Total Posts:29|Showing Posts:1-29
Jump to topic:

First Direct Evidence of Cosmic Inflation

slo1
Posts: 4,346
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2014 1:57:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
http://www.sciencedaily.com...

Excerpts:

Researchers from the BICEP2 collaboration today announced the first direct evidence for this cosmic inflation. Their data also represent the first images of gravitational waves, or ripples in space-time. These waves have been described as the "first tremors of the Big Bang." Finally, the data confirm a deep connection between quantum mechanics and general relativity.
......

Since the cosmic microwave background is a form of light, it exhibits all the properties of light, including polarization. On Earth, sunlight is scattered by the atmosphere and becomes polarized, which is why polarized sunglasses help reduce glare. In space, the cosmic microwave background was scattered by atoms and electrons and became polarized too.
"Our team hunted for a special type of polarization called 'B-modes,' which represents a twisting or 'curl' pattern in the polarized orientations of the ancient light," said co-leader Jamie Bock (Caltech/JPL).
Gravitational waves squeeze space as they travel, and this squeezing produces a distinct pattern in the cosmic microwave background. Gravitational waves have a "handedness," much like light waves, and can have left- and right-handed polarizations.
"The swirly B-mode pattern is a unique signature of gravitational waves because of their handedness. This is the first direct image of gravitational waves across the primordial sky," said co-leader Chao-Lin Kuo (Stanford/SLAC).
The team examined spatial scales on the sky spanning about one to five degrees (two to ten times the width of the full Moon). To do this, they traveled to the South Pole to take advantage of its cold, dry, stable air.
"The South Pole is the closest you can get to space and still be on the ground," said Kovac. "It's one of the driest and clearest locations on Earth, perfect for observing the faint microwaves from the Big Bang."
They were surprised to detect a B-mode polarization signal considerably stronger than many cosmologists expected. The team analyzed their data for more than three years in an effort to rule out any errors. They also considered whether dust in our galaxy could produce the observed pattern, but the data suggest this is highly unlikely.
"This has been like looking for a needle in a haystack, but instead we found a crowbar," said co-leader Clem Pryke (University of Minnesota).
slo1
Posts: 4,346
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2014 2:02:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
General relativity is alive and well!

This is big news. There are other laser type instruments that are looking for gravitational waves. This was a novel way of inferring gravitational waves.

I wonder what could also explain this special type of polarization of the cosmic background radiation?
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2014 2:06:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Two things wrong with the article. It ain't direct evidence and space doesn't squeeze. Other than that I'll let it pass.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
slo1
Posts: 4,346
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2014 3:31:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/17/2014 2:06:45 PM, Iredia wrote:
Two things wrong with the article. It ain't direct evidence and space doesn't squeeze. Other than that I'll let it pass.

What else you got that explains the polarization they observed? You are standing on some weak ground.
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2014 3:36:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/17/2014 2:02:52 PM, slo1 wrote:
General relativity is alive and well!

This is big news. There are other laser type instruments that are looking for gravitational waves. This was a novel way of inferring gravitational waves.

I wonder what could also explain this special type of polarization of the cosmic background radiation?

Primordial B-modes are the smoking gun for inflation, and the nail in the coffin for its more popular alternatives (notably ekpyrotic/cyclical models and I believe modified Newtonian dynamics). While other models can be created which include b-mode polarisation, none will have the benefit of predicting the observation so inflation is pretty much cemented in place as standard cosmology (although it kinda already was part of standard cosmology due to its indirect success at explaining observations).
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2014 3:37:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/17/2014 3:31:41 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 3/17/2014 2:06:45 PM, Iredia wrote:
Two things wrong with the article. It ain't direct evidence and space doesn't squeeze. Other than that I'll let it pass.

What else you got that explains the polarization they observed? You are standing on some weak ground.

Iredia has taken an a priori stance against relativity and big bang cosmology, so observations like this won't matter to her.
Subutai
Posts: 3,213
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2014 8:52:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/17/2014 2:02:52 PM, slo1 wrote:
General relativity is alive and well!

