Seeking Evidence of Cosmological Inflation:

Some differences in the interpretation are not a problem. You can interpret the history of the universe as expansion, or as the shrinking of all rulers. Above are valid, and equivalent given the equivalence principle.

What is criticized by Carroll and me about inflation is not a particular interpretation, but technical errors in the pop-science presentation. Roughly, you know that I prefer the shrinking rulers interpretation where all the galaxies remain on their places but the distances between them seem to increase because the rulers shrink. But in http://ilja-schmelzer.de/gravity/inflation.php I do not even mention this difference. What is criticized is technical nonsense. Assigning a velocity (in m/s) to the expansion rate (in 1/s) is simply a technical error. A similar error is if one confuses the inflation, which is defined by an increasing expansion rate, or $a''(\tau)>0$, with the common sense ideas about monetary inflation, which is simply a high expansion rate, $a'(\tau)$ being large.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You reject the expansion of the Universe when the FTL asspect is talked about, yet you raise the ridiculous "shrinking rule" hypothesis that has no support for obvious reasons?
I do think that if the mass as well as forces were shrinking together, it would be equivalent to an expansion of space, but would require a coincidental equal contraction of mass and forces (so that we wouldn't detect any change), so obviously it makes far more sense to call it an expansion of space.
Your hypothetical lacks reliable and repeatable observations.
If there aren't observations to support shrinkage, the idea fails for first causes.
Please give us a reference from any legitimate peer reviewed scientific literature of observations that matter is shrinking. Made up assertions of your own are not adequate. We have an alternative theory forum for that.

My opinion stands on the spacetime expanding FTL matter.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No. First, I do not reject the expansion, it is one valid interpretation of GR. I reject a nonsensical talk about FTL, where claims are made that "the expansion" is faster than light. Which is simply nonsensical. Feel free to talk about FTL relative speed for some far away galaxies. But there exists no "expansion speed" measured in m/s which one could compare with the speed of light.

Then, your name-calling "ridiculous", is, made by a layman without any arguments supporting this claim, ridiculous itself. It is compatible with all empirical evidence, because it is simply a different interpretation of this evidence. Above interpretations are indistinguishable by observation, so that the empirical evidence for one is the same as for the other one. So, the only argument accessible to you is that the mainstream prefers the "expansion" language to describe the situation.

Nonsense. We have the equivalence principle. Which is supported by a lot of empirical evidence. And the equivalence principle tells us that we cannot distinguish expanding space from shrinking rulers. All we can measure are distances as measured with our rulers. So, what we can measure, is that the distances between far away galaxies, in comparison with our rulers, increase. If the cause of this effect is a real increase in the distance, with unchanged rulers, or a real shrinkage of the rulers, with unchanged distances between far away galaxies, is nothing we can tell having only these relative data. Above descriptions are equivalent about all observables.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

double post

 

double post

 

I've given all my reasons and a few links that support my position: And please do not start your false pretentious indignation and disgust over the word "ridiculous" which was obviously applied to what you claimed...It makes you look rather less than professional and hypocritical to boot, and employed to gain some sympathy, which is the general methodology of cranks and trolls.
But again I suppose I should thank you for another "half hearted"backdown and support for mine and the general mainstream position, with your phrase.......
" Feel free to talk about FTL relative speed for some far away galaxies"
And I certainly did not infer that you reject expansion, I said that..."You reject the expansion of the Universe when the FTL aspect is talked about"

Plenty of obfuscation and not much else......again.
Other than your again apparent backhand support with the phrase......
"So, the only argument accessible to you is that the mainstream prefers the "expansion" language to describe the situation".
Which most certainly makes it legit, especially when compared to what you have said and claimed previously.
Finally......
Please give us a reference from any legitimate peer reviewed scientific literature of observations that matter is shrinking. Made up assertions of your own are not adequate. We have an alternative theory forum for that.
The hypothesis is as nonsensical as your ether

 

Getting back on track again, and to repeat just one of the linked papers I gave..........

