Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Universe Race
CTD
Member (Idle past 5869 days)
Posts: 253
Joined: 03-11-2007


Message 22 of 410 (456962)
02-20-2008 11:56 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Crooked to what standard
02-20-2008 9:02 PM


quote:
It seems that there would be a center of the universe. It seems that the center of the universe would be the exact spot the Big Bang happened.
Contrary to reason, the big bang and the resultant universe it allegedly resulted in cannot be permitted to have a center.
The "Copernican Principle" is assumed. Despite its name, it cannot be attributed to Copernicus. Neither is there any evidence to support it, at least according to Stephen Hawking. For purposes of this light discussion, I'll take the hit for "appeal to authority". But I give you my word as well: there ain't no evidence. That's why it's an assumption rather than a conclusion.
Worse still, if the universe has a center, all observations are consistent with Earth being at or close to it. Furthermore, if you assign reverse vectors to the visible matter in order to see where everything came from... well, that just makes them howl. As I said, reason has been dispensed with in cosmology.
Only the oldest versions of the big bang considered a physical explosion. These are the versions perpetuated in schoolbooks and pop science to keep the actual current big bang safe from being laughed out of the schoolhouse by the students. As silly as those versions were/are, they ain't nothin' compared to the real deal.
All that being said, your analogy is fairly accurate. Since Einstein's day they've been trying to come up with a fudge factor that will allow gravity to increase (or in some versions actually reverse) at long distances and hold things together, while still matching observations closely enough for them to fudge the observations to comply.
Actually, they've mostly given up on finding one; but never underestimate the diehards.
Inertia favors your analogy, and gravity can't prevent this. In order to exert more gravity, what do you need? More mass! More mass = more inertia, and by all mainstream accounts they don't have nearly enough mass to slow things down even if you throw in dark matter.
But don't get sidetracked by dark matter. It's primary function is to hold galaxies together. There ain't enough visible mass and the velocities are just crazy - well not crazy, God knew what He was doing. Without dark matter, galaxies fly apart in a few thousand years. So there has to be dark matter, because the galaxies haven't flown apart in billions of imaginary years.
I won't tax you with what I know of the dark energy fantasy at this time. Like the rest, it's funny but at the same time very sad business. They've been into blind faith for quite some time now.
But anyhow, to stop your analogy from being on target, they'd have to devise something that counteracts inertia and is capable of preventing the universe from flying apart. The mainstream bin's empty, so expect trash that's either 50 years out-of-date, or straight out of a sci-fi novel. Or invented ad hoc, can't forget that category.
Ah, if only there were drag in empty space... you might get to refine your analogy. But once something reaches escape velocity in a vacuum, there's no turning back without some means of thrust. If there had been a big bang, everything would have to have been exceeding this velocity from the very start. This applies no matter how many loopy extra imaginary dimensions are added.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Crooked to what standard, posted 02-20-2008 9:02 PM Crooked to what standard has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Taz, posted 02-21-2008 1:06 AM CTD has not replied
 Message 25 by cavediver, posted 02-21-2008 5:00 AM CTD has replied

CTD
Member (Idle past 5869 days)
Posts: 253
Joined: 03-11-2007


Message 99 of 410 (457267)
02-22-2008 2:48 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by ICANT
02-21-2008 7:33 PM


Re: Pull
quote:
Now that math will only work if you can produce a force that is capable of squeezing the energy required to produce the universe into the space you say you can get it into.
If you can produce such a force to accomplish that.
Then for the Big Bang to happen you have to find a force strong enough to overcome the squeezing force.
Since the "experts" don't seem to be in a big hurry, I'll give you the old answer. I must emphasize that it's very old and they probably have replaced it with something even sillier.
The reason everything could be contained in such a small volume is because it had no choice. There was no space outside of the pea (or pointmass or Planck thingy). Space itself was limited to the size of the bangseed.
Part of your problem with communicating is that you need to use a term like "protomatter" or just "stuff". Otherwise, rather than attempting to help, they can waste time trying to belittle you for not knowing that their myth features explanations (pardon my loose usage of the term) for the origin of matter as we know it, and these imagined events occurred during the initial expansion.
Were any of them truly knowledgeable and helpful, they might point out the fact that in order to accommodate "dark energy", it is current practice to claim that the Law of Conservation of Energy does not apply on "cosmological scales". They need an exemption to one of the best established laws in physical science (actually several, but after 1 or 2 some of us nonbelievers tend to stop counting).
In order to understand the balloon analogy, you have to understand that it's a representation of 4+ dimensions, and our 3 dimensions are represented by the 2-dimensional surface. It's impossible to build an accurate model of imaginary extra dimensions when the model is confined to the 3 real dimensions. If the extra dimensions actually existed, there would be no problem building 4D, 5D, etc. models. Extra dimensions are easy to construct mathematically and/or using computers; but real world models are restricted to reality.
As long as I'm letting cats out of bags, here are a couple more great questions:
1) How much did the universe expand during the first phase?
2) What keeps dark energy from ripping apart galaxies, clusters, & even our solar system?
3) What's the difference between an aether and a fabric of space?
I'd provide the answers, but if I did they'd just call me uninformed or dishonest. I probably need to go find a wiki on the CoE exemption so they can badmouth wiki as well as myself. At least then they won't be accusing me of making it up (as if I could). Well, most of them won't.
Now here's something I actually can make up/put 2 & 2 together. If they're sticking to the old answer to your question, and space itself was limited to the size of the bangseed (size varies from model to model), they actually have a dud on their hands. Space isn't just space; it's "spacetime". With time confined, no bang could occur.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by ICANT, posted 02-21-2008 7:33 PM ICANT has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by CTD, posted 02-22-2008 2:55 AM CTD has not replied
 Message 102 by cavediver, posted 02-22-2008 4:34 AM CTD has not replied

