Dark Matter...WTH?

origin · Nov 24, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>No it's not.   GR does not "predict" dark matter, nor does GR predict a "big bang".   Posted by michaelmozina</DIV> This was MM reply to the statement that big bang is based general relativity.This is classic Mozina (ugh).  In one sentence he first makes a strawman - dark matter which has nothing to do with the big bang, and then shows his ignorance by saying that GR does not predict the big bang.The following is a quote from this website:  http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/relativity/The leading cosmological theory, called the big bang theory, was formulated in 1922 by the Russian mathematician and meteorologist Alexander Friedmann. Friedmann began with Einstein's equations of general relativity and found a solution to those equations in which the universe began in a state of extremely high density and temperatureAnd of course in keeping with Mozina method he will search the article for a phrase to take out of context to build yet another strawman or he will rant about his 'guys' Birkeland and Alfen or talk about empirical evidence or start up on volcanoes on the sun etc, etc, etc.  I have to agree with Dr. Rocket, since the Mozina has arrived it will be, "from the unexplained this thread has come and to the unexplained it shall return". edited for formatting <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

origin · Nov 24, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>No it's not.   GR does not "predict" dark matter, nor does GR predict a "big bang".   Posted by michaelmozina</DIV> This was MM reply to the statement that big bang is based general relativity.This is classic Mozina (ugh).  In one sentence he first makes a strawman - dark matter which has nothing to do with the big bang, and then shows his ignorance by saying that GR does not predict the big bang.The following is a quote from this website:  http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/relativity/The leading cosmological theory, called the big bang theory, was formulated in 1922 by the Russian mathematician and meteorologist Alexander Friedmann. Friedmann began with Einstein's equations of general relativity and found a solution to those equations in which the universe began in a state of extremely high density and temperatureAnd of course in keeping with Mozina method he will search the article for a phrase to take out of context to build yet another strawman or he will rant about his 'guys' Birkeland and Alfen or talk about empirical evidence or start up on volcanoes on the sun etc, etc, etc.  I have to agree with Dr. Rocket, since the Mozina has arrived it will be, "from the unexplained this thread has come and to the unexplained it shall return". edited for formatting <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

origin · Nov 24, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>No it's not.   GR does not "predict" dark matter, nor does GR predict a "big bang".   Posted by michaelmozina</DIV> This was MM reply to the statement that big bang is based general relativity.This is classic Mozina (ugh).  In one sentence he first makes a strawman - dark matter which has nothing to do with the big bang, and then shows his ignorance by saying that GR does not predict the big bang.The following is a quote from this website:  http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/relativity/The leading cosmological theory, called the big bang theory, was formulated in 1922 by the Russian mathematician and meteorologist Alexander Friedmann. Friedmann began with Einstein's equations of general relativity and found a solution to those equations in which the universe began in a state of extremely high density and temperatureAnd of course in keeping with Mozina method he will search the article for a phrase to take out of context to build yet another strawman or he will rant about his 'guys' Birkeland and Alfen or talk about empirical evidence or start up on volcanoes on the sun etc, etc, etc.  I have to agree with Dr. Rocket, since the Mozina has arrived it will be, "from the unexplained this thread has come and to the unexplained it shall return". edited for formatting <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

origin · Nov 24, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>No it's not.   GR does not "predict" dark matter, nor does GR predict a "big bang".   Posted by michaelmozina</DIV> This was MM reply to the statement that big bang is based general relativity.This is classic Mozina (ugh).  In one sentence he first makes a strawman - dark matter which has nothing to do with the big bang, and then shows his ignorance by saying that GR does not predict the big bang.The following is a quote from this website:  http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/relativity/The leading cosmological theory, called the big bang theory, was formulated in 1922 by the Russian mathematician and meteorologist Alexander Friedmann. Friedmann began with Einstein's equations of general relativity and found a solution to those equations in which the universe began in a state of extremely high density and temperatureAnd of course in keeping with Mozina method he will search the article for a phrase to take out of context to build yet another strawman or he will rant about his 'guys' Birkeland and Alfen or talk about empirical evidence or start up on volcanoes on the sun etc, etc, etc.  I have to agree with Dr. Rocket, since the Mozina has arrived it will be, "from the unexplained this thread has come and to the unexplained it shall return". edited for formatting <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

MeteorWayne · Nov 24, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>This was MM reply to the statement that big bang is based general relativity.This is classic Mozina (ugh).  In one sentence he first makes a strawman - dark matter which has nothing to do with the big bang, and then shows his ignorance by saying that GR does not predict the big bang.The following is a quote from this website:  http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/relativity/The leading cosmological theory, called the big bang theory, was formulated in 1922 by the Russian mathematician and meteorologist Alexander Friedmann. Friedmann began with Einstein's equations of general relativity and found a solution to those equations in which the universe began in a state of extremely high density and temperatureAnd of course in keeping with Mozina method he will search the article for a phrase to take out of context to build yet another strawman or he will rant about his 'guys' Birkeland and Alfen or talk about empirical evidence or start up on volcanoes on the sun etc, etc, etc.  I have to agree with Dr. Rocket, since the Mozina has arrived it will be, "from the unexplained this thread has come and to the unexplained it shall return". edited for formatting Posted by origin</DIV>As a moderator, I'm trying to fight the idea that with a few pseudoscientific posts a thread need be moved to "The Unexplained". My intention is to demand rigorous support for such unsubstantiated claims, failing such support the posts will be deleted. Paying attention michael? Get your ducks in a row, right now. Fortunately, I'm too busy to begin my efforts tonight (though I invite any others to demand such support as well).The Science fora will be defended with science, and unsupported pseudoscience will no longer be allowed to trash threads here. Fun ideas are allowed, but if challenged such ideas will need to be defended with real 21st century (or at least late 20th century) science.That's why I get the big bucks (Bwaaahahahaha) <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

