Why now, exactly? The Speeding up ad infinitum of the universe was only discovered in 1998. Modern Scientists promptly dreamed up a new force, Dark Energy to account for this Speeding Up Expansion. Dark Energy has only been around since 1998. Before that, they think the Expansion was slowing Down. You seem to think the Expansion was Slowing Down, and then it sped up again. Did you ever think ( it does require a modicum of imagination) that the Observable Universe's expansion started slowly and has since Sped Up? Or is that too Scientific for you?Not my model, not my picture. Just a graphic on Wikipedia.
Criticism <> denigration.
astrocat, if you want to fight, don't complain when people fight back.
If you want to discuss and learn like the rest of us... then there's no need to fight. It's not a contest.
Perhaps if your instructions were a little clearer. The address of the page is easy to copy and paste from the address bar:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space
You can learn to do even trickier stuff by reading the FAQ, or just playing with the buttons in the advanced post dialog.
But anyway. It looks your are referring to this diagram in the Metric expansion of space Wikipedia article:
I'm not certain what that diagram is intended to illustrate, but it seems to have been made by a Wikipedian (note - not from science literature) to illustrate the effect of Q on the qualitative nature of the expansion.
It's not clear to me why the author of that diagram chose to have all the lines intersect at "now", nor why the "accelerating" line has an inflection, nor why they chose to place "now" at the inflection point.
Perhaps Dywyddyr, Alphanumeric, BenTheMan, or someone else who knows something about cosmology can suggest an explanation.
Is eeryone happy with the Big Bang? I'm not.
- Thread starter astrocat
- Start date
- Status
I think your raisin cake model is silly. It completely fails to show the ad infinitum Speeding up of the Expansion. My models represents the Cosmos perfectly. The Central Vac model shows the Speeding Up Expansion of the Universe, the Cooling Down from this Expansion, the exponentially increasing Clumping Up of the Observable Universe - everything. It explains how the expansion is not increasing ad infinitum, but to a terminal Velocity - much more Scientific if I might say. My models show a Cosmos that evolved Alpha Numeric, not one that arrived instantly. My models show a finite Cosmos, unlike yours which started off finite, but then went infinite. How do you do that? Your big bang is just so much hot air. Sure, books have been written on it, Mathematricians have proved it, everybody believes in it... That doesn't make it true. Dressing it up doesn't make something true. I notice you don't comment on my models. Pretty good, I think.
I really don't care about the thousands of man-years devoted to your Big Bang. Dressing something up doesn't make it true. And your raisin cake model indicates a Warming Universe. The raisin cake is warming, isn't it? And it completely fails to show the exponential ad infinitum Expansion of your Universe. Your raisin cake expands only so far, and then it stops, just like any other Outward Expansion. Talk about a weak model! My models on the other hand all demonstrate the Speeding Up to a terminal Speed Observable Universe, showing the Cooling Down, exponential Clumping Up, everything, in fact, the Observable Universe is doing. Why won't you discuss my models - because they much better represent the activity of the Observable Universe than yours (your instant Universe) does.
In 1998, Dywddyr, the same year Dark Energy was (coincidentally) discovered (manufactured). It was in 1998 they discovered the Expansion was Speeding Up. I guess that's close enough to 'Now,' astronomically speaking. On the subject of Dark Energy - do you happen to know where I can find some? Surely, it's in one of the museums?
please, if you can't contribute, why bother?
Stars live longer than Planets. That's all there is to that. Large Stars probably go on for longer than small Stars. And yes, when systems expand, or when they Lose Pressure, they tend to expand (or Lose Pressure) evenly. Either way, we are all going around something else, so our apparent direction will always be changing on the short term. It's in the Long Term that we are falling into the Hydra Centaurus Super Cluster. As for the Black Hole at the Center of the Universe, it's beyond even the Shapely Concentration, and as such is imnpossible to detect at the present time. It's just too distant. I went to Wiki, about these 'Tides' but there isn't a page on Wiki, not about your tidal forces. Please tell me yes or no, is this about Sphaggettification? And if we were falling into a Black Hole, Pete, we'd be Speeding Up, Cooling Down, Expanding as we Lose Pressure - exactly as we'd be doing if we were falling into a Central Vac. Can you see that? Speeding Up leads to a drop in Pressure (Bernoulli) and a drop in Pressure is Expansion (Boyle) and Expansion leads to Cooling Down - that's the Joules-Thomson Effect. My theory breaks no Laws, unlike your Big Bang which flies in the face of Gravity. My theory, of course, conforms with Universal Gravity.
So you STILL can't provide a link or reference to the relevant Wiki page?
If you were only half as smart as you think you are you'd be ten times smarter than you really are.
Astrocat, you make it very hard not to ridicule you.
Please, click on this link: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=tidal+force&l=1
When there are words underlined in my posts, astrocat, that means those words are a link. You can click on those words to go to a web page that supports what I'm saying.
For example, in the post you just quoted:
Here are some links from previous posts you should also read:
Last edited:
My point was that unlike your "I just made something up off the top of my head" 'model', the big bang is something a great many people have worked on and critiqued and tested, so it has at least some descriptive ability. Your 'model' has none.