CTD
Member (Idle past 5869 days)
Posts: 253
Joined: 03-11-2007


Message 100 of 410 (457268)
02-22-2008 2:55 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by CTD
02-22-2008 2:48 AM


Busted
quote:
and these imagined events occurred during the initial expansion.
CTD, you lamer, you should have said "during or soon after". You're so uneducated. Why don't you shut up and leave it to the ordained priests um, I mean qualified experts?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by CTD, posted 02-22-2008 2:48 AM CTD has not replied

CTD
Member (Idle past 5869 days)
Posts: 253
Joined: 03-11-2007


Message 105 of 410 (457281)
02-22-2008 7:41 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by cavediver
02-21-2008 5:00 AM


quote:
Really? The CP essentially states that we are not priviledged observers, our place in the Universe is not special. This is observationally confirmed at just about every astronomical/cosmological length scale you care to imagine, not just our place in the Solar System (the origination of the name 'Copernican Principle for obvious reasons.)
"We have no scientific evidence for, or against, this assumption. We believe it only on grounds of modesty: it would be most remarkable if the universe looked the same in every direction around us, but not around other points in the universe!"
A Brief History of Time.
Page 25. Take it up with the author, or present evidence.
I understand with very, very few exceptions all other galaxies are observed to be moving away from us. This is true no matter which direction one looks. In a 3D universe, that's consistent with us being at the center.
The only workaround is to claim there is no center. But all finite objects have a center. For some objects, more than one place can be called the center, depending on how one calculates. But it's only due to the circumstance that the boundaries of the universe are unknown that allows the claim of no center. Were the boundaries known, there would be a center. If the boundary lies 10% or 300% beyond what's been seen, we're right smack in the middle.
It could turn out that a boundary lies 10% out in one direction and 300% in the opposite direction, but this probably wouldn't be reported in any hurry for obvious reasons.
There may or may not be parts of the universe that have not been observed. The part that's been observed is the part with us in the middle.
quote:
The big bang has NEVER involved a physical explosion, despite all of the popular misrepresentations. I suggest being more familiar with the actual science before you start making such proclamations.
That's uncalled-for. If you were handy I'd invite you to accompany me to the local library & we'd see just how many "science" books feature a "physical" big bang. These books are not yet extinct, and it's common knowledge.
As you're not handy, I'll stop wasting time.
quote:
CTD, from your language, attitude, and arrogance expressed in your post, you seem to want to portray yourself as someone with some knowledge of cosmology. I'm afraid I have to tell you that your knowledge is at best woefully inadequate, and in the main is simply wrong. Might I suggest that next time you try to pass yourself as knowledgable in a subject, you do so in the absence of professionals of that subject?
Arrogance? Hmm? Is rejecting a story that violates well-established laws of science arrogant? Is rejecting a story that includes multiple things which cannot be observed arrogant? Or is it rather somewhat more arrogant to accept and promote such a story just because it fits well with godless philosophies? How arrogant is it to belittle anyone and everyone who rejects such a story?
Here's an analogy. An architect walks into a town in the old west and enters a building with a three-story false front. He examines the interior and finds the building much smaller than the false front indicated. There isn't even a stairway. He exits and circles the building, plainly seeing that it's a one-story, 2-room job. He then proceeds to argue with anyone he can find that the building is indeed a three-story building. And some are actually convinced that there are invisible parts of the building which don't support weight or in any way interact with objects just because he's and architect.
Edited by Admin, : Fix long link.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by cavediver, posted 02-21-2008 5:00 AM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by cavediver, posted 02-22-2008 12:03 PM CTD has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024