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0011070

Abstract:
Hubble's Law, v=HD (recession velocity is proportional to distance), is a theoretical result derived from the Friedmann-Robertson-Walker metric. v=HD applies at least as far as the particle horizon and in principle for all distances. Thus, galaxies with distances greater than D=c/H are receding from us with velocities greater than the speed of light and superluminal recession is a fundamental part of the general relativistic description of the expanding universe. This apparent contradiction of special relativity (SR) is often mistakenly remedied by converting redshift to velocity using SR. Here we show that galaxies with recession velocities faster than the speed of light are observable and that in all viable cosmological models, galaxies above a redshift of three are receding superluminally.

 

Here's another article written by John Gribbin:
http://aether.lbl.gov/www/science/inflation-beginners.html
One of the peculiarities of inflation is that it seems to take place faster than the speed of light. Even light takes 30 billionths of a second (3 x 10^{-10} sec) to cross a single centimetre, and yet inflation expands the Universe from a size much smaller than a proton to 10 cm across in only 15 x 10^{-33} sec. This is possible because it is spacetime itself that is expanding, carrying matter along for the ride; nothing is moving through spacetime faster than light, either during inflation or ever since. Indeed, it is just because the expansion takes place so quickly that matter has no time to move while it is going on and the process "freezes in" the original uniformity of the primordial quantum bubble that became our Universe.
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
And another........
http://www.mso.anu.edu.au/~charley/papers/LineweaverDavisSciAm.pdf
Notice that, according to Hubble’s law, the universe does not expand at a single speed. Some galaxies recede from us at 1,000 kilometers per second, others (those twice as distant) at 2,000 km/s, and so on. In fact, Hubble’s law predicts that galaxies beyond a certain distance, known as the Hubble distance, recede faster than the speed of light. For the measured value of the Hubble constant, this distance is about 14 billion light-years. Does this prediction of faster-than-light galaxies mean that Hubble’s law is wrong? Doesn’t Einstein’s special theory of relativity say that nothing can have a velocity exceeding that of light? This question has confused generations of students. The solution is that special relativity applies only to “normal” velocities—motion through space. The velocity in Hubble’s law is a recession velocity caused by the expansion of space, not a motion through space. It is a general relativistic effect and is not bound by the special relativistic limit. Having a recession velocity greater than the speed of light does not violate special relativity. It is still true that nothing ever overtakes a light beam
http://www.mso.anu.edu.au/~charley/papers/LineweaverDavisSciAm.pdf

 

Why should I provide reference to nonsense which I have never claimed to exist?

Again, the two interpretations - expanding universe vs. shrinking rulers - are indistinguishable by observation because of the equivalence principle everywhere where the equivalence principle holds. So my claim is that what you ask for does not exist, and even cannot exist everywhere where the equivalence principle holds. That means, up to now everywhere, because violations of the equivalence principle have not been observed yet. Nowhere.

Fine. No problem at all. I see no reason to object, I would guess Sean Carroll would also see no reason to object. The same with the following:

This is what Carroll has commented with "Sometimes this idea is mangled into something like “the rule against superluminal velocities doesn’t refer to the expansion of space.” A good try, certainly well-intentioned, but the problem is deeper than that." So, this is also not a claim that there is something wrong with this.

What is shared between all this is that you see physical differences and disagreement where we have none, because it is only a difference between different but equivalent descriptions. So, the scientists who disagree with Carroll exist only in your fantasy. As well as the scientists who would reject my shrinking rulers interpretation.

On the other hand, Carroll and me reject certain claims as plainly wrong. Claims which probably seem to you as having a similar gist as those quotes. But we do not reject these claims because they have a wrong gist, but simply because they are wrong. A minor reformulation could possibly correct them, leaving the "gist" untouched. So, what Carroll and me are doing here is what you name "pedantic".

 

You are disgusting !!

I simply said how the follwing pairs can co exist....you have to pick one...

1. Big Bang came after inflation
2. Big Bang came before inflation.

1. Spacetimne is a physical thing.
2. Spacetime is not a physical thing.

You dishoenstly, and more precisely a man without education, tagged along with schneibsetr who appeared to you well supported by Mods here, so you had no guts to counter him.

