Universe Race

Are you still here??? No reply to Message 25? I left you with plenty of questions... oh, I forgot, you don't answer questions, do you... might damage your credibility Current? There is no global law of conservation of energy in General Relativity, and that was published in, oh, 1915. Once again, you seem to have a problem with being around 100 years out of date. By this, I take it you mean: "I really don't understand General Relativity, so I'll just try to pretend it's an 'exemption' to those bits of physics of which I do have a meagre grasp."Perhaps you would care to explain how you could have a global conservation of energy in General Relativity? No, it is a representation of the 4 dimensions of space-time, and our 3 "spatial" dimensions are represented by the 1-dimensional circumferences of the balloon, the 2nd dimension of the 2d surface of the balloon being time. So, you are either suggesting that1) when extra dimensions are suggested by speculative physics, you are ignorant of the fact that these dimensions would obviously be at a sub-scale to be unobservable without massive effort.2) you are deliberately misrepresenting what you do know about these speculative extra dimensions, and just Lying for Jesus.Which is it, CTD? Yes, all good questions with fascinating answers. What's your take on these? Oh, you're not goint to answer? What a surprise. You seem to have a record of that here at EvC, don't you... What was that about refusing to provide an ID hypothesis, despite knowing full well what it was??? Really? Oh, this could be good... waiting... oh, it is good You really have no clue, do you... please keep this up, as I'm sure it's not just me that is gaining great delight from your little gems. What really makes them, is the way you say them with such authority and confidence. I can just picture you in a jester's outfit, ringing your bells as you think them up.When we are talking about the size of the space around the big bang, we are talking about SPACE. Not space-time. Time runs 'orthoganally' (in a psuedo-Lorentzian sense for nit-pickers) to this space, from T=0 into the future. HOW CAN YOU NOT KNOW THIS? Either you are,1) totally ignorant of this blatently simple point,or2) deliberately misrepresenting what you do know about this, and just Lying for Jesus.Which is it, CTD?

Nicely put Although, as Zucadragon correctly points out, we are being a bit loose with T=0 here, and are really talking about T>~0. Son Goku (a fellow cosmologist) brought up the size-of-a-pea in an earlier explanation to ICANT, and ICANT has stuck with this.

I have done so... I have asked you to consider the Virgo Supercluster...Now I admit, I do take on faith that the Copernican Principle applies to all other superclusters. Those few exceptions being the entire Virgo Supercluster - By "us" I assume you are referring to the entire Virgo Supercluster? If not, please explain. By "us" I assume you are referring to the entire Virgo Supercluster? If not, please explain.Let's just go back to my first post to you: Can you reply to this point now? Really? Where is the centre of S¹ or S² or T² ? That comment seems to reveal an extreme ignorance of basic relativistic cosmology. Needless to say, it is completly incorrect. And what would this boundary look like? What would space look like in the vicinity of this boundary? Here's a thing - scientists don't read books on their science - they write and publish papers, and fellow scientists in that field then read those papers. Care to reference any published cosmological papers that refer to the big bang as a physical explosion? No? I'm sorry, what is a "well-established law"? I work with evidence based theories. If the most successful theories in science demonstrate that some "laws" don't always apply, guess which is at fault? If that same theory includes multiple things that can be observed, then yes, of course it is - unless you have good evidential reasons for rejecting it - reasons that just seem to elude virtually the entire cosmological community... You do know that the reason the big bang was so badly received in its early days was becasue of how it smacked of creationism?And are you describing the millions of Christians who accept scientific explanations as God's methodology as following a godless philosophy? Really? Can one not be born again if one accepts the big bang cosmology? I don't know - I'll let you know when I get to everyone...

