Could redshift be wrong?

[MeteorWayne]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>What is not correct?&nbsp; I didn't blur anything and it's certainly not blurry in my mind.&nbsp;&nbsp; <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV><br /><br />Let me spell it out more clearly.</p><p>Acceleration (Edit: This should read expansion. You&nbsp;restated what I&nbsp;said incorrectly and I replied without reading it thoroughly) is&nbsp;NOT directly related back to DE, and inflation is not related to the expansion of the universe after the first second.</p><p>It may not be blurry, but you certainly have no understanding of current theory, which has been repeatedly demonstrated. Either that or you are intentionally not understanding the difference.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[derekmcd]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Do you have an example you might cite?&nbsp; I try to address *all* the questions head on, so this criticism seems false from my perspective.<br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>I initially asked you a question "do you completely disregard observations".&nbsp; The context of the question was in reference to emperical evidence allowed by science.&nbsp; The response I recieved:</p><p><em><strong>"Which observation might that be?&nbsp; You mean that gaping hole in the universe that demonstrates that the universe is *not* homogenously distributed?&nbsp; You mean the lack of observations of monopoles even after 25 years of looking for them?&nbsp; What "observation" are you claiming is evidence of "inflation""</strong></em></p><p>This does not, in anyway, answer my original question.&nbsp;</p><p>I decided to play your game and posted the following paragraph in response to your rhetorical question above about monopoles:</p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"Aren't monopoles the result of GUTs?&nbsp; Doesn't inflation actually resolve the monopole problem as to why they are not seen in abundance (as they should be without inflation)?&nbsp; This is, of course, assuming the GUT epochs in the early universe exist along with monopoles.&nbsp; Monopoles are not (afaik) an absolute requirement... even in GUT, they aren't required.&nbsp; Expected, but not required.&nbsp; I could be wrong about the GUTs, but Inflation has no dependence on Magnetic Monopoles as it appears you think they do."</em></font></p><p>The response I recieved to the question "aren't monopoles the result of GUTs?" is as follows:</p><p><em><strong>"What GUT has been ever been found and agreed upon?&nbsp; Are you basing your theory of their existence of some other theory that has never been proven to be true?" </strong></em></p><p>Again, neither of your questions address my question.&nbsp; My question was also taken out of context in that I followed up my two questions with the assumption that the GUT epoch existed and actually produces monopoles.&nbsp; It was not a question if the theory is correct, rather it was a question of what the theory implies.&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>The response I recieved to the question "Doesn't inflation actually resolve the monopole problem as to why they are not seen in abundance (as they should be without inflation)?" is as follows:</p><p><em><strong>"Um, where can I pick up a monopole to study?&nbsp; How do you know they would exist in the absense of inflation?"</strong></em></p><p>Once again, more questions without actually answering my question.&nbsp; My question was not about the accuracy of the theory, rather it was a question of what the theory implies.&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>There are 3 consecutive questions asked by me where you responded with 8 questions that were either rhetorical, facetious or irrelavent responses to my questions. </p><p>From your perspective, it might seem like I am making a false claim about your tactics, but the evidence is right there for all to bear witness to. </p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Let me spell it out more clearly.Acceleration is&nbsp;NOT directly related back to DE,</DIV></p><p>What then is the physical "cause" of acceleration?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>and inflation is not related to the expansion of the universe after the first second.</DIV></p><p>When did I claim otherwise?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It may not be blurry, but you certainly have no understanding of current theory, which has been repeatedly demonstrated.</DIV></p><p>You have not demonstrated this idea, you simply repeatedly *alledge* this to be so.&nbsp; Each time I ask you for a specific sentence where I have made an error, you refuse to cite me an example. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Either that or you are intentionally not understanding the difference. <br /> Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>Why would you believe that I would intentionally misrepresent contemporary theory?&nbsp; I can understand you accusing me of ignorance, but you seem to be alledging that I am being intentionally dishonest. &nbsp; I have never intentionally attempted to mislead anyone.&nbsp; I could in fact be wrong about a variety of topics, but I have never intentially tried to do anything other than to speak the "truth" as I understand it.&nbsp; Everyone has opinions that may or may not be true, but I would never question your intent, or DrRocket's intent, or Derick's intent.&nbsp; Even if you're wrong about many topics, I doubt that any of you are intentionally trying to mislead anyone.&nbsp; Honest mistakes are to be expected and accusing one another of ill motives can only lead to hard feelings. &nbsp;&nbsp; I may question your beliefs, but I do not question your motives.&nbsp; Science is full of dissent and minority opitions.&nbsp;&nbsp; It's a natural and important part of science.&nbsp; </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The response I recieved to the question "aren't monopoles the result of GUTs?" is as follows:"What GUT has been ever been found and agreed upon?&nbsp; Are you basing your theory of their existence of some other theory that has never been proven to be true?" Again, neither of your questions address my question.&nbsp; My question was also taken out of context in that I followed up my two questions with the assumption that the GUT epoch existed and actually produces monopoles.&nbsp; It was not a question if the theory is correct, rather it was a question of what the theory implies. </DIV></p><p>You seem to be attempting to use an unspecified GUT to somehow support the existence of "monopoles".