COSMOLOGY

Jchardy,Thanks for the great feedback. It looks like we agree more than we disagree. I am no physicist but do think I have a decent understanding of fundamental astro and particle physics.One suggestion based on my own experience. I usually open up MS Word and copy my responses in there to spell check before I submit them to the board. If something goes wrong when I hit the "Submit Reply" button I can always copy and paste it back from my Word file. Hope this helps. I also agree that using the quote feature helps in the readability of your comments (all try not to capitolize all your letter as it makes it hard on the eyes to read).Just one or two comments on your feedback: Are you saying that the outside void i.e the nothing is absolute zero? This might be semantics but just to clarify that prescribing a property i.e. temperature on "nothingness" makes no sense to me.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.This is more a logic issue than a physics one.Also in regards to your explanation of Onsager Reciprocal Relations in the universe I agree this explains the temperature gradients in the early cosmos which eventually spread out to form galaxies, etc in the universe. However, if we say the universe originated from an infinite density singularity than this singularity would by definition have to be homogeneousness would it not? That is this singularity would have to be uniform in its energy composition because singularity implies a finited mass compressed into 0 space. If this is true how would it form these pressure differentials in 0 space?

---

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

V-Bird,Great analogies, however do they work? Can they make predictions? Why are you not published in a physics peer-review journal or why have not you published your own books on the FTL cosmos and this new math (which I have yet to see). Posting this on amateur boards such as this and the Freethought and Rationalisms Board do not equate to peer-review by actual physicists and mathematicians. There may be a few scientists on here but this is not the proper avenue for trying to get your theory accepted (due to the limited feedback space and the constant interruptions by meaningless banter present on these types of boards).In other words can you back up your claims with real scientific evidence not simple analogies. Though, I do appreciate the analogies you posted here because your previous post made absolutely no sense to me (I don't consider myself totally ignorant in basic physics, astronomy and cosmology).

---

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

johnfolton,Can you not think for yourself?You do not even post your own words and blatantly spam this board with Creationist articles with no follow-on analysis whatsoever.To me this should come to the attention of the moderators. It is difficult to carry on a simple debate with more intelligent people who wish to discuss real issues rather than having to constantly be bombarded with dishonest, unsubstantiated quote-mining, creationist articles like you cut and past here.If you have a legitimist questions and answers to what we are talking about than make them but don't cut and past whole articles. We don't care about your religious, non-science beliefs. This is a science not a religion topic.Is it not enough that you have been suspended on a sci-fi board i.e. stardestroyer.net that you have to bring your BS here at a somewhat legitimate science forum? Go take your "earth is the center of the universe" to the flat-earth forum. I am sure they would love you over there.Can everyone please contribute a dart on johnfoltons car so the moderators can take notice of the speeding car with plastic darts all over it.

---

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

Can you please explain this cusp to me. A cusp mathematically speaking is a point where two inverted curved line meet. I guess cosmologically speaking this would be a singularity, where space becomes infinitely dense and time is 0. Is this correct? Again we need to define terms first. Otherwise it is what cavediver states a "word salad" of meaningless terms.

---

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

Your quote mining of Stephen Hawking is an outright lie. What Stephen Hawking was describing is the fact that the COBE satellite gave incontrovertible proof of anisotropies in the cosmic microwave background (CMB) which may show the "hidden" structure of the cosmos. His quote had nothing to do with the earth being the center of the universe.Here is what is going on here.#1 You are cutting and pasting from a article called , The Discovery That Dare Not Speak Its Name Has Been Made from the creationist website Science On Your Side who's motto is The Latest Scientific Discoveries Supporting Christian Faith. I could care less except that all this article is doing is trying to interpolate the presence of God from the COBE satellite data which indicates the solar system is supposedly in alignment with the CMB anisotropies as described in a Dec 2007 Astronomy magazine article.#2 The very publishers of this scientific data have their doubts of its validity as seen here: also also from New Scientist magazine: and This seems in my opinion to be caused by a typical temporary gap in our knowledge as a result of a relatively new discovery. So instead of jumping to unsubstantiated conclusions, why don't we cross check our data from other sources and see where these anomalies are coming from. Just a thought from a realist and pragmatist. Hubble did not propose a Big Bang theory. In fact it was Georges Lematre, a Belgian Catholic priest and professor of astrophysics, that proposed the Big Bang theory (though it was Fred Hoyle not Lematre who coined the term "Big Bang" for this theory). Who called Stephen Hawking a quack? Your a typical creationist who creates their own conflicts between religion and science. Stop spouting nonsense. Stephen Hawking did not "discover" that the "earth is at the center" or "special spot in the universe".
Again Hubble did not propose the Big Bang theory. Go read your history and stop making idiotic claims.You are showing your ignorance.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

To ellaborate on JF's dishonest mine quoting (lifting quotes out of context) here are some articles on what Stephen Hawking actually said: This was over a decade before the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) anisotropies distribution data indicated the subtilties of multipole vectors present in the cosmic microwave background (CMB).JF, if you read the actual article in Astronomy, you would understand this. However, you probably have no clue what it is talking about so you have to get your information filtered by a creationist website. And even then you can't get it right and even misinterpret it and twist it to what you want to believe.You also reference the following as a source of your quote about Stephen Hawking, Cosmic Alignment: With the Cosmic Mind and the Cosmic Pattern by C. Countess. You have got to be f****** kidding me! Here is a quote from this quack pseudoscience book: and I thought Christians were not supposed to read all this new age crap about meditating, pyramids and crystals? Need I say more?