Look, let's tighten this up before this gets out of hand. No, the Universe has already expanded immensely before it reaches the size of a pea. It's just that by time it reaches this size, we have a good idea of what is going on.At the size of a pea, the Universe is already enormous compared to what it was. In fact, at the size of a pea, the Universe has already finished most of its expansion - the pea to the size of the Universe today is nothing compared to the expansion that took it up to the size of a pea... (pea to today is expansion of ~10²⁷ times. Planck scale to pea is ~10³² times) There was no compression. The Universe starts in this state.There is no release of compression - the Universe expands because it is just following the shape of the four dimensional space-time, which gets wider as we move to larger time coordinates.And the expansion occurs immeasurably faster than the speed of light. Nothing is moving so there is no speed to get up to... space is simply expanding. The almsot perfectly uniform distribution of energy across the Universe simply becomes less and less dense as space expands.

Hold a globe in your hands. Point your finger to the North pole. Trace your finger down one of the lines of longitude. Notice how the circles of latitude expand as you go down? What makes them expand?

I would say from this post and your other one that you have an excellent understanding - enjoying your explanations

ICANT, why are we bothering saying anything to you when you do not listen to what you are being told?Several posts back: And yet here you are, repeating this rubbish: Can you explain this?THE RATE OF EXPANSION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SPEED OF LIGHT

Hey, SG, here's a clip from post 12 in the previous thread, now some 570 posts ago... 570 post later, if ICANT hasn't taken the hint by now, I'm not sure you've enough time before heat death to successfully get the point across.

Then perhaps you had better explain what you mean by the term 'energy'...

then you look as idiotic as these creationists. Simply admitting to a lack of understanding, before making such ridiculous and ill-informed accusations, is no defense. Perhaps what you meant to say was "based upon my lack of understanding, I'm in no position to offer a personal opinion. However, I have read that some theoretical physicists are highly skeptical of string theory, and some theoretical physicists are strongly supportive." No, it is not; it is a classic fallacy of composition. The Big bang is NOT an event within the Universe...Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

The problem is, tesla, that I see no maths. All I see are words. And physics at this level is not conducted with words, just mathematics. Words are used to explain the mathematical concepts to interested laymen, but that is not where the knowledge and understanding lies. So far, all I see are jumbles of words mixed with confused concepts and reasoning. If you wish to show me, then show me the maths. Hopefully my mathemtaical skill will be up to the challenge...As an introductory example, with small explicit mathematical content, here is the latest work on the no-boundary proposal that simply states that you need no outside influence at T=0. As theoretical physics papers go, this is very sparse on the mathematics.

No, there is no inertia. Nothing is moving. Space is simply expanding. The ultra-expansion of inflation is driven by a field, very like the dark energy. In fact, the dark energy we talk about could very well be (in part) a remnant of the inflation-driving field. Both cause an expansion of the Universe over and above that we would expect from the simple matter distribution of the Universe. The inflation stopped because the strength of the inflating field died away, caused itself in part by the extreme expansion it had effected upon the Universe - you can think of the inflation diluting the effect of the field.Can you do me a favour? You quote me in your post, but the typesetting has gone awry. Where it says: can you please change it to Thanks

At that scale the Universe is not homogeneous. We already know this. At scales that matter, the Universe is extremely homogeneous, as is shown by CMBR.

Yes, and I'm not sure why Fallacycop is objecting to the word 'surface' - that's eactly the word we use. Though we are dealing with a 3d surface, not a 2d surface. The only correction is that stars are gravitationally bound into galaxies and are thus unaffected by the expansion. Similarly, the galaxies are bound into clusters - it is only once you rech the scale of clusters that the expansion starts to become apparent.

We emphasise the word 'surface' to signal that the analogies do not use the interior of the balloon or the globe. This is intimately connected with the mathematics of topology, where we refer to spheres as surfaces and balls as solids. For example, S² is the 2-sphere, what the layman would call the surface of a ball. It has no boundary, no edge. B² is the 2-ball, and is the common idea of a ball - a solid object. It does have a boundary, which is S². We write dS²=0 and dB²=S², where d is the boundary operator. It is a beautiful result of topology that a boundary of an object itself has no boundary, as seen in this example. Thus d²=0. We see the same in lower dimensions. S¹ is the 1-sphere or circle where-as B¹ is the 1-Ball or disc. Again, the boundary of the disc is the circle and the circle has no boundary.If the Universe is closed, then space has the topology of S³, which again has no boundary.