Bang/Crunch Revisited

[maddog]

Originally Posted by modest

I would like to know how to add the kewl looking graphics. Are these items I just "cut" and "paste" ?

maddog

[modest]

When writing your post you can click on the 'add image' icon:

And add the url of an image from the internet. I got that one from:

Rotating Oblate spheroid at eccentricity=0.87 — University of Leicester

If you set up an account somewhere like imageshack or photobucket you can upload your own photos and add them by using their url.

~modest

[Michael Mooney]

Erasmus:

]A false analogy, every molecule in a rubber sheet knows if the sheet is being stretched.

My metaphor was scaled to atoms, which do not, to the best of my knowledge, distort in a stretched string or an expanding balloon.

No you haven't. String theory is a highly mathematical subject, and you have very limited math at your disposal. If you cannot do basic calculations with a theory, you have not studied it, and you do not understand it. If you have next to know understanding of quantum mechanics and next to no understanding of general relativity, how can you study the attempt to unify them? Reading popular science books and watching NOVA specials is not studying a theory.

Please refer to the following link from my first post in the "Math's Place in Physics" spin off thread (Philosophy of Science section), quoting from my favorite link on the subject:

http://hypography.com/forums/philoso...tml#post267382

As per: "Every physical theory has a mathematical component and a conceptual component"... my intro to this forum disavowed expertise in math, but I am very reasonable in my analysis and criticism of concepts.

It predicts that acceleration of the universe should be slowing down. It is not.

In the cosmology I "see" there is a lot of matter producing gravitational pull beyond our cosmic event horizon. This could account for the accelerating expansion.
Also, whatever "dark matter" is, some believe it to be generate the mysterious force of accelerating.
In either case, "my favorite cosmology" is no falsified.

I have witnessed your ignorance of basic physical and mathematical ideas in dozens (if not more) of posts. You CANNOT understand the idea of space (or spacetime) as a metric without understanding what a metric is. You have yourself admitted your ignorance of math, which precludes knowing what a metric is!

You have witnessed my disagreement with you and with mainstream science. Your assumption seems to be that those who so disagree must be ignorant of... Again, please contemplate "the place of math" in the above quote.

Why should there be a magnetic field, you can't see it. You can measure the effect of one piece of lodestone on another, or a moving current on a lodestone,etc. Why create this magnetic field, what is its "ontological status?"

Huh? Obviously the iron filings on paper over a magnet fall in a pattern conforming to the magnetic field. There is no other explanation for the pattern.
There is another explanation for (for instance) the curvature of light's path around masses generating gravity... other than the standard "curved space" explanation. I've presented that explanation many times.

If you believe this, you do not understand what Doctordick has done. He has reorganized spacetime, not done away with it. He still has a 4 dimensional space, and has given up coordinate independence in favor of simplicity for one observer.

I invite Doctordick's response here. It was my understanding "spacetime" as central to relativity is not required in his version.
I also thought his version worked in 3-D Euclidean space without a fourth spacial dimension.
(3-D describes volume. What does a "fourth dimension" add and how is it described (other than making "space itself" spherical with a curved surface, etc.)

Michael

[Michael Mooney]

Me:

In the real world (remember the real world?) an atom within the string will not stretch out as you stretch the string. Nuff said.

You:

From your reply there is no way for me to know if you understood what I told you.

Get a rubber band, cut it, and lay it out flat in front of you. Draw some squares and rectangles on it. Then stretch the rubber band....

Hey, Modest! Scale does matter. My comment above asserts that an atom in a stretched string will not be distorted... nor in an expanding balloon. Rubber molecules, yes. Atoms, no.

Yet you repeat, in principle, the dot on a string elongating as it is stretched... with squares and rectangles on a rubber band.

Seems you simply ignore me and essentially repeat your example.
Then you go back to the "atom" within a rubber molecule, the latter of which will distort, while the former, I am sure, will not.