MeteorWayne · Nov 24, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>This was MM reply to the statement that big bang is based general relativity.This is classic Mozina (ugh).  In one sentence he first makes a strawman - dark matter which has nothing to do with the big bang, and then shows his ignorance by saying that GR does not predict the big bang.The following is a quote from this website:  http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/relativity/The leading cosmological theory, called the big bang theory, was formulated in 1922 by the Russian mathematician and meteorologist Alexander Friedmann. Friedmann began with Einstein's equations of general relativity and found a solution to those equations in which the universe began in a state of extremely high density and temperatureAnd of course in keeping with Mozina method he will search the article for a phrase to take out of context to build yet another strawman or he will rant about his 'guys' Birkeland and Alfen or talk about empirical evidence or start up on volcanoes on the sun etc, etc, etc.  I have to agree with Dr. Rocket, since the Mozina has arrived it will be, "from the unexplained this thread has come and to the unexplained it shall return". edited for formatting Posted by origin</DIV>As a moderator, I'm trying to fight the idea that with a few pseudoscientific posts a thread need be moved to "The Unexplained". My intention is to demand rigorous support for such unsubstantiated claims, failing such support the posts will be deleted. Paying attention michael? Get your ducks in a row, right now. Fortunately, I'm too busy to begin my efforts tonight (though I invite any others to demand such support as well).The Science fora will be defended with science, and unsupported pseudoscience will no longer be allowed to trash threads here. Fun ideas are allowed, but if challenged such ideas will need to be defended with real 21st century (or at least late 20th century) science.That's why I get the big bucks (Bwaaahahahaha) <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

MeteorWayne · Nov 24, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>This was MM reply to the statement that big bang is based general relativity.This is classic Mozina (ugh).  In one sentence he first makes a strawman - dark matter which has nothing to do with the big bang, and then shows his ignorance by saying that GR does not predict the big bang.The following is a quote from this website:  http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/relativity/The leading cosmological theory, called the big bang theory, was formulated in 1922 by the Russian mathematician and meteorologist Alexander Friedmann. Friedmann began with Einstein's equations of general relativity and found a solution to those equations in which the universe began in a state of extremely high density and temperatureAnd of course in keeping with Mozina method he will search the article for a phrase to take out of context to build yet another strawman or he will rant about his 'guys' Birkeland and Alfen or talk about empirical evidence or start up on volcanoes on the sun etc, etc, etc.  I have to agree with Dr. Rocket, since the Mozina has arrived it will be, "from the unexplained this thread has come and to the unexplained it shall return". edited for formatting Posted by origin</DIV>As a moderator, I'm trying to fight the idea that with a few pseudoscientific posts a thread need be moved to "The Unexplained". My intention is to demand rigorous support for such unsubstantiated claims, failing such support the posts will be deleted. Paying attention michael? Get your ducks in a row, right now. Fortunately, I'm too busy to begin my efforts tonight (though I invite any others to demand such support as well).The Science fora will be defended with science, and unsupported pseudoscience will no longer be allowed to trash threads here. Fun ideas are allowed, but if challenged such ideas will need to be defended with real 21st century (or at least late 20th century) science.That's why I get the big bucks (Bwaaahahahaha) <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

MeteorWayne · Nov 24, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>This was MM reply to the statement that big bang is based general relativity.This is classic Mozina (ugh).  In one sentence he first makes a strawman - dark matter which has nothing to do with the big bang, and then shows his ignorance by saying that GR does not predict the big bang.The following is a quote from this website:  http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/relativity/The leading cosmological theory, called the big bang theory, was formulated in 1922 by the Russian mathematician and meteorologist Alexander Friedmann. Friedmann began with Einstein's equations of general relativity and found a solution to those equations in which the universe began in a state of extremely high density and temperatureAnd of course in keeping with Mozina method he will search the article for a phrase to take out of context to build yet another strawman or he will rant about his 'guys' Birkeland and Alfen or talk about empirical evidence or start up on volcanoes on the sun etc, etc, etc.  I have to agree with Dr. Rocket, since the Mozina has arrived it will be, "from the unexplained this thread has come and to the unexplained it shall return". edited for formatting Posted by origin</DIV>As a moderator, I'm trying to fight the idea that with a few pseudoscientific posts a thread need be moved to "The Unexplained". My intention is to demand rigorous support for such unsubstantiated claims, failing such support the posts will be deleted. Paying attention michael? Get your ducks in a row, right now. Fortunately, I'm too busy to begin my efforts tonight (though I invite any others to demand such support as well).The Science fora will be defended with science, and unsupported pseudoscience will no longer be allowed to trash threads here. Fun ideas are allowed, but if challenged such ideas will need to be defended with real 21st century (or at least late 20th century) science.That's why I get the big bucks (Bwaaahahahaha) <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

DrRocket · Nov 24, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> (emphasis added)There is absolutely no scientific basis for giving any estimate of the size of the original singularity.  The singularity might have been quark sized such that the visible universe is a big chunk of the total universe, or the original singularity might have been galaxy sized such that the visible universe is a mere trillion/trillion/trillionth of the size of the actual universe.  There is currently no math, nor experimental data that provides the slightest bit of evidence regarding the size of the original singularity.As far as the general point, the original big bang theory did not include inflation.  Inflation was added on later.  It always seemed to me that inflation was a "kludge" to explain why the big bang didn't immediately turn back into a black hole because of the tremendous gravitational forces that existed immediately after the big bang.  That being said, there does appear to be some evidence to support the inflation hypothesis (I question whether inflation qualifies as a theory), but there is NO evidence to support even a speculation regarding the size of the original singularity.  Posted by robnissen</DIV>The prediction of the singularity is the result of an application of general relativity.  General relativity is known to be extremely accurate so long as the physics involved is dominated by gravitation, and so long as space-time is adequately modeled as a differentiable manifold.  It is also know that in the very early universe, when the universe was quite small that quantum effects were important, and under those conditions general relativity is not necessarily an adequate description of the physics.  So despsite the prediction of a singularity by general relativity, that singularity may not be physical.  During those extremely early times it is believed that gravity, the strong force and the electroweak force were "unified" and a treatment of the physics requires a knowledge of that unified force -- a treatment that is beyond the capability of the tools and knowledge of fundamental physics that are available at this time.  But once the forces at work had resolved themselves into something similar to what is seen today, where it is reasonable to treat the effects of gravity, the strong force, and the electroweak force separately the description of physics using tools that we do have available.  That seems to have occurred somewhere in the vicinity of 10^-43 s to 10^-33 x or so after the Big Bang, when the universe would probably have been only 10 cm or so in diameter. In any case in the book The large scale structure of space-time by Hawking and Ellis you can find estimates to the effect that general relativity is a good model  for radii of curvature greater than something on the order of 10^-33 cm, which may not be Euclidean point, but in any case represents a pretty small singularity.  So there is indeed a scientific and mathematical basis for estimating the size of the original singularity, and it is quite small.  The prediction of the singularity has nothing to do with inflation.  What inflation postulates is a scalar field that served to cause the rate of expansion in that early era to be extremely high.  It serves to explain why the universe is as uniform as it appears to be on a large scale (mass distribution and the homogeneity of the cosmic background radiation for instance) and still is anisotropic on a smaller scale (existence of galaxies and groups of galaxies and slight non-uniformity in the cosmic background radiation) and it explains the "horizon problem" whereby there is homogeneity that exceeds the allowable communication among parts of the galaxy imposed by the speed of light.You don't need inflation to explain why the universe did not immediately collapse into a black hole, but it helps.  You can explain the expansion solely on the basis of initial conditions, but there is no fundamental explanation for those conditions, other than the observation that the universe is here, it is expanding and it did not contract into a black hole.  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

