| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Rob Dekker" |
| Date: |
18 Jan 2005 04:45:24 AM |
| Object: |
Inflationary Theory ; I'm confused |
Over the past couple of years, I've read various articles
about the Big Bang Theory. Part of that is a theory
proposed by Groth, which states that the early Universe went
through a period of very rapid expansion called 'inflation'.
I understand that the inflation theory was
invented to explain the 'flat-ness' of space and the
MBR isotropy (microwave background indicates that
the early Universe had a very consistent high temperature).
I am confused about this inflationary period.
I've read somewhere that the Universe expanded to
a size of 40 million light years within a miniscule time.
This would clearly violate the limitation of the speed
of light.
I don't see why a speed-of-light violation would be needed :
Why would there be any observable difference between
a Universe expanding at speed of light and a Universe
that expands faster than that ?
I've read somewhere else that the Universe expanded
from almost a point to (only) 1 meter in size after the
inflatory period of 10^-32 sec. But a 1 meter ball of fire
would probably be very consistent in temperature, which
was the original reason to invent inflation theory.
So either way (1 meter or 40 million light-years) I don't
see what inflation theory is actually explaining beyond
a Universe which expands at light speed.
Can anyone shed some light on this ?
Thanks
Rob
.
|
|
| User: "Rob Dekker" |
|
| Title: Re: Inflationary Theory ; I'm confused |
26 Jan 2005 05:04:57 AM |
|
|
<jgreen@seol.net.au> wrote in message
news:1106280158.605904.10230@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Rob Dekker wrote:
And in a deep gravity well
time moves much slower than outside. Somehow I feel that that effect
might the 'inflation' theory of BB. So inflation theory would not
have to be
postulated 'out-of-the-blue', but could be explained with
relativistic
effects in early dense and expanding Universe..
Rob, gravity is different at the earth's center than at the surface.
Have you noticed the core circling the sun at a different velocity than
the surface? For the SAME distance, differently gravitationally
effected matter takes the SAME amount of time to cover the trip. ergo,
as v=d/t gravity has NO EFFECT on time.
But then, how come that clocks tick slower in space than
they do here on Earth ?
It only effects the velocity
of matter (and EM particles), and thereby the rate of movement of
information.
How does that differ from the rate of time ?
The marvellous mish-mash of mathemagics conjured up to support GR and
BB are necessary for supporters to claim "proofs", but 1c+1c=2c , and
the theories are therefore wrong.
Sorry, you lost me.
Jim G
c'=c+v
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rob Dekker" |
|
| Title: Re: Inflationary Theory ; I'm confused |
26 Jan 2005 05:52:57 AM |
|
|
"Rob Dekker" <rob@verific.com> wrote in message news:tPKJd.15912
For the SAME distance, differently gravitationally
effected matter takes the SAME amount of time to cover the trip. ergo,
as v=d/t gravity has NO EFFECT on time.
But then, how come that clocks tick slower in space than
they do here on Earth ?
I'm sorry. That should be :
How come that clocks tick slower here on Earth than they do in (free-fall)
space ?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Inflationary Theory ; I'm confused |
27 Jan 2005 02:47:15 AM |
|
|
Rob Dekker wrote:
<jgreen@seol.net.au> wrote in message
news:1106280158.605904.10230@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Rob Dekker wrote:
And in a deep gravity well
time moves much slower than outside. Somehow I feel that that
effect
might the 'inflation' theory of BB. So inflation theory would not
have to be
postulated 'out-of-the-blue', but could be explained with
relativistic
effects in early dense and expanding Universe..
Rob, gravity is different at the earth's center than at the
surface.
Have you noticed the core circling the sun at a different velocity
than
the surface? For the SAME distance, differently gravitationally
effected matter takes the SAME amount of time to cover the trip.
ergo,
as v=d/t gravity has NO EFFECT on time.
But then, how come that clocks tick slower in space than
they do here on Earth ?
Because the "tick" of a clock is not chained to absolute time-
the clock in space malfunctions.
It only effects the velocity
of matter (and EM particles), and thereby the rate of movement of
information.
How does that differ from the rate of time ?
Wrong question: "rate of time" NEVER alters- only our perception of it,
as in running a movie slower, or playing an old one.
The marvellous mish-mash of mathemagics conjured up to support GR
and
BB are necessary for supporters to claim "proofs", but 1c+1c=2c ,
and
the theories are therefore wrong.
Sorry, you lost me.
Well, if you do think that velocity adding as proposed by SR
contradicts
the above, then you are indeed on a different position ref earth's
orbit than I am. (But I am satisfied we are co-travellers; the fact we
live in different gravity fields has F*A to do with time/velocity)
Jim G
c'=c+v
.
|
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: Inflationary Theory ; I'm confused |
27 Jan 2005 02:46:39 PM |
|
|
"jgreenfield@seol.net.au" <jgreen@seol.net.au> wrote in message
news:1106815635.095255.34340@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Rob Dekker wrote:
<jgreen@seol.net.au> wrote in message
news:1106280158.605904.10230@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Rob Dekker wrote:
And in a deep gravity well
time moves much slower than outside. Somehow I feel that that
effect
might the 'inflation' theory of BB. So inflation theory would
not
have to be
postulated 'out-of-the-blue', but could be explained with
relativistic
effects in early dense and expanding Universe..
Rob, gravity is different at the earth's center than at the
surface.
Have you noticed the core circling the sun at a different
velocity
than
the surface? For the SAME distance, differently gravitationally
effected matter takes the SAME amount of time to cover the trip.
ergo,
as v=d/t gravity has NO EFFECT on time.
But then, how come that clocks tick slower in space than
they do here on Earth ?
Because the "tick" of a clock is not chained to absolute time-
the clock in space malfunctions.
The clock of which we are speaking is supposed to be a perfect clock
which measures the passage of time perfectly when held in the hands of
the person making the measurement.
