It's easy to explain the expansion of space once you understand general relativity. What's difficult to explain is why Einstein didn't predict it. I'm sorry quantum_wave, but it's universe that's expanding. Not just some patch of space inside some other patch of space. And you just aren't explaining why the expansion is increasing. I would urge you to look at general relativity and try to stick closer to it instead of clinging to some "my theory" idea that you struggle to support.
I wish you all to know that, in my (and most people's) lexicon, to "concede" implies admission of defeat, either by physical force, or by force of argument. Since Farsight produced no argument on this matter, I admit to no such "defeat". In fact it was I who supplied the argument, not Farsight Dishonesty More dishonesty - here is what I actually wrote - and it is still there ........ Note the "!!!", intended to convey irony
I haven't seen your explanation of "dark energy", but would be interested. I wonder which view is a struggle to support, lol. I depict our Big Bang arena, like you say, as occupying a patch of space within a greater univerese. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! That view allows for there to be more than one such finite patch of space; perhaps a potentially infinite number of them.
That's fine - it is a perfectly respectable point of view, though there are certain things that have been interpreted as supporting Big Bang that you would have to explain away. Like the Huble Red-shift, like the isotropic background microwave radiation etc These days you would appear to be in a minority in this preference, but by no means a minority of 1. But speaking personally, I see no less philosophical problems with "always existing" than "something from nothing" (though "nothing" isn't quite the right way to put it) The God bit I reject out of hand, of course
At least great minds think alike, lol. Look at the two "observations" that I mentioned in this post to PhysBang, as being shared evidence: http://www.sciforums.com/threads/photon.143776/page-13#post-3263347
Phooey. Not long ago you were confusing space and spacetime. See for example this thread where I explained it to you whilst you fought tooth and nail spitting feathers of outrage. Now at last you concede, and yield and give in and surrender to the realisation that there is no motion in spacetime. And you have the gall to claim I'm being dishonest? Pah!
It's really simple. You'll have heard of the balloon analogy for the expanding universe. If you've got a balloon inflated in vacuum, there's this balance between the pressure inside the balloon and the tension in the skin. There's two ways to make the balloon larger. One way is to inject more gas, but energy = pressure x volume, so that's in breach of conservation of energy. It's creation ex nihilo all over again. Another way is to make the skin of the balloon weaker. The skin gets weaker so the balloon expands. So the skin gets thinner and weaker still, and the balloon expands even more. Sounds a bit unfamiliar, but all we're talking about is a bubble-gum balloon. It expands faster and faster and faster. Of course there's no evidence for any higher dimensions, but hopefully you get the idea. As space expands the "strength of space" reduces. See http://arxiv.org/abs/0912.2678 page 5 for a mention of this "strength of space" thing. It relates to that mechanical wave stuff I was telling you about. Cross my heart and hope to die, expanding space fits in with general relativity, and space can't expand if it's infinite. That's turtles all the way down.
That analogy has a few weak points, and what happens when the balloon bursts; I'm just saying Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!. There is some logic to that. My path, starts from the "always existed" explanation of the existence of the universe. That view automatically invokes the time continuum that I depicted as having no beginning and no end, as well as the logic that a finite Big Bang in an infinite universe would be an open system, with preconditions feeding it, the convergence of nearby sister (or should I say "parent") Big Bang arenas. You have that wrong. Turtles all the way down are sitting on each other's backs, while in my model, the turtles are spread out here there across the endless "sea" of space. Our arena and the other arenas depicted below do not correspond to the old lady's tale of turtles sitting on turtles, lol: Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Funny you should mention that. Ever heard of a guy called Phil Plait? He's a cosmologist who does "bad astronomy". Anyway, have a look at him talking about Prince Rupert's drops. Meh. Turtles all the way down. The idea of turtles all the way down is that it's a non-answer that just doesn't satisfy. Your model fobs off our questions about the universe by introducing the notion of "our arena" then saying it's part of "the greater universe".
