Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 89 (8843 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-25-2018 9:40 AM
290 online now:
jar, MrTim, PaulK, RAZD, Tanypteryx (5 members, 285 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: MrTim
Post Volume:
Total: 834,305 Year: 9,128/29,783 Month: 1,375/1,977 Week: 68/445 Day: 14/54 Hour: 1/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
575859
60
6162Next
Author Topic:   Creation
ICANT
Member
Posts: 5878
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 886 of 919 (834415)
06-05-2018 5:23 PM
Reply to: Message 884 by caffeine
06-04-2018 4:25 PM


Re: Speed of Light vs. Expansion of the Universe
Hi caffeine,

caffeine writes:

Consider you in the universe, 46 billion light years in one direction you see Fred the alien. 46 billion light years in the other you see Dave the Alien:

Neat work with the pictures.

My position in the center of the visible universe makes it possible for me to see Fred and Dave. And each of them can see me.

But Fred and Dave can not see each other as there is 92 billion light years between them.

caffeine writes:

Nonetheless, his observable universe is clearly the same size, since he can see 46 billion light years in the other direction as well. If we looked at Petunia, we would find that she can see46 billion light years in every direction as well.

I can't see Petunia but Fred can. Now if you had put yourself 46 billion light years away in a straight line from Petunia she could see you and you could see her. Then if you put Mod 46 billion light years from you in a straight line he would be visible to you and you to him but Petunia would not be able to see Mod.

I don't have any limit as to how many dots you could place and put names on in any direction from my dot in the first picture.

But science does not have that liberty according to standard theory.

caffeine writes:

Well, this is covered by the idea the balloon analogy was trying to get across, which you refused to understand.

I understand the balloon analogy I just don't accept that it is a good analogy to explain the universe.

You can only look at the outside of the balloon. You can not look at the outside of the universe as you can in your 2 pictures. We are inside the universe.

caffeine writes:

If space has no boundaries, but is curved on itself, then if you could see to an infinite extent in any one direction you would eventually be seeing the point at which you're looking from (but, of course, at an earlier time). The same as if you could somehow cast your sight all the way around the surface of the earth you would see the back of your own head (I'm aware that the geometry of the earth makes this impossible - if that's bothering you then you missed the point of the analogy).

"IF" is a very big 2 letter word.

According to the standard theory space is expanding in every direction at the same time and we are inside of whatever it is that is expanding.

How can space be curved? If it is expanding in every direction at the same time?

But you are not on the outside of the universe. You do live on the surface of the earth.

Inside the universe there is no horizon like there is on the earth. It is flat as far as the telescope can see, in any direction it is pointed.

You can start on a journey on the earth and if you go in a straight line you would return to the starting point.

But you start on a journey in the universe and go in a straight line you would never return to the starting point. In fact you would only get further away from it, as long as you went in a straight line.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 884 by caffeine, posted 06-04-2018 4:25 PM caffeine has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 887 by Modulous, posted 06-05-2018 7:23 PM ICANT has responded

    
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 887 of 919 (834421)
06-05-2018 7:23 PM
Reply to: Message 886 by ICANT
06-05-2018 5:23 PM


shapes
I don't have any limit as to how many dots you could place and put names on in any direction from my dot in the first picture.

But science does not have that liberty according to standard theory.

Standard theory says the universe could be infinite in size. Indeed the evidence we have points to this conclusion, but not definitively. So standard theory has no built in limits to the number of dots.

You can only look at the outside of the balloon. You can not look at the outside of the universe as you can in your 2 pictures. We are inside the universe.

Well in the 2D balloon analogy there is no 'outside the balloon' there is only the surface of the balloon. It's a 2 dimensional plane. All that exists, exists on the surface in that realm. The shape of that plane can be described mathematically as if it were a sphere in 3 dimensions - though the third dimension isn't a real thing in the example. That's just the shape of the manifold.

quote:
One-dimensional manifolds include lines and circles, but not figure eights (because they have crossing points that are not locally homeomorphic to Euclidean 1-space). Two-dimensional manifolds are also called surfaces. Examples include the plane, the sphere, and the torus, which can all be embedded (formed without self-intersections) in three dimensional real space, but also the Klein bottle and real projective plane, which will always self-intersect when immersed in three-dimensional real space.

With one dimension you can only go backwards and forwards. As an analogy to the universe there are three basic possible shapes:

1) A straight line that extends infinitely in both directions. You keep moving forward, you never get to the end. The same applies if you move backwards.

