Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9159 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: K.Rose
Post Volume: Total: 915,012 Year: 2,269/9,624 Month: 114/1,588 Week: 43/267 Day: 3/40 Hour: 1/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The accelerating expanding universe
subbie
Member (Idle past 1230 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 76 of 149 (611185)
04-06-2011 2:40 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by cavediver
04-06-2011 2:29 PM


Re: A general question for anyone
Ok. I'm familiar with the Cosmological Principle, I've just never heard it called the Copernican Mediocrity Principle. Thanks for the explanation.
Now, can you explain in words of one syllable or less why it doesn't apply to our temporal position?

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by cavediver, posted 04-06-2011 2:29 PM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by cavediver, posted 04-06-2011 3:50 PM subbie has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22294
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 77 of 149 (611187)
04-06-2011 2:52 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Alfred Maddenstein
04-06-2011 12:34 PM


Re: Relativity
Alfred Maddenstein writes:
Thank you, for your very reasonable exposition of General Relativity. Unfortunately I do not see how from anything either Einstein or yourself stated may follow anything that would require violating the necessity of the Copernican mediocrity principle being applied temporally. As it is the principle is spatially honoured by the contemporary cosmological model. Given the unity of space and time this situation strikes me as a contradiction.
Each temporal application of the Copernican mediocrity principle implies that Einsteinian relativity is spatially unified into a contradiction.
All that you said about the free falling bodies constituting the inertial frames is correct. The universal flat calendar hardly follows from any of that.
Orthogonal inertial bodies constitute a calendar framework, and from this the behavior of free falling bodies follows naturally.
What it may imply philosophically in terms of motion is only that the speed of light is the speed of time itself. This is the speed of universal motion but in the same breath it is the measure of the universal rest. That is why the velocity of light is as constant as the now is unchanging while serving as the rest frame to the changes moving past it.
Note that if the speed of rest is the measure of time and universal rest is the measure of light then the true explanation for why the speed of light is constant in moving rest frames lies within the philosophical implications of motion.
Mass, energy, gravity and acceleration are all acting as the brakes on that speed. The differential of masses creates the all differential of relative velocities below that universal speed of time as well as the very opposition of motion to rest. In that sense motion is different bodies settling their mass differential. The differential is never settled once and for all so the motion is endless.
Equal application of acceleration differentially retards speed and is a result of differential but opposed motions, but in a time rather than a spatial sense, and this is why masses act upon energy at universal oppositions.
That does not imply though any single linear direction of that motion while the very word expansion suggests an outward uniformity of it.
Naturally this implies that an inward differential would contract motion linearly but in all directions.
Nor the possibility of space itself moving independently at super-superluminal velocities follows from the strict unity of space, time and light being all but aspects of one and the same. What relativity suggests is that space, on the contrary, may not possibly overtake the light in that fashion. If it is understood that the speed of light is the speed of time at rest, it becomes abundantly clear that the space rushing ahead of light would imply the space going faster than time and that it must be forming loops around itself which is absurd and is not what is being observed.
Still, the unity of light is contrary to that of time only at super-nonluminal velocities. Space and time at other velocities are disunified and spiral in toward one another.
Now if you take the first letter of each of my sentences, including this one, they comprise the scrambled letters of a word characterizing your posts thus far.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 04-06-2011 12:34 PM Alfred Maddenstein has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3619 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 78 of 149 (611199)
04-06-2011 3:50 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by subbie
04-06-2011 2:40 PM


Re: A general question for anyone
Now, can you explain in words of one syllable or less why it doesn't apply to our temporal position?
Hmmm, that's a big question, and it's difficult to know where to jump in. I suppose the simple answer is that the Universe is not translation symmetric in the time direction. In other words, it looks different at different times. The stars that existed before the Sun were of different composition, and the generation before that were even more different. As you go further back in time, the Universe appears denser and hotter. If you look back close to the 14 billion years, the Universe suddenly becomes opaque.
Consequently, we can't say that we could be at any time in the Universe, because the Universe wasn't suitable for our existence at those prior times. It took nearly 10 billion years to have the heavy elements in adequate abundance for us to coming into being. We are thus forced into considering abiogenesis. In a Universe that perpetually looks like the Universe today, life could have always existed!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by subbie, posted 04-06-2011 2:40 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Jon, posted 04-06-2011 3:57 PM cavediver has replied
 Message 80 by subbie, posted 04-06-2011 4:03 PM cavediver has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 79 of 149 (611201)
04-06-2011 3:57 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by cavediver
04-06-2011 3:50 PM


Re: A general question for anyone
Consequently, we can't say that we could be at any time in the Universe, because the Universe wasn't suitable for our existence at those prior times. It took nearly 10 billion years to have the heavy elements in adequate abundance for us to coming into being. We are thus forced into considering abiogenesis. In a Universe that perpetually looks like the Universe today, life could have always existed!
Wouldn't we have to know when the Universe were going to 'end', so to speak, before deciding whether or not our position in time is unique? Can we know if we're at the beginning, middle, or end without knowing the length of the line?
Or... am I entirely misunderstanding the concepts in question?
Jon

Check out No webpage found at provided URL: Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by cavediver, posted 04-06-2011 3:50 PM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by cavediver, posted 04-06-2011 4:47 PM Jon has replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1230 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 80 of 149 (611204)
04-06-2011 4:03 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by cavediver
04-06-2011 3:50 PM


Re: A general question for anyone
I would chide you for using many words of more than one syllable, but I think I was able to follow you. Mostly. The universe is kind of like a bundt cake. We could be anywhere in the cake, there's nothing unique about our position in the cake. But we couldn't be in the cake an hour ago, because it wasn't a cake then, it was cake batter.
So, if we were in a steady state universe, then the Cosmological Principle could conceivably apply to time?