(It would be interesting to verify this if there were an electron microscope powerful enough to to examine an inflating balloon on atomic level. If its atoms turn into flattened spheroids as you illustrate, I will eat my words.
Anyway, I was willing to abandon the balloon metaphor for various reasons, one of which: because its atoms would not be expanding and contracting like a bang/crunch cosmos would. Again, the atoms were a scale reference not claimed to have the same explosion/implosion cycle as my favorite cosmology.
But this detail was lost on you and continues so.

You don't know what you're talking about. There's no difference between "space expands" and "the distance between any two points increases with time". They are different English word descriptions for the same exact thing. It only matters to you which way it is said because you don't understand the fundamentals of the theory. You're objecting to a philosophical interpretation.

Translation: You don't understand what I'm talking about, as usual.
I have always agreed that as objects move apart, the distance between them increases. "Blatantly obvious" as I said.
This is very much different than the claim that "space itself expands" as in inflation cosmology. Also way different than positing that "space curves" in response to gravity. Both cases make "space" into an actual medium that has shape and dynamics "of its own: as distinct from objects moving *through space.*

Your characterization of Arp as a "crackpot", given his credentials, is more a statement of your rigid intolerence of dissent than about him.
Never the less, I agree that, "that the distance between all cosmically distant galaxies is increasing with time."
I will research "the redshift controversy" more thoroughly. What I do know (and thought the said controversy challenged) is that "space itself expanding" (quickly after the Bang... inflation theory) and still expanding as a medium making galaxies recede from earth at faster than light speed... is false. This is a way different concept than the obviously increasing space/distance between objects as *they* move away from each other.
Simple question: Do you understand this difference?

Michael

[Erasmus00]

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

My metaphor was scaled to atoms, which do not, to the best of my knowledge, distort in a stretched string or an expanding balloon.

Yes, of course they will be distorted, though the manner and type is dependent on the material in question. In a simplified scenario, where we imagine a string as a 1-d lattice of atoms electrically bound, each atom will "feel" the uniform stretch of the wire.

As per: "Every physical theory has a mathematical component and a conceptual component"... my intro to this forum disavowed expertise in math, but I am very reasonable in my analysis and criticism of concepts.

The conceptual can never be put in place without the mathematical. Theories are mathematical first, conceptual second. First describe, then understand. Popular descriptions do not at all capture what is happening in string theory. Even the word "string" is at best an analogy to the fundamental entities in the theory. Mathematical descriptions are exact, verbal descriptions are not. The conceptual part of the theory is connecting the "symbols" to the physical reality.

In the cosmology I "see" there is a lot of matter producing gravitational pull beyond our cosmic event horizon. This could account for the accelerating expansion.

Even with the excess matter outside the event horizon, if the expansion is not slowing down, the universe cannot head back towards a big crunch. Further, if the matter is distributed uniformly it will not exert a gravitational pull (a uniform sphere of mass produces no field or force at its center).

Also, whatever "dark matter" is, some believe it to be generate the mysterious force of accelerating.

Your thinking dark energy which cannot exist in your cosmic model (its a property of "empty" space, which you disavow).

You have witnessed my disagreement with you and with mainstream science. Your assumption seems to be that those who so disagree must be ignorant of... Again, please contemplate "the place of math" in the above quote.

No, your ignorance has been repeatedly demonstrated- you don't know what a metric is, you were unaware of the idea of a gravitational wave, etc. You clearly have not studied general relativity (or any physics really) at a meaningful level. You have basic conceptual misunderstandings of special relativity, etc.

Huh? Obviously the iron filings on paper over a magnet fall in a pattern conforming to the magnetic field. There is no other explanation for the pattern.

This is simply not true- if magnets exert a force on lodestone or iron then the filing will conform to the force field around the magnet. Just like Newtonian gravity, classical electo/magneto statics can be formulated entirely in terms of action at a distance. Fields were largely considered a trick for calculating until Maxwell.

I invite Doctordick's response here. It was my understanding "spacetime" as central to relativity is not required in his version.
I also thought his version worked in 3-D Euclidean space without a fourth spacial dimension.