2) A circle. The line wraps around itself to form a circle. The line still has only one dimension, but it can be mathematically described as a circle embedded in a 2D environment. In this 1D universe you can keep walking forwards on the line forever, but sooner or later you'd end up where you started (assuming the line didn't inconveniently expand on you too quickly )

3) A hyperbola. The line curves like in the second version, but the 'ends' get further away from each other instead of wrapping around and meeting. It extends forever.

One of those red lines would be the kind of shape I'm talking about.

That's the 1 dimensional case.

If the universe was two dimensional then you can go backwards, forwards, left and right - but not up or down. the possibilities are

1) A flat plane/sheet. Like the surface of a piece of paper - that extends infinitely far out. You can travel forever in any of the four directions that your two axis of travel give you - or on some vector (a combination of left and forwards for example).

2) A 2 sphere (eg. the surface of a sphere/balloon/the earth). Instead of a flat sheet, it curves back on itself. You can still travel in all the same directions as on the sheet, but if you keep travelling in one direction long enough you'll wind up where you started. The sphere is just how we would describe such a sheet mathematically since an actual sphere need not exist to describe a realm that does this - if there were some god-like creature 'outside' the universe in a third dimension - they'd see a sphere. But for the mortal beings that live in that universe there is no 'inside the sphere'. Inside the sphere is simply not part of their space. If there was no expansion you'd be able to look into the far distance and see the back of your head. There are a number of shapes that can do this, but a sphere is the easiest one to discuss.

3) A saddle shape. Technically a hyperbolic paraboloid. You could also think of it as pringle shaped. Unlike a pringle however, it extends out infinitely.

So that's a 1D universe and a 2D Universe. The mathematical descriptions are easy, because they can be represented in a 3d space - which we are used to dealing with.

Here is the 3D universe. You can move up and down, left and right, backwards and forwards. You cannot move ana and kata (proposed names for the extra direction of travel a fourth dimension would give us). Those directions don't exist in our 3d space. Possible shapes include

1) Expanse. It is 'flat' in that there is no curvature and it extends infinitely in all 6 directions and combinations thereof.

2) 3sphere. This is a 3 dimensional space that curves back on itself - just like the line and the sheet in 1 and 2 dimensions respectively. It can be represented in 4 dimensional space as a hypersphere. The centre of the hypersphere is not in our space. It is anawards from us, and ana is not a direction that exists to us 3d beings. A hypothetical godlke being would see the 4d sphere and could look anawards at the centre - although like with the 2 sphere where the 3rd dimension need not exist - there needn't be anything anawards of our universe. It's just a mathematical description of the shape of our 3dimensional volume. If there was no expansion, you could keep travelling along a vector and arrive back where you started. If you could look far enough, you'd see the back of your head.

3) A shape that in 4 dimensions would be a hypersaddle. It's infinite like the 2d hyperbolic paraboloid, but there's an extra direction you can travel in.

So, if the universe is a 3 sphere, we're living on the 3 dimensional surface of a four dimensional sphere. The four dimensional sphere isn't necessarily real, but even if it was we can look 'into' or anawards the centre of the 4d sphere. We are as much on the surface of that 4d sphere as the 2d creatures are on the surface of the 3d sphere of the balloon analogy.

According to the standard theory space is expanding in every direction at the same time and we are inside of whatever it is that is expanding.

And in the 2d analogy the creatures are living inside the the thing that is expanding (the surface of the 2 sphere).

How can space be curved? If it is expanding in every direction at the same time?

The same way a 2d space can be curved and expanding in all of the 2d directions at the same time - as is the case for the balloon inhabitants.

You can start on a journey on the earth and if you go in a straight line you would return to the starting point.

But you start on a journey in the universe and go in a straight line you would never return to the starting point. In fact you would only get further away from it, as long as you went in a straight line.

Unless it was 3 sphere - in which case you'd end up right where you started just like Pac-Man. His universe appears flat to him - but if he keeps heading to the left, he ends up back where he started. The same for the guy in the Asteroid game.

We don't know the shape of the universe - just like a primitive human didn't know the shape of the earth. If it is a 3 sphere (a 3 dimensional surface to a 4 dimensional sphere) then that's how it would go for us.