Franz
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Inflationary Theory ; I'm confused |
27 Jan 2005 05:23:14 PM |
|
|
Franz Heymann wrote:
"jgreenfield@seol.net.au" <jgreen@seol.net.au> wrote in message
news:1106815635.095255.34340@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Rob Dekker wrote:
<jgreen@seol.net.au> wrote in message
news:1106280158.605904.10230@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Rob Dekker wrote:
And in a deep gravity well
time moves much slower than outside. Somehow I feel that that
effect
might the 'inflation' theory of BB. So inflation theory would
not
have to be
postulated 'out-of-the-blue', but could be explained with
relativistic
effects in early dense and expanding Universe..
Rob, gravity is different at the earth's center than at the
surface.
Have you noticed the core circling the sun at a different
velocity
than
the surface? For the SAME distance, differently gravitationally
effected matter takes the SAME amount of time to cover the
trip.
ergo,
as v=d/t gravity has NO EFFECT on time.
But then, how come that clocks tick slower in space than
they do here on Earth ?
Because the "tick" of a clock is not chained to absolute time-
the clock in space malfunctions.
The clock of which we are speaking is supposed to be a perfect clock
which measures the passage of time perfectly when held in the hands
of
the person making the measurement.
Franz
And there is no such animal!
Question: Clock on GPS does x ticks (says time elapsed is x) while
earth orbits sun. Earth based clock says y. x NOT = y Which clock
is correct, if either, and which malfunctioned ?????
Jim G
c'=c+v
.
|
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: Inflationary Theory ; I'm confused |
29 Jan 2005 05:26:05 AM |
|
|
<jgreen@seol.net.au> wrote in message
news:1106868194.908332.74730@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Franz Heymann wrote:
"jgreenfield@seol.net.au" <jgreen@seol.net.au> wrote in message
news:1106815635.095255.34340@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Rob Dekker wrote:
<jgreen@seol.net.au> wrote in message
news:1106280158.605904.10230@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Rob Dekker wrote:
And in a deep gravity well
time moves much slower than outside. Somehow I feel that
that
effect
might the 'inflation' theory of BB. So inflation theory
would
not
have to be
postulated 'out-of-the-blue', but could be explained with
relativistic
effects in early dense and expanding Universe..
Rob, gravity is different at the earth's center than at the
surface.
Have you noticed the core circling the sun at a different
velocity
than
the surface? For the SAME distance, differently
gravitationally
effected matter takes the SAME amount of time to cover the
trip.
ergo,
as v=d/t gravity has NO EFFECT on time.
But then, how come that clocks tick slower in space than
they do here on Earth ?
Because the "tick" of a clock is not chained to absolute time-
the clock in space malfunctions.
The clock of which we are speaking is supposed to be a perfect
clock
which measures the passage of time perfectly when held in the
hands
of
the person making the measurement.
Franz
And there is no such animal!
There does not need to be a realisable clock in a discussion of a
thought experiment. All that is required is that its finction is
clearly defined.
Question: Clock on GPS does x ticks (says time elapsed is x) while
earth orbits sun. Earth based clock says y. x NOT = y Which
clock
is correct, if either, and which malfunctioned ?????
Both of them are measuring proper time, according to the strict
definition of proper time.
I sincerely suggest that you turn your mind to other topics. You have
shown over and over that you had no grasp of the concepts involved in
SR at the outset, and you are not acquiring any.
Franz
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Inflationary Theory ; I'm confused |
29 Jan 2005 06:43:52 PM |
|
|
Franz Heymann wrote:
<jgreen@seol.net.au> wrote in message
news:1106868194.908332.74730@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Franz Heymann wrote:
"jgreenfield@seol.net.au" <jgreen@seol.net.au> wrote in message
news:1106815635.095255.34340@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Rob Dekker wrote:
<jgreen@seol.net.au> wrote in message
news:1106280158.605904.10230@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Rob Dekker wrote:
And in a deep gravity well
time moves much slower than outside. Somehow I feel that
that
effect
might the 'inflation' theory of BB. So inflation theory
would
not
have to be
postulated 'out-of-the-blue', but could be explained with
relativistic
effects in early dense and expanding Universe..
Rob, gravity is different at the earth's center than at the
surface.
Have you noticed the core circling the sun at a different
velocity
than
the surface? For the SAME distance, differently
gravitationally
effected matter takes the SAME amount of time to cover the
trip.
ergo,
as v=d/t gravity has NO EFFECT on time.
But then, how come that clocks tick slower in space than
they do here on Earth ?
Because the "tick" of a clock is not chained to absolute time-
the clock in space malfunctions.
The clock of which we are speaking is supposed to be a perfect
clock
which measures the passage of time perfectly when held in the
hands
of
the person making the measurement.
Franz
And there is no such animal!
There does not need to be a realisable clock in a discussion of a
thought experiment. All that is required is that its finction is
clearly defined.
Question: Clock on GPS does x ticks (says time elapsed is x) while
earth orbits sun. Earth based clock says y. x NOT = y Which
clock
is correct, if either, and which malfunctioned ?????
Both of them are measuring proper time, according to the strict
definition of proper time.
Unwilling, or unable, to answer?????????
GPS satellite clock shows different time elapsed for earth orbit than
does earth clock. This is the SAME event, viewed from the SAME point
(us).
You say both are working accurately; I leave it to unbrainwashed
readers to decide whether this little gem of GR/SR contradiction
supports "the theory".
I sincerely suggest that you turn your mind to other topics. You have
shown over and over that you had no grasp of the concepts involved
in
SR at the outset, and you are not acquiring any.
On the contrary! I early grasped the concept of the circular "logic" on
which SR is based. It is perfectly obvious to any thinking person, that
given a ruler which alters its length due to velocity, and then using
that altered ruler to measure the velocity from which this was derived
to show that time dilated, then SR would always be inviolate. It uses
its own postulates in proving itself correct!!!!!!!!!!!!!
OK for the stupid, gullible, and those of sheep mentality- no good for
the rest, or the future of physics.
