Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 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
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3101 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 46 of 159 (489310)
11-26-2008 7:24 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by cavediver
11-26-2008 6:48 AM


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.
To expound on this, the universe is infinite in size i.e. no beginning nor end, and thus there is no center. If you back to the limited analogy of the balloon and take the 3 dimensions of the universe (we will disregard the dimension of time to simplify our problem) and translate that to the 2-d surface of that ballon this will make since. An ant walking on that boundless surface of the balloon could walk for inifinity and never find the edge or boundary of that balloon (since there isn't one). If there is no edge than there can be no center. The same principle applies to the universe. The universe has no boundary and no edge. It is infinite in size from a four dimensional perspective- 3 dimensions of space and 1 of time. I will not get into the concepts of a multiverse and the multitide of higher dimensions here unless someone asks.

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 44 by cavediver, posted 11-26-2008 6:48 AM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by cavediver, posted 11-26-2008 8:02 AM DevilsAdvocate has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 47 of 159 (489311)
11-26-2008 7:30 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by godsriddle
11-26-2008 12:49 AM


Re: Redshift caused by a priori assumption
The red shift is observed. How then, can it be the product of an "a prioi assumption" ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by godsriddle, posted 11-26-2008 12:49 AM godsriddle has not replied

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


Message 48 of 159 (489312)
11-26-2008 7:33 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by godsriddle
11-26-2008 12:49 AM


Re: Redshift caused by a priori assumption
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.
What is a "perpetual motion atom"? Please explain, as I am not familiar with that term. My understanding is that the concept of perpetual motion contradicts the laws of thermodynamics in that it is saying that in a closed system the law of the conservation of energy is not preserved. You will need to explain how this applies to individual atoms? Please expound. Please stay scientific and not get all metaphysical with your explanation. Thanks.

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 43 by godsriddle, posted 11-26-2008 12:49 AM godsriddle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by godsriddle, posted 11-26-2008 12:56 PM DevilsAdvocate has not replied
 Message 62 by godsriddle, posted 11-26-2008 1:12 PM DevilsAdvocate has replied

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


Message 49 of 159 (489314)
11-26-2008 7:52 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by godsriddle
11-26-2008 12:49 AM


Re: Redshift caused by a priori assumption
The scientific universe is the most mythical universe ever invented.
You really want to go there? How about the ancient myths of the universe from cultures all over the world i.e. Atlas holding up the world, world on the back of the turtle, etc. You really think the scientific view of the universe is the most mythical?? Can you provide some evidence please.
It is 99% invisible
So our atoms and many other things to the human eye. That doesn't mean they don't exist. You can feel the force of the wind, the affects of electricity, etc but you can't see it. We can detect and deduce the presense of dark energy and matter.
According to scientists, the vacuum is adjusting the frequency of all ancient light.
Please provide evidence for your assertion.
BTW, science does not claim to know all the answers. The mission of science is to find the questions and the answers. Just because science cannot explain why the universe came into existence does not negate all the evidence of how it functions.

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 43 by godsriddle, posted 11-26-2008 12:49 AM godsriddle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by godsriddle, posted 11-26-2008 1:39 PM DevilsAdvocate has not replied

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


Message 50 of 159 (489315)
11-26-2008 8:02 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by DevilsAdvocate
11-26-2008 7:24 AM


Re: Is the inflationary model of the universe true?
To expound on this, the universe is infinite in size
This is still not known. It is clearly large compared to the scale of the Observable Universe, but there is no definitive parameter value (or even model type!) to be able to claim an infinite Universe.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 11-26-2008 7:24 AM DevilsAdvocate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 11-26-2008 11:09 AM cavediver has replied

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


Message 51 of 159 (489318)
11-26-2008 8:32 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by cavediver
11-26-2008 6:48 AM


Re: Is the inflationary model of the universe true?
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.
The point of Gentry's video was once you travel out of the center blue shifting of light will occur. right? Hubbles myth is that light will not blue shift anywhere in the universe as all points in the universe is the center. Its like that garbage you hear that the galaxies are not moving only the space between them expanding nonsense all drivel from Hubbles Myth that all points are the center instead of the earth being in the center. Interesting video non the less.
whatever,
jf
Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by cavediver, posted 11-26-2008 6:48 AM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by cavediver, posted 11-26-2008 9:13 AM johnfolton has not replied

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


Message 52 of 159 (489321)
11-26-2008 9:13 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by johnfolton
11-26-2008 8:32 AM


Re: Is the inflationary model of the universe true?
instead of the earth being in the center
But we have just agreed that the Earth is most certainly not at the centre.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by johnfolton, posted 11-26-2008 8:32 AM johnfolton has not replied

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


Message 53 of 159 (489323)
11-26-2008 9:33 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by DevilsAdvocate
11-26-2008 7:12 AM


Re: Disclaimer... re: Epansion/Inflation
Stretching... expanding... growing in size, they are all the same fundamental action, things are moving away from each other.
Stretching would imply a bunching up at the periphery it also has undertone a of a cosmos is an overall stasis and I no of no-one that holds to that in the overwhelming weight of evidence to the contrary.
There was and still is a centre, but because of relativity we simply cannot pin point it or even approximate it.
The universe is infinite, but the cosmos is not, it is an ever expanding entity within the universe.
Nomenclature:
Universe means the known and unknown and the void as a single entity.
Cosmos means all that has existence in the form of energy/motion/mass.
We exist because there is a planet, a habitable planet exists because there is a sun, the sun is part of a galaxy of similar and different suns, the galaxies exist because they are a tiny part of the cosmos filled with billions of them, the cosmos exists because there is a universe a vast empty nothing that allows this wonderful chain of existence to continue unhindered.
The cosmos is anachronism, but in the face of a continual timeless nothing something had to eventually happen and so in another respect it is not an anachronism at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 11-26-2008 7:12 AM DevilsAdvocate has not replied

