Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 53 (9179 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Anig
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,059 Year: 5,316/9,624 Month: 341/323 Week: 185/160 Day: 2/19 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Universe Race
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3750 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 102 of 410 (457270)
02-22-2008 4:34 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by CTD
02-22-2008 2:48 AM


Re: Pull
Are you still here??? No reply to Message 25? I left you with plenty of questions... oh, I forgot, you don't answer questions, do you... might damage your credibility
it is current practice to claim that the Law of Conservation of Energy does not apply on "cosmological scales".
Current? There is no global law of conservation of energy in General Relativity, and that was published in, oh, 1915. Once again, you seem to have a problem with being around 100 years out of date.
They need an exemption to one of the best established laws in physical science
By this, I take it you mean: "I really don't understand General Relativity, so I'll just try to pretend it's an 'exemption' to those bits of physics of which I do have a meagre grasp."
Perhaps you would care to explain how you could have a global conservation of energy in General Relativity?
In order to understand the balloon analogy, you have to understand that it's a representation of 4+ dimensions, and our 3 dimensions are represented by the 2-dimensional surface
No, it is a representation of the 4 dimensions of space-time, and our 3 "spatial" dimensions are represented by the 1-dimensional circumferences of the balloon, the 2nd dimension of the 2d surface of the balloon being time.
If the extra dimensions actually existed, there would be no problem building 4D, 5D, etc. models.
So, you are either suggesting that
1) when extra dimensions are suggested by speculative physics, you are ignorant of the fact that these dimensions would obviously be at a sub-scale to be unobservable without massive effort.
2) you are deliberately misrepresenting what you do know about these speculative extra dimensions, and just Lying for Jesus.
Which is it, CTD?
As long as I'm letting cats out of bags, here are a couple more great questions:
1) How much did the universe expand during the first phase?
2) What keeps dark energy from ripping apart galaxies, clusters, & even our solar system?
3) What's the difference between an aether and a fabric of space?
Yes, all good questions with fascinating answers. What's your take on these?
I'd provide the answers, but if I did they'd just call me uninformed or dishonest.
Oh, you're not goint to answer? What a surprise. You seem to have a record of that here at EvC, don't you... What was that about refusing to provide an ID hypothesis, despite knowing full well what it was???
If they're sticking to the old answer to your question, and space itself was limited to the size of the bangseed (size varies from model to model), they actually have a dud on their hands.
Really? Oh, this could be good... waiting...
Space isn't just space; it's "spacetime". With time confined, no bang could occur.
oh, it is good
You really have no clue, do you... please keep this up, as I'm sure it's not just me that is gaining great delight from your little gems. What really makes them, is the way you say them with such authority and confidence. I can just picture you in a jester's outfit, ringing your bells as you think them up.
When we are talking about the size of the space around the big bang, we are talking about SPACE. Not space-time. Time runs 'orthoganally' (in a psuedo-Lorentzian sense for nit-pickers) to this space, from T=0 into the future. HOW CAN YOU NOT KNOW THIS? Either you are,
1) totally ignorant of this blatently simple point,
or
2) deliberately misrepresenting what you do know about this, and just Lying for Jesus.
Which is it, CTD?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by CTD, posted 02-22-2008 2:48 AM CTD has not replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3750 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 103 of 410 (457271)
02-22-2008 4:40 AM
Reply to: Message 98 by Blue Jay
02-22-2008 12:31 AM


Re: Pull
This is the real point everyone's been trying to make, I think. The entire "universe" at T=0 was the size of the pea. There was nothing outside of this pea. There was no where else for the "stuff" inside to go, because there was no "outside." No force was necessary to hold the "stuff" inside the universe then, just as no force is required to hold you inside the universe now.
Nicely put Although, as Zucadragon correctly points out, we are being a bit loose with T=0 here, and are really talking about T>~0. Son Goku (a fellow cosmologist) brought up the size-of-a-pea in an earlier explanation to ICANT, and ICANT has stuck with this.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Blue Jay, posted 02-22-2008 12:31 AM Blue Jay has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by ICANT, posted 02-22-2008 2:15 PM cavediver has replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3750 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 108 of 410 (457305)
02-22-2008 12:03 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by CTD
02-22-2008 7:41 AM


