Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>No, pressure would only effect the contents of the Universe, not the Universe itself. <br />Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV><br /><br />Aren't the contents what make up the universe. How do you differentiate the two? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>"I am therefore I think" </p><p>"The only thing "I HAVE TO DO!!" is die, in everything else I have freewill" Brian P. Slee</p> </div>
- Status
Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>No, pressure would only effect the contents of the Universe, not the Universe itself. <br />Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV><br /><br />Aren't the contents what make up the universe. How do you differentiate the two? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>"I am therefore I think" </p><p>"The only thing "I HAVE TO DO!!" is die, in everything else I have freewill" Brian P. Slee</p> </div>
Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>No, pressure would only effect the contents of the Universe, not the Universe itself. <br />Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV><br /><br />Aren't the contents what make up the universe. How do you differentiate the two? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>"I am therefore I think" </p><p>"The only thing "I HAVE TO DO!!" is die, in everything else I have freewill" Brian P. Slee</p> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><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.</DIV></p><p>Yet to hear them explain the "creation event", the whole thing was *necessarily* smaller than a breadbox, typically it's described as smaller than an atom. This is where we go from "scientific speculation" into pure dogmatic claim. While it's logical to speculate from redshift information that the mass our universe was closer together at one point it time, it is absolutely not a "given" that there was ever a "singularity".</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>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. </DIV></p><p>Yes indeed. It was Guth's kludge originally to explain a "missing monopole problem" and explain the homogenous nature of the unvierse. Now we know the unviverse has giant holes in it, "dark flows" and a number of things that were never "predicted" by Guth's inflation.</p><p>I think this is where it is useful to understand the actual history of these ideas and how and when they were "added to" BB theory.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>That being said, there does appear to be some evidence to support the inflation hypothesis</DIV></p><p>Like? Your overall attitude here sounds "reasonable" from my perspective, but I fail to understand what 'evidence' actually supports inflation. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>(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. <br /> Posted by robnissen</DIV> </p><p>I think the problem here is that some folks insist upon having a "creation event" included in astronomy. Whether it worked that way is another matter entirely. Normally science works with what it *can* demonstrate, not what *might* have occured. The moment I see a useful consumer product based on inflation, I'll lose my sketpical attitude toward the idea. As it stands, Guth's inflation theory never impressed me, it litterally a "supernatual" field that defies normal laws of physics, including it's amazing ability to increase it's volume exponentially with little or no decrease in density. It's the ultimate "ad hoc" assertion IMO.</p><p> </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>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><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.</DIV></p><p>Yet to hear them explain the "creation event", the whole thing was *necessarily* smaller than a breadbox, typically it's described as smaller than an atom. This is where we go from "scientific speculation" into pure dogmatic claim. While it's logical to speculate from redshift information that the mass our universe was closer together at one point it time, it is absolutely not a "given" that there was ever a "singularity".</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>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. </DIV></p><p>Yes indeed. It was Guth's kludge originally to explain a "missing monopole problem" and explain the homogenous nature of the unvierse. Now we know the unviverse has giant holes in it, "dark flows" and a number of things that were never "predicted" by Guth's inflation.</p><p>I think this is where it is useful to understand the actual history of these ideas and how and when they were "added to" BB theory.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>That being said, there does appear to be some evidence to support the inflation hypothesis</DIV></p><p>Like? Your overall attitude here sounds "reasonable" from my perspective, but I fail to understand what 'evidence' actually supports inflation. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>(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. <br /> Posted by robnissen</DIV> </p><p>I think the problem here is that some folks insist upon having a "creation event" included in astronomy. Whether it worked that way is another matter entirely. Normally science works with what it *can* demonstrate, not what *might* have occured. The moment I see a useful consumer product based on inflation, I'll lose my sketpical attitude toward the idea. As it stands, Guth's inflation theory never impressed me, it litterally a "supernatual" field that defies normal laws of physics, including it's amazing ability to increase it's volume exponentially with little or no decrease in density. It's the ultimate "ad hoc" assertion IMO.</p><p> </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>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><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.</DIV></p><p>Yet to hear them explain the "creation event", the whole thing was *necessarily* smaller than a breadbox, typically it's described as smaller than an atom. This is where we go from "scientific speculation" into pure dogmatic claim. While it's logical to speculate from redshift information that the mass our universe was closer together at one point it time, it is absolutely not a "given" that there was ever a "singularity".</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>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. </DIV></p><p>Yes indeed. It was Guth's kludge originally to explain a "missing monopole problem" and explain the homogenous nature of the unvierse. Now we know the unviverse has giant holes in it, "dark flows" and a number of things that were never "predicted" by Guth's inflation.</p><p>I think this is where it is useful to understand the actual history of these ideas and how and when they were "added to" BB theory.