His is a 4-d space, with time as one of the dimensions, just like special relativity. His 4d space has a 4d Euclidean "metric" (its not a proper metric, as it isn't coordinate invariant, but DoctorDick has different motivations then Einstein, and so isn't concerned with coordinate invariance, rather simplicity for a single observer).

(3-D describes volume. What does a "fourth dimension" add and how is it described (other than making "space itself" spherical with a curved surface, etc.)

This is more ignorance- a 3d volume can be curved without a forth dimension. The number of dimensions is unrelated to curvature.

[modest]

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

Hey, Modest! Scale does matter. My comment above asserts that an atom in a stretched string will not be distorted... nor in an expanding balloon. Rubber molecules, yes. Atoms, no...

(It would be interesting to verify this if there were an electron microscope powerful enough to to examine an inflating balloon on atomic level. If its atoms turn into flattened spheroids as you illustrate, I will eat my words.

Yes, atoms stretch when their bonds are strained. Atoms are like little blobs. Here's are some imaged atoms,

http://www.physik.uni-regensburg.de/...armonische.jpg

But, that's beside my point. You're either dissembling or incapable of understanding the size irrelevance of a scale factor.

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

Again, the atoms were a scale reference not claimed to have the same explosion/implosion cycle as my favorite cosmology. But this detail was lost on you and continues so.

You thought a small scale would solve the motion problem I outlined in post #37, saying:

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

If our little mini-cosmos is the size of an atom relative to the balloon membrane thickness and deeply embedded within that membrane... one minuscule bubble within the whole balloon membrane... then the differential rates of "membrane expansion" between its inside and outside would either not effect our little atom-cosmos or its effect could never be detected... as we can't even com close to seeing the outer or inner "surfaces" of the expanding mega-cosmic "Baloon."

This is not how it works. Size has no effect on how much something is scaled by a scale factor. I can see how you might have intuitively thought otherwise, but that's not how it works. The only reason size would matter is when the substrate is inhomogeneous at small scales.

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

I have always agreed that as objects move apart, the distance between them increases. "Blatantly obvious" as I said.
This is very much different than the claim that "space itself expands" as in inflation cosmology.

You cannot tell me one qualitative difference between "inflation cosmology" and cosmology in the current epoch.

The difference between the "expansion of space" and the movement of bodies through space is a coordinate choice:

What Causes the Hubble Redshift?

There is no difference between the "expansion of space" and the measured increase in distance between all points as with the metric measured expansion of space distance.

If space expands then what is the relationship between redshift, distance, and velocity? If objects move through space rather than space expanding then what is the relationship between redshift, distance, and velocity? If space is expanding then what is the redshift of the CMBR? If the surface of last scattering is moving away from us while space is not expanding then what is the redshift of the CMBR? Will the duration of supernova be different if space is expanding vs. space not expanding? If there is a difference then how much is it? Will the brightness of distant galaxies be different if space is expanding vs. not expanding? What is the relationship between redshift and brightness if space is expanding and the relationship if space is not expanding?

I don't expect you to answer any of those questions and I'm not asking you to. But, recognize, this question is one of physics. With a knowledge of basic physics you could answer those questions and understand the concepts involved. There'd be no need to rely on mystic visions and gut feelings and all that. As I've been saying: there's no down side to that. Go to the library and get a book on cosmology.

~modest

[Michael Mooney]

Modest:

Yes, atoms stretch when their bonds are strained. Atoms are like little blobs. Here's are some imaged atoms,

http://www.physik.uni-regensburg.de/...armonische.jpg

Interesting. What is the medium here and what is stretched. I thought that molecules distorted while the space between atoms increased as the molecules distorted. Is this shown to be untrue by the image? Is there a before and after of the same atoms before and after whatever medium of molecules is stretched?

But, that's beside my point. You're either dissembling or incapable of understanding the size irrelevance of a scale factor.