&nbsp; I was simply trying to point out that there is no agreed upon GUT, so this isn't really much of a support for the existence of monopoles.&nbsp; You're taking one hypothetical scenario and trying to apply it another.&nbsp; If there was an agreed upon GUT that requried monopoles in order to function, that might be a valid arguement.&nbsp; Since there isn't one, it's not a valid argument.&nbsp; You can't base one untested hypothesis upon another, upon another and then use it to attempt to support inflation.&nbsp; My point is that you're attempting to apply a concept from an unspecified, unagreed upon GUT theory to another hypothesis that is ultimately unrelated to the first one as far as anyone actually knows.&nbsp; Neither hypothesis has been demonstrated to be true and both could easily be false, expecially since no monopoles have ever been found in nature and no emprical controlled test of inflation has ever occured on Earth.&nbsp; From a skeptics perspective, if one doesn't buy the GUT theory that introduces the monopole concept, then one isn't inclinded to believe that a lack of monopoles is somehow going to support a secondary theory related to monopoles.</p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The response I recieved to the question "Doesn't inflation actually resolve the monopole problem as to why they are not seen in abundance (as they should be without inflation)?" is as follows:"Um, where can I pick up a monopole to study?&nbsp; How do you know they would exist in the absense of inflation?"Once again, more questions without actually answering my question.&nbsp; My question was not about the accuracy of the theory, rather it was a question of what the theory implies.&nbsp;&nbsp;There are 3 consecutive questions asked by me where you responded with 8 questions that were either rhetorical, facetious or irrelavent responses to my questions. From your perspective, it might seem like I am making a false claim about your tactics, but the evidence is right there for all to bear witness to. &nbsp; <br /> Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>My questions were only intended to demonstrate the nature of the error as I saw it.&nbsp; I don't believe in GUT theories that require monopoles.&nbsp; I therefore lack belief that a lack of monopoles is somehow evidence of inflation.&nbsp; If you don't have faith in the GUT theory that introduced the monopole concept, then you won't put much faith on any other theory that is based upon their existence or their non existence.&nbsp;&nbsp; As I see it, you are attempting to justify one unfounded assertion by introducing and relying upon a second unfounded asssertion.&nbsp;&nbsp; One unfounded assertion does not scientifically support another unfounded assertion.&nbsp; Monopoles have never been shown to exist in nature, and there is no agreed upon GUT, so a lack of monopoles cannot support another unrelated theory about inflation.&nbsp; From my (skeptical) perspective, it's just one mistake built upon another. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>What then is the physical "cause" of acceleration?Posted by michaelmozina</DIV><br /><br />You misquoted (well&nbsp;made up a statement that did not address what I said)&nbsp;and I replied before reading it through. I have edited my statement.</p><p>What I originally said was</p><p>:</p><p>The expansion of the universe that causes redshift has nothing to do with acceleration , inflation, or dark energy.</p><p>You once again blurred expansion with acceleration.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You misquoted (well&nbsp;made up a statement that did not address what I said)&nbsp;and I replied before reading it through. I have edited my statement.What I originally said was:The expansion of the universe that causes redshift has nothing to do with acceleration , inflation, or dark energy.You once again blurred expansion with acceleration. <br /> Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>I didn't blur anything.&nbsp; I fully realize that inflation is the presumed "cause" of expansion, and that "dark energy" is the presumed "cause" of acceleration.&nbsp;&nbsp; I did not misquote you, and you've never shown me a sentence where I actually blurred or blew the distinction between inflation and dark energy in this thread.&nbsp; Which specfic sentence are you complaining about?&nbsp; </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I didn't blur anything.&nbsp; I fully realize that inflation is the presumed "cause" of expansion, and that "dark energy" is the presumed "cause" of acceleration.&nbsp;&nbsp; I did not misquote you, and you've never shown me a sentence where I actually blurred or blew the distinction between inflation and dark energy in this thread.&nbsp; Which specfic sentence are you complaining about?&nbsp; <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV><br /><br />Inflation is NOT the cause of expansion. That's the part you can't seem to get. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[SpeedFreek]

The most common proposal is that the universe was expanding from the Planck era onwards through the GUT era, between 10^-43 seconds and 10^-36 seconds, whereupon the strong nuclear force separates from the <span class="mw-redirect">electroweak force and inflation occurs. </span> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>

 

[derekmcd]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You seem to be attempting to use an unspecified GUT to somehow support the existence of "monopoles".&nbsp; I was simply trying to point out that there is no agreed upon GUT, so this isn't really much of a support for the existence of monopoles.&nbsp; You're taking one hypothetical scenario and trying to apply it another.&nbsp; If there was an agreed upon GUT that requried monopoles in order to function, that might be a valid arguement.&nbsp; Since there isn't one, it's not a valid argument.&nbsp; You can't base one untested hypothesis upon another, upon another and then use it to attempt to support inflation.&nbsp; My point is that you're attempting to apply a concept from an unspecified, unagreed upon GUT theory to another hypothesis that is ultimately unrelated to the first one as far as anyone actually knows.&nbsp; Neither hypothesis has been demonstrated to be true and both could easily be false, expecially since no monopoles have ever been found in nature and no emprical controlled test of inflation has ever occured on Earth.