It's complicated to picture it, but that's what we end up with with relativity - which predicts all sorts of things we can measure about the shape of the universe locally and how space curves near massive objects. What the universe is more globally is a less easy question to answer. The problem is that if the curvature is exactly 1 then the universe is an expanse - version 1. If it has even the slightest positive curvature above 1 we end up with something like the sphere from version 2. If it has even the slightest negative curvature less than 1 then we're in saddle world from version 3. We can never definitely prove the curvature is exactly 1 since our instruments will only ever get us to a finite precision with a limited accuracy. We could prove it has negative or positive curvature through measurement - but our best measurements to date don't give us sufficient error margin to say. Our measurements to date give us 1.000.02. The best guess is that it's flat but if its say, 1.02 then it's actually a 3sphere and we can't rule that out.

There are other possible shapes that meet the various criteria, but to avoid complicating the matter any further I have omitted their discussion.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 886 by ICANT, posted 06-05-2018 5:23 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 890 by ICANT, posted 06-05-2018 10:45 PM Modulous has responded

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 5878
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 888 of 919 (834425)
06-05-2018 7:43 PM
Reply to: Message 885 by Modulous
06-04-2018 6:12 PM


Re: Speed of Light vs. Expansion of the Universe
Hi Mod,

Mod writes:

Is it everything? Maybe, maybe not. We cant' know.

Why can't we know?

We can see to 380,000 years after pin point sized universe which is right after seeing nothing.

So why isn't that all there is? Science can give us nothing past that point but man's imagination of what might have been.

I have information that tells me the universe existed prior to the singularity it just was not in the form it is today. It had to be transformed from what it was into what it is today.

Mod writes:

The further we look, the older it gets until it doesn't get older because its brand new. Yeah OK that's more confusion

That sounds like you actually believe the universe had a beginning to exist.

Mod writes:

But the 1 second old universe I am talking about is only 19.178 light years in diameter. Which means the radius is 9.589 light years.

No - everything we can observe today took up a space with a radius of 19 light years then.

No what?

The entire universe at 1 second old had a diameter of 19.178 light years.

It was no smaller or larger than 19.178 light years in diameter.

Alpha Centauri is 4.367 light years from earth or about 25.6 trillion miles. The radius of the 1 second old universe was 9.589 light years.
If we divide 25.6 x 4.367 we get 5.86+trillion miles for each light year. You then multiply 5.86 x 9.589 which equals 56.19+ trillion miles.

That means the 1 second old universe went from pin point size to a universe with a radius of 56.19 trillion miles and a diameter of 112.38 trillion miles.

If space is expanding in every direction as the theory says that 1 second old universe would have 743,131.55 trillion cubic miles in it.

I think my math is correct but if it is not I am sure someone will correct it for me.

Mod writes:

OK so you can actually only see 300,000km since it has only been a second and light has a finite speed. Just to clear that up. To answer the question: the observable universe is the same size wherever you are. So the answer is: anywhere.

Why would I be able to see 300,000 km?

It is 56.19 trillion miles to where the space has expanded too, since expansion began and we can't see anything until 380,000 years have passed from that 1 second.

My concern is if space is what has expanded between each electron of the plasma there has to be miles between each electron. So how do they get back together to form anything?

Mod writes:

Energy.

Actually it was called plasma. That plasma was made of electrons which is energy.

Mod writes:

They were answered, you just didn't pay attention or did not understand. If you have any follow ups, please be my guest.

If you think so. That's alright I got a lot more.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 885 by Modulous, posted 06-04-2018 6:12 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 889 by Modulous, posted 06-05-2018 9:28 PM ICANT has responded

    
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 889 of 919 (834432)
06-05-2018 9:28 PM
Reply to: Message 888 by ICANT
06-05-2018 7:43 PM


Re: Speed of Light vs. Expansion of the Universe
Why can't we know?

Well think of it like this. In a few billion years - there'll be loads of galaxies that are no longer visible to observers on earth that are visible today. So it stands to reason there might be galaxies that are not visible to us today. We can't know because the speed of light vs the expansion of the universe means information about those galaxies never gets to us.

Without information, how could we know?

So why isn't that all there is?

Maybe it is. We can't know.

That sounds like you actually believe the universe had a beginning to exist.

Let's stick to one thing at a time. We've been over this. There was an earliest point in time for the universe, or a smeary time like region at least.

No what?

The entire universe at 1 second old had a diameter of 19.178 light years.

No - the universe that we can observe today with its 46 billion light year radius had a diameter then of 19 light years. That is not to say the universe is 19 light years. What we observe when we look out there today was a maximum of 19 light years away from each other after 1 second.

