Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8913 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-24-2019 7:02 AM
29 online now:
caffeine, Heathen, marc9000 (3 members, 26 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 854,575 Year: 9,611/19,786 Month: 2,033/2,119 Week: 69/724 Day: 1/68 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
56
7
891011Next
Author Topic:   COSMOLOGY
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 1272 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 91 of 159 (489412)
11-26-2008 8:10 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by godsriddle
11-26-2008 7:42 PM


Re: Redshift caused by a priori assumption
What scientists consider evidence and what they rejected as non evidence is itself based on the scientific first principle. Only things that fit the scientific creed that matter is not changing itself are considered evidence.

Biblical physics is not mystical at all. Mystical has to do with things that have a spiritual significance that transcends human understanding - such as in Platonism. Biblical physics is perfectly natural. It relates to the real, visible world of real objects and real, visible cosmic history. We can see the past with light. We are allowed in biblical physics to believe what is visible - instead of perpetuating myths about invisible things. We see how the galaxies formed as the stars accelerated outward from dense primordial galaxies. In scientific physics the visible history of the universe is not permitted. Instead one must believe myths about vacuous forces and phantom matter. Why do scientists invent so many omyths about magical things? They have to. They must defend their historical creed - their assumption that the properties of matter are not emergent. They must do this, even though most of them unaware of its historical importance. They only know the physics of perpetual motion atoms. For example, their atomic clocks are assumed to never change frequency even though every atomic clock in the distant universe clocks a different frequency than local clocks and the differences increase with distance

This is spam. Repeating the identical assertions you listed previously in Message 43 does not increase your credibility or that of your assertions. Please answer the questions posed to you in Message 47, Message 48 and Message 49. Otherwise we will just write you off as a drive by Creationist spammer.

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 88 by godsriddle, posted 11-26-2008 7:42 PM godsriddle has not yet responded

  
jchardy
Member (Idle past 2570 days)
Posts: 85
Joined: 11-24-2008


Message 92 of 159 (489424)
11-27-2008 12:23 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by DevilsAdvocate
11-24-2008 10:56 PM


Re: Is the inflationary model of the universe true?
DevilsAdvocate: It has taken me a long time to respond to your questions and I appologize. The response is a bit long and involved and I hope it clarifies the concepts. I am also posting it as a general input. There are a lot of other queries out there as well.
JCHARDY

1A. “Before there was anything there was nothing. Neither time nor space. There was only absolute vacuum.”

1. You asked: “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.”
A: THIS USE OF THE WORDS “ABSOLUTE VACUUM” INDICATES ONLY THAT THERE WAS NEITHER PHYSICAL NOR THERMAL “PRESENCE” AT THAT POINT JUST AS THERE WAS NO SPACE-TIME. IT IS THE BEST CONCEPTUALIZATION I COULD COME UP WITH GIVEN OUR LACK OF RELEVANT VOCABULARY.

B. “Somewhere within that “nothing” a quanta of energy appeared, (FROM WHERE. From what is unknown”).
2. Point 1 explains pt 2. If there was no time prior to the beginning of the universe i.e. the Big Bang then there was no need for a cause for the emergence of the "quanta of energy".
A: COMPLETELY AGREE. WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO CONCEPTUALIZE IS THE PROCESS THAT TOOK PLACE WHICH RESULTED IN “ALL OF THIS STUFF”.

C. “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).”

3. You then said: “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).”
A: AS YOU POINT OUT, WE HAVE NO CONCEPT (AND THEREFORE NO WORDS) FOR THE NOTHING THAT “EXISTED” AT THIS POINT IN TIME. WE CAN BE QUITE CERTAIN THOUGH THAT THE THERMAL “CONTENT” OF THIS NOTHING WAS AT LEAST ABSOLUTE ZERO. THAT DOES NOT SEEM TO ME TO BE TOO GREAT OF A SUPPOSITION. THE MYSTERY IS: WHAT WAS IT DIMENSIONALLY? I.E., HOW “LARGE” OR “CONFINING” WAS “IT”. THAT IS PROBABLY IRRELEVANT THOUGH SINCE THE “ACTION” WAS TO TAKE PLACE AT THE INTERFACE OF THE “SOMETHING” QUANTA AND THE “NOTHING”.

