Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   COSMOLOGY
subbie
Member (Idle past 1254 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 16 of 159 (489201)
11-24-2008 11:42 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by johnfolton
11-24-2008 11:31 PM


Re: Is the inflationary model of the universe true?
quote:
After you watch the discussion video ask yourself the question is the earth the center of the universe or is every point the center of the universe. Its a known fact that Hubble was an agnostic. right?
If all you have for evidence is a "discussion video," you have answered my question to my satisfaction.
I do not know for a fact that Hubble was an agnostic; I've never found the matter of sufficient importance to look into it. However, even if I were to assume arguendo that he was, that wouldn't be nearly enough for me to conclude that any of the ridiculous thoughts or motives you attribute to him were in fact his.
Unless you have some actual evidence in response, I shall assume that your claims are as devoid of foundation as nearly everything else you have ever said in this forum.

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by johnfolton, posted 11-24-2008 11:31 PM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by johnfolton, posted 11-24-2008 11:53 PM subbie has replied

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 17 of 159 (489202)
11-24-2008 11:53 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by subbie
11-24-2008 11:42 PM


Re: Is the inflationary model of the universe true?
If all you have for evidence is a "discussion video," you have answered my question to my satisfaction.
The video explains Hubbles willful ignorance where the facts support the earth is the center by the redshift.
P.S. Just watch the entire video then ask yourself the question if you believe the earth is the center of the universe or every point the center of the universe in respect to the stretching out of the heavens.
Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by subbie, posted 11-24-2008 11:42 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by subbie, posted 11-25-2008 12:02 AM johnfolton has replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1254 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 18 of 159 (489203)
11-25-2008 12:02 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by johnfolton
11-24-2008 11:53 PM


Re: Is the inflationary model of the universe true?
quote:
The video explains Hubbles willful ignorance where the facts support the earth is the center by the redshift.
P.S. Just watch the entire video then ask yourself the question if you believe the earth is the center of the universe or every point the center of the universe in respect to the stretching out of the heavens.
I'm not going to waste my time watching a video. I am asking for evidence. A video is not evidence, unless it happens to be a video of Hubble actually saying the things you attribute to him. Please advise if this is the case.
In the absence of such a claim, I am confident in dismissing your statements as the sort of delusional raving we are used to from you, and I consider this somewhat off topic discussion closed.

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by johnfolton, posted 11-24-2008 11:53 PM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by johnfolton, posted 11-25-2008 12:27 AM subbie has not replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4189 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 19 of 159 (489204)
11-25-2008 12:04 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by johnfolton
11-24-2008 11:31 PM


Re: Is the inflationary model of the universe true?
Its a known fact that Hubble was an agnostic. right?
So what? What has his religious beliefs have to do with his scientific expertise? Why would he even think that he was in the center of the universe or not? What does it matter? would think that he is in the center just because he sees stars & other space phenomena in all directions, appearing equally distant. Whether we are in the center or not cannot be proven or disproven since all we can see is the visible universe ~13 billion light years in radius. How much bigger the universe is in unknown since light from here has not reached us yet. This would also give creedence to all points being the center.
Edited by bluescat48, : added sentence

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by johnfolton, posted 11-24-2008 11:31 PM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by johnfolton, posted 11-25-2008 12:46 AM bluescat48 has not replied

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 20 of 159 (489206)
11-25-2008 12:27 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by subbie
11-25-2008 12:02 AM


Re: Is the inflationary model of the universe true?
I'm not going to waste my time watching a video. I am asking for evidence. A video is not evidence, unless it happens to be a video of Hubble actually saying the things you attribute to him. Please advise if this is the case.
In the absence of such a claim, I am confident in dismissing your statements as the sort of delusional raving we are used to from you, and I consider this somewhat off topic discussion closed.
When you watch the video watch for where Gentry quotes Stephen Hawkins agreeing that the earth could be the center of the universe.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by subbie, posted 11-25-2008 12:02 AM subbie has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by bluescat48, posted 11-25-2008 12:45 AM johnfolton has not replied
 Message 31 by jchardy, posted 11-25-2008 4:33 PM johnfolton has replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4189 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 21 of 159 (489207)
11-25-2008 12:45 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by johnfolton
11-25-2008 12:27 AM


Re: Is the inflationary model of the universe true?
When you watch the video watch for where Gentry quotes Stephen Hawkins agreeing that the earth could be the center of the universe.
could & is are 2 different things. The earth could be the center but so could a galaxy a billion light years away.

