Re: Inflationary Theory ; I'm confused

From: Edmond Wollmann (arcturianone_at_earthlink.net)
Date: 02/15/05 

Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 01:47:52 GMT

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?

> > > 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?

> > > The BBT claims that space came out of the BB, in order to explain
> the
> > > reason why as the U. expands, the coordinates of objects in the
> cosmos
> > > do not change although the distance between them, us, and each
> other,
> > > increases with time. That way, they can claim that space is
> expanding
> > > without having to explain the mechanics of just how that could
> occur.
> > > But to be able to claim that, "they" (i.e., the true believers)
> have to
> > > claim that there was no space before the BB, only an unimaginable
> > > so-called "Great Void"! I don't know which is the more nonsensical
> > > notion, that or the one about space coming out of the BB!

> > 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. 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?

> 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?

"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 

-- 
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

  • Re: viewing light from the earliest stages of universe
    ... > every area of the universe. ... external from the matter in the singularity. ... > assuming that the expansion is caused by a force upon every bit of matter ... >, like a kid that can walk down the aisle of a moving bus, has no problem ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Why relativists dont understand Einsteins 1905 mathematics.
    ... and our task is to find the system of [transformation] equations ... xi, eta, zeta, tau that system k, moving at v on X of cs K, would ... he realized that his space (matter itself)is NOT ... a bee is there at that instant. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Search for Higgs Boson not dangerous.
    ... >> and such matter moves independently of the space it moves through. ... Einstein proved with his "static universe". ... As the space expands, objects would separate all the more ... it seems that objects are moving more ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Inflationary Theory ; Im confused
    ... > Edmond Wollmann wrote: ... > to us but was really moving through time in his 4d parallel universe. ... Time is a property of visible matter, ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Inflationary Theory ; Im confused
    ... > Edmond Wollmann wrote: ... > to us but was really moving through time in his 4d parallel universe. ... Time is a property of visible matter, ...
    (sci.astro)
Loading