3
   

Origins of the Universe

 
 
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Apr, 2016 11:12 am
@rosborne979,
If you are trying to tell me that the expansion of space/time (the sub-thread that interested me) is fully understood by science -

No Sale.
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Apr, 2016 11:18 am
@Leadfoot,
Leadfoot wrote:
If you are trying to tell me that the expansion of space/time (the sub-thread that interested me) is fully understood by science

No, I was only talking about what I specified. Nothing else.
0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Apr, 2016 11:21 am
@Leadfoot,
It takes an understanding of vector calculus and a foundation in physics to understand what "the expansion of space/time" means or how you would measure it.

Without doing the homework, you don't even understand the question.

My big objection was with the OP. The OP showed a clear lack of basic understanding of physics which led to contradictions. He then used these contradictions (based on what he didn't understand) to imply that itself science is broken.

farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Apr, 2016 11:34 am
@Leadfoot,
"partially understood" is still waaay better than totally ignorant. The guys involved in the cutting edge research are being brutally honest about their ignorance because they UNDERSTAND the vastness of the information out there they dont yet know or need to know better so they arent frustrated in their work.

Its always easy to profer a "studied opinion" from total ignorance. For when you make up doublespeak, the only one youre fooling is yourself.
Its funny how Brianjake is fooling absolutely noone but you apparently, He is making zero sense and he has no damned idea of what he speaks. Hes either havng lot of fun making **** up and glomming disjointed ideas from wiki, or else, he is a very strange fellow living in a world of his own design.




Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Apr, 2016 11:40 am
@maxdancona,
Quote:
My big objection was with the OP. The OP showed a clear lack of basic understanding of physics which led to contradictions. He then used these contradictions (based on what he didn't understand) to imply that itself science is broken.
Granted, there was a huge misunderstanding in the OP, not the least of which was the speed at which the universe is expanding. It's considerably less than the speed of light, else how could it be accelerating.

But still, the expansion of time itself can hardly be said to be 'old stuff' that is well understood.

For example, What determines the speed of 'time expansion'. No problem i'm guessing you'd say, that speed and it's acceleration is determined by 'dark energy' . And how much do we know about that?

Yes, both sides are guilty.
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Apr, 2016 11:45 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
"partially understood" is still waaay better than totally ignorant.
The 'partially understood' portion of my post was attributed to brian's side, not the ones doing the leading edge work.
Quote:
The guys involved in the cutting edge research are being brutally honest about their ignorance because they UNDERSTAND the vastness of the information out there they dont yet know or need to know better so they arent frustrated in their work.
Agreed. No problem with what you are saying there at all.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Apr, 2016 11:45 am
@Leadfoot,
Leadfoot wrote:
Granted, there was a huge misunderstanding in the OP, not the least of which was the speed at which the universe is expanding. It's considerably less than the speed of light, else how could it be accelerating

The expansion is not limited by light speed. Otherwise inflation could not have happened. Light speed applies to relative velocity, not expansion.
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Apr, 2016 11:51 am
@rosborne979,
Quote:
The expansion is not limited by light speed. Otherwise inflation could not have happened. Light speed applies to relative velocity, not expansion.
So you are saying that the expansion rate of the universe will once again exceed the speed of light? (in all directions as in inflation?) That is a novel theory that I haven't heard before. got a source for that?
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Apr, 2016 12:04 pm
Here are the latest figures:
Quote:
The most precise measurement ever made of the speed of the universe's expansion is in, thanks to NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope, and it's a doozy. Space itself is pulling apart at the seams, expanding at a rate of 74.3 plus or minus 2.1 kilometers (46.2 plus or minus 1.3 miles) per second per megaparsec (a megaparsec is roughly 3 million light-years).

If I did the math right, even figuring out the relative speeds at the outermost edges, it comes out way less than the speed of light. They go on to say:
Quote:
The new measurement doesn't just tell scientists how fast the universe is expanding, but helps shed light on the mystery of why this expansion is accelerating. Dark energy is the name given to whatever is causing the universe's expansion to speed up. Yet scientists have little idea what it is.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Apr, 2016 12:52 pm
@Leadfoot,
Leadfoot wrote:

Quote:
The expansion is not limited by light speed. Otherwise inflation could not have happened. Light speed applies to relative velocity, not expansion.
So you are saying that the expansion rate of the universe will once again exceed the speed of light? (in all directions as in inflation?) That is a novel theory that I haven't heard before. got a source for that?

No, that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm only saying that Inflation (in the past) is part of the current understanding and the Inflation event from that time must have exceeded the "speed of light" (if that can even be said to relate to the situation, which it really can't).
0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Apr, 2016 01:04 pm
@Leadfoot,
Here is the problem Leadfoot. You don't even know what "space expansion" means.

The term "space expansion" refers to set of field equations that involve vector calculus. If you don't understand the math then you can't even understand the basic concepts behind these concepts that are defined by math. You can't be part of the discussion until you have mastered the basic terms.

There is no "both sides". Among people who have studied the math and understand what "space expansion" means and how to measure it, there is an interesting discussion. There are some things that are accepted science, there are some things that are still being worked out. Science is upfront about this, papers are written, debates are had. All the math and research is published. It is all out in the open.

But if you don't even understand what "space expansion" means, how can you possibly have anything to contribute to a discussion on the topic?

Scientists do science. It takes a great deal of study and work to gain the knowledge you need to reach this point. If you haven't done the work, you can't possibly contribute to the discussion.