&nbsp; From a skeptics perspective, if one doesn't buy the GUT theory that introduces the monopole concept, then one isn't inclinded to believe that a lack of monopoles is somehow going to support a secondary theory related to monopoles. My questions were only intended to demonstrate the nature of the error as I saw it.&nbsp; I don't believe in GUT theories that require monopoles.&nbsp; I therefore lack belief that a lack of monopoles is somehow evidence of inflation.&nbsp; If you don't have faith in the GUT theory that introduced the monopole concept, then you won't put much faith on any other theory that is based upon their existence or their non existence.&nbsp;&nbsp; As I see it, you are attempting to justify one unfounded assertion by introducing and relying upon a second unfounded asssertion.&nbsp;&nbsp; One unfounded assertion does not scientifically support another unfounded assertion.&nbsp; Monopoles have never been shown to exist in nature, and there is no agreed upon GUT, so a lack of monopoles cannot support another unrelated theory about inflation.&nbsp; From my (skeptical) perspective, it's just one mistake built upon another. <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>You asked if I could cite examples of you answering question with questions.&nbsp; I did that.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>Did you answer my questions?&nbsp; Yes or no would suffice.<p>Did you answer my questions with questions?&nbsp; Yes or no would suffice.&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p> All of your commentary above is meaningless and side-stepping the issue.&nbsp; However, concerning the commentary, it is all irrelavent as my questions were clearly based in the implications of the theories, not their accuracy.&nbsp; I clearly stated that in hopes of avoiding comments about validity.&nbsp; My questions were quite simple and direct requiring not much more than simple yes or no answers.&nbsp; If you asked me if your sun theory allows for an iron surface, I would reply "yes"... it's a simple question. </p><p>And this is why my original statement concerning your tiring tactics stands.&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Inflation is NOT the cause of expansion. That's the part you can't seem to get. <br /> Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>What is the cause of expansion?&nbsp; Start with a singularity and you tell me how you get an expanding universe without inflation?&nbsp; </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You asked if I could cite examples of you answering question with questions.&nbsp; I did that.</DIV></p><p>Yes, and I ultimately responded to your point in full in the last post rather than asking you any more questions.&nbsp; I find it is often helpful for me to ask someone a relevant question rather than to make a specific statement because often the answer to that question can reveal the nature of the error better than me making a simple statement.&nbsp; If that communication method bugs you, I'll try to be more direct in the future.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Did you answer my questions?&nbsp; Yes or no would suffice.</DIV></p><p>Not directly, no.&nbsp; My questions however were intended to address your point in a round about way.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Did you answer my questions with questions?&nbsp; Yes or no would suffice. </DIV></p><p>Yes, and I did so quite deliberately.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> All of your commentary above is meaningless and side-stepping the issue.&nbsp; However, concerning the commentary, it is all irrelavent as my questions were clearly based in the implications of the theories, not their accuracy.&nbsp; I clearly stated that in hopes of avoiding comments about validity. </DIV></p><p>But your monopole argument as it relates to inflation is directly related to the accuracy of the GUT theory!&nbsp; You can't sidestep that point and then try to use monopoles (or lack thereof) to support some other theory!&nbsp; That's not logical.&nbsp; My questions were intended to point that out to you.&nbsp; Since you don't like the subtle approach, I'll just point it out directly and see how you deel with it.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>My questions were quite simple and direct requiring not much more than simple yes or no answers.&nbsp; If you asked me if your sun theory allows for an iron surface, I would reply "yes"... it's a simple question. And this is why my original statement concerning your tiring tactics stands.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>You are attempting to use a "tactic" of your own called oversimplification.&nbsp; *IF* we ignore the validity issue of GUT theories, then "yes", there probably are some as of yet unspecified GUT theories that "predict" the existence of monopoles.&nbsp; Since the validity of this allegation was never established it is therefore irrational for you to use one hypothetical entity to support another.&nbsp; It's not rational or logical to believe that monopoles exist simply based on an unspecified, unagreeed upon, unproven GUT. &nbsp;&nbsp; You can't logically support one unsupported hypothesis by citing yet another unsupported hypothesis.&nbsp; They could both easily be wrong.&nbsp; One could be correct and the other one could be wrong.&nbsp; There is no emprical connection established between inflation and monopoles or inlfation and anyhthing else, or monopoles and anything else.&nbsp; Neither idea has emprical support, so one cannot possible help to support the other. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[origin]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Start with a&nbsp;singularity and you tell me how you get an expanding universe without inflation?&nbsp; </DIV></p><p>I refuse to believe that you are that ignorant.&nbsp; I think it has been over a year that you have been trying to tie inflation and expansion together.&nbsp; You must have read something about the theory over the last year so you must have an inkling that they are independant.&nbsp; What is the point of trying to link them, when no one but you thinks this is true?&nbsp; I really do not get it...<br />Posted by michaelmozina</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>What is the cause of expansion?&nbsp; Start with a singularity and you tell me how you get an expanding universe without inflation?&nbsp; <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>You seem to be arguing for inflation.&nbsp; You have agreed in other threads that classical general relativity theory is, if not completely correct, at least a very good approximation.