Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by paddoboy, Jul 20, 2015.
Get a clue.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Learn some physics and then you can quit making a fool of yourself when you try to discuss cosmology. Since you don't have any real understanding of inflation theory your opinions are irrelevant.
I'd like a second opinion, and don't mince words this time. What exactly do you think is wrong with this idea as opposed to whatever is so right with inflation theory?
You understand that before he picked up inflation theory, Guth's only other claim to fame was winning the world's messiest desk contest in 1999, right? Sadly, I lost that contest to him.
I already know I'm ugly, as well as stupid because you have already pointed this out. Please tell me again exactly why it is that cosmologists can't possibly be just as "stupid" as well? Granted, I've had a much longer time to become that way.
Why doesn't the Big Bang, General Relativity, WMAP, Planck observations and the rest already explain cosmology well enough that we don't really need someone like Guth to work out a theory with ALL NEW science, ALL NEW forces, ALL NEW energy levels, etc., etc.?
Your honest opinion is valued. Really. I already know you are quite capable, literate and knowledgeable on the subject of mainstream cosmology.
To learn who rules over you, simply find out whom you are not allowed to criticize.
You'll like this even more. From Professor Wayne Hu a bunch of great tutorials on cosmology and specificically how things are measured and interpreted associated with the great CMBR experiments.
I've been reading parts of Professor Hu thesis which was published in 1995. It's very well written. It's amazing how fast the knowledge is growing on these subjects.
A better link to an animated presentation:
For the short form, I suggest:
From this summary link:
"The Acoustic Peaks
First peak shows the universe is close to spatially flat
Constraints on the second peak indicate substantial amounts of dark baryons
Third peak will measure the physical density of the dark matter
Damping tail will provide consistency checks of underlying assumptions"
Wayne has collaborated on string theory papers and also did some considerable work trying to relate bicep polarization data and inflation to those same acoustic peaks:
We all know that the bicep polarization data he was analyzing in the first slide there was seriously (but perhaps not irretrievably) flawed.
So your answer seems to be that workaday cosmologists can be just as wrong as I am, only in more spectacular fashion, using all of the latest techniques and tools at their disposal.
The oscillations are very interesting, but it does not yet sell me on the idea of inflation as a solution to what is being observed. Sometimes, there just aren't any good explanations, but this certainly does not mean that we should not try them all.
The idea that the whole universe is acoustically ringing like a large baryonic matter loaded bell is certainly an attention getter. When we understand all of the components of that oscillation in more detail, we will certainly understand the known universe in a deeper sense. I would only point out once more that one method of ringing a bell is simply for something else to collide with it, and that this may also be an effect that would behave very much like inflation, even down to the details of superluminal relativistic expansion and residual acceleration. Think of the residual acceleration as an escape velocity for the known universe, which for all we know could also have a net rotation from the collision. The prediction would then be that some, but not all of the matter in the known universe would eventually be able to escape, and this, by the way, is another means of damping oscillations without introducing any new physics.
Someone just pointed out to me also that Roger Penrose also does not believe that inflation is needed to explain the acceleration we currently see in the expansion of our universe. Although the significance and interpretation of the Penrose rings have been recently downplayed, the process of a recycled universe he described is very similar in many respects to the idea I suggested about a collision between universe-sized relativistic projectiles. I rest my case.
I would like to return to the point that changes in space-time, due to gravity/GR or not dependent on time, but only on mass and distance. This is indirectly suggested by inflation, since inflation expands faster than the speed of light. Without time dependence within GR, you can get effects that are not confined by the time limits of space-time, such as the speed of light.
This has implications that are not taken into account that changes the playing field. Most models of BB and inflation are based on space-time and not what underlies space-time; GR, which is not dependent on time, but only on mass and distance. Force needs time to act, limited by the speed of light. If one is starting without the restraint of time, force constraints are not yet active, allowing universal changes of mass and position with the push of a finger.
