Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: Luvoir

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    trash's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Tamworth
    Posts
    3,938
    Thanks
    141
    Thanked 3,057 Times in 1,373 Posts
    Rep Power
    1179
    Reputation
    44234

    Default Luvoir

    Oh you're all excited about the James Webb telescope being launched this year.
    Hubble is 2.4m diameter. James Webb is 6.5m with a 22m sunshield.

    So what will the next generator of space telescope be?
    Luvoir will have a 15 metre diameter primary mirror and a 60m sunshield.

    Yes I am an agent of Satan, but my duties are largely ceremonial.

  2. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to trash For This Useful Post:

    efab (28-04-21),OSIRUS (10-05-21),william10 (28-04-21)



Look Here ->
  • #2
    Senior Member
    Uncle Fester's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Commonly found in a pantry or the bottom of a fridge, searching for grains, fermented or distilled
    Posts
    5,550
    Thanks
    1,901
    Thanked 3,774 Times in 2,143 Posts
    Rep Power
    1728
    Reputation
    68978

    Default

    They(somebody with a huge amount of money not available yet) want to make a liquid telescope with a 100m 'mirror' on the moon:


    so we can see Pop III stars:


    Personally I would rather want to see details of planets orbiting more recent stars.
    This era of thoughtless consumption must end so we can encourage a world of creative geniuses rather than consumer idiots,
    while ensuring that we get don't get wiped out by our creations .


  • The Following User Says Thank You to Uncle Fester For This Useful Post:

    william10 (01-05-21)

  • #3
    Senior Member
    trash's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Tamworth
    Posts
    3,938
    Thanks
    141
    Thanked 3,057 Times in 1,373 Posts
    Rep Power
    1179
    Reputation
    44234

    Default

    Yeah, I'd rather see a population III stars.
    There's a few questions that could be answered. I've seen enough planets, good place to live but you don't get planets without Pop III stars

    If you can't find pop III stars then that begs the question, Where did the planets come from?
    Yes I am an agent of Satan, but my duties are largely ceremonial.

  • The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to trash For This Useful Post:

    hinekadon (01-05-21),william10 (01-05-21)

  • #4
    Senior Member
    Uncle Fester's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Commonly found in a pantry or the bottom of a fridge, searching for grains, fermented or distilled
    Posts
    5,550
    Thanks
    1,901
    Thanked 3,774 Times in 2,143 Posts
    Rep Power
    1728
    Reputation
    68978

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by trash View Post
    Yeah, I'd rather see a population III stars.
    There's a few questions that could be answered. I've seen enough planets, good place to live but you don't get planets without Pop III stars

    If you can't find pop III stars then that begs the question, Where did the planets come from?
    Pop III is just a theory and I don't see their connection with planets other than what any other type of star can do: fusion and supernova.
    Proving their existence doesn't change much.

    Our solar system has a Pop I star with lots of elements (useful for life on planets) that came from supernovae of older (Pop II) stars.
    If we could ever get a hopeful spectral analysis of an actual planet around another Pop I star then we know where to directly point our SETI radios.
    Last edited by Uncle Fester; 03-05-21 at 12:54 PM.
    This era of thoughtless consumption must end so we can encourage a world of creative geniuses rather than consumer idiots,
    while ensuring that we get don't get wiped out by our creations .


  • #5
    Senior Member
    trash's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Tamworth
    Posts
    3,938
    Thanks
    141
    Thanked 3,057 Times in 1,373 Posts
    Rep Power
    1179
    Reputation
    44234

    Default

    Their connection with planets......

    Lets see. In the beginning we have Hydrogen, Helium a pinch of Lithium and ............. nothing to build planets from.

    When the gas is cool enough and gravity has enough effect we get fusion and at the end of its life...... all the stuff we need to make a planet. Hence the connection.

    Now you could say... but Population II stars can do that too. Yes they can. But by definition population II stars already have metals in them, so what created those metals?
    Not the star itself, it's not capable of it. It's a self excluding statement. There had to be a preceding supernova or some other source of the metals.

    Find pop3 stars and you have an answer. Don't find them and you have a bigger mystery.

    And it may be that we find something interesting on the way to looking for Pop3 stars like how quasars got so big so quickly.
    Yes I am an agent of Satan, but my duties are largely ceremonial.