or present evidence
I have done so... I have asked you to consider the Virgo Supercluster...
Now I admit, I do take on faith that the Copernican Principle applies to all other superclusters.
I understand with very, very few exceptions all other galaxies are observed to be moving away from us.
Those few exceptions being the entire Virgo Supercluster - By "us" I assume you are referring to the entire Virgo Supercluster? If not, please explain.
In a 3D universe, that's consistent with us being at the center.
By "us" I assume you are referring to the entire Virgo Supercluster? If not, please explain.
Let's just go back to my first post to you:
CTD writes:
Worse still, if the universe has a center, all observations are consistent with Earth being at or close to it.
Earth??? Really? Or do you mean the Solar System, or the Galaxy? Or the Local Group? Or perhaps the entire Virgo Supercluster?
Let's just say for sake of argument that the VS is the centre of the Universe... now do you claim that the Earth has a central special location within the VS?
Can you reply to this point now?
The only workaround is to claim there is no center. But all finite objects have a center.
Really? Where is the centre of S1 or S2 or T2 ?
But it's only due to the circumstance that the boundaries of the universe are unknown that allows the claim of no center.
That comment seems to reveal an extreme ignorance of basic relativistic cosmology. Needless to say, it is completly incorrect.
Were the boundaries known, there would be a center.
And what would this boundary look like? What would space look like in the vicinity of this boundary?
f you were handy I'd invite you to accompany me to the local library & we'd see just how many "science" books feature a "physical" big bang.
Here's a thing - scientists don't read books on their science - they write and publish papers, and fellow scientists in that field then read those papers. Care to reference any published cosmological papers that refer to the big bang as a physical explosion? No?
Is rejecting a story that violates well-established laws of science arrogant?
I'm sorry, what is a "well-established law"? I work with evidence based theories. If the most successful theories in science demonstrate that some "laws" don't always apply, guess which is at fault?
Is rejecting a story that includes multiple things which cannot be observed arrogant?
If that same theory includes multiple things that can be observed, then yes, of course it is - unless you have good evidential reasons for rejecting it - reasons that just seem to elude virtually the entire cosmological community...
Or is it rather somewhat more arrogant to accept and promote such a story just because it fits well with godless philosophies?
You do know that the reason the big bang was so badly received in its early days was becasue of how it smacked of creationism?
And are you describing the millions of Christians who accept scientific explanations as God's methodology as following a godless philosophy? Really? Can one not be born again if one accepts the big bang cosmology?
How arrogant is it to belittle anyone and everyone who rejects such a story?
I don't know - I'll let you know when I get to everyone...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by CTD, posted 02-22-2008 7:41 AM CTD has not replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3750 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 111 of 410 (457315)
02-22-2008 2:39 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by ICANT
02-22-2008 2:15 PM


Re: Pea size
Whatever that something at T=O was it is said to be about the size of a pea.
Look, let's tighten this up before this gets out of hand. No, the Universe has already expanded immensely before it reaches the size of a pea. It's just that by time it reaches this size, we have a good idea of what is going on.
At the size of a pea, the Universe is already enormous compared to what it was. In fact, at the size of a pea, the Universe has already finished most of its expansion - the pea to the size of the Universe today is nothing compared to the expansion that took it up to the size of a pea... (pea to today is expansion of ~1027 times. Planck scale to pea is ~1032 times)
If it was compressed by any means, this compression had to be released in order for everything to take off at the speed of light.
There was no compression. The Universe starts in this state.
There is no release of compression - the Universe expands because it is just following the shape of the four dimensional space-time, which gets wider as we move to larger time coordinates.
And the expansion occurs immeasurably faster than the speed of light.
Then how would you get it up to the speed of light?
Nothing is moving so there is no speed to get up to... space is simply expanding. The almsot perfectly uniform distribution of energy across the Universe simply becomes less and less dense as space expands.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by ICANT, posted 02-22-2008 2:15 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by ICANT, posted 02-22-2008 3:05 PM cavediver has replied
 Message 297 by Buzsaw, posted 03-07-2008 8:39 PM cavediver has replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3750 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 113 of 410 (457320)
02-22-2008 3:28 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by ICANT
02-22-2008 3:05 PM


