Re: expansion

On Jan 29, 7:43 am, john280109 <vega...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jan 29, 1:35 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:



john280109 wrote:
On Jan 28, 4:35 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Michael Moroney wrote:
john280109 <vega...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
For there to be expansion where all points are
accelerating away from each other, there has to be
a center. Otherwise you got stuff going all directions.
Therefore if you subscribe to 'expanding universe',
you subscribe to 'we are the center'.
Where is the center of the surface of an inflating balloon, on which all
points are receding from each other?
   All points on the surface of that balloon are equally the center.

Well, it's pretty trivial that a perfect sphere has
a surface that's identical in all directions.
This is not true of a balloon. There's the
little matter of the nozzle. Now, if you paint spots
on your sphere's surface and then expand the
sphere, all the spots *do not* distance themselves equally;
spots directly opposite each other, i.e. the two
axes, will go at the rate of growth of the diameter-
points closer than half circumference will separate
faster.
Oh, now you want to imagine the
balloon's surface to be flat as well?

OK, wait, in order to explain the greater
universe, which we assume to be real, you want to
equate it with something having no center, and also you want
it to have no edge- neither of which conditions has been seen
in anything real to my knowledge.
Plus, you say there's no edge, but you say it's expanding-
expanding with relation to what? Is the whole universe expanding?
And if not, then what?

Gobbledegook- good going physics 2009. Yikes.

john

   <laughing> Interesting how you chose the balloon analogy, implying
   it valid and then tearing it apart. The Universe is flat, homogeneous
   and isotropic on the cosmic scale. And the expansion has no center.

   No Center
     http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html
     http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html

   You must have been tired, John.

+
Tired of bull***, Sam.
"The universe is like an expanding balloon's surface."
Ri..i..g..g..h..h..t!
If the universe's expansion has no center,
then it's the only one. Look up the definition
of expansion. Or is that a 'physics' word?
Like 'spin' where it doesn't
really mean spin 'cause nothing in your model
spins?
'Expansion' that doesn't really mean expansion?

Well, yes, John, this is unfortunately true. The problem is that in
physics we run into things we've never run into before. So when we
describe them, we have a choice: We can invent a new word that means
nothing to anybody but physicists, or we can borrow a familiar word
because the new thing is reminiscent of the old word though not quite
the same, at the risk of confusing lay people who think the old
definition should apply completely. An example is quark "color".
Quarks do not have color in the sense of paint or dye or
characteristic wavelength. But we use the word "color" for this
completely new and foreign property because *some aspects* of this
foreign property are vaguely reminiscent of the way familiar colors
behave. Another example is spin. Now you may think this is unfair and
misleading to lay people. What would you recommend as a policy for how
to describe a totally new and unfamiliar property?


Trust me- your model is physically
impossible. And the universe obeys physical
laws. Every expansion has an edge.

That's simply not true, John. "Every expansion has an edge" is in no
way a physical law. It is YOUR extrapolation from your body of the
familiar. It's not a good idea to call every desirous extrapolation
from the familiar a physical law. You run into obvious mistakes that
way.


PLUS   ..............    it's a stupid model.

Well, if you say "stupid" to mean "personally unappealing and
confusing" then you're certainly welcome to that personal opinion.

But hey! Nothing personal!

john

.

Quantcast