They'll say that it didn't apply during the Big Bang.
Posted on 03/16/2005 11:59:50 AM PST by PatrickHenry
I am not sure what the distinct\ion is between time and observability is. The two seem very related.
F = ma
They'll say that it didn't apply during the Big Bang.
Apparently it doesn't apply now.
"They" don't "just assume it's expanding." Cosmology, the product of professional physicists and astronomers, isn't conducted like a bull session in a coffee house. They conclude it's expanding based on the evidence they observe. Here's an example: The Four Pillars of the Standard Cosmology.
As for your question about who's to say, well, anyone can say anything, of course. This thread demonstrates that. And historically, every swami, witchdoctor, and guru who ever lived has had something to say about the universe. Take your pick. Or add your own conjectures. This guy does: TimeCube.
But if you want to know what's verifiably observable, and testable, and consistent with everything else that science is learning, then only those with the extensive training necessary to understand the field, and who actually examine the evidence, are qualified to say what is scientifically known.
I was thinking of Einstein's General Theory of relativity and his illustration of the difference in time, assuming a constant acceleration at the speed of light, between a passenger on a train and an observer standing on a platform at the train station. Theoretically, it doesn't matter who is actually moving as they are moving apart at the same rate but time passes differently for each.
I am not a physicist nor do I play on on TV. However, I did stay at....Nah, not really.
Yes, but current scientific political correctness requires that we all ignore Hubble's observations showing an ever-increasing rate of acceleration of expansion of our Universe...that way we can pretend that a single Force "in the beginning" shoved matter ever-outward in conflict to our proven laws of physics and direct observations to the contrary.
Throwing aside current scientific political correctness, after all, would invalidate the Big Bang theory.
The Big Bang, General Relativity, and Evolutionary Theory have somehow persisted in spite of scientific observations...but one wonders how much longer such fads can hold out.
What moronic nonsense. Almost the entirety of modern astrophysics research has been consumed by examining via some means or other the ever-increasing rate of acceleration of expansion of our Universe..
(14.19)
or
(14.20)
Due to its origins the constant is given the name Cosmological Constant. In 1931, it was pointed out to Einstein by Hubble, that the universe was indeed expanding. Einstein then referred to the introduction of the cosmological constant as the ‘biggest blunder of his life’. Today the universe is thought to have a residual cosmological constant that is making the expansion of the universe accelerate.
Now why do you suppose that Einstein wanted a static universe?
Could it be because the best available data of the time did not reveal an expanding universe?
BzzzzzzzT! Try again. :-}
OK, well then could it be because the best available data of the time did not indicate a collapsing universe?
"Festival of TimeCube Emulators" placemarker
:-} OK enough games, here's my opinion. Lemaitre and Einstein had discussed the field equations and Lemaitre's Cosmology in 1927. I think history would show that Lemaitre's thesis of an expanding universe and Big Bang was quite sound. One problem though, Lemaitre was a Catholic priest and Einsteins wasn't interested in Big Bangs, ie: creation.
Interesting. My third guess was gonna be that Einstein recognized some slight, oblique manner by which his theories might imply the existence of God, and that being an evil, godless scientist he invented the Cosmological Constant in order to dispense with that chance, however remote and tangential.
The only problem seems to me that it's commonly perceived that a "static" universe would be more suggestive of God than an expanding universe originated by the Big Bang. Of course, both views are nonsense, but that's not the point.
LOL, evil? A socialist for sure, a man who despised men who wore a uniform, definitely, a man who said who would he prefer to die rather than pick arm himself post Naziism, so he said. And yes, an unusually brilliant man, and arguably one of the two or three most brilliant men of our time. But evil?
The only problem seems to me that it's commonly perceived that a "static" universe would be more suggestive of God than an expanding universe originated by the Big Bang.
Not by the account of Genesis in my Good Book.
Of course, both views are nonsense, but that's not the point.
No, both views are nonsense to you. Big difference.
My post #68 to you seems unnecessarily harsh, so I apologize. I've come down with the flu & am not in the most gracious of moods. Back to bed!
PS. No one is trying to hide the accelerating expansion of the universe from you or anyone else.
The notion that an expanding universe is more indicative of God than a stable universe, or vice versa, is total rubbish. Sorry.
Neither is more so than the other.
An expanding universe implies a staring point, creation, or as Lemaitre told Einstein, a Big Bang.
Sorry.
For what?
BTW, the flu strain this year is a bitch, it lingered for weeks. Plenty of rest and fluids. Good luck
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.