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by cavediver, posted 04-06-2011 3:50 PM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by cavediver, posted 04-06-2011 4:18 PM subbie has replied
 Message 85 by Michael, posted 04-06-2011 5:01 PM subbie has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3619 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 81 of 149 (611207)
04-06-2011 4:18 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by subbie
04-06-2011 4:03 PM


Re: A general question for anyone
But we couldn't be in the cake an hour ago, because it wasn't a cake then, it was cake batter.
Exactly
So, if we were in a steady state universe, then the Cosmological Principle could conceivably apply to time?
Yes, this is precisely what Hoyle wanted. He was not alone. Many cosmologists were not impressed with a theory that smacked of creationism, especially as one of its proponents, Lemaitre, was a Catholic priest!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by subbie, posted 04-06-2011 4:03 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by subbie, posted 04-06-2011 4:23 PM cavediver has not replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1230 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 82 of 149 (611209)
04-06-2011 4:23 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by cavediver
04-06-2011 4:18 PM


Re: A general question for anyone
Wonderful! Thanks for the explanation.

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by cavediver, posted 04-06-2011 4:18 PM cavediver has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3619 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 83 of 149 (611215)
04-06-2011 4:47 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by Jon
04-06-2011 3:57 PM


Re: A general question for anyone
Can we know if we're at the beginning, middle, or end without knowing the length of the line?
It's a valid point. But at the moment, we seem to be in a semi-infinite Universe - past finite, future infinite. The "sweet spot" in time for life is the last few billion years, and will continue for many billions of billions of years. Yet with the continuing and ever increasing expansion, the encroaching heat-death or cold-death will eventually be reached, and the Universe will remain in that state ad infinitum. So no matter how long the temporal sweet-spot, it is infinitesimal next to the entire Universe.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Jon, posted 04-06-2011 3:57 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by subbie, posted 04-06-2011 5:00 PM cavediver has replied
 Message 87 by Jon, posted 04-06-2011 5:15 PM cavediver has replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1230 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 84 of 149 (611218)
04-06-2011 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by cavediver
04-06-2011 4:47 PM


Re: A general question for anyone
Yet with the continuing and ever increasing expansion, the encroaching heat-death or cold-death will eventually be reached, and the Universe will remain in that state ad infinitum.
The last I heard (a few millennia ago), the idea of dark matter was being discussed as something that might add enough mass to the universe to make a Big Crunch possible. Was that just science fiction musing or is there something to that?

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by cavediver, posted 04-06-2011 4:47 PM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by cavediver, posted 04-06-2011 6:16 PM subbie has replied

  
Michael
Member (Idle past 4613 days)
Posts: 199
From: USA
Joined: 05-14-2005


Message 85 of 149 (611219)
04-06-2011 5:01 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by subbie
04-06-2011 4:03 PM


Re: A general question for anyone
Someone needs to write a book describing the universe in terms of baked products. I think it would sell well.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by subbie, posted 04-06-2011 4:03 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by subbie, posted 04-06-2011 5:05 PM Michael has not replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1230 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 86 of 149 (611220)
04-06-2011 5:05 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by Michael
04-06-2011 5:01 PM


Re: A general question for anyone
The more I thought about it, the more sense it makes to me.
The universe is a lemon poppy seed bundt cake. The poppy seeds are stars, galaxies, pimples, whatever. As the cake rises in the oven, everything gets farther away (inflation). As a bundt, it has no beginning, end, nor center.
And both a lemon poppy seed bundt cake and the universe are good a la mode.
Well, ok, it's not a perfect parallel, but I think it has possibilities.

