Author Topic: Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (Read 1718 times)

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #75 on:** June 21, 2006, 01:30:23 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lukster
How do we know the "big bang" started the expansion of space? By that I mean how do we know space ever expanded at all. Aren't we assuming this based on the "red shift" while observing other bodies? What if instead of space expanding all matter is condensing? Would this have the same observable effect?

Dark bands in the spectrum of starlight can be identified with certian elements. The dark band associated with wavelength of (for instance)hydrogen is shown to be red shifted in far off stars. The only way that hydrogen wavelength changes is with Doppler, that means the stars are moving away with significant speeds.

This effect, if the universe were condensing, would show a blue shift.

So we have observed that 99.99% of the galaxies are moving away. (Andromeda is one of the few getting closer and we are on a collision course! We're all gonna die! aaaaaahh!)

The observations of the expansion of the universe show the expansion, and General Relativity, which has been shown to be accurate with many experiments, explains the expansion. Once you look at the time scale goes into reverse the volume of space goes to a minimum.

General Relativity crashes into Quantum Theory once the universe shrinks to near Plank length size, so no theory exists which explains what happened in the first few moments.

Skuzzy · « **Reply #76 on:** June 21, 2006, 01:43:17 PM »

No one has yet to model the actual regression of time, with any degree of accuracy. Some postulate the various masses simply intersected at some point, rather than being blown from a single point.

Mav, even if time is linear, there is nothing which states it had to start somewhere. A single point can represent infinity. No beginning, no end. Indeed, a single line can also represent infinity.

The concept of starting and ending is one created by man. Where does space end? Where does it begin?

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #77 on:** June 21, 2006, 01:46:24 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Skuzzy
Where does space end? Where does it begin?

Don't know where is begins, but it ends 2.35 miles WSW of the central fire station of New Brunswick, NJ.

lukster · « **Reply #78 on:** June 21, 2006, 01:48:44 PM »

I didn't say that the universe was condensing or collapsing, I said matter. Imagine that all matter everywhere is being sucked into black holes or something to that effect. The apparent result would be that of everything getting further apart. This is off the top of my head. I have no idea if there isn't some easy proof to counter it.

indy007 · « **Reply #79 on:** June 21, 2006, 01:51:38 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lukster
That sounds an awful lot like what Al Gore and others are saying about Global warming.

Not quite. Al Gore does psuedo-science and then extolls the truthiness of it. I think he really does believe it though, and so badly wants it to be true, it could be called his religion. I've met people like that.

Science is provisional truth. A conclusion is proved, then accepted as truth until it is debunked. The truth is subject to testing.

Religion is absolute truth, the word of God (or Gods), usually from his/her/its prophets.

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #80 on:** June 21, 2006, 01:56:39 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lukster
I didn't say that the universe was condensing or collapsing, I said matter. Imagine that all matter everywhere is being sucked into black holes or something to that effect. The apparent result would be that of everything getting further apart. This is off the top of my head. I have no idea if there isn't some easy proof to counter it.

The Pauli exclusion principle prevents matter from getting much smaller.

lukster · « **Reply #81 on:** June 21, 2006, 02:00:45 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by indy007
Not quite. Al Gore does psuedo-science and then extolls the truthiness of it. I think he really does believe it though, and so badly wants it to be true, it could be called his religion. I've met people like that.

Science is provisional truth. A conclusion is proved, then accepted as truth until it is debunked. The truth is subject to testing.

Religion is absolute truth, the word of God (or Gods), usually from his/her/its prophets.

I have to argue the absolute truth part in regards to religion. If that were true then we should have but one religion based on the earliest of beliefs. Religion evolves, much like science.

lukster · « **Reply #82 on:** June 21, 2006, 02:06:17 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
The Pauli exclusion principle prevents matter from getting much smaller.

Ok, how about the space itself existing within and near matter being warped (condensed) by that matter? Some do believe that gravity is evidence of this effect. Could it be possible that this effect is accelerating?

Skuzzy · « **Reply #83 on:** June 21, 2006, 02:08:14 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Don't know where is begins, but it ends 2.35 miles WSW of the central fire station of New Brunswick, NJ.

One down, one to go.

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #84 on:** June 21, 2006, 02:21:28 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lukster
Ok, how about the space itself existing within and near matter being warped (condensed) by that matter? Some do believe that gravity is evidence of this effect. Could it be possible that this effect is accelerating?

General Relativity explains gravity as the warping of spacetime.

The expansion of the universe looks as though it is accellerating, so there is a force akin to the cosmological constant that is overwhelming gravity's attraction on the intergalactic scale.

lukster · « **Reply #85 on:** June 21, 2006, 02:45:04 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
General Relativity explains gravity as the warping of spacetime.

The expansion of the universe looks as though it is accellerating, so there is a force akin to the cosmological constant that is overwhelming gravity's attraction on the intergalactic scale.

Tell me what I'm missing then. Either the universe is expanding at an increasing rate caused by a force we believe to exist only because we believe that it must based on that expansion. Or, our plot of space in the universe is shrinking due to forces we may understand and be able to explain.

Yeah, I knew about General Relativity.

Maverick · « **Reply #86 on:** June 21, 2006, 04:35:09 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Skuzzy
Where does space end? Where does it begin?

I can answer this one! It begins and ends in the area between the ears of several folks who post on this board, it also is a vacuum!

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #87 on:** June 21, 2006, 04:54:21 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lukster
Tell me what I'm missing then.

Talk about a set up.... and I am passing on the opportunity.

Quote

Originally posted by lukster
Either the universe is expanding at an increasing rate caused by a force we believe to exist only because we believe that it must based on that expansion. Or, our plot of space in the universe is shrinking due to forces we may understand and be able to explain.

So we are shrinking away from the rest of the universe rather than the rest of the universe expanding away... Where are we shrinking to? There is room to expand.

If the universe was universally shrinking, the stars would be coming at us and blue shift, not red shifted starlight spectrums would dominate.

If our neighborhood were shrinking and the rest of the universe were not, then that would be a case for locality in the laws of physics.

lukster · « **Reply #88 on:** June 21, 2006, 05:16:31 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Talk about a set up.... and I am passing on the opportunity.

So we are shrinking away from the rest of the universe rather than the rest of the universe expanding away... Where are we shrinking to? There is room to expand.

If the universe was universally shrinking, the stars would be coming at us and blue shift, not red shifted starlight spectrums would dominate.

If our neighborhood were shrinking and the rest of the universe were not, then that would be a case for locality in the laws of physics.

Two things:

First, my understanding of an expanding universe is not that bodies are necessarily moving further apart through space but that space itself is expanding which is causing these bodies to be further apart. Room to expand has no validity in this context as the room itself is expanding.

Second, like I said before. I'm not suggesting that the universe is getting smaller. Space not warped (or less warped) by matter remains constant while the space more warped by matter becomes ever smaller.

Changed a word for clarification.

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #89 on:** June 21, 2006, 06:34:28 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lukster
Space not warped (or less warped) by matter remains constant while the space more warped by matter becomes ever smaller.

Then the center of galaxies would become ever smaller...as they have a greater density than the edges.

As we are in the galactic suburbs, our corner would be less "getting smaller" than the galactic center.

the observations of redshift are consistant with general expansion. They are inconsistant with general contraction, or even local contraction.

Gravity causing a warpage enough to alter our observations would need to come from a nearby black hole and the existance of a black hole would cause gravitational lensing that we could easily detect.

The gravity required to cause a general collapse of the universe is an order of magnitude more than that which observed matter can provide. Hence one of the drivers for the idea of dark matter.