Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   COSMOLOGY
jchardy
Member (Idle past 4399 days)
Posts: 85
Joined: 11-24-2008


Message 31 of 159 (489255)
11-25-2008 4:33 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by johnfolton
11-25-2008 12:27 AM


Re: Is the inflationary model of the universe true?
I personally do have a belief that "ALL THIS" is not by chance. I think that concept is highly IMprobable by numerous established calculations and facts. But I do think we should set asside our spiritual concerns and leave that to our personal repertoir and attempt to apply our intellect to the secular --- until we each come to our own conclusions. After we die, all our answers will be provided -- one way or the other. I personally just don't like "surprises", --- especially if the "surprise" is one I will NOT be prepared for. If there is nothing afterwards, who cares?? Until then we need to stick to what we have pieced together over the last 5,000 years and, in particular, in the past 200 about where all this came from and what it might be all about. To do that requires objectivity and, unfortunately, dicussing our belief systems does not help us in that endeavor.
JCHARDY

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by johnfolton, posted 11-25-2008 12:27 AM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by johnfolton, posted 11-25-2008 7:53 PM jchardy has not replied

  
V-Bird
Member (Idle past 5585 days)
Posts: 211
From: Great Britain
Joined: 03-22-2004


Message 32 of 159 (489261)
11-25-2008 5:47 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by jchardy
11-25-2008 4:21 PM


Disclaimer... re: Epansion/Inflation
The following is NOT accepted as correct by science in general.
The two phase 'exp'/'inf' explanation is brought about due to the generally accepted story of the beginning of the cosmos.
There are other explanations, the one I am now firmly convince is the correct version in simple language follows:-
Before there was anything there was nothing, somewhere within that nothing a quanta of energy appeared, the quanta was infinitely small and in a void that was itself an infinite nothing, something even as minute as infinitely small was effectively and truthfully everything that could be said to exist, this tiny amount of energy was then subject to the greatest force in the universe, that of an infinitely huge and infinitely vacant vacuum, a vacuum unknown to us now within the cosmos.
Nature truly abhors a vacuum.
This infinitely small quanta was then forced to expand in all directions, this created more movement/motion, which is the root of all energy, so as the void tore at the edges of this first quanta of energy which was forced to expand and as it did so it produced more energy, which also expanded as it was subject to the infinite negative force of the void.
This differs from the accepted idea that all the energy present in the universe was present at the beginning of the cosmos, it is this back tracking to a singularity of an infinitely dense point that causes the 'exp'/'inf' the maths don't work otherwise.
By accepting the infinite negative energy of the void, all this 'exp'/'inf' theory is discarded.
This explanation also explains very simply the continuing expansion and means that the expansion is and has been uniform throughout the history of the cosmos.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by jchardy, posted 11-25-2008 4:21 PM jchardy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by jchardy, posted 11-25-2008 7:16 PM V-Bird has replied

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


Message 33 of 159 (489265)
11-25-2008 6:30 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by jchardy
11-25-2008 4:09 PM


Re: COSMOLOGY/INFLATION/GALACTIC COLLISIONS
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”.
An excellent way of putting it But don't use "inflating" - we reserve this purely for the brief (few seconds) period of inflation. Expanding and expansion are the correct terms.
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
It was once thought that the Higgs field could be the principle component of dark energy but theory has shown that that is not the case. Dark energy is yet another field that we haven't pinned down yet. It almost certainly arises from the physics beyond our Standard Model, and may well be related to String/M Theory, Supersymmetry, etc. the LHC may shed some clues...
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.
Sorry, this is not correct, though it is how it is often presented (even by scientists who are talking beyond their experience and knowledge) The Higgs field does indeed give rise to the measured *rest * masses of the particles of the standard model (electron, quarks, W and Z bosons, etc), but it in no way affects the gravitational mass of the particles. That is always there, and would still be there even if the Higgs field was turned off. The vast majority of gravitational mass arises from binding energy of the partciles and has very little to do with their rest masses. You will find plenty of physicists unaware of this important point!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by jchardy, posted 11-25-2008 4:09 PM jchardy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by jchardy, posted 11-25-2008 7:24 PM cavediver has not replied
 Message 38 by jchardy, posted 11-25-2008 9:13 PM cavediver has not replied

