|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,914 Year: 4,171/9,624 Month: 1,042/974 Week: 1/368 Day: 1/11 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: COSMOLOGY | |||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1285 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
quote: If all you have for evidence is a "discussion video," you have answered my question to my satisfaction. I do not know for a fact that Hubble was an agnostic; I've never found the matter of sufficient importance to look into it. However, even if I were to assume arguendo that he was, that wouldn't be nearly enough for me to conclude that any of the ridiculous thoughts or motives you attribute to him were in fact his. Unless you have some actual evidence in response, I shall assume that your claims are as devoid of foundation as nearly everything else you have ever said in this forum. Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
johnfolton  Suspended Member (Idle past 5622 days) Posts: 2024 Joined: |
If all you have for evidence is a "discussion video," you have answered my question to my satisfaction. The video explains Hubbles willful ignorance where the facts support the earth is the center by the redshift. P.S. Just watch the entire video then ask yourself the question if you believe the earth is the center of the universe or every point the center of the universe in respect to the stretching out of the heavens. Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1285 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
quote: I'm not going to waste my time watching a video. I am asking for evidence. A video is not evidence, unless it happens to be a video of Hubble actually saying the things you attribute to him. Please advise if this is the case. In the absence of such a claim, I am confident in dismissing your statements as the sort of delusional raving we are used to from you, and I consider this somewhat off topic discussion closed. Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4220 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
Its a known fact that Hubble was an agnostic. right? So what? What has his religious beliefs have to do with his scientific expertise? Why would he even think that he was in the center of the universe or not? What does it matter? would think that he is in the center just because he sees stars & other space phenomena in all directions, appearing equally distant. Whether we are in the center or not cannot be proven or disproven since all we can see is the visible universe ~13 billion light years in radius. How much bigger the universe is in unknown since light from here has not reached us yet. This would also give creedence to all points being the center. Edited by bluescat48, : added sentence There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
johnfolton  Suspended Member (Idle past 5622 days) Posts: 2024 Joined: |
I'm not going to waste my time watching a video. I am asking for evidence. A video is not evidence, unless it happens to be a video of Hubble actually saying the things you attribute to him. Please advise if this is the case. In the absence of such a claim, I am confident in dismissing your statements as the sort of delusional raving we are used to from you, and I consider this somewhat off topic discussion closed. When you watch the video watch for where Gentry quotes Stephen Hawkins agreeing that the earth could be the center of the universe.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4220 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
When you watch the video watch for where Gentry quotes Stephen Hawkins agreeing that the earth could be the center of the universe. could & is are 2 different things. The earth could be the center but so could a galaxy a billion light years away. There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
johnfolton  Suspended Member (Idle past 5622 days) Posts: 2024 Joined: |
Whether we are in the center or not cannot be proven or disproven since all we can see is the visible universe It appears there are two big bang theories. right? One says the heavens were created from a common center where galaxies were stretched outward and the other where the heavens were created where the galaxies are not moving but nothing is expanding between the galaxies. right? P.S. Watch the videos and then decide which you believe to be true. Enjoy, jf Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given. Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jchardy Member (Idle past 4430 days) Posts: 85 Joined: |
Thank you all!! I am saving all answers but NosyNed’s response was the most helpful. I’ll get around to reading everyone’s comments subsequently.
Other topics I would like to explore and discuss include those relating to the ORIGIN OF MATTER out of the Big Bang. This is my major interest: 1) the role of CHAOS and NON-EQUILIBRIUM THERMODYNAMICS in the evolution of initial quantum particles at the Big Bang. It is my personal belief that this dynamic was the most plausible means by which pure energy could have rapidly evolved to matter formation. Though supersymmetry would suggest that most if not all the initial symmetrically charged. matter-antimatter should have self-anihilated leaving room for my last speculation: 2) the role of new matter-antimatter mutual annihilation at the Big Bang with the evolution of nucleosynthesis/lepton-hadron formation out of neutrino related dynamics (oscillation). JCHARDY
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jchardy Member (Idle past 4430 days) Posts: 85 Joined: |
Thank you all!! I am saving all answers but NosyNed’s response was the most helpful. I’ll get around to reading everyone’s comments subsequently.
