 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / Relativity / March 2006The BIG Bang!
I am not a scientist, just an intelligent man of some education. So I read in the newspaper that scientists have "the smoking gun" that proves that during the Big Bang the universe went from the size of a marble to a volume larger than all observable space in a trillion-trillionth of a second. It makes me kind of mad that they think they can tell us any piece of crap and we will believe it. I wouldn't be surprised if there are three conspirators somewhere laughing their a.ses off at the newspapers printing such a stupid story. Do you see how ridiculous this is? The universe in the size of a marble? Expanding that far in that short a time? Not unless there were different laws of physics then vs now! But just to take a straw poll, whether you are an eminent physicist or just a guy like me - how many are buying this story? Gary Eickmeier The Big Bang occurred, it just was intigated by God. I recommend the book "Case for Creator" by Lee Strobel. | The Big Bang occurred, it just was intigated by God. I recommend the | book "Case for Creator" by Lee Strobel. As Tom Roberts says, "Real has nothing to do with it" This is a physics.relativity newsgroup, I guess he's right. Try some of the religious newsgroups, they might believe your sh.t there too. Androcles. |I am not a scientist, just an intelligent man of some education. So I | read in the newspaper that scientists have "the smoking gun" that proves [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] | | Gary Eickmeier I'm with you, Gary. You can include Marilyn Vos Savant http://www.marilynvossavant.com/ too, I've read her pronouncements on the issue as well. It is quite clear that these so-called "theoretical" physicists are raving lunatics up to their arse in things they do not understand, and I'm one of the alligators. Looks as if you are too. As Tom Roberts says, "Real has nothing to do with it" and he is one of the raving lunatics. Androcles. > |I am not a scientist, just an intelligent man of some education. So I > | read in the newspaper that scientists have "the smoking gun" that proves [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > is one of the raving lunatics. > Androcles. Yes, I copied that. But I didn't find anything from Marilyn on the subject. What are you referring to? GAry Eickmeier | > |I am not a scientist, just an intelligent man of some education. So I | > | read in the newspaper that scientists have "the smoking gun" that proves [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] | Yes, I copied that. But I didn't find anything from Marilyn on the | subject. What are you referring to? It was a long time ago in an answer to a question a reader put to her in "Parade" magazine. I cannot quote it verbatim, but as I recall she said what you are saying using different words. The bang is an appeasement to the religious that require a "beginning", and the beginning is a fallacious axiom. The book of Genesis uses the opening words "In the beginning" and later in the New Testament we find the in paternoster, "Forever and ever". Illogically this is a "length" with a start and no end. Faith and logic do not mix well. I call the beginning an axiom since it has to be accepted without proof. Some try to overcome this paradox by assumption of an oscillating universe, expansion followed by contraction, thereby axiomatically adopting "no beginning", connecting the end of time to the beginning. As with all lies, they become compounded with further paradoxes until the debate fizzles out with idiots calling the other idiots "idiot" and no solution is found. I have yet to see evidence of expansion, all the empirical data gives is red shift as a function of distance. That requires that we study and understand the light we use as a tool to understand what we see. My universe always was and always will be, the red shift is "tired" light. The tiring is Planck's equation E = h(nu) and the energy distribution of photons over an ever increasing spherical surface upon which we are the observers. Androcles. | GAry Eickmeier > I am not a scientist, just an intelligent man of some education. So I > read in the newspaper that scientists have "the smoking gun" that proves [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > But just to take a straw poll, whether you are an eminent physicist or > just a guy like me - how many are buying this story? The current theory on the BB is a bit hard to swallow. A new theory on the oriigin of the universe is described in the following link: http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2006universe Ken Seto > Gary Eickmeier > > I am not a scientist, just an intelligent man of some education. So I > > read in the newspaper that scientists have "the smoking gun" that proves [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > The current theory on the BB is a bit hard to swallow. But, then again, you think a lot of things you don't understand are hard to swallow. Like being able to detect the one and only photon that emerges from a collision. > A new theory on the > oriigin of the universe is described in the following link: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > > > Gary Eickmeier | > > I am not a scientist, just an intelligent man of some education. So I | > > read in the newspaper that scientists have "the smoking gun" that proves [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] | > | > The current theory on the BB is a bit hard to swallow. Androcles. > Androcles. Classic Androcles tantrum. Thanks for the giggle. PD > > > I am not a scientist, just an intelligent man of some education. So I > > > read in the newspaper that scientists have "the smoking gun" that proves [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > hard to swallow. Like being able to detect the one and only photon that > emerges from a collision. I can accept that if you show me evidence that they followed the path of one specific photon from generation to detection. According to Feymann a photon will explore all possible path from the source to the detector. This alone will refute the SR concept that light follows one path from the source to the detector. Ken Seto > > A new theory on the > > oriigin of the universe is described in the following link: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > > > > > Gary Eickmeier > > > > I am not a scientist, just an intelligent man of some education. So I > > > > read in the newspaper that scientists have "the smoking gun" that [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > will refute the SR concept that light follows one path from the source to > the detector. Ken, if you want the evidence, you're going to have to read their papers, available in the literature. I do not intend to spoonfeed you for your convenience. Likewise, if you want to learn what the uncertainty principle really says and means, then you'll have to read a book or two rather than relying on newsgroups and soundbites. Likewise, if you want to learn what SR really says and means, then you'll have to read a book or two rather than relying on newsgroups and soundbites. If you want to learn what path integral formalism (Feynman) really says and means, then you'll have to read a book or two rather than relying on newsgroups and soundbites. For the direct photon experiment, here's a sketch of what you should look for in the paper. a) How the experiment determines (reconstructs) where the proton-proton collision took place. b) How the available energy for the collision is determined. c) What the spatial coverage of the detector is. d) How photons are identified and measured in the detector. e) How the energy scale of the detector is calibrated and monitored. f) How the position measurement in the detector is calibrated and monitored. g) How the reconstructed energy and momentum of the products of the collisions are compared to the available energy in the collision. PD > Ken Seto > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > > > > > > > Gary Eickmeier > > > > > I am not a scientist, just an intelligent man of some education. So I > > > > > read in the newspaper that scientists have "the smoking gun" that [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > and means, then you'll have to read a book or two rather than relying > on newsgroups and soundbites. What Feynman said disagrees with what SR said. He definitely did not say that a photon will follow one specific path from the source to the detector as SR suggested. > For the direct photon experiment, here's a sketch of what you should > look for in the paper. > a) How the experiment determines (reconstructs) where the proton-proton > collision took place. So they have to reconstruct where the collison occur? IOW they don't know where the collision occured > b) How the available energy for the collision is determined. > c) What the spatial coverage of the detector is. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > g) How the reconstructed energy and momentum of the products of the > collisions are compared to the available energy in the collision. Alll these shows me that they did not trace the path of one specfic photon from emission to detection. Ken Seto > > > > > > I am not a scientist, just an intelligent man of some education. > So I [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > that a photon will follow one specific path from the source to the detector > as SR suggested. Sorry, Ken, you're misrepresenting what Feynman said now. I suggest you read his book called QED. It's short, it's cheap, and it's aimed at the layman. You have no excuse not to read it and try to find out what he really says. > > For the direct photon experiment, here's a sketch of what you should > > look for in the paper. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > So they have to reconstruct where the collison occur? IOW they don't know > where the collision occured No, that's not true either. They *measure* where it occurred. > > b) How the available energy for the collision is determined. > > c) What the spatial coverage of the detector is. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Alll these shows me that they did not trace the path of one specfic photon > from emission to detection. Crapola. You haven't even looked up the paper to find out the answer to those things. PD > > > > > > > I am not a scientist, just an intelligent man of some education. > > So I [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] > layman. You have no excuse not to read it and try to find out what he > really says. No I didn't mirepresenting what Feynman said. If he think that a single photon will follow a specific path from the source to the detector there is no point for him to come up with the path integral interpretation. > > > For the direct photon experiment, here's a sketch of what you should > > > look for in the paper. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > No, that's not true either. They *measure* where it occurred. But the position that they measured is not the same as the position when the collision occured.....due to the motion of the earth. > > > b) How the available energy for the collision is determined. > > > c) What the spatial coverage of the detector is. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Crapola. You haven't even looked up the paper to find out the answer to > those things. I don't have to. What you said shows me that they had to reconstruct where the collision occur and assumed that the detected photon is from that specific collision. That's a lot of assumptions. Ken Seto > > > > > > > > I am not a scientist, just an intelligent man of some > education. [quoted text clipped - 78 lines] > photon will follow a specific path from the source to the detector there is > no point for him to come up with the path integral interpretation. Please, Ken, stop reading motives into people's work that is not expressly written in what they say. It gets you out into the weeds in no time flat. If you want to cite something that Feynman says, then cite it. Otherwise, admit that you're just guessing what they must have meant from the little blurbs that you've read about them on the newsgroup. > > > > For the direct photon experiment, here's a sketch of what you should > > > > look for in the paper. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > But the position that they measured is not the same as the position when the > collision occured.....due to the motion of the earth. No, sorry, the time between the collision and the data used to measure the point of the collision is about 30 ns. In that time, the earth has moved 0.030 inches. We know where the interaction is just fine. > > > > b) How the available energy for the collision is determined. > > > > c) What the spatial coverage of the detector is. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > the collision occur and assumed that the detected photon is from that > specific collision. That's a lot of assumptions. Ken, I've only sketched out the high points of what you should read, not the detailed explanation. I'm not going to give you a detailed explanation. You can get that by reading the papers. You don't have the right to say, "The papers don't say what you say they say," or "The papers sound fishy," without reading them. There are people who say they don't to read a novel because "The title sounds dirty." This doesn't mean that the novel IS dirty, it just means that the people don't want to read the novel. PD > > > > > > > > > I am not a scientist, just an intelligent man of some > > education. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > meant from the little blurbs that you've read about them on the > newsgroup. In addition to what Feynman said, the schrodinger equation says that you can only give probabilistic position of a photon in flight. That certainly refute the SR claim that you can folow the leading edge (the first photon) of a light ray from the source to the detector. Ken Seto > > > > > > > > > > I am not a scientist, just an intelligent man of some > > > education. [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > refute the SR claim that you can folow the leading edge (the first photon) > of a light ray from the source to the detector. It doesn't matter to me, Ken, how many superficial and half-assed references you make to things you don't understand. Again, if you want to cite something that Schrodinger says, then cite it. Otherwise, admit that you're just guessing what they must have meant from the little blurbs you've read about them on the newsgroup. When you've read something and can cite a passage from it, then we can discuss what it means. PD > > > > > > > > "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1143091199.275414.105590@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > > > > > I am not a scientist, just an intelligent man of some > > > > education. [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > When you've read something and can cite a passage from it, then we can > discuss what it means. Hey idiot....go read up Feynman's book "QED" page P)ages 41 to 61. He said that a photon will not follow one straight path from the source to the detector as SR asserts. Also look up the Shrodinger equation. You are a runt of the experts. Definition for a runt of the SR experts: A moron who thinks that SR is a religion. An idiot who doesn't know the limitations of SR. A mental midget who can't comprehend beyond what he was taught in school. An imbecile who follows the real experts around like a puppy and eats up their sh.t like gourmet puppy chow. An a.shole who will attack anybody who disagrees with SR Ken Seto > > > > > > > > > "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message > > > > > > > > > [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] > that a photon will not follow one straight path from the source to the > detector as SR asserts. Why, Ken, you've read something! What an improvement! Now we have something to talk about. Now let's take a close look at what he says on page 54: "For each crooked path, such as path A, there's a nearby path that's a little bit straighter and distinctly shorter -- that is, it takes much less time. But where the paths become nearly straight -- at C, for example, a nearby, straighter path has nearly the same time. That's where the arrows add up rather than cancel out; that's where the light goes. "It's important to note that the single arrow that represents the straight line path, through D, is not enough to account for the probability that light gets from the source to the detector. The nearby, nearly straight paths -- through C and E, for example -- also make important contributions. So light doesn't really travel only in a straight line; it 'smells' the neighboring paths around it, and uses a small core of nearby space." Now, Ken, suppose you calculate