No, it doesn't. I said before that I don't understand why you'd come to a physics forum and argue about a topic you know nothing about with people whose job it is to know these things. If you're going to lie about physics don't like to a professional physicist, it just makes you look extremely stupid.
The BB model correctly predicts the power spectrum of the CMB. I commented on this before but you ignored me. If you're having to resort to ignoring things you quote me saying then you're showing you're aware of your dishonesty.
You don't have any 'models', nothing you've said models anything.
I have repeatedly asked you to provide these models, to provide something which can be used to model the phenomena in question, which you claim you can model. You haven't provided it.
How can I discuss your models when you don't provide them? That isn't my fault, I can't read your thoughts (thank god). If you're unwilling to present your work and have it help up to some scientific standard I can't be blamed for that.
A classic example of you using intuition and failing (larger stars live shorter due to greatly increased burn rates) and throwing out classical mechanics concepts (Bernoulli's principle, Boyle's law) which you don't understand. You've also shown that you have done no reading on gravitational work, as you thought spaghetti'fication was something Hawking came up with.
Your 'theory' breaks numerous real world rules, like thinking larger stars live longer. And it doesn't conform to universal gravity as you haven't shown you can model gravity. To show you can conform to the known effects of gravity please derive the precession of Mercury's orbit. To be clear, the answer should culminate in a value in arc-seconds per century. Simply arguing about the existence of precession isn't enough, as Newtonian gravity does that but it predicts the wrong amount. That's an example of why quantitative details are essential.
If you can't provide hard quantitative predictions you're all talk with nothing to say.
I went to your link, tidal forces. I saw nothing new. Can you tell me the point you're trying to make?
The graph is faulty in so many respects, I don't even want to consider it. If it's faulty, to the point where you can't understand it - that's not a problem? Please. And different models? What other models are there. You claim your Universe arrived instantly. If you could only see how silly that supposition is... They used to believe Man arrived instantly. We've progressed from there, I hope.
My models demonstrate exactly what is happening in the Cosmos. Your models are based on Einstein's CC, his Lambda. Einstein denounced this CC in the strongest language possible, warning you not to go there, calling it, his Cosmological Constant - the Biggest Blunder of his career. You Mathematicians, Einstein included, and let's not forget Georges Lemaitre, love to go off making up complicated formulae (the more complicated the better) and if it's complicated enough you receive great accolades from other Mathematicians, in the way Einstein did, and that surely indicates a good thing. The creation of repulsive forces is fine, in Math, and other Mathematicians will think you're great! But that' why Math isn't a Science. In Science, going around creating Repulsive Forces is considered Poor Science. Einstein knew this (he married a Physician) and that's why he denounced his Cosmological Constant. Now you think Einstein was deranged or something, to denounce the Cosmological Constant, but that's only because you're a Mathematician. I agree with everything Einstein said. You should get on side with Einstein too.
Please, don't be a waste of Space.
Yes, it certainly is a problem. Drawing conclusions from that graph is a bad idea.
I'm no expert, but the concept of different models doesn't strike me as difficult.
As for specific examples, all I can do is point you to other sources.
Try this page: Physical cosmology
It mentions the Einstein Universe, the Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker universe, Fred Hoyle's steady state model, and the Lambda-CDM.
You should also take note, as Alpha said, that models often have adjustable parameters, which means that they predict a range of possibilities. You have to do experiments do figure out what those parameters should be. That's what that graph is trying to illustrate.
I claim no such thing.
You, however, seem to claim that a huge cloud of hydrogen arrived *poof* from nowhere. Hmm.
I'm glad you found the page. That's something, at least.
So, you hadn't heard of tidal forces before... but you see nothing new when you read an encyclopedia page about them? Odd.
Anyway, the crux of tidal forces is this:
Expansion toward the direction of fall, contraction at right angles.
I'm more and more inclined to think you're not an idiot but rather someone pretending to be an idiot. Time and again you claim your model accurately reflects the dynamics of the universe yet when asked to show it you just ignore the request.
You use the word 'exact', which means you should have a quantitative model, else you can't make such a claim. Until you can provide that you have nothing but baseless assertions.
Seriously, its not rocket science to realise that model should model things.
He called it that because the observations of astronomers at the time seemed to counter his hypothesis and he wasn't too happy about being wrong. Now, decades later, we have a better understanding of the universe and a lot more experimental data.
Einstein realised that the 'standard' field equations of $$G_{ab} = 8\pi T_{ab}$$ are a very very specific case of the more general ones $$G_{ab} + \Lambda g_{ab} = 8\pi T_{ab}$$ and in physics its usual to work with the most general case until shown otherwise. This is known as the totality principle, in that if you can't exclude some parameter from your model you should keep it. Einstein did so and concluded the universe would be non-static as a result. When astronomers said otherwise he said he'd made blunder. Turns out it wasn't a blunder on his part but that of the astronomers (though they were working with the limits of the equipment of the day). If he'd stuck to his guns he'd have been able to predict the dynamics of the universe long before we observed it, it would have been a huge triumph.
