| 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: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Inflationary Theory ; I'm confused |
21 Jan 2005 08:18:43 PM |
|
|
Joseph Lazio wrote:
"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
The only valid theory of origin would be God.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Inflationary Theory ; I'm confused |
22 Jan 2005 07:17:33 PM |
|
|
Joseph Lazio wrote:
"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*.
G'day Joe,
Awhile back, the observing by deep space telescopes of ONLY young
galaxies at large distance, was held to be undeniable "proof" of BB-
then old galaxies were discovered at the same distances!
Similarly, quasars at long range and their apparent redshifts were
also held to be cornerstones of BB (and by association, Gr). How much
brighter (and invoking the square rule for brightness/distance) must
this "close" quasar be, when its "needful" distance (to sustain BB)
should be in the order of billions ly, but its "apparent" brightness is
fitted well to the 300 mly??
Cheerio
Jim G
c'=c+v
--
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
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Inflationary Theory ; I'm confused |
22 Jan 2005 09:25:14 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Awhile back, the observing by deep space telescopes of ONLY young
galaxies at large distance, was held to be undeniable "proof" of BB-
then old galaxies were discovered at the same distances!
not "old" galaxies... but young galaxies that developed a lot
earlier than the old data indicated. Recent data indicates that
the first stars and beginning of galactic structure began as
early ast 2 x 10^8 yr after the BB. In no way does that contradict
the BB theory.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Inflationary Theory ; I'm confused |
22 Jan 2005 09:57:56 PM |
|
|
Sam Wormley wrote:
jgreenfield@seol.net.au wrote:
Awhile back, the observing by deep space telescopes of ONLY young
galaxies at large distance, was held to be undeniable "proof" of
BB-
then old galaxies were discovered at the same distances!
not "old" galaxies... but young galaxies that developed a lot
earlier than the old data indicated. Recent data indicates that
the first stars and beginning of galactic structure began as
early ast 2 x 10^8 yr after the BB. In no way does that
contradict
the BB theory.
What a hoot! If the "old data" is WRONG, or WRONGLY diagnosed, as you
here clearly imply, then the whole basis on which expansion, BB,
redshift, Hubble's constant etc is a CARCASS!
If the goal posts need shifting, in this case about 13 billion Light
years, you would do better calling the ground staff.
Jim G
c'=c+v
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Inflationary Theory ; I'm confused |
22 Jan 2005 10:25:32 PM |
|
|
wrote:
What a hoot! If the "old data" is WRONG, or WRONGLY diagnosed, as you
here clearly imply, then the whole basis on which expansion, BB,
redshift, Hubble's constant etc is a CARCASS!
If the goal posts need shifting, in this case about 13 billion Light
years, you would do better calling the ground staff.
Don't be so stooopid Greenfield... The old data wasn't wrong...
The new data looks back further in time and distance because of
new technology. Don't be so stooopid Greenfield!
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Inflationary Theory ; I'm confused |
22 Jan 2005 10:49:23 PM |
|
|
Sam Wormley wrote:
jgreen@seol.net.au wrote:
What a hoot! If the "old data" is WRONG, or WRONGLY diagnosed, as
you
here clearly imply, then the whole basis on which expansion, BB,
redshift, Hubble's constant etc is a CARCASS!
If the goal posts need shifting, in this case about 13 billion
Light
years, you would do better calling the ground staff.
Don't be so stooopid Greenfield... The old data wasn't wrong...
The new data looks back further in time and distance because of
new technology. Don't be so stooopid Greenfield!
And when it looks back 40bly, what then?
The groundsmen are so busy redrawing the lines, they are back in the
stands!
Don't be so stupid Wormley! How the ***** do they know how
"far" they are looking, if they don't use the old data, which you say
above is crap (despite your claim here to the contrary). They use
Hubble redshift as distance markers, right? Now we have a "distance
marker quasar" which according to you should be at billions of years,
just up the road!!!!!!
Jim G
c'=c+v
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Inflationary Theory ; I'm confused |
23 Jan 2005 08:08:14 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
jgreen@seol.net.au wrote:
What a hoot! If the "old data" is WRONG, or WRONGLY diagnosed, as
you
here clearly imply, then the whole basis on which expansion, BB,
redshift, Hubble's constant etc is a CARCASS!
