Inflation is pseudoscience.
- Thread starter kaneda
- Start date
Not a clue. :shrug:
Loser. :bawl:
I said photons lose energy though "cold interactions". You agreed, then said I don't understand. Just when I think you've hit bottom, you start digging again.
If you had nothing to say, why didn't you leave it at that?
Better to stay quiet and have someone think you are a fool than to open your mouth and confirm it. Loser. :bawl:
OK, and I'm not a hypersphere fan either. 3-space can be envisioned easily though and so if you look at expansion in purely Euclidean geometry and co-moving coordinates you can see that the separation of the galaxies complies.
So you are obviously having trouble with the separation of galaxies which implies you prefer a steady state solution. If that is the case take a minute and refresh my memory about what keeps the galaxies from collapsing into one huge hot mass?
As usual, you don't actually discuss the details of what I say, just say "Loser!".
I disagreed that photons can magically lose energy. Interacting with the universe to cool down and experiencing the expansion of the universe to match the CMB isn't what you claimed.
I can provide evidence that mainstream models the photons undergoing red shift to cool down, as well as experiencing interactions with charged particles. If you want to discuss details.
And yet you opened your mouth. :shrug:
Can't you refute any of my criticism? Do you still think I lied about my holiday? Lied about my qualifications? Lied about being a mod on PhysOrg? Why won't you take my bet?
I always reconciled this problem with the following reasoning.
Everything in the universe is just a cycle on a cycle on a cycle. The earth revolves around the sun, the sun about the GC, and our galaxy around the local galactic cluster, and so on...
Perhaps the expansion (if its happening) that we observe today is merely the result of a much larger cycle of contraction/expansion we have not the lifetimes to observe. (Not a complete collapse, think more like a density wave) But Im not convinced this is the case, all I can say is I dont know.
These are all open questions, anyone who tells you they KNOW the answer is lying to you and themselves.
I like the tolerant attitude over the boastful egotist, regardless of how much science they know.
However, let's not forget that science is the subject and though complete agreement among even scientists never happens in theoretical areas, the value of the consensus should not be underestimated because really big science takes a ton of money and money follows the consensus IMHO.
There is a process to help a consensus form. People who are supposed to know more that the rest of us usually work in groups and meet through associations, read each others papers, correspond, and even meet over drinks and chat. The ones who pay the tabs are the ones who learn, the ones who teach drink free
. Just kidding, it is really a sharing of ideas and building on shared ideas.snake river rufus
Registered Senior Member
I'll say the same to you. Clearly you have nothing reasoned to post and are unwilling to educate yourself.
It's becasue HE is the real looser. He hasn't a single shred of evidence to support anything the says, scientific or otherwise. He doesn't accept the expansion of the universe, the existance of the Doppler effect (though he will be quick to say "redshift when it suits his immediate purpose) and his case of paranoia is more than evident. He thinks the whole scientific world is out to get him when, in reality, it's him alone - through his gross ignorance - that's challenging the entire scientific communitity.
So labeling him a "looser" is actually a major understatment.
''He doesn't accept the expansion of the universe, the existance of the Doppler effect (though he will be quick to say "redshift when it suits his immediate purpose) and his case of paranoia is more than evident.''
Niether did the infamous Astrophysicist Fred Hoyle. Was he a looser?
He was a genious.
There's something amusing about this, but I can't seem to put my finger on it!
Distances are such that all galaxies are not in the gravitational range of all other galaxies. They move in all directions. However we have a fair number of photos of galaxies in collision and the space in them is such that two galaxies can emerge from a collision fairly intact, and possibly gain their shape back a billion years later.
A question for you. Why do we have walls of galaxies and why an 18 billion solar mass black hole if everything is drifting apart?
No need to get bitter and twisted because everyone does not think you are infallibly right, Cletus.
Last edited:
Better to be a looser than a loser like you who cannot spell existence. Labelling him as that is an understatement. "Becasue" I assume was a typing error like I hope "communitity" in your mistake ridden post. At least you managed to spell "ignorance" correctly but I assume that is because you have been accused of it many times yourself.
Expansion from a big bang? What big bang?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/09/060905104549.htm
Big Bang's Afterglow Fails Intergalactic 'Shadow' Test
Light travels at light speed. Always at light speed. What matter that the space it travels through in one second expands by a proton's width? Answer?
Your problem is that you are "read only". Definitely no thinking involved, so like AN, you just suck the lot up and spout it out, like an idiot parrot.
EndLightEnd. Unfortunately we have to work with a snapshot (of decades) of a universe that is somewhere over 13 billion years old. We have to guess what is happening based on various clues and hope we have the interpretation right.