I have been working on this, this past summer, and can explain why this is so. It is only when space-time begins to dominate mass-distance does time become a concern; force appears. I have often wondered how can the BB inflate if it is like the grand daddy of all black holes, yet little black holes do not do this. The paradox was connected to space-time and not mass-distance.
That is because inflation occurred about 13.5 billion years ago and the acceleration of the expansion of the universe is happening today. Apples and oranges. I don't know of any mainstream cosmology that thinks they are the same thing.
Those 2 ideas seem completely unrelated.
Why do you say that? It certainly appears that time is rather important in describing space-time.
There is nothing in SR or GR that precludes the universe from expanding faster than light. SR and GR indicate that nothing can exceed the speed of light moving through the universe.
Something underlies space-time? This seems to be essentially word salad.
The universe was not a black hole, a black hole is something that occurs in the universe.
There is no paradox and this makes no sense that I can discern.
Rather than just suggest I have the answer, let me move this forward to the first stage of the analysis. Since mass and distance in GR can impact changes in space-time, independent of time, and even distance if distance is zeroed out, this implies mass contains the potential in time that shows up in space-time.
The time potential within mass can be explained as being connected to the in situ motion of the sub particles within matter. The in situ sub particles of matter move close to the speed of light and therefore exist in highly time dilated references. This in situ time dilation, contained within atomic composites within space-time, causes a reference in reference effect. Space-time is the external reference, while in situ defines a second reference.
As a thought experiment to help visualize this, say you had two references, side by side, with one reference stationary and the other reference given sufficient energy, so it can move near the speed of light. The moving reference will show time dilation, with the clocks in that reference running slower.
Next, say you could put your hand into that slow reference, while retaining your stationary reference (hypothetical for illustration). Your hand will define the reference in reference effect. What you will try to do is dribble a basketball contained in the slowed reference, from your faster stationary reference. Because time is running slower in the other reference, and the laws of physics are the same in both references, if you try to dribble the ball normally, the ball will not accelerate as fast as expected, because it is moving slower in time. Because time is running slower, the needed force, to get a normal looking dribble affect, in your reference, will be different. You will need to increase the amount of force, in your reference, to make the ball move as fast as expected in your reference, to compensate for the time lag in the other reference.
After it rebounds the floor, if you tried to pushed it down as it rose up, it will slowly push your hand upward, as though it has this extra inertia. The in situ time, contained in the reference in reference effect, acts like a lever in your reference, leveraging acceleration, inertia and force, which are all the properties we associate with what we call mass. All mass is a reference in reference effect based on time lag.
Ultimately, although the sub particles segregate into matter composites such as protons, they are all still interacting with each other to give summation forces like gravity. From this in situ time reference, we also get distance in space-time due to the quantum nature of the universe. I will explain this next.
Time is important to describe space-time, but if you look at GR, this is not time dependent. It is only the final mass geometry in space that defines the final space-time reference. It does not matter how this mass geometry is created in time, space-time will remain the same. If we take longer to add more time, or take less time to remove time, the time in space-time stays the same. If you increase or decrease mass or distance, this makes all the difference and will change space-time and time. This has been overlooked for decades.
If I understand you correctly this has not been overlooked at all, it is simply trivially obvious.
When someone strikes a drumhead on which particles of sand have been uniformly deposited, and some of them happen to reside on a node of vibration of the drumhead, they tend to move to the antinodes. To take the analogy further, areas of anisotropy form depending on the size and natural frequency of the drumhead/oscillator/universe. We could probably learn a lot about the inertia of what's in most of empty space by means of such experiments. This is a big deal.
Temperature differences in the CMBR are differences in energy. According to mainstream cosmology, the three acoustic peaks in the spectrum represent damped oscillations between gravity and photon pressure. I just read one of Wayne Hu's slideshows which was trying to relate the orientation of B mode polarizations of the CMBR to gravity waves. Which one of us was trying to stretch an analogy to its breaking point? Can't you even tell?