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Michael, posted 04-06-2011 5:01 PM Michael has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 87 of 149 (611223)
04-06-2011 5:15 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by cavediver
04-06-2011 4:47 PM


Re: A general question for anyone
So no matter how long the temporal sweet-spot, it is infinitesimal next to the entire Universe.
Okay, I think I understand that part; the time-window for life is relatively short and comparatively near the start time of the Universe, making it somewhat 'unique' or 'special'... yes?
Yet with the continuing and ever increasing expansion, the encroaching heat-death or cold-death will eventually be reached, and the Universe will remain in that state ad infinitum.
Suppose there were a way to enclose a biological system and allow it to continue to function perpetually without the input of external energy potential, would this system still be able to exist after the heat-death/cold-death, or does the fact that it was built of particles from the expanding Universe mean that it too will expand and undergo the heat-death/cold-death extinction? I mean, is the expansion happening at even the most minute level, such that even creating a biological system will be impossible after the heat-death/cold-death simply because the atomic structures required for such systems would no longer exist?
Jon

Check out No webpage found at provided URL: Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by cavediver, posted 04-06-2011 4:47 PM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by subbie, posted 04-06-2011 5:25 PM Jon has replied
 Message 91 by cavediver, posted 04-06-2011 5:46 PM Jon has replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1230 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 88 of 149 (611225)
04-06-2011 5:25 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by Jon
04-06-2011 5:15 PM


Re: A general question for anyone
Suppose there were a way to enclose a biological system and allow it to continue to function perpetually without the input of external energy potential, would this system still be able to exist after the heat-death/cold-death, or does the fact that it was built of particles from the expanding Universe mean that it too will expand and undergo the heat-death/cold-death extinction? I mean, is the expansion happening at even the most minute level, such that even creating a biological system will be impossible after the heat-death/cold-death simply because the atomic structures required for such systems would no longer exist?
Let me take an arm chair scientist stab at this.
Any such system would fall prey to the creotard's favorite Law of Thermodynamics. A closed system inevitably succumbs to increasing entropy.

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Jon, posted 04-06-2011 5:15 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Jon, posted 04-06-2011 5:43 PM subbie has seen this message but not replied

  
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 3942 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 89 of 149 (611227)
04-06-2011 5:28 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by cavediver
04-06-2011 2:29 PM


Re: A general question for anyone
Thank you very much, Cravedriver for more of your smug condescension. I must advise you in advance that no alleged superiority and name-calling may impress me any. I am not so easily swayed and intimidated by such manner of conducting debate.
You have to come up with something better than simply calling anything I say confused and meaningless. When you and the rest of the people replying to me claim that anything I say is nonsense you'd need to demonstrate blow by blow how and why is that so according to your brightest lights.
The best way to show up a foolish statement is to place your own wisdom next to that foolishness letting the conclusions be drawn of themselves and by other people. That way all the independent observers may compare the nonsense to the contrasting wisdom and decide for themselves. Anything else is mere unsubstantiated boasting.
I may not be swayed and intimidated by any appeals to the prevailing majority either. I was born in Soviet Russia and seeing people lick arse of anything held to be true by the authorities in their shivering millions is no great surprise to me. I've seen the same millions drop their professed beliefs like hot potatoes picking new ones overnight. That is nothing fresh.
Also the alleged unity of opinion in cosmology is another empty claim of yours. That is your wishful thinking talking. Such does not exist but scepticism towards the standard model is growing steadily.
Otherwise, yes, contrary to the opinion expressed recently by Hawking I hold that the science has not grown out of the necessity of good and clear thinking. I reckon that if a scientific hypothesis is in conflict with anything said by Eddington that may be but a passing fever yet when it disregards Aristotle in a cavalier manner that is a good sign that it is found itself in a very, very deep shit indeed and will be presently put in the trash bin together with all the premature declarations of the sort. The man said A=A and that is better be heeded in advance when building any hypothesis.
Your bring up Hoyle again. As I told you I do not think that Hoyle had a viable and a much better explanation necessarily as the Steady State theory made the same error when it bought into the erroneous assumption of an expanding universe which I hold to be a physical impossibility.
The theory I support belongs to a different astrophysicist. The name is Alexander Franklin Mayer. That theory has no physical impossibilities in its premises and it makes good predictions that are to be tested against nature. I suggested you refuted that hypothesis in a quiet, detached and logical manner without prior prejudice, name-calling and appeals to the mainstream authorities but like a true scientist and seeker of truth for its own sake that you pretend to be. Anything less may not impress me any and I may continue to reserve my full support to his hypothesis and not yours. No squeak has been heard from you in that direction so far.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by cavediver, posted 04-06-2011 2:29 PM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by Jon, posted 04-06-2011 5:50 PM Alfred Maddenstein has not replied
 Message 93 by cavediver, posted 04-06-2011 5:56 PM Alfred Maddenstein has replied
 Message 99 by NoNukes, posted 04-06-2011 11:25 PM Alfred Maddenstein has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 90 of 149 (611231)
04-06-2011 5:43 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by subbie
04-06-2011 5:25 PM


Re: A general question for anyone
Any such system would fall prey to the creotard's favorite Law of Thermodynamics. A closed system inevitably succumbs to increasing entropy.
Well, yes, and that was the point behind the system being able to continue existing without needing external energy. But let's not get tied up in my example.
The point I was trying to get to was whether the heat-death/cold-death represents some change that prevents life from existing because there is no ability to transfer energy to that living system, or whether the physical properties of the post-death atoms themselves would make it impossible to construct, for example, a human bodynot necessarily because we couldn't energize it, but simply because the atoms needed to create it would no longer exist in the necessary form.
Jon

Check out No webpage found at provided URL: Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by subbie, posted 04-06-2011 5:25 PM subbie has seen this message but 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