Re: Inflationary Theory ; I'm confused

From: Edmond Wollmann (arcturianone_at_earthlink.net)
Date: 02/25/05 

Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 17:44:23 GMT

TomGee wrote:
> Edmond Wollmann wrote:
> > TomGee wrote:
> > > Edmond Wollmann wrote:
> > > > TomGee wrote:
> > > > > Edmond Wollmann wrote:
> > > > > SNIP
> > > > > > > > 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 agree, as the notion of space expanding is so stupid that
> it's
> > > > > embarrassing to hear it.
> > > > > > I am wondering then what constitutes "space" if there is
> little
> > > > > "stuff"
> > > > > > occupying it? 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.
> > > That is the way AE explained how a rocketship on the surface of
> Earth
> > > is really moving in curved space. He said that the ship appeared
> still
> > > to us but was really moving through time in his 4d parallel
> universe.
> > > I assume he meant that since time and space are interdependent, the
> way
> > > he saw it, moving through time must also mean that an object is
> moving
> > > through space as well.
> > I agree, but these are issues of perception, not physical laws,
> correct?

> Correct.

But my point was that the SPACE itself is a product of "material" in it,
not something separate from it that is just "empty". How is that
possible, I cannot see that as feasible.

> > > > > My model of the U. claims that the basis of all space is
> absolute
> > > space
> > > > > (i.e., space devoid of anything in it), but the space of our U.
> is
> > > > > filled today with visible and invisible matter ("real" and
> "dark"
> > > > > matter/energy) so it is no longer empty space but a medium for
> > > matter
> > > > > and energy, the extent of which defines the size of our
> universe.
> > > > If there were no matter then, in that model, would there still be
> > > > recognizable space?
> > > Yes, of course. The alternative is the "Great Void", and, like the
> > > Great Pumpkin, it does not exist.
> > But isn't "space" a dimension of the physical universe? Doesn't there
> > have to be "space" between OBJECTS before one can determine there
> even
> > is such a notion?
> My model does not deny that space exists, only that space did not come
> out of the BB, but most of what did come out is dark matter and it
> filled and continues to fill absolute space to the extent the expansion
> has occurred.s edges. Absolute space, then, is what existed before the
> BB and still exists except for that part of it which our universe is
> occupying. Since it has dark and visible matter in it, it is no longer
> absolute space because it is no longer "devoid of anything in it".

But I am speaking of the area if you will, that has NO matter in it,
that space in my view IS the product of the matter, even though it
contains none.

> > > > It would seem to me that space and matter are closely connected
> to
> > > time
> > > > and the experience of both and that it is difficult to perceive
> the
> > > one
> > > > or the other with much accuracy while we inhabit it. Sort of like
> a
> > > fish
> > > > believing that all that surrounds the fishtank (outside of it
> that
> > > is)
> > > > is inherently "waterlike".

> > > Yes, space, matter, and time are closely connected, but it is not
> that
> > > difficult to distinguish the individual components, like we
> distinguish
> > > the leaves on a plant. Time is a property of visible matter, thus
> we
> > > must have matter for time to exist.

Then in my world we must have space as well.

>> Matter exists in space, and so
> we
> > Then isn't space a property of matter as well? And that we must have
> > matter to have space?

> No, because a property of something cannot be a property of that which
> it is a property. Remember that absolute space was here before matter
> existed and so we can have space without matter. The reverse is not
> true, however.

This is your belief, not a "fact." "Before" is also a misnomer, because
if there was no matter and no time as the effect of that matter-- then
there was no "before and after", and then, by derivation, there could be
no "space" either.

> I disagree that space itself is expanding, like a rubber ballon expands
> as we blow it up. What is expanding is that which is in it, and that
> is, dark matter.

Ok, but what about the area that contains no matter?

> > > must have space as a medium for matter. Obviously, then, we first
> must
> > > have space.
> > In my world, if there's no matter, there cannot be the construct of
> > space. Perhaps I am wrong in this?
> I hope I have convinced you otherwise with the above.

Not yet, no.

> > "Space has no objective reality except as an order or arrangement of
> the
> > objects we perceive in it, and time has no independent existence
> apart
> > from the order of events by which we measure it." The Universe and
> Dr.
> > Einstein

> Thanks for the quote, but I disagree that space has no objective
> reality except as [a medium for] the objects we perceive (??) in it. I
> am sure that if AE had known about dark matter, he would not have made
> that claim. We know now that space does indeed have an objective
> reality in that it is comprised of dark matter.

Dark matter or no, there still IS space.
 
> AE once said that motion was meaningful only between two objects. He

Yes, because there is no "edge" or up and down to the universe.

> also said that time and space are both flexible and dependent upon the
> state of motion of an observer. If you study both statements, you will

Yes, because there is no "law" of the universe that can be found to be
applicable ALL THE TIME except, perhaps the speed of light, and even
that is possibly incorrect.

> soon realize that one seems to be a contradiction to the other because
> if the latter is true, the former must be false. Time and space are
> not objects, but if they are dependent upon the motion of observers,
> that shows motion is meaningful between more than just two objects.

I do not see it that way at all, I see it the way I explained it above.
 
"According to general relativity, the concept of space detached from any
physical content does not exist. The physical reality of space is
represented by a field whose components are continuous functions of four
independent variables-the coordinates of space and time. It is just this
particular kind of dependence that expresses the spatial character of
physical reality.
Since the theory of general relativity implies the representation of
physical reality by a continuous field, the concept of particles or
material points cannot play a fundamental part, nor can the concept of
motion."

"Just as Maxwell and Faraday assumed that a magnet creates certain
properties in surrounding space, so Einstein concluded that stars,
moons, and other celestial objects individually determine the properties
of the space around them. And just as the movement of a piece of iron in
a magnetic field is guided by the structure of the field, so is the path
of any body in a gravitational field determined by the geometry of that
field." Lincoln Barnett in "The Universe and Dr. Einstein"
 
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
© 2005 Altair Publications, SAN 299-5603
Astrological Consulting http://www.astroconsulting.com/
Artworks http://www.astroconsulting.com/personal/
http://home.earthlink.net/~arcturianone/

Relevant Pages