Science and Technology news... :: View topic

Guest

On 31 Jul, 17:36, dlzc <dl...@cox.net> wrote:
[quote]As I said, clearly you know nothing about the Standard Model.
[/quote]
I said cause. If you add a cosmological constant to the big bang, then
the cosmological constant is the cause of the acceleration, not the
big bang itself.

[quote]Now recall in the Standard Model that gravitation is no sort of pull,
inflation and expansion are creation of space between bits of matter.
How is an effect such as gravitation, going to change its own cause?
[/quote]
When the universe is expanding, the space between pieces of matter is
increasing. Gravitation is attraction between pieces of matter.
Without any cosmological constant or dark energy, this attraction
between pieces of matter will decelerate the momentum at which the
space between them is increasing.

[quote]If the rules require spacetime, and there was no spacetime yet, then
the rules don>t apply in ways we>d recognize. If energy were confined
to a space where matter and antimatter would automatically exactly
annihilate, then the wheels on the slot machine would simply continue
to spin until both wheels show "Jackpot!" Only conservation of energy
need be observed.
[/quote]
If the rules require spacetime, and if there was no spacetime, then
anything we wish for could have happened, so that must be the
explanation of the universe!

Seems a little like putting the problems of the big bang
nucleosynthesis into the hands of God. Isn>t this just a more
sophisticated way of saying "we don>t know how the universe was
created, so God must have created it".

dlzc · Guest

Dear zanthius.d...:

On Jul 31, 9:46 am, zanthius.d...@gmail.com wrote:
[quote]On 31 Jul, 17:36,dlzc<dl...@cox.net> wrote:

As I said, clearly you know nothing about the
Standard Model.

I said cause. If you add a cosmological constant
to the big bang, then the cosmological constant
is the cause of the acceleration, not the big bang
itself.
[/quote]
Just what sort of cartoon cosmology are you poking at?

[quote]Now recall in the Standard Model that
gravitation is no sort of pull, inflation and
expansion are creation of space between bits
of matter. How is an effect such as gravitation,
going to change its own cause?

When the universe is expanding, the space
between pieces of matter is increasing.
Gravitation is attraction between pieces of matter.
[/quote]
Not in the same model where space is expanding between bits of matter.

[quote]Without any cosmological constant or dark
energy, this attraction between pieces of
matter will decelerate the momentum at which
the space between them is increasing.
[/quote]
Only for "gravitationallly bound systems", not for the Universe at
large. Gravitation is the effect, and spacetime is the cause.
Gravity has no effect on spacetime, because gravity *is* spacetime.

[quote]If the rules require spacetime, and there was
no spacetime yet, then the rules don>t apply
in ways we>d recognize. If energy were confined
to a space where matter and antimatter would
automatically exactly annihilate, then the
wheels on the slot machine would simply continue
to spin until both wheels show "Jackpot!" Only
conservation of energy need be observed.

If the rules require spacetime, and if there was
no spacetime, then anything we wish for could
have happened, so that must be the explanation
of the universe!
[/quote]
You are the one that expect nucelosyntesis to explain the Big Bang,
and you have your own Big Bang on every cycle. So it is your problem
too.

[quote]Seems a little like putting the problems of the
big bang nucleosynthesis into the hands of
God.
[/quote]
So you think God is a slot machine? How about bingo cards?

[quote]Isn>t this just a more sophisticated way of
saying "we don>t know how the universe was
created, so God must have created it".
[/quote]
If you want to stop being silly, and handling *your own* problems, let
me know.

David A. Smith

Guest

On 31 Jul, 19:48, dlzc <dl...@cox.net> wrote:
[quote]Only for "gravitationallly bound systems", not for the Universe at
large.
[/quote]
Are you proposing that there is a limit for how far gravity can reach?
Isn>t all the clusters of matter in the universe bound to each other
gravitationally?

[quote]Gravitation is the effect, and spacetime is the cause.
[/quote]
I thought matter was the cause of gravitation.

[quote]Gravity has no effect on spacetime, because gravity *is* spacetime.
[/quote]
I thought increased gravity contracted space, and slowed down time.
Isn>t time passing slower deeper inside of a gravity well, compared to
higher up in the gravity well? I thought that gravitational time
dilation was predicted by the theory of general relativity, and that
the GPS system had to be adjusted according to the theory of general
relativity in order to work properly.

[quote]If you want to stop being silly, and handling *your own* problems, let
me know.
[/quote]
Why does it have to be my problem to make my cosmological theory
quantifiable and falsifiable? Don>t you want to win the nobel price
yourself?

N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) · Guest

Dear Timberwoof:

"Timberwoof" <timberwoof.spam@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com> wrote in
message
news:timberwoof.spam-3D37E6.01233831072008@nnrp-virt.nntp.sonic.net...
[quote]In article <Y78kk.7236$KZ.3343@newsfe03.iad>,
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com $dlzc$" <dlzc1@cox.net> wrote:
....
It is not even a feature of Big Bang theory, but is
not excluded by it.