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


Message 34 of 159 (489269)
11-25-2008 7:16 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by V-Bird
11-25-2008 5:47 PM


Re: Disclaimer... re: Epansion/Inflation
I attempted to re-word what you wrote so that I might understand it better. See what you think of my re-wording:
The two phase 'exp'/'inf' explanation is brought about due to the generally accepted story of the beginning of the cosmos.
There are other explanations, the one I am now firmly convinced is the correct version in simple language follows:-
1) Before there was anything there was nothing. Neither time nor space. There was only absolute vacuum.
2) Somewhere within that “nothing” a quanta of energy appeared, (FROM WHERE. From what is unknown).
3) The quanta was infinitesimally small but in a void that was itself an absolute vacuum. Thus presenting “something” within “nothing” which is technically an enormous gradient difference and thus the potential energy to give rise to the matter stream necessary for formation of the mass of the universe. See the: Onsager reciprocal relations (sometimes called the Fourth Law of Thermodynamics).
4) Thus something even as minute as infinitely small (might thus give rise to) everything that would come to exist,
5) Thus this relatively tiny amount of energy -- was subjected to the greatest force in the universe, i.e., that of an infinitely huge and infinitely vacant vacuum, a vacuum unknown to us now within the cosmos.
6) Since nature truly abhors a vacuum, this infinitesimal quanta was then “forced” (?by the laws of thermodynamics above?) to expand (?inflate?) in all directions creating more action/dynamics within the bounds of the same Onsager reciprocal relations. This may well have been the root of all energy and, subsequently, all matter in the universe.
7) Thus, the void tore at the edges (?inflated) by this first quanta of energy which was driven (by pressure differentials) to expand (?by virtue of the absence of impeding forces which would come to exist in the universe thereafter).
8) As the energy quantum inflated, it produced more energy, which in turn expanded as it was subject to the initial infinite negative force (vacuum) of the primary void.
Does this pretty much sum up what you are saying?
JCHARDY

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by V-Bird, posted 11-25-2008 5:47 PM V-Bird has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by V-Bird, posted 11-25-2008 8:12 PM jchardy has replied
 Message 39 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 11-25-2008 9:20 PM jchardy has not replied

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


Message 35 of 159 (489270)
11-25-2008 7:24 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by cavediver
11-25-2008 6:30 PM


Re: COSMOLOGY/INFLATION/GALACTIC COLLISIONS
Thankyou so much for this. I will mull it over and respond subsequently. The Higgs revelation was a definite clarification!
jchardy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by cavediver, posted 11-25-2008 6:30 PM cavediver has not replied

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


Message 36 of 159 (489274)
11-25-2008 7:53 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by jchardy
11-25-2008 4:33 PM


Re: Is the inflationary model of the universe true?
To do that requires objectivity and, unfortunately, dicussing our belief systems does not help us in that endeavor.
Just watch the videos otherwise your going to believe the garbage that the universe is expanding not inflating. Is the earth the center or is every point the center of the universe. This is the key point Gentry is bringing to the table.
Barry Setterfields explaining the universe with water plasmas simulations should be of great interest if your interested in how elements can be produced suddenly in the lab and be extraploted out to explain how the galaxies formed suddenly.
He explains this within his video even naming the scientists doing this and pictures of plasmas mimicing the filaments seen when viewing the universe. Its kind of interesting he talks about stars not answering how your elements formed where plasmas cooling in the lab is evidence that it all happened suddenly. right?
P.S. Hubble was an agnostic so he created a myth that physics teach and that is the expansion and that the universe is not inflating meaning if you went a billion light years away from earth you would see all light redshifting as if you were in the center of the universe. Gentry disagree's and Hubble and Hawkins too agree its possible that you would not see all light redshifting if you travelled a billion light years from earth if the earth is in the center of the universe. That light would be redshifting in all directions a billion light years from earth is the myth that Hubble created due he being an agnostic refused to accept the redshift as evidence the earth and the milkey way is in the very center of the universe as the christian big bangers were saying all the time.
The evidence to the Christians is Hubbles redshift confirms the christian big bang theory and in no way confirms Hubbles agnostic big bang.
Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.
Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by jchardy, posted 11-25-2008 4:33 PM jchardy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by cavediver, posted 11-26-2008 6:48 AM johnfolton has replied