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>That being said, there does appear to be some evidence to support the inflation hypothesis</DIV></p><p>Like? Your overall attitude here sounds "reasonable" from my perspective, but I fail to understand what 'evidence' actually supports inflation. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>(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. <br /> Posted by robnissen</DIV> </p><p>I think the problem here is that some folks insist upon having a "creation event" included in astronomy. Whether it worked that way is another matter entirely. Normally science works with what it *can* demonstrate, not what *might* have occured. The moment I see a useful consumer product based on inflation, I'll lose my sketpical attitude toward the idea. As it stands, Guth's inflation theory never impressed me, it litterally a "supernatual" field that defies normal laws of physics, including it's amazing ability to increase it's volume exponentially with little or no decrease in density. It's the ultimate "ad hoc" assertion IMO.</p><p> </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>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><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.</DIV></p><p>Yet to hear them explain the "creation event", the whole thing was *necessarily* smaller than a breadbox, typically it's described as smaller than an atom. This is where we go from "scientific speculation" into pure dogmatic claim. While it's logical to speculate from redshift information that the mass our universe was closer together at one point it time, it is absolutely not a "given" that there was ever a "singularity".</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>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. </DIV></p><p>Yes indeed. It was Guth's kludge originally to explain a "missing monopole problem" and explain the homogenous nature of the unvierse. Now we know the unviverse has giant holes in it, "dark flows" and a number of things that were never "predicted" by Guth's inflation.</p><p>I think this is where it is useful to understand the actual history of these ideas and how and when they were "added to" BB theory.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>That being said, there does appear to be some evidence to support the inflation hypothesis</DIV></p><p>Like? Your overall attitude here sounds "reasonable" from my perspective, but I fail to understand what 'evidence' actually supports inflation. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>(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. <br /> Posted by robnissen</DIV> </p><p>I think the problem here is that some folks insist upon having a "creation event" included in astronomy. Whether it worked that way is another matter entirely. Normally science works with what it *can* demonstrate, not what *might* have occured. The moment I see a useful consumer product based on inflation, I'll lose my sketpical attitude toward the idea. As it stands, Guth's inflation theory never impressed me, it litterally a "supernatual" field that defies normal laws of physics, including it's amazing ability to increase it's volume exponentially with little or no decrease in density. It's the ultimate "ad hoc" assertion IMO.</p><p> </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>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Now that Mozina has entered and polluted the thread this needs to be moved back to The Unexplained. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>Are you suggesting you can actually "explain" inflation based on emprical testing?</p><p> </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>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Now that Mozina has entered and polluted the thread this needs to be moved back to The Unexplained. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>Are you suggesting you can actually "explain" inflation based on emprical testing?</p><p> </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>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Now that Mozina has entered and polluted the thread this needs to be moved back to The Unexplained. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>Are you suggesting you can actually "explain" inflation based on emprical testing?</p><p> </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>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Now that Mozina has entered and polluted the thread this needs to be moved back to The Unexplained. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>Are you suggesting you can actually "explain" inflation based on emprical testing?</p><p> </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>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><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.</DIV></p><p>Evidently you aren't following the conversation? My response was to DrRocket's claim that the BB was "predicted" by GR theory. Einstein's original GR theory only "predicted" that the unvierse was contracting or slowing down while accelerating. Maybe you might argue it "predicts" a "crunch", but gravity theory by itself (no inflation added) certainly does not "predict" a "bang". Without inflation *added on* to GR theory, your "bang" and a complete dud! Gravity would have sucked the whole thing together again in an instant.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>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.</DIV></p><p>And? The fact a theory is "old" or "popular" is irrelevant. You haven't got a single emprical controlled scientific test to demonstrate that inflation even exists. Friedmann's "Big Bang" theory didn't say a peep about "inflation" either.</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>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><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.</DIV></p><p>Evidently you aren't following the conversation? My response was to DrRocket's claim that the BB was "predicted" by GR theory. Einstein's original GR theory only "predicted" that the unvierse was contracting or slowing down while accelerating. Maybe you might argue it "predicts" a "crunch", but gravity theory by itself (no inflation added) certainly does not "predict" a "bang". Without inflation *added on* to GR theory, your "bang" and a complete dud! Gravity would have sucked the whole thing together again in an instant.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>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.</DIV></p><p>And? The fact a theory is "old" or "popular" is irrelevant. You haven't got a single emprical controlled scientific test to demonstrate that inflation even exists. Friedmann's "Big Bang" theory didn't say a peep about "inflation" either.</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>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><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.