4. You then asked: “Can you explain how Onsager's reciprocal relations fit into this?”

A1: IN THERMODYNAMICS, THE ONSAGER RECIPROCAL RELATIONS EXPRESS THE EQUALITY OF CERTAIN RELATIONS BETWEEN FLOWS AND FORCES IN THERMODYNAMIC SYSTEMS OUT OF EQUILIBRIUM, BUT WHERE A NOTION OF LOCAL EQUILIBRIUM EXISTS. AS AN EXAMPLE, IT IS OBSERVED THAT TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCES IN A SYSTEM LEAD TO HEAT FLOWS FROM THE WARMER TO THE COLDER PARTS OF THE SYSTEM. SIMILARLY, PRESSURE DIFFERENCES WILL LEAD TO MATTER FLOW FROM HIGH-PRESSURE TO LOW-PRESSURE REGIONS.
A2: CLEARLY SUCH “REGIONS” EXISTED IN THE EARLY UNIVERSE AND ESPECIALLY AT THE MEGA-THERMAL INTERFACE BETWEEN VERY HIGH KELVIN TEMPERATURES OF 1015 GEV AND ABSOLUTE ZERO. I THINK MOST WOULD CONCEDE THAT THIS KIND OF GRADIENT WOULD RESULT IN AMPLIFICATION EVEN WITH THE TINIEST VOLUMETRIC INJECTION OF HEAT ENERGY ”AT THE BEGINNING”.
A3: IT HAS BEEN OBSERVED EXPERIMENTALLY THAT WHEN BOTH PRESSURE AND TEMPERATURE VARY, PRESSURE DIFFERENCES CAN CAUSE HEAT FLOW AND TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCES CAN CAUSE MATTER FLOW. EVEN MORE SURPRISINGLY, THE HEAT FLOW PER UNIT OF PRESSURE DIFFERENCE AND THE DENSITY (MATTER) FLOW PER UNIT OF TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE ARE EQUAL.
A4: THUS IF (AS WE SPECULATE) RELATIVISTIC MATTER WAS EVOLVED EARLY IN THE PRIMORDIAL UNIVERSE. IT EVOLVED FROM CHAOS, AREAS OF EQUILIBRIUM AND INTERACTION OF HARMONICS WITHIN THE AMPLIFIED ENERGY SYSTEM (ANOTHER WAY OF EXPRESSING EQUILIBRIUM). THIS WAS ACCOMPANIED BY FLOW OF THAT NEW MATTER AND THERMAL RELOCATIONS WHICH WOULD SIGNIFICANTLY AGITATE THE EMBRYONIC SYSTEM EVEN FURTHER, RESULTING IN NEW TEMPERATURE TRANSLOCATION OR TENSORS AS THE SYSTEM VERY RAPIDLY, EVOLVES AND INFLATES.

D. “Thus something even as minute as infinitely small (might thus give rise to) everything that would come to exist.”

5. But infinitely (or nearly so) dense. Smallness means nothing if this "quanta" is dense enough to contain the energy and mass of the universe.
A: AGREE!

E. “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. You then said: “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?”
A. THIS IS A SPECULATION ABOUT THE SIZE OF THE ENERGY INJECTION REQUIRED TO ACTIVATE THE PROCESS. REMEMBER: WE HAVE A SYSTEM SUDDENLY APPEARING AND THEN EXISTING WITHIN AN ENVIRONMENT INITIALLY CONSISTING OF NOTHING AT ABSOLUTE ZERO INTER-RELATING WITH A QUANTA (I PREFER TO CALL IT AN “ENERGY RUPTURE” OR “INJECTION” OF UNKNOWN INITIAL SIZE THOUGH SPECULATED ON THERMAL CONTENT in GEV) WHICH IS AMPLIFIED, PROBABLY EXPONENTIALLY BY THE CONTRAST GRADIENTS WITHIN THE “SYSTEM”.

F. “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. You then said: “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 .
A1: SOME SPECULATE THIS IS THE HIGG’S BOSON AND/OR DARK ENERGY. THE HIGG’S IS THOUGH TO HAVE EVOLVED AS PART AND OR FROM -- this small but ultra massive quanta of energy. SORT OF THE ORIGINAL BOSON.

You then said:
“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.
A2: RIGHT. SEE THE SPECULATION ABOUT THIS PROCESS BELOW. IT IS LIKELY THAT THIS PROCESS BEGAN VERY EARLY IN THE PROCESS BUT STABILIZATION WOULD REQUIRE COOLING.

