Notices
Results 1 to 5 of 5
Like Tree1Likes
  • 1 Post By Antonio Medina

Thread: My stupid question

  1. #1 My stupid question 
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    4
    I won't come close to pretending I know even half of what other here know, that's why I'm simply trying to find someone who can explain where I'm confused at. I've tried to reach out to Alan Guth (Inflationary theory), but he's a busy man at MIT.

    My question is regarding the very early universe, the "13.6" billion years age of the universe and the time dilation near supermassive objects.

    If supermassive objects slow down time (as near black holes), then in the very very early universe I would think that with all the universe's matter compact into a small space (singularity), that the extremely slow nature of time would mean that the universe did not expand ferociously, but at a very very slow pace? And this only because of Hawking radiation? This is question is why I tried to reach out to Alan Guth. I know that the equations show that gravity has a repulsive force at the extremes (which is what Alan's Inflation is based on), but then wouldn't all black holes expand as our early universe did, not contract through Hawking Radiation (providing there is no incoming energy or matter to grow the hole)?

    Would this also explain why we see a universe that is speeding up its expansion? (Since it was very slow in the beginning and has steadly sped up?) Or is there evidence that shows the expansion is not a straight-line increase in acceleration?

    Also, can anybody point me to any sources that explain the flatness of the apparent universe with regards to the expansion of space and creation of matter due to the expansion? (Quantum fluctuations / virtual particles become real matter as spacetime stretches)? Does this in effect, FORCE spacetime to be virtually flat since the expansion itself (a negative repulsive energy) is countered with creation of the positive energy in the form of matter preserving the law of conservation of energy?

    HELP!!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #2  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    280
    You seem to be confusing a bunch of things.

    First, the reason that the universe was not a black hole was because it has always had a built in expansion: all that gravity that would have worked to collapse the universe had to fight against the initial conditions of the universe, that is, extreme expansion.

    Second, yes, the speed of things in a high gravity area can be considered to be slowed down relative to a lower gravity area, but nothing is slowed down relative to itself. So any particle continues to do the things is does wherever it is, according to its own clock, so to speak. Cosmologists usually calculate expansion relative to clocks that are not effected by cosmological expansion.

    Third, while we know what happens when matter is very dense, we can't say what happens in a singularity (except in some very broad ways), so existing cosmological theory doesn't really say what happened when the universe was a singularity.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #3  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    341
    In reply to Antonio Medina, re: your #1 post.

    I wish I could help! I've been asking these same questions for forty years...and still no effective response.

    Welcome and Cheers!!!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #4  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    376
    Greetings Antonio Medina,

    From your name I will presume you have an Italian background.
    Quote Originally Posted by Antonio Medina View Post
    I won't come close to pretending I know even half of what other here know, that's why I'm simply trying to find someone who can explain where I'm confused at. I've tried to reach out to Alan Guth (Inflationary theory), but he's a busy man at MIT.

    My question is regarding the very early universe, the "13.6" billion years age of the universe and the time dilation near supermassive objects.

    If supermassive objects slow down time (as near black holes), then in the very very early universe I would think that with all the universe's matter compact into a small space (singularity), that the extremely slow nature of time would mean that the universe did not expand ferociously, but at a very very slow pace? And this only because of Hawking radiation? This is question is why I tried to reach out to Alan Guth. I know that the equations show that gravity has a repulsive force at the extremes (which is what Alan's Inflation is based on), but then wouldn't all black holes expand as our early universe did, not contract through Hawking Radiation (providing there is no incoming energy or matter to grow the hole)?

    Would this also explain why we see a universe that is speeding up its expansion? (Since it was very slow in the beginning and has steadly sped up?) Or is there evidence that shows the expansion is not a straight-line increase in acceleration?

    Also, can anybody point me to any sources that explain the flatness of the apparent universe with regards to the expansion of space and creation of matter due to the expansion? (Quantum fluctuations / virtual particles become real matter as spacetime stretches)? Does this in effect, FORCE spacetime to be virtually flat since the expansion itself (a negative repulsive energy) is countered with creation of the positive energy in the form of matter preserving the law of conservation of energy?

    HELP!!
    Well if you believe BS like that, you certainly do need help! Why?

    All your arguments presume the correctness of Einstein's relativity & the Big Bang. Neither of them are correct. The correct view is Plasma Cosmology laid out in Eric Lerner's The Big Bang Never Happened. Lerner rejects Einstein's GR but is flawed by still accepting SR. I debunk SR here on the alternatives section.

    The ONLY correct relativity is Galilean relativity - Einsteinian relativity is BS plain & simple - but nobody believes Galileo today! After all, he was ONLY an Italian!

    Italian thinkers have often been ahead of their counterparts elsewhere. Italian Communist leader Antonio Gramsci was ahead of all Leftists elsewhere as he was the first Leftist to identify Einstein's relativity as mere scepticism rather than science (you'll find it in his Prison Notebooks).

    So you have a decision to make, Antonio. Will you become like progressive thinkers like Gramsci? Or will you be like the Italian mercenaries in Machiavelli's Discourses who "only ever win a battle if the other side has run away first."

    Einstein has turned his supporters into credulous clowns - and this clowning is infectious! I.e. whatever conventional or standard answers you expect to your questions above will only be examples of clownish posturing.

    TFOLZO
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #5  
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    4
    I appreciate the responses. Sounds like I've got some more reading to do. I'll check out the references noted and keep reading posts. Thanks all!
    TFOLZO likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

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