DrRocket · Nov 24, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> (emphasis added)There is absolutely no scientific basis for giving any estimate of the size of the original singularity.  The singularity might have been quark sized such that the visible universe is a big chunk of the total universe, or the original singularity might have been galaxy sized such that the visible universe is a mere trillion/trillion/trillionth of the size of the actual universe.  There is currently no math, nor experimental data that provides the slightest bit of evidence regarding the size of the original singularity.As far as the general point, the original big bang theory did not include inflation.  Inflation was added on later.  It always seemed to me that inflation was a "kludge" to explain why the big bang didn't immediately turn back into a black hole because of the tremendous gravitational forces that existed immediately after the big bang.  That being said, there does appear to be some evidence to support the inflation hypothesis (I question whether inflation qualifies as a theory), but there is NO evidence to support even a speculation regarding the size of the original singularity.  Posted by robnissen</DIV>The prediction of the singularity is the result of an application of general relativity.  General relativity is known to be extremely accurate so long as the physics involved is dominated by gravitation, and so long as space-time is adequately modeled as a differentiable manifold.  It is also know that in the very early universe, when the universe was quite small that quantum effects were important, and under those conditions general relativity is not necessarily an adequate description of the physics.  So despsite the prediction of a singularity by general relativity, that singularity may not be physical.  During those extremely early times it is believed that gravity, the strong force and the electroweak force were "unified" and a treatment of the physics requires a knowledge of that unified force -- a treatment that is beyond the capability of the tools and knowledge of fundamental physics that are available at this time.  But once the forces at work had resolved themselves into something similar to what is seen today, where it is reasonable to treat the effects of gravity, the strong force, and the electroweak force separately the description of physics using tools that we do have available.  That seems to have occurred somewhere in the vicinity of 10^-43 s to 10^-33 x or so after the Big Bang, when the universe would probably have been only 10 cm or so in diameter. In any case in the book The large scale structure of space-time by Hawking and Ellis you can find estimates to the effect that general relativity is a good model  for radii of curvature greater than something on the order of 10^-33 cm, which may not be Euclidean point, but in any case represents a pretty small singularity.  So there is indeed a scientific and mathematical basis for estimating the size of the original singularity, and it is quite small.  The prediction of the singularity has nothing to do with inflation.  What inflation postulates is a scalar field that served to cause the rate of expansion in that early era to be extremely high.  It serves to explain why the universe is as uniform as it appears to be on a large scale (mass distribution and the homogeneity of the cosmic background radiation for instance) and still is anisotropic on a smaller scale (existence of galaxies and groups of galaxies and slight non-uniformity in the cosmic background radiation) and it explains the "horizon problem" whereby there is homogeneity that exceeds the allowable communication among parts of the galaxy imposed by the speed of light.You don't need inflation to explain why the universe did not immediately collapse into a black hole, but it helps.  You can explain the expansion solely on the basis of initial conditions, but there is no fundamental explanation for those conditions, other than the observation that the universe is here, it is expanding and it did not contract into a black hole.  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

DrRocket · Nov 24, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> (emphasis added)There is absolutely no scientific basis for giving any estimate of the size of the original singularity.  The singularity might have been quark sized such that the visible universe is a big chunk of the total universe, or the original singularity might have been galaxy sized such that the visible universe is a mere trillion/trillion/trillionth of the size of the actual universe.  There is currently no math, nor experimental data that provides the slightest bit of evidence regarding the size of the original singularity.As far as the general point, the original big bang theory did not include inflation.  Inflation was added on later.  It always seemed to me that inflation was a "kludge" to explain why the big bang didn't immediately turn back into a black hole because of the tremendous gravitational forces that existed immediately after the big bang.  That being said, there does appear to be some evidence to support the inflation hypothesis (I question whether inflation qualifies as a theory), but there is NO evidence to support even a speculation regarding the size of the original singularity.  Posted by robnissen</DIV>The prediction of the singularity is the result of an application of general relativity.  General relativity is known to be extremely accurate so long as the physics involved is dominated by gravitation, and so long as space-time is adequately modeled as a differentiable manifold.  It is also know that in the very early universe, when the universe was quite small that quantum effects were important, and under those conditions general relativity is not necessarily an adequate description of the physics.  So despsite the prediction of a singularity by general relativity, that singularity may not be physical.  During those extremely early times it is believed that gravity, the strong force and the electroweak force were "unified" and a treatment of the physics requires a knowledge of that unified force -- a treatment that is beyond the capability of the tools and knowledge of fundamental physics that are available at this time.  But once the forces at work had resolved themselves into something similar to what is seen today, where it is reasonable to treat the effects of gravity, the strong force, and the electroweak force separately the description of physics using tools that we do have available.  That seems to have occurred somewhere in the vicinity of 10^-43 s to 10^-33 x or so after the Big Bang, when the universe would probably have been only 10 cm or so in diameter. In any case in the book The large scale structure of space-time by Hawking and Ellis you can find estimates to the effect that general relativity is a good model  for radii of curvature greater than something on the order of 10^-33 cm, which may not be Euclidean point, but in any case represents a pretty small singularity.  So there is indeed a scientific and mathematical basis for estimating the size of the original singularity, and it is quite small.  The prediction of the singularity has nothing to do with inflation.  What inflation postulates is a scalar field that served to cause the rate of expansion in that early era to be extremely high.  It serves to explain why the universe is as uniform as it appears to be on a large scale (mass distribution and the homogeneity of the cosmic background radiation for instance) and still is anisotropic on a smaller scale (existence of galaxies and groups of galaxies and slight non-uniformity in the cosmic background radiation) and it explains the "horizon problem" whereby there is homogeneity that exceeds the allowable communication among parts of the galaxy imposed by the speed of light.You don't need inflation to explain why the universe did not immediately collapse into a black hole, but it helps.  You can explain the expansion solely on the basis of initial conditions, but there is no fundamental explanation for those conditions, other than the observation that the universe is here, it is expanding and it did not contract into a black hole.  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

