Re: Inflationary Theory ; I'm confused
From: Cujo DeSockpuppet (cujo_at_petitmorte.net)
Date: 01/24/05
- Next message: h.poropudas_at_luukku.com: "ERROR correction (in summary called Readme.all (ASCII text file 19.10.1994))"
- Previous message: nightbat: "Re: Possibilities for life on Mars - a surprising new microbe."
- In reply to: Edmond Wollmann: "Re: Inflationary Theory ; I'm confused"
- Next in thread: wollmannizer_at_spam.free: "Wollmannizer nocem 03344 @@NCM"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 10:40:59 +0000 (UTC)
"Edmond Wollmann" <alchameth3@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:1106542792.068984.108380@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
> Bobby D. Bryant wrote:
>> On Tue, 18 Jan 2005, "Rob Dekker" <rob@verific.com> wrote:
>
>> > Over the past couple of years, I've read various articles
>> > about the Big Bang Theory. Part of that is a theory
>> > proposed by Groth, which states that the early Universe went
>> > through a period of very rapid expansion called 'inflation'.
>
>> > I understand that the inflation theory was
>> > invented to explain the 'flat-ness' of space and the
>> > MBR isotropy (microwave background indicates that
>> > the early Universe had a very consistent high temperature).
>
>> > I am confused about this inflationary period.
>
>> > I've read somewhere that the Universe expanded to
>> > a size of 40 million light years within a miniscule time.
>> > This would clearly violate the limitation of the speed
>> > of light.
>
>> IANACosmologist, but I think the speed limit applies to moving stuff
>> around _in_ space, wheras the expansion of the universe is an
> expansion
>> of space itself, not subject to the speed limit.
>
> I am wondering then what constitutes "space" if there is little "stuff"
> occupying it?
Jeez, more sig material from the kook that thought Tau Ceti was in
Taurus, Orion is a star and dinosaurs were so big because of lessened
gravity.
> I thought space/time were aspects of the physical
> universe and that moving one directly "moves" the other so to speak and
> that the properties of the space WAS defined by the "stuff" in it.
What happened to all that claptrap about a "Multiverse", Pantihead?
As usual, you got cause and effect backwards.
>> If the universe is "big" enough, some of it will be receding from us
>> faster than the speed of light even today, due to the expansion of
>> space.
>
> What is the Universe defined by then if not the material in it that is
> moving around? Wouldn't we have to have something OTHER than what is
> typically known as empty space to differentiate it from the thing it
> was expanding in or expanding to become?
Ever hear of black holes, Ed? There's one right between your ears in case
you need a comparison.
Intelligent words go in, and gibberish, screed and kookiness exit. It's
positively amazing!
-- Cujo - The Official Overseer of Kooks and Trolls in dfw.*, alt.paranormal, alt.astrology and alt.astrology.metapsych. Winner of the 8/2000 & 2/2003 HL&S award. Hail Petitmorte! Colonel of the Fanatic Legion. FL# 555-PLNTY Motto: ABUNDANCE!. Charter Member - Digital Brownshirts and Library Gestapo. "The more you spam me, the less spam I get" -Edmond Wollmann, once again focusing with laserlike precision and crystal clarity.
- Next message: h.poropudas_at_luukku.com: "ERROR correction (in summary called Readme.all (ASCII text file 19.10.1994))"
- Previous message: nightbat: "Re: Possibilities for life on Mars - a surprising new microbe."
- In reply to: Edmond Wollmann: "Re: Inflationary Theory ; I'm confused"
- Next in thread: wollmannizer_at_spam.free: "Wollmannizer nocem 03344 @@NCM"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