  • #6
    Senior Member
    Uncle Fester's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Commonly found in a pantry or the bottom of a fridge, searching for grains, fermented or distilled
    Posts
    5,550
    Thanks
    1,901
    Thanked 3,774 Times in 2,143 Posts
    Rep Power
    1728
    Reputation
    68978

    Default

    Considering the Big Bang came from zero volume I find it hard to believe that shortly after, all the matter of the Universe consisted suddenly out of the least dense elements.
    A massive glob of something with insane density beyond Neutron Stars first expanded with space, filling up that space until the density dropped so much that atoms could occur
    From that state any atom could have occurred with a certain degree of randomness just with Hydrogen being the most likely.
    I don't see why it would have to be exclusively H.
    You say yourself that He and Li also occurred, why would it have stopped exactly there?
    This era of thoughtless consumption must end so we can encourage a world of creative geniuses rather than consumer idiots,
    while ensuring that we get don't get wiped out by our creations .


  • #7
    Senior Member
    trash's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Tamworth
    Posts
    3,938
    Thanks
    141
    Thanked 3,057 Times in 1,373 Posts
    Rep Power
    1179
    Reputation
    44234

    Default

    That implies that supermassive black holes are also primordial black holes.
    The current thinking is that they are not.

    I'm not sure if you understand what is wrong with your statement of why formation would stop at lithium?
    There is no reason to think SMBH's are primordial so the premise that they formed in the big bang does not support the logic either forward or backwards for the heavy elements.

    As for "A massive glob of something with insane density". We need to define your terms.
    Is Massive meaning "a lot of mass" or as Tytower would use it, "a lot of volume".
    This then leads us to insane density. If you're referring to the singularity then the density is infinite.
    If you're referring to the black hole in terms of the event horizon, then the density is quite low.

    You've heard the saying the the density of Saturn is low enough that the planet would float on water. Well the same is true of Black Holes.
    As they get bigger their density with respect to the black hole drops. They too are sparse enough to float on water.

    Anyhow, that is THE reason for searching for Pop3 stars. To answer this very question. Is it true on not.
    We don't just assume whatever theory we think is cool. The rational sequence of events leads us to make a good guess as to what happened before.
    We then can look for evidence to support or disprove that.
    Yes I am an agent of Satan, but my duties are largely ceremonial.

  • #8
    Crazy Diamond
    Tiny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Tasmania
    Age
    61
    Posts
    6,249
    Thanks
    10,649
    Thanked 5,209 Times in 2,575 Posts
    Rep Power
    2026
    Reputation
    84517

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Uncle Fester View Post
    Considering the Big Bang came from zero volume I find it hard to believe that shortly after, all the matter of the Universe consisted suddenly out of the least dense elements.
    You mean theoretically, right.

    Quote Originally Posted by trash View Post
    That implies that supermassive black holes are also primordial black holes.
    The current thinking is that they are not.........................

    Anyhow, that is THE reason for searching for Pop3 stars. To answer this very question. Is it true on not.
    We don't just assume whatever theory we think is cool. The rational sequence of events leads us to make a good guess as to what happened before.
    We then can look for evidence to support or disprove that.
    I agree & the operative word is & always has been "guess", almost anything in theory can be proven as fact, until it is disproved by a new theory.
    I just love science at it's extreme. The edges are & always will be blurry, that's the fun part, trying to clear it up.
    Cheers, Tiny
    "You can lead a person to knowledge, but you can't make them think? If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.
    The information is out there; you just have to let it in."

  • #9
    Senior Member
    trash's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Tamworth
    Posts
    3,938
    Thanks
    141
    Thanked 3,057 Times in 1,373 Posts
    Rep Power
    1179
    Reputation
    44234

    Default

    I'm comfortable with "guess" even though there is just a bit more solid evidence to support those guesses.

    There's plenty of good examples but the one specific to this post is the expansion of the universe.
    Red shift is pretty good evidence for expansion and a starting point in time and space. aka big bang.
    Of course there is a lot of other supporting evidence to back that up. It's pretty solid.

    But it could also be an illusion. But for the time being the big bang / inflation / dark energy model is the best fit.
    Any new improved theory needs to account for these.

    I hear plenty of quack theories to try to counter or explain the red shift without a big bang.
    One particular friend who is a smart guy but an A grade crank is convinced that the universal red shift is caused by dust.
    Most high school physics students could shoot his quackery down in flames.
    Science is about changing your mind with new evidence, that does not happen with this guy.

