Universe Expansion

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience' started by hansda, Aug 24, 2017.

  1. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    What is the point arguing with you when you dishonestly attribute things to me repeatedly?

    My stand is and was since post#5 that reduction in temperature on account of expansion is explained by the thermodynamic entropy concept (constancy of VT^3 ( not by CMBR red shift). I never said that expansion will not result into drop in temperature. Even otherwise it is very coomplex when we consider the temperature now and continued expansion as the universe is no longer a black body. CMBR spectrum that is BB specttum at 2.7K peak is actually observational evidence of reduction in temperature.

    Now stop this dishonest trolling, you have contributed nothing to this thread you are only taking shelter in other posters argument sometimes exchemists and sometimes DaveCs. I see not even an iota of hint that you understand this level of physics.

    Stop it and please desist from infracting me on frivolous grounds. You have done that in past even while being in thick of nasty arguments.
     
    Last edited: Aug 31, 2017
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,623
    Right that's enough. Why don't you FUCK OFF to another forum?

    Some of us like to discuss physics here. We do NOT relish whining, pointless personal vendettas and nitpicking based on deliberate obtuseness - all of which you have made your personal speciality and which wreck otherwise interesting threads.

    I am hoping you will be permabanned, but in case you are not....[click]......
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    Exchemist, you know what, Kittamaru is unnecessarily and probably mindlessly got stuck in a situation created by you.

    You are dishonestly keeping silent on the issue that argument with you was not on the fact that temperature would reduce, it was on why (the explanation thereof).

    Show some Character strength and Clarify the situation, Otherwise these Click drama etc is not going to impress anyone here.

    PS: and by the way you are not discussing physics when you Claim that 1. radiation will have mass and 2. CMBR explains the reduction in temperature on expansion of universe.

    TheSe are not nitpicking, they are fundamental concepts.
     
    Last edited: Aug 31, 2017
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Kittamaru Now nearly 40 pounds lighter. Staff Member

    Messages:
    13,431
    My apologies - it was Origin, not Dave - I transposed names in my head while replying due to Dave's avatar being on screen immediately proceeding the reply (my fault), but the comment in question was:

    Considering this - you have zero ground upon which to make demands of this moderation or administration team. You have been given multiple chances to explain yourself, and have chosen not to do so. Now, having been sufficiently called out on it, you are attempting to rewrite your own posting history.

    Sorry, but these kinds of actions have become tired and stale, and are not welcome here...

    And now you attempt to lay blame on other members for your trolling actions.

    This will not be tolerated. Full stop.
     
  8. river

    Messages:
    9,793
    Sometimes Kitt, its better to let them hash it out.

    I see a better understanding , in the end .
     
  9. Kittamaru Now nearly 40 pounds lighter. Staff Member

    Messages:
    13,431
    In general, I would agree - however, I have to ask - how do you "hash it out" with someone that is being willfully and intentionally deceitful? How do you have a rational discussion with someone that has no interest in making a point, much less defending an actual position?
     
  10. river

    Messages:
    9,793
    Hmmm.... by seeing both sides of their thinking .

    Its easy to to think that one side is more rational than the other , however it is the depth of this discussion between the two that leads to a conclusion that makes sense . Its not easy to come a truth , but the truth is there .

    Leave them to their discussion , there is no harm to anybody . Let them be , but read their posts .
     
  11. uhClem Registered Member

    Messages:
    15
    I think that the key here is that we tend to think that we see the Hubble effect only from distant objects, and that the effect is not seen locally. But consider this thought experiment. A pair of facing mirrors with perfect reflection perfectly parallel to each other, and a photon bouncing exactly perpendicular to the mirrors, back and forth between them. Over time, the path distance sum of the photon is the same as the distance traveled by photons traveling from cosmological distances in the same amount of time, because the expansion is the same everywhere. And so the local effects of expansion are every much as evident locally as they are seen in the distant cosmos. Hubble expansion is every bit as important locally as it is at cosmological distances. It is easy to see (if I am correct here) that the local effect of Hubble expansion is significant. I will go out on a limb and say that expansion lowers regional temperatures. Mass in motion over cosmological time periods will experience kinetic energy loss due to the increase in the path sum.

    I am sure you will tell me if I am wrong. All comments welcome. Appy-polly-loggies if I am completely out in left field.
     
    Write4U likes this.
  12. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,093
    I agree. I do have a question;
    Will a photon bouncing of a pair of perfectly aligned mirrors create interference in the probability wave pattern?
     
  13. hansda Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,218
    We can compare our universe with a balloon.

    A balloon is filled with some air. The air molecules move randomly and hit the inner-wall of balloon randomly. Net effect is that air-pressure and volume of the balloon remains constant for a fixed amount of air or energy.

    In the case of our universe, say at the time of big bang some energy is inputted in this balloon. Here the balloon has no inner wall. All the galaxies after their formation moves randomly. As there is no wall, following the Law of Inertia these galaxies keep on moving randomly. So, to an observer on the earth; the distance between galaxies will be increasing. Thus our universe is expanding into nothing. We can say, our universe is expanding into Big Vacuum or Big Void which basically is nothing.
     
  14. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,236
    The above an analogy that does more harm than good.

    As witnessed by the fact that your conclusion, here, is completely wrong:
    The universe is not expanding into nothing; the word "into" is not valid in any description of what the universe is doing.

    Distances within the universe are simply increasing.
     
  15. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,093
    But it is allowed to do this in a permittive condition, by any other name.
     
  16. NotEinstein Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    549
    V and T? Are you referring to the ideal gas equation, or a fluid-equivalent of it? The universe expanding has very little to do with isothermal or adiabatic expansion, as it's not some restricted volume that's expanding, but space itself. The usual derivation goes like this: http://nicadd.niu.edu/~bterzic/PHYS652/Lecture_05.pdf eq 113 and the text around it.
    Or http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~dhw/A5682/notes4.pdf halfway page 4 and further.

    Nowhere is there any need for a discussion for isothermal or adiabatic expansions, as these are not applicable in this case (to the best of my knowledge; please correct me if I'm wrong!). Note that these texts are talking about the radiation's energy density, but that's quite straightforwardly related to the radiation's temperature.
     
  17. Geon Registered Member

    Messages:
    190
    What a shame for you that you cannot pester me in my thread any more...


    You'll go around here pretending you had every intention now of posting in other threads and become a useless member of sciforums. Just like origin....
     
  18. NotEinstein Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    549
    (Says the person posting in this thread for the first time, responding only to me (while supposedly having me on "ignore"), insulting me, insulting Origin, ... You know you shouldn't be derailing this thread just because you "want to pester me", right? It's against the rules.)
     
  19. hansda Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,218
    If a polygon can be drawn, connecting all the galaxies of our universe; this polygon will be having a shape. The shape of this polygon may be closer to a sphere.
     
  20. hansda Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,218
    Can you explain this in a bit detail. Was the big-bang happened at multiple locations?
     
  21. hansda Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,218
    What harm, this analogy will do?

    Do you have any technical objection, other than grammatical or wording objection?

    Actually the distance between galaxies are increasing, where the gravitational attraction is less.
     
  22. RADII Registered Member

    Messages:
    94
    No. Measured, known distances dictate that the 'webbed' or 'foam' depiction you see is an accurate one.

    http://www.lsw.uni-heidelberg.de/users/mcamenzi/images/Cosmic_web.jpg
     
  23. hansda Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,218

Share This Page