Jim G
c'=c+v
Franz
.
|
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: Inflationary Theory ; I'm confused |
30 Jan 2005 01:52:38 AM |
|
|
"jgreenfield@seol.net.au" <jgreen@seol.net.au> wrote in message
news:1107045832.346940.59990@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Franz Heymann wrote:
<jgreen@seol.net.au> wrote in message
news:1106868194.908332.74730@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Franz Heymann wrote:
"jgreenfield@seol.net.au" <jgreen@seol.net.au> wrote in
message
news:1106815635.095255.34340@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Rob Dekker wrote:
<jgreen@seol.net.au> wrote in message
news:1106280158.605904.10230@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Rob Dekker wrote:
And in a deep gravity well
time moves much slower than outside. Somehow I feel
that
that
effect
might the 'inflation' theory of BB. So inflation
theory
would
not
have to be
postulated 'out-of-the-blue', but could be explained
with
relativistic
effects in early dense and expanding Universe..
Rob, gravity is different at the earth's center than at
the
surface.
Have you noticed the core circling the sun at a
different
velocity
than
the surface? For the SAME distance, differently
gravitationally
effected matter takes the SAME amount of time to cover
the
trip.
ergo,
as v=d/t gravity has NO EFFECT on time.
But then, how come that clocks tick slower in space than
they do here on Earth ?
Because the "tick" of a clock is not chained to absolute
time-
the clock in space malfunctions.
The clock of which we are speaking is supposed to be a perfect
clock
which measures the passage of time perfectly when held in the
hands
of
the person making the measurement.
Franz
And there is no such animal!
There does not need to be a realisable clock in a discussion of a
thought experiment. All that is required is that its finction is
clearly defined.
Question: Clock on GPS does x ticks (says time elapsed is x)
while
earth orbits sun. Earth based clock says y. x NOT = y Which
clock
is correct, if either, and which malfunctioned ?????
Both of them are measuring proper time, according to the strict
definition of proper time.
Unwilling, or unable, to answer?????????
I gave you the full and correct answer. Hard luck if you don't
understand it.
GPS satellite clock shows different time elapsed for earth orbit
than
does earth clock. This is the SAME event, viewed from the SAME point
(us).
You say both are working accurately; I leave it to unbrainwashed
readers to decide whether this little gem of GR/SR contradiction
supports "the theory".
There is no contradiction. It is only your understanding of the
situation which is flawed.
I sincerely suggest that you turn your mind to other topics. You
have
shown over and over that you had no grasp of the concepts
involved
in
SR at the outset, and you are not acquiring any.
On the contrary! I early grasped the concept of the circular "logic"
on
which SR is based.
The circularity exists only in your mind.
It is perfectly obvious to any thinking person, that
given a ruler which alters its length due to velocity, and then
using
that altered ruler to measure the velocity from which this was
derived
to show that time dilated, then SR would always be inviolate. It
uses
its own postulates in proving itself correct!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Balls. In the frame of said ruler, it has not changed one jot in
length.
OK for the stupid, gullible, and those of sheep mentality- no good
for
the rest, or the future of physics.
Thought for the day:
One person, unwilling to learn, by name Jim G bleats that all is not
well with SR
Thousands of persons in their daily lives use SR to analyse events in
which very fast objects are involved. They invariably get results
which agree with the observations.
I have given you examples in the past about situations in which
Newtonian mechanics makes predictions which are in utter disagreement
with experiment, whereas SR makes predictions which agree with what is
observed.
Franz
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "George Dishman" |
|
| Title: Re: Inflationary Theory ; I'm confused |
30 Jan 2005 03:48:24 AM |
|
|
"jgreenfield@seol.net.au" <jgreen@seol.net.au> wrote in message
news:1107045832.346940.59990@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Franz Heymann wrote:
<jgreen@seol.net.au> wrote in message
news:1106868194.908332.74730@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Question: Clock on GPS does x ticks (says time elapsed is x) while
earth orbits sun. Earth based clock says y. x NOT = y Which clock
is correct, if either, and which malfunctioned ?????
Both of them are measuring proper time, according to the strict
definition of proper time.
Unwilling, or unable, to answer?????????
GPS satellite clock shows different time elapsed for earth orbit than
does earth clock. This is the SAME event, viewed from the SAME point
(us).
An orbit is not _an_ event it is two events, for
example the satellite passing overhead and the
same satellite passing the same point on the next
orbit. If you measure the time between them in
different ways, you expect to get different results.
You say both are working accurately; I leave it to unbrainwashed
readers to decide whether this little gem of GR/SR contradiction
supports "the theory".
The amount of difference actually measured curiously
enough is precisely the amount the theory predicts.
That supports the theory or, to put it another way,
it justifies the continued use of the theory as a
tool in physics and in real world engineering.
I sincerely suggest that you turn your mind to other topics. You have
shown over and over that you had no grasp of the concepts involved
in
SR at the outset, and you are not acquiring any.
On the contrary! I early grasped the concept of the circular "logic" on
which SR is based. It is perfectly obvious to any thinking person, that
given a ruler which alters its length due to velocity, and then using
that altered ruler to measure the velocity from which this was derived
to show that time dilated, then SR would always be inviolate. It uses
its own postulates in proving itself correct!!!!!!!!!!!!!
OK for the stupid, gullible, and those of sheep mentality- no good for
the rest, or the future of physics.
So how does this "circular logic" make the clocks in
the satellites actually run at the rate it predicts?
Any theory that always tells you exactly what will
happen is a scientifically good theory, even if a few
people are unable or unwilling to understand it. Your
choice not to learn doesn't invalidate the theory, it
only reflects badly on you.
George
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Inflationary Theory ; I'm confused |
04 Feb 2005 10:21:24 PM |
|
|
George Dishman wrote:
"jgreenfield@seol.net.au" <jgreen@seol.net.au> wrote in message
news:1107045832.346940.59990@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
An orbit is not _an_ event it is two events, for
example the satellite passing overhead and the
same satellite passing the same point on the next
orbit. If you measure the time between them in
different ways, you expect to get different results.
George, I missed this in the previous, but you better smarten up!
The obove is an absolute oxymoron; we are talking about a "one off",
not a selected segment of a repartition. The word "an" is singular, and
CANNOT refer to "two".
So....ONE orbit, TWO results depending on which atomic clock is noted
You say both are working accurately; I leave it to unbrainwashed
readers to decide whether this little gem of GR/SR contradiction
supports "the theory".