This is big news. There are other laser type instruments that are looking for gravitational waves. This was a novel way of inferring gravitational waves.

I wonder what could also explain this special type of polarization of the cosmic background radiation?

Today is definitely a big day in cosmology. The Big Bang Theory already has a number of proofs that are not explainable in other cosmologies, and this pretty much proves that a big bang happened.
I'm becoming less defined as days go by, fading away, and well you might say, I'm losing focus, kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself.
slo1
Posts: 4,346
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2014 10:08:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/17/2014 8:52:49 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 3/17/2014 2:02:52 PM, slo1 wrote:
General relativity is alive and well!

This is big news. There are other laser type instruments that are looking for gravitational waves. This was a novel way of inferring gravitational waves.

I wonder what could also explain this special type of polarization of the cosmic background radiation?

Today is definitely a big day in cosmology. The Big Bang Theory already has a number of proofs that are not explainable in other cosmologies, and this pretty much proves that a big bang happened.

A Nobel prize would not be out of the question.
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2014 12:49:13 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/17/2014 3:37:56 PM, Enji wrote:
At 3/17/2014 3:31:41 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 3/17/2014 2:06:45 PM, Iredia wrote:
Two things wrong with the article. It ain't direct evidence and space doesn't squeeze. Other than that I'll let it pass.

What else you got that explains the polarization they observed? You are standing on some weak ground.

Iredia has taken an a priori stance against relativity and big bang cosmology, so observations like this won't matter to her.

First, I'm a he not a she. And the problem I have with relativity and the BB if you were careful enough to note; is where they presume space tp be material which it isn't. So, where a 'metric expansion of space' is assumed or a supposed structure of space-time curves to effect gravity, I will note that its absurd, or at best a conceptual aid that isn't real. Hence, my stance against the theory isn't a priori but a posteriori, the basis of my stance however is on an a priori axiom: that space is nothing. This is very fundamental and I find it interesting people have denied this fact here, without even bothering to state what space is made up of.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
kiryasjoelvillage
Posts: 190
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2014 2:00:55 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/18/2014 12:49:13 AM, Iredia wrote:
At 3/17/2014 3:37:56 PM, Enji wrote:
At 3/17/2014 3:31:41 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 3/17/2014 2:06:45 PM, Iredia wrote:
Two things wrong with the article. It ain't direct evidence and space doesn't squeeze. Other than that I'll let it pass.

What else you got that explains the polarization they observed? You are standing on some weak ground.

Iredia has taken an a priori stance against relativity and big bang cosmology, so observations like this won't matter to her.

First, I'm a he not a she. And the problem I have with relativity and the BB if you were careful enough to note; is where they presume space tp be material which it isn't. So, where a 'metric expansion of space' is assumed or a supposed structure of space-time curves to effect gravity, I will note that its absurd, or at best a conceptual aid that isn't real. Hence, my stance against the theory isn't a priori but a posteriori, the basis of my stance however is on an a priori axiom: that space is nothing. This is very fundamental and I find it interesting people have denied this fact here, without even bothering to state what space is made up of.
Do you really think a noble prize is worth this?
chui
Posts: 507
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2014 6:12:06 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/18/2014 2:00:55 AM, kiryasjoelvillage wrote:
At 3/18/2014 12:49:13 AM, Iredia wrote:
At 3/17/2014 3:37:56 PM, Enji wrote:
At 3/17/2014 3:31:41 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 3/17/2014 2:06:45 PM, Iredia wrote:
Two things wrong with the article. It ain't direct evidence and space doesn't squeeze. Other than that I'll let it pass.

What else you got that explains the polarization they observed? You are standing on some weak ground.

Iredia has taken an a priori stance against relativity and big bang cosmology, so observations like this won't matter to her.