Your continually insulting tone aside...("Go to the library and get a book on cosmology"... Ive been reading cosmology all my adult life and still disagree with spacetime as a malleable medium)... I hereby officially abandon the atom-in-a-balloon metaphor.

I do see our visible cosmos as a relatively small *sphere of visibility* (oscillating in a perpetual "Bang/Crunch") within a much larger cosmos, beyond our event horizon. (The matter beyond our horizon, I think, is pulling our cosmos outward in an ever increasing rate of expansion, eventually to coalesce as clumps of supermassive black holes and collapse back into the Crunch phase and again "launch" a "reborn cosmos."

Makes much more sense than imaginary membranes "clapping" or primordial "Singularity" launching out cosmos out of a magical origin (everything out of nothing.

{Snip}...
The atom metaphor *was* taken too literally. I just meant to show a scale of cosmos as a relatively small sphere... (eventually to "crunch" and "bang" again) in a much larger (than we can see) cosmos. End of atom metaphor.

You cannot tell me one qualitative difference between "inflation cosmology" and cosmology in the current epoch.

I was not claiming that there is a qualitative difference. Simply that inflation theory has "space expanding" very rapidly after the Bang... still expanding according to "expanding space" theory to explain the speed of receding galaxies.
But such "expanding space* *is different* than *stuff moving away from other stuff*... resulting, of course in more distance/space between "objects" (in the generic sense of all observable stuff.)

The difference between the "expansion of space" and the movement of bodies through space is a coordinate choice:

What Causes the Hubble Redshift?

Some choice!

Switching from one viewpoint to the other amounts to a change of coordinate systems in (curved) spacetime.

We have a choice of "coordinate systems" as long as we *assume as a given* that each is "in curved spacetime." (See links on the ontology of spacetime in the locked thread.)

There is no difference between the "expansion of space" and the measured increase in distance between all points as with the metric measured expansion of space distance.

You don't seem to understand the theory of "expanding space" as an "expanding medium itself" (in error, as I see it) which allows objects to travel apart *way faster* than accounted for simply by their natural movement away from each other. And, originally, inflation claims that cosmos expanded faster than light after the bang... as "space itself expanded carrying along the plasma that would cool and become the observable cosmos."
You also conveniently ignore the claim that "space has curvature" and shape. (The stuff in space obviously has shape, trajectory, etc.)

If space expands then what is the relationship between redshift, distance, and velocity? If objects move through space rather than space expanding then what is the relationship between redshift, distance, and velocity? If space is expanding then what is the redshift of the CMBR? If the surface of last scattering is moving away from us while space is not expanding then what is the redshift of the CMBR? Will the duration of supernova be different if space is expanding vs. space not expanding? If there is a difference then how much is it? Will the brightness of distant galaxies be different if space is expanding vs. not expanding? What is the relationship between redshift and brightness if space is expanding and the relationship if space is not expanding?

Like your use of math to put me in my proper place of ignorance, the above seems to be an attempt to lose sight of the forest by examining the trees in great detail.
For this reason I will repeat my basic challenge in last post to you (bold added for emphasis):

I have always agreed that as objects move apart, the distance between them increases. "Blatantly obvious" as I said.]This is very much different than the claim that "space itself expands" as in inflation cosmology. Also way different than positing that "space curves" in response to gravity. Both cases make "space" into an actual medium that has shape and dynamics "of its own: as distinct from objects moving *through space.*

(Snip... Arp issue aside)...

What I do know ... is that "space itself expanding" (quickly after the Bang... inflation theory) and still expanding as a medium making galaxies recede from earth at faster than light speed... is false. This is a way different concept than the obviously increasing space/distance between objects as *they* move away from each other.
Simple question: Do you understand this difference?

So was your post a "yes" or a "no" to the above?

There'd be no need to rely on mystic visions and gut feelings and all that. As I've been saying: there's no down side to that.

