Re: Inflationary Theory ; I'm confused

From: Widdershins (sinistre_at_liripipe.com)
Date: 02/26/05 

Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2005 08:56:07 -0800

X-No-Archive:Yes
On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 17:44:23 GMT, Edmond Wollmann
<arcturianone@earthlink.net> licked the point of a #2 Yellow Pencil,
and 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.
>> > > > > > > > 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.

What kind of Luddite thinking is this? The fact is that the galaxies
are moving away from each other. That simple fact is documented
by observing the doppler shift in the light that comes back to us. If
the glaxies are moving apart from one another, the space between them
increases. In the Einstinian model of a curved space/universe, space
must expand to account for galactic movement.

>> > > > > > 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,

Bullhockey! The rocketship is a phyisical construct. The patch
of dirt it rest on is also physical. How can the laws of physics not
apply?

[...]

>
>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.

Are you talking about the dust, gas, planets, stars, and the rest of
the crap that fills the cosmos? In near space, there is approximately
one molecule/cu. meter. The unoccupied distance between those
molecules is "empty space," i. e. a place devoid of physical matter.

>
>> > > > 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."

Show evidence that his statement is "not a fact." Eddieeeeeee, your
scientific bon-fides are woefully inadequate for this converation,
"Mr. Orion is a star."

>"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.

The "deviration" does not follow. You actually have to establish a
"time" when there was no matter. Name one, just one astrophysicst
who goes along with your cockamamie ideas, "Mr. Asteroid Belt Was
a Planet Until the Civilization That Lived There Destroyed it."

>
>> 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?

How big an area are you talking about? You must define the parameters
of your argument, or you come off an ignorant jerk, "Mr. Dinosaurs
Were so Big Because Earth's Gravity Was Much Less Than it is
Currently."

Idiot.

Snipped drivel, including Eddieeeeee's spammed .sig.

Widdershins

"Anyone who thinks they're important is usually just a pompous moron
who can't deal with his or her own pathetic insignificance and the fact
that what they do is meaningless and inconsequential..." William Thomas

Quantcast