</DIV></p><p>Evidently you aren't following the conversation? My response was to DrRocket's claim that the BB was "predicted" by GR theory. Einstein's original GR theory only "predicted" that the unvierse was contracting or slowing down while accelerating. Maybe you might argue it "predicts" a "crunch", but gravity theory by itself (no inflation added) certainly does not "predict" a "bang". Without inflation *added on* to GR theory, your "bang" and a complete dud! Gravity would have sucked the whole thing together again in an instant.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>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.</DIV></p><p>And? The fact a theory is "old" or "popular" is irrelevant. You haven't got a single emprical controlled scientific test to demonstrate that inflation even exists. Friedmann's "Big Bang" theory didn't say a peep about "inflation" either.</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>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><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.</DIV></p><p>Evidently you aren't following the conversation? My response was to DrRocket's claim that the BB was "predicted" by GR theory. Einstein's original GR theory only "predicted" that the unvierse was contracting or slowing down while accelerating. Maybe you might argue it "predicts" a "crunch", but gravity theory by itself (no inflation added) certainly does not "predict" a "bang". Without inflation *added on* to GR theory, your "bang" and a complete dud! Gravity would have sucked the whole thing together again in an instant.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>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.</DIV></p><p>And? The fact a theory is "old" or "popular" is irrelevant. You haven't got a single emprical controlled scientific test to demonstrate that inflation even exists. Friedmann's "Big Bang" theory didn't say a peep about "inflation" either.</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>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>As a moderator, I'm trying to fight the idea that with a few pseudoscientific posts a thread need be moved to "The Unexplained".</DIV></p><p>Thank you. I believe that sooner or later we will have to methodically decide what methods constitute "pseudosicence" and what is considered "real emprical science". There seems to be a significant disconnect between astronomical theories and emprical scientific (controlled) testing. This is where the skepticism of these ideas utimately originates.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>My intention is to demand rigorous support for such unsubstantiated claims, failing such support the posts will be deleted.</DIV></p><p>You will have to explain then what is to be considered "rigorous support" for a given idea. For instance, what is the value of emprical scientific testing in controlled experimentation? What is the value of a purely mathematical construct like inflation that enjoys no emprical support in controlled testing? </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Paying attention michael? Get your ducks in a row, right now.</DIV></p><p>I'm paying attention, including your answers to what constitutes a "duck". 
</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Fortunately, I'm too busy to begin my efforts tonight (though I invite any others to demand such support as well).</DIV></p><p>Generally speaking, the one making the claim is the one that must provide evidence to support that claim/theory. The skeptic is typically not required to produce emprical evidence to dispute a concept, but rather the proponent of the idea is typically required to provide such evidence. For instance, I cannot "disprove" creationism theories, but I can provide evidence to support evolutionary theory. </p><p>I likewise cannot disprove inflation theory. It is up to the proponent of the idea to provide emprical support of that idea. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The Science fora will be defended with science, and unsupported pseudoscience will no longer be allowed to trash threads here. </DIV></p><p>Well then, we will need a tangible, fair and objectively measurable method to determine what is to be considered "supported science" and what is not. In my industry that typically involves emprical testing, controlled experimentation, along with consumer products that are based on this demonstrated technology. There is no tangble consumer product based upon inflation however.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>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) <br /> Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>I'm game. I will however require a set of measurable methods to determine what can be considered "science" and what is "pseudoscientific speculation". I'm quite certain that any objective method you pick (short of an appeal to popularity fallacy) will not show that inflation is "science". </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>
</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Fortunately, I'm too busy to begin my efforts tonight (though I invite any others to demand such support as well).</DIV></p><p>Generally speaking, the one making the claim is the one that must provide evidence to support that claim/theory. The skeptic is typically not required to produce emprical evidence to dispute a concept, but rather the proponent of the idea is typically required to provide such evidence. For instance, I cannot "disprove" creationism theories, but I can provide evidence to support evolutionary theory. </p><p>I likewise cannot disprove inflation theory. It is up to the proponent of the idea to provide emprical support of that idea. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The Science fora will be defended with science, and unsupported pseudoscience will no longer be allowed to trash threads here. </DIV></p><p>Well then, we will need a tangible, fair and objectively measurable method to determine what is to be considered "supported science" and what is not. In my industry that typically involves emprical testing, controlled experimentation, along with consumer products that are based on this demonstrated technology. There is no tangble consumer product based upon inflation however.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>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) <br /> Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>I'm game. I will however require a set of measurable methods to determine what can be considered "science" and what is "pseudoscientific speculation". I'm quite certain that any objective method you pick (short of an appeal to popularity fallacy) will not show that inflation is "science". </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><p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>As a moderator, I'm trying to fight the idea that with a few pseudoscientific posts a thread need be moved to "The Unexplained".</DIV></p><p>Thank you. I believe that sooner or later we will have to methodically decide what methods constitute "pseudosicence" and what is considered "real emprical science". There seems to be a significant disconnect between astronomical theories and emprical scientific (controlled) testing. This is where the skepticism of these ideas utimately originates.