Jim G
c'=c+v
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Inflationary Theory ; I'm confused |
08 Feb 2005 07:36:41 AM |
|
|
wrote:
George Dishman wrote:
"jgreenfield@seol.net.au" < > wrote in message
news:1107045832.346940.59990@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
<snip restored, Jim wrote:>
GPS satellite clock shows different time
elapsed for earth orbit than does earth
clock. This is the SAME event, viewed
from the SAME point (us).
An orbit is not _an_ event it is two events, for
example the satellite passing overhead and the
same satellite passing the same point on the next
orbit. If you measure the time between them in
different ways, you expect to get different results.
George, I missed this in the previous, but you better smarten up!
Try reading this before slinging insults Jim:
http://www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn?stage=1&word=event
The obove is an absolute oxymoron; we are talking about a "one off",
not a selected segment of a repartition. The word "an" is singular,
and
CANNOT refer to "two".
An event is something that happens at a particular
time, it does not have a duration (we aren't talking
about a "sporting event" here).
What you are talking about is the duration of the
orbit, not a single event. It is the time between
two events, the start of the orbit and the finish.
So....ONE orbit, TWO results depending on which atomic clock is
noted
Correct, both as predisted by the theory and when
measured in practice, thus supporting the theory.
You say both are working accurately; I leave it to unbrainwashed
readers to decide whether this little gem of GR/SR contradiction
supports "the theory".
And I leave it the brain-dead readers to remain
incapable of understanding.
George
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Inflationary Theory ; I'm confused |
08 Feb 2005 09:49:53 PM |
|
|
wrote:
jgreen@seol.net.au wrote:
George Dishman wrote:
"jgreenfield@seol.net.au" <jgreen@seol.net.au> wrote in message
news:1107045832.346940.59990@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
<snip restored, Jim wrote:>
GPS satellite clock shows different time
elapsed for earth orbit than does earth
clock. This is the SAME event, viewed
from the SAME point (us).
An orbit is not _an_ event it is two events, for
example the satellite passing overhead and the
same satellite passing the same point on the next
orbit. If you measure the time between them in
different ways, you expect to get different results.
Come off it! If an "event" has no duration, then it doesn't/never did
exist. It would be unobservable and unmeasurable. Is this quasi QM
thinking? If one event (in this case a circuit), is two (in your
arguement), how many events are in two circuits?
George, I missed this in the previous, but you better smarten up!
Try reading this before slinging insults Jim:
http://www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn?stage=1&word=event
I realise that Relativity had to invent math constructs to avoid
implacable contradictions; now I'm seeing the extent to which it also
has to change definitions and meanings within language.
This IS a sporting-type event; the two clocks leave the blocks
together, and race around the sun together, returning to their starting
point TOGETHER! But the clocks read a different time!!!
The obove is an absolute oxymoron; we are talking about a "one
off",
not a selected segment of a repartition. The word "an" is singular,
and
CANNOT refer to "two".
An event is something that happens at a particular
time, it does not have a duration (we aren't talking
about a "sporting event" here).
What you are talking about is the duration of the
orbit, not a single event. It is the time between
two events, the start of the orbit and the finish.
So....ONE orbit, TWO results depending on which atomic clock is
noted
Correct, both as predisted by the theory and when
measured in practice, thus supporting the theory.
You say both are working accurately; I leave it to
unbrainwashed
readers to decide whether this little gem of GR/SR
contradiction
supports "the theory".
And I leave it the brain-dead readers to remain
incapable of understanding.
The insult was not directed at you- I apologise if you took that to be
the case.
Jim G
c'=c+v
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Dishman" |
|
| Title: Re: Inflationary Theory ; I'm confused |
09 Feb 2005 04:52:00 PM |
|
|
<jgreen@seol.net.au> wrote in message
news:1107920993.469248.244770@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
george@briar.demon.co.uk wrote:
jgreen@seol.net.au wrote:
George Dishman wrote:
"jgreenfield@seol.net.au" <jgreen@seol.net.au> wrote in message
news:1107045832.346940.59990@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
<snip restored, Jim wrote:>
GPS satellite clock shows different time
elapsed for earth orbit than does earth
clock. This is the SAME event, viewed
from the SAME point (us).
An orbit is not _an_ event it is two events, for
example the satellite passing overhead and the
same satellite passing the same point on the next
orbit. If you measure the time between them in
different ways, you expect to get different results.
Come off it! If an "event" has no duration, then it doesn't/never did
exist. It would be unobservable and unmeasurable. Is this quasi QM
thinking?
No, it is normal English language. For example if I
said the key event that started the First World War
was the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand, you
wouldn't be surprised. The event was the transition
from when he was alive to when he was dead. That
change happened at a particular instant. The moment
of his death has no duration, but the effects were
observable. This is meaning 1. on the page below
and item 3 really just repeats the same.
If one event (in this case a circuit), is two (in your
arguement), how many events are in two circuits?
If the orbits are contiguous, there would three events:
Event A: satellite passes overhead to start the first
orbit.
Event B: satellite passes overhead to end the first
orbit and start the second.
Event C: satellite passes overhead to end the second
orbit.
Note event B is the transition from being on the
first orbit to being on the second. That change
occurs at a particular instant but the change
doesn't have a duration, the orbits have durations.
There's nothing complex about this Jim, I don't know
why you think what I'm saying is unusual.
George, I missed this in the previous, but you better smarten up!
Try reading this before slinging insults Jim:
http://www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn?stage=1&word=event
I realise that Relativity had to invent math constructs to avoid
implacable contradictions; now I'm seeing the extent to which it also
has to change definitions and meanings within language.
Science often makes strict terms out of words which
are vague or ambiguous in conversation, but is there
any real difference in meaning between items 1 and 3
on the Princeton page?
This IS a sporting-type event; the two clocks leave the blocks
together, and race around the sun together, returning to their starting
point TOGETHER! But the clocks read a different time!!!
