Jump to content


Photo

The Horizon Problem


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
31 replies to this topic

#21 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 11 February 2009 - 01:20 PM

From Jason 777's wiki quote:

Inflationary theory allows for a solution to the problem (along with several others such as the flatness problem) by positing a short 10 − 32 second period of exponential expansion (dubbed "inflation") within the first minute or so of the history of the universe. During inflation, the universe would have increased in size by an enormous factor.

If correct, inflation solves the horizon problem by suggesting that prior to the inflationary period the entire universe was causally connected, and it was during this period that the physical properties evened out. Inflation then expanded it rapidly, freezing in these properties all over the sky; at this point the universe would be forced to be almost perfectly homogeneous, as the information needed to change it from that state was no longer causally connected. In the modern era distant areas in the sky appear to be unconnected causally, but in fact were much closer together in the past.


Note that the solution involves almost (99.99999999% - it's more but I'm only allocating so much space for 9's) all of the stuff that supposedly became the universe moving way, way, way, WAY faster than light.

It takes light minutes just to get from here to the sun. Now in 10 to the -32 second, even light can't go all that far. Yet the universe is supposed to have expanded to like 90% of its present size during that infinitesimal fraction of a second. They don't like to specify how much, mind you, lest anyone who doesn't already should begin to see how bogus the "theory" really is.

See, here's how a typical example words it:

http://news.softpedi...rse-19872.shtml

According to astronomers, the universe grew from submicroscopic to astronomical size in its first trillionth of a second.


No mention of just how big - just the vague "astronomical size". Even so, light would be left in the dust by this stuff.

Is there a workaround? Ha! You kidding? "The laws of physics didn't apply then." But there's still a problem, because all this unspecified stuff has to get slowed down under the speed of light before the "law" kicks in. Nothing can travel at the speed of light, so anything traveling faster when "the law kicks in" will be trapped forever traveling faster than light. "The law" prevents such things from decelerating to sublight speeds.

#22 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 11 February 2009 - 01:49 PM

Alright!  YOU pick out a few names, give them to me, and I'LL track down their personal histories and tell you what I find.  Does that sound like an equivocation?

View Post

Ah! A new game. I'm curious to see how this one works.

I'll provide two lists. One will be names which appear likely to be associated with "relevant fields" already. The other will be more sporting: names that don't indicate what field the work in.

List one
Ari Brynjolfsson, Applied Radiation Industries (USA)
Timothy Eastman, Plasmas International (USA)
Paola Marziani, Istituto Nazionale di Astrofisica, Osservatorio Astronomico di Padova (Italy)
Robert Zubrin, Pioneer Astronautics, USA
Paramahamsa Tewari, Nuclear Power Corporation (ret.),India
Jean de Pontcharra, Commissariat à l'Energie Atomique, France
Olivier Marco, European Southern Observatory, France
Arkadiusz Jadczyk, International Institute of Mathematical Physics, Lithuania
Hilton Ratcliffe, Astronomical Society of South Africa, South Africa
Alek Atevik, Skopje Astronomy Society, Macedonia

List two
Robert Martinek McMaster University Canada
Andrew M Uhl, Pennsylvania State Univeristy, USA
Joseph.B. Krieger, Brooklyn College, CUNY, USA
Jean-Claude Pecker, College de France (France)
Amitabha Ghosh, Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur (India)
R. David Pace, Lyon College (USA)
Emre Isik Akdeniz University Turkey
Alexandre Losev, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Bulgaria
Roberto Lopes Parra, University of Sao Paulo, Brazil
Marc Berndl University of Toronto Canada

Before you waste too much of your own time, I'm curious if you intend to exclude astronomers, and if so, on what grounds.

I would also point out that one need not be a "professional scientist" at all to spot bogus reasoning, although I concede that for prestige/publicity purposes it helps one convince ignorant groups.

#23 easystreet

easystreet

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 52 posts
  • Age: 65
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Occidental, California

Posted 11 February 2009 - 03:08 PM

From Jason 777's wiki quote:
Note that the solution involves almost (99.99999999% - it's more but I'm only allocating so much space for 9's) all of the stuff that supposedly became the universe moving way, way, way, WAY faster than light. It takes light minutes just to get from here to the sun. Now in 10 to the -32 second, even light can't go all that far. Yet the universe is supposed to have expanded to like 90% of its present size during that infinitesimal fraction of a second. They don't like to specify how much, mind you, lest anyone who doesn't already should begin to see how bogus the "theory" really is.