Why would I be able to see 300,000 km?

The speed of light is 300,000 km/s. There has only been one second for light to travel. Therefore light from any object could only have travelled 300,000km. Therefore we can't see an object 600,000km away since the light from that object has not yet reached us. Ignoring the fact that the universe is opaque at this time, of course.

My concern is if space is what has expanded between each electron of the plasma there has to be miles between each electron. So how do they get back together to form anything?

As pointed out -it started out very dense. By the time it got to 19 light years wide it was still very dense. Dense enough that there are billions of particles per cubic metre. There's much much less volume, but the same amount of energy - so its going to be more dense than it is today.

The space may expand between them - but the rate of expansion once subatomic particles start forming from the energy is so small that high energy particles can easily go faster than it over even fairly large distances. I can walk faster than the expansion of space for all my needs, high energy protons can be travelling at 90%+ the speed of light. Reaching another proton when there are billions per cubic metre is not a problem. The space between them is expanding at something stupid like 0.00000000000000001km/s. My fingernail growth could outpace the expansion of space at these distances.

There aren't miles between them - because the universe isn't large enough after 1 second to fit all the sub atomic particles in it with that kind of spacing. There's not enough volume to spread them all out. I'm not going to check your maths but you reckon 743,131.55 trillion cubic miles. That's nothing!

750,000,000,000,000,000 cubic miles?
But there are like 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 particles to fit into that space.

How could there possibly be miles between them?

Actually it was called plasma. That plasma was made of electrons which is energy.

We're talking about during inflation.

So let's talk more detail. It won't support your notion - since we've already established the universe after one second was still so dense that there couldn't be miles and miles between particles, and that even if there were miles between them - 90%+ speed of light makes those distances pretty small anyway... so either way your central objection has failed. But here we go

Planck epoch: 0 - 10-43 seconds ????
Grand unification epoch: 10-43 - 10-36 seconds. The four fundamental forces are united as a single force. Gravity has separated to operate independently. As such mass, charge, flavour and colour charge are all meaningless concepts at this time. However, a small number of fundamental particles form.
Inflationary epoch: 10−36 - 10-32 seconds. Rapid expansion of space. As a rough guide a nanometre's worth of space expanded to about 10 light years. The energy density in that nanometre of space was so huge, that it was still significant once it had expanded out 10 light years (this is the bit that kills your objection). This sudden drop in volume also means a drop in temperature. And this results in the sudden appearance of a very dense collection of fundamental particles such as quarks and gluons.
Electroweak epoch: 10-32 - 10−12 seconds. The strong and electroweak force seperate from the unified forces. This is the era of the quark-gluon plasma. Other exotic particles such as Higgs Bosons, W and Z bosons make an appearance. We're entering the realms of 'strongly empirically verified' physics.
Quark epoch: 10−12 - 10−6 seconds. The fundamental forces have separated into their distinct forces we see today. Quarks, electrons, neutrinos form as the temperature continues to drop allowing them to exist in large (and dense) numbers.
Hadron epoch: 106 seconds to 1 second. Things start cooling down even more allowing quarks to team up to form protons and other Hadrons. Electrons collide with protons to form neutrons and neutrinos. It's party time! But alas - Hadrons are getting annihilated by anti-hadrons. Eventually the mass of the universe is no longer dominated by hadrons but...
Lepton Epoch: 1 second to 3 minutes - Leptons! The electrons, the muons the neutrinos, the positrons - they dominate the mass of the universe. But oh no! more annihilations and the leptons no longer dominate the mass of the universe its time for
Photon Epoch: 3 minutes to 240,000 years. The first 20 minutes is the time of nuclear fusion - where protons and neutrons are colliding to form nuclei the temperature is about a billion degrees and falling. This time is where the energy of the universe is dominated by photons.
Recombination/Decoupling: 240,000 to 300,000 years. Temperature has dropped to a mere 3,000 K (surface of the sun temperatures) - this allows the nuclei formed during the photon epoch to capture electrons to form atoms. The drop in free electrons means photons are no longer interacting so much with them which renders the universe transparent. This is the 'barrier' we spoke of.

OK so that's the gist. Electrons aren't a big player during inflation. At best we have, what I described as a 'sea of energy', with a few particles here and there which eventually cooled to form the quark-gluon plasma. I'd recommend you avoid trying to 'gotcha' me, I'll out-Um, Actually you all day ( ) and you just verify that you aren't asking questions in good faith.