First, I'm a he not a she. And the problem I have with relativity and the BB if you were careful enough to note; is where they presume space tp be material which it isn't. So, where a 'metric expansion of space' is assumed or a supposed structure of space-time curves to effect gravity, I will note that its absurd, or at best a conceptual aid that isn't real. Hence, my stance against the theory isn't a priori but a posteriori, the basis of my stance however is on an a priori axiom: that space is nothing. This is very fundamental and I find it interesting people have denied this fact here, without even bothering to state what space is made up of.
Do you really think a noble prize is worth this?

I think this experiment, if its results can be confirmed, establishes Alan Guth as one of the best physicists alive today.
chui
Posts: 507
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2014 6:30:50 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/18/2014 12:49:13 AM, Iredia wrote:
At 3/17/2014 3:37:56 PM, Enji wrote:
At 3/17/2014 3:31:41 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 3/17/2014 2:06:45 PM, Iredia wrote:
Two things wrong with the article. It ain't direct evidence and space doesn't squeeze. Other than that I'll let it pass.

What else you got that explains the polarization they observed? You are standing on some weak ground.

Iredia has taken an a priori stance against relativity and big bang cosmology, so observations like this won't matter to her.

First, I'm a he not a she. And the problem I have with relativity and the BB if you were careful enough to note; is where they presume space tp be material which it isn't. So, where a 'metric expansion of space' is assumed or a supposed structure of space-time curves to effect gravity, I will note that its absurd, or at best a conceptual aid that isn't real. Hence, my stance against the theory isn't a priori but a posteriori, the basis of my stance however is on an a priori axiom: that space is nothing. This is very fundamental and I find it interesting people have denied this fact here, without even bothering to state what space is made up of.

An axiom is no different from a belief. Beliefs can be wrong.
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2014 7:20:38 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/18/2014 12:49:13 AM, Iredia wrote:
At 3/17/2014 3:37:56 PM, Enji wrote:
At 3/17/2014 3:31:41 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 3/17/2014 2:06:45 PM, Iredia wrote:
Two things wrong with the article. It ain't direct evidence and space doesn't squeeze. Other than that I'll let it pass.

What else you got that explains the polarization they observed? You are standing on some weak ground.

Iredia has taken an a priori stance against relativity and big bang cosmology, so observations like this won't matter to him.

The problem I have with relativity and the BB if you were careful enough to note; is where they presume space tp be material which it isn't. So, where a 'metric expansion of space' is assumed or a supposed structure of space-time curves to effect gravity, I will note that its absurd, or at best a conceptual aid that isn't real. Hence, my stance against the theory isn't a priori but a posteriori, the basis of my stance however is on an a priori axiom: that space is nothing. This is very fundamental and I find it interesting people have denied this fact here, without even bothering to state what space is made up of.

You note yourself that the basis for your belief, that space is nothing, is an a priori claim. You won't consider any observational evidence in favour of relativity or the Big Bang because of this a priori position that they are absurd.

You've somehow convinced yourself that nothingness is equivalent to immaterialness, or that if something is not material then it is nothing. Based on this strange equivalence, you've concluded that space is nothing, therefore space cannot expand or bend, and hence standard physics and cosmology is wrong. This is despite everyday experience with space which has measurable features, like distance. While you are perhaps willing to accept that nothing has dimensions and can be measured because you learned Cartesian coordinates of space in primary school, you've taken to applying your definition of space only to mathematics which you don't understand. Clearly space does not have a topology because I have no clue what that is and nothing can't bend.

You're welcome to defend your false equivalence of immaterial and nothing, but realise that no one is going out of their way to inform you what space is made up of because no one believes that space is made up of matter and no one believes that nothing and immaterial are equivalent.
slo1
Posts: 4,346
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2014 8:57:24 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/18/2014 7:20:38 AM, Enji wrote:
At 3/18/2014 12:49:13 AM, Iredia wrote:
At 3/17/2014 3:37:56 PM, Enji wrote:
At 3/17/2014 3:31:41 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 3/17/2014 2:06:45 PM, Iredia wrote:
Two things wrong with the article. It ain't direct evidence and space doesn't squeeze. Other than that I'll let it pass.