G. “Thus, the void tore at the edges (?inflated) by this first quantum 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. You stated: “I am trying to understand this pressure differential you are talking about? A pressure differential requires points in space with more and less energy. “
A: THE “POINTS IN SPACE” WOULD BE BOUNDARY POINTS OR TRANSITIONAL POINTS AT THE INTERFACE AT INCEPTION OF THE QUANTUM ENERGY INFUSION/RUPTURE (BIG BANG). THAT IS: THE INTERFACE BETWEEN THE ENERGETIC “SOMETHING” AND “ABSOLUTELY NOTHING”. AS STATED ABOVE, THIS “CONTRAST” WOULD CAUSE AN ENORMOUS GRADIENT. THAT IS PRESSURES. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE VERY HOT (ENERGETIC) THOUGH INFINITESIMAL INTERFACING (SUDDENLY “APPEARING WITHIN”) AN “ENVIRONMENT” CHARACTERIZED BY ABSOLUTE ZERO AND NOTHING BUT “VOID”. THUS BOTH A PHYSICAL AND THERMAL GRADIENT AND ASSOCIATED PRESSURES OF ENORMOUS CONTRAST INITIALLY WITH POINTS OF CHAOS ADMIXED WITH LOCALIZED (THOUGH TRANSIENT) ORDER (EQUILIBRIUM) WITH SIMILARLY ENORMOUS EFFECT. HARMONIC ALMOST CERTAINLY PLAYED A MAJOR ROLE AND IT WAS PROBABLY WITHIN THIS INITIAL ENVIRONMENT THAT INITIAL LEPTON, FERMION WITH THE INITIALLY UNIFIED AND FINALLY SEPARATING AND THEN INTERACTIVE BOSONIC FORCES EVOLVED. THE INITIAL CHARGED PARTICLES STIRRED UP MORE CHAOS AND ENERGETIC INTERPLAY WHICH IN TURN “CREATED” MORE OF THE ABOVE ALMOST AD INFINITUM WHAT WAS NEEDED WAS THAT THE INITIAL QUANTUM OF ENERGY BE OF SUFFICIENT MAGNITUDE AND SUSTAINED FOR A SUFFICIENT “PERIOD” TO ACTIVATE THE PROCESS. NO ONE (TO MY KNOWLEDGE) “KNOWS” WHAT THAT SUSTAINING PERIOD MIGHT BE, BUT IT MIGHT BE WORKED OUT MATHEMATICALLY WITH THE RIGHT PROBABILITY INFORMATION AND THE CORRECT TENSORS. AFTER THAT, -- ONCE MATTER BEGAN TO EVOLVE, --- ANTIMATTER ANNIHILATIONS AND POSSIBLE NEUTRINO EVOLUTION TOOK PLACE POSSIBLY TOWARD A SECOND “SET” OF PRIMARY” RELATIVISTIC PARTICLES . A VERY CHAOTIC AND CREATIVE POINT IN SPACETIME.
WE OBVIOUSLY HAVE NO NAME FOR WHAT “WAS” BEFORE SPACETIME “BECAME” WITH THE INITIATION OF INFLATION. OUR NOMENCLATURE AND VOCABULARY SIMPLY DOES NOT EXIST (AS IT DIDN’T.)

H. “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.”

9. You said: “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.”
A. AT LEAST WE DON’T KNOW NOR CAN WE THEORIZE ABOUT SUCH NON-THIS-UNIVERSE “VOIDS” SINCE OUR CONCEPTUAL LIMITS ARE THOSE OF OUR OWN UNIVERSE. THAT IS INDEED A PROBLEM.

You then said: “That again would indicate space outside of space.”
A: IT WOULD INDICATE “SOMETHING” OUTSIDE OF KNOWN SPACE. ?SUBSPACE? ?HYPERSPACE? SOMETHING OTHER THAN THE SPACE-TIME WITH WHICH WE ARE FAMILIAR.
You then said: My understanding of physics is that "dimension" does not equal "space". A: AGREE WITH YOU!
You then said: 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.
A: AGREE.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 11-24-2008 10:56 PM DevilsAdvocate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by Huntard, posted 11-27-2008 1:56 AM jchardy has not yet responded
 Message 94 by jchardy, posted 11-27-2008 3:12 AM jchardy has not yet responded
 Message 95 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 11-27-2008 9:44 AM jchardy has responded

    
Huntard
Member (Idle past 465 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 93 of 159 (489436)
11-27-2008 1:56 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by jchardy
11-27-2008 12:23 AM


Re: Is the inflationary model of the universe true?
Hey Jchardy, nice post, I won't reply to it in depth just yet, that'll have to wait till this evening, but here's a little tip for you.