If you think so. That's alright I got a lot more.

Cool. Are you going somewhere with this?

Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 888 by ICANT, posted 06-05-2018 7:43 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 898 by ICANT, posted 06-06-2018 3:07 PM Modulous has responded

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 5878
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 890 of 919 (834433)
06-05-2018 10:45 PM
Reply to: Message 887 by Modulous
06-05-2018 7:23 PM


Re: shapes
Hi Mod,

Mod writes:

Standard theory says the universe could be infinite in size. Indeed the evidence we have points to this conclusion, but not definitively. So standard theory has no built in limits to the number of dots.

Are you saying the universe is not 13.6 billion years old?

If it is not 13.6 billion years old, how old is it?

The age of the universe limits it's size.

Mod writes:

Well in the 2D balloon analogy there is no 'outside the balloon' there is only the surface of the balloon.

The balloon has two surfaces one inside and one outside. Have you never turned a balloon inside out?

Mod writes:

though the third dimension isn't a real thing in the example.

If the third dimension isn't a real thing how does it represent one?

Mod writes:

With one dimension you can only go backwards and forwards. As an analogy to the universe there are three basic possible shapes:

Why do you go from directions of movement to shapes?

The universe can only be one shape.

quote:
The universe is expanding and it is doing so at the same rate in all directions, according to new measurements that appear to confirm the standard model of cosmology.

https://www.space.com/...-expansion-real-time-cosmology.html

How isotropic is the Universe?
Daniela Saadeh,1,* Stephen M. Feeney,2 Andrew Pontzen,1 Hiranya V. Peiris,1 and Jason D. McEwen3
1Department of Physics and Astronomy, University College London, London WC1E 6BT, U.K.
2Astrophysics Group, Imperial College London, Blackett Laboratory, Prince Consort Road, London, SW7 2AZ, U.K.
3Mullard Space Science Laboratory (MSSL), University College London, Surrey RH5 6NT, U.K.

Conclusions: In this work, we put the assumption that the Universe expands isotropically to its most stringent test to-date. For the first time, we searched for signatures of the most general departure from isotropy that preserves homogeneity in an open or flat universe, without restricting to specific degrees of freedom. We have remodeled existing frameworks to analyze CMB polarization data in addition to temperature, allowing us to place the tightest constraints possible with the current CMB data. We find overwhelming evidence against deviations from isotropy, placing simultaneous upper limits on all modes for the first time, and improving Planck constraints on vorticity by an order of magnitude.

The universe is expanding at the same rate in all directions. That creates a sphere and nothing else.

Mod writes:

2) A circle. The line wraps around itself to form a circle. The line still has only one dimension, but it can be mathematically described as a circle embedded in a 2D environment. In this 1D universe you can keep walking forwards on the line forever, but sooner or later you'd end up where you started (assuming the line didn't inconveniently expand on you too quickly

A 2d circle is not a sphere.

Where do you get such a foolish idea? You don't exist on the outside of the universe. You are inside the universe. It can collapse on you but that would take a long time and I don't think you would live long enough for it to affect you.

Mod writes:

2) 3sphere. This is a 3 dimensional space that curves back on itself

How can a sphere curve back on itself?

A sphere that is expanding in every direction at the same time can never do anything but expand unless it stops expanding and collapses and implodes back to the singularity. I think they call that the big crunch.

Mod writes:

There are other possible shapes that meet the various criteria, but to avoid complicating the matter any further I have omitted their discussion.

You are confused enough without discussing any other possibilities.

Important question please answer if you do not address anything else in this post.

Is the universe expanding in every direction equally?

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 887 by Modulous, posted 06-05-2018 7:23 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 891 by Modulous, posted 06-05-2018 11:04 PM ICANT has responded

    
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 891 of 919 (834434)
06-05-2018 11:04 PM
Reply to: Message 890 by ICANT
06-05-2018 10:45 PM


Re: shapes
The age of the universe limits it's size.

No it doesn't. It only limits the size of the observable universe.

The balloon has two surfaces one inside and one outside. Have you never turned a balloon inside out?

We're only talking about the outside surface, obviously. A 2 dimensional plane. You are either being deliberately silly or this discussion is too far above your head to make it into your book.

If the third dimension isn't a real thing how does it represent one?

Mathematically.

Why do you go from directions of movement to shapes?

The universe can only be one shape.

Yes it can, but what shape that is, we can't be sure.