  
V-Bird
Member (Idle past 5585 days)
Posts: 211
From: Great Britain
Joined: 03-22-2004


Message 37 of 159 (489277)
11-25-2008 8:12 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by jchardy
11-25-2008 7:16 PM


Re: Disclaimer... re: Epansion/Inflation
Onsager is good enough, excepting that at the cusp [edge] of the expansion the laws of thermodynamics don't exist, it is at the point where 'something' touches or reaches out to the void energy is created simply by the action of the motion itself.
The laws of thermo dynamics work within the cosmos but not at its cusp or [obviously] beyond.
This hypothesis disposes of the need for some 'mysterious' dark energy to 'balance the books' mathematically also, dark matter [naturally] as well.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by jchardy, posted 11-25-2008 7:16 PM jchardy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by jchardy, posted 11-25-2008 9:24 PM V-Bird has replied
 Message 120 by jchardy, posted 11-28-2008 9:34 PM V-Bird has not replied

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


Message 38 of 159 (489281)
11-25-2008 9:13 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by cavediver
11-25-2008 6:30 PM


Re: COSMOLOGY/INFLATION/GALACTIC COLLISIONS
OK: Thanks to your clarification! I do now understand (I think) that most baryonic mass comes, not from Higgs, but from the interaction energy of the gluon fields in the proton and neutron (I believe the figure is about 95%). Higgs is (thought to be) responsible for the masses of the quarks, but those are just a minor component of total baryonic mass. And of course no-one really knows what the source of non-baryonic mass (aka dark matter) is.
From what I now understand, gravitational mass is dependent on gravitational field relationships at least as much as on mass densities. Except for String theory, gravity itself does not “create” mass as I understand it. Is it not true that in General Relativity, gravity acts on the energy (actually the stress-energy tensor) for relativistic particles? But for a non-relativistic particle, all the energy is mainly in the mass, so it looks like it is acting on the mass? Nicht wahr?
Thanks again. Another epiphany. JCHARDY

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by cavediver, posted 11-25-2008 6:30 PM cavediver has not replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3101 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 39 of 159 (489283)
11-25-2008 9:20 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by jchardy
11-25-2008 7:16 PM


