This big bang "inflation" think is complete NONSENSE

[SaltyNuts]

If I throw a ball to you when I was 100 feet away from you, does that mean that I must be 100 feet away from you when you catch the ball? No, of course not. I can move while the ball is in the air. Heck, so can you.

If we see light that has travelled 13.7 million light years, then it came from an object that was 13.7 million light years away from our current location when the light was emitted. That doesn't mean that the object is still in that same exact place now.

Dullard, I very much appreciate your attempt to contribute to this important subject. However, I think you've just help demonstrate my point. Scientists routinely say that light from xxx light years away took those same number of calendar years to arrive. However, that make NO SENSE given what you just stated, given current assumptions. The universe (supposedly) is expanding. So light, let's say, that was emitted 13 billion years ago would have to not only travel the 13 billion light years, BUT COVER THE EXPANSION FROM BOTH THE LIGHT EMITTING OBJECT AND THE RECIPIENT (us). Therefore, any light we see would have to be from a location much closer.

Let's take it a step further. Let's just take the assumption that light from 13 billion light years was sent to us 13 billion calendar years ago. We'll go with that.

What that would mean is that the universe ALMOST INSTANTLY inflated to its current size. It inflated almost instantly (within a few hundred thousand years), and we are just now getting the light sent after it inflated. But that is NOT what the inflationary principle holds. It holds that the universe inflated from something the size of an atom (rough guess) to the size of a marble (again, rough guess on the part of the theory) in some minuscule part of a second. What's more, keep in mind, the universe is supposed to be expanding at an ACCELERATING RATE since then. I think (hope) you can see the point. Its all a lot of BS.

I appreciate your contribution Dullard!

 

[SaltyNuts]

Big Bang theory and the Theory of Inflantion are the best most accurate models for the observable universe.

PBS Spacetime has some excellent YouTube videos on the Big Bang and what we are certain of and what we are not:

This link is for inflation theory.
https://youtu.be/blSTTFS8Uco


Check them out and come back with questions.

Thanks bro. I'll check them out. I love youtube videos. But I love even more peer-reviewed scientific papers! Thanks!

 

[RLGL]

the world is FLAT!!!

 

[SaltyNuts]

Why are you guys bothering? He's the typical post-then-leave troll. He rarely returns to threads more than once. Just ignore him and he'll starve for attention and find greener pastures.

Pulsar, I appreciate your great contribution to this thread. If I never return to a thread, the only reason is because I was frozen from some reply to some troll like you. So, I'm going to be nice. Can you please just stop replying to threads that you cannot contribute to due to intellectual limitations? I appreciate it. Have a great day!

 

[SaltyNuts]

Want your mind really blown? Some theories say the greater universe is always experiencing inflation, and it's just the local universe (meaning the visible universe plus a little more) that temporarily stopped inflating for some reason. If this is correct eventually inflation will come back and we'll have a "big rip".

I'm aware of those theories. Any idea how we can test those? 🙂

 

[SaltyNuts]

Those guys should go buy all the lottery tickets they can with that much luck. I mean, how lucky do you have to be to use an incorrect theory to predict/discover:

Cosmic microwave background radiation temp
Planetary trajectory
Black holes
Time dilation
Compression of at least 6 space dimensions
Trans-field agreement of the age of the earth, sun, stars
That pepsi products are actually better than coke products
etc
(Didn't want to go to google to flesh out the list so there's some filler there)

LOLOL, because all of those require an inflationary expanding universe. You are funny guy! 🙂

 

[stormkroe]

LOLOL, because all of those require an inflationary expanding universe. You are funny guy! 🙂

Wat?

 

[SaltyNuts]

not every part of the universe expands at the speed of light. for example, the area of space between the earth and the moon, does not inflate at the speed of light.

anyway, the theory is in its very early conceptual stage and it exists more because it's part of the process of discovery, rather than it being an attempt to explain the universe big bang.

and it might be that we simply missed something colossal in the redshift.

Actually, my research leads me to believe that, according to the theory, the universe is expanding at FASTER than the speed of light, as a whole. The ENTIRE universe. Now, the space between earth and the moon is minuscule, and totally overcome by gravity. But, in general, space is expanding in every direction. Oh, and at an accelerating rate. According to theory haha.

 

[SaltyNuts]

Please tweet your theory to Neil deGrasse Tyson so he can have a good chuckle at your stupidity today.