To make your messages easier to read use quoteboxes. When you are replying to someone there will be 2 links to the left of your reply.

these are:

dBCodes on (help)

and

HTML on (help)

Use them and your posts will be even better. :)


I hunt for the truth
This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by jchardy, posted 11-27-2008 12:23 AM jchardy has not yet responded

    
jchardy
Member (Idle past 2570 days)
Posts: 85
Joined: 11-24-2008


Message 94 of 159 (489442)
11-27-2008 3:12 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by jchardy
11-27-2008 12:23 AM


Re: QUOTE BOXES & Is the inflationary model of the universe true?
Sorry that my response was so wordy/cumbersome and I see what is meant by quote boxes now. Problem is, I have the habit of copying the entire text of the message to which I wish to reply and then replying either within or outside the text. But I will definitely try using quote boxes from this point on. The only other problem was that I was in the midst of replying to your extensive query and about 3/4 through, the bloody site "logged me out" thus I lost about an hour's worth of text. Very frustrating. That's why it took me so long to reply. I may use my technique as a backup AS I write so that I don't lose the work I have done. Thanks: JCHARDY
This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by jchardy, posted 11-27-2008 12:23 AM jchardy has not yet responded

    
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 1272 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 95 of 159 (489449)
11-27-2008 9:44 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by jchardy
11-27-2008 12:23 AM


Re: Is the inflationary model of the universe true?
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:

AS YOU POINT OUT, WE HAVE NO CONCEPT (AND THEREFORE NO WORDS) FOR THE NOTHING THAT “EXISTED” AT THIS POINT IN TIME. WE CAN BE QUITE CERTAIN THOUGH THAT THE THERMAL “CONTENT” OF THIS NOTHING WAS AT LEAST ABSOLUTE ZERO. AS YOU POINT OUT, WE HAVE NO CONCEPT (AND THEREFORE NO WORDS) FOR THE NOTHING THAT “EXISTED” AT THIS POINT IN TIME. WE CAN BE QUITE CERTAIN THOUGH THAT THE THERMAL “CONTENT” OF THIS NOTHING WAS AT LEAST ABSOLUTE ZERO

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
This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by jchardy, posted 11-27-2008 12:23 AM jchardy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by cavediver, posted 11-27-2008 10:20 AM DevilsAdvocate has not yet responded
 Message 99 by jchardy, posted 11-28-2008 1:37 AM DevilsAdvocate has not yet responded

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1814 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 96 of 159 (489462)
11-27-2008 10:20 AM
Reply to: Message 95 by DevilsAdvocate
11-27-2008 9:44 AM


Re: Is the inflationary model of the universe true?
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 11-27-2008 9:44 AM DevilsAdvocate has not yet responded

  
V-Bird
Member (Idle past 3755 days)
Posts: 211
From: Great Britain
Joined: 03-22-2004


Message 97 of 159 (489466)
11-27-2008 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by DevilsAdvocate
11-26-2008 7:57 PM


Re: cont.
I did warn you!

You are familiar with the everyday world around you, the FTL cosmos is so unfamiliar to us that even grasping an image of it is difficult.

You asked about the difference between the sub-light cosmos and the FTL cosmos, I use this analogy as it is the simplest.

Make a movie, the movie shows a locomotive travelling along a track, the locomotive is [off camera] fired upon with an artillery shell, with normal film you won't, even by inspecting each frame, see the shell approaching and hitting the loco.

We only receive, send perceive what we can at the speed of light as a maximum.

The analogy works in that our sub-light cosmos has a 'top-speed' it is 'c', in the analogy the standard fimstock which records at 25fps and 'is' the sub-light cosmos.

Looking at this movie the explosion has no cause, if you didn't know about the shell being fired it would appear to have no causality, no matter how closely you look at each frame.

The same scene is filmed by a second camera, but it is a highspeed one.

The FTL cosmos is the equivalent in the analogy to high-speed film, that runs at [say] 1000fps, now looking at this film frame by frame will show the shell entering the frame and travelling frame by frame toward the loco, suddenly we have cause for the explosion, what had no causality... suddenly does.