If the goal posts need shifting, in this case about 13 billion
Light
years, you would do better calling the ground staff.
Don't be so stooopid Greenfield... The old data wasn't wrong...
The new data looks back further in time and distance because of
new technology. Don't be so stooopid Greenfield!
And when it looks back 40bly, what then?
Don't be so stooopid Greenfield... No instrument can look back further
that the time light has has time to travel. Ask me in another 27 billion
years what the universe looked like back 40 Gly... unfortunately our
cosmic horizon will likely have shrunk! Accelerating expansion has it's
drawbacks.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Inflationary Theory ; I'm confused |
23 Jan 2005 04:05:05 PM |
|
|
Sam Wormley wrote:
jgreenfield@seol.net.au wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
jgreen@seol.net.au wrote:
What a hoot! If the "old data" is WRONG, or WRONGLY diagnosed, as
you
here clearly imply, then the whole basis on which expansion, BB,
redshift, Hubble's constant etc is a CARCASS!
If the goal posts need shifting, in this case about 13 billion
Light
years, you would do better calling the ground staff.
Don't be so stooopid Greenfield... The old data wasn't wrong...
The new data looks back further in time and distance because of
new technology. Don't be so stooopid Greenfield!
And when it looks back 40bly, what then?
Don't be so stooopid Greenfield... No instrument can look back
further
that the time light has has time to travel. Ask me in another 27
billion
years what the universe looked like back 40 Gly... unfortunately
our
cosmic horizon will likely have shrunk! Accelerating expansion has
it's
drawbacks.
*****^2. The "cosmic horizon" is extended regularly by the
fraternity. Only a few years back, the "age" of the universe was 13 by.
That is getting progressively pushed back=older, but as a seasoned time
traveller, you will never understand that delay in information transfer
due to distance has jack s* to do with real time.
Jim G
c'=c+v
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rob Dekker" |
|
| Title: Re: Inflationary Theory ; I'm confused |
18 Jan 2005 02:21:23 PM |
|
|
Thanks Ken,
And yes, sorry for mis-spelling Guth's name... I wrote his name just from memory....
Notes below
Rob
"kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote in message news:XQ9Hd.32958$re1.8381@fe2.columbus.rr.com...
"Rob Dekker" <rob@verific.com> wrote in message
news:8N5Hd.11696$wZ2.4737@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
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).
The inflation hypothesis was invented to explain the horizon and the
flatness problems of the BB hypothesis. The horizon problem arises as
follows: The age of the observable universe was determined to be about 15
billion years old and yet the horizon of the observable universe is
determined to be 45 billions years. This means that these separate regions
of the horizon cannot be in contact with each other and thus invalidate the
BB concept. The inflation theory was invented to save the BB theory. It says
that we can have a horizon of 45 billion years if the initial expansion of
the universe is inflationary (faster than the speed of light).
Mmm. I don't see that (as being a problem).
I think that even without the need to introduce FTL expansion, the Universe
can be 15 Billion years old, but can still be 45 billion light-years (or even
larger) in size.
The MBR can just be 15 billion year old photons, emitted from the
'far-side' (as seen from us) of the fire ball Universe right after the BB.
These regions have since (probably) expanded into countless galaxies,
which we cannot see since they are outside of our event horizon.
We DO see them in pre-birth state, so there is no violation of anything
traveling faster than light, and no need for a faster-than-light inflation.
Am I missing something ?
SR says that no material object can move faster than the speed of light so
how is the large horizon is achieved? The answer is that the expansion is
not due to material objects moving radially away from the point of the BB.
It is due to that the space between the material objects is expanding at
speed faster than light. This assertion is invented to avoid conflicting
with the SR postulate of constant light speed.
Do you know when this inflation should have occurred, and how fast and
to which size ? I am seeing conflicting messages on this (after-inflation size
varies from 1 meter to 40 million light-years).
The horizon problem can be explained with a structured ether theory
described in the following link. This explanation avoids the need for the ad
hoc inflationary hypothesis to explain the horizon problem.
http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Links/Papers/Seto.pdf
Your paper seems a lot more general than just the cosmological
inflation theory, and I need a bit of time to read it.
