Can Space be created within space?
in [Physics]
|
From: Sam Wormley on 2 Aug 2010 23:05 On 8/2/10 5:01 PM, Huang wrote: > On Aug 2, 4:39 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On 8/2/10 4:35 PM, Huang wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Aug 2, 2:59 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On 8/2/10 2:37 PM, Huang wrote: >> >>>>> On Aug 2, 11:55 am, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 8/2/10 10:39 AM, Huang wrote: >> >>>>>>> But I think that Sam is really missing the big picture by simply >>>>>>> refering back to dogma links. >> >>>>>> You don't know the difference between dogma and science. Take some >>>>>> time for self education and learn the difference. >> >>>>> If you have an expansion then something is clearly in motion with >>>>> respect to something else. >> >>>>> I'd like to know why any reasonable person would neccesarily assume >>>>> that relativistic processes simply dont apply to that. >> >>>> See: Metric expansion of space >>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space >> >>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Hubble.27s_law_and_the_expansio... >> >>>> "Hubble's law has two possible explanations. Either we are at the center >>>> of an explosion of galaxies�which is untenable given the Copernican >>>> Principle�or the Universe is uniformly expanding everywhere. This >>>> universal expansion was predicted from general relativity by Alexander >>>> Friedman in 1922[14] and Georges Lema�tre in 1927,[15] well before >>>> Hubble made his 1929 analysis and observations, and it remains the >>>> cornerstone of the Big Bang theory as developed by Friedmann, Lema�tre, >>>> Robertson and Walker. >> >>>> "The theory requires the relation v = HD to hold at all times, where D >>>> is the comoving distance, v is the recessional velocity, and v, H, and D >>>> varying as the Universe expands (hence we write H0 to denote the >>>> present-day Hubble "constant"). For distances much smaller than the size >>>> of the observable Universe, the Hubble redshift can be thought of as the >>>> Doppler shift corresponding to the recession velocity v. However, the >>>> redshift is not a true Doppler shift, but rather the result of the >>>> expansion of the Universe between the time the light was emitted and the >>>> time that it was detected.[43] >> >>>> "That space is undergoing metric expansion is shown by direct >>>> observational evidence of the Cosmological Principle and the Copernican >>>> Principle, which together with Hubble's law have no other explanation. >>>> Astronomical redshifts are extremely isotropic and homogenous,[5] >>>> supporting the Cosmological Principle that the Universe looks the same >>>> in all directions, along with much other evidence. If the redshifts were >>>> the result of an explosion from a center distant from us, they would not >>>> be so similar in different directions. >> >>>> "Measurements of the effects of the cosmic microwave background >>>> radiation on the dynamics of distant astrophysical systems in 2000 >>>> proved the Copernican Principle, that the Earth is not in a central >>>> position, on a cosmological scale.[notes 6] Radiation from the Big Bang >>>> was demonstrably warmer at earlier times throughout the Universe. >>>> Uniform cooling of the cosmic microwave background over billions of >>>> years is explainable only if the Universe is experiencing a metric >>>> expansion, and excludes the possibility that we are near the unique >>>> center of an explosion".- Hide quoted text - >> >>>> - Show quoted text - >> >>> Sam, I did not say anything about centerless universe. If you can have >>> centerless expansion, then you can also have centerless contraction. >> >>> Just as the universe can be regarded as expanding "without a center", >>> so too it can be modelled as a contraction "without a center". >> >> That's correct. Observation show that space is expanding.- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > > > But I think that Hubble's interpretation of redshift was a bit off. > Hubble gives only two concievable explanations: > > [a] Everything is flying away from us, placing us in the center of a > bunch of stuff which is moving outwards, or > [b] Space is expanding and is centerless. > > I think that his options were incomplete. I think that either: > > [a] Space is expanding and is centerless. > [b] We are contracting away from space and it is centerless. > > I think that both of these are valid possibilities, and that they > should be equivalent under Equivalence Principle. > General relativity predicted a dynamic (expanding or contracting) universe. The discovery of the CMB black body spectrum in the 60s and subsequent measures ever since have left little doubt. WMAP: Tests of Big Bang Cosmology http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest.html
From: Yousuf Khan on 3 Aug 2010 01:37 On 02/08/2010 1:11 PM, Sam Wormley wrote: > On 8/2/10 11:14 AM, Yousuf Khan wrote: >> On 01/08/2010 12:49 AM, Kali Hawa wrote: >>> Can a bigbang occur within our Universe? >> >> Some theories suggest that everytime a blackhole is created within our >> universe, that it is actually creating a new universe inside it. >> >> Yousuf Khan > > Can you cite a reference please! Every Black Hole Contains Another Universe? http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/04/100409-black-holes-alternate-universe-multiverse-einstein-wormholes/
From: Inertial on 3 Aug 2010 02:25 "Y.Porat" wrote in message news:e16aa84e-3763-4a0e-a343-a7b620ba382f(a)m1g2000yqo.googlegroups.com... [snip me explaining where Porat is right and where porat is wrong, which he ignores] >------------- Now we watch as Porat described himself.... >a**** lost case***** of an >imbecile crook subhuman pigshit Couldn't have described him better (actually, I probably could) O course, I notice that Porat has NOTHING to say about the points of physics and experimental evidence I raised .. just name calling. Truly pathetic.