 

TG Insults will get you another holiday away from the forum as "the god" it wont be a nice trip unless you are wearing socks.

Please save yourself and appologise.

Alex

 

Pl do not bother about my trip outside. These are minor hiccups and demonstrate the weakness of moderation in handling the crisis. I standby all my statements. I still feel that, if we have a technical Mod, then it his paramount duty not to let incorrect version go by in mainstream section. if there are two unresolved versions, then a clarity must be established by such Mod. Do we have Mods only for awarding points ? He can't run away saying that I do not have the right to demand answers.

Where is the unbiased technical intervention here ? Look how pathetic this thread is, an expert on the subject is trying to explain something to a person who lacks basic education...instead of learning, this person is being argumentative with him and declaring the expert as fake. And the Mods are silent...they will jump in if this ignorant person is scolded.

 

I think you can handle the problem without insults.
Its not a good look for you or the forum.

Alex

 

good looks !! I am clean shaved, quite good looking and fit !! Does it make any sense on this forum ?

Why don't you keep your sermons off, for my (God) sake, can't even say for you that please contribute something.

 

What do you want me to contribute, is there something you dont know about cosmology, if so ask and I will try and help if I am able.
Good night I am off to rest my wiskers.

Alex

 

especially when his feeble minded rant and rave's are hypocritical, correct?

 

That's OK, you are off topic anyway.

Professor Carroll is a well respected professional.

Doing what you do best Schmelzer, obfuscating: As I have said, the only point where Professor Carroll is wrong is failing to recognise the FTL recessional velocities is a valid interpretation, as most other reputable mainstream scientists agree....just as I have already informed you.

What you believe scientifically and politically is of no great concern in the greater scheme of things, and that is the crux of the whole debate.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

You think so? Really, I'm a nice bloke.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Both have been answered, the problem is you don't like the answers.
Let me reiterate......Inflation is probably the first aspect of the evolution of spacetime we have any data and evidence for, and we have various interpretations of that that go back to the Planck/quantum level and the BB. One is eternal Inflation.
On your second problem, what you are confused with is your definition of the word "real" Depending on that definition, will be the reason why some may view spacetime as real [which I do along with Professor Sean Carroll]
That of course is based simply on the fact that something real does not need to be a physical thing.

Well that is your opinion which you are entitled to but the facts in reality are that it is you that has had your rather strange views on cosmology rejected and in some cases moved.
On Schneibs, sure I agree with him on most things, just as I do with many others here including the mods that are professional in this area of expertise.
Ágain, it's you that's on the outside and proposing scenarios which are just false and not evidenced and have been rejected by the forum and more importantly mainstream science in general.
With my education, well I'm certainly educated enough to have worked you out and I'm certainly educated enough to be able to sort the wheat from the chaff, and recognise well established, well evidenced and well observed cosmology and physics, without being hindered by any closeted agenda.

 

What you stand by in the main, has been shown to be wrong, and we do have two mods reasonably competent in this area of expertise already so I fail to see what your beef is. Both those mods have at different times , questioned and showed that you have been wrong, so again what's your beef...they are doing their job as you wish.

What do you mean by unbiased? Anyone that agrees with you?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

While we certainly do have a professional giving a point of view in this thread, that same professional is also somewhat outside of mainstream shall we say, and has a paper that has never been cited on the ether.
The same person seems to simply argue pedant issues most likely driven by some strong opposition by me to his rather strange claim that his ether theory predicts more then GR and that mainstream cannot bring themselves around to that fact and by extension are indulging in conspiracy.
I argue strongly against that and his ether hypothetical, along with his total denial of the validity of recessional velocities of galaxies exceeding FTL, of course based on a pedantically applied technical point.
Again on that score, I recognise both interpretations but prefer as a far better explanatory device, the fact as held by mainstream cosmology in general, that the recessional velocities of distant galaxies certainly can be viewed as FTL.
I hope that clears up your misconceptions.

 

The problem is Alex two fold.....Some people cannot learn as they have pre-conceived "answers" already indelibley marked on their brain, and other people just do not want to learn. Both are driven by various agendas.