the spread in the momentum and position of a photon due to the summing of the individual paths in that small core around the straight path from the source to the detector -- "where the light goes". PD > Also look up the Shrodinger equation. You are a runt of the experts. > Definition for a runt of the SR experts: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Ken Seto > > > > > > > > "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1143125292.566113.216690@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > > > > "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message > > > > > > > > > > [quoted text clipped - 76 lines] > straight line; it 'smells' the neighboring paths around it, and uses a > small core of nearby space." So this says it all. A photon does not follow one straight line path from the source to the detector as SR asserted. Ken Seto > Now, Ken, suppose you calculate the spread in the momentum and position > of a photon due to the summing of the individual paths in that small [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > > > Ken Seto > > > > > > > > > "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message > > > > > > > > > [quoted text clipped - 95 lines] > So this says it all. A photon does not follow one straight line path from > the source to the detector as SR asserted. No, it doesn't quite say that. Read the last sentence again: "So light doesn't really travel *only* in a straight line; it 'smells' the neighboring paths around it, and uses a core of nearby space." (*emphasis* mine) Now, how do you suppose this affects the ability to measure the position and momentum of the photon at the detector? How do you suppose this changes anything about the speed of propagation of light between point A and point B? PD > Ken Seto > > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > > > > > Ken Seto Dear Gary Eickmeier: > I am not a scientist, just an intelligent man of some > education. So I read in the newspaper that > scientists have "the smoking gun" that proves that during the > Big Bang the universe went from the > size of a marble This is an approximate value. Entirely meaningless, since there was no matter at that time. > to a volume larger than all observable space in a > trillion-trillionth of a second. It makes me kind of > mad that they think they can tell us any piece of > crap and we will believe it. Your opinion isn't what they care about. They have scientific evidence that allows no other conclusion, based on the Standard Model. They reported same to you. If you don't like it, you can either wail to the four winds, or get an education in science and fix it. > I wouldn't be surprised if there are three conspirators > somewhere laughing their > a.ses off at the newspapers printing such a > stupid story. No need. This type of inflation is expected and predicted by the Standard Model. They have simply adjusted "decimal places". > Do you see how ridiculous this is? I see how pointless your tirade is. You *said* you had no science education. > The universe in the size of a marble? Why not? No matter, no "things of size". The point is "size of a marble" compared to the Universe today. > Expanding that far in that short a time? Not unless > there were different laws of physics then vs now! Nope. Same physics that has gravitational time dilation between the Earth and the Sun. > But just to take a straw poll, whether you are > an eminent physicist or just a guy like me - How about "in between"? > how many are buying this story? The story simply presents the facts, couched in the Standard Model. I don't like the Standard Model, but the period of inflation I don't object to. Consider that if you are placed midway between two Earths, that you feel no net attraction from either. Now consider that were there particles existing in the "marble Universe", it would be almost as far in *any* direction to your nearest neighbor. If there were attractive forces, 1/r^2 (electrostatic, gravitational) would not resolve significant differences. Space isn't what you think it is. The Universe isn't expanding "into" something. David A. Smith > I am not a scientist, just an intelligent man of some education. So I > read in the newspaper that scientists have "the smoking gun" that proves > that during the Big Bang the universe went from the size of a marble to > a volume larger than all observable space in a trillion-trillionth of a > second. It makes me kind of mad that they think they can tell us any > piece of crap and we will believe it. Who, the astronomers or the reporters? Articles about physics in the popular press are almost always full of crazy nonsense. If you want to know what the astronomers are actually saying, read their papers---for example, http://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/product/map/dr2/pub_papers/threeyear/parameters/wmap _3yr_param.pdf Or read Ned Wright's cosmology tutorial: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm which is almost unique is being written for a lay audience and also free of misrepresentation of the subject matter. If you attack those articles, at least you'll be attacking something that resembles science. -- Ben | > I am not a scientist, just an intelligent man of some education. So I | > read in the newspaper that scientists have "the smoking gun" that proves [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] | | Who, the astronomers or the reporters? Neither, he means the posters to sci.physics.relativity. You in particular. | Articles about physics in the popular | press are almost always full of crazy nonsense. Yes, you are. Androcles. If you want to know what the | astronomers are actually saying, read their papers---for example, http://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/product/map/dr2/pub_papers/threeyear/parameters/wmap _3yr_param.pdf | Or read Ned Wright's cosmology tutorial: | [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] | | -- Ben I am a layman and to me Ned Wright's tutorial reads like something written on a typewriter in a shack in the hills. It may make sense to you but I suspect it won't do anything to change the minds of lay people who think that BB theory sounds like nonsense. > I am a layman and to me Ned Wright's tutorial reads like something > written on a typewriter in a shack in the hills. It may make sense to > you but I suspect it won't do anything to change the minds of lay > people who think that BB theory sounds like nonsense. Fortunately, science doesn't take the burden of convincing the skeptical. In the end, the skeptical lay person only comes to believe some of this when they buy an appliance that operates on the principles uncovered by science. Even then they sometimes only shake their heads and say, "Well, ain't that something..." PD | > I am a layman and to me Ned Wright's tutorial reads like something | > written on a typewriter in a shack in the hills. It may make sense to | > you but I suspect it won't do anything to change the minds of lay | > people who think that BB theory sounds like nonsense. Androcles. > > I am a layman and to me Ned Wright's tutorial reads like something > > written on a typewriter in a shack in the hills. It may make sense to [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > science. Even then they sometimes only shake their heads and say, > "Well, ain't that something..." But the stuff that they made up to explain the BB theory have to agree with current theories. Einstein said that space is empty and yet cosmologists said that empty space can expand faster than light and it carries the galaxies along with it as it expanded. If that isn't magic what is it? Ken Seto > > > I am a layman and to me Ned Wright's tutorial reads like something > > > written on a typewriter in a shack in the hills. It may make sense to [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > said that empty space can expand faster than light and it carries the > galaxies along with it as it expanded. If that isn't magic what is it? Magic is only magic to those who don't know how it's done. > Ken Seto > > > > I am a layman and to me Ned Wright's tutorial reads like something > > > > written on a typewriter in a shack in the hills. It may make sense to [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Magic is only magic to those who don't know how it's done. So why don't you explain to us how it's done? > > > > > I am a layman and to me Ned Wright's tutorial reads like something > > > > > written on a typewriter in a shack in the hills. It may make sense [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > So why don't you explain to us how it's done? Because, Ken, I don't approve of you trying to figure out all this -- SR, and GR, and the uncertainty principle, and Feynman diagrams, and the BB theory -- by trying to get people to explain it to you on newsgroups. This is not the way to learn a subject, as you've so amply demonstrated by your miserable understanding of any of them. If you want to learn about any of these, you need to read about them or audit a class on the subject. If reading is difficult for you, then audit a class. PD > > > > > > I am a layman and to me Ned Wright's tutorial reads like something > > > > > > written on a typewriter in a shack in the hills. It may make sense [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > audit a class on the subject. If reading is difficult for you, then > audit a class. So you don't know how it's done.....I thought so.:-) What you are trying to do is to bull sh.t your way out of a difficult situation to which you have no valid answer.;-) Ken Seto > > > > > > > I am a layman and to me Ned Wright's tutorial reads like > something [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > do is to bull sh.t your way out of a difficult situation to which you have > no valid answer.;-) Rotten bait not swallowed, Ken. I don't owe you an education, especially on a newsgroup, and no baiting is going to change my mind on this. If you want to find out what's really going on, read a book. If you don't want to read a book, and your method for learning is to say incorrect things on a newsgroup and hope that someone corrects you, that will not be a good method. It will, however, result in lots of people telling you that you're saying incorrect things, and that you should read a book. PD > > > > > > > > I am a layman and to me Ned Wright's tutorial reads like > > something [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > people telling you that you're saying incorrect things, and that you > should read a book. ROTFLOL.....this runt have no answer to my question. BTW if you have no answer on how nothingness space can expand faster than the speed of light and carries the galaxies along with it as it expanded why did you keep on posting such nonsense?? Ken Seto So nice to see you two getting along so well. You really were made for each other. Androcles. > > > > > > > > > I am a layman and to me Ned Wright's tutorial reads like > > > something [quoted text clipped - 63 lines] > and carries the galaxies along with it as it expanded why did you keep on > posting such nonsense?? Even stinkier bait not swallowed. I have the same answers that would be afforded to you through reading a book. I'm suggesting to you that reading a book would be more constructive than trying to get it here. > Ken Seto > > > > > > > > > > I am a layman and to me Ned Wright's tutorial reads like > > > > something [quoted text clipped - 68 lines] > book. I'm suggesting to you that reading a book would be more > constructive than trying to get it here. ROTFLOL....this runt tried to bull sh.t his way out. >I am not a scientist, just an intelligent man of some education. So I read >in the newspaper that scientists have "the smoking gun" that proves that >during the Big Bang the universe went from the size of a marble to a volume >larger than all observable space in a trillion-trillionth of a second. It >makes me kind of mad that they think they can tell us any piece of crap and >we will believe it. It makes me mad that people believe silly vitriol compares to reasoned argument. Bill >I wouldn't be surprised if there are three conspirators somewhere laughing >their a.ses off at the newspapers printing such a stupid story. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Gary Eickmeier > I am not a scientist, just an intelligent man of some education. So I > read in the newspaper that scientists have "the smoking gun" that proves [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Gary Eickmeier xxein: Nobody understands a complete physics, do you? You are telling us that something is impossible and yet there is cursory evidence that it is happening. Perhaps you would like to tell us how this universe works. >>I am not a scientist, just an intelligent man of some education. So I >>read in the newspaper that scientists have "the smoking gun" that proves [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Perhaps you would like to tell us how this universe works. OK, first, the universe cannot fit into a marble. Second, if it expanded to near its present size in the first trillion-trillionth of a second, how big must it have gotten in the second trillion-trillionth of a second? How fast would it have to expand in order to get that far in that amount of time? Does relativity ring a bell here? There have been several trillion-trillionths of a second since then, so, with nothing to stop it, how big would that make the universe in several billion years? But it's not, is it? If something expanded that far in that short a time, it would be literally vaporized by now. Single atoms rushing faster than the speed of light out into an ever expanding nothingness. Nothing would have had time to attract to other matter and form stars and galaxies, it would all be still expanding and vaporizing itself. Gary Eickmeier just a guess >>> I am not a scientist, just an intelligent man of some education. So I >>> read in the newspaper that scientists have "the smoking gun" that proves [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > OK, first, the universe cannot fit into a marble. There's no reason to think that must be so. As far as we can tell, all fundamental constituents of matter are point like. It can fit down to any size you want with enough pressure. > Second, if it expanded to near its present size in the first > trillion-trillionth of a second, how big must it have gotten in the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > since then, so, with nothing to stop it, how big would that make the > universe in several billion years? But it's not, is it? Relativity is *how* this prediction comes about. It is not really correct to think of it as the objects moving. It is spacetime itself expanding as a result of the intense energy and momentum density. There is no real limit to how fast the metric can be changing, only limits on how fast changes propagate thru spacetime. As it expanded, there was less "pressure" causing expansion to slow down. There is still expansion, but far far slower than in the inflationary period. > >>I am not a scientist, just an intelligent man of some education. So I > >>read in the newspaper that scientists have "the smoking gun" that proves [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > OK, first, the universe cannot fit into a marble. Why not? > Second, if it expanded to near its present size in the first > trillion-trillionth of a second, how big must it have gotten in the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > since then, so, with nothing to stop it, how big would that make the > universe in several billion years? But it's not, is it? The observable universe today, about 14 billion light years in all directions, is only a very tiny fraction of the total universe (with an immense number of galaxies far beyond our 14 billion light year Hubble volume). > If something expanded that far in that short a time, it would be > literally vaporized by now. Single atoms rushing faster than the speed > of light out into an ever expanding nothingness. Nothing would have had > time to attract to other matter and form stars and galaxies, it would > all be still expanding and vaporizing itself. You are thinking of an explosion, like a supernova, where the debris climb up their gravity well. During cosmic inflation, the universe falls down its own gravity well converting its gravitational potential energy to vacuum energy and expansion energy. (This holds true for dark energy inflation as well.) In these cases, the thinning out process that you describe does not apply. R | > >>I am not a scientist, just an intelligent man of some education. So I | > >>read in the newspaper that scientists have "the smoking gun" that proves [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] | | R You are thinking of the supernatural, where the laws of Nature and physics do not apply. Go and pray to the Lord Einstein