Ken Seto
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: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Inflationary Theory ; I'm confused |
19 Jan 2005 08:46:11 AM |
|
|
"Rob Dekker" <rob@verific.com> wrote in message
news:7deHd.12850$5R.3094@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
Thanks Ken,
And yes, sorry for mis-spelling Guth's name... I wrote his name just from
memory....
Notes below
Rob
"kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote in message
news:XQ9Hd.32958$re1.8381@fe2.columbus.rr.com...
"Rob Dekker" <rob@verific.com> wrote in message
news:8N5Hd.11696$wZ2.4737@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
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).
The inflation hypothesis was invented to explain the horizon and the
flatness problems of the BB hypothesis. The horizon problem arises as
follows: The age of the observable universe was determined to be about
15
billion years old and yet the horizon of the observable universe is
determined to be 45 billions years. This means that these separate
regions
of the horizon cannot be in contact with each other and thus invalidate
the
BB concept. The inflation theory was invented to save the BB theory. It
says
that we can have a horizon of 45 billion years if the initial expansion
of
the universe is inflationary (faster than the speed of light).
Mmm. I don't see that (as being a problem).
I think that even without the need to introduce FTL expansion, the
Universe
can be 15 Billion years old, but can still be 45 billion light-years (or
even
larger) in size.
No....if the universe is 15 or14 billion years old then those regions at the
opposite direction of the horizon (30 billion light years apart) cannot have
been in contact with each other and thus invalidate the BB which posits that
all matters were in contact with each other at the point of the BB.
The MBR can just be 15 billion year old photons, emitted from the
'far-side' (as seen from us) of the fire ball Universe right after the BB.
These regions have since (probably) expanded into countless galaxies,
which we cannot see since they are outside of our event horizon.
We DO see them in pre-birth state, so there is no violation of anything
traveling faster than light, and no need for a faster-than-light
inflation.
Am I missing something ?
Yes you are missing the fact that the regions at the opposite direction of
the horizon is 30 billion apart and that these regions cannot start from the
same point of the BB unless that there was faster than light expansion of
space that creates the 30 billion light years apart horizon.
SR says that no material object can move faster than the speed of light
so
how is the large horizon is achieved? The answer is that the expansion
is
not due to material objects moving radially away from the point of the
BB.
It is due to that the space between the material objects is expanding at
speed faster than light. This assertion is invented to avoid conflicting
with the SR postulate of constant light speed.
Do you know when this inflation should have occurred, and how fast and
to which size ? I am seeing conflicting messages on this (after-inflation
size
varies from 1 meter to 40 million light-years).
I think that they said that the inflation started at 10^-35 second. The size
after inflation varies from the size of a grapefruit to 49 million light
years. I think Guth said that it is the size of a grapefruit.
The horizon problem can be explained with a structured ether theory
described in the following link. This explanation avoids the need for
the ad
hoc inflationary hypothesis to explain the horizon problem.
http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Links/Papers/Seto.pdf
Your paper seems a lot more general than just the cosmological
inflation theory, and I need a bit of time to read it.
OK....let me ko=now if you have any questions.
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Inflationary Theory ; I'm confused |
19 Jan 2005 09:06:11 AM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
No....if the universe is 15 or14 billion years old then those regions at the
opposite direction of the horizon (30 billion light years apart) cannot have
been in contact with each other and thus invalidate the BB which posits that
all matters were in contact with each other at the point of the BB.
Crank Seto fails to understand that the BB is not in any way invalidated
Suggest Seto digest 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: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Inflationary Theory ; I'm confused |
19 Jan 2005 09:16:28 AM |
|
|
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:DHuHd.15028$EG1.10350@attbi_s53...
kenseto wrote:
No....if the universe is 15 or14 billion years old then those regions at
the
opposite direction of the horizon (30 billion light years apart) cannot
have
been in contact with each other and thus invalidate the BB which posits
that
all matters were in contact with each other at the point of the BB.
Crank Seto fails to understand that the BB is not in any way
invalidated
Fucking SRian runt Wormy is incapable of understand anything.
Definition for a runt of the SR experts:
A moron who thinks that SR is a religion. An idiot who doesn't
know the limitations of SR. A mental midget who can't comprehend
beyond what he was taught in school. An imbecile who follows
the real experts around like a puppy and eats up their ***** like
gourmet puppy chow. An ***** who will attack anybody who
disagrees with SR.