As I've said dozens of times, I realize that nobody here "has visions", and I am not claiming special privileged information (tho I know what I see in that mode.) Rather, over and over, I have put my visions on par with the common scientific tool of envisioning which always precedes empirical verification, but is still a vital part of science. Your continual insults in this regard ignore the above repeated disclaimer.

Go to the library and get a book on cosmology.

... In other words: 'And, by the way, here is another parting slap in the face, being as you (Michael) are obviously uninformed on cosmology.'
PS: Erasmus,
No, I didn't get all of what I know about string/M-theory out of Popular Science and the NOVA program.
You guys are so intolerant of and condescending upon dissent and challenge to mainstream cosmology!

And if you think math trumps the concepts it addresses, you have the cart before the horse. If the concepts are based on false assumptions, the math will not make them true, no matter how internally consistent the math... (which, after all is a technical form of logic.)
Michael

[Erasmus00]

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

No, I didn't get all of what I know about string/M-theory out of Popular Science and the NOVA program.
You guys are so intolerant of and condescending upon dissent and challenge to mainstream cosmology!

I have become, through much interaction, fairly intolerant of YOUR claims.

This is not because you are dissenting with the mainstream of physics, but because you don't actually know what you are talking about. You further claim expertise you do not have, which I find infuriating. You pointedly refuse to make any attempt to learn the material you claim to know. This leads to you suggesting self refuting models over and over again.

And if you think math trumps the concepts it addresses, you have the cart before the horse. If the concepts are based on false assumptions, the math will not make them true, no matter how internally consistent the math... (which, after all is a technical form of logic.)

Michael, almost all of modern physics is based on concepts that are impossible to describe without math. Verbal language is not precise enough for describing the foundational concepts of physics.

As I read this, I realize I need to stop these discussions- this hasn't ceased to be worth my time, it never was.

[modest]

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

The matter beyond our horizon, I think, is pulling our cosmos outward in an ever increasing rate of expansion

The interior of a hollow spherical shell of mass feels no acceleration toward the shell.

~modest

[Michael Mooney]

Originally Posted by modest

The interior of a hollow spherical shell of mass feels no acceleration toward the shell.

~modest

Psssst! Modest, I quit the atom-in-balloon-membrane metaphore repeatedly in last post. (You took it *way* too literally.) The atom was not in the hollow of the balloon anyway but surrounded by other atoms/cosmi (in the balloon membrane) which we can not see but which could well be exerting gravitational force on ours.

As you know, the universal law of gravitation states that all masses attract all other masses, directly with amount of mass and inversely with the square of the distance between masses. (We have covered this a few times before!)
So, if there is a lot of mass out there beyond our "sphere of visibility" (event horizon) it could well be pulling our visible cosmos outwardly, accelerating the rate of expansion, as we observe.

It seems you are bent on totally ignoring what I post and going ahead with your agenda to correct my misconceptions (as always!)

I said:

I do see our visible cosmos as a relatively small *sphere of visibility* (oscillating in a perpetual "Bang/Crunch") within a much larger cosmos, beyond our event horizon. (The matter beyond our horizon, I think, is pulling our cosmos outward in an ever increasing rate of expansion, eventually to coalesce as clumps of supermassive black holes and collapse back into the Crunch phase and again "launch" a "reborn cosmos."

I asked a lot of questions in last post. The most direct and fundamental was a repeat asking if you know the difference between the theory of "expanding space as a medium" (inflation theory, curved, shaped space, etc.) and the obvious increasing distances (space) between objects which are simply moving away from each other.

If you can not or will not answer this question directly, our conversation is over.
BTW, Erasmus,
I am glad to hear that you are dropping out of conversation with me. Your supposed superiority in all matters of science made you totally deaf to what I was saying.
Anyone actually interested in the ontology of space, time, and "spacetime" as elements of cosmology? Not as long as they are all considered established facts as given in all textbooks on relativity.

Hey... as in the OP... where did it all come from? out of a Magic Cosmic Singularity... or those ever popular clapping imaginary membranes? (Science? Really?)
Michael