Can you see this in your mind?

Now just to illustrate the point I earlier posted in reply to CD that I can simply explain why we see only a cloud when we view an electron, and the above analogy may help you visualise what we are really seeing.

But to do that we have to modify the effect of the shell hitting the loco, imagine instead of it destroying the loco it instead just made it jump to a parallel track, with the normal filmstock [25fps] the train for no apparent reason jumps from one set of tracks to the other and it is instant, in one frame it is on track 'a' and in the next it is on track 'b' and with no apparent causality. But if we take a look at the highspeed film we see everything, the shell entering then striking the loco the loco being lifted onto the parallel track, we have causality.

The same analogy can be used to explain the 'spooky action at a distance' that stumped Einstein, the particle-wave duality is resolved perfectly and detectably by the actions from the FTL cosmos and countless other unresolved physics conundrums.

There are huge amounts of evidence of the presence of an FTL cosmos, but it is not explained with sub-light maths.

I'll use another analogy to explain why, think of those two types of cameras we recorded the loco on, the film is not really that different but the cameras are, our present maths is analogous to a standard 1905 type film camera, its workings are simple and basic, now look at the 1995 camera that made the high-speed film, the precision and design is far superior, the 1905 camera couldn't film at highspeed, it would just fail to operate and the same applies to the existing maths, it is simply not suitable, its functionality fails at every level.

[I chose 1905 for very good reason btw, as I did also the 1995 as that was when I started on my new maths.]

This is not difficult to understand at the moment, we are not even in the foothills of the mountain [of maths] that has to be climbed, we are just looking at the mountain to gain perspective.

Please bear with this if you can, as along the way there are wonderful insights to be found in FTL maths.

Edited by V-Bird, : Clarity, it needed more of it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 11-26-2008 7:57 PM DevilsAdvocate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 11-28-2008 8:57 AM V-Bird has responded

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3762 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 98 of 159 (489499)
11-27-2008 9:16 PM


Its quite interesting that the evidence is the earth is the center of the universe !!!!!!!

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Thursday, November 8, 2007
The Discovery That Dare Not Speak Its Name Has been Made

Steven Hawking, arguably the world’s greatest living astrophysicist, called it “the discovery of the millennium, if not all time.” Hawking was referring to the anisotropies of the Universe. Anisotropies are variations or inhomogeneities in a structure. The anisotropies referred to here are the temperature variations in the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) radiation distributed across the Universe.

This discovery has been so disturbing to some scientists that it has been most inappropriately labeled “The Axis of Evil.” Since this discovery was first made in 2003, many scientists have been trying to disprove it. Researchers have been studying the CMB since 1965 when it was first found to exist. Through the years, more sensitive instruments have been developed which have allowed ever more accurate maps of the CMB to be drawn. The best known of these were the 1992 COBE and the 2003 WMAP satellite-based probes. The initial shock came when one alignment was discovered, but as work has progressed, instead of going away, at least three more of these “Cosmic Alignments” between the CMB and the Solar System have been uncovered.

The Copernican Principle was offered as a counter to the widely asserted medieval beliefs that the Earth was at the center of the Universe, that man was in an exalted place, and that God’s existence was proved by these facts.

This of course is all quite interesting, but a shocking new set of findings has emerged from the study of the CMB. It has been discovered that the CMB, which pervades the entire Universe, is aligned to The Solar System. This means that, the original creation event, which produced all of space, time, matter, and energy, was precisely fine tuned so that it is aligned with the location and direction of motion of Solar System in which we live.

As similar “coincidences” from every field of science are piling to the sky for all to see, the only ones who will not see are those who refuse to see.

http://www.scienceonyourside.blogspot.com/

Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 11-28-2008 9:23 AM johnfolton has responded

  
jchardy
Member (Idle past 2570 days)
Posts: 85
Joined: 11-24-2008


Message 99 of 159 (489538)
11-28-2008 1:37 AM
Reply to: Message 95 by DevilsAdvocate
11-27-2008 9:44 AM


Re: Is the inflationary model of the universe true?
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.