DrRocket · Nov 24, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> (emphasis added)There is absolutely no scientific basis for giving any estimate of the size of the original singularity.  The singularity might have been quark sized such that the visible universe is a big chunk of the total universe, or the original singularity might have been galaxy sized such that the visible universe is a mere trillion/trillion/trillionth of the size of the actual universe.  There is currently no math, nor experimental data that provides the slightest bit of evidence regarding the size of the original singularity.As far as the general point, the original big bang theory did not include inflation.  Inflation was added on later.  It always seemed to me that inflation was a "kludge" to explain why the big bang didn't immediately turn back into a black hole because of the tremendous gravitational forces that existed immediately after the big bang.  That being said, there does appear to be some evidence to support the inflation hypothesis (I question whether inflation qualifies as a theory), but there is NO evidence to support even a speculation regarding the size of the original singularity.  Posted by robnissen</DIV>The prediction of the singularity is the result of an application of general relativity.  General relativity is known to be extremely accurate so long as the physics involved is dominated by gravitation, and so long as space-time is adequately modeled as a differentiable manifold.  It is also know that in the very early universe, when the universe was quite small that quantum effects were important, and under those conditions general relativity is not necessarily an adequate description of the physics.  So despsite the prediction of a singularity by general relativity, that singularity may not be physical.  During those extremely early times it is believed that gravity, the strong force and the electroweak force were "unified" and a treatment of the physics requires a knowledge of that unified force -- a treatment that is beyond the capability of the tools and knowledge of fundamental physics that are available at this time.  But once the forces at work had resolved themselves into something similar to what is seen today, where it is reasonable to treat the effects of gravity, the strong force, and the electroweak force separately the description of physics using tools that we do have available.  That seems to have occurred somewhere in the vicinity of 10^-43 s to 10^-33 x or so after the Big Bang, when the universe would probably have been only 10 cm or so in diameter. In any case in the book The large scale structure of space-time by Hawking and Ellis you can find estimates to the effect that general relativity is a good model  for radii of curvature greater than something on the order of 10^-33 cm, which may not be Euclidean point, but in any case represents a pretty small singularity.  So there is indeed a scientific and mathematical basis for estimating the size of the original singularity, and it is quite small.  The prediction of the singularity has nothing to do with inflation.  What inflation postulates is a scalar field that served to cause the rate of expansion in that early era to be extremely high.  It serves to explain why the universe is as uniform as it appears to be on a large scale (mass distribution and the homogeneity of the cosmic background radiation for instance) and still is anisotropic on a smaller scale (existence of galaxies and groups of galaxies and slight non-uniformity in the cosmic background radiation) and it explains the "horizon problem" whereby there is homogeneity that exceeds the allowable communication among parts of the galaxy imposed by the speed of light.You don't need inflation to explain why the universe did not immediately collapse into a black hole, but it helps.  You can explain the expansion solely on the basis of initial conditions, but there is no fundamental explanation for those conditions, other than the observation that the universe is here, it is expanding and it did not contract into a black hole.  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

DrRocket · Nov 25, 2008

Michael Mozina.Following Meteor Wayne’s example I will provide a clear challenge to your post.I therefore DEMAND that you provide clear and scientifically factual support, including all necessary and relevant mathematics to address the following points.  You are required to address each question in its entirety  PARSING OF INDIVIDUAL QUESTIONS AND SENTENCES IS NOT ACCEPTABLE.  NEITHER ARE ATTEMPTS TO ANSWER VALID QUESTIONS WITH SEMANTIC DISSECTIOINS OF THE WORDS.Failing to address these points adequately, I request that the moderators take all necessary steps to prevent further attempts to derail and hijack otherwise legitimate scientific discussions for the purpose of furthering a pseudoscientific agenda.  In short put up or shut up, permanently. Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Not at all.  It is based on general relativity. No it's not.   GR does not "predict" dark matter, nor does GR predict a "big bang".  Redshift *interpretations" simply suggest that mass was once closer together, though it does *NOT* predict it being condensed to a "point".  Alfven's "Bang" did not require anything like a singularity to have formed.</DIV>I.Provide proof that cosmological models based on general relativity do not  predict the Big Bang.  In particular please provide solid refutation of 1) Chapter 10 of The large scale structure of space-time by S.W. Hawking and G.F.R. Ellis 2)  Chapter 15, Part 11 of Gravitation and Cosmology, Principles and Applications of the General Theory of Relativity by Steven Weinberg 3)  Part II particularly Chapter 13 of Principles of Physical Cosmology by P.J.E. Peebles and 4) Chapter 28 of Gravitation by Charles Misner, Kip Thorne and John Archibald Wheeler.Provide evidence that reference to Alfven’s model is relevant and not an attempt to hijack this thread to promote your own agenda.  Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Given the observed expansion of the universe (whether accelerating or not) and the amount of mass that is known to exist,We don't know how much mass exists.  We certainly don't know how much non baryonic "dark matter" exists.</DIV>II.Provide proof that we do not know the matter content or distribution of the universe to the degree necessary to support a model for the large-scale structure of the universe sufficient for application of models based on general relativity.  In particular please provide concrete refutation for: 1) Chapters 19, 20 and 21 of Principles of Physical Cosmology by P.J.E. Peebles and 2) Chapter 15, Part 2 of Gravitation and Cosmology, Principles and Applications of the General Theory of Relativity by Steven WeinbergReplying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose used general relativity to show that the universe originated in an extremely compact form quite a while ago.They did not "show" anything of the sort.  They "presumed" this to be true.It follows from mathematics and logic that something like the postulated Big Bang did occur.Only if one *insists* on claiming that redshift is due to doppler movement of objects in space.  Even then, Alfven's "Bang" did not assume all matter was as condensed as you presume.</DIV>III.Provide rigorous refutation for 1) Chapters 8 and 10 of The large scale structure of space-time by S.W. Hawking and G.F.R. Ellis and 2) Chapter 27 of The Road to Reality by Roger Penrose.  Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The mathematics of general relativity predicts that the universe actually originated from a sigularity, a single point.This is the pure dogma part.  Even an *interpretation* of redshift due to doppler motion does not lead to a requirement that all matter was condensed to a point.  What about Alfven's brand of a "bang"?  How did you rule that out again?</DIV>IV.Provide evidence of the relevance of your statement to the original question as to whether general relativity predicts the Big Bang.  Also provide evidence as to why your statement is anything other than an attempt to derail this thread and hijack it to support your own agenda.Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>But it is known that general relativity and quantum mechanics are mutually inconsistent.  Utterly irrelevant.Under conditions in which both general relativity and quantum mechanics are needed for an adequately good approximation, our tools break down. Again, this is utterly irrelevant and speculative as well.</DIV>V.As this statement shows the limitation of the general relativistic tools and therefore limitation of the conclusions reached from them the relevance is clear.  Therefore it appears that your statements are  a clear attempt to derail and hijack this thread.  Provide evidence to the contrary.  If you cannot do this then I submit that this is clear proof that you are attempting to derail and hijack this thread AND I CALL ON THE MODS TO SEE TO IT THAT YOU ARE PERMANENTLY PREVENTED FROM DOING SO.Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Thus the singularity itself is questionable.It's "questionable" for a variety of reasons, the least important of which is the notion you mentioned.  There's no requirement for a "singularity" at all.</DIV>VI.This off-topic statement is clear evidence of the attempt to derail and hijack.  Provide proof to the contrary.Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>But the theories are adequate to conclude that the universe was once only a few tens of centimeters in diameter.That is not a matter of religion.  In fact many of the physicists involved in this area of research are not religious.  Far from it.  It is not an argument against religion either.  It is simply science.  Posted by DrRocketInflation is real science?  Show me a useful consumer product that runs on "dark" anything or inflation and then tell me it's "simply science".  Dogma isn't science.  Inflation isn't science it's dogma.   Notihing "runs" on inflation, and no useful scientific product is based upon the use of "inflation" to do anything.  The same it true of dark energy, dark matter and monopoles.  These are not "scientific" constructs because all of them are shy around empirical tests.</DIV>VII.You have asserted that the inflation is not only not proven but not even a valid scientific hypothesis.  Therefore provide solid refutation of 1) the entire contents of the book The Inflationary Universe by Alan Guth 2) each of the following technical papers by Alan Guth : a) http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0502/0502328v1.pdf  b) http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0404/0404546v1.pdf  c) http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0306/0306275v1.pdf  d) http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0002/0002188v1.pdf  and 2) Chapter 17 of Principles of Physical Cosmology by P.J.E. Peebles.You have also asserted that inflation is not supported by reliable scientific measurements.  Therefore, refute the following paper: http://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/product/map/dr1/pub_papers/firstyear/inflation/wmap_inflation.pdf   <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