Thank you for your input (or lack thereof lol). Mr. Tyson, in my opinion, is a hack. If he would like to sign in on this thread, let him. He will lose.

 

[SaltyNuts]

Noooooo.......please don't get him to talk any more.....the stupid is horrific!

This is a person that, until last week, thought Pringles were real potato chips, thinks that peeing in your yard is good for the grass, and asked this question:
Can I buy a copy of the map Columbus used to discover America?

Seriously, this kid needs to get out more and read, think, whatever to expand his mind, which seems stuck in 3rd grade neutral.

What do potato chips and maps of America have to do with this thread? Please, quit trolling. Thank you and have a nice day.

 

[SaltyNuts]

Wat?

I spoke in plain English. Sadly, you did not, nor did you not comprehend plain English. Good luck with that!

 

[SaltyNuts]

If you want to call BS on a current scientific theory you can't just poke holes in the analogy used to try and give laymen a visual picture. You're going to have to poke holes in the actual underlying math.

I'll just wait here while you go do the relevant post-grad and probable post-doctoral work.

LOL, "you can't point out obviously stupid stuff unless you've gotten a dumb-as-fark-PHD!".... I appreciate the contribution!

 

[SaltyNuts]

Don't think. You're not equipped.

Thank you for your valuable contribution to this thread nerd guy. Much appreciated!

 

[SaltyNuts]

Wat?

I spoke in plain English, sir...

 

[stormkroe]

I spoke in plain English. Sadly, you did not, nor did you not comprehend plain English. Good luck with that!

I understood your words, I suppose I'm having trouble understanding your cavalier attitude in this subject that you have demonstrated a poor understanding of. Why not read some material geared toward the layman? 'The universe in a nutshell' is a great start if you haven't read it, it'll even point out some of the values of the list I gave you.
Just keep this thought in your mind when forming your ideas:
NOTHING man has ever discovered has been proven more true than relativity, not by powers of ten. If your idea goes against it, you have a better chance of having all your molecules turn into pink rock salt, and back again, than being right.

 

[SaltyNuts]

I understood your words, I suppose I'm having trouble understanding your cavalier attitude in this subject that you have demonstrated a poor understanding of. Why not read some material geared toward the layman? 'The universe in a nutshell' is a great start if you haven't read it, it'll even point out some of the values of the list I gave you.
Just keep this thought in your mind when forming your ideas:
NOTHING man has ever discovered has been proven more true than relativity, not by powers of ten. If your idea goes against it, you have a better chance of having all your molecules turn into pink rock salt, and back again, than being right.

Thanks man! I appreciate it! Thanks for your intellectual contribution to this subject! Especially your confusion of relativity with the idea of an expanding/inflationary universe! Dear gawd, do you know Einstein put formulas in his relatively equation to counteract inflation/expansion? LOLOLOLOLOLOL. But I appreciate it mate. 🙂

 

[stormkroe]

Thanks man! I appreciate it! Thanks for your intellectual contribution to this subject! Especially your confusion of relativity with the idea of an expanding/inflationary universe! Dear gawd, do you know Einstein put formulas in his relatively equation to counteract inflation/expansion? LOLOLOLOLOLOL. But I appreciate it mate. 🙂

Wow. OK, maybe read some more about why Einstein spent time with inflation. As to you not knowing what relativity has to actually do with universal expansion? Well, I don't know what to tell you other than read some more. Unless you are just actually trolling, then I guess you got me.

 

[disappoint]

LOL. Let me educate the kiddos...

...Damn this place is almost devoid of intellect! Its like explaining things to pre-school kids.

child (lol I really am explaining things to kids) and nerd guy, thank you for your valuable contributions to this thread. Two intellectual powerhouses, you kids!

Clueless, condescending old man (what a combination) uploads angry rant to "the cloud". Details at 11.

 

[Paratus]

Thanks bro. I'll check them out. I love youtube videos. But I love even more peer-reviewed scientific papers! Thanks!

They're done by a real astrophysicist. So if you understand that then move on to the peer reviewed papers.

Also, you want Inflation and FTL experiments? How about the White-Juday Warp Field Interferometer

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/White–Juday_warp-field_interferometer

 

[DigDog]

Salty,

if you stretch a rubber band at 1m/second, the whole of the rubber band stretches at 1m/second, but the various parts of the rubber band stretch for a smaller amount, which, when combined, totals 1m/second.

get it?