Two clocks orbiting together round the Sun would be
an entirely different situation (they would measure
the same time of course) but we were talking of one
clock on the ground and the other being onboard a
GPS satellite. Check what you said:
GPS satellite clock shows different time
elapsed for earth orbit than does earth
clock. This is the SAME event, viewed
from the SAME point (us).
The insult was not directed at you- I apologise if you took that to be
the case.
Well I have to admit I did assume "George ... you
better smarten up!" was directed at me so I had
better apologise for my unwarranted arrogance ;-)
Anyway, I would far rather take your argument on
its merits. If you think you can show some sort of
contradiction in this feel free to try. The language
needn't get in the way even if it does produce some
temporary misunderstandings.
best regards
George
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Inflationary Theory ; I'm confused |
30 Jan 2005 06:28:27 PM |
|
|
George Dishman wrote:
"jgreenfield@seol.net.au" <jgreen@seol.net.au> wrote in message
news:1107045832.346940.59990@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Franz Heymann wrote:
<jgreen@seol.net.au> wrote in message
news:1106868194.908332.74730@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Question: Clock on GPS does x ticks (says time elapsed is x)
while
earth orbits sun. Earth based clock says y. x NOT = y Which
clock
is correct, if either, and which malfunctioned ?????
Both of them are measuring proper time, according to the strict
definition of proper time.
Unwilling, or unable, to answer?????????
GPS satellite clock shows different time elapsed for earth orbit
than
does earth clock. This is the SAME event, viewed from the SAME
point
(us).
An orbit is not _an_ event it is two events, for
example the satellite passing overhead and the
same satellite passing the same point on the next
orbit. If you measure the time between them in
different ways, you expect to get different results.
You say both are working accurately; I leave it to unbrainwashed
readers to decide whether this little gem of GR/SR contradiction
supports "the theory".
The amount of difference actually measured curiously
enough is precisely the amount the theory predicts.
That supports the theory or, to put it another way,
it justifies the continued use of the theory as a
tool in physics and in real world engineering.
I sincerely suggest that you turn your mind to other topics. You
have
shown over and over that you had no grasp of the concepts
involved
in
SR at the outset, and you are not acquiring any.
On the contrary! I early grasped the concept of the circular
"logic" on
which SR is based. It is perfectly obvious to any thinking person,
that
given a ruler which alters its length due to velocity, and then
using
that altered ruler to measure the velocity from which this was
derived
to show that time dilated, then SR would always be inviolate. It
uses
its own postulates in proving itself correct!!!!!!!!!!!!!
OK for the stupid, gullible, and those of sheep mentality- no good
for
the rest, or the future of physics.
So how does this "circular logic" make the clocks in
the satellites actually run at the rate it predicts?
Any theory that always tells you exactly what will
happen is a scientifically good theory, even if a few
people are unable or unwilling to understand it. Your
choice not to learn doesn't invalidate the theory, it
only reflects badly on you.
George
It seems to gather evidence against BB, all I have do is wait for it to
appear!
See: "New cosmological anomalies reported" this group
Jim G
BB=BS
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rob Dekker" |
|
| Title: Re: Inflationary Theory ; I'm confused |
30 Jan 2005 10:09:47 PM |
|
|
"jgreenfield@seol.net.au" <jgreen@seol.net.au> wrote in message news:1107045832.346940.59990@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
[...]
Both of them are measuring proper time, according to the strict
definition of proper time.
Unwilling, or unable, to answer?????????
GPS satellite clock shows different time elapsed for earth orbit than
does earth clock. This is the SAME event, viewed from the SAME point
(us).
You say both are working accurately; I leave it to unbrainwashed
readers to decide whether this little gem of GR/SR contradiction
supports "the theory".
Jim, no theoretical theory that models nature can be proven.
But SR/GR do accurately explain the difference between rate-of-ticks of
two perfectly functioning atom-clocks where one is on Earth's surface and
the other is further out in space.
Even in 'ordinary' GPS satellites this effect is very noticable, and software needs to
compensate for it. Interesting note is that originally the GPS designers thought
they would not need to take relativistic effects into consideration, but it very quickly
showed that that was a mistake. The are very noticable, and very accurately
following GR's predictions.
So if you have a better explanation for this effect, or if you have a theory which
explains why the Lorenz transformation is the way it, then speak up.
The theory is 100 years old exactly, and so far has proven unchallenged.
Rob
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: Inflationary Theory ; I'm confused |
31 Jan 2005 08:57:23 AM |
|
|
"Rob Dekker" <rob@verific.com> wrote in message
news:fciLd.18535$5R.17314@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
So if you have a better explanation for this effect, or if you have a
theory which
explains why the Lorenz transformation is the way it, then speak up.
I have a theory which explains why the Lorentz transform is the way it
is,
so I'll speak up.
The Lorentz transform is the way it is because Einstein DEFINED
time in this way:
"We have not defined a common ``time'' for A and B, for the latter
cannot be defined at all unless we establish by definition that the
``time'' required by light to travel from A to B equals the ``time'' it
requires to travel from B to A. "
Much of this story is credited to Daryl McCullough, only the ladder
was added by me. It explains the origins of Einstein's Special
Relativity
for those having difficulty grasping the subject.
Sam and Joe are housepainters, and are walking along the street at 3 fps
in still air carrying a 32 ft long ladder between them, Joe leading the
way. Sam is carrying some paint cans and Joe has the brushes and
rollers.
At some point along their journey a mosquito named Albert buzzes past
Sam's ear. Sam swats at it, but drops a can of red paint as he does so.
Albert flies along the ladder from Sam to Joe at a constant speed
of 5 fps. When it reaches Joe, Joe also swats at it, but drops a paint
roller. Albert, still hungry but not liking the smell of Joe's cigar,
flies back along the ladder toward Sam, again with a constant speed of
5 fps in the still air. Upon reaching Sam, once again Sam tries to swat
the
wee beastie but drops a can of green paint. He yells as the mosquito
bites
him and this startles Joe, who drops a paint brush.
Now it's your turn. I'll give the answers further down, but take a
moment
to do the calculations for yourself.
1) How many seconds did it take for Albert to fly from Sam to Joe?
2) How many seconds did it take for Albert to fly from Joe to Sam?
