[jennyp]

Math that disproves Inflationary Theory. Story at posts #374 and #365.

You guys are arguing about numbers so big only dogs can hear, but I do notice that your calculations & conclusions are very different than the paper that Ichy linked to in #317.

In that paper they do the math and (if I read it right) conclude (pp8-9) that the effect on the distance from the Sun to the Earth over 20 billion years is vanishingly small - causing effects that are "22 orders of magnitude" less than the variations of the Moon in its orbit about the Earth.

Or as they put it in their Introduction (pg. 2):

It would appear that one would be hard put to justify a particular scale for the onset of expansion. Thus, in this debate, we are in agreement with Anderson (1995) that it is most reasonable to assume that the expansion does indeed proceed at all scales. However, there is a certain ironical quality attached to the debate in the sense that even if the expansion does actually occur at all scales, we will show that the effects of the cosmological expansion on smaller spatial and temporal scales would be undetectable in general in the foreseeable future and hence one could just as comfortably hold the view that the expansion occurs strictly on the cosmological scale.

And summarizing all the math in the Discussion & conclusions (pg. 10):

The computation of the cosmological correction to the local equations of motion performed in Sec. 2 allows one to estimate numerically the magnitude of the correction to the acceleration of a particle subject to external forces. The numerical estimates obtained in Sec. 3 suggest that the correction is extremely small and unobservable for galaxy clusters, galaxies and the solar system, and negligible for smaller systems such as stars and even more so for molecules and atoms (cf. Anderson 1995). When the cosmological correction to the local equations of motion is applied to the Newtonian two–body problem, the evolution equations for the perturbation of the orbit can be solved. It is found that the cumulative effect of cosmological expansion on the radius and angular motion of the sun–earth system is also negligible. The cosmic expansion plays an increasingly important role for systems whose sizes and lifetimes become increasingly comparable to the Hubble radius and to Hubble times respectively. In this case, the approximation used in this paper becomes invalid. It is well–known that the cosmological expansion must be taken into account, for example, in the fluid dynamical treatment of the formation of structures in the universe (Weinberg 1972). As a conclusion, it is reasonable to assume that the expansion of the universe affects all scales, but the magnitude of the effect is essentially negligible for local systems, even at the scale of galactic clusters.

So I suspect one of you is wrong. :-)

[Southack]

"As a conclusion, it is reasonable to assume that the expansion of the universe affects all scales, but the magnitude of the effect is essentially negligible for local systems, even at the scale of galactic clusters. So I suspect one of you is wrong. :-)"

Indeed. They textually claim that "the magnitude of the effect is essentially negligible for local systems," whereas I do the actual Inflationary Theory math to show that the effect over 17 Billion years would be more than 123 AU between the Earth and Sun per their own theory.

Since the distance is 1 AU instead of 123, they must be wrong per the math.

Math isn't debatable. Calculations may be wrong, theories may be wrong, formulas may be wrong...but the math tells the tale.

And Inflationary Theory's math is the Pinnochio of Science.

[Senator Bedfellow]

Honestly, I don't know why you're bothering - he doesn't even understand the units in play in the Hubble constant, which is why his math is so ridiculous. You might as well spend the time trying to teach your cat to play the violin - it'll be about as effective and rewarding as your efforts with that pile ;)