Sorry. That's how life works.
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Apr, 2016 02:43 pm
@maxdancona,
Quote:
But if you don't even understand what "space expansion" means, how can you possibly have anything to contribute to a discussion on the topic?
And there it is again. You have no idea what I do or do not understand.

You are giving yet another BS statement of "If only you had mastered the field of ________, you would understand the question and the answer."

That is horseshit. The leading scientists in the field do not understand the expansion of space/time and dark energy that is driving it.

Maybe they will someday but for now, No. Sorry, that is how science works.
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Apr, 2016 03:40 pm
@Leadfoot,
Leadfoot wrote:
And there it is again. You have no idea what I do or do not understand.

Yet we do know precisely what you write when you post. So unless you are mis-stating things a lot, then we do have a good idea of what you understand and what you don't.

Are you being careful with what you write?
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Apr, 2016 03:47 pm
@Leadfoot,
I am pretty sure that you don't have the mathematical background to understand the Einstein field equations. Correct me if I am wrong.

When scientists talk about the expansion of space, they are referring to a feature of the Einstein field equations, particularly the Cosmological Constant. This is a well defined term that any graduate physics student knows backwards and forward. There are still debates in the field, but the concepts that are being debated are very well understood.

If you don't understand the Einstein field equation or know what the Cosmological Constant is, then how can you discuss this intelligently? You can pretend you understand the word expansion... but do you? If everything, including you and your eyes and all the trees and the atoms and every measuring stick in the world doubled in size overnight. How would you know? (This is actually a very silly exersize... but maybe it makes some point).

Sure, there are plenty of open question in science. There are papers being written about dark matter... and a lot of debate about what its properties might be. But this doesn't change the fact that the people who are capable of having this discussion all understand very well the basic precepts of General Relativity, and they all can explain very well what is meant by the expansion of space and how to set up experiments to measure it.

Scientists are the people who do science. They are the people who have studied the advanced math, who understand the work of Newton, and Galileo and Feynman and the other greats who came before them. They can explain the experiments and the arguments behind the current issues in science.

Science is about mathematics, and experiment, and understanding human knowledge that has been built up over thousands of years. You gain this knowledge by studying advanced mathematics, and reading papers, and analyzing experiments and learning about the work done by previous generations. You don't just make stuff up and call it science.

And you don't gain this knowledge from pulling random things off the internet.

Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Apr, 2016 06:01 pm
@Leadfoot,
Leadfoot wrote:
Quote:
But if you don't even understand what "space expansion" means, how can you possibly have anything to contribute to a discussion on the topic?
And there it is again. You have no idea what I do or do not understand....

We can make a pretty good guess. You purport to provide an argument that the currently accepted cosmological theory is wrong, yet never once allude to the observations which are considered to confirm the theory nor any of the thousands of papers on inflationary cosmology which are believed to describe it.
0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Apr, 2016 06:17 pm
@rosborne979,
Quote:
So unless you are mis-stating things a lot, then we do have a good idea of what you understand and what you don't.
Spit it out. What have I mis-stated.
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Apr, 2016 07:32 pm
@Leadfoot,
Leadfoot wrote:

Quote:
So unless you are mis-stating things a lot, then we do have a good idea of what you understand and what you don't.
Spit it out. What have I mis-stated.

My point is that your posts convey your understanding, unless you're lying or being sloppy of course. So Max's assessment of your understanding on things is not without evidence as you implied. Honestly, it's not that complicated.
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Apr, 2016 07:36 pm
@rosborne979,
So your argument is that I don't know what I'm talking about but you can't fault anything I've said.

You're right, that's not complicated.
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Apr, 2016 08:00 pm
@Leadfoot,
Leadfoot wrote:
So your argument is that I don't know what I'm talking about but you can't fault anything I've said.

No, that's not my argument. I'm only addressing the error in logic of your post to Max.

I could probably find some things to fault you on if I cared enough to re-read everything. The only thing you've posted recently which indicates a lack of understanding on your part is this:
Leadfoot wrote:

Quote:
My big objection was with the OP. The OP showed a clear lack of basic understanding of physics which led to contradictions. He then used these contradictions (based on what he didn't understand) to imply that itself science is broken.
Granted, there was a huge misunderstanding in the OP, not the least of which was the speed at which the universe is expanding. It's considerably less than the speed of light, else how could it be accelerating.

Which indicates that even as you besmirch the OP in understanding, that you yourself do not understand (or are being sloppy in your phrasing).
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Apr, 2016 06:13 am
@rosborne979,
Quote:
I could probably find some things to fault you on if I cared enough to re-read everything. The only thing you've posted recently which indicates a lack of understanding on your part is this:

Leadfoot wrote:

Max Quote:
My big objection was with the OP. The OP showed a clear lack of basic understanding of physics which led to contradictions. He then used these contradictions (based on what he didn't understand) to imply that itself science is broken.

Leadfoot responded:
Granted, there was a huge misunderstanding in the OP, not the least of which was the speed at which the universe is expanding. It's considerably less than the speed of light, else how could it be accelerating.


I posted the latest measurement of the rate of expansion (from NASA) which showed that my post was factually correct.

Just what are you saying my lack of understanding is?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

New Propulsion, the "EM Drive" - Question by TomTomBinks
The Science Thread - Discussion by Wilso
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 11/27/2021 at 06:48:35