DrRocket · Nov 25, 2008

Michael Mozina.Following Meteor Wayne’s example I will provide a clear challenge to your post.I therefore DEMAND that you provide clear and scientifically factual support, including all necessary and relevant mathematics to address the following points.  You are required to address each question in its entirety  PARSING OF INDIVIDUAL QUESTIONS AND SENTENCES IS NOT ACCEPTABLE.  NEITHER ARE ATTEMPTS TO ANSWER VALID QUESTIONS WITH SEMANTIC DISSECTIOINS OF THE WORDS.Failing to address these points adequately, I request that the moderators take all necessary steps to prevent further attempts to derail and hijack otherwise legitimate scientific discussions for the purpose of furthering a pseudoscientific agenda.  In short put up or shut up, permanently. Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Not at all.  It is based on general relativity. No it's not.   GR does not "predict" dark matter, nor does GR predict a "big bang".  Redshift *interpretations" simply suggest that mass was once closer together, though it does *NOT* predict it being condensed to a "point".  Alfven's "Bang" did not require anything like a singularity to have formed.</DIV>I.Provide proof that cosmological models based on general relativity do not  predict the Big Bang.  In particular please provide solid refutation of 1) Chapter 10 of The large scale structure of space-time by S.W. Hawking and G.F.R. Ellis 2)  Chapter 15, Part 11 of Gravitation and Cosmology, Principles and Applications of the General Theory of Relativity by Steven Weinberg 3)  Part II particularly Chapter 13 of Principles of Physical Cosmology by P.J.E. Peebles and 4) Chapter 28 of Gravitation by Charles Misner, Kip Thorne and John Archibald Wheeler.Provide evidence that reference to Alfven’s model is relevant and not an attempt to hijack this thread to promote your own agenda.  Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Given the observed expansion of the universe (whether accelerating or not) and the amount of mass that is known to exist,We don't know how much mass exists.  We certainly don't know how much non baryonic "dark matter" exists.</DIV>II.Provide proof that we do not know the matter content or distribution of the universe to the degree necessary to support a model for the large-scale structure of the universe sufficient for application of models based on general relativity.  In particular please provide concrete refutation for: 1) Chapters 19, 20 and 21 of Principles of Physical Cosmology by P.J.E. Peebles and 2) Chapter 15, Part 2 of Gravitation and Cosmology, Principles and Applications of the General Theory of Relativity by Steven WeinbergReplying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose used general relativity to show that the universe originated in an extremely compact form quite a while ago.They did not "show" anything of the sort.  They "presumed" this to be true.It follows from mathematics and logic that something like the postulated Big Bang did occur.Only if one *insists* on claiming that redshift is due to doppler movement of objects in space.  Even then, Alfven's "Bang" did not assume all matter was as condensed as you presume.</DIV>III.Provide rigorous refutation for 1) Chapters 8 and 10 of The large scale structure of space-time by S.W. Hawking and G.F.R. Ellis and 2) Chapter 27 of The Road to Reality by Roger Penrose.  Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The mathematics of general relativity predicts that the universe actually originated from a sigularity, a single point.This is the pure dogma part.  Even an *interpretation* of redshift due to doppler motion does not lead to a requirement that all matter was condensed to a point.  What about Alfven's brand of a "bang"?  How did you rule that out again?</DIV>IV.Provide evidence of the relevance of your statement to the original question as to whether general relativity predicts the Big Bang.  Also provide evidence as to why your statement is anything other than an attempt to derail this thread and hijack it to support your own agenda.Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>But it is known that general relativity and quantum mechanics are mutually inconsistent.  Utterly irrelevant.Under conditions in which both general relativity and quantum mechanics are needed for an adequately good approximation, our tools break down. Again, this is utterly irrelevant and speculative as well.</DIV>V.As this statement shows the limitation of the general relativistic tools and therefore limitation of the conclusions reached from them the relevance is clear.  Therefore it appears that your statements are  a clear attempt to derail and hijack this thread.  Provide evidence to the contrary.  If you cannot do this then I submit that this is clear proof that you are attempting to derail and hijack this thread AND I CALL ON THE MODS TO SEE TO IT THAT YOU ARE PERMANENTLY PREVENTED FROM DOING SO.Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Thus the singularity itself is questionable.It's "questionable" for a variety of reasons, the least important of which is the notion you mentioned.  There's no requirement for a "singularity" at all.</DIV>VI.This off-topic statement is clear evidence of the attempt to derail and hijack.  Provide proof to the contrary.Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>But the theories are adequate to conclude that the universe was once only a few tens of centimeters in diameter.That is not a matter of religion.  In fact many of the physicists involved in this area of research are not religious.  Far from it.  It is not an argument against religion either.  It is simply science.  Posted by DrRocketInflation is real science?  Show me a useful consumer product that runs on "dark" anything or inflation and then tell me it's "simply science".  Dogma isn't science.  Inflation isn't science it's dogma.   Notihing "runs" on inflation, and no useful scientific product is based upon the use of "inflation" to do anything.  The same it true of dark energy, dark matter and monopoles.  These are not "scientific" constructs because all of them are shy around empirical tests.</DIV>VII.You have asserted that the inflation is not only not proven but not even a valid scientific hypothesis.  Therefore provide solid refutation of 1) the entire contents of the book The Inflationary Universe by Alan Guth 2) each of the following technical papers by Alan Guth : a) http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0502/0502328v1.pdf  b) http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0404/0404546v1.pdf  c) http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0306/0306275v1.pdf  d) http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0002/0002188v1.pdf  and 2) Chapter 17 of Principles of Physical Cosmology by P.J.E. Peebles.You have also asserted that inflation is not supported by reliable scientific measurements.  Therefore, refute the following paper: http://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/product/map/dr1/pub_papers/firstyear/inflation/wmap_inflation.pdf   <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

DrRocket · Nov 25, 2008

Michael Mozina.Following Meteor Wayne’s example I will provide a clear challenge to your post.I therefore DEMAND that you provide clear and scientifically factual support, including all necessary and relevant mathematics to address the following points.  You are required to address each question in its entirety  PARSING OF INDIVIDUAL QUESTIONS AND SENTENCES IS NOT ACCEPTABLE.  NEITHER ARE ATTEMPTS TO ANSWER VALID QUESTIONS WITH SEMANTIC DISSECTIOINS OF THE WORDS.Failing to address these points adequately, I request that the moderators take all necessary steps to prevent further attempts to derail and hijack otherwise legitimate scientific discussions for the purpose of furthering a pseudoscientific agenda.  In short put up or shut up, permanently. Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Not at all.  It is based on general relativity. No it's not.   GR does not "predict" dark matter, nor does GR predict a "big bang".  Redshift *interpretations" simply suggest that mass was once closer together, though it does *NOT* predict it being condensed to a "point".  Alfven's "Bang" did not require anything like a singularity to have formed.</DIV>I.Provide proof that cosmological models based on general relativity do not  predict the Big Bang.  In particular please provide solid refutation of 1) Chapter 10 of The large scale structure of space-time by S.W. Hawking and G.F.R. Ellis 2)  Chapter 15, Part 11 of Gravitation and Cosmology, Principles and Applications of the General Theory of Relativity by Steven Weinberg 3)  Part II particularly Chapter 13 of Principles of Physical Cosmology by P.J.E. Peebles and 4) Chapter 28 of Gravitation by Charles Misner, Kip Thorne and John Archibald Wheeler.Provide evidence that reference to Alfven’s model is relevant and not an attempt to hijack this thread to promote your own agenda.  Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Given the observed expansion of the universe (whether accelerating or not) and the amount of mass that is known to exist,We don't know how much mass exists.  We certainly don't know how much non baryonic "dark matter" exists.</DIV>II.Provide proof that we do not know the matter content or distribution of the universe to the degree necessary to support a model for the large-scale structure of the universe sufficient for application of models based on general relativity.  In particular please provide concrete refutation for: 1) Chapters 19, 20 and 21 of Principles of Physical Cosmology by P.J.E. Peebles and 2) Chapter 15, Part 2 of Gravitation and Cosmology, Principles and Applications of the General Theory of Relativity by Steven WeinbergReplying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose used general relativity to show that the universe originated in an extremely compact form quite a while ago.They did not "show" anything of the sort.  They "presumed" this to be true.It follows from mathematics and logic that something like the postulated Big Bang did occur.Only if one *insists* on claiming that redshift is due to doppler movement of objects in space.  Even then, Alfven's "Bang" did not assume all matter was as condensed as you presume.</DIV>III.Provide rigorous refutation for 1) Chapters 8 and 10 of The large scale structure of space-time by S.W. Hawking and G.F.R. Ellis and 2) Chapter 27 of The Road to Reality by Roger Penrose.  Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The mathematics of general relativity predicts that the universe actually originated from a sigularity, a single point.This is the pure dogma part.  Even an *interpretation* of redshift due to doppler motion does not lead to a requirement that all matter was condensed to a point.  What about Alfven's brand of a "bang"?  How did you rule that out again?</DIV>IV.Provide evidence of the relevance of your statement to the original question as to whether general relativity predicts the Big Bang.  Also provide evidence as to why your statement is anything other than an attempt to derail this thread and hijack it to support your own agenda.Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>But it is known that general relativity and quantum mechanics are mutually inconsistent.  Utterly irrelevant.Under conditions in which both general relativity and quantum mechanics are needed for an adequately good approximation, our tools break down. Again, this is utterly irrelevant and speculative as well.</DIV>V.As this statement shows the limitation of the general relativistic tools and therefore limitation of the conclusions reached from them the relevance is clear.  Therefore it appears that your statements are  a clear attempt to derail and hijack this thread.  Provide evidence to the contrary.  If you cannot do this then I submit that this is clear proof that you are attempting to derail and hijack this thread AND I CALL ON THE MODS TO SEE TO IT THAT YOU ARE PERMANENTLY PREVENTED FROM DOING SO.Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Thus the singularity itself is questionable.It's "questionable" for a variety of reasons, the least important of which is the notion you mentioned.  There's no requirement for a "singularity" at all.</DIV>VI.This off-topic statement is clear evidence of the attempt to derail and hijack.  Provide proof to the contrary.Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>But the theories are adequate to conclude that the universe was once only a few tens of centimeters in diameter.That is not a matter of religion.  In fact many of the physicists involved in this area of research are not religious.  Far from it.  It is not an argument against religion either.  It is simply science.  Posted by DrRocketInflation is real science?  Show me a useful consumer product that runs on "dark" anything or inflation and then tell me it's "simply science".  Dogma isn't science.  Inflation isn't science it's dogma.   Notihing "runs" on inflation, and no useful scientific product is based upon the use of "inflation" to do anything.  The same it true of dark energy, dark matter and monopoles.  These are not "scientific" constructs because all of them are shy around empirical tests.</DIV>VII.You have asserted that the inflation is not only not proven but not even a valid scientific hypothesis.  Therefore provide solid refutation of 1) the entire contents of the book The Inflationary Universe by Alan Guth 2) each of the following technical papers by Alan Guth : a) http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0502/0502328v1.pdf  b) http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0404/0404546v1.pdf  c) http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0306/0306275v1.pdf  d) http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0002/0002188v1.pdf  and 2) Chapter 17 of Principles of Physical Cosmology by P.J.E. Peebles.You have also asserted that inflation is not supported by reliable scientific measurements.  Therefore, refute the following paper: http://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/product/map/dr1/pub_papers/firstyear/inflation/wmap_inflation.pdf   <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