---

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

I am done with this thread. You guys are a fucking joke. I was hoping for a good scientific discussion of cosmology instead we get the ranting of nutcases like john folton and the like.Good luck for anyone who wants to talk legitimate science on here. I truly wish you the best of luck. I am done wasting my time.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : I am recanting this because I feel it is my duty to educate the uneducated. Forgive me for righteous anger.

---

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

I am sorry I know I said I wouldn't write on this thread anymore but I need to correct JF's false conclusions and stop him from spreading his stupidity. Let me explain. No, again use the simple analogy of a balloon and place little sticky images of galaxies on really slow moving ants on that balloon. The surface of the balloon represents the 3 dimensions of space (we will exclude the dimension of time in this analogy). Now start blowing up that balloon. If you blow up that balloon faster than the speed those ants are moving, what happens to those little sticky galaxies stuck on the backs of those ants? They all accelerate exponentially further apart from each other (red shift) as the distance between them increases, right? Only the ants really near our own ant (the Milky Way) (or any other ants in close proximity) can slowly overcome the rapid expansion of the balloon and close the distance between us (blue shift). However even in this case, space is still stretching and these close by ants have to walk faster towards us than the expansion of the balloon to close the distance to our own ant.This is a crude analogy of what is happening. Basically the expansion of the universe (blowing up of the balloon) overcomes the movement of the individual ants (the gravitational attraction of nearby galaxies).If we shifted our position to any other galaxy in the universe we would still see the phenomena of galaxies in close proximity being gravitationally pulled towards each other (blue shifted) while those further away from us being carried away by the expansion of the space-time fabric of the universe (red shift).Is there a center of the surface of a balloon (or a sphere)? No. The expansion of the balloon is analogous to the stretching of the space-time fabric of the universe. The apparent motion of galaxies going away from us i.e. red shifting is really the stretching of space-time itself.Let me know if this makes sense or I can continue to clarify. No, you never provided any evidence that Hubble "knew" the Earth was at the center of the universe. Even if he did (which he didn't) what bearing does than have on cosmology now? People also thought the Earth was flat and the Sun revolved around the Earth at one point in history. What does this have to do with anything?

---

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

So you are advocating astrology? I thought that Christianity specifically condemned practicing astrology?

---

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

Yes, I agree. The term "space-time fabric" is just a analogous figure of speach it does not mean there is an actual "substance" or "aether" call space-time. Space and time are intricately linked mathematical dimensions as proposed by Albert Einstein in his theories of relativity. In other words space time is a mathematic model or construct not a physical "substance".I prefer to use the term "stretching" instead of "expanding" as pertaining to the universe because "expanding" implies that the universe is expanding into something outside it which is clearly not the case. The universe is a closed system and by definition of spacetime there is nothing outside of it. There is no outside. Don't get confused, when we talk about a "hypothetical" multiverse this is not talking about 4 dimensional spacetime outside of our universe but rather additional dimensions in which the 4 dimensions of spacetime are encapsulated.This is conteruntuitive to mose people but you have to think outside the box (no pun intended).A good book I have read recently which illustrates these principles well is Brian Greene's "The Fabric of the Cosmos: Space, Time, and the Texture of Reality". Also Michio Kaku's "Hyperspace: A Scientific Odyssey Through Parallel Universes, Time Warps, and the Tenth Dimension" is another good read. Also study Einstein's Theories of Relativity (both General and Special Relativity).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