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by johnfolton, posted 11-25-2008 12:27 AM johnfolton has not replied

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 22 of 159 (489208)
11-25-2008 12:46 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by bluescat48
11-25-2008 12:04 AM


Re: Is the inflationary model of the universe true?
Whether we are in the center or not cannot be proven or disproven since all we can see is the visible universe
It appears there are two big bang theories. right? One says the heavens were created from a common center where galaxies were stretched outward and the other where the heavens were created where the galaxies are not moving but nothing is expanding between the galaxies. right?
P.S. Watch the videos and then decide which you believe to be true.
Enjoy,
jf
Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.
Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by bluescat48, posted 11-25-2008 12:04 AM bluescat48 has not replied

  
jchardy
Member (Idle past 4399 days)
Posts: 85
Joined: 11-24-2008


Message 23 of 159 (489209)
11-25-2008 1:20 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by subbie
11-24-2008 7:14 PM


COSMOLOGY
Thank you all!! I am saving all answers but NosyNed’s response was the most helpful. I’ll get around to reading everyone’s comments subsequently.
Other topics I would like to explore and discuss include those relating to the ORIGIN OF MATTER out of the Big Bang. This is my major interest:
1) the role of CHAOS and NON-EQUILIBRIUM THERMODYNAMICS in the evolution of initial quantum particles at the Big Bang.
It is my personal belief that this dynamic was the most plausible means by which pure energy could have rapidly evolved to matter formation. Though supersymmetry would suggest that most if not all the initial symmetrically charged. matter-antimatter should have self-anihilated leaving room for my last speculation:
2) the role of new matter-antimatter mutual annihilation at the Big Bang with the evolution of nucleosynthesis/lepton-hadron formation out of neutrino related dynamics (oscillation).
JCHARDY

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by subbie, posted 11-24-2008 7:14 PM subbie has not replied

  
jchardy
Member (Idle past 4399 days)
Posts: 85
Joined: 11-24-2008


Message 24 of 159 (489210)
11-25-2008 1:23 AM


COSMOLOGY
Thank you all!! I am saving all answers but NosyNed’s response was the most helpful. I’ll get around to reading everyone’s comments subsequently.
Other topics I would like to explore and discuss include those relating to the ORIGIN OF MATTER out of the Big Bang. This is my major interest:
1) the role of CHAOS and NON-EQUILIBRIUM THERMODYNAMICS in the evolution of initial quantum particles at the Big Bang.
It is my personal belief that this dynamic was the most plausible means by which pure energy could have rapidly evolved to matter formation. Though supersymmetry would suggest that most if not all the initial symmetrically charged. matter-antimatter should have self-anihilated leaving room for my last speculation:
2) the role of new matter-antimatter mutual annihilation at the Big Bang with the evolution of nucleosynthesis/lepton-hadron formation out of neutrino related dynamics (oscillation).
JCHARDY

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 25 of 159 (489211)
11-25-2008 2:56 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by jchardy
11-24-2008 11:16 PM


Re: COSMOLOGY/INFLATION/GALACTIC COLLISIONS
OK. That’s chaos. Is that the explanation? “S---it happens?” I’ll accept that.
While chaotic systems can exhibit this behaviour, chaos has little to do with the point. The point is simply that there can be an overall large scale phenomenon (expansion of the Universe) which isn't necessarily noticed at the small scale (neighbouring galaxies' gravitationlly driven motions.)
Wait a minute! If Galaxies aren’t “large”, what is?!
Clusters of galaxies and megaclusters of clusters.
ubble’s observations - subsequently confirmed”did indicate all galaxies
There you go again with that word "all". Did he show that Andromeda was moving away?
But it is from “our galaxy” that we observe the universe. So our galaxy is “us” from our observational point of view.
This reasoning would equally apply to the Earth, the Solar System, and the entire Universe. The point is that our Local Group of galaxies is too tightly bound by our own gravity to show internal evidence of the expansion. The Loacl Group, or even our own local cluster, would be a much more appropriate "us". This is why JohnFolton's utter bullshit is so absurd. Even if we are the centre of the Universe, "we" refers to our Local Group at the very least, and we are in one random part of this enormous "mini-universe" - a very far-cry from the Earth, Sun, Solar System, or even Galaxy being at the centre of creation.
Are you saying that the universe is no longer inflating? Expanding?
Expansion is not inflation. Inflation is a very specific form of mega-expansion that occured in the very early Universe (first few seconds) known as the inflationary period. It is incorrect to refer to the present expansion of the Universe as inflation, and the inflationary model is specific to the inflationary period.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by jchardy, posted 11-24-2008 11:16 PM jchardy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by jchardy, posted 11-25-2008 4:09 PM cavediver has replied