3) How far is it between the red paint can and the roller?
4) How far is it between the green paint can and the roller?
(Answers below)
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
Assume the speed of the mosquito is c = 5 fps.
The speed of Sam and Joe is v = 3 fps, given.
We then must have a distance along the road for Joe of
32ft + vt, and for the mosquito, a distance of ct.
Solving for t,
ct = 32 + vt
ct - vt = 32
t(c-v) = 32
t = 32 /(c-v) = 32/(5 - 3) = 16 seconds
So the answer to Q.1) is 16 seconds.
The mosquito coming back is going to meet Sam going forward,
so it flies along the 32 feet of the ladder in time
t = 32/(c+v) = 32/8 = 4 seconds.
The answer to Q.2) is therefore 4 seconds.
The distance from the dropped red paint can to the dropped roller
is just ct, or 5 * 16 = 80 feet, so the answer to Q.3) is 80 ft.
Or we could do it by vt + 32 = 3 * 16 + 32 = 80, once again.
(Remember Joe had a 32 ft head start over the mosquito)
Coming back, Albert again flies at 5 fps but this time
for only 4 seconds, so it reaches the green paint can 20 feet
from the roller, which is the answer to Q.4)
So, as Sam sees it, Albert takes 16 seconds to reach Joe, flying at
5-3 = 2 fps, and 4 seconds to return, flying along the ladder at
5+3 = 8 fps.
Now we think like Einstein with his mosquito brain. Sam wants to know
when the mosquito reached Joe.
He isn't able to see the mosquito, its too small at 32 feet away,
so he guesses that since it went 32 ft each way, and took 20 seconds to
fly
away and back again, it must have reached Joe after 10 seconds = ½ of
20.
So we explain it carefully. First we label the red paint can "A" and the
dropped roller "B". We write:
If at the point A of space there is a clock, an observer called Sam at
the
red paint can will determine the time values of events in the immediate
proximity of the red paint can by finding the positions of the hands
which
are simultaneous with these events. If there is at the point B of space
another clock in all respects resembling the one at the red paint can,
it
is possible for an observer Joe at the dropped roller to determine the
time
values of events in the immediate neighbourhood of the roller at B. But
it
is not possible without further assumption to compare, in respect of
time,
an event at A with an event at the dropped roller, B. We have so far
defined only an "A time" and a "B time." We have not defined a common
"time" for the red paint can and the dropped roller, for the latter
cannot
be defined at all unless we establish by *definition* that the "time"
required by a mosquito to travel from the red paint can to the dropped
roller equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to the red paint
can,
A.
Note the *definition*. Remember this is hypothetical, not real. The
definition is very important.
Now, we want to do this algebraically, because tomorrow Joe and Sam
might
be carrying a different length of ladder, running at a different speed,
whatever, and we want a general solution.
So we write:
If we place x'=x-vt, it is clear that a point at rest in the system
ladder
must have a system of values x', y, z, independent of time.
What that means is the ladder's length is x', so that 32 = 80 - 3 *
16,
and doesn't change as time passes. Did you think it would? Well, we'll
have
to see. Maybe if we water it, it might grow.
According to Albert, we are to assume the speed of the mosquito is
independent of the speed of Sam (which is fair enough) and also we are
to
assume that the time for the mosquito to make the round trip (20
seconds)
when divided by 2 is equal to the time it took to reach Joe, 16 seconds,
by Albert's DEFINITION.
We don't know yet about the 16 seconds, we can only write it
algebraically
and pretend it is 10 seconds.
It is actually written as x'/(c-v) [or 32/(5-3) in real numbers].
Now we say:
From the origin of system ladder let a mosquito be emitted at the time
tau0
along the ladder to x' (the other end of the ladder), and at the time
tau1
be reflected thence (that just means go back) to the origin of the
co-ordinates (which we are deliberately vague about as to whether we
mean Sam on the ladder or the red paint can), arriving there at the time
tau2; we then
must have (don't you just love that phrase, "then must have" ?)
½(tau0 + tau2) = tau1,
or ½([midmorning + 0] + [midmorning + 20]) = [midmorning + 16], which is
curious to say the least, since Sam and Joe could be doing this in the
late afternoon for all the difference it would make.
But ok, Einstein wanted to be complete, so I guess its fine.
But our hero and physics wizard isn't satisfied with this. Oh no, we
need
to include the length of the ladder as well, or we won't have any
spacetime
to prattle on about later so that people will see just how smart we are.
It is very important to include the length of the ladder into the
equation.
You'll see why later.
Here is Einstein's equation:
½[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] = tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
You can read about it at
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
(in Section 3)
Putting in the mosquito numbers,
½[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+32/(5-3)+32/(5+3))] = tau(32,0,0,t+32/(5-3))
½[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+20)] = tau(32,0,0,t+16)
In agreement with experience (gotta love that phrase!) clearly!
(0,0,0,t)
is pretty meaningless, and we can drop the "t+" since we really don't
care
if Sam and Joe are walking in the midmorning or late afternoon.
So,
½ * tau(0,0,0,20) = tau(32,0,0,16).
Now do you see why we need to include the length of the ladder into the
evaluation of time? We cant just say ½ * 20 = 16 without it. Even my
grandson would say that wasn't right, and he's not learning algebra yet.
There's some differentiation by Einstein to make himself look smart and
important, he has to show off all his skills if not his common sense,
because "common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age
eighteen", or so he tells us, and he eventually arrives at
tau = (t-vx/c^2) / sqrt( 1 - v^2/c^2 )
xi = (x-vt) / sqrt( 1 - v^2/c^2 )
eta = y
zeta = z.
That is what you get when you treat time as if it were a vector and mix
in
some distance.
We can forget y and z, the mosquito didn't fly up into a tree or into
the
ditch at the side.
We apply this to the equations derived:
tau = (16 - 3 * 80 / 25) / sqrt (1 - 3^2/5^2)
= (6.4) / 0.8
= 8 seconds
xi = 32 / sqrt (1 - 9 / 25)
= 40 feet
Sanity check:
c = 40 ft / 8 seconds = 5 fps. Yep, that's the right speed for Albert.