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>My intention is to demand rigorous support for such unsubstantiated claims, failing such support the posts will be deleted.</DIV></p><p>You will have to explain then what is to be considered "rigorous support" for a given idea. For instance, what is the value of emprical scientific testing in controlled experimentation? What is the value of a purely mathematical construct like inflation that enjoys no emprical support in controlled testing? </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Paying attention michael? Get your ducks in a row, right now.</DIV></p><p>I'm paying attention, including your answers to what constitutes a "duck". </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Fortunately, I'm too busy to begin my efforts tonight (though I invite any others to demand such support as well).</DIV></p><p>Generally speaking, the one making the claim is the one that must provide evidence to support that claim/theory. The skeptic is typically not required to produce emprical evidence to dispute a concept, but rather the proponent of the idea is typically required to provide such evidence. For instance, I cannot "disprove" creationism theories, but I can provide evidence to support evolutionary theory. </p><p>I likewise cannot disprove inflation theory. It is up to the proponent of the idea to provide emprical support of that idea. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The Science fora will be defended with science, and unsupported pseudoscience will no longer be allowed to trash threads here. </DIV></p><p>Well then, we will need a tangible, fair and objectively measurable method to determine what is to be considered "supported science" and what is not. In my industry that typically involves emprical testing, controlled experimentation, along with consumer products that are based on this demonstrated technology. There is no tangble consumer product based upon inflation however.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>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) <br /> Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>I'm game. I will however require a set of measurable methods to determine what can be considered "science" and what is "pseudoscientific speculation". I'm quite certain that any objective method you pick (short of an appeal to popularity fallacy) will not show that inflation is "science". </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>
</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Fortunately, I'm too busy to begin my efforts tonight (though I invite any others to demand such support as well).</DIV></p><p>Generally speaking, the one making the claim is the one that must provide evidence to support that claim/theory. The skeptic is typically not required to produce emprical evidence to dispute a concept, but rather the proponent of the idea is typically required to provide such evidence. For instance, I cannot "disprove" creationism theories, but I can provide evidence to support evolutionary theory. </p><p>I likewise cannot disprove inflation theory. It is up to the proponent of the idea to provide emprical support of that idea. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The Science fora will be defended with science, and unsupported pseudoscience will no longer be allowed to trash threads here. </DIV></p><p>Well then, we will need a tangible, fair and objectively measurable method to determine what is to be considered "supported science" and what is not. In my industry that typically involves emprical testing, controlled experimentation, along with consumer products that are based on this demonstrated technology. There is no tangble consumer product based upon inflation however.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>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) <br /> Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>I'm game. I will however require a set of measurable methods to determine what can be considered "science" and what is "pseudoscientific speculation". I'm quite certain that any objective method you pick (short of an appeal to popularity fallacy) will not show that inflation is "science". </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><p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>As a moderator, I'm trying to fight the idea that with a few pseudoscientific posts a thread need be moved to "The Unexplained".</DIV></p><p>Thank you. I believe that sooner or later we will have to methodically decide what methods constitute "pseudosicence" and what is considered "real emprical science". There seems to be a significant disconnect between astronomical theories and emprical scientific (controlled) testing. This is where the skepticism of these ideas utimately originates.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>My intention is to demand rigorous support for such unsubstantiated claims, failing such support the posts will be deleted.</DIV></p><p>You will have to explain then what is to be considered "rigorous support" for a given idea. For instance, what is the value of emprical scientific testing in controlled experimentation? What is the value of a purely mathematical construct like inflation that enjoys no emprical support in controlled testing? </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Paying attention michael? Get your ducks in a row, right now.</DIV></p><p>I'm paying attention, including your answers to what constitutes a "duck". </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Fortunately, I'm too busy to begin my efforts tonight (though I invite any others to demand such support as well).</DIV></p><p>Generally speaking, the one making the claim is the one that must provide evidence to support that claim/theory. The skeptic is typically not required to produce emprical evidence to dispute a concept, but rather the proponent of the idea is typically required to provide such evidence. For instance, I cannot "disprove" creationism theories, but I can provide evidence to support evolutionary theory. </p><p>I likewise cannot disprove inflation theory. It is up to the proponent of the idea to provide emprical support of that idea. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The Science fora will be defended with science, and unsupported pseudoscience will no longer be allowed to trash threads here. </DIV></p><p>Well then, we will need a tangible, fair and objectively measurable method to determine what is to be considered "supported science" and what is not. In my industry that typically involves emprical testing, controlled experimentation, along with consumer products that are based on this demonstrated technology. There is no tangble consumer product based upon inflation however.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>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) <br /> Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>I'm game. I will however require a set of measurable methods to determine what can be considered "science" and what is "pseudoscientific speculation". I'm quite certain that any objective method you pick (short of an appeal to popularity fallacy) will not show that inflation is "science". </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>