The universe is expanding at the same rate in all directions. That creates a sphere and nothing else.

Nope. The shapes I mentioned would also expand at the same rate in all directions.

A 2d circle is not a sphere.

I didn't say it was. I said the circumference is a 1 dimensional line that mathematically describes a circle in 2 dimensions.

You don't exist on the outside of the universe. You are inside the universe

That's what I said. We're on the inside of the universe. I said it multiple times in fact.

How can a sphere curve back on itself?

The same way a 2d sheet can. By following a topology that in a higher dimension would be a hypersphere.

I told you that discussing this in 3d was more difficult than 2d. Hyperspheres aren't really something we can imagine as we're wired for 3d.

Is the universe expanding in every direction equally?

Yes.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 890 by ICANT, posted 06-05-2018 10:45 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 892 by ICANT, posted 06-06-2018 12:37 AM Modulous has responded

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 5878
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 892 of 919 (834436)
06-06-2018 12:37 AM
Reply to: Message 891 by Modulous
06-05-2018 11:04 PM


Re: shapes
Hi Mod,

Mod writes:

Is the universe expanding in every direction equally?

Yes.

Great we can agree on something.

Next question:

According to the standard theory did the universe begin as a very small, very hot, very dense pin point sized object ?

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 891 by Modulous, posted 06-05-2018 11:04 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 893 by NoNukes, posted 06-06-2018 12:29 PM ICANT has responded
 Message 896 by Modulous, posted 06-06-2018 2:31 PM ICANT has not yet responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 10702
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 893 of 919 (834449)
06-06-2018 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 892 by ICANT
06-06-2018 12:37 AM


Re: shapes
According to the standard theory did the universe begin as a very small, very hot, very dense pin point sized object ?

Define "object." Is a bunch of energy an object?


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!

We got a thousand points of light for the homeless man. We've got a kinder, gentler, machine gun hand. Neil Young, Rockin' in the Free World.

Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith

I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith

No it is based on math I studied in sixth grade, just plain old addition, substraction and multiplication. -- ICANT


This message is a reply to:
 Message 892 by ICANT, posted 06-06-2018 12:37 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 894 by ICANT, posted 06-06-2018 1:08 PM NoNukes has responded

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 5878
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 894 of 919 (834451)
06-06-2018 1:08 PM
Reply to: Message 893 by NoNukes
06-06-2018 12:29 PM


Re: shapes
Hi NoNukes,

NoNukes writes:

Define "object." Is a bunch of energy an object?

I would assume that the word entity would be a better description.

The entity that existed was electrons in the form of plasma.

If that is wrong I am sure you will correct me.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 893 by NoNukes, posted 06-06-2018 12:29 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 895 by NoNukes, posted 06-06-2018 1:34 PM ICANT has responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 10702
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 895 of 919 (834452)
06-06-2018 1:34 PM
Reply to: Message 894 by ICANT
06-06-2018 1:08 PM


Re: shapes
The entity that existed was electrons in the form of plasma.

If that is wrong I am sure you will correct me.

Even the term entity is problematic. There may have been a bunch of electrons. There may have been quarks and certainly, there was energy. The energy was likely in a number of forms including kinetic energy of the particles (heat), electromagnetic radiation, and potential energy based on whatever forces were present. I don't believe it is possible to state things any more accurately than that.

I have no idea where your certainty about what existed comes from. We don't know the physics at time T=0, so we cannot state a really specific answer based on science and certainly, your speculation about electrons and plasma does not have a Biblical source.

The reason for nit-picking the word "entity" or "object" is to avoid follow up questions based on assumptions about raisins. During the expansion, the energy would have thinned out, producing cooling, but it does not make sense to say that the energy became separated, particularly because during, that first 300,000 years, the universe was opaque to light.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!

We got a thousand points of light for the homeless man. We've got a kinder, gentler, machine gun hand. Neil Young, Rockin' in the Free World.

Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith

I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith

No it is based on math I studied in sixth grade, just plain old addition, substraction and multiplication. -- ICANT


This message is a reply to:
 Message 894 by ICANT, posted 06-06-2018 1:08 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 907 by ICANT, posted 06-08-2018 5:40 PM NoNukes has responded

    
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 896 of 919 (834457)
06-06-2018 2:31 PM
Reply to: Message 892 by ICANT
06-06-2018 12:37 AM


Re: shapes
According to the standard theory did the universe begin as a very small, very hot, very dense

The standard theory makes no claim to the size of the universe. The standard theory just says the early universe was very hot and dense. Our observable universe, which is finite, was certainly very small. As to the size of the universe itself? It could have been infinite or infinitesimal.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 892 by ICANT, posted 06-06-2018 12:37 AM ICANT has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 897 by NoNukes, posted 06-06-2018 2:45 PM Modulous has responded

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 10702
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 897 of 919 (834458)
06-06-2018 2:45 PM
Reply to: Message 896 by Modulous
06-06-2018 2:31 PM


Re: shapes
It could have been infinite

I don't believe that is a possibility for the early, pre-inflationary universe.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!

We got a thousand points of light for the homeless man. We've got a kinder, gentler, machine gun hand. Neil Young, Rockin' in the Free World.

Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith

I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith

No it is based on math I studied in sixth grade, just plain old addition, substraction and multiplication. -- ICANT


This message is a reply to:
 Message 896 by Modulous, posted 06-06-2018 2:31 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 899 by Modulous, posted 06-06-2018 3:32 PM NoNukes has responded

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 5878
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 898 of 919 (834459)
06-06-2018 3:07 PM
Reply to: Message 889 by Modulous
06-05-2018 9:28 PM


Re: Speed of Light vs. Expansion of the Universe
Hi Mod,

Mod writes:

So it stands to reason there might be galaxies that are not visible to us today.

Yes there are probably galaxies we see today that we are seeing the last light from them now as no more light will be able to reach us.

As long as we can determine the rate of expansion and the duration of that period of expansion we should be able to give the diameter of the universe including what we cannot see.

Mod writes:

What we observe when we look out there today was a maximum of 19 light years away from each other after 1 second.

What each other?

The universe had expanded from the pin point entity to a universe that had a diameter of over 19 light years.

Mod writes:

The speed of light is 300,000 km/s. There has only been one second for light to travel.

But there was no light until 380,000 years after expansion began.

Mod writes:

As pointed out -it started out very dense. By the time it got to 19 light years wide it was still very dense.

There would be space between every electron.

If that space expanded at 186,000 miles per second that would put 186,000 miles between each electron.

You need to figure out a way to slow down the rate of expansion the space was expanding.

Mod writes:

Planck epoch: 0 - 10-43 seconds ????
Grand unification epoch: 10-43 - 10-36 seconds. The four fundamental forces are united as a single force. Gravity has separated to operate independently. As such mass, charge, flavour and colour charge are all meaningless concepts at this time. However, a small number of fundamental particles form.
Inflationary epoch: 10−36 - 10-32 seconds. Rapid expansion of space. As a rough guide a nanometre's worth of space expanded to about 10 light years. The energy density in that nanometre of space was so huge, that it was still significant once it had expanded out 10 light years (this is the bit that kills your objection). This sudden drop in volume also means a drop in temperature. And this results in the sudden appearance of a very dense collection of fundamental particles such as quarks and gluons.
Electroweak epoch: 10-32 - 10−12 seconds. The strong and electroweak force seperate from the unified forces. This is the era of the quark-gluon plasma. Other exotic particles such as Higgs Bosons, W and Z bosons make an appearance. We're entering the realms of 'strongly empirically verified' physics.
Quark epoch: 10−12 - 10−6 seconds. The fundamental forces have separated into their distinct forces we see today. Quarks, electrons, neutrinos form as the temperature continues to drop allowing them to exist in large (and dense) numbers.
Hadron epoch: 106 seconds to 1 second. Things start cooling down even more allowing quarks to team up to form protons and other Hadrons. Electrons collide with protons to form neutrons and neutrinos. It's party time! But alas - Hadrons are getting annihilated by anti-hadrons. Eventually the mass of the universe is no longer dominated by hadrons but...
Lepton Epoch: 1 second to 3 minutes - Leptons! The electrons, the muons the neutrinos, the positrons - they dominate the mass of the universe. But oh no! more annihilations and the leptons no longer dominate the mass of the universe its time for
Photon Epoch: 3 minutes to 240,000 years. The first 20 minutes is the time of nuclear fusion - where protons and neutrons are colliding to form nuclei the temperature is about a billion degrees and falling. This time is where the energy of the universe is dominated by photons.
Recombination/Decoupling: 240,000 to 300,000 years. Temperature has dropped to a mere 3,000 K (surface of the sun temperatures) - this allows the nuclei formed during the photon epoch to capture electrons to form atoms. The drop in free electrons means photons are no longer interacting so much with them which renders the universe transparent. This is the 'barrier' we spoke of.