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "jacob navia" |
|
| Title: Re: Inflationary Theory ; I'm confused |
23 Jan 2005 05:47:37 PM |
|
|
Thesis:
Space can't expand.
If space would be able to expand, it would be
bigger than it is, a contradiction. Into what would
space itself "expand"? Into more space.
The limit of the incredible is reached with a
theory that says that space expands faster than
light.
Imagine a light ray that goes from point A to
point B.
When the photon starts moving it can never
reach point B or "*any*" point in space
because even if it is traveling at 300 000
Km/sec, in one second much more than 300 000 Km
of space separates where the photon was, from
its actual place, one second later.
SPEED IS KM/SEC. If in one second more than 300 000 Km
"appear" (from nowhere) nothing at all in that
universe can move and the temperature of the
Universe is absolute zero.
Temperature of a gas is the mean speed of its
molecules. If the molecules do not move, the
gas is at absolute zero.
You can't reach point B from point A unless
you go faster than light, for *ANY* point A and B.
But what means that "space is expanding at
300 000 Km sec".
What is "a kilometer" ????
It is thousand times the distance of the stick in Paris, or
whatever definition you use.
IN ALL definitions will be a physical process that
needs movement. You take the Paris stick out of
the museum and measure a distance. Or you use some
interferometry to make a stick or whatever.
Any measurement supposes an *unchanging* measure yardstick.
And if space is expanding this yardsticks aren't
conceivable any more. After a while they all grow by a
variable amount!
This becomes even worst when you consider the argument that
space expansion doesn't occur within galaxies or other bound
objects.
Space would expand between objects but the size of the
objects would not change, diluting themselves
in an ever greater space.
The behavior of a yardstick would change if there is
a galaxy nearby or not.
Suppose a "yardstick" measuring the distance between
galaxy A and B. It would detect an expansion,
but if the galaxies were inside a galaxy cluster it
would not.
All this contradictions have a common base:
Space is expanding.
Space is not expanding. Light gets stretched
when it goes through "empty" space. Why ?
I do not know. I prefer knowing what I do not know
than supposing that "space is expanding" or
similar "solutions".
Astronomers have gotten carried away with this, and
I have read some "In the beginning was the big bang", etc
books with some amusement. The pope is happy, and
blesses BB as the confirmation of the bible's
creation story albeit with a physics touch now.
I remain a skeptic.
All the physical explanations sound "correct" but the
basic problem is untouched. How can space "expand" ???
I have a dent against Creation, Creators, big bangs that
started everything. We should at least acknowledge that
we haven't the foggiest idea what the "Universe" is.
For starters we can speak only about the "observed" universe.
this is the scientific side. Speaking about what lies beyond
the horizon is meta-physics (a very amusing activity)
but not science, not physics.
And there is *no way* to know what lies beyond the
horizon by definition.
Any being has an HORIZON, i.e. the measure of the farthest
point it can perceive.
Our horizon is expanding and the only thing that really expands,
is the observable Universe. Our scopes reach farther and
farther, and the poor big bang starts a race against it,
getting pushed farther and farther since the scopes reach
already 13.5 billion years and no bang is in sight.
The observations show similar galaxies, clusters, etc
as we see around us. No bang is in sight.
This was the news this year, when Chandra and all new
scopes start reaching the big bang:
No bang is in sight. We find galaxy clusters, huge black
holes, and old galaxies with a lot of iron in them.
Astronomy is not cosmology. Astronomy is about observations,
i.e. it can only assert what we know about the observed
Universe. What lies beyond is forever the realm of meta-physics.
And a theory could be brought for, that tries to explain how the
observed Universe evolved, (if we can find a common denominator for it)
but that will tell nothing about the universe but about the observed
one, the one that lies between our horizon and us.
Science can't go beyond the horizon. The basis of science are
observations, and the universe can't be observed. This is
an intrinsic limitation of any finite being.
And please, we *are* finite. Our life span is 100 years if we are
lucky, and our speeds never go beyond a few Km/Sec at most. We do not
have the foggiest idea what the universe is.
We didn't know the existence of planets in other stars
just a few years ago. We had never space scopes until
shortly.