</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Fortunately, I'm too busy to begin my efforts tonight (though I invite any others to demand such support as well).</DIV></p><p>Generally speaking, the one making the claim is the one that must provide evidence to support that claim/theory. The skeptic is typically not required to produce emprical evidence to dispute a concept, but rather the proponent of the idea is typically required to provide such evidence. For instance, I cannot "disprove" creationism theories, but I can provide evidence to support evolutionary theory. </p><p>I likewise cannot disprove inflation theory. It is up to the proponent of the idea to provide emprical support of that idea. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The Science fora will be defended with science, and unsupported pseudoscience will no longer be allowed to trash threads here. </DIV></p><p>Well then, we will need a tangible, fair and objectively measurable method to determine what is to be considered "supported science" and what is not. In my industry that typically involves emprical testing, controlled experimentation, along with consumer products that are based on this demonstrated technology. There is no tangble consumer product based upon inflation however.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>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) <br /> Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>I'm game. I will however require a set of measurable methods to determine what can be considered "science" and what is "pseudoscientific speculation". I'm quite certain that any objective method you pick (short of an appeal to popularity fallacy) will not show that inflation is "science". </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><p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>As a moderator, I'm trying to fight the idea that with a few pseudoscientific posts a thread need be moved to "The Unexplained".</DIV></p><p>Thank you. I believe that sooner or later we will have to methodically decide what methods constitute "pseudosicence" and what is considered "real emprical science". There seems to be a significant disconnect between astronomical theories and emprical scientific (controlled) testing. This is where the skepticism of these ideas utimately originates.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>My intention is to demand rigorous support for such unsubstantiated claims, failing such support the posts will be deleted.</DIV></p><p>You will have to explain then what is to be considered "rigorous support" for a given idea. For instance, what is the value of emprical scientific testing in controlled experimentation? What is the value of a purely mathematical construct like inflation that enjoys no emprical support in controlled testing? </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Paying attention michael? Get your ducks in a row, right now.</DIV></p><p>I'm paying attention, including your answers to what constitutes a "duck". </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Fortunately, I'm too busy to begin my efforts tonight (though I invite any others to demand such support as well).</DIV></p><p>Generally speaking, the one making the claim is the one that must provide evidence to support that claim/theory. The skeptic is typically not required to produce emprical evidence to dispute a concept, but rather the proponent of the idea is typically required to provide such evidence. For instance, I cannot "disprove" creationism theories, but I can provide evidence to support evolutionary theory. </p><p>I likewise cannot disprove inflation theory. It is up to the proponent of the idea to provide emprical support of that idea. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The Science fora will be defended with science, and unsupported pseudoscience will no longer be allowed to trash threads here. </DIV></p><p>Well then, we will need a tangible, fair and objectively measurable method to determine what is to be considered "supported science" and what is not. In my industry that typically involves emprical testing, controlled experimentation, along with consumer products that are based on this demonstrated technology. There is no tangble consumer product based upon inflation however.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>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) <br /> Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>I'm game. I will however require a set of measurable methods to determine what can be considered "science" and what is "pseudoscientific speculation". I'm quite certain that any objective method you pick (short of an appeal to popularity fallacy) will not show that inflation is "science". </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>
</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Fortunately, I'm too busy to begin my efforts tonight (though I invite any others to demand such support as well).</DIV></p><p>Generally speaking, the one making the claim is the one that must provide evidence to support that claim/theory. The skeptic is typically not required to produce emprical evidence to dispute a concept, but rather the proponent of the idea is typically required to provide such evidence. For instance, I cannot "disprove" creationism theories, but I can provide evidence to support evolutionary theory. </p><p>I likewise cannot disprove inflation theory. It is up to the proponent of the idea to provide emprical support of that idea. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The Science fora will be defended with science, and unsupported pseudoscience will no longer be allowed to trash threads here. </DIV></p><p>Well then, we will need a tangible, fair and objectively measurable method to determine what is to be considered "supported science" and what is not. In my industry that typically involves emprical testing, controlled experimentation, along with consumer products that are based on this demonstrated technology. There is no tangble consumer product based upon inflation however.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>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) <br /> Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>I'm game. I will however require a set of measurable methods to determine what can be considered "science" and what is "pseudoscientific speculation". I'm quite certain that any objective method you pick (short of an appeal to popularity fallacy) will not show that inflation is "science". </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><p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The prediction of the singularity is the result of an application of general relativity.