What else you got that explains the polarization they observed? You are standing on some weak ground.

Iredia has taken an a priori stance against relativity and big bang cosmology, so observations like this won't matter to him.

The problem I have with relativity and the BB if you were careful enough to note; is where they presume space tp be material which it isn't. So, where a 'metric expansion of space' is assumed or a supposed structure of space-time curves to effect gravity, I will note that its absurd, or at best a conceptual aid that isn't real. Hence, my stance against the theory isn't a priori but a posteriori, the basis of my stance however is on an a priori axiom: that space is nothing. This is very fundamental and I find it interesting people have denied this fact here, without even bothering to state what space is made up of.

You note yourself that the basis for your belief, that space is nothing, is an a priori claim. You won't consider any observational evidence in favour of relativity or the Big Bang because of this a priori position that they are absurd.

You've somehow convinced yourself that nothingness is equivalent to immaterialness, or that if something is not material then it is nothing. Based on this strange equivalence, you've concluded that space is nothing, therefore space cannot expand or bend, and hence standard physics and cosmology is wrong. This is despite everyday experience with space which has measurable features, like distance. While you are perhaps willing to accept that nothing has dimensions and can be measured because you learned Cartesian coordinates of space in primary school, you've taken to applying your definition of space only to mathematics which you don't understand. Clearly space does not have a topology because I have no clue what that is and nothing can't bend.

You're welcome to defend your false equivalence of immaterial and nothing, but realise that no one is going out of their way to inform you what space is made up of because no one believes that space is made up of matter and no one believes that nothing and immaterial are equivalent.

you go girl! Whooo hoooooo! You framed it up beautifully. (no pun intended)

Similar to time existing so everything does not happen at once, space exists so everything does not happen to me.
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2014 3:39:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/18/2014 7:20:38 AM, Enji wrote:


You note yourself that the basis for your belief, that space is nothing, is an a priori claim. You won't consider any observational evidence in favour of relativity or the Big Bang because of this a priori position that they are absurd.

You've somehow convinced yourself that nothingness is equivalent to immaterialness, or that if something is not material then it is nothing. Based on this strange equivalence, you've concluded that space is nothing, therefore space cannot expand or bend, and hence standard physics and cosmology is wrong. This is despite everyday experience with space which has measurable features, like distance. While you are perhaps willing to accept that nothing has dimensions and can be measured because you learned Cartesian coordinates of space in primary school, you've taken to applying your definition of space only to mathematics which you don't understand. Clearly space does not have a topology because I have no clue what that is and nothing can't bend.

You're welcome to defend your false equivalence of immaterial and nothing, but realise that no one is going out of their way to inform you what space is made up of because no one believes that space is made up of matter and no one believes that nothing and immaterial are equivalent.

I will be addressing three points in your post

1) What space is
2) Why I am still open to evidence
3) Why I don't confuse nothingness with immaterialness.

Space is nothing. Sometimes I use the terms nothingness, immaterial and void to refer to space even though such terms have their distinctions; for example, void is space that is empty (devoid) of matter and nothingness is the concept of nothing. Your talk of space having dimensions, topology or distance is false. That strictly applies to matter. What happens is that you confuse the measurement of distance of (or between) objects IN space with measuring space itself. The same confusion applies to topology and dimensions. I must admit here that even until recently the dimensions bit had me.

Furthermore, I am open to evidence. But this is because as a person, I have a habit of striving to consider an idea no matter how absurd it is. I have already stated space being nothing is axiomatic. Hence, I can be open to the idea of space expanding, as I am to black being a frequency of em waves. While I don't claim to argue with relativity or the BB per se, I am sure that the theories fail as they apply to space. In fact, I have even granted that if scientists say its conceptual or apparent I can begin to consider it (the way we do black sheep); unfortunately, they think its true.