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


Message 54 of 159 (489325)
11-26-2008 9:54 AM


Centre of the Universe. Usual disclaimer applies
It is a side effect of relativity that each of us can [with a little stretching of things] consider ourselves the centre of the universe, simply because we each receive as a central body all we know.
It is no wonder that because of this little trick of relative time that we see the world and cosmos in such a self-centred way.
We are the centre of the universe, but in the most inconsequential way imaginable, I realised this thanks to understanding relativity and moderate my thoughts to suit.
The great irony is this, if we could, perhaps, through measuring tiny differences in the redshift patterns find the centre of the cosmos, it would be absolutely no different to any other part of the cosmos except the cusp!
It would be interesting but we'll never go there [unless it was found within our perview of travel] and plant a flag like at the similarly nebulous North Pole.
Edited by V-Bird, : Added disclaimer!

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by cavediver, posted 11-26-2008 10:11 AM V-Bird has replied

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


Message 55 of 159 (489328)
11-26-2008 10:11 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by V-Bird
11-26-2008 9:54 AM


Re: Centre of the Universe.
You forgot the disclaimer in your heading
There is no centre, nor is there a center!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by V-Bird, posted 11-26-2008 9:54 AM V-Bird has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by V-Bird, posted 11-26-2008 10:42 AM cavediver has replied

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


Message 56 of 159 (489331)
11-26-2008 10:42 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by cavediver
11-26-2008 10:11 AM


Re: Centre of the Universe. [Disclaimer etc etc]
We don't agree about much, so fair enough.
Your accepted version of the 'event' [can we agree to call it that?] requires there to be no centre, whereas my unaccepted version does.
Your cosmos has no faster than light elements [is that still true?] whereas my version requires it for the cosmos to exist at all!
Your cosmos requires 'virtual particles' whereas mine does not.
Your cosmos still needs unfound particle[s], mine does not, mine only needs to accept the evidence of faster than light phenomena for precisely that.
Your cosmos need single pole magnetism or magnetic like attraction, mine does too but I have found it in that FTL interaction.
Your cosmos lives on uncertainty, chaos and happenstance, mine just removes HUP, makes sense of what appears chaotic and removes happenstance from it except in that initial vibration in the void.
Your cosmos is so aloof that it can't explain an electron cloud as the maths fall apart, mine does not, the same FTL phenomena that keeps the stars rotating about other bodies of equal or greater mass, explains the electron cloud'
We don't just 'differ' we are polar opposites!
Still, it makes for a good debate.
Edited by V-Bird, : Thought I'd add a few more for good measure.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by cavediver, posted 11-26-2008 10:11 AM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Huntard, posted 11-26-2008 12:00 PM V-Bird has not replied
 Message 68 by cavediver, posted 11-26-2008 2:10 PM V-Bird has replied

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


Message 57 of 159 (489335)
11-26-2008 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by cavediver
11-26-2008 8:02 AM


Re: Is the inflationary model of the universe true?
This is still not known. It is clearly large compared to the scale of the Observable Universe, but there is no definitive parameter value (or even model type!) to be able to claim an infinite Universe.
Yes, however, either way whether it is infinite in size or not there is no boundary and thus no center to the universe.

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 50 by cavediver, posted 11-26-2008 8:02 AM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by cavediver, posted 11-26-2008 11:14 AM DevilsAdvocate has not replied

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


Message 58 of 159 (489336)
11-26-2008 11:14 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by DevilsAdvocate
11-26-2008 11:09 AM


Re: Is the inflationary model of the universe true?
Yes, however, either way whether it is infinite in size or not there is no boundary and thus no center to the universe.
This is almost certainly true.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 11-26-2008 11:09 AM DevilsAdvocate has not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 59 of 159 (489341)
11-26-2008 12:00 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by V-Bird
11-26-2008 10:42 AM


Re: Centre of the Universe. [Disclaimer etc etc]
V-Bird writes:
Your cosmos is so aloof that it can't explain an electron cloud as the maths fall apart, mine does not, the same FTL phenomena that keeps the stars rotating about other bodies of equal or greater mass, explains the electron cloud
Would you mind providing us with the maths behind that then?
We don't just 'differ' we are polar opposites!
Indeed, however if I ask CD for the maths behind it all, I'm sure he can provide it. Can you do the same?

I hunt for the truth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by V-Bird, posted 11-26-2008 10:42 AM V-Bird has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by cavediver, posted 11-26-2008 12:52 PM Huntard has not replied

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


Message 60 of 159 (489344)
11-26-2008 12:52 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Huntard
11-26-2008 12:00 PM


Re: Centre of the Universe. [Disclaimer etc etc]
Would you mind providing us with the maths behind that then?
...if I ask CD for the maths behind it all, I'm sure he can provide it. Can you do the same?
And here lies the gaping chasm that separates professional science from armchair musings. We deal in words to convey our science to the interested public, but the actual work is almost predominantly mathematics. Why? Because this enables us to CALCULATE and MAKE NUMERICAL PREDICTIONS. How many of those have we seen from the armchair brigade?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Huntard, posted 11-26-2008 12:00 PM Huntard 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