</DIV></p><p>It is the result of *your* application of more than GR. Gravity only "predicts" that objects made of mass attract other objects made of mass. At most you could "predict" a big "crunch". You couldn't ever predict a "bang" based strictly upon gravity theory.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> General relativity is known to be extremely accurate so long as the physics involved is dominated by gravitation,</DIV></p><p>But you're thowing that concept out the window from the start. You're ignoring the role of gravity and claiming inflation "dominated" the process.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>and so long as space-time is adequately modeled as a differentiable manifold. </DIV></p><p>Your manifold isn't going to go "bang" based strictly upon gravity.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It is also know that in the very early universe, when the universe was quite small that quantum effects were important,</DIV></p><p>You "know" this for a fact or you "speculate" that this is true?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>and under those conditions general relativity is not necessarily an adequate description of the physics.</DIV></p><p>So just add inflation?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>So despsite the prediction of a singularity by general relativity, that singularity may not be physical.</DIV></p><p>Um, what is it exactly? Does it have "mass"?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> 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. </DIV></p><p>But Alfven's condensation of "matter" did not require any sort of "singularity". You simply "assumed" this was the case. It is not a "given" that all mass was condensed to a "point". All you know is that it was more "compact" at an earlier time.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>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. </DIV></p><p>This part is the "mythos" that is more dogma than science. You don't know what "diameter" it started at, and your notion of time is based upon something you can't explain. What caused all that mass to separate at 0,0,0,0? A small "flux" in the singularity isn't going to overcome all the force of gravity contained in that singularity. Even "black holes" simply "absorb" one another, they don't blow each other apart.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You don't need inflation to explain why the universe did not immediately collapse into a black hole, but it helps. </DIV></p><p>Um, something that overcomes the force of gravcity is "needed", otherwise your party isn't going anywhere. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You can explain the expansion solely on the basis of initial conditions, but there is no fundamental explanation for those conditions,</DIV></p><p>And there is a fundamental explanation for inflation?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>other than the observation that the universe is here, it is expanding and it did not contract into a black hole. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>Alfven's "bang" required A) no inflation, B) no singularity. You're concept of a "bang" is based strictly upon dogma, not emprically demonstrated forces of nature. No useful consumer product overcomes gravity with inflation. No useful consumer product runs on "Dark energy", and none of you can produce a single gram of "dark matter" that can be experimented with in a controlled tests. The only part of your theory you can actually demonstrate is the 4% of the unvierse you claim is made up of ordinary matter. The rest is pure dogma that is utterly devoid of emprical evidence gained by controlled experimentation. </p><p>The only 'prediction" you could really make from GR alone is that objects made of mass will be attracted to other objects made of mass. You can "interpret" redshift observations as suggesting that matter was once more condenced that it is today, but you could *never* "predict' a "big bang" with only the force of gravitational attraction between objects made of mass. All you'd ever get from gravity alone is a singularity, not a "bang". </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>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The prediction of the singularity is the result of an application of general relativity.</DIV></p><p>It is the result of *your* application of more than GR. Gravity only "predicts" that objects made of mass attract other objects made of mass. At most you could "predict" a big "crunch". You couldn't ever predict a "bang" based strictly upon gravity theory.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> General relativity is known to be extremely accurate so long as the physics involved is dominated by gravitation,</DIV></p><p>But you're thowing that concept out the window from the start. You're ignoring the role of gravity and claiming inflation "dominated" the process.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>and so long as space-time is adequately modeled as a differentiable manifold. </DIV></p><p>Your manifold isn't going to go "bang" based strictly upon gravity.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It is also know that in the very early universe, when the universe was quite small that quantum effects were important,</DIV></p><p>You "know" this for a fact or you "speculate" that this is true?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>and under those conditions general relativity is not necessarily an adequate description of the physics.</DIV></p><p>So just add inflation?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>So despsite the prediction of a singularity by general relativity, that singularity may not be physical.</DIV></p><p>Um, what is it exactly? Does it have "mass"?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> 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. </DIV></p><p>But Alfven's condensation of "matter" did not require any sort of "singularity". You simply "assumed" this was the case. It is not a "given" that all mass was condensed to a "point". All you know is that it was more "compact" at an earlier time.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>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. </DIV></p><p>This part is the "mythos" that is more dogma than science. You don't know what "diameter" it started at, and your notion of time is based upon something you can't explain. What caused all that mass to separate at 0,0,0,0? A small "flux" in the singularity isn't going to overcome all the force of gravity contained in that singularity. Even "black holes" simply "absorb" one another, they don't blow each other apart.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You don't need inflation to explain why the universe did not immediately collapse into a black hole, but it helps. </DIV></p><p>Um, something that overcomes the force of gravcity is "needed", otherwise your party isn't going anywhere. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You can explain the expansion solely on the basis of initial conditions, but there is no fundamental explanation for those conditions,</DIV></p><p>And there is a fundamental explanation for inflation?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>other than the observation that the universe is here, it is expanding and it did not contract into a black hole. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>Alfven's "bang" required A) no inflation, B) no singularity. You're concept of a "bang" is based strictly upon dogma, not emprically demonstrated forces of nature. No useful consumer product overcomes gravity with inflation. No useful consumer product runs on "Dark energy", and none of you can produce a single gram of "dark matter" that can be experimented with in a controlled tests. The only part of your theory you can actually demonstrate is the 4% of the unvierse you claim is made up of ordinary matter. The rest is pure dogma that is utterly devoid of emprical evidence gained by controlled experimentation. </p><p>The only 'prediction" you could really make from GR alone is that objects made of mass will be attracted to other objects made of mass. You can "interpret" redshift observations as suggesting that matter was once more condenced that it is today, but you could *never* "predict' a "big bang" with only the force of gravitational attraction between objects made of mass. All you'd ever get from gravity alone is a singularity, not a "bang". </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>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The prediction of the singularity is the result of an application of general relativity.</DIV></p><p>It is the result of *your* application of more than GR. Gravity only "predicts" that objects made of mass attract other objects made of mass. At most you could "predict" a big "crunch". You couldn't ever predict a "bang" based strictly upon gravity theory.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> General relativity is known to be extremely accurate so long as the physics involved is dominated by gravitation,</DIV></p><p>But you're thowing that concept out the window from the start. You're ignoring the role of gravity and claiming inflation "dominated" the process.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>and so long as space-time is adequately modeled as a differentiable manifold. </DIV></p><p>Your manifold isn't going to go "bang" based strictly upon gravity.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It is also know that in the very early universe, when the universe was quite small that quantum effects were important,</DIV></p><p>You "know" this for a fact or you "speculate" that this is true?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>and under those conditions general relativity is not necessarily an adequate description of the physics.</DIV></p><p>So just add inflation?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>So despsite the prediction of a singularity by general relativity, that singularity may not be physical.</DIV></p><p>Um, what is it exactly? Does it have "mass"?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> 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. </DIV></p><p>But Alfven's condensation of "matter" did not require any sort of "singularity". You simply "assumed" this was the case. It is not a "given" that all mass was condensed to a "point". All you know is that it was more "compact" at an earlier time.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>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. </DIV></p><p>This part is the "mythos" that is more dogma than science. You don't know what "diameter" it started at, and your notion of time is based upon something you can't explain. What caused all that mass to separate at 0,0,0,0? A small "flux" in the singularity isn't going to overcome all the force of gravity contained in that singularity. Even "black holes" simply "absorb" one another, they don't blow each other apart.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You don't need inflation to explain why the universe did not immediately collapse into a black hole, but it helps. </DIV></p><p>Um, something that overcomes the force of gravcity is "needed", otherwise your party isn't going anywhere. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You can explain the expansion solely on the basis of initial conditions, but there is no fundamental explanation for those conditions,</DIV></p><p>And there is a fundamental explanation for inflation?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>other than the observation that the universe is here, it is expanding and it did not contract into a black hole. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>Alfven's "bang" required A) no inflation, B) no singularity. You're concept of a "bang" is based strictly upon dogma, not emprically demonstrated forces of nature. No useful consumer product overcomes gravity with inflation. No useful consumer product runs on "Dark energy", and none of you can produce a single gram of "dark matter" that can be experimented with in a controlled tests. The only part of your theory you can actually demonstrate is the 4% of the unvierse you claim is made up of ordinary matter. The rest is pure dogma that is utterly devoid of emprical evidence gained by controlled experimentation. </p><p>The only 'prediction" you could really make from GR alone is that objects made of mass will be attracted to other objects made of mass. You can "interpret" redshift observations as suggesting that matter was once more condenced that it is today, but you could *never* "predict' a "big bang" with only the force of gravitational attraction between objects made of mass. All you'd ever get from gravity alone is a singularity, not a "bang". </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>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The prediction of the singularity is the result of an application of general relativity.</DIV></p><p>It is the result of *your* application of more than GR. Gravity only "predicts" that objects made of mass attract other objects made of mass. At most you could "predict" a big "crunch". You couldn't ever predict a "bang" based strictly upon gravity theory.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> General relativity is known to be extremely accurate so long as the physics involved is dominated by gravitation,</DIV></p><p>But you're thowing that concept out the window from the start. You're ignoring the role of gravity and claiming inflation "dominated" the process.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>and so long as space-time is adequately modeled as a differentiable manifold. </DIV></p><p>Your manifold isn't going to go "bang" based strictly upon gravity.