Finally, don't confuse yourself. Just don't. I am well aware that immaterialness doesn't always equate to nothingness. The reason for this is consciousness and abstract concepts it deciphers, or things as it senses them via a living body eg truth, speed, love, wetness, intensity, smell etc. It is clear that mind and concepts are immaterial but not nothing, they are known. In fact, I agree with Krauss' conclusion of nothing being something in part due to this, because it is clear that though space is nothing, it is 'something': a fundamental part of our physical world since all things physical MUST exist in it. And the paradox of nothing being known remains, because in truth nothing should not even be known.

To round it up, your point on space not being made up of matter simply makes my case of metric space expansion being bogus. I will repeat things as I know it. Physicists see quasars with high redshift values which show they pass the speed of light. Between redshift interpretation as a Doppler effect, and Einstein's relativity which makes light's speed a constant, they are stuck. So they deny such quasars move: but the problem is, even Einstein dare not say distance increases without objects moving. Layman will rightly think its silly. The cop-out ? You got it: space expands between the quasars. That doesn't make it less silly since the effect is the same, distance increase (aka metric expansion) occuring without objects moving away from each other.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2014 3:41:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/18/2014 6:30:50 AM, chui wrote:


An axiom is no different from a belief. Beliefs can be wrong.

By that logic, mathematical axioms are beliefs that can be wrong.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2014 8:37:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/18/2014 8:57:24 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 3/18/2014 7:20:38 AM, Enji wrote:
At 3/18/2014 12:49:13 AM, Iredia wrote:
At 3/17/2014 3:37:56 PM, Enji wrote:
At 3/17/2014 3:31:41 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 3/17/2014 2:06:45 PM, Iredia wrote:
Two things wrong with the article. It ain't direct evidence and space doesn't squeeze. Other than that I'll let it pass.

What else you got that explains the polarization they observed? You are standing on some weak ground.

Iredia has taken an a priori stance against relativity and big bang cosmology, so observations like this won't matter to him.

The problem I have with relativity and the BB if you were careful enough to note; is where they presume space tp be material which it isn't. So, where a 'metric expansion of space' is assumed or a supposed structure of space-time curves to effect gravity, I will note that its absurd, or at best a conceptual aid that isn't real. Hence, my stance against the theory isn't a priori but a posteriori, the basis of my stance however is on an a priori axiom: that space is nothing. This is very fundamental and I find it interesting people have denied this fact here, without even bothering to state what space is made up of.

You note yourself that the basis for your belief, that space is nothing, is an a priori claim. You won't consider any observational evidence in favour of relativity or the Big Bang because of this a priori position that they are absurd.

You've somehow convinced yourself that nothingness is equivalent to immaterialness, or that if something is not material then it is nothing. Based on this strange equivalence, you've concluded that space is nothing, therefore space cannot expand or bend, and hence standard physics and cosmology is wrong. This is despite everyday experience with space which has measurable features, like distance. While you are perhaps willing to accept that nothing has dimensions and can be measured because you learned Cartesian coordinates of space in primary school, you've taken to applying your definition of space only to mathematics which you don't understand. Clearly space does not have a topology because I have no clue what that is and nothing can't bend.

You're welcome to defend your false equivalence of immaterial and nothing, but realise that no one is going out of their way to inform you what space is made up of because no one believes that space is made up of matter and no one believes that nothing and immaterial are equivalent.

you go girl! Whooo hoooooo! You framed it up beautifully. (no pun intended)

Similar to time existing so everything does not happen at once, space exists so everything does not happen to me.

Some physicists believe that as Einstein tied time to space in "spacetime", and since space exists everywhere at the same time, then time would also exist everywhere but in different areas of space.
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2014 11:51:17 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/18/2014 3:39:20 PM, Iredia wrote:
At 3/18/2014 7:20:38 AM, Enji wrote:


You note yourself that the basis for your belief, that space is nothing, is an a priori claim. You won't consider any observational evidence in favour of relativity or the Big Bang because of this a priori position that they are absurd.