Let's calm down, and start looking around, observing,
collecting data, trying to figure out what is out
there. And forget the universe. It will be
*always* beyond our reach.
Science can't offer any further explanation.
.
|
|
|
| User: "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \dlzc\ N: dlzc1 D:cox" |
|
| Title: Re: Inflationary Theory ; I'm confused |
23 Jan 2005 06:09:44 PM |
|
|
Dear jacob navia:
"jacob navia" <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> wrote in message
news:41f43795$0$31819$8fcfb975@news.wanadoo.fr...
Thesis:
Space can't expand.
Proof:
If space would be able to expand, it would be
bigger than it is, a contradiction.
Wrong. Put a number in a spreadsheet cell. Allow iteration. Allow the
cell to increase its value by a tiny bit on each pass. What is the value
"expanding into"?
Into what would
space itself "expand"?
An alternative view, is that all of *now* is contracting.
Into more space.
Wrong. Since space is not contained, then it is free to be merely a
relationship between all the matter in the Unvierse.
The limit of the incredible is reached with a
theory that says that space expands faster than
light.
Depends on how you define "incredible", doesn't it? What is incredible to
me is how people don't use a search engine, and find good information sites
like:
URL:http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm
....
Science can't offer any further explanation.
Armchair philosophers run out of explanations a lot faster than science
does.
David A. Smith
.
|
|
|
| User: "jacob navia" |
|
| Title: Re: Inflationary Theory ; I'm confused |
24 Jan 2005 03:41:33 AM |
|
|
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:
Dear jacob navia:
"jacob navia" <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> wrote in message
news:41f43795$0$31819$8fcfb975@news.wanadoo.fr...
Thesis:
Space can't expand.
Proof:
If space would be able to expand, it would be
bigger than it is, a contradiction.
Wrong. Put a number in a spreadsheet cell. Allow iteration. Allow the
cell to increase its value by a tiny bit on each pass. What is the value
"expanding into"?
Into what would
space itself "expand"?
An alternative view, is that all of *now* is contracting.
Into more space.
Wrong. Since space is not contained, then it is free to be merely a
relationship between all the matter in the Unvierse.
Agreed. The subject matter here is whether the relationship
is a *constant* one, i.e. if a constant yardstick can be
used to measure the distance betwee two points A and B.
Of course space is a "relationship between all matter". For any
points A and B, there is a relationship called distance! This
is trivial.
The limit of the incredible is reached with a
theory that says that space expands faster than
light.
Depends on how you define "incredible", doesn't it? What is incredible to
me is how people don't use a search engine, and find good information sites
like:
URL:http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm
Your answer doesn't address any issue. You just imply that I should go
on reading sites that speak about space expansion as it was
a matter of fact.
The last year brought new data from our scopes, specially from
Chandra that discovered a huge black hole at 13.5 billion years,
i.e. almost at the supposed big bang.
This is an observation, not a theory. Now how can an active galaxy
nucleus exist, i.e. having been created, formed, evolved into a black
hole all in just 500 million years?
...
Here you cut without answering the difference between the observable
universe (the subject of science) and the universe (the subject of
meta-physics).
Science can't offer any further explanation.
With this I was resuming the argument you cut off. The subject of
science is the observable universe and science can't go beyond
it.
Armchair philosophers run out of explanations a lot faster than science
does.
David A. Smith
No arguments, just an arrogant sentence to hide the fact that you
presented no data or arguments to substantiate your opinion.
Is the distinction between the observable universe and the universe
clear to you?
.
|
|
|
| User: "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \dlzc\ N: dlzc1 D:cox" |
|
| Title: Re: Inflationary Theory ; I'm confused |
24 Jan 2005 08:26:24 AM |
|
|
Dear jacob navia:
"jacob navia" <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> wrote in message
news:41f4c2cd$0$2183$8fcfb975@news.wanadoo.fr...
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:
Dear jacob navia:
"jacob navia" <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> wrote in message
news:41f43795$0$31819$8fcfb975@news.wanadoo.fr...
Thesis:
Space can't expand.
Proof:
If space would be able to expand, it would be
bigger than it is, a contradiction.
Wrong. Put a number in a spreadsheet cell. Allow iteration. Allow the
cell to increase its value by a tiny bit on each pass. What is the
value "expanding into"?