You've already demonstrated you don't even know high school physics or even has the sense to look up things before denouncing them (ie your 'there is no evidence for the BB', despite there being pages like this obtained by typing 'evidence for big bang' into Google). As such, I hardly think your views on the work and methodology of mathematicians is worth listening to.
As for 'complicated', you think the picture posted earlier in the thread is so complicated you'd need a PhD to understand it. That's the sort of picture found in high school books. I hate to break it to you but you are not the yardstick by which complicity of science is measured. You are quite clearly below average in even basic scientific understanding, so to you anyone who could get a high grade in high school is capable of complicated science.
It isn't science in the sense of trying to describe the real world but it is a science in its use of rigour, methodology, scrutiny via peer review and use of logical reasoning, not to mention that its the language in which all physics is written. Every person I work with has a PhD in mathematics or high energy physics and we apply the knowledge or methodology or problem solving skilled developed during a PhD into solving real world problems.
If you'd ever looked at papers published in physics journals you'd know how much mathematics is used, both as a descriptive tool and as a way of formalising work and results. Physics is not just "Throw a ball up and it'll come down", it is about where, when and how fast that ball comes down also. The devil is in the details and I've already given you an example of this. Both Newtonian and Einsteinian gravities predict the precession of the orbit of Mercury but only one of them gets it right. If all you did was arm waving you'd not know which one but when you formalise them in mathematical terms and work through to the conclusion you find Newton gets it wrong.
Thus if you can't provide the details you can't provide science.
Says who? You? You clearly have no first hand experience with science, you haven't even bothered to Google for information on the big bang for god sake, so why do you think you have a good handle on what is or isn't 'considered poor science'. Considered by whom? Clearly astrophysicists and GR researchers consider it good science and its their job to do science in this area. Besides, you do know electromagnetism can be repulsive, right? Remember high school "opposite charges attract, like charges repel"? Remember? Obviously not.
Once again you simple lie, just flat out lie, and you're stupid enough to do it to me, someone who didn't sleep through high school physics.
Firstly, 'physician' is another name for a medical doctor. Secondly Einstein wasn't unfamiliar with physics, he had a PhD in it before he worked on that patent office and when he published GR he'd been a physics professor for more than a decade. Thirdly the reason he recanted it was because astronomers of the time said the universe wasn't expanding or contracting so it seemed experiments said $$\Lambda = 0$$. Not until the last 1920s and early 1930s did astronomers realise there's other galaxies in the universe and Hubble noted their redshiftings.
Where did I say that? Now you've gone from lying about physics to a professional physicist/mathematician to telling said person what their own thoughts are!
As I just said, he did it based on the experimental data of the time.
This just makes me think you're a troll more and more. I've listed for you the physics topics I studied and I've run rings around you in regards to big bang cosmology. I've also explained the interconnection between maths and physics, since you're unaware of it yourself, having no experience with physics. I did a degree in a maths department and a PhD in a physics department. I have work published in reputable journals with 'physics' in the title and now I use maths to solve physics problems. In the last 6 months I've done stuff relating to machine learning, fluid mechanics and quantum mechanics. Experimental physicists would consider me a mathematician while a hardcore pure mathematician would consider me a physicist. I have a foot on either side of the fence, so to speak.
This black and white dichotomy you think exists between maths and physics is only in your mind and you'd realise this if you took the time to look at physics books, journals and papers.
You don't appear to even know what he said. You don't know what experiments have been done, you don't know the evidence which has been collected, you don't know the formal models, you don't know what is or isn't considered 'poor science' by scientists, you don't know the importance of details, you don't know what prompted Einstein to say it was a blunder and most of all you don't know that you don't know.
I keep asking you to explain how it is you think you have a grasp of what is or isn't science when you know nothing about it. The fact you ignore such questions and you ignore it when I ask you directly to provide models, not just 2 sentence vagary, illustrates you know you're spouting BS when it comes to your 'model'. You complained I won't talk about your model yet when I ask you to provide it you ignore the request. Do you think no one notices you doing that? You quote all of my post and then ignore 95% of it. What's the matter, finding your mouth is writing cheques your backside can't cover?
I'll ask it again so you can't whine I wasn't clear or something :
Name one phenomenon on the real world which you have developed a working quantitative model for. Show how you derived such a model, clearly stating your starting assumptions. Using the results you derive make precise, testable, predictions about said phenomenon and compare them to the current mainstream model's predictions and experimental results.
If you want to be taken seriously as a scientist then being able to do such things is a necessary step. The vast majority of scientific papers follow that kind of format, state assumptions, show methodological derivation, state conclusion, compare to what is already known.
I am absolutely 100% certain that I have a far better understanding of the works of Einstein than you. If you think I'm wrong in my assessment of our relative capabilities I'm more than happy to dial up the details of how GR describes the cosmological constant. In fact I'd be happy to talk about how the topic of my thesis closely relates to string theory's modelling of inflation. However, if you thought that picture was so complicated that a PhD in maths is required then thesis level material will be completely beyond your grasp.
- Status