  
V-Bird
Member (Idle past 5584 days)
Posts: 211
From: Great Britain
Joined: 03-22-2004


Message 26 of 159 (489217)
11-25-2008 8:33 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by jchardy
11-24-2008 5:34 PM


Expansion.
The cosmos is simply expanding faster than all the objects within it, so everything* appears to be diverging spreading out in 3D.
The only proviso is that * there will right across the entire cosmos in whatever local relative proximity some 'bits' that will blue shift toward you.
The fundamental thing is that word 'relative', it means that sitting on some far off planet you may indeed observe some 'things' that are blue shifted but to me sat here some distance form you all in your area appears redshifted.
Relativity is not an ordinary word, in this context it allows the cognizent to make sense from something that appears to be non-sense, it is one of the few words that is a key to a tricky mental lock.
I'm not sure I've helped or added to all the replies you've already had but please stick with it, to become aware of the truth of relativity is the first great hurdle and its there contiually holding up almost every other one, so grasping and deeply comprehending its full meaning is essential.
V

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by jchardy, posted 11-24-2008 5:34 PM jchardy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by jchardy, posted 11-25-2008 3:53 PM V-Bird has not replied

  
jchardy
Member (Idle past 4399 days)
Posts: 85
Joined: 11-24-2008


Message 27 of 159 (489246)
11-25-2008 3:53 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by V-Bird
11-25-2008 8:33 AM


Re: Expansion.
Your points are well taken. I have posted a general response as well. This has been a very educational exchange for me.
My general response will be :
All:
1) I now see that when we speak of “the expanding” (or “inflating”) Universe, we are speaking of a very vast expanse and that each galaxy is in fact a mass and gravitational compartment within the expanse. Truly, a sort of “island universe” with its own internal and external co-relationships which are only loosely associated with what the rest of the universe is “doing”.
2) My understanding is that current theory suggests that the Higgs boson (yet to be demonstrated by the CERN project) is supposed to be the same as vacuum (dark) energy which affects the expansion of the vast spacetime and its general contents, but in most of the universe, has little direct effect on the internal operations of each galaxy except as its more general effect on matter causing its internal mass and thence the more conventional gravitational effects thereof.
Am I incorrect in what I state above??
JC HARDY

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by V-Bird, posted 11-25-2008 8:33 AM V-Bird has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Huntard, posted 11-25-2008 4:07 PM jchardy has replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2294 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 28 of 159 (489248)
11-25-2008 4:07 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by jchardy
11-25-2008 3:53 PM


Re: Expansion.
Hey Jchardy. Welcome to EvC!
I feel I should point something out. Cavediver has done this too, but you seem to have missed it.
jchardy writes:
I now see that when we speak of “the expanding” (or “inflating”) Universe,
Inflation is NOT the same as expansion, the inflation happened in the past, only a few seconds after the big bang. Expansion is what the universe is doing now.
My understanding is that current theory suggests that the Higgs boson (yet to be demonstrated by the CERN project) is supposed to be the same as vacuum (dark) energy which affects the expansion of the vast spacetime and its general contents, but in most of the universe, has little direct effect on the internal operations of each galaxy except as its more general effect on matter causing its internal mass and thence the more conventional gravitational effects thereof.
I could be wrong here (in which case I expect CD or Son to point this out). But to my understanding the Higgs Boson has NOTHING to do with he expansion of the universe. It is the particle that explains how otherwise massless elementary particles cause matter to have mass. And in that roll it would have a direct effect on anything in the universe.
Hope this helped.
Edited by Huntard, : spellings