Into what would
space itself "expand"?
An alternative view, is that all of *now* is contracting.
Into more space.
Wrong. Since space is not contained, then it is free to be merely a
relationship between all the matter in the Unvierse.
Agreed. The subject matter here is whether the relationship
is a *constant* one, i.e. if a constant yardstick can be
used to measure the distance betwee two points A and B.
No. Physical objects accumulate damage. The alloy rod used in Paris
"expanded" at the rate of 1 part in 10^8 per year, every year, since at
least the 1940s. Similarly, a steel rod was found to "shrink" by 1 part in
10^8, for some fairly long period of time.
The "yardstick" is light and time. And this shows expansion. Maybe not in
the Solar System...
Of course space is a "relationship between all matter". For any
points A and B, there is a relationship called distance! This
is trivial.
But it is not in quantum theory. Distance is not a concept there. From
"here" and "not here", distance is forged...
The limit of the incredible is reached with a
theory that says that space expands faster than
light.
Depends on how you define "incredible", doesn't it? What is incredible
to me is how people don't use a search engine, and find good information
sites like:
URL:http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm
Your answer doesn't address any issue. You just imply that I should go
on reading sites that speak about space expansion as it was
a matter of fact.
It fits the facts.
The last year brought new data from our scopes, specially from
Chandra that discovered a huge black hole at 13.5 billion years,
i.e. almost at the supposed big bang.
I wouldn't be surprised if we found structures that "survived" the event
horizon that we call the Big Bang. Revel in the truth.
This is an observation, not a theory. Now how can an active galaxy
nucleus exist, i.e. having been created, formed, evolved into a black
hole all in just 500 million years?
Let's see, observation that is *validated* by a theory you spurn is... what
exactly?
...
Here you cut without answering the difference between the observable
universe (the subject of science) and the universe (the subject of
meta-physics).
How long do you wish this thread to be?
Science can't offer any further explanation.
With this I was resuming the argument you cut off. The subject of
science is the observable universe and science can't go beyond
it.
And this cannot go anywhere good, since I do not wish to debate this.
Armchair philosophers run out of explanations a lot faster than science
does.
No arguments, just an arrogant sentence to hide the fact that you
presented no data or arguments to substantiate your opinion.
Pot. Kettle. Black.
Is the distinction between the observable universe and the universe
clear to you?
As clear as the difference between any observable, and the construct the
human mind fabricates to provide mechanism to *justify* the observations.
We cannot impress our "flatlander" belief system on the Universe, and
expect it not to laugh. But we can use science to make predictions. And
GR makes predictions that work. If space expands, Hubble redshift (of both
light frequency and duration of events) is a result.
David A. Smith
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "jacob navia" |
|
| Title: Re: Inflationary Theory ; I'm confused |
24 Jan 2005 04:17:14 AM |
|
|
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:
Dear jacob navia:
"jacob navia" <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> wrote in message
news:41f43795$0$31819$8fcfb975@news.wanadoo.fr...
Thesis:
Space can't expand.
Proof:
If space would be able to expand, it would be
bigger than it is, a contradiction.
Wrong. Put a number in a spreadsheet cell. Allow iteration. Allow the
cell to increase its value by a tiny bit on each pass. What is the value
"expanding into"?
Nothing, it is not expanding, the value is changing that's all.
The space used by the spreadsheet cell doesn't change with
the cell value unless the spredsheet resizes.
What this has to do with space expansion is not at all
clear.
Can you elaborate?
.
|
|
|
| User: "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \dlzc\ N: dlzc1 D:cox" |
|
| Title: Re: Inflationary Theory ; I'm confused |
24 Jan 2005 08:30:09 AM |
|
|
Dear jacob navia:
"jacob navia" <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> wrote in message
news:41f4cb29$0$18870$8fcfb975@news.wanadoo.fr...
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:
Dear jacob navia:
"jacob navia" <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> wrote in message
news:41f43795$0$31819$8fcfb975@news.wanadoo.fr...
Thesis:
Space can't expand.
Proof:
If space would be able to expand, it would be
bigger than it is, a contradiction.
Wrong. Put a number in a spreadsheet cell. Allow iteration. Allow the
cell to increase its value by a tiny bit on each pass. What is the
value "expanding into"?
