'A Universe From Nothing' by Lawrence Krauss, AAI 2009

HarshColby Says:

May 27, 2012 - Because he said something that you just agreed with? I'm not following you.

sbergman27 Says:

May 27, 2012 - We know what it's done so far. Our U started out with mostly regular energy, Dark Matter, & regular matter. As space expands, all that dilutes. We'd assumed that the cosmological constant was 0. In 1998, of course, we found out it was slightly positive. The thing about the energy of space is that it doesn't dilute. So the portion of DE vs atoms & DM has risen from <1% to a current 74%. Some people wonder if the CC could increase, resulting in a "Big Rip". But there's no reason to think it would.

HarshColby Says:

May 27, 2012 - Except my "insults" are simply showing, with references, that MsP is wrong. Your insults are gratuitous and contrived make-believe.

sbergman27 Says:

May 27, 2012 - IIRC, MsP set up a hypothetical situation in which the Universe suddenly stopped expanding. I answered the hypothetical question, as it was asked, but objected to the idea of the the Universe ever doing that, likening it to Jupiter just deciding to stop in its orbit.

kkkaldav Says:

May 27, 2012 - Not at all - your insults to me were just you losing your temper and lashing out because I once again demonstrated your profound ignorance on another of the matters about which you regularly speak. NEXT!

HarshColby Says:

May 27, 2012 - Of course. It's still instructive to see if people understand things well enough to answer hypotheticals. The concepts are valid, even if the situation doesn't currently look like it will ever occur.

HarshColby Says:

May 27, 2012 - Explaining physics = losing temper. Hmm. Funny definition, but feel free to run with it.

sbergman27 Says:

May 27, 2012 - [She's looking at a GR problem and trying to solve it with SR equations.]If I'm interpreting her recent post from 25 minutes ago correctly, that's just changed. If so, I'm very happy for all of us.

kkkaldav Says:

May 27, 2012 - So let's get this straight - when you repeatedly called me childish today, that was simply showing - with references (with references mind you) - that MsP was wrong? MsP, who hadn't even chipped in to our discussion. And when you repeatedly called me childish today, that was you explaining physics? Even by your standards of garbage that's beyond the pale.

sbergman27 Says:

May 27, 2012 - The matter wasn't entirely in the realm of the hypothetical. Before the (non-diluting) DE began to dominate over the (diluting) Atoms/DM, expansion was slowing down. At the time that the CMB photons we observe today were emitted, the space they were in was receding from where "we" were by many times c. They were well beyond our then-current Particle Horizon until expansion slowed enough for our PH to expand enough for them to reenter our Observable Universe. CMB photons have been outside the OU.

1spiders1 Says:

May 27, 2012 - Not an expert like you. I was just agreeing with kkk about you being a lying shit. In relation to what you asked most conversations about the universe are NOT in the context of assuming the BB model. I agree with kkk.

HarshColby Says:

May 27, 2012 - So you have no understanding of what was said, but you agree with kkk anyway, and disagree with him at the same time. kkk said the article was referring to the universe created at the BB, while referencing it as one that doesn't. kkk's one and only example as that one article. Since you and he have very little understanding of physics and rarely if ever read the journals, your opinion isn't very compelling.@kkk: making up stuff just so you can post something annoying is childish.

HarshColby Says:

May 27, 2012 - Then there's the case of photons (z=1000+) that just haven't reached us yet, like the CMB photons that will reach us tomorrow.

sbergman27 Says:

May 27, 2012 - When they reach us, we see them as z = 1091, right? Even though they've been on a wild ride for the first part of the last 13.75B - 377000 yrs.When an object passes beyond our PH... when those last photons do finally get here, there would be an ever-steepening redshift curve. Does that ever terminate? Or do we see (if we could see such highly reshifted photons) an ever-increasing redshift forever? I'm thinking it would be forever.

kkkaldav Says:

May 27, 2012 - What did I make up you lying sack of shit?

HarshColby Says:

May 27, 2012 - lol. you're a riot.

sbergman27 Says:

May 27, 2012 - "you lying sack of shit"You've already used that one today.

kkkaldav Says:

May 27, 2012 - How many accusations can you make a day that have no substance to them. Quoting-mining - nope, making stuff up - nope. You just throw things out in the hope that some of it might deflect from the fact that you're talking almost constantly out of your arse.

kkkaldav Says:

May 27, 2012 - Ah, but still fewer times than Colby has demonstrated the fact.

HarshColby Says:

May 27, 2012 - They dim and redshift to infinity. At some point we just can't detect them, assuming the universe (yes, the one created in the BB, in case anyone is confused by the definition of the term) continues to expand. If we had perfect telescopes and technology we'd see the CMB redshift get progressively closer to infinity, over an infinite time scale.This is different than objects because the CMB photons we see tomorrow started out farther away than the photons we saw today.

sbergman27 Says:

May 27, 2012 - My post started out talking about CMB photons. But in the 2nd part I *was* talking about objects. As the object gets closer & closer to the point where the space between us is expanding at a rate of c, each successive photon is going to be more redshifted & take (much) longer to get here. The limit of that as the total expansion rate approaches c would be 1/0. That's my reasoning for why the redshift curve for objects would keep steepening & continue forever from the POV of our reference frame.

MsPerduta Says:

May 27, 2012 - I have not changed my mind at all. It is a question of objectively considering different theories about what is actually being said without jumping to conclusions. Your idea that Jupiter could stop in orbit would be in violation of countless laws of Nature and an irrelevant and flippant analogy. OTOH the notion that metric expansion of space is predicated by laws of Nature and waffle about stuff moving faster than light when analysed rationally just proves to be pseudo science.

MsPerduta Says:

May 27, 2012 - I saw lots of scholarly articles on the web about existence before the big bang. Advanced science like M-theory discuss the 4 dimensions of our percieved reality as being an interaction of higher-dimension membranes in which the big bang would not be the origin of all existence, just another phenomenon in it.I would avoid engaging the trolls in discussion as they aren't worth talking to and you gain nothing from it but aggravation ;o)

sbergman27 Says:

May 27, 2012 - But you agree that over great distances space can expand fast enough that photons actually lose ground in trying to get from point a to point b. Right? I don't care that much about quibbles over this or that thing Prof. Krauss said. I know that you do. And I'm not poo-pooing that. But I'm much more interested in coming to some resolution on this well established point.

sbergman27 Says:

May 27, 2012 - [about existence before the big bang.]It's not a taboo subject anymore. But most all the work is by theorists, trying to come up with testable predictions. There are a few. Extra dimensions is currently being tested at LHC. Unfortunately little to nothing is actually falsifiable (yet).Scholarly articles or no, the work is on the 'hypothesizing' side of the Scientific Method's Hypothesis/Experiment dichotomy.I haven't been following this "discussion". What's the relevance of this to it?