Re: T_Wake, can't you count that high ?


"Jeff.Relf" <Jeff_Relf@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:Jeff_Relf_2006_Jun_9_dX7v@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Hi T_Wake, There are lots of missions to test the Cosmic_Inflation
theory,
WMAP being the most recent one, the Planck bird for L2 orbit is the next
one,
to launch in 2007 or 2008.

Which is it you disagree with, the t=0 event (Commonly known as Big Bang) or
Cosmologic Inflation?

You seem to be easily confused in which one you want to attack.

None of them will find gravity waves because the Planck boundry
is purely artifical, ad hoc... bad sci-fi.

Can you remind me which parts of Inflation Theory indicate gravity waves are
requirement for the theory?

It's only purpose is to avoid wading too deep into the sub-Planck realm.

Word salad.

Nothing is more natural than to assume entropy
is intrinsic to mass-energy over cosmic-time, i.e. lambda is
ever-constant.

Nonsense.

You told me:

Nothing in the big-bang-inflation model suggests there is a "place"
where the t=0 event took place. What have you read which says otherwise ?

As I just finished telling Shane and Matt_Silberstein...

General_Relativity's lambda,
( part of the standard model of cosmology, Lambda_CDM )
models time as a spatial dimension, -ct ^ .5,
so 13.7 billion years is the same thing as 13.7 billion Light_Years,
i.e. it's also a length.

In what part of the universe is this an answer to the question. I asked
where the BB-Inflation model implied a place for the t=0 event. You reply
with "its also a length."

Does that make sense to the crack addicts in your blockhouse?

General relativity models time as a dimension. _Not_ (and this is important)
as a spatial dimension.

Where have you read _anything_ saying otherwise?

A year is not a lenght. A light year is not a unit of time. You can use the
same nonsensical reasoning to discuss a meter as a unit of time or the
second as length.

Critically, your inability to answer these (basic) questions highlights the
fact you are, simply, making this up as you go along.

Assuming lambda is ever-constant, it's demarcatable in either degrees
Kelvin,
entropy ( Joules per Kelvin ), light-years or seconds,
...whichever best suits you.

In essence, this is what you have said:

Assuming statement A is correct, it is possible to make wild leaps to assume
C can be described as a colour.

What is 1400K in seconds?

You are getting seriously out of your depth here.

You told me:

For now we will avoid the issue of why _you_ have decided
five is the magic number for the dimensionality of the universe.
I will pretend ( for a while ) that it isn't arbitrary
and you actually have reasoned from first principles.

Why do you use a 3D Newtonian model ?
instead of General_Relativity's 4D model ?
is three a magic number for you ? or can't you count that high ?

Interesting that you seem to be confused on a few things. First off, GR has
three _spatial_ dimensions and models time as a _temporal_ dimension., so in
actuality I _am_ using a four dimensional model. The difference is I am
using it properly and you aren't.

Next we move on to the proof. We know from a variety of sources - the strong
nuclear force, gravity and - interestingly, based on your obsession with
standard candles - how light propagates over distance, that there are (with
almost 100% certainty) three spatial dimensions.

The "magic" of GR was to show how time can interact with the spatial
dimensions (yet not be a spatial dimension) which lead to space-time.

The number of dimensions is not arbitrary. It is based on observation.

On the other hand, you have added a poor understanding of science to some
erratic wiki-scrapes and picked on an arbitrary amount of dimensions. Why
does your model have _five_ spatial dimensions, not six? What determines
_nothing_ else as being a spatial dimension in _your_ theory?


.

Relevant Pages