It>s not? The CMBR was taken as confirmation of
that theory; Penzias and Wilson received the
Nobel Prize for their work.
[/quote]
It is not proof of the standard model, no. It makes good sense
in that context and few others...

We have a 3000 piece puzzle, and we have some pretty good
arrangements of pieces near us, and progressively poorer
arrangements of pieces further from us, and we have nothing on
the edge of the puzzle. We are extrapolating from "here/now" and
"5 billion years ago" beyond the CMBR (which permits no visible
light to pass) to get to the edge of the puzzle. Surely you know
what trouble you can get into extrapolating?

....
[quote]This name is an unfortunate hangover from Science>s
need to prevent religious persecution, and you know it.

Hunh? The name was given the theory by steady-state
proponent Fred Hoyle as a sort of jab, but the
astronomers who backed the theory liked the name and
adopted it.
[/quote]
What was Hoyle jabbing at, TW? Religion.

David A. Smith

Guest

On 31 Jul, 19:48, dlzc <dl...@cox.net> wrote:
[quote]You are the one that expect nucelosyntesis to explain the Big Bang,
and you have your own Big Bang on every cycle. So it is your problem
too.
[/quote]
Nope, I don>t have the big bang nucleosynthesis. I have a slow process
of matter synthesized from hawking radiation, while the antimatter is
accumulated into the black hole. This doesn>t just happen at the
begining of each cycle when the universe is starting to expand. It is
happening all the time.

Maybe an elliptical galaxy will eventually just collapse into a single
supermassive black hole, which will form matter to a new born galaxy
from hawking radiation. A process taking billions of years.

Guest

On 31 Jul, 19:59, herbertglaz...@webtv.net (G=EMC^2 Glazier) wrote:
[quote]Zan Creating in pairs let it be electrons and positrons is the only way
nature can create. There is no one thing(particle) That is why I have
an inertia time lapse theory that nature uses to see that regular
matter(our matter) and anti matter of Treb universe do not collide.
There are as many universes in the cosmos as flakes of snow in an
endless storm,and they are separated by spacetime. Some imperial
thinkers say matter our weighed anti matter Others say they are
separated by a thin membrane. I say they are separated by a fraction of
TIME I know i am right on this. So where is my Nobel Bert
[/quote]
Let>s hope you get that Nobel soon, cause there is no matter without
antimatter!

dlzc · Guest

Dear zanthius.d...:

On Jul 31, 11:20 am, zanthius.d...@gmail.com wrote:
[quote]On 31 Jul, 19:48,dlzc<dl...@cox.net> wrote:

Only for "gravitationallly bound systems", not for
the Universe at large.

Are you proposing that there is a limit for how far
gravity can reach? Isn>t all the clusters of matter
in the universe bound to each other
gravitationally?
[/quote]
I provided a link. You really should catch up on the last 80 years of
cosmology.

There is about as much matter to the left and to the right, when you
go to a large enough scale. Additionally, there have been experiments
that have shown that space is flat on large scales. That means no
curvature (aka. gravity). So no, there is no gravitational binding of
all matter in the Universe.

[quote]Gravitation is the effect, and spacetime is the cause.

I thought matter was the cause of gravitation.
[/quote]
Not in the standard model. "Matter tells spacetime how to bend, and
spacetime tells matter how to move."... or words to that effect.

[quote]Gravity has no effect on spacetime, because
gravity *is* spacetime.

I thought increased gravity contracted space, and
slowed down time.
[/quote]
Mass and geometry does this.

[quote]Isn>t time passing slower deeper inside of a
gravity well, compared to higher up in the gravity
well?
[/quote]
Yes.

[quote]I thought that gravitational time dilation was
predicted by the theory of general relativity,
[/quote]
... which is core to the Standard Model.

[quote]and that the GPS system had to be adjusted
according to the theory of general relativity in
order to work properly.
[/quote]
... correct, and has nothign to do with whether or not all matter in
the Universe is gravitationally bound.

[quote]If you want to stop being silly, and handling
*your own* problems, let me know.

Why does it have to be my problem to make
my cosmological theory quantifiable and
falsifiable? Don>t you want to win the nobel price
yourself?
[/quote]
In Science we make theories, and from there quantitiative
predictions. We then test to see if Nature agrees. And our peers try
different setups, to see if they concur with our results. If that all
works, and it is not "old knowledge", then we get a Nobel prize.
Sometime hopefully before we die.

We don>t get Nobel Prizes for essentially philosophical musings. If
we did, Ernst Mach would have had one too.

David A. Smith

Saul Levy · Guest

Go take some of those SECRET, DARPA, CONSPIRATORIAL GPS SATS. to
Venus, BradBoi! lmfjao!

That would be a start.

I>m sure your alien Jewish BORG would approve.

Saul Levy

On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 22:49:04 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth
<bradguth@gmail.com> wrote:

[quote]We need a cosmic or at least galactic version of GPS (perhaps using
gamma).

- Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth[/quote]

Guest

On 31 Jul, 23:27, dlzc <dl...@cox.net> wrote:
[quote]There is about as much matter to the left and to the right, when you
go to a large enough scale. Additionally, there have been experiments
that have shown that space is flat on large scales. That means no
curvature (aka. gravity). So no, there is no gravitational binding of
all matter in the Universe.
[/quote]
Okay...I thought that gravity had an infinite reach, just like light,
as they share the inverse square law.

When light reaches us from distant super clusters, I thought gravity
would reach us too.

G=EMC^2 Glazier · Guest

Zan Once space curved it had the same effect as acceleration. That is
a big part of the hear of my Spin is in theory. bert

G=EMC^2 Glazier · Guest

Painius You posted what we talked about yesterday Terminology is very
important,especially from the very start. Its catches on like a parrot
stays with swearer words. from the go Go figure bert

dlzc · Guest

Dear zanthius.d...:

On Jul 31, 3:34 pm, zanthius.d...@gmail.com wrote:
[quote]On 31 Jul, 23:27,dlzc<dl...@cox.net> wrote:

There is about as much matter to the left and to
the right, when you go to a large enough scale.
Additionally, there have been experiments that
have shown that space is flat on large scales.
That means no curvature (aka. gravity). So no,
there is no gravitational binding of all matter in
the Universe.

Okay...I thought that gravity had an infinite reach,
just like light, as they share the inverse square law.
[/quote]
Apparently you were not thinking. Equal masses in all directions,
means no net attraction.

[quote]When light reaches us from distant super
clusters, I thought gravity would reach us too.
[/quote]
Sure does, as does the "pull" from an equal amount of mass in teh
opposte direction. So no net effect. No net attraction, no
"gravitational binding", outside our supercluster.

David A. Smith

G=EMC^2 Glazier · Guest

Zan Creating in pairs let it be electrons and positrons is the only way
nature can create. There is no one thing(particle) That is why I have
an inertia time lapse theory that nature uses to see that regular
matter(our matter) and anti matter of Treb universe do not collide.
There are as many universes in the cosmos as flakes of snow in an
endless storm,and they are separated by spacetime. Some imperial
thinkers say matter our weighed anti matter Others say they are
separated by a thin membrane. I say they are separated by a fraction of
TIME I know i am right on this. So where is my Nobel Bert

Guest

On 1 Aug, 00:46, dlzc <dl...@cox.net> wrote:
[quote]Sure does, as does the "pull" from an equal amount of mass in teh
opposte direction. So no net effect. No net attraction, no
"gravitational binding", outside our supercluster.
[/quote]
Cannot the entire universe be considered a cluster, and even if the
bottom of the cluster is flat, cannot the edges of the cluster be
curved? I have tried to illustrate what I mean on this illustration:

http://www.archania.org/flat_bottom.jpg

And even if the bottom of the cluster is flat, will not the cluster
itself get smaller, if the pieces of matter within it are attracted to
each other by gravity?

N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) · Guest

Dear zanthius.dxun:

<zanthius.dxun@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1952cefe-605f-44c3-9c19-c5d57e209817@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
[quote]On 1 Aug, 00:46, dlzc <dl...@cox.net> wrote:
Sure does, as does the "pull" from an equal
amount of mass in teh opposte direction. So
no net effect. No net attraction, no
"gravitational binding", outside our supercluster.

Cannot the entire universe be considered a
cluster, and even if the bottom of the cluster is
flat, cannot the edges of the cluster be curved?
[/quote]
Nature says no.

"Cluster" is just our name for what the Milky Way belongs to.
There is no detectable redshift for any of its members. But
outside this cluster, redshift is detectable. And as I said,
other experiments have shown space to be flat globally.

[quote]I have tried to illustrate what I mean on this
illustration:

http://www.archania.org/flat_bottom.jpg
[/quote]
"Cluster" is not some lable that derives from the Standard Model.
It is not some artifice, but a feature of the spacetime that
Nature presents us. The Virgo Supercluster appears to be
gravitationally bound, and the rest of the Universe is free to
expand away from it... unslowed by gravity.

[quote]And even if the bottom of the cluster is flat,
will not the cluster itself get smaller, if the
pieces of matter within it are attracted to
each other by gravity?
[/quote]
No. And what is it about "flat" that makes you think there might
still be significant global effects of gravity? "Flat" means no
gravitational effects, no evidence of mass effects at all.
Globally.

Note that expansion (or acceleration of expansion) increases the
number of available states, which satisifies net production of
entropy in the Universe. Contraction would reduce the number of
states, and violate the second law of thermodynamics.

David A. Smith


www.GetXFactor.com Leading Technology, Science, Agriculture News and information	Part of the Identityscape.com network... getxfactor.com jmoodmusic.com smartbusinesschoices.com mintdepot.com lowfaresalways.com evangelicalview.com shoppingpodder.com soproudlywehail.com webnews.ws currenthumor.com

Science and Technology news... Forum Index -> Astrology - Amateur Forum	Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next
Page 6 of 7