It's very easy to read a few paragraphs about a complex theory and then jump in with opinions as though you're really qualified to have an opinion.
As far as we know, the speed of light, 3 x 10^5 km/sec., has always been the same as it is now, even during the inflationary period. During inflation, matter and energy were not expanding into space at any greater rate than they are now. Rather, space itself was expanding, using the energy stored in the initial Higgs field. The laws of physics have always applied, but our knowledge of how they applied during that first 10^33 second is very limited. The huge particle accelerators such as the one at CERN are trying to explore conditions in the early universe. The Large Hadron Collider might provide further insights and is expected by some (not all) physicists to produce the so-called "God particle," i.e., the Higgs boson that is believed to determine the masses of all other particles.

#24 easystreet

easystreet

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 52 posts
  • Age: 65
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Occidental, California

Posted 11 February 2009 - 03:59 PM

Ah! A new game. I'm curious to see how this one works.

As you implied, this is a little time-consuming. I went through the lists taking approximately every fourth name looking for academic credentials and fields of specialization. Here's what I found:

I found insufficient information on Ari Brynjolfsson, Applied Radiation Industries (USA), Arkadiusz Jadczyk, International Institute of Mathematical Physics, Lithuania, and Arkadiusz Jadczyk, International Institute of Mathematical Physics, Lithuania. Finding insufficient information doesn't really prove anything, but it does suggest that these people are not eminent in their fields.

Robert Zubrin, Pioneer Astronautics, USA: "Dr. Zubrin is the president of Pioneer Astronautics. He has a B.A. in Mathematics from the University of Rochester (1974), a M.S. in Nuclear Engineering (1984), a M.S. in Aeronautics and Astronautics (1986), and a Ph.D. in Nuclear Engineering (1992), all from the University of Washington." In other words, Dr. Zubrin works in a field that competes to some extent with research in cosmology and particle physics. Therefore, he might have personal, financial reasons for opposing research results in these fields.

R. David Pace, Lyon College (USA) Ph.D. Assist. Prof. Chemistry. As a low-ranking member of the faculty of a minor college working in a field (chemistry) unrelated to cosmology or particle physics, Dr. Pace's opinions on these subjects shouldn't count for anything.

Marc Berndl University of Toronto Canada. "Computer Systems Lab at the University of Toronto pursues high-impact and innovative experimental research into fundamental aspects of operating systems, distributed systems, networks, and security." This profile suggests no reason to believe that Mr. Berndl has any expertise whatever in the fields of cosmology or particle physics.

Hilton Ratcliffe, Astronomical Society of South Africa, South Africa
South African-born physicist, mathematician, and astronomer. He is a member of both the Astronomical Society of Southern Africa (ASSA) and the Astronomical Society of the Pacific. He is best known in formal science as co-discoverer, together with eminent nuclear chemist Oliver Manuel and solar physicist Michael Mozina, of the CNO nuclear fusion cycle on the surface of the Sun." Ratcliffe features himself as a "heretic," but he clearly has a sound reputation in the field of astrophysics. Anything he says is probably worth listening to, although "listening to" is a long way from critical acceptance.

So there you have it. In a sample of seven names, three are relative nobodies, one has vested interests, two have worthless opinions, and one is a respected scientist worth listening to.

#25 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 11 February 2009 - 05:17 PM

As you implied, this is a little time-consuming.  I went through the lists taking approximately every fourth name looking for academic credentials and fields of specialization.  Here's what I found:

I found insufficient information on Ari Brynjolfsson, Applied Radiation Industries (USA), Arkadiusz Jadczyk, International Institute of Mathematical Physics, Lithuania, and Arkadiusz Jadczyk, International Institute of Mathematical Physics, Lithuania.  Finding insufficient information doesn't really prove anything, but it does suggest that these people are not eminent in their fields.

Robert Zubrin, Pioneer Astronautics, USA:  "Dr. Zubrin is the president of Pioneer Astronautics. He has a B.A. in Mathematics from the University of Rochester (1974), a M.S. in Nuclear Engineering (1984), a M.S. in Aeronautics and Astronautics (1986), and a Ph.D. in Nuclear Engineering (1992), all from the University of Washington."  In other words, Dr. Zubrin works in a field that competes to some extent with research in cosmology and particle physics.  Therefore, he might have personal, financial reasons for opposing research results in these fields.

R. David Pace, Lyon College (USA) Ph.D. Assist. Prof. Chemistry.  As a low-ranking member of the faculty of a minor college working in a field (chemistry) unrelated to cosmology or particle physics, Dr. Pace's opinions on these subjects shouldn't count for anything.

Marc Berndl University of Toronto Canada. "Computer Systems Lab at the University of Toronto pursues high-impact and innovative experimental research into fundamental aspects of operating systems, distributed systems, networks, and security."  This profile suggests no reason to believe that Mr. Berndl has any expertise whatever in the fields of cosmology or particle physics.

Hilton Ratcliffe, Astronomical Society of South Africa, South Africa
South African-born physicist, mathematician, and astronomer. He is a member of both the Astronomical Society of Southern Africa (ASSA) and the Astronomical Society of the Pacific. He is best known in formal science as co-discoverer, together with eminent nuclear chemist Oliver Manuel and solar physicist Michael Mozina, of the CNO nuclear fusion cycle on the surface of the Sun."  Ratcliffe features himself as a "heretic," but he clearly has a sound reputation in the field of astrophysics.  Anything he says is probably worth listening to, although "listening to" is a long way from critical acceptance.

So there you have it.  In a sample of seven names, three are relative nobodies, one has vested interests, two have worthless opinions, and one is a respected scientist worth listening to.

View Post

"Vested interest", you say?

Oh ho ho ha hee hee haw!

Doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the mainstream soaking up billions.

And anyone good enough to stay in business without kiss... well, most folks can finish the thought without help.

But thanks for the time you put into it. I suppose I should caution you about using too much of that "not qualified to have an opinion" propaganda. I understand our host doesn't find much merit in it.

I should not like you to feel handicapped by being deprived of your strongest argument, so if you'd like to continue elsewhere, PM me and perhaps we can arrange something.

#26 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 11 February 2009 - 05:30 PM

It's very easy to read a few paragraphs about a complex theory and then jump in with opinions as though you're really qualified to have an opinion.

So you appear to demonstrate.

As far as we know, the speed of light, 3 x 10^5 km/sec., has always been the same as it is now, even during the inflationary period. During inflation, matter and energy were not expanding into space at any greater rate than they are now. 

With all that heat? Who you kidding?

And matter & energy weren't even supposed to exist yet.

Rather, space itself was expanding, using the energy stored in the initial Higgs field.  The laws of physics have always applied, but our knowledge of how they applied during that first 10^33 second is very limited.  The huge particle accelerators such as the one at CERN are trying to explore conditions in the early universe.  The Large Hadron Collider might provide further insights and is expected by some (not all) physicists to produce the so-called "God particle," i.e., the Higgs boson that is believed to determine the masses of all other particles.

View Post

It's always the same story. Only the details change. And change. And change. And contradict each other. And change.

Now are you saying things can move faster than light if/when space itself is carrying them?

#27 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 13 February 2009 - 05:55 PM

It's always the same story. Only the details change. And change. And change. And contradict each other. And change.

View Post


It's an ongoing area of research! Of course things are going to change. Did you think that the god of physics was just going to drop a book explaining everything in the lap of every schoolchild?

#28 easystreet

easystreet

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 52 posts
  • Age: 65
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Occidental, California

Posted 13 February 2009 - 09:50 PM

"Vested interest", you say?  Oh ho ho ha hee hee haw!  Doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the mainstream soaking up billions.

The question is, "Which mainstream?" I hope you don't suppose that science is a monolithic enterprise. The competition among scientists for research funds is intense, and the contest beween the large collider people and the people who want to carry on other types of physics research has been in the news a lot for the past few years, owing largely to the heavy U.S. subsidy of the Large Hadron Collider in Europe.