Re: Disclaimer... re: Epansion/Inflation
Not trying to nitpick but just want to correct a couple of things about physicists current understanding of the universe and the Big Bang. I am not saying this is necessarily all correct, this is just what the current consensus of the scientific community is:
1) Before there was anything there was nothing. Neither time nor space. There was only absolute vacuum.
What is an absolute vacuum? A vacuum implies space, so this would actually be incorrect. There would be nothing, no space, not time, and therefore no natural cause. However as an agnostic I am not necessarily opposed to a supernatural cause.
2) Somewhere within that “nothing” a quanta of energy appeared, (FROM WHERE. From what is unknown).
Point 1 explains pt 2. If there was no time prior to the beginning of the universe i.e. the Big Bang than there was no need for a cause for the emergence of the "quanta of energy".
3) The quanta was infinitesimally small but in a void that was itself an absolute vacuum. Thus presenting “something” within “nothing” which is technically an enormous gradient difference and thus the potential energy to give rise to the matter stream necessary for formation of the mass of the universe. See the: Onsager reciprocal relations (sometimes called the Fourth Law of Thermodynamics).
According to current understanding of the universe and the Big Bang theory the volume of this "quanta of energy" is actually synonymous to the boundary of space-time. Their is no outside void since there is no "outside". An outside would indicate a space outside of space which doesn't make any since. This is counter-intuitive and hard for our brains to imagine since we can only think in three dimensions vice the 10 or more dimensions proposed in more abstract theories such as the superstring/M theory (or whatever they are calling it now).
Can you explain how Onsager's reciprocal relations fit into this?
4) Thus something even as minute as infinitely small (might thus give rise to) everything that would come to exist
But infinitely (or nearly so) dense. Smallness means nothing if this "quanta" is dense enough to contain the energy and mass of the universe.
5) Thus this relatively tiny amount of energy -- was subjected to the greatest force in the universe, i.e., that of an infinitely huge and infinitely vacant vacuum, a vacuum unknown to us now within the cosmos.
I am not sure if this is correct, wouldn't this be a nearly infinite amount of energy packed into a nearly infinite small amount of space. What is this vacuum you are talking about?
6) Since nature truly abhors a vacuum, this infinitesimal quanta was then “forced” (?by the laws of thermodynamics above?) to expand (?inflate?) in all directions creating more action/dynamics within the bounds of the same Onsager reciprocal relations. This may well have been the root of all energy and, subsequently, all matter in the universe.
The Big Bang would necessarily have to be the source of all energy and matter in the universe. Basically all the forces of energy (strong, weak, gravity and electromagnetism) were one force. These forces split apart from each other and basically a reverse form of gravity was generated by the energy in this small but ultra massive quanta of energy. This "ball of energy" expanded at a super rapid and accelerating rate. As this energy did so it started to cool and at the same time matter formed (remember matter and energy are two sides of the same coin so to speak) and this matter started to coalesce into subatomic particles and eventually individual atoms.
7) Thus, the void tore at the edges (?inflated) by this first quanta of energy which was driven (by pressure differentials) to expand (?by virtue of the absence of impeding forces which would come to exist in the universe thereafter).
I am trying to understand this pressure differential you are talking about? A pressure differential requires points in space with more and less energy.
8) As the energy quantum inflated, it produced more energy, which in turn expanded as it was subject to the initial infinite negative force (vacuum) of the primary void.
This doesn't really jive with the current cosmological models of the Big Bang from my understanding. There are no voids outside of the universe. That again would indicate space outside of space. My understanding of physics is that "dimension" does not equal "space". Time-space is four dimensions out of many (possibly 10 or more). But many of these extra-dimensions are wrapped up very small (on the scale of strings if they exist). Again a lot of this is speculative but the math and physics support it.
If I am wrong in my thinking please correct me (I am just an undergrad not an astrophysicist).
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : Correct spelling

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by jchardy, posted 11-25-2008 7:16 PM jchardy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by V-Bird, posted 11-25-2008 11:30 PM DevilsAdvocate has replied

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


Message 40 of 159 (489284)
11-25-2008 9:24 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by V-Bird
11-25-2008 8:12 PM


Re: Disclaimer... re: Epansion/Inflation
Right. Similarly, the speed of light is not a speed limit at the cusp of the inflation. I do have a problem with your saying:
"this hypothesis disposes of the need for some 'mysterious' dark energy to 'balance the books' mathematically also, dark matter [naturally] as well. How does your proposal dispose of dark matter (a baryonic mystery)and why would you not allow that your vacuum-quantum-energy interaction would in fact be dark energy?
JCHARDY

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by V-Bird, posted 11-25-2008 8:12 PM V-Bird has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by V-Bird, posted 11-25-2008 11:44 PM jchardy has not replied

  
V-Bird
Member (Idle past 5585 days)
Posts: 211
From: Great Britain
Joined: 03-22-2004


Message 41 of 159 (489292)
11-25-2008 11:30 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by DevilsAdvocate
11-25-2008 9:20 PM


