|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: COSMOLOGY | |||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3664 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
THEN HOW DO WE ACCOUNT FOR: --the evidence that numerous galactic collisions have, are or imminently will occur (including that of the collision of the Andromeda with our own Milky Way)?? The weatherman tells me the wind is blowing from the east today. How does he reconcile that with the fact that outside, I can see leaves being blown in all directions? Galaxies are not large components, galaxies are certainly not "uniformly" accelerating away, nor are all galaxies accelerating "away", and when we refer to "us" in terms of Universal expansion, we are not refering to merely our Galaxy. Furthermore, the "inflationary model" has nothing to do with your point. The inflationary model is relevant in the first few seconds of the expansion. We're somewhat past that stage now... Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3664 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3664 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3664 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3664 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3664 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
instead of the earth being in the center But we have just agreed that the Earth is most certainly not at the centre.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3664 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
You forgot the disclaimer in your heading
There is no centre, nor is there a center!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3664 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3664 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3664 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
Biblical physics is not like scientific physics. It is simple. It does not use mathematical formulas or symbolical ways of measuring. It has only one basic idea - stated in Greek by the Apostle Paul: the whole creation is in bondage to phthora - fundamental change. Biblical physics is confirmed with sight. We see the past all the way back to the creation of the universe. The visible history of the universe fits biblical physics and biblical description of how God created the heavens - visibly. For fucks' sake - just when I thought V-Bird and Buzsaw were as mad as it gets, we get this lunacy. Tell me, how does biblical physics compare to Quaranic phsyics and... no, on second thoughts, don't bother. There's only so much idiocy I can tolerate.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3664 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
We don't just 'differ' we are polar opposites! Let's just be clear - the whole collective world of mathematically and scientifically trained cosmologists are at one pole, and you are at the other.
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' When I calculate (to one loop) the electron g-factor using our standard mathematics of the "electron cloud", I get 2.0023228. What do you get using your theory? Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3664 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
2. They cannot even be measured with precision because even the instruments, the formulas and the units and the “constants” would track with the changes. For example, if all matter is changing relationally, both sides of a balance scale would change equally. So this "change" is unmeasurable. Fine.
We see the past with sight. The properties of all matter are observed to change relationally as billions of galaxies spread out So this "change" is measurable. Do you possibly get the tiniest hint that this may be contradictory
as billions of galaxies spread out - grow into huge growth spirals - in defiance of every law and principle of science. Yep, we haven't a clue. But at least we know that fire, thunder and lightning come from our gods.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3664 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
You look at the electron cloud and you see detail in the hope that if you keep looking you'll understand, you won't. Ah, but I already do, V-Bird, I already do The simple fact is you have no mathematics, no theory, no calculations, no predictions, no conclusions - all you have are meaningless words and hugely erroneous thinking. The concepts you claim to understand and explain are the not the concepts of space-time physics, they are the concepts of popular science books. One does not revolutionise chemistry by critiquing My First Chemistry Set. One does not break new astronomical ground by declaring the Ladybird Book of I Spy Space obsolete. I know you think you are onto something, but believe me, so do tens of thousands of others scattered all over the web, all joined in equal conviction that they are right, that they have spotted the one true answer, that the astronomical, cosmological and mathematical departments of the world have all lost their way, and all joined in their sad shared mass delusion. Why are you different V-Bird? What makes you stand out from all of the other cranks out there, clamouring that they have THE answer. I have heard this a thousand times. Why should you be any different? Give me something tangible. At the very least, show me some mathematics. I have a little training in the area Edited by cavediver, : No reason given. Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3664 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
You simply would not comprehend the maths, it would be like me trying to show a nautilus the breast-stroke in swimming, it is simply not equipped to make sense of what it saw, and all that would also need a common language and we don't even have that! Oh V-Bird, can you not just feel your credibility swirling down the plug-hole?
because at least half the FTL maths has in common with sub-light maths, is that some of it has that beautiful and revealing closure. There is no such thing as "FTL" and "sub-light" maths. You are confusing physics for mathematics (and using science fiction terms, I should stress, not the language of phsyics) but if you are so sure, perhaps you would care to tell us whether the contour integral of 1/z2 is "FTL" or "sub-light"?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3664 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
I still am wary of using the terms nothingness or void for what is outside this universe. I stand by my statement that there is no outside thus no void thus no thermal content. Exactly as you should.
This is more a logic issue than a physics one. No, it is very important physics issue. Cosmological models with surrounding voids can be built in GR but they have very different behaviour to what we currently observe.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024