Re: Inflationary Theory ; I'm confused
From: TomGee (lvlus_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 02/27/05
- Next message: LindaBeynon: "Guide to Constellations Star Atlas astronomy 1904 FA"
- Previous message: Ross: "Re: kookdancers digest"
- In reply to: Edmond Wollmann: "Re: Inflationary Theory ; I'm confused"
- Next in thread: wollmannizer_at_spam.free: "Wollmannizer nocem 03522 @@NCM"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 26 Feb 2005 17:30:46 -0800
Edmond Wollmann wrote:
> 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.
>
>
Yes, well, that was the best idea of its time to explain the
homogeniety of elements in the universe, but my model makes the IP
unnecessary because if the BB occurred, when the primordial soup began
to congeal into matter, the matter would have acquired the property of
time, and since matter was then moving at tremendous speeds, its time
rates would have been sufficiently slow enough for the elements to
spread out as they are now.
>
>
snip
>
> > > > > > > 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.
>
>
It is more difficult to imagine that space has the capacity to produce
something than to imagine that space is the medium for matter both
visible and invisible. My model contends that Absolute space (defined
as space devoid of anything in it) exists beyond our universe and
existed where our universe now exists until the BB filled it with
matter.
I am at the point where I can guess that what came just before the BB
was dark matter and dark energy reaching a point of repulsing visible
matter into our famous singularity, which at a certain point of
compaction precipitated the BB. Obviously, space is the medium for
dark and visible matter, so space had to have been around then for the
BB into which to explode.
>
>
> > > > > > 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."
>
>
Yes, I am convinved that AE got it wrong when he forced interdependence
onto space and time. I have shown that there is no such
interdependence by using SR's construction of the Twin Paradox to show
that time is a property of visible matter and not of space nor the dark
matter in it. As such, I have used AE's own arguments against him. If
time accrues at varying rates dependent on the states of motion of
objects, as inferred by SR's TP, then time is dependent on speed and
not on space. Since the universe is defined by my model as that extent
which has covered absolute space since the BB, it can be said that the
existence of all things is dependent on the existence of space, of
course, but not that space is dependent on time. In my model, absolute
space is the basis for the existence of our universe.
>
>
> "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.
>
>
Yes, that is the propaganda the same as I was taught, but if there was
a BB, there has to have been a "before", even though we cannot know
what it was. From your argument above, however, you cannot claim that
your conclusion is valid since even if there was no time and no matter
before the BB, there could still have been empty space. I contend,
remember, that before the BB, there was only empty space devoid of any
dark or visible matter, into which the BB poured out dark and visible
matter with it attendant energy. If there was no space before the BB,
you must believe in the "Great Void Theory", which is an unimaginable
concept to humans at this stage of our evolution, or come up with
something better.
>
>
> > 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?
>
>
An area of space within our universe must have have either dark or
visible matter since there exists no Absolute space we can find.
>
>
> > > > 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
>
>
See how I show above that AE contradicts the findings of the Twin
Paradox in Special Relativity, proving that time does indeed have an
independent existence from the order of events measured by us. Time
rates evidently exist in a wide range of ratios just like light waves
exist in a wide range of wave lengths. Thus, like the tree which falls
in the forest and makes noise even though no ears are around to hear
it, time passes at different rates according to the speed of specific
objects and systems whether or not anyone is around to measure it.
>
>
> > 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.
>
>
Yes, of course. I did not say there was none so I do not get the import
of your statement.
>
>
> > 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.
>
>
No, he said that meaning that we cannot find a point in the universe
from where to measure tell motion, so all motion is relative to the
motion of some other object.
>
>
> > 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.
>
>
Um, yes, but a law can only remain a law until one instance is found to
contradict it. We are not discussing laws above, only AE's beliefs and
the way he applied them to his work.
>
>
> > 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.
>
>
Well, it cannot be otherwise than as I say, in the English language.
There are no semantics involved here; either motion is meaningful to
only one thing or it is meaningful to more than one thing. The truth
of my argument does not depend on your or my opinions as to how we see
things, but only as to whether or not the claim fits the facts.
>
>
> "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."
>
>
What the above means is that the physical content of space exists
dependent upon and only in the s-t continuum, which we know is an
Alice-in-Wonderland math construct and does not exist in reality. I
cannot make sense of the latter statement since it does not explain how
the representation of reality by a continuous field prevents particles,
points, and motion from playing "fundamental parts". Care to try to
explain what the author meant, and how wrong he was about that now that
we know differently about what comprises space?
>
>
> "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.
>
>
Hey! That was not Albert who thought of that first - it was Newton!
>
>
> 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/
>
>
That sounds really stupid to me, sorry. A piece of iron in a magnetic
field is "guided" by the _force_ and not the "structure" (whatever that
means) of the field. And the force only works against it because it is
an iron piece and not a plastic piece. So, what makes the curved space
which is supposedly created by massive objects force other nearby
objects to follow its curves? Mr. Lincoln Barnett makes the weakest of
arguments here in his iron piece and magnetic field analogy.
TomGee 02/26/05
- Next message: LindaBeynon: "Guide to Constellations Star Atlas astronomy 1904 FA"
- Previous message: Ross: "Re: kookdancers digest"
- In reply to: Edmond Wollmann: "Re: Inflationary Theory ; I'm confused"
- Next in thread: wollmannizer_at_spam.free: "Wollmannizer nocem 03522 @@NCM"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