&nbsp; You have also agreed that Hubble's data shows that the universe is expanding.&nbsp; Based on those things Hawking and Ellis showed that, by running general relativity backwards, one must conclude that universe at one time was in an extraordinarily compressed state.&nbsp; The theory breaks down prior to about 10^-33 seconds and shows a singularity, but in any case the conclusion of an origin in an extremely small volume is a logical consequence of the the two items to which you have agreed.&nbsp; That origin is called the Big Bang.</p><p>We don't know the details of the Big Bang prior to about 10^-33 seconds very well.&nbsp; There are hypotheses as to what the physics of that very early era, but they have not yet been confirmed.&nbsp; Inflation is one of those hypotheses.&nbsp; Empirical data from precise observations of the cosmic background radiatioin thus far is supportive of that theory.</p><p>Apparently you are now a proponent of inflation, since you clearly state that you see no other viable explanation.&nbsp; I must admit that I am a bit surprised at this turn of events.&nbsp; Maybe you are learning a little bit.&nbsp; Congratulations.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I refuse to believe that you are that ignorant.&nbsp; I think it has been over a year that you have been trying to tie inflation and expansion together.&nbsp; You must have read something about the theory over the last year so you must have an inkling that they are independant.&nbsp; What is the point of trying to link them, when no one but you thinks this is true?&nbsp; I really do not get it...Posted by michaelmozina <br /> Posted by origin</DIV></p><p>I'm still waiting for you to explain how a singularity turned into an expanding universe in the absense of inflation. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I'm still waiting for you to explain how a singularity turned into an expanding universe in the absense of inflation. <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>So I see that you are indeed a proponent of inflation.&nbsp; But perhaps your advocacy is a bit strong.&nbsp; There may yet arise an alternate explanation.&nbsp; I think it is a bit early to conclude that no other explanation is possible.&nbsp; But you are correct in the sense that at this time it is the best explanation available.&nbsp; </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[derekmcd]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>What is the cause of expansion?&nbsp; Start with a singularity and you tell me how you get an expanding universe without inflation?&nbsp; <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>First class all expenses paid trip to Stockholm and historical immortalization to the first person that can answer that question.&nbsp; Inflation's intent isn't to explain expansion, rather it is to explain the flatness and homogenous nature of the universe.&nbsp; Expansion was already happening when the inflation epoch started.&nbsp; Without inflation, the universe might be quite different or not exist at all, but that's not the point.&nbsp; Inflation did not cause nor is directly responsible for expansion.</p><p>As for you blurring terms or simply confusing them here's a quote from earlier that makes no sense:</p><p><em><strong>"Lambda-CDM theories tend to explain redshift as a phenomenon that is primarily related to standard Doppler expansion (movement of matter) and most of the redshift is actually caused by the expansion of "space" (i.e. Dark energy).&nbsp; This type of redshift (DE redshift) tends to be referred to as "cosmological redshift"."</strong></em> </p><p>This statement is just wrong.&nbsp; No such thing as doppler expansion of space.&nbsp; Dark energy is not required for the expansion of space.&nbsp; DE redshift is not referred to as cosmological redshift.</p><p>Another:</p><p><em><strong>"...mainstream attempts to "explain" redshift as a Doppler/DE driven process and inflation supposedly put the whole universe in motion and DE makes up the bulk of the redshift at high redshifts."</strong></em> </p><p>Wrong again.</p><p>More:</p><p><em><strong>"On the other hand, inflation supposedly started the expansion proces..."</strong></em></p><p>Once again...</p><p><em><strong>"But without inflation, expansion couldn't occur!"</strong></em></p><p>Expansion was occuring before inflation.&nbsp; However, you might be correct in stating that inflation allowed for it to continue.&nbsp; I think what "causes" the expansion, or to be more correct, the mechanism or object behind the expansion is the Scalar Field.&nbsp; Honestly, though... that is a bit beyond my scope of understanding.</p><p>The point being is that inflation is not the cause of expansion, nor is inflation required for expansion.&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You seem to be arguing for inflation.</DIV></p><p>Evidently appearances can be deceiving because I'm definitely not arguing *for* inflation. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You have agreed in other threads that classical general relativity theory is, if not completely correct, at least a very good approximation.</DIV></p><p>Indeed.&nbsp; Just be sure to leave out all constants that Einstein rejected. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You have also agreed that Hubble's data shows that the universe is expanding. </DIV></p><p>It would be more accurate to suggest that I accept that expansion (as Einstein defined it, i.e Doppler shift), is a valid scientific "interpretation" of some of the redshift phenomenon.&nbsp; Anything that involves "dark energy" on the other hand is a horse of a different color.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Based on those things Hawking and Ellis showed that, by running general relativity backwards, one must conclude that universe at one time was in an extraordinarily compressed state. </DIV></p><p>Well, we only see a small visible sliver of the physical universe and all we can really determine is that our little sliver has probably been expanding and the mass of our little sliver was probably more densely packed.&nbsp; You seem to be ignoring Alfven's "Big Bang" theory where that compression may only have been to say perhaps 10% of what it is today.&nbsp;&nbsp; The amount of compression completely depends on how one attempts to explain this presumed expansion.