From: PD on 3 Aug 2010 11:26 On Aug 2, 6:21 pm, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > Sam, I did not say anything about centerless universe. If you can have > > > > > centerless expansion, then you can also have centerless contraction. > > > > > > Just as the universe can be regarded as expanding "without a center", > > > > > so too it can be modelled as a contraction "without a center". > > > > > That's correct. Observation show that space is expanding.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > But I think that Hubble's interpretation of redshift was a bit off. > > > Hubble gives only two concievable explanations: > > > > [a] Everything is flying away from us, placing us in the center of a > > > bunch of stuff which is moving outwards, or > > > [b] Space is expanding and is centerless. > > > > I think that his options were incomplete. I think that either: > > > > [a] Space is expanding and is centerless. > > > [b] We are contracting away from space and it is centerless. > > > > I think that both of these are valid possibilities, and that they > > > should be equivalent under Equivalence Principle. > > > Please. Stop with the gobbledygook. > > The Principle of Relativity does NOT mean "everything is relative". > > The Principle of Equivalence does NOT mean "opposite things are > > equivalent." > > > You can babble if you want. I just don't recommend that you attach > > buzz phrases from pulp physics to the babbling. It will only put folks > > off.- Hide quoted text - > > So, the only time we can apply the Equivalence Principle is when we > are looking at rectilinear motion. Cant apply it to anything else > except trains and rockets. Nor did I say that. You, the fuzzy logic champion, seem to veer quite dramatically from Black to White. "Well, if it means more than trains and rockets, then I can say it means whatever I want, can't I?" > > Ahem - > > Space is a "physical thing". And whenever two physical things are in > motion with respect to each other, relativity must apply. No, sir. This again is gobbledygook. > If one > region of space (which is a thing) appears to be in motion relative to > another, then I see no reason why these principles wouldnt apply.
From: Huang on 3 Aug 2010 15:49
On Aug 3, 10:26 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Aug 2, 6:21 pm, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Sam, I did not say anything about centerless universe. If you can have > > > > > > centerless expansion, then you can also have centerless contraction. > > > > > > > Just as the universe can be regarded as expanding "without a center", > > > > > > so too it can be modelled as a contraction "without a center". > > > > > > That's correct. Observation show that space is expanding.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > But I think that Hubble's interpretation of redshift was a bit off. > > > > Hubble gives only two concievable explanations: > > > > > [a] Everything is flying away from us, placing us in the center of a > > > > bunch of stuff which is moving outwards, or > > > > [b] Space is expanding and is centerless. > > > > > I think that his options were incomplete. I think that either: > > > > > [a] Space is expanding and is centerless. > > > > [b] We are contracting away from space and it is centerless. > > > > > I think that both of these are valid possibilities, and that they > > > > should be equivalent under Equivalence Principle. > > > > Please. Stop with the gobbledygook. > > > The Principle of Relativity does NOT mean "everything is relative". > > > The Principle of Equivalence does NOT mean "opposite things are > > > equivalent." > > > > You can babble if you want. I just don't recommend that you attach > > > buzz phrases from pulp physics to the babbling. It will only put folks > > > off.- Hide quoted text - > > > So, the only time we can apply the Equivalence Principle is when we > > are looking at rectilinear motion. Cant apply it to anything else > > except trains and rockets. > > Nor did I say that. > You, the fuzzy logic champion, seem to veer quite dramatically from > Black to White. > "Well, if it means more than trains and rockets, then I can say it > means whatever I want, can't I?" > > > > > Ahem - > > > Space is a "physical thing". And whenever two physical things are in > > motion with respect to each other, relativity must apply. > > No, sir. This again is gobbledygook. > > > > > If one > > region of space (which is a thing) appears to be in motion relative to > > another, then I see no reason why these principles wouldnt apply.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Surely you would concede that expansion of space qualifies as "motion" of something. Something must be in motion, otherwise the concept of expansion is just vacuous. If the universe were 1-dimensional, then it might be easier to see that something must be in motion. Are we now arguing that something such as space can expand and that there was no motion involved in this process ? Doesn't that seem a bit contradictory ? |