DrRocket · Nov 25, 2008

Michael Mozina.Following Meteor Wayne’s example I will provide a clear challenge to your post.I therefore DEMAND that you provide clear and scientifically factual support, including all necessary and relevant mathematics to address the following points.  You are required to address each question in its entirety  PARSING OF INDIVIDUAL QUESTIONS AND SENTENCES IS NOT ACCEPTABLE.  NEITHER ARE ATTEMPTS TO ANSWER VALID QUESTIONS WITH SEMANTIC DISSECTIOINS OF THE WORDS.Failing to address these points adequately, I request that the moderators take all necessary steps to prevent further attempts to derail and hijack otherwise legitimate scientific discussions for the purpose of furthering a pseudoscientific agenda.  In short put up or shut up, permanently. Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Not at all.  It is based on general relativity. No it's not.   GR does not "predict" dark matter, nor does GR predict a "big bang".  Redshift *interpretations" simply suggest that mass was once closer together, though it does *NOT* predict it being condensed to a "point".  Alfven's "Bang" did not require anything like a singularity to have formed.</DIV>I.Provide proof that cosmological models based on general relativity do not  predict the Big Bang.  In particular please provide solid refutation of 1) Chapter 10 of The large scale structure of space-time by S.W. Hawking and G.F.R. Ellis 2)  Chapter 15, Part 11 of Gravitation and Cosmology, Principles and Applications of the General Theory of Relativity by Steven Weinberg 3)  Part II particularly Chapter 13 of Principles of Physical Cosmology by P.J.E. Peebles and 4) Chapter 28 of Gravitation by Charles Misner, Kip Thorne and John Archibald Wheeler.Provide evidence that reference to Alfven’s model is relevant and not an attempt to hijack this thread to promote your own agenda.  Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Given the observed expansion of the universe (whether accelerating or not) and the amount of mass that is known to exist,We don't know how much mass exists.  We certainly don't know how much non baryonic "dark matter" exists.</DIV>II.Provide proof that we do not know the matter content or distribution of the universe to the degree necessary to support a model for the large-scale structure of the universe sufficient for application of models based on general relativity.  In particular please provide concrete refutation for: 1) Chapters 19, 20 and 21 of Principles of Physical Cosmology by P.J.E. Peebles and 2) Chapter 15, Part 2 of Gravitation and Cosmology, Principles and Applications of the General Theory of Relativity by Steven WeinbergReplying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose used general relativity to show that the universe originated in an extremely compact form quite a while ago.They did not "show" anything of the sort.  They "presumed" this to be true.It follows from mathematics and logic that something like the postulated Big Bang did occur.Only if one *insists* on claiming that redshift is due to doppler movement of objects in space.  Even then, Alfven's "Bang" did not assume all matter was as condensed as you presume.</DIV>III.Provide rigorous refutation for 1) Chapters 8 and 10 of The large scale structure of space-time by S.W. Hawking and G.F.R. Ellis and 2) Chapter 27 of The Road to Reality by Roger Penrose.  Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The mathematics of general relativity predicts that the universe actually originated from a sigularity, a single point.This is the pure dogma part.  Even an *interpretation* of redshift due to doppler motion does not lead to a requirement that all matter was condensed to a point.  What about Alfven's brand of a "bang"?  How did you rule that out again?</DIV>IV.Provide evidence of the relevance of your statement to the original question as to whether general relativity predicts the Big Bang.  Also provide evidence as to why your statement is anything other than an attempt to derail this thread and hijack it to support your own agenda.Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>But it is known that general relativity and quantum mechanics are mutually inconsistent.  Utterly irrelevant.Under conditions in which both general relativity and quantum mechanics are needed for an adequately good approximation, our tools break down. Again, this is utterly irrelevant and speculative as well.</DIV>V.As this statement shows the limitation of the general relativistic tools and therefore limitation of the conclusions reached from them the relevance is clear.  Therefore it appears that your statements are  a clear attempt to derail and hijack this thread.  Provide evidence to the contrary.  If you cannot do this then I submit that this is clear proof that you are attempting to derail and hijack this thread AND I CALL ON THE MODS TO SEE TO IT THAT YOU ARE PERMANENTLY PREVENTED FROM DOING SO.Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Thus the singularity itself is questionable.It's "questionable" for a variety of reasons, the least important of which is the notion you mentioned.  There's no requirement for a "singularity" at all.</DIV>VI.This off-topic statement is clear evidence of the attempt to derail and hijack.  Provide proof to the contrary.Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>But the theories are adequate to conclude that the universe was once only a few tens of centimeters in diameter.That is not a matter of religion.  In fact many of the physicists involved in this area of research are not religious.  Far from it.  It is not an argument against religion either.  It is simply science.  Posted by DrRocketInflation is real science?  Show me a useful consumer product that runs on "dark" anything or inflation and then tell me it's "simply science".  Dogma isn't science.  Inflation isn't science it's dogma.   Notihing "runs" on inflation, and no useful scientific product is based upon the use of "inflation" to do anything.  The same it true of dark energy, dark matter and monopoles.  These are not "scientific" constructs because all of them are shy around empirical tests.</DIV>VII.You have asserted that the inflation is not only not proven but not even a valid scientific hypothesis.  Therefore provide solid refutation of 1) the entire contents of the book The Inflationary Universe by Alan Guth 2) each of the following technical papers by Alan Guth : a) http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0502/0502328v1.pdf  b) http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0404/0404546v1.pdf  c) http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0306/0306275v1.pdf  d) http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0002/0002188v1.pdf  and 2) Chapter 17 of Principles of Physical Cosmology by P.J.E. Peebles.You have also asserted that inflation is not supported by reliable scientific measurements.  Therefore, refute the following paper: http://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/product/map/dr1/pub_papers/firstyear/inflation/wmap_inflation.pdf   <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