Nothing, it is not expanding, the value is changing that's all.
The space used by the spreadsheet cell doesn't change with
the cell value unless the spredsheet resizes.
What this has to do with space expansion is not at all
clear.
Can you elaborate?
The distance between A and B is increasing. For all A and B sets. It is a
trivial readjustment in the relationship between these points (ostensibly
marked by physical bodies, perhaps). Since it appears that space is the
product of mass and energy, then expansion is simply an adjustment in this
"spreadsheet" that was created for this purpose.
There is no evidence of an absolute. Even an absolute space for "relative
space" to "expand into".
David A. Smith
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jesse Mazer" |
|
| Title: Re: Inflationary Theory ; I'm confused |
18 Jan 2005 01:40:05 PM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
SR says that no material object can move faster than the speed of light so
how is the large horizon is achieved? The answer is that the expansion is
not due to material objects moving radially away from the point of the BB.
It is due to that the space between the material objects is expanding at
speed faster than light. This assertion is invented to avoid conflicting
with the SR postulate of constant light speed.
It wasn't "invented" as a tacked-on assumption, the whole structure of
GR can be derived from a few basic assumptions like the equivalence
principle, and the fact that space can "expand faster than light" is a
part of GR that follows as a *consequence* of these basic assumptions.
Jesse
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Inflationary Theory ; I'm confused |
18 Jan 2005 09:49:47 AM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
"Rob Dekker" <rob@verific.com> wrote in message
news:8N5Hd.11696$wZ2.4737@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
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).
The inflation hypothesis was invented to explain the horizon and the
flatness problems of the BB hypothesis. The horizon problem arises as
follows: The age of the observable universe was determined to be about 15
billion years old and yet the horizon of the observable universe is
determined to be 45 billions years. This means that these separate regions
of the horizon cannot be in contact with each other and thus invalidate the
BB concept. The inflation theory was invented to save the BB theory. It says
that we can have a horizon of 45 billion years if the initial expansion of
the universe is inflationary (faster than the speed of light).
SR says that no material object can move faster than the speed of light so
how is the large horizon is achieved? The answer is that the expansion is
not due to material objects moving radially away from the point of the BB.
It is due to that the space between the material objects is expanding at
speed faster than light. This assertion is invented to avoid conflicting
with the SR postulate of constant light speed.
***** Seto
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
Crank Information
http://www.google.com/search?q=seto+fumble+site%3Ausers.pandora.be
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Ken+H.+Seto%22+site%3Awww.crank.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Inflationary Theory ; I'm confused |
18 Jan 2005 11:57:30 AM |
|
|
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:veaHd.12726$EG1.4587@attbi_s53...
kenseto wrote:
"Rob Dekker" <rob@verific.com> wrote in message
news:8N5Hd.11696$wZ2.4737@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
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).
The inflation hypothesis was invented to explain the horizon and the
flatness problems of the BB hypothesis. The horizon problem arises as
follows: The age of the observable universe was determined to be about
15
billion years old and yet the horizon of the observable universe is
determined to be 45 billions years. This means that these separate
regions
of the horizon cannot be in contact with each other and thus invalidate
the
BB concept. The inflation theory was invented to save the BB theory. It
says
that we can have a horizon of 45 billion years if the initial expansion
of
the universe is inflationary (faster than the speed of light).
SR says that no material object can move faster than the speed of light
so
how is the large horizon is achieved? The answer is that the expansion
is
not due to material objects moving radially away from the point of the
BB.
It is due to that the space between the material objects is expanding at
speed faster than light. This assertion is invented to avoid conflicting
with the SR postulate of constant light speed.
***** Seto
Wormy you don't know *****. You are a runt of the SR experts and a low life.
Definition for a runt of the SR experts:
A moron who thinks that SR is a religion. An idiot who doesn't
know the limitations of SR. A mental midget who can't comprehend
beyond what he was taught in school. An imbecile who follows
the real experts around like a puppy and eats up their ***** like
gourmet puppy chow. An ***** who will attack anybody
who disagrees with SR.
Ken Seto
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
Crank Information
http://www.google.com/search?q=seto+fumble+site%3Ausers.pandora.be
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Ken+H.+Seto%22+site%3Awww.crank.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