for guidance, you are a fool. Androcles. > >>I am not a scientist, just an intelligent man of some education. So I > >>read in the newspaper that scientists have "the smoking gun" that proves [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > time to attract to other matter and form stars and galaxies, it would > all be still expanding and vaporizing itself. The current idea is that space is doing the faster than light expansion....not the atoms are rushing faster than the speed of light as you seem to imply. I am not endorsing this nonsense. Space according to Einstein is empty....so how can emptiness expand faster than the speed of light?. A better explanation of the origin of the universe is in the following link: http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2006universe Ken Seto > The current idea is that space is doing the faster than light > expansion....not the atoms are rushing faster than the speed of light as you [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Ken Seto Gotcha Ken, and I am trying to read your article. I think it confirms for me that this stuff is not signed, sealed, delivered by any means, and I am not stupid or crazy to not believe in some of the things I read. Gary Eickmeier Dear Gary Eickmeier: >> The current idea is that space is doing the faster >> than light expansion....not the atoms are rushing [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > am not stupid or crazy to not believe in some > of the things I read. Oh! So you just wanted to shop for any opinion that would make you feel better? How... clever. David A. Smith > Dear Gary Eickmeier: >>Gotcha Ken, and I am trying to read your article. >>I think it confirms for me that this stuff is not [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > How... clever. Oh... so you just want to hear from those who agree with you? How... clever. Gary Eickmeier Dear Gary Eickmeier: >> Dear Gary Eickmeier: > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > How... clever. Sorry, no. I wanted to give an answer to someone that I thought was asking a serious question. Instead you latch on to the first site that you can misunderstand (and there is plenty of misunderstanding at Seto's site to go around). Your loss. David A. Smith > Sorry, no. I wanted to give an answer to someone that I thought > was asking a serious question. Instead you latch on to the first > site that you can misunderstand (and there is plenty of > misunderstanding at Seto's site to go around). > > Your loss. I realize that you probably know a hell of a lot more about this than I, but you haven't given me any answers in your disrespectful replies. I have admitted that I am not a scientist. If you have some explanation as to how the universe can expand faster than the speed of light, then stop, I would be very interested. I would be even more interested in how the universe can fit into the size of a marble, and where that marble came from. Gary Eickmeier Dear Gary Eickmeier: >> Sorry, no. I wanted to give an answer to someone >> that I thought was asking a serious question. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I realize that you probably know a hell of a lot > more about this than I, ... and now the other shoe ... > but you haven't given me any answers in your > disrespectful replies. I gave you a respectful reply. Once you made your initial post, you only posted to sinpe at responders, or to comiserate with the ilk of Seto. You are judged by the company you keep, and by your actions. > I have admitted that I am not a scientist. Neither am I. I do attempt to have an open mind, however. I don't expect Nature to raise her skirt for me alone. I am expected to use my imagination. > If you have some explanation as to how the universe can expand > faster than > the speed of light, Because spacetime is the product of mass/energy. "In the beginning" (according to the Standard Model) there was no matter, so distance is meaningless. Without any "moderators" to light speed, light could very well have encircled the entire Universe trillions of times before inflation started. *Something* allowed the properties of the Universe to be established uniformly everywhere. What would *you* provide for this? > then stop, I would be very interested. No one said it stopped. The Hubble constant has had a lot of different values, depending on the age of the Universe that we observe from *now*. It is even now accelerating again... > I would be even more interested in how the universe can fit > into the size of a marble, and > where that marble came from. It can fit in the size of a marble, a "todays" marble, because the "four forces" did not exist, matter did not exist. There was nothing in the Universe to either provide pressure or to require size. As to where the marble came from, we cannot know, only guess. Do you want my guess? You won't like it either... David A. Smith > > Sorry, no. I wanted to give an answer to someone that I thought > > was asking a serious question. Instead you latch on to the first [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > the universe can fit into the size of a marble, and where that marble > came from. He has no answer your questions. The age of the Universe is estimated to be approx. 14 billion years old and yet the opposite regions of the observable universe is 28 billions years apart. This means that the universe has a horizon that is larger than the age of the universe allowed. This means that these opposite regions of the universe was never in contact with each other and the thus refuting the Big Bang hypothesis. This is known as the horizon problem. Alan Guth invented the inflation hypothesis to overcome the horizon problem. My theory provide natural solution to the horizon problem. Ken Seto | > Dear Gary Eickmeier: | [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] | | Gary Eickmeier As one contributor puts it: When you argue with a fool, chances are he's doing the same. He overlooked the obvious. When you agree with a fool, the guarantee is he's doing the same. Smith is a fool. Androcles. > > The current idea is that space is doing the faster than light > > expansion....not the atoms are rushing faster than the speed of light as you [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > for me that this stuff is not signed, sealed, delivered by any means, > and I am not stupid or crazy to not believe in some of the things I read. And if you can't spot the nonsense in what Ken wrote, then you're not really in a good position to evaluate the sensibility of big bang theory. > Gary Eickmeier | > > The current idea is that space is doing the faster than light | > > expansion....not the atoms are rushing faster than the speed of light as you [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] | > | > Gary Eickmeier Androcles. > > > The current idea is that space is doing the faster than light > > > expansion....not the atoms are rushing faster than the speed of light as you [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > really in a good position to evaluate the sensibility of big bang > theory. The nonsense is on your part. So why don't you answer the question how empty space can expand faster than light? Ken Seto > > > > The current idea is that space is doing the faster than light > > > > expansion....not the atoms are rushing faster than the speed of light [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > The nonsense is on your part. So why don't you answer the question how empty > space can expand faster than light? And what problem do you have with empty space expanding faster than the speed of light? Warning: Be careful about saying what SR says on this subject, if you do not understand what SR says. PD > > > > > The current idea is that space is doing the faster than light > > > > > expansion....not the atoms are rushing faster than the speed of light [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > speed of light? Warning: Be careful about saying what SR says on this > subject, if you do not understand what SR says. If you and I are running in the opposite directions and the space between us are increasing. Questions: 1. Is it that because the space between us is expanding and carries us apart? 