You've somehow convinced yourself that nothingness is equivalent to immaterialness, or that if something is not material then it is nothing. Based on this strange equivalence, you've concluded that space is nothing, therefore space cannot expand or bend, and hence standard physics and cosmology is wrong. This is despite everyday experience with space which has measurable features, like distance. While you are perhaps willing to accept that nothing has dimensions and can be measured because you learned Cartesian coordinates of space in primary school, you've taken to applying your definition of space only to mathematics which you don't understand. Clearly space does not have a topology because I have no clue what that is and nothing can't bend.

You're welcome to defend your false equivalence of immaterial and nothing, but realise that no one is going out of their way to inform you what space is made up of because no one believes that space is made up of matter and no one believes that nothing and immaterial are equivalent.


I will be addressing three points in your post

1) What space is
2) Why I am still open to evidence
3) Why I don't confuse nothingness with immaterialness.

Space is nothing. Sometimes I use the terms nothingness, immaterial and void to refer to space even though such terms have their distinctions; for example, void is space that is empty (devoid) of matter and nothingness is the concept of nothing. Your talk of space having dimensions, topology or distance is false. That strictly applies to matter. What happens is that you confuse the measurement of distance of (or between) objects IN space with measuring space itself. The same confusion applies to topology and dimensions. I must admit here that even until recently the dimensions bit had me.

Furthermore, I am open to evidence. But this is because as a person, I have a habit of striving to consider an idea no matter how absurd it is. I have already stated space being nothing is axiomatic. Hence, I can be open to the idea of space expanding, as I am to black being a frequency of em waves. While I don't claim to argue with relativity or the BB per se, I am sure that the theories fail as they apply to space. In fact, I have even granted that if scientists say its conceptual or apparent I can begin to consider it (the way we do black sheep); unfortunately, they think its true.

Finally, don't confuse yourself. Just don't. I am well aware that immaterialness doesn't always equate to nothingness. The reason for this is consciousness and abstract concepts it deciphers, or things as it senses them via a living body eg truth, speed, love, wetness, intensity, smell etc. It is clear that mind and concepts are immaterial but not nothing, they are known. In fact, I agree with Krauss' conclusion of nothing being something in part due to this, because it is clear that though space is nothing, it is 'something': a fundamental part of our physical world since all things physical MUST exist in it. And the paradox of nothing being known remains, because in truth nothing should not even be known.

To round it up, your point on space not being made up of matter simply makes my case of metric space expansion being bogus. I will repeat things as I know it. Physicists see quasars with high redshift values which show they pass the speed of light. Between redshift interpretation as a Doppler effect, and Einstein's relativity which makes light's speed a constant, they are stuck. So they deny such quasars move: but the problem is, even Einstein dare not say distance increases without objects moving. Layman will rightly think its silly. The cop-out ? You got it: space expands between the quasars. That doesn't make it less silly since the effect is the same, distance increase (aka metric expansion) occuring without objects moving away from each other.

The comment "space is expanding" really means "in the context of general relativity, the expansion of space is a useful interpretation of the mathematical results." In general relativity, space is rigorously defined (usually as Minkowski space) and does have features like dimensions, topology, etc. Such features are easily described in geometry, and the relevant mathematics make this definition useful in physics and cosmology.

I suppose you're free to define space however you want, but in doing so you must not equivocate between the two definitions. What you're doing is essentially defining "the United States of America" as "the area of the landmass of the North American continent located between Canada and Mexico, plus the landmass referred to as Alaska and the islands of Hawaii" and proceeding to argue against historians that the United States of America did not go to war with the Nazis during World War II because it is a bunch of land and land is not sentient and does not fight in wars. Great. Is that definition wrong? Not particularly. Is it useful in the same context that the historians were using it? Not at all - the historians were talking about the nation.

Unfortunately, you fail to make the distinction between Iredia-space and Minkowski-space and this equivocation fallacy is leading you to wrong conclusions.

