Evidence for Universe Expansion Found

Yahoo (AP) ^ | 3/16/2006 | MATT CRENSON

[AntiGuv]

PS. And what you are effectively doing is bringing up several of the well-known Shortcomings of Standard Cosmology that I linked for you earlier. I see no need to pretend they don't exist when physicists readily 'concede' their existence (heck, they don't just concede it; they debate these problems with great vigor).

You seem to think science should spring forth in immaculate conception and that it just crumbles like a house of cards when you point out some well-known piece of the puzzle that remains unknown. If that makes you feel better, run with it, but it probably won't persuade anyone but your choir.

[AntiGuv]

Granted I imagine you don't have much of a choir. Just your Golden Retriever-esque fellow and perhaps your wife, though most wives tend to be more like the anti-choir.. :)

[Southack]

 

"Shocking as this may seem to you, all matter & energy is part of spacetime..." - AntiGuv

"I want to point out again, however, that the posited exponential inflation between 10-36 and 10-32 seconds did not involve matter or energy 'travelling' anywhere. It involved a stretching out of spacetime from its extreme pre-inflation curvature to 'flat' universal dimensions." - AntiGuv

How did all matter and energy (i.e. your words for part of spacetime) stretch out flat without traveling anywhere?

[Southack]

"In both the undergrad project and the Wikipedia entry you linked, the paragraphs immediately following your quoted excerpts note that more recent models (e.g., Linde chaotic inflation) seek to account for the inadequacies of Guth's original model."

When you cite Guth, expect a Guth-critique. Also, note that I gave you one critique of my own (e.g. no scalar field has been identified that could reverse Gravity) as well as two sourced critiques...none of which you've disputed per se.

[AntiGuv]

Because in order to 'travel' one must move across space and time, and spacetime itself was stretching out, therefore the coordinates of any given particle did not shift. In other words, the particles didn't move, rather in the exponential inflation phase space expanded between them.

Here's a simple way you can picture this: Clasp your hands together. Now, imagine a particle on your hand (this is easy for me, as I have a mole on my left index finger). Now, in order for this particle to 'travel' it has to move to another position on your hand. Now, gradually pull your hands apart - this is spacetime stretching out by inflation. OK, as you can see, the location of the particle has shifted, but the particle hasn't 'travelled' anywhere. It is still at precisely the same coordinates on your hand as it was before.

[Southack]

"Because in order to 'travel' one must move across space and time, and spacetime itself was stretching out, therefore the coordinates of any given particle did not shift. In other words, the particles didn't move, rather in the exponential inflation phase space expanded between them."

How did the space expanding between matter (& energy) impart momentum to matter without moving matter?

[AntiGuv]

I did not cite Guth anywhere except in my above response to VadeRetro on how many orders of magnitude the universe inflated. Do you have a problem with that?

[AntiGuv]

If you revisit my post #739 you will find that I corrected myself to say that the momentum was "left over" - i.e., left over from the pre-inflation expansion.

[Southack]

"I did not cite Guth anywhere except in my above response to VadeRetro on how many orders of magnitude the universe inflated. Do you have a problem with that?"

Physicist cited Guth, hence my Guth-critique.

[Southack]

"If you revisit my post #739 you will find that I corrected myself to say that the momentum was "left over" - i.e., left over from the pre-inflation expansion."

Oh. Sorry. That's very good. I just didn't read your post #739 properly. I read it as saying "Inflation" rather than "pre-inflation expansion."

[AntiGuv]

Then that's between you and him, and so perish the thought that I should interfere with that any further!

[AntiGuv]

Yes, I didn't phrase myself well at that point. I can see how it was easily miscommunicated.

[AntiGuv]

Time for me to pass out for the night!

[Southack]

"Yes, I didn't phrase myself well at that point. I can see how it was easily miscommunicated."

No worries.

But, do you recognize how little "momentum" would have been physically imparted from the pre-inflation expansion phase?

Is this momentum enough to satisfy our current Hubble expansion rate (even if 73% "dark energy" is thrown in)?

[AntiGuv]

*shrug* You don't need much.¹ Something less than the equivalent to produce 72 km/s per megaparsec (+/- 10%) distributed over galactic scales.

Now, I'm out for the night!

¹ Don't you just love subjective terminology??

[Physicist]

Gentlemen, understand that Southack has some deep-seated emotional need for inflation, General Relativity, and even Special Relativity to be wrong. I used to go back-and-forth with him over Tom (face-on-Mars) Van Flandern's speed-of-gravity nonsense until I realized he had "issues" that were orthogonal to the physics. Your time might be better employed discovering what those issues are.

Southack wants--perhaps needs--the universe to be something other than what it is, but why? Is it because he can't let go of childhood fantasies of travelling to the stars? Is it because of a psychological need to defeat the most puissant knights in our society's grandest tilting-yard? (Or, in lieu of that, the other kids in Mr. Robinson's back yard?) Is it because the conclusions of modern science offend his religious or philosophical sensibilities? I leave it to you.

[Southack]

"Gentlemen, understand that Southack has some deep-seated emotional need for inflation, General Relativity, and even Special Relativity to be wrong."

What's wrong with Special Relativity? That's not my argument.

As for Inflation and GR, well, I'm not the first to point out problems with them.

[Southack]

"I used to go back-and-forth with him over Tom (face-on-Mars) Van Flandern's speed-of-gravity..."

Just for the record, I'm no fan of Van Flandern. I "lean" more (pun intended) toward Oliver Heaviside's (he of Maxwell's Equations fame) view of the speed of Gravity: http://www.as.wvu.edu/coll03/phys/www/Heavisid.htm

[ml1954]

A few years back, Hawking said he got two or three letters a week telling him that Einstein was wrong.

[RadioAstronomer]

I used to go back-and-forth with him over Tom (face-on-Mars) Van Flandern's speed-of-gravity nonsense

You and me both. :-)