2. Or is it because of our indivual motions that causes the increase of the space between us? Ken Seto > > > > > > The current idea is that space is doing the faster than light > > > > > > expansion....not the atoms are rushing faster than the speed of [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > 2. Or is it because of our indivual motions that causes the increase of the > space between us? Well, in *that* case, it's (2). That's not what's responsible for the motion of the galaxies, though. Here's a question to help you sort these two out. If space is expanding, why is it that the Earth, and rocks, and us, aren't expanding too, right along with space? PD > Ken Seto > > > > > > > The current idea is that space is doing the faster than light > > > > > > > expansion....not the atoms are rushing faster than the speed of [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > Well, in *that* case, it's (2). That's not what's responsible for the > motion of the galaxies, though. ROTFLOL.....so when you want to explain the horizon problem you use the bogus assertion that space is expanding faster than light and carried the galaxies along with it as it expanded. But in ordinary every day life you use the increase in distance between two objects is due to their individual motions. You truly are an indoctrinated runt of the SRians. > Here's a question to help you sort these two out. > If space is expanding, why is it that the Earth, and rocks, and us, > aren't expanding too, right along with space? I didn't say that space is expanding you did. So you explain your own question. Ken Seto > Second, if it expanded to near its present size in the first > trillion-trillionth of a second, how big must it have gotten in the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > since then, so, with nothing to stop it, how big would that make the > universe in several billion years? There's a lot more to the inflationary model than a vague idea of the universe getting bigger really quickly. Your arguments right now make you sound like the people who argued that the earth can't possibly be orbiting the sun at 67000 miles per hour because we'd all be swept off. If you actually learn the relevant physical theory, you find that it predicts that we won't. I have a question for you, actually. Astronomers also claim that the points of light in the night sky are stars like our sun, and some of the fuzzy points are whole galaxies of billions of stars. That's pretty incredible too. Do you believe it? If so, why? This isn't a rhetorical question. In fact I'd like to ask the same question of many of the regulars on this group. -- Ben Dear Ben Rudiak-Gould: ... > I have a question for you, actually. Astronomers also > claim that the points of light in the night sky are [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > isn't a rhetorical question. In fact I'd like to ask the > same question of many of the regulars on this group. Yes, I do "believe it". There is a more-or-less continual progression of objects from a few light years away, to several hundred million years after the CMBR cooled. Each has differences, but each has similarities too. When "subtended size" is too small to compare, there is intensity and Hubble red shift to fall back on. We have evidence that the "near" is like the "far". All that has to be relied upon is "the laws of physics are the same, regardless of former age of the Universe". Do you need cosmology links? David A. Smith | > Second, if it expanded to near its present size in the first | > trillion-trillionth of a second, how big must it have gotten in the [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] | | -- Ben Some astronomers claim the big yellow disk we see during the day is a star. That's pretty incredible too. Do you believe it? If so, why? This isn't a rhetorical question. In fact I know you are an idiot. Don't worry, though, one of your fellow idiots, Tom Roberts, says Real has nothing to do with it. Androcles. > OK, first, the universe cannot fit into a marble. > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > had time to attract to other matter and form stars and galaxies, it > would all be still expanding and vaporizing itself. Hi Gary! As your postings suggest, you think of matter as something "solid". There is nothing "solid" in our Universe, only energy. Any material object consists of "clouds of energy", building the particles known as "quarks" (a nice word game in German - "quark" means "curd", ex- actly what I think about the theory behind), forming nuclear cores, atoms, atomic latices and so on. What we observe as "solid" is pure "Nothing" filled with very small amounts of energy. Only the energy forms the "space" we observe - even if the ratio between energy and Nothing in universal terms (probably) is smaller than we ever might be able to compute. The more energy is concentrated at one _single_ point, the higher its density. Our Universe does fit into a marble, only the limited capacity of our brain denies to think this thought to its logical end and accept the possibility of such a thing. :) Big Bang is just one theoretical model amongst many others. There's a lot of evidence endorsing this theory, therefore, scientists have chosen it as something like a standard. It interprets gathered data better than any other known model for now, but that's just a tempo- rary waypoint on the long road to real knowledge and understanding. Greetings from Augsburg Bernhard Schornak > >>I am not a scientist, just an intelligent man of some education. So I > >>read in the newspaper that scientists have "the smoking gun" that proves [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >>are three conspirators somewhere laughing their a.ses off at the > >>newspapers printing such a stupid story. It's time for me to get into this discussion now that so many have revealed their positions and cannot take them back. Gary, you are an intelligent man of some education, as am I, a fan of science. I have argued like you for some time now, and if you wish to read more of what I've posted, search my posts in "options" under (my) author name, if you haven't already done so. I read the "smoking gun" article in these ngs and promptly squashed it. The ninny who loves to post such trash here almost on a daily basis could not beat my arguments so he just posted another link and opened up another thread. From the answers posted here to date, we are not writing to intelligent men of some education here, but to men who are victims of the overindoctrination imposed on young people in such ways as to last them a lifetime. We who are not of this discipline suffer this brainwashing in only peripheral ways, and some of us soon enough come to reject such classical conditioning as stupid attempts maintain allegiance to conformity for the discipline. Obviously, it needs it, else why go to such lengths to change an inherent trait of curiosity in humans so as to instill in students the inability to welcome new ideas. Note, e.g., that while you are talking about the Inflationary Period (IP), most who have responded think you're talking about the BB theory. They think it is the same thing, and one even claims the IP concept was invented by Relativity! > >>Do you see how ridiculous this is? The universe in the size of a marble? I do not see this particular point as ridiculous because the BBT is based on the observation that the universe appears to be expanding. If so, there must have been a ploint from where it began to do that, and the BBT is as good as any idea from which to start. Since it does not conflict with our observations, it is a valid theory. The IP, however, is another story entirely. It was invented solely to explain the several incongruities posed by the BBT, and the authors stated exactly that. The IP concept is not a valid theory - although many here believe that it is - simply because it is supported by its own premises, which in Logic is called a fallacious circular argument. > >>Expanding that far in that short a time? Not unless there were different > >>laws of physics then vs now! This I agree with. Note that the BBT does not say this - only the IP idea says that. > >>But just to take a straw poll, whether you are an eminent physicist or > >>just a guy like me - how many are buying this story? > >> > >>Gary Eickmeier > > > > xxein: Nobody understands a complete physics, do you? This is, as I'm sure you've noticed, a favorite ploy of the non-thinkers here. They like to think all laypersons lack the abililty to think for ourselves and so they love to claim that physics is not a science that explains the why of things, only the how of them. They have used this so often that by now it smells