WELL, ALTHOUGH IT IS TRUE WE HAVE NO CONCEPT OF WHAT THE "TEMPERATURE" MIGHT BE WHERE THERE IS, BY DEFINITION, NO SPACE-TIME SCALAR, AT SUCH A "NULL" INTERFACE CONFRONTING AN ENERGETIC QUANTA MEASURED AS 10 to the 18th GIGA EV's, BUT IT DOESN'T MATTER SINCE AT THAT REACTIVE INTERFACE, THE "TEMPERATURE" MIGHT BE THOUSANDS OR EVEN HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DEGREES, BUT THE RELATIVE EFFECT WOULD BE THE SAME.

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.

WELL, THERE IS EITHER SOMETHING (WHICH WE CANNOT NAME) OR AT THE VERY LEAST A BOUNDARY WHICH NOW LIES AT THE MARGIN OF OUR CURRENT UNIVERSE. WHATEVER OUR CONCEPT OF "IT" IS, IS IRRELEVANT AND PROBABLY ALWAYS WILL BE. IT'S WHAT LIKELY TOOK PLACE AT THE INTERFACE THAT WAS (AND MAY STILL BE) IMPORTANT.

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 then 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?

ONCE INFLATION BEGAN, THERE WOULD BE NO "ZERO SPACE" AND ONCE THE SINGULARITY BEGAN REACTING (INFLATING) AT THE INTERFACE, MORPHING TO PROGRESSIVE ENTROPY WOULD COMMENCE. THUS ENORMOUS ENERGY ADMIXED IN CHAOS WITH FOCAL HARMONICS GUIDED BY NON-EQUILIBRIUM THERMODYNAMICS WOULD INEVITABLY PROGRESS TO "THE BITS AND PIECES" (STRINGS AND MEMBRANE "COMPONENTS") OF PRIMORDIAL MATTER. ALL THAT IS THEN NEEDED IS TIME -- ALSO FIRMLY ESTABLISHED FROM THIS POINT ON -- TO ALLOW THE SUPERSYMETRIC MATTER-ANTIMATTER ANIHILATIONS TO TAKE PLACE AND NEUTRINO EVOLUTIONS TO RELATIVISTIC MATTER. ANOTHER 300,000,000 YEARS (OR SO) AND THE FORCES NOW SEPARATED AND THEIR DOMAINS WELL ESTABLISHED. EVENTUALLY YOU HAVE PROTONS WHICH HAVE ACQUIRED ELECTRONS TO FORM THE PROTONIC MATERIAL FOR THE FIRST STARS AND THE REST OF THE STORY IS PRETTY WELL DETERMINED.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 11-27-2008 9:44 AM DevilsAdvocate has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by cavediver, posted 11-28-2008 2:32 AM jchardy has not yet responded

    
jchardy
Member (Idle past 2570 days)
Posts: 85
Joined: 11-24-2008


Message 100 of 159 (489543)
11-28-2008 2:22 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by V-Bird
11-25-2008 11:30 PM


Re: Disclaimer... re: Epansion/Inflation
"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."

I AGREE. IT IS THE DYNAMICS OF THE PROCESS THAT EVOLVE THE GEV ENERGIES AT THE INTERFACE. HOWEVER, THE QUANTUM-EFFECT WITHIN THE PROPOSED ENVIRONMENT WOULD HAVE TO EVOLVE EXCEEDINGLY RAPIDLY, PERHAPS IN MICROSECONDS. THE CURVE WOULD BE EXCEEDINGLY STEEP ONLY IF THE DIFFERENTIAL WAS OF SUFFICIENT MAGNITUDE. THAT STATISTICAL TENSOR SHOULD BE CALCULABLE BUT WE WILL PROBABLY HAVE TO MAKE A TON OF ASSUMPTIONS. THE "OTHER SIDE" OF THE NEW SPACE-TIME INTERFACE (I THINK) SHOULD BE ABSOLUTE ZERO. IF THAT IS A LOGICAL "KNOWN" AND WE "KNOW" FROM OTHER DATA THAT THE EVOLVED TEMPERATURE ACHIEVED AT THE POINT OF INFLATION WILL BE 10 to the 18th GEV, THEN WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO DETERMINE THE MINIMAL GRADIENTS AND TIME FACTORS NECESSARY AT THE INTERFACE. WHATEVER, I REMAIN CONVINCED THAT NONEQUILIBRIUM THERMODYNAMICS INTERACTING WITH CHAOS ARE EXCEEDINGLY IMPORTANT IN THIS PROCESS FROM "THE BEGINNING".


