Re: Inflationary Theory ; I'm confused
From: Edmond Wollmann (alchameth3_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 01/24/05
- Next message: asoon: "Re: Iran 's Entrance Exam question"
- Previous message: Tim Peters: "Re: Basically a sieve method, relation to quantum"
- In reply to: Bobby D. Bryant: "Re: Inflationary Theory ; I'm confused"
- Next in thread: Convicted Criminal: Edmond Wollmann: "Re: Inflationary Theory ; I'm confused"
- Reply: Convicted Criminal: Edmond Wollmann: "Re: Inflationary Theory ; I'm confused"
- Reply: Cujo DeSockpuppet: "Re: Inflationary Theory ; I'm confused"
- Reply: wollmannizer_at_spam.free: "Wollmannizer nocem 03344 @@NCM"
- Reply: Dan Baldwin: "Re: Inflationary Theory ; I'm confused"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 23 Jan 2005 20:59:52 -0800
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? 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.
> 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?
"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://www.astroconsulting.com/SDSU
- Next message: asoon: "Re: Iran 's Entrance Exam question"
- Previous message: Tim Peters: "Re: Basically a sieve method, relation to quantum"
- In reply to: Bobby D. Bryant: "Re: Inflationary Theory ; I'm confused"
- Next in thread: Convicted Criminal: Edmond Wollmann: "Re: Inflationary Theory ; I'm confused"
- Reply: Convicted Criminal: Edmond Wollmann: "Re: Inflationary Theory ; I'm confused"
- Reply: Cujo DeSockpuppet: "Re: Inflationary Theory ; I'm confused"
- Reply: wollmannizer_at_spam.free: "Wollmannizer nocem 03344 @@NCM"
- Reply: Dan Baldwin: "Re: Inflationary Theory ; I'm confused"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|