I’m pretty much just gonna move on. You haven’t shown any desire to read and understand the responses to your questions so far, I see no reason to believe that you will suddenly start doing so now.
You can’t assert nonsensicality; you can merely observe the absence of sense.
It’s like asking you to explain the nonsensicality of “My automobile cat engineers reverse radiation with positive decay”. There’s just nothing there to deal with. One could, I suppose, go to the effort of explaining every word and concept in that sentence and describe how those words should be used, but given the starting position - what’s the point? Even that doesn’t answer your question, even if we could discern what the question actually was. It’s an awful lot of effort to no gain.
In your post, there’s no actual question to discern. I’m sure you understand what you mean, but there’s nothing there to answer. It’s just a string of unrelated concepts and words.
No. Space expands at a constant rate. This means that the farther two superclusters are apart, the fastest they recede from each other. The relationship between distance and recession velocity is LINEAR.
However the gravitational attraction between those two superclusters drops off with the square of the distance between them. The relationship between distance are their relative acceleration is GEOMETRIC. Eventually at great enough distances the reduction in recession velocity from gravitational attraction is overwhelmed by the increase is recession velocity as their separation distance increases.
Then current inflationary theory will change. That doesn’t disprove the big bang in general. It just means that our understanding of what happened during the first few microseconds will shift.
No, I had no idea what you were talking about because you were using nonstandard terminology.
And I was pointing out that for what we were discussing, treating gravity as a force is a perfectly useful model. Physicists treat gravity as a force all the time in their calculations. You just have to know when that simplified model breaks down.
You’ve quoted a bunch of sources, but it clear that you don’t have the background in physics to understand the context of their various claims. If you don’t even have a good grasp of basic concepts like the relationship between mass, force, acceleration, and velocity, then you’re not in any position to mount a critical attack on a theory as well-grounded as the big bang.
You are comparing an unsupported statement with one that was supported with numerous cites.
Was that too flip?
Ok I will try to do better just for you, The cites I provided where from peer reviewed articles and nobody around here seems to understand what that means so I will try to explain.
Science is known as self correcting and peer review is a very large part of the reason why. Getting published is a sign of recognition and respect and it is fairly difficult to get published the first time but if you can make it over that hump and your article is well received by your peers the chances of getting published again rise dramaticaly.
But if you write anything that would be considered nonsensical you can bet that you will never be published again.
Now lets say you provided a link and maybe a quote from a peer reviewed article supporting these “automobile cat engineers that reverse radiation with positive decay”. I would read at least enough to be able to discern if the article really supported your argument and if it did not I would point out to you the how and the why of your misunderstanding.
If however the article did support what you are saying I think I would keep my mouth shut and try to learn something.
Very nice analogy and you understand that Bob would see Malice (Alice’s evil twin) move away one meter and see me move away by 20,000 k. The analogy breaks down slightly because a rope and gravity do not behave the same. Gravity’s influence is infinte and non linear while a rope is both finite and linear.
But still a good way to visualize what theory says is happening.
BTW the article the quote is from was written in 2009 by:
Matteo Carrera
Institute of Physics, University of Freiburg, Germany
Domenico Giulini
University of Hannover, Germany
Not that the authors have to be right but just so you know you are arguing with more than just me.
Here is why I think that will not work. The Andromeda galaxy is 2.5 million light years distant from us and yet no expansion has been observed at least that I know about.
For some counter evidence for me and some support for you read the third article I linked.
http://www.esa.int/gsp/ACT/doc/ARI/A…_Embedding.pdf
It discusses some anomalous acceleration of both Pioneer spacecrafts that could be evidence of local expansion.
Its not as nit picky as your analogy would make it seem to be. Some the temperature differences are as much as 45%. Almost half so it would be more like like going to Greenland and discovering you weigh half as much as you did when you left your house.
If it was just one thing I would agree but there are several inconsistencies which make the whole thing suspect in my opinon.
Why then do we not see some expansion between us and Andormeda?
Yes it is a linear relationship but no it has nothing to do with “the farther two superclusters are apart” and everything to do with how distant from us a particular group of objects are.
Yumblie provided an excellent analogy that might help you visualize this.
[QUOTE=Yumblie]
Let’s say the Earth itself starts inflating like a balloon. Ignoring smaller geological features, let’s say all the oceans and continents are now double their original size, so now the Earth’s circumference is twice its original value. If Alice started out one meter away from you, she would now be two meters away. Bob, on the other side of the planet from you, starting out at 20,000 kilometers away, would now be 40,000 kilometers away. The distance between you and Alice increased by one meter; the distance between you and Bob increased by 20,000 kilometers. If this happened over the period of an hour, you might imagine that you could easily overcome a force pushing you and Alice apart at one meter per hour, but be hard pressed to find a rope that could withstand a velocity of 20,000 kilometers per hour.