Re: Disclaimer... re: Epansion/Inflation
If I may I will answer for JCHardy as he is new to the hypothesis and I have been at it for quite some time.
1/. The implication is only one imposed by your current thinking, an absolute vacuum is the void beyond our cosmos, it is boundless and absolute as only a nothingness can be.
You ask what is the cause of nothingness, that is asking what is the cause of non-causality and the answer is there is no cause.
2/. It is in the detail that the answer lies, think of the number 10 it is effectively the same as 9.9 recurring, but somewhere within that infinite series of nines there is a point at which there is 1 minus 0.9 recurring, if we were to wait long enough eventually in these conditions something will happen, call it a vibration if you like, it is enough to start a cosmos.
The cosmos came about simply because eventually within an infinite nothing there was an an infinitely small something.
That is all it takes to produce our cosmos, that and a long long time for it to grow to the extent it is now.
3/. Within that small amount of movement/motion Onsagers rec. existed, on the cusp it doesn't, simply because there are two sides of the cosmos, everything within and the still infinite void beyond, the other side, so to speak.
4/. This tiny amount of energy did not have within it all the energy of the cosmos we find around us today, all the energy comes from the expansion at the cusp, the energy is a result of any existing energy at the cusp being pulled into the vacuum creating energy where there was once nothing, the laws of thermodynamics do not apply at either the cusp or beyond, they don't have to, only when the new energy is generated does it have to conform to the state of existence, at the cusp it is being made literally from its own energy of motion touching a true void.
5/. No, as above the amount started out as infinitely small, very rapidly it became the size of [say] a tennis ball, it did not have the mass or energy of todays cosmos at that point either, the void as a negative energy forced from the small amount of energy in that tennis ball sized cosmos more energy as it tugged mercilessly at it.
6/. I won't answer this as I believe your explanation of energy and forces to be fundamentally wrong and would divert the thread hugely.
7/. Pressure differential does not need points in space, pressure differential requires only that, a differential, within the cosmos we cannot form a vacuum without some form of containment, the void has no containment it is an infinite nothing, a boundless seemless nothing, there is no need or requirement for any containment.
8/. It doesn't, hence the disclaimer. You say though that there are no voids outside the Universe, that is true, the Universe is both the cosmos [that is everything that is matter/energy] and the void itself. You may be saying there are no voids outside the cosmos, this wrong also, the cosmos is expanding, expanding into what?
If it were to be expanding into 'something' it would be in constant contact with this 'something' and that would mean some form of collision, and if that were so then there would be evidence all around us of it, in fact such a massive collision that has lasted 14billion years would almost certainly mean we would not be able to exist, no, the cosmos expands into nothing, an infinite void.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 11-25-2008 9:20 PM DevilsAdvocate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 11-26-2008 7:12 AM V-Bird has replied
 Message 100 by jchardy, posted 11-28-2008 2:22 AM V-Bird has replied

  
V-Bird
Member (Idle past 5585 days)
Posts: 211
From: Great Britain
Joined: 03-22-2004


Message 42 of 159 (489293)
11-25-2008 11:44 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by jchardy
11-25-2008 9:24 PM


Re: Disclaimer... re: Epansion/Inflation
Both 'darks' are there in the present theory to 'make up the numbers' for the present common held belief on the origin of the cosmos, they are not required with my hypothesis, the cosmos is in perfect balance with self-generation, it is only with infinite density singularity and inflation then expansion that the figures go out of true, its too clumsy.
The cosmos is self-generating and self-sustaining.
The expansion rate did vex me for a while but the inevitable conclusion is that the expansion is limited by the speed of energy itself, the rate at which it can ultimately travel within the cosmos and that is 'c' and it is not an equal 'c' across the cusp, the energy is formed in one place and in others it is captured by other energy and forms mass, the process doesn't slow the expansion but the actual presence of mass does from within the newly formed cosmos and this is 'caotic' in nature and this explains the 'random' but fairly even distribution of mass across the entire cosmos.
So just as 'c' is moderately variable in our local experience the expansion of the cosmos is also slightly variable, if we could it from out there in the void I guess it would resemble the skin of an orange or quite possibly the photosphere of the sun.
Edited by V-Bird, : Deleted a bit of text as I hit the submit button.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by jchardy, posted 11-25-2008 9:24 PM jchardy has not replied