I hunt for the truth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by jchardy, posted 11-25-2008 3:53 PM jchardy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by jchardy, posted 11-25-2008 4:21 PM Huntard has not replied

  
jchardy
Member (Idle past 4399 days)
Posts: 85
Joined: 11-24-2008


Message 29 of 159 (489249)
11-25-2008 4:09 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by cavediver
11-25-2008 2:56 AM


Re: COSMOLOGY/INFLATION/GALACTIC COLLISIONS
OK. That’s chaos. Is that the explanation? “S---it happens?” I’ll accept that.
While chaotic systems can exhibit this behaviour, chaos has little to do with the point. The point is simply that there can be an overall large scale phenomenon (expansion of the Universe) which isn't necessarily noticed at the small scale (neighbouring galaxies' gravitationlly driven motions.)
Understood. Good point!
Wait a minute! If Galaxies aren’t “large”, what is?!
Clusters of galaxies and megaclusters of clusters.
Also an excellent point!
Hubble’s observations - subsequently confirmed”did indicate all galaxies
There you go again with that word "all". Did he show that Andromeda was moving away?
Actually I don’t believe Hubble put a “limitation” on which galaxies were receding. I thought his implication was that all were receding relative to each other dependent upon distance from one another, but I concede the point that this is not really important.
But it is from “our galaxy” that we observe the universe. So our galaxy is “us” from our observational point of view.
This reasoning would equally apply to the Earth, the Solar System, and the entire Universe. The point is that our Local Group of galaxies is too tightly bound by our own gravity to show internal evidence of the expansion. The Loacl Group, or even our own local cluster, would be a much more appropriate "us". This is why JohnFolton's utter bullshit is so absurd. Even if we are the centre of the Universe, "we" refers to our Local Group at the very least, and we are in one random part of this enormous "mini-universe" - a very far-cry from the Earth, Sun, Solar System, or even Galaxy being at the centre.
Exactly! This was the “great epiphany” to me in this discussion. I had never understood the “compartmentalization” of mass/gravity effects in the general concept of “inflation-expansion” and this concept is pivotal.
Are you saying that the universe is no longer inflating? Expanding?
Expansion is not inflation. Inflation is a very specific form of mega-expansion that occured in the very early Universe (first few seconds) known as the inflationary period. SIC.t is incorrect to refer to the present expansion of the Universe as inflation, and the inflationary model is specific to the inflationary period.
My general current conceptualization is as follows:
1) I now see that when we speak of “the expanding” (or “inflating”) Universe, we are speaking of a very vast expanse and that each galaxy is in fact a mass and gravitational compartment within the expanse. Truly, a sort of “island universe” with its own internal and external co-relationships which are only loosely associated with what the rest of the universe is “doing”.
2) My understanding is that current theory suggests that the Higgs boson (yet to be demonstrated by the CERN project) is supposed to be the same as vacuum (dark) energy which affects the expansion of the vast spacetime and its general contents, but in most of the universe, has little direct effect on the internal operations of each galaxy except as its more general effect on matter causing its internal mass and thence the more conventional gravitational effects thereof.
Am I incorrect in anything I state above??
JCHARDY

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by cavediver, posted 11-25-2008 2:56 AM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by cavediver, posted 11-25-2008 6:30 PM jchardy has replied

  
jchardy
Member (Idle past 4399 days)
Posts: 85
Joined: 11-24-2008


Message 30 of 159 (489252)
11-25-2008 4:21 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Huntard
11-25-2008 4:07 PM


Re: Expansion.
I still have trouble with the semantics of "inflation" vs "expansion" since they are substantially synonyms EXCEPT that "inflation" is a theory and "expansion" is a verb, but in Cosmology, I now concede that this is an important differentiation.
As to the Higgs boson: The mass effect is certainly the theoretical "truth to be confirmed". But from Greene's FABRIC OF THE COSMOS I got the clear impression that the Higg's bosonic effect emanating from the process that was "THE BIG BANG" (or quantum rupture or whatever) was the source of the initial massive inflation of the early universe and since the concept of VACUUM ENERGY and DARK ENERGY seemed to be used almost interchangably with each other, I came to assume that there was a clear relationship. Is this another of my misconceptions?? JCHARDY

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Huntard, posted 11-25-2008 4:07 PM Huntard has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by V-Bird, posted 11-25-2008 5:47 PM jchardy has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024