile. So you’re ‘in my past’.

However, from your perspective, you’re just happy that I managed to get to the station on time as agreed. Your watch shows ten o’clock precisely, so you give me the thumbs up. But then you see that I must have got lucky and guessed, because you notice that the watch I’m using is running three minutes slower than yours. It’s like I’m in ‘your’ past.

Both of us would swear blind that the ‘proper’ time was ten o’clock when the train passed the station.

No-one in this example, however, could ever have a watch that sped up and showed three minutes past ten. This is what shows that your assertion is not supported by Relativity.

I have shown that relativity supports the creation theory

Perhaps you could summarise the premises and arguments you used to reach this conclusion, because I can’t see it in the thread.

The only evidence you have cited is a Wikipedia article that you misinterpreted.

I suspect another fallacy committed... why emphasise ‘Wikipedia’ in the way you did, except to imply that it’s an unreliable or somehow biased source for this information?

Yes, Wikipedia itself stresses that it’s not a definitive source, but by not offering evidence for any potential error in my source, nor an explanation for what I misinterpreted in it, you’re not advancing the debate.

Come on you have to do better than that.

This adds nothing.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Diagoras]

"This is simply wrong." You are right your example is simply wrong.

“Everyone has their own time� (you said). Well, in my train example, we will assume that you and I had agreed to meet at exactly ten o’clock. Before I board the train, we are stationary relative to each other, with synchronised watches.

Stop, the only what that watches can be synchronized is if they are in the same frame of reference and/or moving at the same speed. As soon as the watches begin to move differently they become unsynchronized. The one that is moving faster time ticks slower than the one that is moving slower. Now if they at all times their speed relative to the speed of light is the the same then their clocks would tick at the same time.

For example if both trains were traveling at .25% the speed of light then both watches would tick at the "same rate" relative to each other regardless of what direction they would be traveling. And we would reach the train station at the same time. This is what Einstein did he made all motion relative to the speed of light.

Now lets say train A was traveling at 99.999% the speed of light and train b was traveling at 10% the speed of light and we both left the at 10 am to travel to a star that is 4 light years away. Those inside of train a would reach the star 4 light years away in almost no time lets say 30 seconds after ten according to their watches. While the other train would take decades to reach the star.

Those in train A would be waiting for decades for those in train B to arrive at the star. But the only reason way that those in train A would be waiting for those in train B is because of the change of motion of train A.

But let's say that Train A did not stop and wait for train B but kept on going traveling at 99.9999999 % the speed of light. They could travel to the edge of the universe and back to the star that they were originally traveling to. But when they get their they do not find train B or even the star. The star would have long ago ran out of energy and would be nothing more than a white dwarf if that. Those in train B would have died billions of years earlier.

Those in train A would be in the future of those that were in train B

[Diagoras]

[Replying to Diagoras]

"This is simply wrong." You are right your example is simply wrong.

Maybe we could let someone else chime in now? I think I’ve had a few good attempts to show where the flaws in your reasoning are. There are a couple more in your latest post, though, so I’ll address those in one more attempt:

Stop, the only what that watches can be synchronized is if they are in the same frame of reference and/or moving at the same speed.

Correct, which is why I specifically stated: we are stationary relative to each other. Hopefully we agree that we can at least set our hypothetical train and station in the same initial reference frame. Otherwise, we can’t really ‘run’ this thought experiment.

Now lets say train A was traveling at 99.999% the speed of light and train b was traveling at 10% the speed of light and we both left the <same starting point> at 10 am to travel to a star that is 4 light years away. Those inside of train A would reach the star 4 light years away in

... a little over four years. Not sure why you have them going faster than light? Moving on...

Those in train A would be waiting for decades for those in train B to arrive at the star. But the only reason way that those in train A would be waiting for those in train B is because

... they travelled faster relative to Train B and therefore arrived sooner. Seems to be the same in real life.

But let's say that Train A did not stop and wait for train B but kept on going traveling at 99.9999999 % the speed of light. They could travel to the edge of the universe and back to the star that they were originally traveling to But when they get their (sic) they do not find train B or even the star. The star would have long ago ran out of energy and would be nothing more than a white dwarf if that. Those in train B would have died billions of years earlier.

Those in train A would be in the future of those that were in train B

In a rather peculiar way, you’re just describing the effects of time dilation, but that doesn’t falsify my example. There’s still no point at which those in Train B will (somehow, across the vast expanse of the universe) see the watches of the Train A passengers as running ‘faster’ than theirs. Both trains perceive the other train’s watches to be running slower.

For now, I’ll leave the other unanswered points from my previous post. I’d now like to hear from someone else who can either back you up or else corroborate my answers.