Other topics I would like to explore and discuss include those relating to the ORIGIN OF MATTER out of the Big Bang. This is my major interest: 1) the role of CHAOS and NON-EQUILIBRIUM THERMODYNAMICS in the evolution of initial quantum particles at the Big Bang. It is my personal belief that this dynamic was the most plausible means by which pure energy could have rapidly evolved to matter formation. Though supersymmetry would suggest that most if not all the initial symmetrically charged. matter-antimatter should have self-anihilated leaving room for my last speculation: 2) the role of new matter-antimatter mutual annihilation at the Big Bang with the evolution of nucleosynthesis/lepton-hadron formation out of neutrino related dynamics (oscillation). JCHARDY |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3674 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
V-Bird Member (Idle past 5615 days) Posts: 211 From: Great Britain Joined: |
The cosmos is simply expanding faster than all the objects within it, so everything* appears to be diverging spreading out in 3D.
The only proviso is that * there will right across the entire cosmos in whatever local relative proximity some 'bits' that will blue shift toward you. The fundamental thing is that word 'relative', it means that sitting on some far off planet you may indeed observe some 'things' that are blue shifted but to me sat here some distance form you all in your area appears redshifted. Relativity is not an ordinary word, in this context it allows the cognizent to make sense from something that appears to be non-sense, it is one of the few words that is a key to a tricky mental lock. I'm not sure I've helped or added to all the replies you've already had but please stick with it, to become aware of the truth of relativity is the first great hurdle and its there contiually holding up almost every other one, so grasping and deeply comprehending its full meaning is essential. V
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jchardy Member (Idle past 4430 days) Posts: 85 Joined: |
Your points are well taken. I have posted a general response as well. This has been a very educational exchange for me.
My general response will be :All: 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”. 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 and its general contents, but in most of the universe, 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. Am I incorrect in what I state above?? JC HARDY
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2325 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Hey Jchardy. Welcome to EvC!
I feel I should point something out. Cavediver has done this too, but you seem to have missed it.
jchardy writes:
Inflation is NOT the same as expansion, the inflation happened in the past, only a few seconds after the big bang. Expansion is what the universe is doing now.
I now see that when we speak of “the expanding” (or “inflating”) Universe, 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 and its general contents, but in most of the universe, 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.
I could be wrong here (in which case I expect CD or Son to point this out). But to my understanding the Higgs Boson has NOTHING to do with he expansion of the universe. It is the particle that explains how otherwise massless elementary particles cause matter to have mass. And in that roll it would have a direct effect on anything in the universe. Hope this helped. Edited by Huntard, : spellings I hunt for the truth
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jchardy Member (Idle past 4430 days) Posts: 85 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.) Understood. Good point! Wait a minute! If Galaxies aren’t “large”, what is?! Clusters of galaxies and megaclusters of clusters. Also an excellent point! Hubble’s observations - subsequently confirmed”did indicate all galaxies There you go again with that word "all". Did he show that Andromeda was moving away? Actually I don’t believe Hubble put a “limitation” on which galaxies were receding. I thought his implication was that all were receding relative to each other dependent upon distance from one another, but I concede the point that this is not really important. 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. Exactly! This was the “great epiphany” to me in this discussion. I had never understood the “compartmentalization” of mass/gravity effects in the general concept of “inflation-expansion” and this concept is pivotal. 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. SIC.t is incorrect to refer to the present expansion of the Universe as inflation, and the inflationary model is specific to the inflationary period. My general current conceptualization is as follows: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”. 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 and its general contents, but in most of the universe, 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. Am I incorrect in anything I state above?? JCHARDY
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jchardy Member (Idle past 4430 days) Posts: 85 Joined: |
I still have trouble with the semantics of "inflation" vs "expansion" since they are substantially synonyms EXCEPT that "inflation" is a theory and "expansion" is a verb, but in Cosmology, I now concede that this is an important differentiation.
As to the Higgs boson: The mass effect is certainly the theoretical "truth to be confirmed". But from Greene's FABRIC OF THE COSMOS I got the clear impression that the Higg's bosonic effect emanating from the process that was "THE BIG BANG" (or quantum rupture or whatever) was the source of the initial massive inflation of the early universe and since the concept of VACUUM ENERGY and DARK ENERGY seemed to be used almost interchangably with each other, I came to assume that there was a clear relationship. Is this another of my misconceptions?? JCHARDY
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024