As a side note, the equivalence I said you made between nothingness and immaterialness comes pretty directly from your previous comment. You said "I find it interesting people have denied [the fact that space is nothing] here, without even bothering to state what space is made up of [i.e. defend that space is material]." This is a non sequitur without the false equivalence between nothing and immaterial. You also claimed that scientists presume space to be material, which is false, presumably because they do not consider space to be nothing.
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2014 6:39:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I'm calling it in. As it stands, you neatly avoided conceding my point.

At 3/19/2014 11:51:17 AM, Enji wrote:

The comment "space is expanding" really means "in the context of general relativity, the expansion of space is a useful interpretation of the mathematical results." In general relativity, space is rigorously defined (usually as Minkowski space) and does have features like dimensions, topology, etc. Such features are easily described in geometry, and the relevant mathematics make this definition useful in physics and cosmology.

As expected. I explained why such interpretation is useful. I also recall saying that it was still absurd nevertheless. Now, Minkowski space or not, space in fact lacks dimensions or distance et al. I can grant Minkowski space as a conceptual aid, and hence, grant space expansion as conceptual (or metaphorical if you will) but not real. So I can only grant its usefulness the way things like ideal gases are. But even then, I repeat it is absurd. No more or less than the DeWitt equation(s) which suggest that time doesn't exist: I can grant that metaphorically, but not in a real sense.


I suppose you're free to define space however you want, but in doing so you must not equivocate between the two definitions. What you're doing is essentially defining "the United States of America" as "the area of the landmass of the North American continent located between Canada and Mexico, plus the landmass referred to as Alaska and the islands of Hawaii" and proceeding to argue against historians that the United States of America did not go to war with the Nazis during World War II because it is a bunch of land and land is not sentient and does not fight in wars. Great. Is that definition wrong? Not particularly. Is it useful in the same context that the historians were using it? Not at all - the historians were talking about the nation.

Nonsense. Your analogy would be much closer home if you said the USA itself (ie the land mass defined as USA) actually went to war and I used that definition to bring you back to reality. By USA going to war, one means the US Army as commissioned by the government elected by the people who stay in USA. One can confuse the land for people on it and insist the land ACTUALLY went to war. Similarly, on space expansion, scientists mean that Minkowski space (which is in fact a geometry) is expanding: but because of certain conflicts they then say space itself expands. Now if you assert Minkowski space is really the space things exist in I must think it's pity, that someone so smart, can be so utterly wrong.


Unfortunately, you fail to make the distinction between Iredia-space and Minkowski-space and this equivocation fallacy is leading you to wrong conclusions.

Don't confuse yourself please. If I or any other layman asked for evidence of space expansion you would hide behind an arcane experiment with wild extrapolations. This should be taken as useless, the same as mathemincal proof for a square circle should be. 'Iredia-space' has been the common understanding of space for millenia since during classical philosophy, even bronze-age sherperds knew this: yet you remain confident, blindly asserting that space actually expands when you mean Minkowski space, which is a geometry which can never truly apply to space, since space is nothing.

You may then proceed to say_as scientists do_that space can violate physical laws and so 'move' above lightspeed, when any thinking person knows moving things BY definition 1) are physical 2) follow physical laws eg Newton's laws of motion and laws of thermodynamics and 3) must move IN space. Maybe its bueauracracy or maybe the confidence does the mindwipe because this sort of nonsense should not be heard from anyone, talkless a person of science.


As a side note, the equivalence I said you made between nothingness and immaterialness comes pretty directly from your previous comment. You said "I find it interesting people have denied [the fact that space is nothing] here, without even bothering to state what space is made up of [i.e. defend that space is material]." This is a non sequitur without the false equivalence between nothing and immaterial. You also claimed that scientists presume space to be material, which is false, presumably because they do not consider space to be nothing.