Re: Expanding Pea
What caused space to start to expand?
Hold a globe in your hands. Point your finger to the North pole. Trace your finger down one of the lines of longitude. Notice how the circles of latitude expand as you go down? What makes them expand?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by ICANT, posted 02-22-2008 3:05 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by ICANT, posted 02-22-2008 4:13 PM cavediver has not replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3750 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 123 of 410 (457339)
02-22-2008 5:58 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by Rahvin
02-22-2008 5:34 PM


Re: Time
I would say from this post and your other one that you have an excellent understanding - enjoying your explanations

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Rahvin, posted 02-22-2008 5:34 PM Rahvin has not replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3750 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 128 of 410 (457355)
02-22-2008 8:12 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by ICANT
02-22-2008 8:02 PM


Re: God Analogy
ICANT, why are we bothering saying anything to you when you do not listen to what you are being told?
Several posts back:
cavediver writes:
And the expansion occurs immeasurably faster than the speed of light.
ICANT writes:
Then how would you get it up to the speed of light?
cavediver writes:
Nothing is moving so there is no speed to get up to... space is simply expanding. The almsot perfectly uniform distribution of energy across the Universe simply becomes less and less dense as space expands.
And yet here you are, repeating this rubbish:
All of a sudden it begins to expand at light speed.
What trigered this expansion?
What propelled this expansion from zero to 186,282.397 MPH instantly?
Can you explain this?
THE RATE OF EXPANSION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SPEED OF LIGHT

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by ICANT, posted 02-22-2008 8:02 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by Chiroptera, posted 02-22-2008 8:31 PM cavediver has not replied
 Message 131 by ICANT, posted 02-22-2008 8:58 PM cavediver has not replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3750 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 170 of 410 (457794)
02-25-2008 3:37 PM
Reply to: Message 169 by Son Goku
02-25-2008 3:28 PM


Re: The singularity is not real.
Please, for the sake of my sanity, do not ask questions in the next post which assume the singularity is a real physical object.
Hey, SG, here's a clip from post 12 in the previous thread, now some 570 posts ago...
cavediver writes:
The singularity is the breakdown in the physics of classical General Relativity at T=0 in the Big Bang cosmology.
Strictly, the singularity does not exist as it is simply the artifact of inapplicable mathematics (as quantum General Relativity is required at this point.)
570 post later, if ICANT hasn't taken the hint by now, I'm not sure you've enough time before heat death to successfully get the point across.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by Son Goku, posted 02-25-2008 3:28 PM Son Goku has not replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3750 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 245 of 410 (458480)
02-29-2008 8:45 AM
Reply to: Message 244 by tesla
02-29-2008 8:18 AM


Re: Truth and consequences
my friend, what is being ignored is the T=0 energy
Then perhaps you had better explain what you mean by the term 'energy'...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by tesla, posted 02-29-2008 8:18 AM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 246 by tesla, posted 02-29-2008 9:11 AM cavediver has replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3750 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 253 of 410 (458596)
03-01-2008 4:45 AM
Reply to: Message 251 by Vacate
02-29-2008 11:36 PM


Re: The heart of it? 5 questions.
tesla writes:
string theory is the most abused power of science in accepting unprovable, illogical, theory, just because they cant figure it out.
Given my grade school understanding of the math involved in the theory I will say: based upon my lack of understanding, I agree with you per se.
then you look as idiotic as these creationists. Simply admitting to a lack of understanding, before making such ridiculous and ill-informed accusations, is no defense. Perhaps what you meant to say was "based upon my lack of understanding, I'm in no position to offer a personal opinion. However, I have read that some theoretical physicists are highly skeptical of string theory, and some theoretical physicists are strongly supportive."
You are claiming that it is necessary for there to be an "outside interaction" that resulted in the Big Bang. Its a logical deduction in that all events within the universe are affected by interactions with other bodies/energies/etc. I think that is a fair conclusion.
No, it is not; it is a classic fallacy of composition. The Big bang is NOT an event within the Universe...
Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by Vacate, posted 02-29-2008 11:36 PM Vacate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 254 by Vacate, posted 03-01-2008 5:21 AM cavediver has not replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3750 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 255 of 410 (458599)
03-01-2008 5:22 AM
Reply to: Message 246 by tesla
02-29-2008 9:11 AM