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The theory breaks down prior to about 10^-33 seconds and shows a singularity, but in any case the conclusion of an origin in an extremely small volume is a logical consequence of the the two items to which you have agreed. </DIV></p><p>Aflven also agreed with these same premises, but his "core' was never as dense as the one you seem to believe in.&nbsp; At no time did he presume that all mass was contained in a very small volume.&nbsp; You're trying to suggest it was far more compact than Alfven did. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>That origin is called the Big Bang.</DIV></p><p>Yes, but there is a fundamental difference between the size of the object you're calling an "origin" and the one that Alfven described.&nbsp; Which concept is "better" from a scientific perspective?&nbsp; How can I tell?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>We don't know the details of the Big Bang prior to about 10^-33 seconds very well.</DIV></p><p>I'm not convinced you can go back that far in time to begin with.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>There are hypotheses as to what the physics of that very early era, but they have not yet been confirmed. </DIV></p><p>Even the notion that there was a "beginning" is actually a leap of faith. &nbsp; For all you and I know, the physical universe is infinite and eternal and whatever "bang" took place was a fairly localized event.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Inflation is one of those hypotheses.&nbsp; Empirical data from precise observations of the cosmic background radiatioin thus far is supportive of that theory.</DIV></p><p>That all depends on how one decides to subjectively interpret the data.&nbsp; For instance, I'm sure that Halton Arp would disagree with many o your "interpretations".&nbsp; I see that Ari definitely disagrees with your interpretions and there are significant differences between your BB theories and Alfven's BB theories.&nbsp; Subjectivity seems to play a large role in this process of interpretation.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Apparently you are now a proponent of inflation, since you clearly state that you see no other viable explanation. </DIV></p><p>No, I suggested that it was the only viable option in *your* brand of BB theory, but I specifically handed you a paper from Alfven that explained the same "expansion" without inflation.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I must admit that I am a bit surprised at this turn of events.&nbsp; Maybe you are learning a little bit.&nbsp; Congratulations. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>It seems we're just having a comunication problem as usual rather than anyone having a change of heart.&nbsp; &nbsp; Don't worry, I'll win you over eventually. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[derekmcd]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>But your monopole argument as it relates to inflation is directly related to the accuracy of the GUT theory!&nbsp; You can't sidestep that point and then try to use monopoles (or lack thereof) to support some other theory!&nbsp; That's not logical.&nbsp; My questions were intended to point that out to you.<br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>That was the whole point of my questions.&nbsp; It was YOU that seemed to place the importance of monopoles and the inflationary epoch as being integral to each other.&nbsp; That's why I asked the question if monopoles are the result of the GUT epoch.&nbsp; And if they are a result of the GUT epoch and should be abundant in the universe, the inflationary epoch resolves this problem. &nbsp; However, inflation is not dependent on monopoles.&nbsp; If the GUT epoch is wrong or non-existant or GUT theories are incorrect, inflation has no monopole problem to resolve.&nbsp; The resolution of the monopole problems just happens to be a consequence of inflation.</p><p>I clearly indicated they were assmptions and was not trying to support one with another.&nbsp; Again, it was YOU that correlated inflation and monopoles as being intrisically related.&nbsp; My questions were to flesh out that flaw in your reasoning.&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Expansion was already happening when the inflation epoch started.&nbsp; Without inflation, the universe might be quite different or not exist at all, but that's not the point. </DIV></p><p>It's the whole point!&nbsp; A little outward movement of matter inside a singularity would quickly be squished and halted by the forces of gravity.&nbsp; Without inflation the expansion party isn't going to last a full second.&nbsp; Any tiny movements are going to be immediately overwhelmed by the forces of gravity and/or inflation.&nbsp; Expansion as you describe it prior to inflation is virutally meaningless in terms of scope and total effect.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Inflation did not cause nor is directly responsible for expansion.</DIV></p><p>Baloney.&nbsp; Gravity would have overwhelmed a tiny movement of mass inside the singularity.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>As for you blurring terms or simply confusing them here's a quote from earlier that makes no sense:"Lambda-CDM theories tend to explain redshift as a phenomenon that is primarily related to standard Doppler expansion (movement of matter) and most of the redshift is actually caused by the expansion of "space" (i.e. Dark energy).&nbsp; This type of redshift (DE redshift) tends to be referred to as "cosmological redshift"." This statement is just wrong.&nbsp; No such thing as doppler expansion of space. </DIV></p><p>Er, I meant to say "Doppler redshift", not 'Doppler expansion".&nbsp; My bad.&nbsp; I admit, that was an actual mistake on my part.&nbsp;&nbsp; I was trying to distinguish the difference between doppler redshift, which can be demonstrated in controlled experimention, and "cosmological redshfit" which cannot.&nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Dark energy is not required for the expansion of space. </DIV></p><p>Oh yes it is!&nbsp; Spacetime can expand as the physical objects that makeup spacetime expand and move away from one another. "Space" however is physically undefined and it doesn't expand.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>DE redshift is not referred to as cosmological redshift.</DIV></p><p>What is the "cause" then of cosmological redshift?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Expansion was occuring before inflation.&nbsp; </DIV></p><p>Any movement of mass would be irrelevant to the force of gravity and the force of inflation.&nbsp; Without inflation your expansion party won't last 10 seconds, let alone 13.7 billion years.&nbsp; </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>However, you might be correct in stating that inflation allowed for it to continue.</DIV></p><p>It's the only thing that would allow it to continue in such a huge gravity well.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> I think what "causes" the expansion, or to be more correct, the mechanism or object behind the expansion is the Scalar Field. </DIV></p><p>Which scalar field?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Honestly, though... that is a bit beyond my scope of understanding.The point being is that inflation is not the cause of expansion, nor is inflation required for expansion.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>This is simply a false statement IMO.&nbsp; Any tiny "expansion" would be crushed by gravity.&nbsp; Gravity would have never allowed anything to continue to "expand".&nbsp; The whole thing would have imploded in an instant.&nbsp; You cannot possibly explain redshift in Lambda-CDM theory without inflation and without DE.&nbsp; It's never going to happen.&nbsp; You'd love to marginalize these factors perhaps, but the truth of the matter is that without inflation and without DE, you cannot explain the redshift.&nbsp;&nbsp; I could easily site things in Ari's theory that are also required to make them work.&nbsp; It's not a flaw in your theory to admit you need these things, but there is no point in denying the fact that you need these things to make your theory work.</p><p>The weakeness of your theory is that you can't emprically demonstate that "inflation happens" or that "DE" exists or has any effect on anything in a controlled test.&nbsp; Likewise Ari's theory is hamstrung by the fact that he cannot emprically demonstrate this form of redshift.&nbsp; The gravity theory I cited suffers from the same issue.&nbsp; All redshift theories tend to be long on the math and short on the empricial testing side of life. &nbsp;</p><p>I don't mind you pointing out my mistakes and I admit I made one in that statement, but I do mind you suggesting you don't need inflation and DE to explain redshift since your theory won't work without them and it won't explain redshift without them either.</p><p>Ari's approach does not require inflation or DE, but it does require testing like every other scientific theory and since it's not any more emprically demonstrated than your explanation, it cannot be considered scientifcally superior to Lambda-CDM theory at this point in time.&nbsp; One of you might actually one day emprically demonstrate something and I might then be able to have a better idea of which idea is more viable, but they both look equally viable to me at this point in time.&nbsp; Both seem to be mathematically sound ideas, and both of them lack emprical support.</p><p>My only point here is that there are various ways to interpret redshifted photons, not all of which require inflation or DE, and not all them that require parts of GR be set aside as is the case with Ari's theory. &nbsp; Every theory has strengths and weaknesses, and I'm not even trying to promote one theory over the other. I'm simply pointing out what makes them "tick".&nbsp; </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>That was the whole point of my questions.&nbsp; It was YOU that seemed to place the importance of monopoles and the inflationary epoch as being integral to each other.</DIV></p><p>No, I did not.&nbsp; The paper you cited did that, not me.&nbsp; They tried to use the idea of few monopoles = support for inflation.&nbsp; I simply balked at that suggestion and pointed out the flaw in that idea. If we want to get specific, Guth was the first one to suggest that idea and it's been an integral part of inflation theory ever since that time.&nbsp; Guth assigned it's importance based on some kind of faith in a nebulous GUT that lacks empirical support.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>That's why I asked the question if monopoles are the result of the GUT epoch. </DIV></p><p>Why ask a skeptic that question?&nbsp; As far as I know they don't exist, they never have existed and they never could exist.&nbsp; They can't be the result of anything because they don't exist as far as I know.&nbsp; No GUT has yet been found, so they can't possibly be the result of a GUT.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>And if they are a result of the GUT epoch and should be abundant in the universe, </DIV></p><p>From my skeptical perspective, this is an illogical assumption.&nbsp; You're attempting to use a hypothetical to support another hypothetical.&nbsp; You can't demonstrate monopoles ever existed, so you can't use them, or the absense of them to support anything else!&nbsp; It's just that simple. &nbsp;</p><p>All I was trying to point out is that this "prediction" is utterly pointless and utterly useless in helping us to determining the validity of inflation theory.&nbsp; As far as I know Guth invented the problem (missing monoples) and he invented a solution (inflation) to solve an imaginary problem.&nbsp; Zero monoples is not evidence for inlfation just as zero unicorns is not evidence for magic.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>the inflationary epoch resolves this problem. </DIV></p><p>What problem?&nbsp; I've never seen a monopole, so I have no confidence there was ever a "problem" other than a "problem" in the GUT they were concieved in.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> However, inflation is not dependent on monopoles.&nbsp; If the GUT epoch is wrong or non-existant or GUT theories are incorrect, inflation has no monopole problem to resolve.</DIV></p><p>Bingo.&nbsp; It's an imaginary problem with an imaginary solution.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The resolution of the monopole problems just happens to be a consequence of inflation.</DIV></p><p>That's like claiming the the resolution of the imaginary unicorn just happens to be a consequence of inflation.&nbsp; There is no established connection between monopoles (which may or may not exist) and inflation which may or may not exits.&nbsp;&nbsp; There is no correlation between these things.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I clearly indicated they were assmptions and was not trying to support one with another.&nbsp; Again, it was YOU that correlated inflation and monopoles as being intrisically related.&nbsp; My questions were to flesh out that flaw in your reasoning.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>I was specifically pointing out the flaw in a paper that you personally cited.&nbsp; I didn't simply pull the complaint out fo thin air, I quoted the applicable paragraphs from the paper and I showed where they were wrong.&nbsp; You then made a "big deal' about GUT's and monopoles as though there was some established connection between them.&nbsp;&nbsp; </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[derekmcd]

<p>In a previous post, I claimed:</p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"It was YOU that seemed to place the importance of monopoles and the inflationary epoch as being integral to each other."</em></font> </p><p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'><strong>No, I did not.</strong>&nbsp; The paper you cited did that, not me.&nbsp; They tried to use the idea of few monopoles = support for inflation.&nbsp; I simply balked at that suggestion and pointed out the flaw in that idea. If we want to get specific, Guth was the first one to suggest that idea and it's been an integral part of inflation theory ever since that time.&nbsp; Guth assigned it's importance based on some kind of faith in a nebulous GUT that lacks empirical support.</DIV></p><p><em><strong>"Which observation might that be?&nbsp; You mean that gaping hole in the universe that demonstrates that the universe is *not* homogenously distributed?&nbsp; <font color="#0000ff"><font color="#993300">You mean the lack of observations of monopoles even after 25 years of looking for them?</font>&nbsp;</font> What "observation" are you claiming is evidence of "inflation"?" </strong></em></p><p><em><strong>"I'll comment after I've read it.&nbsp; It sounds like it will be a hoot to blow that paper out of the water.&nbsp; <font color="#993300">It should be a lot of fun when we get to the "monopole problem"</font>. "</strong></em></p><p>Well, yes you did.&nbsp; The above two quote were made prior to you reading the two links I provided.&nbsp; Clearly, you place importance on monopoles and inflation.</p><p>Of the two papers I cited, one didn't even mention monopoles.&nbsp; The one you addressed only briefly mentioned them in a few lines in which they downplayed their significance.&nbsp; It was YOU that made them appear to be more significant than what they really are.&nbsp; And, of course, you neglect to address the more significant portions of the papers.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Why ask a skeptic that question?&nbsp; As far as I know they don't exist, they never have existed and they never could exist.&nbsp; They can't be the result of anything because they don't exist as far as I know.&nbsp; No GUT has yet been found, so they can't possibly be the result of a GUT.From my skeptical perspective, this is an illogical assumption.&nbsp; You're attemption to use a hypothetical to support another hypothetical.&nbsp; You can't demonstrate monopoles ever existed, so you can't use them, or the absense of them to support anything else!&nbsp; It's just that simple. &nbsp;All I was trying to point out is that this "prediction" is utterly pointless and utterly useless in helping us to determining the validity of inflation theory.&nbsp; As far as I know Guth invented the problem (missing monoples) and he invented a solution (inflation) to an imaginary problem.&nbsp; Zero monoples is not evidence for inlfation just as zero unicorns is not evidence for magic.What problem?&nbsp; I've never seen a monopole, so I have no confidence there was ever a "problem" other than a "problem" in the GUT they were concieved in.Bingo.&nbsp; It's an imaginary problem with an imaginary solution.That's like claiming the the resolution of the imaginary unicorn just happens to be a consequence of inflation.&nbsp; There is not established connection between monopoles (which may or may not exist) and inflation which may or may not exits.&nbsp;&nbsp; There is no correlation between these things.I was specifically pointing out the flaw in a paper that you personally cited.&nbsp; <strong>I didn't simply pull the complaint out fo thin air, I quoted the applicable paragraphs from the paper and I showed where they were wrong.&nbsp; You then made a "big deal' about GUT's and monopoles as though there was some established connection between them.</strong>&nbsp;&nbsp; <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV><br /></p><p>Who's making the big deal here?&nbsp; I clearly pointed out above that you made the connection FIRST.&nbsp; You did, in fact, pull the complaint out of thin air.&nbsp; Upon reading the paper that briefly mentions monopoles, you build a commentary around something the papers clearly minimizes.&nbsp; From the paper:</p><p><font color="#0000ff">"<em><strong>Even the monopole problem is no longer clear cut.</strong></em>&nbsp; There exist perfectly valid inflation models (e.g. Ref. [3]) which can predict any monopole density from zero up to the present observational upper limits (and above).&nbsp; Discovery of a monopole density some where below current observational limits would also support inflation, because low monopole number densities imply a violation of causality in the absence of inflation (a minimum number density well above the present observational limits is required by the Kibble mechanism and the known properties of monopoles [5]).&nbsp;<em><strong> It is clear that the observation of a hyperbolic geometry, or a non-zero monopole density, will not falsify inflation.</strong></em>"&nbsp; </font>(emphasis mine)</p><p>Clearly, the statements I emphasised are indicating that monopoles are no longer significant to inflation.&nbsp; Other than a single line in the introduction, this is the only paragraph addressing monopoles out of about 4 1/2 pages.&nbsp; Not to mention the 10 pages of the other paper that doesn't address monopoles at all.</p><p>You made the statement previously concerning the above snippet from the paper:</p><p><em><strong>"The authors claim that a density below observational limits would somehow support inflation, so by their logic, since there have been no monopoles ever found, then inflation must now be supported by this finding of zero monopoles?"</strong></em> </p><p>The authors do NOT claim what you say.&nbsp; They clearly state that a <u><em>discovery</em></u> below the limits would <u><em>also</em></u> (also being emphasised becaused in your previous post, you neglected to include the sentence prior because it wouldn't fit your claims) support inflation. Nowhere do they claim that because none have been found that inflation is valid.&nbsp; This is you using twisted logic.</p><p>You should stop while you're ahead, Michael.