We use Type 1A supernovae as a standard candle for distance but they are not standard. One was discovered with TWICE as much mass as normal, so making a far brighter explosion, so making astronomers think it was much further away. The dwarf star simply rotated faster, so could accommodate more mass. There are other reasons why such a nova might not be standard.
Quasar distances were shown as wrong as it was found that the redshift had a gravitational component included from their central black holes which gave it a far higher reading and so they appeared much further away.
And so on. Many blandly and unquestioningly accept what they are told, as though God himself were telling them, so infallibly right. Science does not advance by a bland acceptance of what is.
We use Type 1A supernovae as a standard candle for distance but they are not standard. One was discovered with TWICE as much mass as normal, so making a far brighter explosion, so making astronomers think it was much further away. The dwarf star simply rotated faster, so could accommodate more mass. There are other reasons why such a nova might not be standard.
Quasar distances were shown as wrong as it was found that the redshift had a gravitational component included from their central black holes which gave it a far higher reading and so they appeared much further away.
And so on. Many blandly and unquestioningly accept what they are told, as though God himself were telling them, so infallibly right. Science does not advance by a bland acceptance of what is.
As you just deny what I say, it is not a lot of use. You look on your favourite internet sites, cannot find what I am saying there so decide I must be wrong. It's like trying to debate with a text book.
What CMB?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/09/060905104549.htm
A man with 50 years in the field pointed out that in hundreds of places, what the WMAP was supposedly reading for the CMB at the edge of the observable universe matched HI signatures in our own galaxy, so were almost certainly in our own galaxy. WMAP sounds like something you built.
So you are backing away from redshift is caused by expansion only idea?
I can refute all your criticisms but not at a sufficiently low level that you would understand them. Where's a crayon and a bit of paper when you need it?
What did I say about your holiday? I might have slept through that bit as your posts are so interesting. Yawn!
Your posts lie about your qualifications. Where is any original knowledge in them?
I have explained why I think you were a mod there. Not simple enough it appears as you still don't understand. Crayons and paper anyone?
I have made a bet with you over coin tossing. Why won't you take it?
As you can tell from my posts on the “Cause of the Big Bang” thread, I freely offer alternatives to BBT. On my Pseudoscience thread, “Mass has gravity”, I go off on a completely alternative cosmology. My answer to your question comes from my view of the circumstances of early expansion and the cause of the big bang.
This is speculation and not meant to warp young minds who haven’t already formed a good understanding of the standard theory. I speculate that our observable universe is only one arena in a greater universe where such arenas are the rule and not the exception. I speculate that a big crunch formed, reached a mass/energy density limit that caused mass to cease functioning at the quantum level and therefore caused gravity to fail in the extremely high density at the core. The outer portion of the big crunch was slow to give way to the growing potential “burst” energy locked in its core.
When the burst occurred which is the cause of expansion, the locking of quantum action was not complete and so when the repressed quantum action overcame the diminished gravitational compression there was material that did not get completely negated into core energy. That material could account for the large structure observed in the WMAP data.
To answer the second part of your question for me, you can equate the huge black holes that we are discovering to a very tiny indication that my pet big crunches are formed from the galactic remnants of arenas. The older an arena gets the larger and more frequent black holes would become. Gravity can easily affect a local group of galaxies and form clusters and a cluster over time could merge due to local gravity. Huge black holes would result.
I hope that you can see from my answers to your question that the observations you use that seem to raise doubt about expansion can also fit into an expansion scenario. In fact they can support the alternative ideas about the cause of expansion that I speculate about.
Whether or not there is expansion is a battle that is pretty much over because a consensus has been formed and money supports the consensus. Pick your battles wisely if you want to insist on a steady state. My view is that the greater universe complies with the spirit of the steady state model, but my model adds a level of order beyond one single expanding universe to speculate that the landscape of the greater universe is an infinite multi-verse where local contraction forms arenas that burst and galaxies that form during expansion use expansion momentum to travel back out into the greater universe.
Interesting concept. Similar to my idea except that I believe we are already part of a larger structure, not moving into it.
Except that we could tell if we were already out there.
Expansion appears to be occurring at the same rate no matter which direction we look. If you take the view that I was describing, we would still be within our expanding arena heading for the greater universe where the energy density of our arena would finally become equalized with the lower energy density of the greater universe.
When that equalization occurs between our arena and the greater universe, our remnant galaxies and us (if Earth survives or we escape) will begin to mix and merge with other remnant galaxies and we will see uniform contraction toward a central point from all directions.
We don't see that yet
. Don't hold your breath either; can you say trillions of years?This whole scenario is speculation and should not be considered science and should not be allowed to influence you until you have a good understanding of the standard cosmology.