Re: cavediver
if your good at math you'll be able to see the truth in it.
The problem is, tesla, that I see no maths. All I see are words. And physics at this level is not conducted with words, just mathematics. Words are used to explain the mathematical concepts to interested laymen, but that is not where the knowledge and understanding lies. So far, all I see are jumbles of words mixed with confused concepts and reasoning. If you wish to show me, then show me the maths. Hopefully my mathemtaical skill will be up to the challenge...
As an introductory example, with small explicit mathematical content, here is the latest work on the no-boundary proposal that simply states that you need no outside influence at T=0. As theoretical physics papers go, this is very sparse on the mathematics.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by tesla, posted 02-29-2008 9:11 AM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 257 by tesla, posted 03-01-2008 8:11 AM cavediver has not replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3750 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 299 of 410 (459493)
03-08-2008 5:47 AM
Reply to: Message 297 by Buzsaw
03-07-2008 8:39 PM


Re: Pea size
I believe CT posed the point that such a high rate of initial expansion would effect an unimaginable amount of inertia with nothing outside of the expansion to slow the rate of the inertia driven expansion.
No, there is no inertia. Nothing is moving. Space is simply expanding. The ultra-expansion of inflation is driven by a field, very like the dark energy. In fact, the dark energy we talk about could very well be (in part) a remnant of the inflation-driving field. Both cause an expansion of the Universe over and above that we would expect from the simple matter distribution of the Universe. The inflation stopped because the strength of the inflating field died away, caused itself in part by the extreme expansion it had effected upon the Universe - you can think of the inflation diluting the effect of the field.
Can you do me a favour? You quote me in your post, but the typesetting has gone awry. Where it says:
(pea to today is expansion of ~1027 times. Planck scale to pea is ~1032 times)
can you please change it to
(pea to today is expansion of ~10^27 times. Planck scale to pea is ~10^32 times)
Thanks

This message is a reply to:
 Message 297 by Buzsaw, posted 03-07-2008 8:39 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 301 by tesla, posted 03-08-2008 7:08 AM cavediver has not replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3750 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 300 of 410 (459494)
03-08-2008 5:57 AM
Reply to: Message 294 by ICANT
03-07-2008 6:29 PM


Re: Re-Inflation
Am I missing something if I conclude that with a hole that size in it the universe is not homogeneous?
At that scale the Universe is not homogeneous. We already know this. At scales that matter, the Universe is extremely homogeneous, as is shown by CMBR.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 294 by ICANT, posted 03-07-2008 6:29 PM ICANT has not replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3750 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 333 of 410 (459659)
03-09-2008 10:25 AM
Reply to: Message 329 by Zucadragon
03-09-2008 7:28 AM


Re: Pea size
Yes, and I'm not sure why Fallacycop is objecting to the word 'surface' - that's eactly the word we use. Though we are dealing with a 3d surface, not a 2d surface. The only correction is that stars are gravitationally bound into galaxies and are thus unaffected by the expansion. Similarly, the galaxies are bound into clusters - it is only once you rech the scale of clusters that the expansion starts to become apparent.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 329 by Zucadragon, posted 03-09-2008 7:28 AM Zucadragon has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 335 by tesla, posted 03-09-2008 12:29 PM cavediver has replied
 Message 336 by fallacycop, posted 03-09-2008 12:36 PM cavediver has replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3750 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 337 of 410 (459680)
03-09-2008 1:02 PM
Reply to: Message 336 by fallacycop
03-09-2008 12:36 PM


Re: Pea size
We emphasise the word 'surface' to signal that the analogies do not use the interior of the balloon or the globe. This is intimately connected with the mathematics of topology, where we refer to spheres as surfaces and balls as solids. For example, S2 is the 2-sphere, what the layman would call the surface of a ball. It has no boundary, no edge. B2 is the 2-ball, and is the common idea of a ball - a solid object. It does have a boundary, which is S2. We write dS2=0 and dB2=S2, where d is the boundary operator. It is a beautiful result of topology that a boundary of an object itself has no boundary, as seen in this example. Thus d2=0. We see the same in lower dimensions. S1 is the 1-sphere or circle where-as B1 is the 1-Ball or disc. Again, the boundary of the disc is the circle and the circle has no boundary.
If the Universe is closed, then space has the topology of S3, which again has no boundary.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 336 by fallacycop, posted 03-09-2008 12:36 PM fallacycop 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