Back to Home

Blackholes2 Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | Blackholes II | Post
Login

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Re: Please Stop Posting...

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Thed/">Thed on December 16, 1998 12:17:44 UTC

: ....until you acquire some knowledge.

RFL

Please do not quote me out of context and attack what I am saying when you clearly mis-read things.

: Guth's Inflationary Model. It is :purely speculative and as yet has no evidence to :support it.

What I said was, (bits in brackets added for clarification)

It (theory of the speed of light slowing down) is a brand new idea put forward by two researchers as an alternative to the commonly accepted model of the Big Bang - Guth's Inflationary Model. It is purely speculative and as yet has no evidence to support it.

Note that I say it (theory of light slowing down) is an alternative to Inflation. Not that Inflation is a speculative model.

: Oh, what about the isotropy of the universe, how do explain that without inflation?

And homogeneity, values for omega_0, H_0 and so on, none of which are in accord with inflations prediction that omega_0 = 1 by the way, and have yet to be measured accurately. The inflationary model is a best attempt to fix major flaws in the previous standard cosmological models that had problems with isotropy, homogeneity, light/particle horizons and so on.

: : Nope. Gravity (as far as is known) is not propagated as a wave or particle. Theory says that Gravity Wave exist and Gravitons.

: General Relativity predicts gravity waves,

That prediction is a theory, by the definition of the word theory, as it has no supporting evidence. I said theory predicts them and that is all. Gravity waves have not been observed and until they do they remain theoretical.

What I said is Gravity is not propagated by waves or particles, it is caused by the stress-energy tensor acting on spacetime. This is different to saying gravity waves propagate Gravity as you are trying to say by "correcting" me.

:there is no theory that predicts a graviton. :Quantum gravity has not yet achieved the :status of a theory.

Last time I read up on Unified Field Theories and GUT's, Quantum Gravity was a theory. It is only that though, a theory. Most physicists I know expect gravitons to exist but admit we have no idea what they look like and that GUT's should explain there properties.

Granted, General Relativity has more evidence to support it than Quantum Gravity does but Quantum Mechanics has a lot more evidnce to support it than GR and Cosmology.

:There are so many additional errors in your post :that I don't have time to correct them right now :but I will get back later.

Excuse me. I made one error, photons are the carrier of electromagnetic forces, the weak nuclear force is carried by vector bosons as you say. Fine, I made a mistake. I'll admit it, will you?

Follow Ups:

    Login to Post
    Additional Information
    Google
     
    Web www.astronomy.net
    DayNightLine
    About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
    Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2020 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
    Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
    "dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
    are trademarks of John Huggins