    There are still plenty of mysteries yet to be answered and I'm always looking or a new angle. I like to hear crank theories. They're fun to explore and check but when the messenger doesn't realise his theory is crap and can't improve on it then they might get upset when the universe doesn't agree with them.
    Yes I am an agent of Satan, but my duties are largely ceremonial.

  • #10
    Senior Member
    Uncle Fester's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Commonly found in a pantry or the bottom of a fridge, searching for grains, fermented or distilled
    Posts
    5,550
    Thanks
    1,901
    Thanked 3,774 Times in 2,143 Posts
    Rep Power
    1728
    Reputation
    68978

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tiny View Post
    You mean theoretically, right.

    I agree & the operative word is & always has been "guess", almost anything in theory can be proven as fact, until it is disproved by a new theory.
    I just love science at it's extreme. The edges are & always will be blurry, that's the fun part, trying to clear it up.
    Well yes, it is all just a theory and a singularity is for me just an error, or laziness in the maths for something that can't be fathomed with our current view of the things we see around us.

    So we just postulate that it all started with zero, zero volume - infinite density!
    I would like to disagree and claim that singularities can not exist and there was something before the Big Bang.

    This would require extreme thinking outside the box and our models of standard physics.
    Last edited by Uncle Fester; 12-05-21 at 12:46 PM.
    This era of thoughtless consumption must end so we can encourage a world of creative geniuses rather than consumer idiots,
    while ensuring that we get don't get wiped out by our creations .


  • #11
    Senior Member
    Uncle Fester's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Commonly found in a pantry or the bottom of a fridge, searching for grains, fermented or distilled
    Posts
    5,550
    Thanks
    1,901
    Thanked 3,774 Times in 2,143 Posts
    Rep Power
    1728
    Reputation
    68978

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by trash View Post
    That implies that supermassive black holes are also primordial black holes.
    The current thinking is that they are not.

    I'm not sure if you understand what is wrong with your statement of why formation would stop at lithium?
    There is no reason to think SMBH's are primordial so the premise that they formed in the big bang does not support the logic either forward or backwards for the heavy elements.

    As for "A massive glob of something with insane density". We need to define your terms.
    Is Massive meaning "a lot of mass" or as Tytower would use it, "a lot of volume".
    This then leads us to insane density. If you're referring to the singularity then the density is infinite.
    If you're referring to the black hole in terms of the event horizon, then the density is quite low.
    No SMBH here, at least not in the beginning.

    What do you think was there 1 picosecond after this so called singularity?
    All the fabric of the universe contained to less than the size of a pea maybe?

    That is the 'glob of mass' I am talking about, insane density of something that has no individual particles whatsoever.
    There was no free space surrounding it, unlike a SMBH.
    We can't simply apply our standard physic models here and there was nothing and nowhere yet for gravity to pull.
    There can't be any gravitational effects without at least two individual particles.

    That came later when space expanded so far that actual particles could form but still extremely dense, randomly colliding violently, forming fusion products or even tiny black holes if you like, but still without stars. Not enough space for them yet.
    Stars happened a lot later but some heavier fusion products were already there from direct interaction of the high density particle stage.

    We will only know if I am right when we can see a through mirror over 100m diameter(according to that paper I referred to above) and still only detect Pop II.

    I really can't see how our world will change if we find this intermediate Pop III stage, in the end all the elements we need were created.
    You are excited to prove Pop III, I am more excited to find ET intelligent life, which I do think could change a lot and maybe they are constantly transmitting to us that they discovered Pop III
    I hope we can agree on some time sharing and use the telescope for both
    Last edited by Uncle Fester; 12-05-21 at 02:05 PM.
    This era of thoughtless consumption must end so we can encourage a world of creative geniuses rather than consumer idiots,
    while ensuring that we get don't get wiped out by our creations .


  • #12
    LSemmens
    lsemmens's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Rural South OZ
    Posts
    9,485
    Thanks
    10,373
    Thanked 6,243 Times in 2,934 Posts
    Rep Power
    2754
    Reputation
    116120

    Default

    Now let me get this right... in the beginning there was nothing, then nothing went bang, and then we got something from nothing? That sounds like a popular scam. give me all your money and I'll make you rich.
    I'm out of my mind, but feel free to leave a message...