Most sites have banned Duffield. It reflects more about this site and what it allows, dishonesty, bluffing and lying. Remember this is a hippy 'science' site, and so your going to get the''civil'' cranks as well as the dishonest, bluffing and lying cranks. I'm just here for the piss-taking this site allows man.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Very cool video. I spent a few years at BAUT (I'm Bogie there), before it became CosmoQuest, and up until they restricted threads in the ATM (Against the Mainstream) forum to 30 days. I went from there to ToeQuest, also as Bogie, and at some point ended up here because of its Pseudoscience forum which evolved into the Fringe, and the Alternative Theories sub-forum. Amazing how my model has changed over the 15 years I've been at it. The bit about turtles all the way down can be reduced to infinite regress, but when your model has infinities, and a sameness of mechanics that produce and maintain the perpetual arena composition of the greater universe, I guess it can be criticised for many reasons, including being Turtles, and being different. We all have the same problem of Fobbing off. One Big Bang? Why only one? Why space being created instead of being infinite to start with, etc. No one has the right answer, but there should be discussion of the alternatives just to keep everyone on their game. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! The idea is that if two parent arenas converge, the galactic material in the overlap space will swirl into a growing crunch, which might be the same precondition of all big bangs :shrug:
Time evolved along with space at the BB. We now refer to that as spacetime. Motion happens in time. Time does not happen within motion.
Because that's all the evidence we have for. We have a reasonable model the BB, based on the evidence. So far nothing has been discovered to invalidate that model, in fact it is re-enforced by the hand in glove fit it has with GR.
But that's also exactly what you are doing! Clinging to some "my theory" idea that you support with misrepresentations, misinterpretations, and misunderstandings.
I don't have an issue discussing the alternatives. But I'm not happy if they're offered as an alternative to saying "I don't know". I remember some years ago when Hawking was on the front of The Times talking about M-theory. He was poo-pooing the people who say God Did It, saying A Quantum Fluctuation Did It. But he wasn't explaining anything. He was substituting one non-answer for another. It wasn't credible, see this. Good. Whatever you do, don't cling doggedly to some idea in the face of the evidence and information and references you get on forums like this. Be flexible. Tweak it here, adjust it there. Eventually you'll find that people have difficulty critiquing it, and then, fingers crossed, you're onto something. Note though that big bang cosmology isn't particularly fertile ground. You don't have the references or the evidence that you've got for something simple like gravity. There's no actual evidence for your high-density spot.
This sounds like the chicken and the egg scenario. Except, if GR is the chicken, it doesn't have the egg, because BBT does not include the Big Bang event. That is one of my points; step up and take ownership of the big event at t=0, and I will then be asking, what caused the event.
And my answer is I don't know. All I can do is point out that when a block of C4 suffers a phase-change and explodes into a ball of gas, you don't assume that that ball of gas started out as a point of infinite density. So why assume the same for space and dream up inflation, when you know about the variable speed of light, and why the light can't get out, and Oppenheimer's original frozen-star black hole, and the gravastar void in the fabric of space and time. I don't know about you, but I quite like the idea of the early universe being a void in the fabric of space and time. It's kinda got a ring to it. PS: I edited my post before this one to chuck in an extra paragraph.
I know, but every dog has a few fleas, lol. Here is a depiction of the evolution of a new collapse/bang event from the starting point of a convergence of two parent arenas. Follow it from left to right, and the last box represents the collapse/bang of the big crunch that hypothetically forms in the sequence: Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! The second to last box might be your frozen-star black hole?
That's rubbish. How do you get the chicken and egg scenario from what I said. I said that the BB and GR support each other, and go together like a hand in a glove. The BB is simply a model of the evolution of the Universe/spacetime. Yes, it does fail at t+10-43 seconds, no one has argued that point. That's why this Planck/Quantum arena is inferred as a Singularity. That's why cosmologists are doing there level best to come up with a observationally verified QGT.
Yep. But all we actually know about goes something like this: Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