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by V-Bird, posted 11-28-2008 7:37 AM jchardy has not yet responded

    
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1814 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 101 of 159 (489544)
11-28-2008 2:32 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by jchardy
11-28-2008 1:37 AM


Re: Is the inflationary model of the universe true?
WELL, THERE IS EITHER SOMETHING (WHICH WE CANNOT NAME) OR AT THE VERY LEAST A BOUNDARY WHICH NOW LIES AT THE MARGIN OF OUR CURRENT UNIVERSE.

Neither. If the Universe is infinite, this is trivially true. If the Universe is not infinite, it is compact and has no boundary (similarly for the surface of a sphere)

ONCE INFLATION BEGAN, THERE WOULD BE NO "ZERO SPACE" AND ONCE THE SINGULARITY BEGAN REACTING (INFLATING) AT THE INTERFACE, MORPHING TO PROGRESSIVE ENTROPY WOULD COMMENCE. THUS ENORMOUS ENERGY ADMIXED IN CHAOS WITH FOCAL HARMONICS GUIDED BY NON-EQUILIBRIUM THERMODYNAMICS WOULD INEVITABLY PROGRESS TO "THE BITS AND PIECES" (STRINGS AND MEMBRANE "COMPONENTS") OF PRIMORDIAL MATTER.

Meaningless word salad.

NOTHER 300,000,000 YEARS (OR SO) AND THE FORCES NOW SEPARATED AND THEIR DOMAINS WELL ESTABLISHED. EVENTUALLY YOU HAVE PROTONS

Protons formed in the first microsecond of the Universe. Neutral hydrogen appeared around 400,000 years later in the period known as recombination, causing the Universe to become transparent to light. The very first photons to move freely through the Universe are still seen today as the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by jchardy, posted 11-28-2008 1:37 AM jchardy has not yet responded

  
V-Bird
Member (Idle past 3755 days)
Posts: 211
From: Great Britain
Joined: 03-22-2004


Message 102 of 159 (489554)
11-28-2008 7:37 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by jchardy
11-28-2008 2:22 AM


Re: Disclaimer... re: Epansion/Inflation
You are correct, the internal ramping of energies is the clue to how the cusp operates, the cusp is similar to a huge accelerator, where on earth we find greater and greater energies as we tear apart the smallest items, it is this that allows for perpetual expansion and the perpetual production of energy from what appears to be a finite amount.

The definition of 'absolute zero' is also quite suitable for the void, we define it [correctly] as zero motion, and of were observe anything we need motion to get that info back to us, so we can't ever observe absolute zero and nothing within the cosmos is truly stationary, outside the cosmos in the greater universe there is nothing and 'nothing' has no motion [naturally] so it is at absolute zero, the cusp is very hot but it is not radiating our way all the radiation is pulled by that huge vacuum into the void, that is why the cusp is not some shatteringly bright boundary, it is also confirmation that the greater universe [the void] is empty and always has been.

The void is the 'engine' of this huge accelerator and the energy of the cosmos expanded from the previous point of the cusp the subjects of further tearing apart to form the same low grade fuel for the ongoing reaction, self-feeding and perpetual.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by jchardy, posted 11-28-2008 2:22 AM jchardy has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 11-28-2008 9:47 AM V-Bird has responded

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 1272 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 103 of 159 (489561)
11-28-2008 8:57 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by V-Bird
11-27-2008 11:32 AM


Re: cont.
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
This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by V-Bird, posted 11-27-2008 11:32 AM V-Bird has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by V-Bird, posted 11-28-2008 11:26 AM DevilsAdvocate has not yet responded

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 1272 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 104 of 159 (489564)
11-28-2008 9:23 AM
Reply to: Message 98 by johnfolton
11-27-2008 9:16 PM


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
This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by johnfolton, posted 11-27-2008 9:16 PM johnfolton has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by johnfolton, posted 11-28-2008 1:32 PM DevilsAdvocate has responded

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 105 of 159 (489568)
11-28-2008 9:44 AM


Cluttered thread
For myself, I'm leaving this thread as a clutter of junk ideas. It didn't start off so well anyway.

I suggest that those who want a serious discussion work in other BB&C threads and I'll try to keep the flakes like JF and VB out of those.

OK?


Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by V-Bird, posted 11-28-2008 11:38 AM AdminNosy has not yet responded

  
Prev1
...
56
7
891011Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019