&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[derekmcd]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It's the whole point!&nbsp; A little outward movement of matter inside a singularity would quickly be squished and halted by the forces of gravity.&nbsp; Without inflation the expansion party isn't going to last a full second.&nbsp; Any tiny movements are going to be immediately overwhelmed by the forces of gravity and/or inflation.&nbsp; Expansion as you describe it prior to inflation is virutally meaningless in terms of scope and total effect.<br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>The point is, Inflation might be wrong, but we STILL have expansion to deal with.&nbsp; We really don't know much of anything about the first three epochs of the Big Bang expansion model.&nbsp; But we STILL have expansion to deal with.&nbsp;</p><p>Again... Inflation might very well be wrong, but the Universe is STILL expanding.&nbsp; It's quite possible that without inflation, the Universe is STILL expanding.</p><p>The expansion of the Universe is not reliant on Inflation.&nbsp; Inflation does, though, fit quite tidily into the model, but it is NOT required.&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[derekmcd]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Er, I meant to say "Doppler redshift", not 'Doppler expansion".&nbsp; My bad.&nbsp; I admit, that was an actual mistake on my part.&nbsp;&nbsp; I was trying to distinguish the difference between doppler redshift, which can be demonstrated in controlled experimention, and "cosmological redshfit" which cannot.</DIV></p><p>Fair enough... let's revisit your claim with the correction:</p><p><em><strong>"Lambda-CDM theories tend to explain redshift as a phenomenon that is primarily related to standard Doppler <u><font color="#993300">redshift</font></u> (movement of matter) and most of the redshift is actually caused by the expansion of "space" (i.e. Dark energy).&nbsp; This type of redshift (DE redshift) tends to be referred to as "cosmological redshift"."</strong></em> </p><p>Even with that correction, the statement is false.&nbsp; LambdaCDM models explain it as Cosmological redshift... no doppler.&nbsp; Each use different transformations, metrics and formulae.&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>I claimed <em><font color="#0000ff">"Dark energy is not required for the expansion of space"</font></em><br /> </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Oh yes it is!&nbsp; Spacetime can expand as the physical objects that makeup spacetime expand and move away from one another. "Space" however is physically undefined and it doesn't expand.</DIV></p><p>I'm still confounded how you claim to understand General Relativity and yet make such confusing statements about dark energy and expansion.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>What is the "cause" then of cosmological redshift?</DIV></p><p>The metric expansion of space... something you apparently can't grasp despite your alleged knowledge of General Relativity.&nbsp;</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Any movement of mass would be irrelevant to the force of gravity and the force of inflation.&nbsp; Without inflation your expansion party won't last 10 seconds, let alone 13.7 billion years.&nbsp; It's the only thing that would allow it to continue in such a huge gravity well.</DIV></p><p>And yet you seem to accept expansion, but not inflation... confusing.&nbsp; You could very well be correct if Inflation is, indeed, valid.&nbsp; However, Inflation could be wrong and yet, we still have expansion to deal with. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Which scalar field?</DIV></p><p>Not sure if that is a definable question that can be answered.&nbsp; I'm, personally, not aware there are different types of scalar fields.&nbsp; Might be a better question for DrRocket to answer.&nbsp; I don't know.&nbsp;</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>This is simply a false statement IMO... [snip] <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>I claimed that inflation is not required for expansion.&nbsp; This is not a false statement.&nbsp; In your opinion, you might disagree, but don't claim I'm making a false statement unless you can back it up.&nbsp; </p><p>It might be difficult to explain expansion and what we currently observe without inflation, but it is NOT required.&nbsp; The expansion model of the Big Bang theory would not be abandoned if inflation was found to be invalid.&nbsp; If inflation is not valid, we STILL have to deal with the observed expansion.&nbsp; I know I've said that several time now, but I will keep on repeating it until it sinks in. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>....&nbsp; It might be difficult to explain expansion and what we currently observe without inflation, but it is NOT required.&nbsp; The expansion model of the Big Bang theory would not be abandoned if inflation was found to be invalid.&nbsp; If inflation is not valid, we STILL have to deal with the observed expansion.&nbsp; I know I've said that several time now, but I will keep on repeating it until it sinks in. <br />Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>I don't know if these points&nbsp;will help.&nbsp;They have been pointed out before in an attempt to make the point that you are making to Michael.</p><p>1.&nbsp; Michael has openly accepted the expansion of the universe based on Hubble's empirical observations,&nbsp;Albert Einstein also accepted that expansion based on that same data, and made a personal visit to Hubble to thank him.&nbsp; Einstein died in 1955.</p><p>2.&nbsp; Hubble's paper was published in 1929.&nbsp; Guth's Inflation Model was not proposed until 1980.&nbsp; &nbsp; </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[derekmcd]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I don't know if these points&nbsp;will help.&nbsp;They have been pointed out before in an attempt to make the point that you are making to Michael.1.&nbsp; Michael has openly accepted the expansion of the universe based on Hubble's empirical observations,&nbsp;Albert Einstein also accepted that expansion based on that same data, and made a personal visit to Hubble to thank him.&nbsp; Einstein died in 1955.2.&nbsp; Hubble's paper was published in 1920.&nbsp; Guth's Inflation Model was not proposed until 1980.&nbsp; &nbsp; <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>Smart alec. <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-wink.gif" border="0" alt="Wink" title="Wink" /></p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>