[/QUOTE]
Yes but (unless I am misunderstanding you) your placeholder is a constant repulsive force and if it is not that please explain what you think it is.
We agree that gravity, being an attractive force drops off proportionaly with distance would drop off quite a bit between here and Andromeda and we should be able to see some effect if in fact dark energy was a constant force.
Do you think you can change the first few microseconds without changing the rest?
I mean you could still keep the bang but everthing following our new understanding of inflation (or not inflation) would have to be modified.
Care to address the claims of my sources?
Jon,
you seem to be misunderstanding the relationship between linear progression and geometric progression. let me try to help you understand this. Lets say Y is the effect we observe from earth and X is distance between observed unit and Earth we can formulated a simple equation:
Y= X- (1/X^2)
X being the linear effect exerted on light based on expansion of space or what ever.
(1/X^2) being the effect exerted on light based on gravity. (using the widely accepted inverse square law)
plot the following equation in what ever you so desire. I used the site below
http://graph-plotter.cours-de-math.eu/
As you can clearly see for value of X 0 to 2 the graph is heavily influenced by the non linear function but we look at x=15 then linear part dominates.
You asked why we don’t see effect of expansion between us and Andromeda, that’s probably why. Now obviously the equation I proposed is an oversimplification but it does clearly show how gravity can overcome a linear function. I imagine this is the source of frustration for many people as you continue to throw around ideas like dark energy which no one really know what it is but fail to understand the concept like linear and geometric progression. Other thing is you keep on throwing up cites talking anomalies after reading some of them most of them suggests further investigation is warranted but can reach no firm conclusion. The real question is, can you actually weigh these anomalies and understand its full implication?
Throwing concepts like dark energy around is almost ironic considering you seem to reject BBT because its lack of certainty but willing to use something that even more uncertain to attack it. From this I smell confirmation bias.
The purpose of the rope is to give a simple, tangible way to represent force. I could replace it with a mysterious 2-dimensional attractive force that only works along the surface of Earth, but that would be needlessly complicated. The rope gets the main idea cross, in that the force to keep two people together increases with the distance between them, so at some point, the rope snaps. It’s an analogy, so yes, it has its limitations.
You keep bringing this up, making me think you’re not reading the posts here carefully. The expansion works on LARGE scales. LARGE meaning even greater than the distance between here and Andromeda. Using the 70 km/s/Mpc Hubble constant, Andromeda, being about 1 Mpc away, is pushed away from us at 70 km/s. That sounds pretty fast, but given that Andromeda is trillions of km across, that speed is negligible compared to the size of the galaxy. The gravity of the Milky Way is able to overcome it.
It’s highly unlikely the Pioneer anomaly is because of local expansion because a) the expansion at the scale of the Solar System would be undetectable, even lower than the measured anomaly, and b) the anomaly is pushing it the wrong way, the spacecraft is moving away from us slower than it should be.
I’ve never heard this before. The CMB temperature variations are tiny fractions of a percent. There is a dipole variation representing our motion relative to it, but when that’s taken into account, it’s quite uniform.
The problem is that the “inconsistencies” don’t cancel out the consistencies. All these nit-picks point out is that the theory is incomplete, which no one is going to argue with. How can you explain the existence of the CMB itself without an expanding universe? You still haven’t given any alternative.
Forgive me. I will check out the articles…
I’m afraid I can’t find reference to “Perhaps you could start by explaining to me how it is that the earth with a mass of 6,000,000,000,000 ,000,000,000,000 (6E+24) kilograms does not have the gravitational force to pop my eyeball but it can overcome the force that causes the metric expansion of space at a distance of over 2.5 million light-years. Yet this same force is powerfull enough to push superclusters at c+ speeds.”
If you would be so kind as to locate that quote in the document, I’d be most grateful.
Presumably we do, but the effect is swamped by gravitational attraction.
The fabric of space itself is expanding. There is no FORCE pushing distant objects apart, and there is no acceleration involved.
Nope. Andromeda is in our backyard, relatively speaking. The metric expansion of space only begins to dominate over local gravitational effects at much greater distances.
[Tangential side-track]
For Jon55 and others who have noted from time to time that multi-quotes and quotes-within-quotes are un-figure-out-able: You’re not crazy. You’re right. (As far as SDMB functions go, at least.) I have determined that these functions just plain don’t work with some versions of some browsers and/or some operating (to-wit: the ones I use most often). I have Winders XP and Ubuntu systems here, both running the same (old) version of Firefox, and these functions work fine on the Winders box but not on the Ubuntu box. Go figure.
[/Tangential side-track]
Where did I say direct quote?