  • The Following User Says Thank You to lsemmens For This Useful Post:

    hinekadon (12-05-21)

  • #13
    Senior Member
    Uncle Fester's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Commonly found in a pantry or the bottom of a fridge, searching for grains, fermented or distilled
    Posts
    5,550
    Thanks
    1,901
    Thanked 3,774 Times in 2,143 Posts
    Rep Power
    1728
    Reputation
    68978

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lsemmens View Post
    Now let me get this right... in the beginning there was nothing, then nothing went bang, and then we got something from nothing? That sounds like a popular scam. give me all your money and I'll make you rich.

    Ha, ha, that's kinda what they say but if you read carefully there was NOT nothing but EVERYTHING compressed to nothing.

    Singularities are as I tried to say just a flaw in our thinking and viewing things.

    They are just mathematics, but in the world and open universe as we experience it, absurd !!!
    Just like a divide by zero on the other end of the scale, when a particle with mass would reach the speed of light for example.

    ...but maybe, just far out maybe, that is how our Universe was created when the particles of an old Universe finally accelerated to the speed of light and disintegrated though a 'Singularity"into the start of new Universe.
    Not more absurd than the existence of singularity itself.

    ...and yes I know you are religious and will ask how/who created the first (primordial) Universe?
    I will just say for now with a lazy mind, where is the beginning of a circle?
    Last edited by Uncle Fester; 12-05-21 at 12:42 PM.
    This era of thoughtless consumption must end so we can encourage a world of creative geniuses rather than consumer idiots,
    while ensuring that we get don't get wiped out by our creations .


  • The Following User Says Thank You to Uncle Fester For This Useful Post:

    hinekadon (12-05-21)

  • #14
    LSemmens
    lsemmens's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Rural South OZ
    Posts
    9,485
    Thanks
    10,373
    Thanked 6,243 Times in 2,934 Posts
    Rep Power
    2754
    Reputation
    116120

    Default

    Thanks mate! It was meant as a snide remark not really expecting a response other than an LOL.
    You are correct, where is the beginning of a circle.

    This is not meant as a religious discussion, so, please let's not go down that rabbit hole. MY thinking is that a) God has always existed (beginning of a circle thinking) b) He, being God, can create anything from nothing, AND also create it to have a certain age AND create it to have had a "history" i.e it could have come from..... He did all this to give us something to think about.

    As we were NOT there when things happened, we have NO REAL idea as to what really happened all we can do is make a guess (albeit educated). Anyway, lets get back to Luvoir!
    I'm out of my mind, but feel free to leave a message...

  • #15
    Premium Member
    hinekadon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    still above ground level
    Posts
    1,740
    Thanks
    5,296
    Thanked 1,923 Times in 696 Posts
    Rep Power
    808
    Reputation
    34837

    Default

    Yep god made me do it ???? but wait one minute if there was god then he wouldnt be a god cos he has no followers and therefore he cant be a leader cos he dont know if hes first or last ??? hows about we just have a big bang instead of god that makes more sense now doesn't it ???what did i hear you say that god made the big bang ? o shit that ones gone as well!!!!!
    reject religion for the planets safety

  • #16
    Senior Member
    Uncle Fester's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Commonly found in a pantry or the bottom of a fridge, searching for grains, fermented or distilled
    Posts
    5,550
    Thanks
    1,901
    Thanked 3,774 Times in 2,143 Posts
    Rep Power
    1728
    Reputation
    68978

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lsemmens View Post
    Thanks mate! It was meant as a snide remark not really expecting a response other than an LOL.
    You are correct, where is the beginning of a circle.

    This is not meant as a religious discussion, so, please let's not go down that rabbit hole. MY thinking is that a) God has always existed (beginning of a circle thinking) b) He, being God, can create anything from nothing, AND also create it to have a certain age AND create it to have had a "history" i.e it could have come from..... He did all this to give us something to think about.

    As we were NOT there when things happened, we have NO REAL idea as to what really happened all we can do is make a guess (albeit educated). Anyway, lets get back to Luvoir!
    Nah, somebody created God. ...trash will probably say he did it.
    I can live with that
    This era of thoughtless consumption must end so we can encourage a world of creative geniuses rather than consumer idiots,
    while ensuring that we get don't get wiped out by our creations .


  • #17
    Senior Member
    trash's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Tamworth
    Posts
    3,938
    Thanks
    141
    Thanked 3,057 Times in 1,373 Posts
    Rep Power
    1179
    Reputation
    44234

    Default

    Sorry that I log itinerantly so I'm doing some catch up here.

    Quote Originally Posted by Uncle Fester View Post
    This would require extreme thinking outside the box and our models of standard physics.
    Actually, no. These are just simple calculations. There's nothing magical or complex about working out how this occurs using simple relativity.
    Explaining it at the quantum or plank scale is a bit harder.
    Standard physics describe these object long before we even knew they existed.

    We can't simply apply our standard physic models here and there was nothing and nowhere yet for gravity to pull.
    There can't be any gravitational effects without at least two individual particles.
    OK, now this is where you have said something that is completely incorrect.
    It is the standard model of physics that describes this scenario with very good accuracy. You've mistaken what you don't know for what you think everybody doesn't know.

    Two particles for gravity to exist? That is Newtonian physics. It works for simplicity in the macroscopic world. But it is not an accurate description of how gravity actually works.

    That came later when space expanded so far that actual particles could form but still extremely dense, randomly colliding violently, forming fusion products or even tiny black holes if you like, but still without stars. Not enough space for them yet.
    Stars happened a lot later but some heavier fusion products were already there from direct interaction of the high density particle stage.
    I mentioned above that there is a lot of information you're missing. Lets start with forming fusion products. Absolutely not. At this point in time. There extreme density is not the same as what you're thinking of. Your thinking of something that is density in matter, not density as in energy.
    Back to relativity. At this point in time, E/m=c^2 E is very big and m is very small. Matter basically doesn't exist yet, it's almost all energy.
    You can't have fusion products because well, there's nothing to fuse. Any matter that is produce in pair production is soon annihilated by other matter and you're back to high energy. On top of this we have cosmic inflation. The universe is cooling so fast that there just isn't enough time for protons that do form. By the time the inflation ends, there hasn't been enough time for protons to form and the universe at this stage is hundreds of millions of light years diameter.
    It's still hot, about 6000K but this isn't enough to fuse hydrogen anymore. There's barely been enough time to fuse Hydrogen into Deuterium and then into Helium with some decay to Lithium. The Universe doesn't have enough energy density left to fuse matter to Beryllium let alone Iron and Nickel. The final mix at the end of the big bang is about 75% Hydrogen, 25% Helium and a pinch of lithium. Nothing else.

    And yes in the high energy early universe there was thinking that there would be enough energy density to form primordial black holes. You'll notice that none have been found. We've also not found Population III stars. Mainly because they will have extremely short lifespans.
    Population II stars are also extremely deficient in metals (anything heavier than Helium) The gas they formed from only had a small amount of metals.
    When they formed there had been very few stars before them.

    Stars happened a lot later but some heavier fusion products were already there from direct interaction of the high density particle stage.
    What you're saying is contradictory. It's like saying a bus traveling fast has a lot of passengers because it never has to stop to pick them all up.
    There were no fusion products. There was no particle density that you think existed.
    And I will point out that at the same time we have a contradiction that there are already quasars (SMBHs) in the first 500 million years and we have no idea how they go so big so quickly. We just can't work out how to build big black holes fast.

    It's more about spectroscopy than telescope size. Big space telescope is just the cool engineering. We'd love to be able to image a population III stars, but they are all long gone by now. Those that still exist in our reference frame are at the edge of the universe. In young quasar galaxies they should be the dominant population and that we'll be able to detect. Being able to get that light into a spectrograph is what it is about. You'll find like Hubble, Luvior if it flies will get used for all kinds of stuff a lot of which we both will never have imagined.

    And this in now way detracts from SETI. Which I think is by far the most important discovery in Astronomy (yet to be). Though I have a clear bias towards radio astronomy, not optical. I was having a bit of a giggle to myself about a small 3D printed instrument sitting on the table yesterday that has an unusual way of being a pathfinder to finding life on other planets. You could call it chasing rainbows on exoplanets. So it would not surprise me in the least if the off target data gathered from it as then used as consideration for exoplanet targets for telescopes like Luvior. The instrument is a polarimeter used for measuring the polarity of light from stars from which they can say what I call, "all kinds of useless information".

    You are correct, where is the beginning of a circle.
    Welcome to multiverse theory. Not something a lot of cosmologists really like. It's a bit too speculative. I make no claims to the multiverse.
    The difference with standard cosmology is that you can argue it's absurd, but it is what we observe.
    Such was the thinking with garden variety black holes. We thought they were just a mathematically curiosity, then they started turning up.
    At first we thought they were probably just neutron stars, but then the evidence has just kept stacking up.
    And still you could say black holes don't exist. But you're going to need a good explanation for what we can that looks exactly like them.
    What happened before the big bang? We don't know. But we do know what happened 10^-33 seconds after it.

    Cosmic inflation is another good example. What cause it? We Don't know. Are we sure it's what happened? Not really, but it is the best explanation so far to explain what we can see. If you think it is wrong, all you have to do is be able to explain what we can see without special pleading. And I consider cosmic inflation already (kind of) uses FTL special pleading. I'm expecting a better answer in the future, but for now, it's he place holder of the truth.


    Who created god, nar not me. Though I can say that if I was god, I'd be a narcissistic, bitter, evil, machiavellian under achiever who torments lesser life forms for my personal entertainment. Pretty much me already, just omnipotent.
    Yes I am an agent of Satan, but my duties are largely ceremonial.

  • The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to trash For This Useful Post:

    hinekadon (14-05-21),Uncle Fester (14-05-21)

  • #18
    Premium Member
    hinekadon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    still above ground level
    Posts
    1,740
    Thanks
    5,296
    Thanked 1,923 Times in 696 Posts
    Rep Power
    808
    Reputation
    34837

    Default

    well ok the if your not god the situation is vacant so I think I might as well take up that position so long as it comes with perks like sexual activity any time any where any how anything as well
    all those in favour of electing me as GOD please raise your right hand and repeat after me ??? to come later ????
    reject religion for the planets safety

  • #19
    Senior Member
    Uncle Fester's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Commonly found in a pantry or the bottom of a fridge, searching for grains, fermented or distilled
    Posts
    5,550
    Thanks
    1,901
    Thanked 3,774 Times in 2,143 Posts
    Rep Power
    1728
    Reputation
    68978

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by trash View Post


    On top of this we have cosmic inflation. The universe is cooling so fast that there just isn't enough time for protons that do form. By the time the inflation ends, there hasn't been enough time for protons to form and the universe at this stage is hundreds of millions of light years diameter.
    According to this:




    and what you write, the Universe had expanded to 100's millions of light years in 1 microsecond !!!

    What warp speed was that? ...and you tell me we don't have to think outside the box. So FTL is Standard Physics, that is definitely new to me.

    And fusion begins 9 microseconds later !

    And you said in that time we already had Quasars, which would indicate heavier particles than Helium.

    All very nice what you wrote but no less contradictory than my explanations.

    Quote Originally Posted by trash
    It's like saying a bus traveling fast has a lot of passengers because it never has to stop to pick them all up.

    That is actually quite good, when we have FTL expansion I could imagine something like that happened.


    Quote Originally Posted by trash
    Cosmic inflation is another good example. What cause it? We Don't know. Are we sure it's what happened? Not really, but it is the best explanation so far to explain what we can see. If you think it is wrong, all you have to do is be able to explain what we can see without special pleading. And I consider cosmic inflation already (kind of) uses FTL special pleading. I'm expecting a better answer in the future, but for now, it's he place holder of the truth.
    OK, at least you noticed.
    Last edited by Uncle Fester; 14-05-21 at 09:10 PM.
    This era of thoughtless consumption must end so we can encourage a world of creative geniuses rather than consumer idiots,
    while ensuring that we get don't get wiped out by our creations .


  • #20
    Senior Member
    trash's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Tamworth
    Posts
    3,938
    Thanks
    141
    Thanked 3,057 Times in 1,373 Posts
    Rep Power
    1179
    Reputation
    44234

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Uncle Fester View Post
    According to this:
    and what you write, the Universe had expanded to 100's millions of light years in 1 microsecond !!!
    Hey, I have a very good reputation for defending the speed of light on this forum. You're preaching to the choir.
    Yep, I don't like it anymore than you do. BUT, that model is the best fit for observation.
    You would think that if the theory is that absurd even Tytower could poke holes in it.
    It's the place holder until we come up with a better explanation and as you might have realised, it's not so easy to do that.

    I'm always prepared to flip that theory over at a moments notice, but not without good and better evidence or reasoning.
    I won't be surprised when something even more baffling an amazing replaces it but also so obvious that the idea crystalises in people's head, "of course".
    Yes I am an agent of Satan, but my duties are largely ceremonial.

  • Bookmarks

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts
    •