This is what is thought to have happened and you seem to have assumed it is fact.

If you got any hard evidence please present it.

quote:
The following is the current "theory" of the very early universe. Inflation, while not conclusively confirmed, is generally believed to be essentially correct in its overall implications if not in exact detail. Cosmologists believe that Inflation may be tweaked in the future but the essentials of it will survive. Several signs of Inflation have been observed, but not enough to "confirm" it.

Cosmologists believe, and believe = faith.

The Planck Era.

quote:
The time from the exact moment of the Big Bang until 10^-38 of a second later is referred to as the Planck Era. While we have no way of knowing what this era was like from the equations of physics (as they break down in this era), it is "assumed" to be as follows.

no way of knowing...it is "assumed" = faith.

quote:
Note that Inflationary theory does not say anything about the "whole" universe, only the observable universe.

Then why is it applied to the earliest moments of the universe's existence?

Since the first 380,000 years are not part of the visible universe I guess inflation has nothing to do with that period.

quote:
Inflation was a period of super cooled expansion and the temperature dropped by a factor of 100,000 or so and continued to be cool during this phase. When Inflation ended the temperature returned to the pre-Inflationary temperature, back up by a factor of 100,000. This period is called "Reheating".

What was the medium that the heat was transferred to in order for the universe to cool.

Then what produced the heat to reheat the universe?

quote:
After Inflation, the universe slowed down to the normal "Hubble Rate" expansion and was filled with radiation and elementary particles, sometimes called "quark soup".

What was the mechanism that slowed down the expansion of the universe?

quote:
Recombination (380,000 Years) For the next 310,000 years the universe continued to expand and cool, but was still fiery hot and dark. Any visible light was immediately scattered by collisions with the ubiquitous electrons and protons. It contained only the simplest elements, mostly hydrogen and helium ions. As the universe cooled further, the electrons (with a negative charge) begin to get captured by the ions (with a positive charge) forming atoms (electrically neutral). This process happened relatively fast and is known as "recombination". The first bits of structure began to form. These small clumps of matter grew in size as their gravity attracted other nearby matter. At about 380,000 years of cooling, light (photons) began to travel through the spaces between the atoms which now "bond" the electrons in their orbits. The universe had become transparent.

Finally the universe is transparent.

quote:
Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB). The first early radiation that could freely travel was the CMB, the remnants of which we can detect in the current universe 13.75 billion years later. 380,000 years is the earliest point in time we can ever look back and "see" because everything before that was part of the dark ages.
http://www.earlyearthcentral.com/early_universe_page.html

380,000 years is the earliest point in time we can ever look back and "see"

It is hard for you to tell me what happened when nobody actually knows what happened, because we can see it nor can we recreate it.

My God did it is just as plausible as the present assumptions.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 889 by Modulous, posted 06-05-2018 9:28 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 901 by caffeine, posted 06-06-2018 3:59 PM ICANT has responded
 Message 903 by Modulous, posted 06-06-2018 4:14 PM ICANT has responded
 Message 904 by NoNukes, posted 06-06-2018 5:58 PM ICANT has acknowledged this reply

    
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


(1)
Message 899 of 919 (834460)
06-06-2018 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 897 by NoNukes
06-06-2018 2:45 PM


Re: shapes
I don't believe that is a possibility for the early, pre-inflationary universe.

If it's infinite now, it must have been infinite then. You can't grow from finite to infinite in a finite amount of time.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 897 by NoNukes, posted 06-06-2018 2:45 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 900 by NoNukes, posted 06-06-2018 3:49 PM Modulous has acknowledged this reply

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 10702
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 900 of 919 (834463)
06-06-2018 3:49 PM
Reply to: Message 899 by Modulous
06-06-2018 3:32 PM


Re: shapes
Removed post.

This was just flat out wrong, so I removed it.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!

We got a thousand points of light for the homeless man. We've got a kinder, gentler, machine gun hand. Neil Young, Rockin' in the Free World.

Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith

I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith

No it is based on math I studied in sixth grade, just plain old addition, substraction and multiplication. -- ICANT


This message is a reply to:
 Message 899 by Modulous, posted 06-06-2018 3:32 PM Modulous has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 902 by caffeine, posted 06-06-2018 4:11 PM NoNukes has responded

    
RewPrev1
...
575859
60
6162Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018