 

[SaltyNuts]

Salty,

if you stretch a rubber band at 1m/second, the whole of the rubber band stretches at 1m/second, but the various parts of the rubber band stretch for a smaller amount, which, when combined, totals 1m/second.

get it?

Yes. And that means that a signal that starts on one end of the rubber band, and that travels at a "one rubber band per light year" speed, will take longer than one rubber band light year to get to the other side of the rubber band, both the place the other side started out initially, and even more so where the other side is at the point in time when the signal arrives...

 

[dullard]

So light, let's say, that was emitted 13 billion years ago would have to not only travel the 13 billion light years, BUT COVER THE EXPANSION FROM BOTH THE LIGHT EMITTING OBJECT AND THE RECIPIENT (us). Therefore, any light we see would have to be from a location much closer.

You still don't understand my point. To make it easy, lets assume we are talking about a light source that is travelling directly away from the earth. Also, to make it easy, lets talk 13 million years, rather than 13 billion years since the Earth probably didn't exist 13 billion years ago. Also lets just assume that the Earth and that light source both travel 6.44e-5 light years per year (the estimated speed of the sun as it travels) although at different directions.

Thus, in the 13 million years that the light traveled from that light source, the Earth traveled about 837 light years (6.44e-5 light years/yr * 1.3e7 yr = 837 light years). The light source also traveled about 837 light years in the opposite direction under these assumed speeds. Thus, for us to see light from that source that traveled 13 million light years, it would have left that light source when that light source was 13,000,000 - 837*2 = 12.998326 million light years apart.

So, yes you are correct that the light that traveled 13 million years was emitted from a source that was closer (12.99826 million light years away in these assumptions). However, the point that you fail to see is that in the original post you said that since 12.99826 is smaller than 13 it proves that we aren't expanding. That is not true. It instead proves that scientists round 12.99826 to 13. The math is the same if we talk billion instead of million, it is still 12.99826 being rounded to 13.

And that is assuming the light source is travelling directly in the opposite direction. If many things explode and expand, then some things will be expanding in nearly a parallel direction. Such as the sun and the Earth are both traveling through space at about the same speed. For nearly parallel moving items, the 12.99826 would be even far closer to 13. Again, that is why they round to 13.

 

[cbrunny]

You still don't understand my point. To make it easy, lets assume we are talking about a light source that is travelling directly away from the earth. Also, to make it easy, lets talk 13 million years, rather than 13 billion years since the Earth probably didn't exist 13 billion years ago. Also lets just assume that the Earth and that light source both travel 6.44e-5 light years per year (the estimated speed of the sun as it travels) although at different directions.

Thus, in the 13 million years that the light traveled from that light source, the Earth traveled about 837 light years (6.44e-5 light years/yr * 1.3e7 yr = 837 light years). The light source also traveled about 837 light years in the opposite direction under these assumed speeds. Thus, for us to see light from that source that traveled 13 million light years, it would have left that light source when that light source was 13,000,000 - 837*2 = 12.998326 million light years apart.

So, yes you are correct that the light that traveled 13 million years was emitted from a source that was closer (12.99826 million light years away in these assumptions). However, the point that you fail to see is that in the original post you said that since 12.99826 is smaller than 13 it proves that we aren't expanding. That is not true. It instead proves that scientists round 12.99826 to 13. The math is the same if we talk billion instead of million, it is still 12.99826 being rounded to 13.

And that is assuming the light source is travelling directly in the opposite direction. If many things explode and expand, then some things will be expanding in nearly a parallel direction. Such as the sun and the Earth are both traveling through space at about the same speed. For nearly parallel moving items, the 12.99826 would be even far closer to 13. Again, that is why they round to 13.

The reason he doesn't understand this is because he thinks the universe expands faster than light, and not the much much much slower speed that you've indicated here.

 

[PJFrylar]

Other brilliant insights from the OP:

https://forums.anandtech.com/thread...eak-the-speed-of-light.2479528/#post-38342954

https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/einstein-and-his-theories-are-dead-wrong.2489809/

https://forums.anandtech.com/thread...uantum-mechanics-that-einstein-hated.2499277/

 

[cbrunny]

I think we should have a thread where we guess what Salty will post about next. That'd be pretty neat I think.