  
godsriddle
Member (Idle past 4310 days)
Posts: 51
From: USA
Joined: 12-20-2007


Message 43 of 159 (489295)
11-26-2008 12:49 AM


Redshift caused by a priori assumption
Emmanuel Kant claimed that we build our knowledge of the physical world on the pictures we already have in mind - a priori. "A priori” have a subjective, synthetic origin. They are pre-existing inventions of our minds that we use as the foundation for deductive knowledge.
Modern scientists are not Kantian. They are empiricists. They hold that mathematics is analytic, not based on synthetic principles. According to this view, knowledge is inductive, not deductive. We start with innumerable facts and measurements and then arrive at general laws and principles.
Kant, however, is right. Even science has a first principle. What is the scientific first principle? The Bible predicted that in the last days false teachers will come saying "panta outos diamenei" - all things remain the same in being. History shows that science was founded on Aristotle's assumption that matter is unchanging in being.
What does this have to do with redshift? Redshift is a scientific myth - a deduction that stems from the scientific first principle. What is it? The assumption that the properties of matter are not emergent.
Yet we can see the past with sight. No perpetual motion atoms are visible. Yet every scientist believes that atoms are perpetual motion machines because they are the basis of their operationally defined units, their mathematics and their methods. The scientific universe is the most mythical universe ever invented. It is 99% invisible. According to scientists, the vacuum is adjusting the frequency of all ancient light. The vacuum is moving galaxies to clos to the speed of light. The vacuum is crammed full of invisible matter, invisible holes, invisible energies that repelenish themselves out of the vacuum.
Why is the scientific universe so mythical? Because they never go back and examine their historical a priori - which the pagan Greeks called arche - first principles. With one single assumption we can eliminate all the cosmological myths. How? Just accept what is visible as fact. No perpetual motion atoms are visible in billions of distant galaxies. Every atom in the whole universe, every atomic clock, is changing as it ages. We even see a biblical cosmic history with sight as billions of galaxies grew into huge growth spirals. First principles really are important. The modern first principle is the foundation for how scientists think, measure and mathematicate. Think about it.

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by PaulK, posted 11-26-2008 7:30 AM godsriddle has not replied
 Message 48 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 11-26-2008 7:33 AM godsriddle has replied
 Message 49 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 11-26-2008 7:52 AM godsriddle has replied

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


Message 44 of 159 (489307)
11-26-2008 6:48 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by johnfolton
11-25-2008 7:53 PM


Re: Is the inflationary model of the universe true?
if the earth is in the center of the universe.
If the Earth is the centre of the Universe, why is it orbiting the Sun? And why is the Sun stuck in the murky backwaters of the Milky Way Galaxy, and not at the centre? And why is the Milky Way not at the centre of the Local Group?
So what you mean by, "the centre of the Universe", is "not in anyway shape or form, the centre of the Universe". Glad we have this straightened out.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by johnfolton, posted 11-25-2008 7:53 PM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 11-26-2008 7:24 AM cavediver has replied
 Message 51 by johnfolton, posted 11-26-2008 8:32 AM cavediver has replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3101 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 45 of 159 (489309)
11-26-2008 7:12 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by V-Bird
11-25-2008 11:30 PM


Re: Disclaimer... re: Epansion/Inflation
Thanks V-Bird for your analysis, I appreciate a good intellectually stimulating dialog. I still think this is on topic as we are just talking about cosmology and the inflation of the universe caused by the Big Bang in specific.
To expound on my understanding of the universe and what I said previously.
Really, the universe is not expanding per se as that would imply it is expanding into something. A more accurate phrase is that the universe is stretching. That is space-time itself is stretching and therefore the space between galaxies (and in fact between all matter large or small) is stretching. This stretching space appears to us as motion and is what we detect as red shift. However, what we see as red shifted galaxies are not actually the galaxies themselves moving at rapid speeds away from each other but that space itself is stretching between these galaxies (though there is some small movement between close by galaxies and clusters of galaxies caused by gravitational pull between those galaxies).
To carry this further the universe is actually infinite in size. There is no boundary or edge and thus no center. What we see as size is actually just that of our observable universe (what we can see from the light from the first stars and galaxies formed after the big bang). Since the universe is stretching faster than the speed of light (the only phenomena in existence that is not bound to the light "speed limit", we only see one small infinitely small slice of an infinitely large universe.
Since the universe is infinite in size, it is actually itself not expanding but only the space inside it is. Therefore, there is no need to talk about an infinite void outside it as infinite space cannot have infinite space outside it. + = . So during the Big Bang the space-time fabric in the universe rapidly "stretched" as opposed to "expanded into nothingness". I hope that this clarifies things.
As to what initially caused this initial stretch I agree with you V-Bird on your causation by a "vibration" in the nearly infinitely small and dense quantum fabric (the popping and out of existence of virtual particles/energy) of the universe per se, again does not this vibration need a cause?
Again, let me know if I am wrong in my assumptions.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by V-Bird, posted 11-25-2008 11:30 PM V-Bird has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by V-Bird, posted 11-26-2008 9:33 AM DevilsAdvocate 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