. . . then it is strictly conceptual. The only thing that is nothing (immaterial as you would like) and is paradoxically something is concepts eg truth isn't a material thing but it is false to say its nothing. Concepts are 'things' we know (eg love, sight) even though they aren't material but are based on material things. If I said concepts have weight and mass and can curve, surely anyone would think me mad if I insisted it is not a metaphor, but that it's really true. That is what scientists do with space as they see it. Space is not nothing, not material, yet somehow curves and expands as materials do_SMH. Even a bit of common-sense logic reveals how absurd your stance is.

But then, you may still prove me wrong yet. What's to stop you from insisting on atoms, quarks and light being immaterial and not nothing, and how space is like that.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2014 11:02:25 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/19/2014 10:16:30 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
Yet more evidence for God. Thank you science.

How is this evidence for or against God in the slightest? It isn't.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
chui
Posts: 507
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2014 11:17:24 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/18/2014 3:41:07 PM, Iredia wrote:
At 3/18/2014 6:30:50 AM, chui wrote:


An axiom is no different from a belief. Beliefs can be wrong.

By that logic, mathematical axioms are beliefs that can be wrong.

Yes, your point being?
Installgentoo
Posts: 1,420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2014 11:37:22 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/20/2014 11:02:25 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 3/19/2014 10:16:30 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
Yet more evidence for God. Thank you science.

How is this evidence for or against God in the slightest? It isn't.

It shows that everything is coming out of a realm of great order. Matter and energy are only orderly when organized by an intelligence. Hence God.
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2014 5:49:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/20/2014 11:37:22 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 3/20/2014 11:02:25 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 3/19/2014 10:16:30 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
Yet more evidence for God. Thank you science.

How is this evidence for or against God in the slightest? It isn't.

It shows that everything is coming out of a realm of great order. Matter and energy are only orderly when organized by an intelligence. Hence God.

Why do you say matter and energy are only orderly when organized by an intelligence? Quantum mechanics can also explain it WITHOUT God. I would love to say that this is a step away from God, but the thing is that this does not have anything to do with God. It is neither a point for or against.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2014 6:03:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/20/2014 11:17:24 AM, chui wrote:
At 3/18/2014 3:41:07 PM, Iredia wrote:
At 3/18/2014 6:30:50 AM, chui wrote:


An axiom is no different from a belief. Beliefs can be wrong.

By that logic, mathematical axioms are beliefs that can be wrong.

Yes, your point being?

Just that.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
slo1
Posts: 4,346
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2014 6:19:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/20/2014 11:37:22 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 3/20/2014 11:02:25 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 3/19/2014 10:16:30 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
Yet more evidence for God. Thank you science.

How is this evidence for or against God in the slightest? It isn't.

It shows that everything is coming out of a realm of great order. Matter and energy are only orderly when organized by an intelligence. Hence God.

Then we must be thankful to god for making clouds each and every day. For moisture to gather and travel across the sky together could only be the work of god. I guess if she took the day off it would be sunny.
chui
Posts: 507
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2014 6:37:26 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/20/2014 6:03:46 PM, Iredia wrote:
At 3/20/2014 11:17:24 AM, chui wrote:
At 3/18/2014 3:41:07 PM, Iredia wrote:
At 3/18/2014 6:30:50 AM, chui wrote:


An axiom is no different from a belief. Beliefs can be wrong.

By that logic, mathematical axioms are beliefs that can be wrong.

Yes, your point being?

Just that.

So are you agreeing with me or not?
slo1
Posts: 4,346
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2014 4:44:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Very interesting follow up article on this published study. The results from BICEP2 rule out some models of inflation including the very conventional model. It currently points towards quantum gravity or string theory to explain the results.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com...
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2014 7:37:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/6/2014 4:44:09 PM, slo1 wrote:
Very interesting follow up article on this published study. The results from BICEP2 rule out some models of inflation including the very conventional model. It currently points towards quantum gravity or string theory to explain the results.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com...

It's so beautiful... It's like peering into the heart of Einstein's God.
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...