So...
We are standing at the roadside watching Sam and Joe carry a 40 ft
ladder
that they think is a 32 ft ladder, because the speed of mosquitoes is 5
fps
in all inertial frames of reference.
It must be right, its only algebra after all is said and done.
So now you should be able to fully understand Special Relativity, all
you need do is replace the speed of the mosquito with the speed of
light,
have Sam and Joe run at the relativistic speed of 0.6c, the algebra is
perfect, and who needs common sense anyway?
Just remember that 40 ft ladders shrink to 32 ft ladders when you run
with
them at 180,000 km/sec, and you'll be as smart as Einstein the cretin.
For myself, I'll keep the collection of prejudices I acquired by the
time I was eighteen.
The theory is 100 years old exactly, and so far has proven
unchallenged.
Rob
It has been under constant challenge. What has not done is analyzed it
to see why (16+ 4)/2 = 16, Or if the mosquito flies from Joe to Sam and
back to Joe again,
why (16+4) / 2 = 4.
Androcles
.
|
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: Inflationary Theory ; I'm confused |
31 Jan 2005 10:11:44 AM |
|
|
"Androcles" <dummy@dummy.com> wrote in message
news:nHrLd.20496$n9.20101@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
[snip]
The Lorentz transform is the way it is because Einstein DEFINED
time in this way:
No. Maxwell's equations were known to be Lorentz invariant before
Einstein came on the scene.
That is why it is called Lorentzinvariance and not Einstein
invariance.
[snip]
Franz
.
|
|
|
| User: "josephus" |
|
| Title: Re: Inflationary Theory ; I'm confused |
01 Feb 2005 09:15:26 AM |
|
|
Franz Heymann wrote:
"Androcles" <dummy@dummy.com> wrote in message
news:nHrLd.20496$n9.20101@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
[snip]
The Lorentz transform is the way it is because Einstein DEFINED
time in this way:
No. Maxwell's equations were known to be Lorentz invariant before
Einstein came on the scene.
That is why it is called Lorentzinvariance and not Einstein
invariance.
[snip]
Franz
good explanation. The problem is always time. Question: what was the
TIME of the big bang? 0? no. There was no time at the big bang.
Our time is different. We have time. So we can measure the relative
time demarked by Constant speed of light. No matter what the space in
the universe is doing the speed of light is a constant. We can measure
the shift in light. (Z) this is the measure of how much the universe
changed while the light was traveling. Z means the universe is
expanding. Z is data. Observation. Not opinion. the universe does not
have a center.
The explainaton of how much this value has, is what Relativity does.
It predicts the value for Z if and only space stretched. The terrible
math is to calculate how much Z is related to how long light travels.
The big bang is an explanation of the value for Z
the ansitrophy is the fact that the values for Z are constantly changing
according to distance (relative to us and in all directions) The
Hubble constant is related to Z Because Hubble discovered the red
shift for distance. Z is the measure of the red shift. The big bang is
the Unexplained Theory of the origin of why the red shift exits as the
simplest explanation. the Big Bank is unexplained because we do not know
why the universe had a Big Bang and we do not know exactly what
happened. That is why the Theory is not about the Bang but Z and the
expansion of the universe. Remember telescopes look backward in Time.
Steady state is the competing theory and it has major deficits that the
Big Bang explains.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Inflationary Theory ; I'm confused |
31 Jan 2005 12:04:46 AM |
|
|
Rob Dekker wrote:
"jgreenfield@seol.net.au" <jgreen@seol.net.au> wrote in message
news:1107045832.346940.59990@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
[...]
Both of them are measuring proper time, according to the strict
definition of proper time.
Unwilling, or unable, to answer?????????
GPS satellite clock shows different time elapsed for earth orbit
than
does earth clock. This is the SAME event, viewed from the SAME
point
(us).
You say both are working accurately; I leave it to unbrainwashed
readers to decide whether this little gem of GR/SR contradiction
supports "the theory".
Jim, no theoretical theory that models nature can be proven.
But SR/GR do accurately explain the difference between rate-of-ticks
of
two perfectly functioning atom-clocks where one is on Earth's surface
and
the other is further out in space.
Even in 'ordinary' GPS satellites this effect is very noticable, and
software needs to
compensate for it. Interesting note is that originally the GPS
designers thought
they would not need to take relativistic effects into consideration,
but it very quickly
showed that that was a mistake. The are very noticable, and very
accurately
following GR's predictions.
So if you have a better explanation for this effect, or if you have a
theory which
explains why the Lorenz transformation is the way it, then speak up.
The theory is 100 years old exactly, and so far has proven
unchallenged.
Rob
It is in the _interpretation_ of why the clocks in space seem to keep
different time.
Because c'=c+v , the signal exchange time ALTERS, which is worked by
Relativity as claiming that time is "running" at a different rate. The
Doppler shift is due to c altering due to velocity of source, NOT to a
magical change in the emitted frequency of the signal.
Lorenz is wrong for the same reason: c NOT = c+v
Jim G
BB=BS
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Inflationary Theory ; I'm confused |
18 Jan 2005 09:00:37 PM |
|
|
Rob Dekker wrote:
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message news:zaaHd.12720$EG1.5271@attbi_s53...
Rob Dekker wrote:
Over the past couple of years, I've read various articles
about the Big Bang Theory. Part of that is a theory
proposed by Groth,
Alan Guth
Thanks ! Sorry for misspelling his name.
which states that the early Universe went
through a period of very rapid expansion called 'inflation'.
I understand that the inflation theory was
invented to explain the 'flat-noess' of space and the
MBR isotropy (microwave background indicates that
the early Universe had a very consistent high temperature).
I am confused about this inflationary period.
I've read somewhere that the Universe expanded to
a size of 40 million light years within a miniscule time.
This would clearly violate the limitation of the speed
of light.
Can objects move away from us faster than the speed of light?
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#FTL
I think you are saying that since the time ran much slower in the
very early Universe than it does now, that therefor objects seem
to move away from us faster than light, but in reality we just see
them in their pre-birth state (right after BB). Right ?
