Re: Inflationary Theory ; I'm confused
From: ghoulx (ghoulx_at_ghoul.de)
Date: 02/05/05
- Next message: Ornik Valid: "Re: A Car's velocity"
- Previous message: Sam Wormley: "Re: Accelerating universe"
- In reply to: Edmond Wollmann: "Re: Inflationary Theory ; I'm confused"
- Next in thread: deaf smith: "Re: Inflationary Theory ; I'm confused"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2005 20:25:04 -0500
Edmond Wollmann wrote:
> 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://home.earthlink.net/~arcturianone/
to those who dont know, EDMO is a k00k!
- Next message: Ornik Valid: "Re: A Car's velocity"
- Previous message: Sam Wormley: "Re: Accelerating universe"
- In reply to: Edmond Wollmann: "Re: Inflationary Theory ; I'm confused"
- Next in thread: deaf smith: "Re: Inflationary Theory ; I'm confused"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