like highly decayed fish! > > You are telling us that something is impossible and yet there is > > cursory evidence that it is happening. See? Here's an idiot who thinks there is "cursory" evidence for what he only partially understands. There is none (nor is there any such thing), of course, because the IP was invented solely to support the BBT by suggesting explanations to the problems arising from the BBT. > > Perhaps you would like to tell us how this universe works. Favorite "nobody knows" response, insinuating that if he doesn't know, you cannot possibly know or come up with a new idea about it either. > OK, first, the universe cannot fit into a marble. Not a good argument since the BBT does not imply that the entire universe as it is now came out of a marble-sized "container". It claims that the universe was once the size of a marble and the contents of it were small enough to fit into it, what with gravitation compressing it to a great extent. > Second, if it expanded to near its present size in the first > trillion-trillionth of a second, how big must it have gotten in the > second trillion-trillionth of a second? The IP has it that the inflation began in the first second, and later analysis showed it could have slowed to where it is today in the first second. Of course, that conflicts with our knowledge today that the universe's expansion is accelerating and thus it can not have slowed once before unless it was expanding at a non-excelerating rate. My model of the universe explains that the IP did not occur nor was it needed. > How fast would it have to expand > in order to get that far in that amount of time? Does relativity ring a > bell here? There have been several trillion-trillionths of a second > since then, so, with nothing to stop it, how big would that make the > universe in several billion years? But it's not, is it? That is not a good argument against the IP because, as I said, it has been confirmed that the premise of slow-down could have happened. > If something expanded that far in that short a time, it would be > literally vaporized by now. Single atoms rushing faster than the speed > of light out into an ever expanding nothingness. Nothing would have had > time to attract to other matter and form stars and galaxies, it would > all be still expanding and vaporizing itself. You should read up on the BBT and the IP concept to better acquaint yourself with the premises proposed and the problems involved from those premises. Then compare that to my model where Dark Matter came out of the BB and emptied out into empty space. All the problems of the BBT and the IP idea become non-existent then. You should read enough just to know more than the knuckleheads who post here, who evidently don't read enough to know what they're arguing about. >> >>I am not a scientist, just an intelligent man of some education. So >> >>I [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > come to reject such classical conditioning as stupid attempts maintain > allegiance to conformity for the discipline. Well, your lack of indoctrination has certainly lead you to believe that AE did not provide the math to calculate the Twin Paradox, that a state is a quantifiable variable, that time passes at a rate, that a vacuum exerts an attractive force of some kind, that units don't need to be assigned to quantifiable entities, and so many more notions that those who have been indoctrinated simply can't grasp. In fact, it's what has let you go much further than AE ever dreamed. > Obviously, it needs it, else why go to such lengths to change an > inherent trait of curiosity in humans so as to instill in students the [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > the BBT is as good as any idea from which to start. Since it does not > conflict with our observations, it is a valid theory. Now there you go again with all that stuff about theories and their validity. It seems that the process of indoctrination has already begun for you. Be very careful.......you're slipping into the abyss. > > >>I am not a scientist, just an intelligent man of some education. So I > > >>read in the newspaper that scientists have "the smoking gun" that proves [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > you haven't already done so. I read the "smoking gun" article in these > ngs and promptly squashed it. You made a flopping noise with your foot and didn't feel anything squirming under it, and so you presumed you squashed it. > The ninny who loves to post such trash here almost on a daily basis > could not beat my arguments so he just posted another link and opened [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > come to reject such classical conditioning as stupid attempts maintain > allegiance to conformity for the discipline. Nice rhetoric. Rhetoric only lasts more than a moment if there is substance behind it. Now if you want to run for city councilman, you'll probably win easily. > Obviously, it needs it, else why go to such lengths to change an > inherent trait of curiosity in humans so as to instill in students the [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > explain the several incongruities posed by the BBT, and the authors > stated exactly that. Did they? Let's have a quotation from Alan Guth then, please. > The IP concept is not a valid theory - although > many here believe that it is - simply because it is supported by its [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > science that explains the why of things, only the how of them. They > have used this so often that by now it smells like highly decayed fish! As opposed to the Self-Inflated thinkers like TomGee, who has a model that explains the "could possibly be" of things, and the "wouldn't be inconsistent" of things, and the "might be this or might be that, depending" of things. > > > You are telling us that something is impossible and yet there is > > > cursory evidence that it is happening. [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > universe's expansion is accelerating and thus it can not have slowed > once before unless it was expanding at a non-excelerating rate. I'd like some Thousand Island with that, please. > My model of the universe explains that the IP did not occur nor was it > needed. [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > enough just to know more than the knuckleheads who post here, who > evidently don't read enough to know what they're arguing about. Actually, on second thought, it's a good idea to listen to TomGee, who spends an extraordinary number of words to say very little. It will keep you occupied. PD | > > >>I am not a scientist, just an intelligent man of some education. So I | > > >>read in the newspaper that scientists have "the smoking gun" that proves [quoted text clipped - 120 lines] | > enough just to know more than the knuckleheads who post here, who | > evidently don't read enough to know what they're arguing about. Androcles. SNIP > > The IP, however, is another story entirely. It was invented solely to > > explain the several incongruities posed by the BBT, and the authors > > stated exactly that. > > Did they? Let's have a quotation from Alan Guth then, please. Sure, if you agree to forever hold your peace and never again argue it was not invented for that purpose. Otherwise, why prove anything to you? > > The IP concept is not a valid theory - although > > many here believe that it is - simply because it is supported by its [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > inconsistent" of things, and the "might be this or might be that, > depending" of things. "Self-inflated thinkers"? Still making up your own words and phrases, I see. You don't know enough English to try to do that, PD. Makes you only sound all the more foolish! > > > > You are telling us that something is impossible and yet there is > > > > cursory evidence that it is happening. [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > I'd like some Thousand Island with that, please. Sure. First, you have to learn to learn the period to which the IP refers. Next, you have to know that the idea too had its own problems, which were later resolved by other researchers, which in turn kept the idea alive. According to them, they agree that the IP could have first expanded suddenly to a great and incredible extent, and later it could have slowed its expansion to what it was at the time of their experiments. All well and good, so long as we believed that the