What does "he was not y cup of tea" mean?Carl Sagan sometimes used the terms cosmos and universe interchangeably as do many other astronomers and physicists. In fact the etymology of the word "cosmos" in Greek means "orderly arrangement" or more literally "universe". However it seems that he also refers to our observable universe as part of a much larger "multiverse" or possibly "Cosmos".Here is what he says about the nature of our universe within a larger multiverse: This is merely Carl conjecturing on the possibility of the universe being part of a larger multiverse (i.e. a small bubble formed on the surface of a host of other larger bubbles). However, Dr. Sagan does not go into the specifics of this possible multiverse. Is it an extension of this universe? Is our universe infinite? If so how could their be space outside and infinite space? Is he talking about additional dimensions? He does not specify. This is not his fault, much on the possibility of multiverses and other type of extra dimensional phenomena were just being proposed during and after his Cosmos series was aired on PBS in the early 1980's.However, let me define terms before I continue. What most people define as our universe is indeed our observable universe of an overall width of 27.4 billion years. However based on mathematical models and the data from WMAP astrophysicists estimate the entire universe to be 156 billion light years wide or 78 billion light years radius. Due to the speed limit of light and the 13.7 billion year old age of the universe our light horizon is 13.7 billion light years radius. That is the maximum distance that we can see the oldest objects in our universe is 13.7 billion years away. This is confirmed by the fact that the furthest object, a proto-galaxy, we have seen is 13 billion light years away formed only 700 million years after the Big Bang (Hubble Finds Strong Contender For Galaxy Distance Record.Currently there is no scientific evidence that indicates our universe is finite. How would we know? There would be the possibility that if we looked far enough we could see our own galaxies at an earlier time in the Big Bang timeline (kind of like being able to see the back of your house if you had a strong enough telescope that could look across the curved surface of the Earth). The COBE data does not exhibit this repetition in its data. On the other hand, there is no conclusive evidence for an infinite universe as well. At this point these are just working hypotheses. That is your hypothesis. There is no evidence supporting this unless you can provide it. I explained this above. Sagan was just merely speculating as to the possibility of our universe being part of a larger multiverse. Again if we consider that our observable universe is part of a large non-observable but not physically separated universe this is literally true. This is not true since even apparently the totally vacuum of intergalactic space consists of the rip roaring chaos of matter popping in and out of existence at the quantum level. There is no such thing as truly void spacetime. It makes more logical sense just to say there is no outside of our universe, whether finite or infinite. Sounds vaguely plausible to a non-astrophysicist's ear, however what evidence do you have of this FTL cosmos existence? That is what is going to make or break your hypothesis. Even Einstein relativity theories had to be "proven" with conclusive evidence as from astrophysicist Arthur Eddington 1919 solar eclipse data.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.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

Thanks for the correction. Like I said, I am not physicist however I do have a basic understanding of astronomy and physics and have studied much of the these theories both on the micro and macroscopic levels. I guess what I meant is if it was theoretically possible.It sounds like you are pretty knowledgeable in this area, what is your opinion of the universe being finite or infinite and the presence of a higher dimensional multiverse? My understanding that much of this is mere speculation however the addition of extra dimensions seems to make these mathematical models jive with each other i.e. m-theory, supergravity, etc.

---

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

As I explained earlier our "observable universe" is just the visible portion of a much larger universe. If we use the rough analogy of the surface of the Earth, we can only visibly see to the horizon. However the Earth is much bigger than just what we can see visibly at one point on its surface. The same is true with our universe. These are not two distinct, different universes, they are one in the same. If you want to use the term cosmos that is fine but then the universe=cosmos. Again no physical distinction between the "observable universe" and the larger unseen one, they are part of the same mathematical model. Thus it is implied that the entire universe is expanding or stretching not just one part. Again what is this void you are talking about? A void implies something. Most cosmologists including Stephen Hawking state that our universe is a closed compact universe meaning there is no boundary. However being closed there is nothing outside itself. The dimensions of time and space are part of the mathematical model of this universe itself. Describing a reference to something to which this universe expands into either temporally or spatially can be likened to asking in Hawking's words "What lies north of the North Pole"?I have to go to work but will expound more on the rest of your points later.

---

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

These are just meaningless terms unless you can scientifically and mathematically describe them. Is this outside void you are talking about part of our spacetime fabric i.e. 4 dimensional. Or are you talking about higher dimensions i.e. a spacetime brane of the 4 dimensions encapsulated inside higher dimensions i.e. the brane/bulk concept.I have never heard the term "negative space" in this context, please define that term. This is just a definition of an infinite series of numbers. How does this relate to your NS? I am not sure what this "negative space" is. Do you mean vacuum energy i.e. the presence of energy in "empty" space? I think you are talking about vacuum energy (virtual particles popping into and out of existence on the quantum level). The inflation of the universe is proposed to be caused by a greater than 0 (net positive) ground state level of vacuum energy being released. In essense this expansion sort of serves as a reverse form of gravity stretching the dimensions of spacetime (the mathematic construct not a literal substance or ether) and thus driving everything apart exponentially. This negative "gravity" so to speak is also called negative vacuum energy density. \I propably skewed his analogy a little, because Hawking was using this analogy for the dimensions of spacetime to explain why we cannot ask what happened before the Big Bang because it asking for a cause of noncausable event i.e. time before time began. However since space and time are integrately linked the same analogy could also be applied to space. How can we say what is outside of space if space is all that exists. This sounds pretty arrogant. If this is such a good hypothses for the universe why have you not pitched it to the heavies? The real astrophysicists? Write a book, write papers and submit them. That is what Einstein did.Also how do you describe the force of gravity? How does this fit into your model.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : Correct misspellings caused by my damn spell checker.

---

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

I guess you could call it negative pressure as well. All describe the process of an outward pull which overpowered the force of gravity causing the universe to "inflate". This outward force is also thought by many scientists to be part of the mystery of dark energy.

---

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