No I'm not saying that time ran much slower in the very early Universe.
It is (likely) most of the universe lies beyond our cosmic horizon. We
can only see as far out/back as that has been time for light to travel.
I really encourage you to peruse this excellent material from Ned Wright
and the WMAP team.
Read Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html
WMAP: Foundations of the Big Bang theory
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni.html
WMAP: Tests of Big Bang Cosmology
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Inflationary Theory ; I'm confused |
18 Jan 2005 09:30:52 PM |
|
|
Sam Wormley wrote:
Rob Dekker wrote:
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:zaaHd.12720$EG1.5271@attbi_s53...
Rob Dekker wrote:
Over the past couple of years, I've read various articles
about the Big Bang Theory. Part of that is a theory
proposed by Groth,
Alan Guth
Thanks ! Sorry for misspelling his name.
which states that the early Universe went
through a period of very rapid expansion called 'inflation'.
I understand that the inflation theory was
invented to explain the 'flat-noess' of space and the
MBR isotropy (microwave background indicates that
the early Universe had a very consistent high temperature).
I am confused about this inflationary period.
I've read somewhere that the Universe expanded to
a size of 40 million light years within a miniscule time.
This would clearly violate the limitation of the speed
of light.
Can objects move away from us faster than the speed of light?
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#FTL
I think you are saying that since the time ran much slower in the
very early Universe than it does now, that therefor objects seem
to move away from us faster than light, but in reality we just see
them in their pre-birth state (right after BB). Right ?
No I'm not saying that time ran much slower in the very early
Universe.
It is (likely) most of the universe lies beyond our cosmic
horizon. We
can only see as far out/back as that has been time for light to
travel.
I really encourage you to peruse this excellent material from Ned
Wright
and the WMAP team.
Read Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html
WMAP: Foundations of the Big Bang theory
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni.html
WMAP: Tests of Big Bang Cosmology
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest.html
.......and I encourage you to have a look at "Astronomers Poses A Cosmic
Puzzle"
in sci.astro.
There we see discussed quasars with a high redshift just over the
cosmic road, an absolute no-no for Big Bang. Along with the old
galaxies which are now seen at large distances, the biggest problem
with BB is where to put all the nails in its coffin.
Jim G
c'=c+v
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Inflationary Theory ; I'm confused |
18 Jan 2005 09:56:33 PM |
|
|
Greenfield is a known crank
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Inflationary Theory ; I'm confused |
18 Jan 2005 11:21:24 PM |
|
|
Sam Wormley wrote:
Greenfield is a known crank
I'll leave it to the audience:
1) Old galaxies at large distances are NOT hugely problematical for
BB?
2) Quasars of high redshift existing nearby are NOT
terminal for BB??
3) Given the former, Wormley possess an intelligent, logical,
intellect???
Jim G
c'=c+v
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Inflationary Theory ; I'm confused |
19 Jan 2005 08:24:46 AM |
|
|
wrote:
2) Quasars of high redshift existing nearby are NOT
terminal for BB??
Greenfield deludes himself accepting *high* redshift *nearby* quasars!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gib Bogle" |
|
| Title: Re: Inflationary Theory ; I'm confused |
18 Jan 2005 01:23:49 PM |
|
|
Rob Dekker wrote:
I don't think this has any connection with mathematics.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rob Dekker" |
|
| Title: Re: Inflationary Theory ; I'm confused |
19 Jan 2005 11:44:13 PM |
|
|
"Gib Bogle" <bogle@ihug.too.much.spam.co.nz> wrote in message news:csjnoh$vm4$2@lust.ihug.co.nz...
Rob Dekker wrote:
I don't think this has any connection with mathematics.
I did not really write this, but you did Gib....
But I think mathematics have EVERYTHING to do with BB and GR and inflation theories.
The relativistic effects in and expanding space/time and matter density distributions which
all change over time seems an amazingly interesting mathematical puzzle (at least to me).
I would have hoped that a mathematical deduction of effects of inflation theory might
have been done already within special or general relativity theory and BB theory
models. Or a mathematical deduction that inflation cannot have happened
within existing theories, and some other effect is required to explain the observed
flat-ness and uniformity etc.
Any way, sorry if you feel that my posting was mis-placed.
It is still a lot better than all these insults that seem to fly back and forth
on the various groups here.
Rob
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Viv Eshwarr" |
|
| Title: Re: Inflationary Theory ; I'm confused |
18 Jan 2005 01:37:01 PM |
|
|
Gib Bogle wrote:
Rob Dekker wrote:
I don't think this has any connection with mathematics.
Did you have any astrology to discuss?
--
As Above, So Below
Namaste
Hail Ming
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cujo DeSockpuppet" |
|
| Title: Re: Inflationary Theory ; I'm confused |
18 Jan 2005 05:14:09 PM |
|
|
Viv Eshwarr <asswarrior@trollservers.are.next> wrote in
news:41ED655D.5587C2F4@trollservers.are.next:
Gib Bogle wrote:
Rob Dekker wrote:
I don't think this has any connection with mathematics.
Did you have any astrology to discuss?
Knock it off, Fucknozzle Jr.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Nick" |
|
| Title: Re: Inflationary Theory ; I'm confused |
20 Jan 2005 10:15:10 PM |
|
|
Something has to overcome the original gravity of the BB -
even if the matter comes into existence spread apart.
Matter would have to start out spread apart;
otherwise you are looking at a black hole.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Joseph Lazio" |
|
| Title: Re: Inflationary Theory ; I'm confused |
21 Jan 2005 12:53:36 PM |
|
|
"N" == Nick <macromitch@yahoo.com> writes:
N> Something has to overcome the original gravity of the BB - even if
N> the matter comes into existence spread apart.
This is a key point, and perhaps one of the reasons that the BB model
is so often misunderstood.
The BB model does *not* describe the origin of the Universe. It
describes its *evolution*.
--
Lt. Lazio, HTML police | e-mail:
No means no, stop rape. | http://patriot.net/%7Ejlazio/
sci.astro FAQ at http://sciastro.astronomy.net/sci.astro.html
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