I said
[QUOTE=Jon55]
I would read at least enough to be able to discern if the article really supported your argument and if it did not I would point out to you the how and the why of your misunderstanding.
[/QUOTE]
Yes that really helps thank you and thank you also for the Cours-de-math website it beats the heck out of graph paper.
Part of my misunderstanding is everytime someone says “linear effect” I see linear “force” as in the way a piston works. All the force is exerted in a straight line. But it is obvious from your equations that is not what you meant. Sorry to you and Hamster for my misunderstanding.
No probably not I have made no secret of me being a layman and math challenged to a degree. But I have been watching this debate for some 25 years now and I do think that I can draw some reasonable conclusions from the work that is being done by others. I look at it as a good deal for both of us I fix the things that need fixing for them and they explain what lies beneath the surface for me. I started out at libraries and bookstores and happily moved onto the internet when it became available. So much more information is at my fingertips these days.
My question to your question is: Does it have to be all or nothing?
Can I not have reasonable objections without a perfect understanding of all that is involved?
Nah I gave up on Genesis being literal a long time ago. My bias is more like looking back at all the mistakes that have been I feel pretty safe in assuming there are still plenty being made.
I just think there is alot more observational evidence for expansion and that implies dark energy or whatchacallit.
I forgot to answer this in my earlier reply.
Please dont understate the magnitude of the problem with dark energy. This paper :
http://wfirst.gsfc.nasa.gov/science/DETF_Report.pdf
Is written by 13 of the most distinguished persons in the scientific community today.
The paper is a formal plan of tackling the problem of dark energy and uses some very strong language to indicate what it will take to continue to progress our understanding the universe that we live in.
From the article:
“The acceleration
of the Universe is, along with dark matter, the observed
phenomenon that most directly demonstrates that our
theories of fundamental particles and gravity are either
incorrect or incomplete.
Most experts believe that nothing
short of a revolution in our understanding of fundamental
physics will be required to achieve a full understanding of
the cosmic acceleration.
For these reasons, the nature of
dark energy ranks among the very most compelling of all
outstanding problems in physical science.”
ok
Ok you are saying that the gravitational forces totally negate any dark energy that might be present.
Between you and TripleFail I am starting to agree.
Actually I went and found something for you. The latest studies are showing that it was heat leaking from the electronics on board out through the antenna.
http://news.discovery.com/space/oh-pioneer-mysterious-anomaly-may-finally-be-solved-110414.html
OT but I found this interesting from the article:
“The discrepancy is 10 billion times smaller than the acceleration due to gravity, but it was unmistakably there in Anderson’s calculations”
NASA has some fine insturments eh.
I cannot find where I got those numbers from but here is a NASA site discussing the cold spot and the implications.
[Page Not Found - NASA missions&baynoteOrGSA=baynote&cn=nasa&cc=gov](Page Not Found - NASA missions&baynoteOrGSA=baynote&cn=nasa&cc=gov)
I withdraw the 20 to 45 percent number until I can find a cite.
Well I dont have an alternative so if that makes BBT automatically right in your mind so be it.
Totally swamped?
Ok
You are alone on that one buddy.
Yeah I came to the same conclusion but thanks Senegoid.
Jon55, in case you aren’t familiar with the field enough to know, the paper you linked to is what we would call a “please please please don’t axe our funding during budget cuts” letter, meant to be read by, and be persuasive to, politicians. The point of that letter is to argue (to the NSF and DOE mostly) that it is in the interest of the United States government to fund the research. Scientists have to lobby for their grant money!
Also, there is a distinction between understanding that something is, and understanding why it is. It is a fact that distant objects are moving away from each other, and it is a fact that the more distant the objects, the faster they are moving away. This is just plain old observable fact, and it is slapped with the label “dark energy.” The precise mechanism behind dark energy is not well understood, and is a fascinating and important avenue of research. But the fact that it exists is beyond dispute.
Not quite. One might, instead, say that “any theory is better than no theory.”
Science most often works by the “last theory standing” process. A bunch of competing theories duke it out, until, one by one, they fall by the wayside. A new champion might pop up later…
But you can’t say, “A new, more successful theory will come along later,” and use that as an argument. Yes, it is, in fact, quite likely that this will happen. But no one know any of the details of that theory, or when it will be produced, or what features of the prevailing theory is will demolish.
Science also operates under the “put up or shut up” process.
I predict we’ll invent antigravity machines some day. Care to invest half a million dollars in my start-up corporation?
My 1st Entry - and what a topic I choose to engage in.
Big Bang v’s Christianity.
Is my great great great great etc etc Granddaddy a rock?
Faith is required to believe in both BBT and Christianity.
I find it far easier to believe in God than Granddaddy Rock.
Good luck to you super intelligent people finding the answer - I already have, AND, it gives me peace.
.