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It is also know that in the very early universe, when the universe was quite small that quantum effects were important,</DIV></p><p>You "know" this for a fact or you "speculate" that this is true?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>and under those conditions general relativity is not necessarily an adequate description of the physics.</DIV></p><p>So just add inflation?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>So despsite the prediction of a singularity by general relativity, that singularity may not be physical.</DIV></p><p>Um, what is it exactly? Does it have "mass"?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> 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. </DIV></p><p>But Alfven's condensation of "matter" did not require any sort of "singularity". You simply "assumed" this was the case. It is not a "given" that all mass was condensed to a "point". All you know is that it was more "compact" at an earlier time.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>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. </DIV></p><p>This part is the "mythos" that is more dogma than science. You don't know what "diameter" it started at, and your notion of time is based upon something you can't explain. What caused all that mass to separate at 0,0,0,0? A small "flux" in the singularity isn't going to overcome all the force of gravity contained in that singularity. Even "black holes" simply "absorb" one another, they don't blow each other apart.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You don't need inflation to explain why the universe did not immediately collapse into a black hole, but it helps. </DIV></p><p>Um, something that overcomes the force of gravcity is "needed", otherwise your party isn't going anywhere. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You can explain the expansion solely on the basis of initial conditions, but there is no fundamental explanation for those conditions,</DIV></p><p>And there is a fundamental explanation for inflation?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>other than the observation that the universe is here, it is expanding and it did not contract into a black hole. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>Alfven's "bang" required A) no inflation, B) no singularity. You're concept of a "bang" is based strictly upon dogma, not emprically demonstrated forces of nature. No useful consumer product overcomes gravity with inflation. No useful consumer product runs on "Dark energy", and none of you can produce a single gram of "dark matter" that can be experimented with in a controlled tests. The only part of your theory you can actually demonstrate is the 4% of the unvierse you claim is made up of ordinary matter. The rest is pure dogma that is utterly devoid of emprical evidence gained by controlled experimentation. </p><p>The only 'prediction" you could really make from GR alone is that objects made of mass will be attracted to other objects made of mass. You can "interpret" redshift observations as suggesting that matter was once more condenced that it is today, but you could *never* "predict' a "big bang" with only the force of gravitational attraction between objects made of mass. All you'd ever get from gravity alone is a singularity, not a "bang". </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>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>No, pressure would only effect the contents of the Universe, not the Universe itself. <br />Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>Pressure is one of the terms in the stress-energy tensor of general relativity that determines the curvature of the Universe. It is a significant factor in the very early universe, but a small factor now. It appears in a cosmological model when the universe, on a large scale is treated as a perfect fluid.</p><p>http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.0825</p><p>See also chapter 15 part 2 of <em>Gravitation and Cosmology, Principles and Applications of the General Theory of Relativity</em> by Steven Weinberg. The pressure term is thought to be driven by relativistic particles, such as photons, largely from the cosmic background radiation.</p><p>The effect of gas that has not yet been detected would be to increase the estimate of mass in the universe as well as to slightly increase pressure and would probably result in a tendency to slow expansion rather than to increase it.</p><p>The rotation rates of stars within galaxies and the forces holding galaxies together against the centripetal force that results are not related to pressure. The pressures involved, from things similar to solar wind, are simply not strong enough to have a significant effect, and they would tend to be in the wrong direction in any case. The dominant force is gravity, and there does not appear to be enough mass present to provide sufficient gravity -- hence the "dark matter" place holder. <br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>No, pressure would only effect the contents of the Universe, not the Universe itself. <br />Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>Pressure is one of the terms in the stress-energy tensor of general relativity that determines the curvature of the Universe. It is a significant factor in the very early universe, but a small factor now. It appears in a cosmological model when the universe, on a large scale is treated as a perfect fluid.</p><p>http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.0825</p><p>See also chapter 15 part 2 of <em>Gravitation and Cosmology, Principles and Applications of the General Theory of Relativity</em> by Steven Weinberg. The pressure term is thought to be driven by relativistic particles, such as photons, largely from the cosmic background radiation.</p><p>The effect of gas that has not yet been detected would be to increase the estimate of mass in the universe as well as to slightly increase pressure and would probably result in a tendency to slow expansion rather than to increase it.</p><p>The rotation rates of stars within galaxies and the forces holding galaxies together against the centripetal force that results are not related to pressure. The pressures involved, from things similar to solar wind, are simply not strong enough to have a significant effect, and they would tend to be in the wrong direction in any case. The dominant force is gravity, and there does not appear to be enough mass present to provide sufficient gravity -- hence the "dark matter" place holder. <br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
- Status
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
Basic Error: The accelerating Universe conclusion - reason- Started by Gibsense
- Replies: 189
-
-
Definition of Universe requires clarification, to enable discussion
- Started by Catastrophe
- Replies: 38
-
-
SpaceX launches 21 Starlink internet satellites from Florida, lands rocket at sea (photos)- Started by Admin
- Replies: 0
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram