I have met five astrophysicists in my life but have never met a cosmologist. Where did you meet cosmologists @Optimissed? Is there a cosmologist chess club here on CDC?
Do you have a hang up about what words people use?
Other people call them cosmologists and it's a shorter word than astrophysicist so what's your problem?
You're no more a cosmologist than I am, however, so it remains a difference of opinion where you take what may seem to be the orthodox stance. Sooner or later, someone wiil show that the Big Bang-type theories are the result of lazy thinking. They don't explain the origins of the universe, which remains a magical event, which has no scientific explanation. Merely a description of an assumption or series of assumptions.
If humanity survives and progresses, the Big Bang will be thought of as amusing, raher like the Greek or Biblical myths.
Regardless, your conjecture about the universe "beginning" in its probable end state (and note how you cannot even come up with something creative/original for this, you steal the heat death of the universe and re-cast it) and then saying "gravity, space, and matter do the rest" seems pretty ridiculous. How does gravity do the work if the universe is already spread out too thinly for gravity to have a significant effect? And note that even though you didn't explicitly state that all the matter was spread out, it must be for your "cold cold cold" near absolute zero universe (although this statement is also ridiculous since most space, and definitely intergalactic space, is already near absolute zero) to exist, since stars (and black holes) would be forming if the matter were clumped, etc.
Elroch seems to have liked your post so that means he's incapable of recognising the fact that all your comments are innuendo and you can't put forward an argument. Still, you asked a question.
In a very rarified environment such as nearly empty space, the presence of any fundamental particles causes gravity. After all, gravity is an attraction between massive bodies and all fundamental particles have mass. The effect is not much different from the forces occurring in any solar system, which is an example you might be able to get your head around. Time isn't a factor in that the processes occur incredibly slowly but the mathematics shows that in such a rarified environment, fundamental particles will very slowly congregate together and they will tend to rotate as a mass, thus ultimately forming spiral nebulae after an extremely long time interval, the length of which is immaterial.
I'm aware that you're pretty unintelligent but if you tried a bit harder to concentrate, you might eventually understand something instead of trying to make fun of a subejct you certainly don't know anything about. Elroch knows a little bit of COSMOLOGY but it isn't his subject and he's limited to regurgitating an orthodox viewpoint of the Big Bang which many people working in the field, who are actually equipped with the ability to understand some of it, are rejectiing. There's clearly no-one here other than me who is sufficiently interested in the subject to try to make good comments on the topic, or to try to learn.
This forum is lowkey wild with 2 grown men arguing over if the heart is flat.
Nobody outgrows argument. Sometimes they grow with it.
Good point. Dio lives only for arguing and he enjoys the bad feeling he deliberately creates. Many times I've seen him deliberately attacking people randomly, simply because they are enjoying talking to one-another. Apparently he is not capable of growing with it. On the other hand, I don't need to be talking here but I'm deliberately using this bad environment to develop my ability to better understand the way ordinary people think. The way they go round in circles without growing or learning. Occasionally, it's possible to meet people here who are more discerning than average or have a better mind that they, like others, are learning to use more positively than the rest. Obviously Dio is an extreme case and he can be annoying. He's effective inasmuch as he is capable of influencing others who have less ability than he does. He doesn't have any ability to speak of regarding discussions of abstract things but is reasonably good on some technical subjects and his ability at rhetoric may appear to some to indicate a person who is clever. However, if you actually follow it and look at the patterns, it's repetitive, indicating someone who does not learn or grow, so the result is a man of about 60 who acts like a kid of 14.
I have met five astrophysicists in my life but have never met a cosmologist. Where did you meet cosmologists @Optimissed? Is there a cosmologist chess club here on CDC?
Do you have a hang up about what words people use?
Other people call them cosmologists and it's a shorter word than astrophysicist so what's your problem?
I think cosmology is more theorectical. They both analyze light and ponder the significance of dark matter and such. But cosmologists are sort of the philosophers of astronomy if you can tolerate such an analogy. I don't think they're the same. Cosmologists are more rarified. And yes, I guess I do have a hangup about words, being a modern foreign language graduate.
This forum is lowkey wild with 2 grown men arguing over if the heart is flat.
Nobody outgrows argument. Sometimes they grow with it.
Good point. Dio lives only for arguing and he enjoys the bad feeling he deliberately creates. Many times I've seen him deliberately attacking people randomly, simply because they are enjoying talking to one-another. Apparently he is not capable of growing with it. On the other hand, I don't need to be talking here but I'm deliberately using this bad environment to develop my ability to better understand the way ordinary people think. The way they go round in circles without growing or learning. Occasionally, it's possible to meet people here who are more discerning than average or have a better mind that they, like others, are learning to use more positively than the rest. Obviously Dio is an extreme case and he can be annoying. He's effective inasmuch as he is capable of influencing others who have less ability than he does. He doesn't have any ability to speak of regarding discussions of abstract things but is reasonably good on some technical subjects and his ability at rhetoric may appear to some to indicate a person who is clever. However, if you actually follow it and look at the patterns, it's repetitive, indicating someone who does not learn or grow, so the result is a man of about 60 who acts like a kid of 14.
You are assuming his post was solely directed at me, which says something about you, not me.
You must also know you're so out of your depth that you haven't a clue what's going on. If Elroch knew how many people there are who won't post anywhere near a post of yours, he'd block you.
How can someone who never argues on topic and does nothing but make personal attacks run rings round anyone? I'm reporting that post because staff are looking at you and so far as I'm concerned, you're trolling.
Oh, we're back to the secret mod investigation fantasy?
Elroch seems to have liked your post so that means he's incapable of recognising the fact that all your comments are innuendo and you can't put forward an argument. Still, you asked a question.
In a very rarified environment such as nearly empty space, the presence of any fundamental particles causes gravity. After all, gravity is an attraction between massive bodies and all fundamental particles have mass. The effect is not much different from the forces occurring in any solar system, which is an example you might be able to get your head around.
The above is all completely irrelevant, given that we both know what gravity is.
Time isn't a factor in that the processes occur incredibly slowly but the mathematics shows that in such a rarified environment, fundamental particles will very slowly congregate together and they will tend to rotate as a mass, thus ultimately forming spiral nebulae after an extremely long time interval, the length of which is immaterial.
Yes, particles in proximity will be drawn together by gravity. Particles that are receding from each other are...? That's right, overcoming gravity's force on them.
I'm aware that you're pretty unintelligent but if you tried a bit harder to concentrate, you might eventually understand something instead of trying to make fun of a subejct you certainly don't know anything about. Elroch knows a little bit of COSMOLOGY but it isn't his subject and he's limited to regurgitating an orthodox viewpoint of the Big Bang which many people working in the field, who are actually equipped with the ability to understand some of it, are rejectiing. There's clearly no-one here other than me who is sufficiently interested in the subject to try to make good comments on the topic, or to try to learn.
This whole section above is also content-free and irrelevant. So, your entire post has 1 sentence of any consequence that attempts to explain that given enough time you think gravity will draw everything together. This brings us to the point you keep ignoring...if the universe is going to draw together because of gravity over time...that is, expanding now to recede later, then what will happen when all the matter converges back into one massive black hole? Might it, I don't know...explode? You don't believe in a multiverse, so then it will explode here, in which case you believe in the Big Bang, congrats, just kind of backwards since you claim the matter in the universe is contracting from a state of diffused particles.
Or, the matter will all draw together and not explode, in which case you have a result that is definitely not worthy of the appellation "steady state universe", and your claim is that the BBT is wrong because we exist in a steady state universe that does not cycle, but apparently according to you does not expand forever either (at least not matter, and without matter the rest is academic for us as human beings)...so, which is it? Reconcile (1) your steady state universe, (2) your inherent expansion, and (3) gravity overcoming expansion backwards, by taking your beginning state of an inherently expanding universe full of particles that are receding, but somehow pull together to form galaxies...which then somehow turn around and recede from each other again?
That was certainly a lot of word salad just to say nothing about my actual point. Congrats on knowing the basic definition of gravity, I guess? I assume you are avoiding the point because you don't have an answer.
Sp, if you know the basic definition of gravity, why did you attempt to make that false point? Simple dishonesty or did you just forget?
Secondly, why are you actually incapable of discussing any subject? All you ever want to do is turn any discussion about a subject into a mpersonal attack on someone. And then you can probably relive the salient points in every confrontation with your tiny band of devoted admirers? Is that about it?
If I didn't know what i know about you, I'd challenge you to have a discussion about cosmology without trying to turn it into a personal attack. However, you do it to everyone who dieasgrees with you and so most people won't participate. That gives you the feeling that you win arguments but you virtually never actually make any arguments. I believe you are incapable of putting together a logically based argument.
I would say that all you ever do is make an entirely unrelated point and then argue that your point was in fact related and meaningul when its challenged. Your posts become an argunment not about the subject but you are simply trying to hold onto the pretence that you made a good point and it wasn't answered. You also strive to put as many spam posts as you can between the present and the point where you came in and dishonestly insisted that your comment was meaningful.
If Elroch was actually honest, he would block you because you're a troll. There is no-one here who actually wants to discuss the topic. All Elroch wants to do is lay down the law and dominate proceedings, just the same as you do. You both have the same orthodox point of view which is pretty devoid of actual thought but he's cleverer than you and can cover it up much better.
Sp, if you know the basic definition of gravity, why did you attempt to make that false point? Simple dishonesty or did you just forget?
Secondly, why are you actually incapable of discussing any subject? All you ever want to do is turn any discussion about a subject into a mpersonal attack on someone. And then you can probably relive the salient points in every confrontation with your tiny band of devoted admirers? Is that about it?
If I didn't know what i know about you, I'd challenge you to have a discussion about cosmology without trying to turn it into a personal attack. However, you do it to everyone who dieasgrees with you and so most people won't participate. That gives you the feeling that you win arguments but you virtually never actually make any arguments. I believe you are incapable of putting together a logically based argument.
- Demonstrate my "false point"
- Explain how I supposedly cannot put together a logical argument, yet you seem incapable of poking holes in my incredibly poor arguments and logic
You don't know much of anything about me.
I noticed that you did make a relevant point and I'll answer it. Let's see what you make of the answer and if you can approach it objectively.
You mentioned the opposition of the tendency of particles to expand, as the universe is expanding, and to be attracted to each other by gravity. As usual you weren't capable of making an argument and had to use innuendo, expecting me to notice that you had tried to make a relevant point but were incapable of constructing an argument. You seemed to believe that the tendency of the universe to expand would overcome gravity. That isn't how it works. If you take our solar system as an example, it isn't noticeably expanding. In fact, gravity acts in opposition to the universal expansion. That's demonstrated by dropping an apple on Newton's head. The apple won't be carried off by the expansion of space. Instead, it will fall or in other words, accelerate towards another centre of mass.
I think you made that comment the way you did because you were dimly aware that you didn't know what you were talking about in that instance and you just hoped that it would be allowed to stand in the same way as the very many incorrect opinions you have and dishonest claims you make, that I do not challenge because it isn't worth the effort required to take you seriously.
@Optimissed proposes a very dilute non-expanding gas at low temperature that aggregates into galaxies very slowly. Unless he likes the unsupported hypothesis of spontaneous matter creation, the density needs to be c. 0.2 atoms of hydrogen per cubic meter to be the same as current mass density (isotropy and his belief of no expansion). This requires something like a tired light hypothesis to fudge the red shift data, and that runs into problems with consistency with the observational data. To quote wikipedia's summary of references: "Despite periodic re-examination of the concept, tired light has not been supported by observational tests and remains a fringe topic in astrophysics."
Another problem is the stupendous slowness of the aggregation would be make it impossible for galaxies to be of fairly similar ages at a time when most of the matter has formed into galaxies (i.e. now). Most should be dead and an occasional one younger, if my intuition about the speed of aggregation of such a dilute medium is correct (no-one would expect any galaxy to form from scratch in the intergalactic medium over a mere few billion years. I am confident a calculation would confirm this).
I noticed that you did make a relevant point and I'll answer it. Let's see what you make of the answer and if you can approach it objectively.
You mentioned the opposition of the tendency of particles to expand, as the universe is expanding, and to be attracted to each other by gravity. As usual you weren't capable of making an argument and had to use innuendo, expecting me to notice that you had tried to make a relevant point but were incapable of constructing an argument. You seemed to believe that the tendency of the universe to expand would overcome gravity. That isn't how it works. If you take our solar system as an example, it isn't noticeably expanding. In fact, gravity acts in opposition to the universal expansion. That's demonstrated by dropping an apple on Newton's head. The apple won't be carried off by the expansion of space. Instead, it will fall or in other words, accelerate towards another centre of mass.
I think you made that comment the way you did because you were dimly aware that you didn't know what you were talking about in that instance and you just hoped that it would be allowed to stand in the same way as the very many incorrect opinions you have and dishonest claims you make, that I do not challenge because it isn't worth the effort required to take you seriously.
For the 3rd time now:
"The universe probably begins as very very cold (virtually absolute zero) and with a density of near zero. Gravity and the existence of space and matter do the rest. Space will have an intrisic expansion, hence the illusion of expanding from a central point,"
Ok, so your posited intrinsic expansion is presently moving galaxies apart faster than they can draw together. If it does this at the galactic level, it also does it at the particle (ones affected by gravity) level. So, your narrative here is somehow that the universe is steady state, and had no big bang at the beginning, but that matter was just hanging around and closer matter drew together, but other than those initial clumps that were close together, intrinsic expansion is moving matter not already close enough to be "trapped" away from other matter.
You have not posited matter being created from nothing, so this means the universe will ergo expand and diffuse/disperse back into the entropy you claim was the starting point. I fail to see how this is steady state and not a BBT type of cyclical universe (whether one or many)...you just removed the bang and made some "magic" leaps (i.e. not logical).
I did not say that the expansion overcomes gravity. I said you must believe that for your premise to work, at least the way you stated it. You basically need gravity to overcome "intrinsic expansion" to form the universe as we see it now, then you need gravity to magically fail to overcome gravity later on, to explain the current receding...and if your claim is that the universe could only form as it did from an early state, but that is not possible now because of expansion, then you are giving up your steady state universe and embracing a cyclical universe.
@Optimissed proposes a very dilute non-expanding gas at low temperature that aggregates into galaxies very slowly. Unless he likes the unsupported hypothesis of spontaneous matter creation, the density needs to be c. 0.2 atoms of hydrogen per cubic meter to be the same as current mass density (isotropy and his belief of no expansion). This requires something like a tired light hypothesis to fudge the red shift data, and that runs into problems with consistency with the observational data. To quote wikipedia's summary of references: "Despite periodic re-examination of the concept, tired light has not been supported by observational tests and remains a fringe topic in astrophysics."
Another problem is the stupendous slowness of the aggregation would be make it impossible for galaxies to be of fairly similar ages at a time when most of the matter has formed into galaxies (i.e. now). Most should be dead and an occasional one younger, if my intuition about the speed of aggregation of such a dilute medium is correct (no-one would expect any galaxy to form from scratch in the intergalactic medium over a mere few billion years. I am confident a calculation would confirm this).
That seems to be giving him a lot of credit, given that he did not mention anything I bolded above...I am actually the one that mentioned spontaneous matter creation and the fact that he didn't posit that (which would have made his premise more workable).
Whats your iq
@Optimissed proposes a very dilute non-expanding gas at low temperature that aggregates into galaxies very slowly. Unless he likes the unsupported hypothesis of spontaneous matter creation, the density needs to be c. 0.2 atoms of hydrogen per cubic meter to be the same as current mass density (isotropy and his belief of no expansion). This requires something like a tired light hypothesis to fudge the red shift data, and that runs into problems with consistency with the observational data. To quote wikipedia's summary of references: "Despite periodic re-examination of the concept, tired light has not been supported by observational tests and remains a fringe topic in astrophysics."
Another problem is the stupendous slowness of the aggregation would be make it impossible for galaxies to be of fairly similar ages at a time when most of the matter has formed into galaxies (i.e. now). Most should be dead and an occasional one younger, if my intuition about the speed of aggregation of such a dilute medium is correct (no-one would expect any galaxy to form from scratch in the intergalactic medium over a mere few billion years. I am confident a calculation would confirm this).
Spontaneous matter creation is also part of the Big Bang hypothesis. It doesn't matter if it's rhetorically claimed that all the matter in the universe can be contentrated at a single pint in space and time (which it can't) since that is obviously unsupported. Hence I'm afraid you aren't making a point except of course that many physicists still accept the very dated and probably erroneous idea of the Big Bang, which they do. There's no evidence for it and it's still an hypothesis.
I prefer the very elegant and much more probably true proposition which explains gravity (due to all matter having a half life which eliminates at the same time the entanglred quantum of space. It explains accelerating expansion of the universe, dark matter and possibly the sometimes-postulated dark energy. The Big Bang theory explains nothing because the maths doesn't even work and they had to make an ad hoc addition of universal inflation, which is yet another thing that cannot be explaied nor supported.
I would have expected you to have chosen your debating allies more carefully. Although, on reflection, there isn't any great difference between his mode of debate and yours.
Whats your iq
His IQ is 40 points lower than mine, at a guess.
Or perhaps a little more. That is, more difference. He might possibly be 120 IQ but without a capability to use it, which is also a form of intelligence.
One more thing before I go to bed. Long day tomorrow.
If you stop trying to be what you never will be and learn to better recognise your strengths and weaknesses, then your gift for self-expression and also for rhetoric would mean that you could really amount to something far beyond what you're aiming for at the moment.
But you would have to learn trust, because not only do we have to trust others but we also have to trust ourselves.
Stow the condescending drivel. I run rings around you routinely, not that this is a point of pride given the low bar...
You must also know you're so out of your depth that you haven't a clue what's going on. If Elroch knew how many people there are who won't post anywhere near a post of yours, he'd block you.
How can someone who never argues on topic and does nothing but make personal attacks run rings round anyone? I'm reporting that post because staff are looking at you and so far as I'm concerned, you're trolling.