E
edwest211
Guest
I trust Arp for detailed analysis.
- Status
B
Bradskii
Guest
They are not moving at Warp Speed. Space is expanding.
To give us an idea of your knowledge of cosmology, perhaps you can tell us how old the earth is…
N
niceatheist
Guest
Except that Neanderthals predated the appearance of modern H. sapiens, and for a significant period of time lived at the same time (and likely in relatively close quarters) to H. sapiens. Some of the earliest evidence of H. sapiens outside of Africa, in the Levant, indicate that the toolkits used by the two groups were very similar. Whatever happened to H. sapiens didn’t happen to most Neanderthals, and while the evidence now strongly indicates some interbreeding (I believe there’s evidence of interbreeding with Denosovians as well), the populations did remain largely distinct. A good analogy would be members of the genus Canis. Wolves, coyotes and other “wild dog” populations, not to mention domestic dogs, can all interbreed, although fertility cycles between various members of Canis vary, but while there’s gene flow, and a few hybrid populations like the red wolf (which are descendants from grey wolf and coyote interbreeding), by and large the populations remain distinct.
N
niceatheist
Guest
Hubble has been dead a long time. Research on the age of the universe has gone on without him, and there are multiple lines of evidence. You would have to deal with all those lines of evidence, which you understand if you had bothered to read the article.
W
Wesrock
Guest
Yes, this. It’s not just that the galaxies are physically moving away from each other, but that the space between them is stretching and expanding, as if space is a fabric and is inflating like a balloon.edwest211:
They are not moving at Warp Speed. Space is expanding.
Last edited:
N
niceatheist
Guest
More to the point, while the speed of light is a limiter for how fast anything can accelerate (a photon is massless, and therefore essentially comes to existence moving at c), it is not a limiter on how face space itself expands, and it’s almost certain that at certain moments, in particular during the inflationary period, the universe expanded far more quickly than the speed of light. If Ed would bother to read Siegel’s article, he’d understand these critical factors, rather than resting on Hubble, a great astrophysicist, but who died in 1953, long before we’d even discovered the CMBR.edwest211:
They are not moving at Warp Speed. Space is expanding.
To give us an idea of your knowledge of cosmology, perhaps you can tell us how old the earth is…
B
Bradskii
Guest
Good that you can put so much trust in an atheist. Although would you when it came to the age of earth?
Last edited:
E
edwest211
Guest
That’s classified. You know that.
E
edwest211
Guest
And what is it expanding into? Nothing? No electromagnetic energy?
N
niceatheist
Guest
Exactly. And the current debate in cosmology isn’t over the age of the Universe, which really does have a lower limit of about 13.5 billion years (and more like around 13.7-13.75 billion years), but rather just how fast the universe is expanding now. Unfortunately, a lot of the answers rest in finding a renormalizable (quantum) theory of gravity and pegging down just what the heck Dark Energy is.Bradskii:
Yes, this. It’s not just that the galaxies are physically moving away from each other, but that the space between them is stretching and expanding, as if space is a fabric and is inflating like a balloon.edwest211:
They are not moving at Warp Speed. Space is expanding.
N
niceatheist
Guest
The universe can best be thought of as a compact manifold; a finite geometric structure with no defined boundaries (a two dimensional analogy is a circle). It isn’t expanding in to anything.
E
edwest211
Guest
I don’t think the speed of light is a limiting factor. I’ve read about situations where objects were clocked moving at a significant fraction of C.
https://resonance.is/super-massive-black-holes-spin-near-the-speed-of-light/
https://resonance.is/super-massive-black-holes-spin-near-the-speed-of-light/
E
edwest211
Guest
OK. It expands like a balloon, is three dimensional and is not expanding into anything? That’s not reasonable.
N
niceatheist
Guest
A substantial fraction of the speed light is not the same as exceeding it. GR is pretty specific; nothing can accelerate to the c. To do so would require infinite energy. Indeed, the matter we do see getting very close to c is matter spiraling around black holes, where the gravity is so extreme that it causes matter to accelerate. But to get matter even accelerating that fast requires the intense gravity well of a supermassive black hole. But not even a black hole, with all the gravitational energy it possesses, could ever accelerate matter to the speed of light. It’s simply physically impossible. Only particles (or rather fields) that are massless, in other words photons and gluons, can move at c.
W
Wesrock
Guest
Our three dimensional reality is probably the surface of a four dimensional object, the way the surface of the earth is a two dimensional surface of a three dimensional object. (Or the way the latex forms a two dimensional surface of an inflated balloon.) It’s closed and there’s no edge or boundary to the surface.
Other than that, why does it need to be expanding into anything?
Last edited:
B
Bradskii
Guest
How can this have been discussed so many times with you and you still ask questions like that? There is no anything into which it expands. There was no particular point where the big bang ocurred and then expanded out. You have to do some basic reading to get yourself up to any speed whatsoever if you want to discuss these matters.
And it needs to be noted that you think the world is only tens (or perhaps hundreds) of thousands of years old. If I accused anyone of that who didn’t believe it then there would be a double barreled response. But you won’t because you do.
How can science be discussed with someone who denies science.
Answers on a postcard to:
Bradskii,
Bondi, Sydney.
I’m known in these parts. That’ll find me.
L
lelinator
Guest
Good question, but I’ve pushed things off as much as possible today, so now I really have to go…I’ll get back to you later.
N
niceatheist
Guest
Not from Euclidean geometry it’s not, but physics moved past that sort of geometry in the 19th century. In fact, one of the problems with Newtonian mechanics was that it was essentially Euclidean, and thus it couldn’t explain anomalies like the precession of Mercury.
The one thing one learns from a study of physics in general, and cosmology specifically, is that reality doesn’t have to conform to what we might view as “common sense”. And believe me, it’s a trap that even physicists fall in to, which is what I view “brane” or “multiverse” theories are. They try to answer the question of where the universe came from and what “medium” it exists in, but all they do is push the question back. If the universe is in some other spatial medium, then what are the bounds of that medium?
E
edwest211
Guest
After the Big Bang, where did the matter and energy go?
N
niceatheist
Guest
We’re living in it. The simplest explanation is that the universe started out exceedingly small, so that all the energy (matter as we know it couldn’t exist in the earliest epoch) was under extreme density. The expansion lead ultimately to the universe essentially “cooling”, and with the Inflationary Epoch, the universe cooled extremely rapidly, that energy in some way being “robbed” to fuel the inflation itself, and then essentially “reheated” at the end of the inflationary period. Baryonic matter, which is the bulk of the matter we see around us today, had to wait until the universe had sufficiently cooled to make the forming of building blocks like protons and neutrons possible.
Last edited:
- Status