This is why cosmology discussions seldom pay off in terms of any real science progress, and also the reason I tend to avoid them. The cosmological theory I have sketched here resembles in most respects a similar one I came up with at age eleven. My classmates responded with "that's cool" and "I believe".
Somehow the mainstream cosmology I'm seeing now as the most popular looks more like the inconsistent cosmology I came up with when I was nine. Giant turtles all the way down, or even giant penguins. The turtles and penguins make more sense in a lot of respects.
If you don't understand inflation cosmology, I suggest the best thing to do might be to forget about it and simply ask your youngest children to provide a different story. They are usually more imaginative and entertaining than the ones many adults make and occasionally, they are even more consistent with observation than something like inflation. Anyone can make "new science". But valuing it over established science is both denigrating to science in general and infantile, as well as ignorant.
Photons have no mass and therefore I would be very surprised if any oscillation between photon pressure and gravity could be observed even under ideal circumstances. It would be miraculous if it looked anything like a damped acoustic wave in the CMBR. Which is to say, the first calculation I would wish to see is one comparing their respective energies. Try again.
Exactly! The obvious is very easy to overlook. But since this obvious triviality is true, one should not be too quick to accept that which does not take this into account. How theory about the BB explain that lack of time dependency of space-time, when the primordial atom; singularity, was under purely GR conditions? Isn't this important?
Think of this logically, with GR, one can vary mass; more or less, or one can vary distance; more or less, and space-time will change. If we change the time scale by which we alter mass or distance, there is no impact on the final space-time reference. Time is not important when determining the final space-time reference in GR.
What has happened in the physics community is space-time is being used as the ground state reference of physics, when the trivial observation shows that time is not as fundamental as mass. Mass-distance is more fundamental than space-time, based on what GR uses to alter space-time.
If you read my explanation for mass, mass is based on potential in time, generated by a reference in reference effect, where space-time is the dependent reference. The in situ reference of the sub particles of matter is the independent reference. The use of space-time as the zero point results into too many bandaid theories. The reference in reference approach is far more portable.
I have a rather stupid question (no surprise coming from me, right?):
If it takes a photon of EM 170,000 years to reach the photosphere of our sun, how can we even do something like stellar seismology on remote stellar objects larger, smaller, or the same size as our sun? Wouldn't that process take a prohibitively long time to process, as opposed to something like, say, terrestrial seismology?
If acoustic oscillations in the CMBR analyzed by cosmology projects like BOSS are measurable at all, why don't they require much, much longer for our instruments to process?
Physicists, theoretical or otherwise are known for most of their brain waves and revelations in their younger days. Roger Penrose is on the scale of brilliant, but even brilliant individuals sometimes get it wrong, and seem obsessed with certain aspects the older they get.
The BB model also is not so much a theory of the beginning of the Universe, [it says absolutely nothing about the initial event] but more a model of how the Universe/spacetime evolved from a hotter denser state.
And of course a recycled or Oscillating Universe, does not invalidate what we are able to describe by extrapolating back 10-43 seconds to the actual BB event. It simply extends the model beyond present parameters.
I must admit deep down within my little inner self, I actually see merit in a "recycled/Oscillating" Universe, but then again all of us are allowed to speculate.
I totally agree with all your comments but I'm sure all the issues you have commented on have been relayed to wellwisher before today.
And I'm just as sure he'll keep on keeping on with his rambling philosophical sidetracks and nonsense. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
The Sun has been emitting photons for 5 billion years or so.
You guys don't appear qualified to answer my question? Does this forum have access to more qualified people, or do such people think this site is no longer worth the trouble due to subjectivity and insults?
I will repeat myself since some people are slow. Changes in GR, which defines space-time reference, is not time dependent, even though the resultant changes in space-time will cause the time in space-time to change. How is that possible?
Everyone seems to be trained to base ground reference on a place in space-time, with space-time a dependent variable. This poor assumption could explain the need for so much variety of bandaid theory.
Separate names with a comma.