universe was expanding at a steady or slowing rate. But now we know it seems to be expanding at an increasing rate, and so how could it have done all those gyrations of great expansion from the BB, next of super-greater expansion from the IP, then of slowing expansion, and finally, of increasing its expansion rate. All that is a little much to believe in, donchatink? I use plain and clear English words, but if you still don't get it, let me know and I'll (siiigh) try again. > > My model of the universe explains that the IP did not occur nor was it > > needed. > > > > > > How fast would it have to expand > > > in order to get that far in that amount of time? As I tried to explain, and as my model explains, it did not have to expand at all in order to get that far in the amount of time it would take for the elements to be evenly distributed the way they are today. > Does relativity ring a > > > bell here? There have been several trillion-trillionths of a second [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > PD > SNIP > > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > was not invented for that purpose. Otherwise, why prove anything to > you? Make the citation, and then we'll see if you've gotten it right. > > > The IP concept is not a valid theory - although > > > many here believe that it is - simply because it is supported by its [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > I see. You don't know enough English to try to do that, PD. Makes you > only sound all the more foolish! I take it you didn't understand "self-inflated" or "thinker". Which one gave you trouble? > > > > > You are telling us that something is impossible and yet there is > > > > > cursory evidence that it is happening. [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > Sure. First, you have to learn to learn the period to which the IP > refers. >From about 1E-35 s to 1E-32 s. Is that what you learned? > Next, you have to know that the idea too had its own problems, Namely? > which were later resolved by other researchers, which in turn kept the > idea alive. > > According to them, they agree that the IP could have first expanded > suddenly to a great and incredible extent, and later it could have > slowed its expansion to what it was at the time of their experiments. The inflationary epoch lasted until 1E-32 s. Are you suggesting that the experiments were done at 1E-32 s? Do you know the time associated with the photon-decoupling that gave rise to the 3.2K microwave background? > All well and good, so long as we believed that the universe was > expanding at a steady or slowing rate. But now we know it seems to be [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > increasing its expansion rate. All that is a little much to believe > in, donchatink? No, not particularly. Different mechanisms at work. I can understand why someone who doesn't understand it might find it a little odd, but then again, finding it a little odd because you don't understand it is not normally grounds to seriously suggest that its wrong. Ah, but then again, "normally" is not a word normally associated with your thinking. > I use plain and clear English words, but if you still don't get it, let > me know and I'll (siiigh) try again. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > expand at all in order to get that far in the amount of time it would > take for the elements to be evenly distributed the way they are today. Who are you answering here? > > Does relativity ring a > > > > bell here? There have been several trillion-trillionths of a second [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > > > PD > > SNIP > > > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Make the citation, and then we'll see if you've gotten it right. No. Make your promise first. > > > > The IP concept is not a valid theory - although > > > > many here believe that it is - simply because it is supported by its [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > I take it you didn't understand "self-inflated" or "thinker". Which one > gave you trouble? Anyone who is obese has inflated himself, so what does that have to do with this? > > > > > > You are telling us that something is impossible and yet there is > > > > > > cursory evidence that it is happening. [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > > Namely? One, it cannot give a reasonable explanation as to the cause of the IP, and two, Guth could not figure out how to make it the great expansion stop and have the universe go back to the speed of expansion it had before the IP. > > which were later resolved by other researchers, which in turn kept the > > idea alive. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > with the photon-decoupling that gave rise to the 3.2K microwave > background? Why does that matter? > > All well and good, so long as we believed that the universe was > > expanding at a steady or slowing rate. But now we know it seems to be [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > No, not particularly. Different mechanisms at work. Oh look, you forgot to mention what those different mechanisms are, IYHO. > I can understand why someone who doesn't understand it might find it a > little odd, but then again, finding it a little odd because you don't > understand it is not normally grounds to seriously suggest that its > wrong. Unless you can explain all those very convenient twists and turns to fix the problems of the BBT, you're a fool to think it's right. > Ah, but then again, "normally" is not a word normally associated with > your thinking. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Who are you answering here? Hell, I don't know. Why does that matter? It is only the questions and answers that matter. > > > SNIP > > > > > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > > No. Make your promise first. Why? You've always stated this place should be a place to discuss your reasons for thinking certain things. You have a reason for thinking Guth invented it for a certain purpose. So put your reason out there and let's discuss it. Or do you only want to discuss *other* posters' reasons for thinking the way *they* do? > > > > > The IP concept is not a valid theory - although > > > > > many here believe that it is - simply because it is supported by its [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > Anyone who is obese has inflated himself, so what does that have to do > with this? Ah, so you don't understand the term "self-inflated". > > > > > > > You are telling us that something is impossible and yet there is > > > > > > > cursory evidence that it is happening. [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > > > One, it cannot give a reasonable explanation as to the cause of the IP, Sure it can. The standard model of particle physics has in it a mechanism for spontaneous symmetry breaking, and it is precisely this that predicts the inflation. > and two, Guth could not figure out how to make it the great expansion > stop and have the universe go back to the speed of expansion it had > before the IP. Really? References, please. > > > which were later resolved by other researchers, which in turn kept the > > > idea alive. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > > Why does that matter? Ah, so you don't know the time. > > > All well and good, so long as we believed that the universe was > > > expanding at a steady or slowing rate. But now we know it seems to be [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Oh look, you forgot to mention what those different mechanisms are, > IYHO. They're there in Guth's book. Chapters 8, 10, and 12, if I recall right. > > I can understand why someone who doesn't understand it might find it a > > little odd, but then again, finding it a little odd because you don't [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Unless you can explain all those very convenient twists and turns to > fix the problems of the BBT, you're a fool to think it's right. Why would I explain something that is already explained nicely and in some detail in Guth's book? > > Ah, but then again, "normally" is not a word normally associated with > > your thinking. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Hell, I don't know. Why does that matter? It is only the questions > and answers that matter. > > > > SNIP > > > > > > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Or do you only |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message