I suppose I should caution you about using too much of that "not qualified to have an opinion" propaganda. I understand our host doesn't find much merit in it.

He doesn't? Why doesn't that surprise me? But anyway, maybe our discussions would be more fruitful if I knew in advance what subjects you feel qualified to discuss. Here's a partial list, take your pick:
Special relativity
General relativity
Quantum electrodynamics
The Standard Model of particle physics
The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle
Cosmology (incl. Big Bang Theory)

if you'd like to continue elsewhere, PM me and perhaps we can arrange something.

I'm not bored. Or tired.

#29 easystreet

easystreet

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 52 posts
  • Age: 65
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Occidental, California

Posted 13 February 2009 - 10:14 PM

With all that heat? Who you kidding?  And matter & energy weren't even supposed to exist yet.

If you think that heat existed (which it did), you must believe that energy existed (which it did), because heat is a form of energy. But heat had nothing to do with inflation. No amount of heat can push something faster than light.

It's always the same story. Only the details change. And change. And change. And contradict each other. And change.

If change bothers you, I can understand why science bothers you, because change is an integral part of science. Perhaps you should stick closer to religion, where God is everlasting to everlasting. Now THERE'S something you can really get a grip on. None of this here's-what-we-thought-yesterday-but-this-is-what-we-think-today business. You have God's word, and it's eternal. What more could anyone ask for? Naw, just kidding. In fact, even the Christian evangelical movement has changed radically over the years. Did you know that? In the late 19th century, evangelical Christians focused on the social gospel. They spent their time bringing food and clothing to the poor and succor to the ill. Now they spend their time electing moral cretins to public office (Exhibit A: G.W.).

Now are you saying things can move faster than light if/when space itself is carrying them?

Give that man a cigar.

#30 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 13 February 2009 - 10:57 PM

If you think that heat existed (which it did), you must believe that energy existed (which it did), because heat is a form of energy.  But heat had nothing to do with inflation.  No amount of heat can push something faster than light.

Now are you saying things can move faster than light if/when space itself is carrying them?

Give that man a cigar.

View Post

Won't work. Now if all these wonderful changes are going on, why should one not wait for them to change the story to something that makes sense?

Oops! That probably sounds like an invitation to insult me, huh? Well, if you truly understand what you're talking about, you know very well it makes no sense at all. I consider the game of talking nonsense and putting down those who don't "play ball" to be unworthy of respectable entities - by a large margin, mind you.

If matter and energy are carried by space, said space has no means of accelerating or decelerating. It also provides an inertial frame-of-reference, which means you can kiss Einsteinian relativity goodbye.

...Next!

#31 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 13 February 2009 - 11:16 PM

From Jason 777's wiki quote:
Note that the solution involves almost (99.99999999% - it's more but I'm only allocating so much space for 9's) all of the stuff that supposedly became the universe moving way, way, way, WAY faster than light.

It takes light minutes just to get from here to the sun. Now in 10 to the -32 second, even light can't go all that far. Yet the universe is supposed to have expanded to like 90% of its present size during that infinitesimal fraction of a second. They don't like to specify how much, mind you, lest anyone who doesn't already should begin to see how bogus the "theory" really is.

See, here's how a typical example words it:

http://news.softpedi...rse-19872.shtml
No mention of just how big - just the vague "astronomical size". Even so, light would be left in the dust by this stuff.

Is there a workaround? Ha! You kidding? "The laws of physics didn't apply then." But there's still a problem, because all this unspecified stuff has to get slowed down under the speed of light before the "law" kicks in. Nothing can travel at the speed of light, so anything traveling faster when "the law kicks in" will be trapped forever traveling faster than light. "The law" prevents such things from decelerating to sublight speeds.

View Post

Thanks CTD,

I don't understand all of it yet,but I appreciate you taking the time to help us understand.




Thanks.

#32 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 13 February 2009 - 11:50 PM

Won't work. Now if all these wonderful changes are going on, why should one not wait for them to change the story to something that makes sense?

View Post


Why wont it work?

If matter and energy are carried by space, said space has no means of accelerating or decelerating. It also provides an inertial frame-of-reference, which means you can kiss Einsteinian relativity goodbye.

View Post


It is my understanding that space is constantly expanding.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users