BrianSlee · Nov 25, 2008

I have not had much time to invest in this field of research but I have done a little and one thought keeps popping in to my head.  Is it possible that the expansion of the universe is the result of an overall pressure increase caused by the burning of stars?  and that the unexplained spin of galaxies is a result of low pressure centers caused by the massive black holes in their center? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "I am therefore I think" "The only thing "I HAVE TO DO!!" is die, in everything else I have freewill" Brian P. Slee </div>

BrianSlee · Nov 25, 2008

I have not had much time to invest in this field of research but I have done a little and one thought keeps popping in to my head.  Is it possible that the expansion of the universe is the result of an overall pressure increase caused by the burning of stars?  and that the unexplained spin of galaxies is a result of low pressure centers caused by the massive black holes in their center? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "I am therefore I think" "The only thing "I HAVE TO DO!!" is die, in everything else I have freewill" Brian P. Slee </div>

BrianSlee · Nov 25, 2008

I have not had much time to invest in this field of research but I have done a little and one thought keeps popping in to my head.  Is it possible that the expansion of the universe is the result of an overall pressure increase caused by the burning of stars?  and that the unexplained spin of galaxies is a result of low pressure centers caused by the massive black holes in their center? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "I am therefore I think" "The only thing "I HAVE TO DO!!" is die, in everything else I have freewill" Brian P. Slee </div>

BrianSlee · Nov 25, 2008

I have not had much time to invest in this field of research but I have done a little and one thought keeps popping in to my head.  Is it possible that the expansion of the universe is the result of an overall pressure increase caused by the burning of stars?  and that the unexplained spin of galaxies is a result of low pressure centers caused by the massive black holes in their center? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "I am therefore I think" "The only thing "I HAVE TO DO!!" is die, in everything else I have freewill" Brian P. Slee </div>

MeteorWayne · Nov 25, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I have not had much time to invest in this field of research but I have done a little and one thought keeps popping in to my head.  Is it possible that the expansion of the universe is the result of an overall pressure increase caused by the burning of stars?  and that the unexplained spin of galaxies is a result of low pressure centers caused by the massive black holes in their center? Posted by BrianSlee</DIV> No, pressure would only effect the contents of the Universe, not the Universe itself. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

MeteorWayne · Nov 25, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I have not had much time to invest in this field of research but I have done a little and one thought keeps popping in to my head.  Is it possible that the expansion of the universe is the result of an overall pressure increase caused by the burning of stars?  and that the unexplained spin of galaxies is a result of low pressure centers caused by the massive black holes in their center? Posted by BrianSlee</DIV> No, pressure would only effect the contents of the Universe, not the Universe itself. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

MeteorWayne · Nov 25, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I have not had much time to invest in this field of research but I have done a little and one thought keeps popping in to my head.  Is it possible that the expansion of the universe is the result of an overall pressure increase caused by the burning of stars?  and that the unexplained spin of galaxies is a result of low pressure centers caused by the massive black holes in their center? Posted by BrianSlee</DIV> No, pressure would only effect the contents of the Universe, not the Universe itself. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

MeteorWayne · Nov 25, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I have not had much time to invest in this field of research but I have done a little and one thought keeps popping in to my head.  Is it possible that the expansion of the universe is the result of an overall pressure increase caused by the burning of stars?  and that the unexplained spin of galaxies is a result of low pressure centers caused by the massive black holes in their center? Posted by BrianSlee</DIV> No, pressure would only effect the contents of the Universe, not the Universe itself. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

BrianSlee · Nov 25, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>No, pressure would only effect the contents of the Universe, not the Universe itself. Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV> Aren't  the contents what make up the universe.  How do you differentiate the two? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "I am therefore I think" "The only thing "I HAVE TO DO!!" is die, in everything else I have freewill" Brian P. Slee </div>

Dark Matter...WTH?

origin

Guest

origin

Guest

origin

Guest

origin

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

BrianSlee

Guest

BrianSlee

Guest

BrianSlee

Guest

BrianSlee

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

BrianSlee

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page