Why yall hatin' on physical cosmology?

[Hydesland]

So, are there any people here that have a problem with cosmology? That's what this thread is for.

I don't understand. How can you have a problem with cosmology?

[Barringtonia]

So, are there any people here that have a problem with cosmology? That's what this thread is for.

I don't understand. How can you have a problem with cosmology?

Cosmology tried to kill mah daddy!

[Lord-General Drache]

So, are there any people here that have a problem with cosmology? That's what this thread is for.

I don't understand. How can you have a problem with cosmology?

Biblical literalism, flat earthers, and probably others that don't readily come to mind do.

[Allbeama]

So, are there any people here that have a problem with cosmology? That's what this thread is for.

Ask them.

Is that OOC or IC?

[Dragontide]

If God is suppose to be the one creating and destroying worlds and star systems then why are the black holes (that are at the center of every galaxy) doing it? God is much bigger than trivial things like one universe's little ole big bang.

[Hydesland]

So, are there any people here that have a problem with cosmology? That's what this thread is for.

I don't understand. How can you have a problem with cosmology?

Biblical literalism, flat earthers, and probably others that don't readily come to mind do.

But they don't inherently hate cosmology itself. Prominent cosmological theories perhaps, but the pursuit of understanding the universe and its origins itself? Unlikely.

[Allbeama]

If God is suppose to be the one creating and destroying worlds and star systems then why are the black holes (that are at the center of every galaxy) doing it? God is much bigger than trivial things like one universe's little ole big bang.

Following this premise, God( if he exists) has more important things to do than meddle in the affairs of tiny beings like insects in his eyes, regardless of whether they are sentient or not. And we have every right an ability to live our lives without adhering to what is claimed to be his will. Largely because it becomes clear that his will is unknowable and the books about him and his will are merely fictions devised by humans to control other humans. An interesting concept indeed.

[EVIL BEYOND COMPARE]

I don't think that religion and things like the big bang theory conflict at all.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

Damn this is boring.

[Dragontide]

If God is suppose to be the one creating and destroying worlds and star systems then why are the black holes (that are at the center of every galaxy) doing it? God is much bigger than trivial things like one universe's little ole big bang.

Following this premise, God( if he exists) has more important things to do than meddle in the affairs of tiny beings like insects in his eyes, regardless of whether they are sentient or not. And we have every right an ability to live our lives without adhering to what is claimed to be his will. Largely because it becomes clear that his will is unknowable and the books about him and his will are merely fictions devised by humans to control other humans. An interesting concept indeed.

Good point. The only questions I have is: Was Jesus a Republican or a Democrat? Same question for Mohamed.

[Drachmar]

I don't think that religion and things like the big bang theory conflict at all.

Only for some, it doesn't really fit into their time line of biblical events.

[Barringtonia]

Damn this is boring.

See, you want to beat down on someone religious here, rather pathetic no, rather like picking on the small kid in the playground.

It's that attitude that makes people react against knowledge overall, including scientific knowledge, it's the way you go about informing people, less a genuine desire to make people understand and more to coddle your ego.

[Blouman Empire]

Damn this is boring.

Next time you will supply booze, a cheese platter (don't forget the pate and pear slices) and some music.

[Allbeama]

If God is suppose to be the one creating and destroying worlds and star systems then why are the black holes (that are at the center of every galaxy) doing it? God is much bigger than trivial things like one universe's little ole big bang.

Following this premise, God( if he exists) has more important things to do than meddle in the affairs of tiny beings like insects in his eyes, regardless of whether they are sentient or not. And we have every right an ability to live our lives without adhering to what is claimed to be his will. Largely because it becomes clear that his will is unknowable and the books about him and his will are merely fictions devised by humans to control other humans. An interesting concept indeed.

Good point. The only questions I have is: Was Jesus a Republican or a Democrat? Same question for Mohamed.

Muhammad was an authoritarian fascist theocrat. And Jesus is whatever someone wants him to be.

[Allbeama]

Damn this is boring.

See, you want to beat down on someone religious here, rather pathetic no, rather like picking on the small kid in the playground.

It's that attitude that makes people react against knowledge overall, including scientific knowledge, it's the way you go about informing people, less a genuine desire to make people understand and more to coddle your ego.

Actually a thread where everyone agrees is boring. To be honest that is.

[Beachchairs]

A two hour TV special taught me more about the subject than all the various people that have spent their lives researching it.

Seems to be the general case in all public controversies.

[Drachmar]

Damn this is boring.

Well, how do you believe the universe will end? Current theory widely accepted is a heat death or "big rip." While I'm not a physicist, I don't necessarily agree with that. I do however, quite agree with the big bang theory as a whole.

I don't necessarily understand how scientists have come to believe that the universe is now expanding more rapidly than it did after the initial expansion of the universe. I mean...it was faster initially, but then expansion continued, and now it's believed that it's accelerating more than it did several billion years ago. I don't get it.

I would assume that means scientists are measuring a faster velocity of interstellar bodies closer to the Earth. Is this a correct assessment?

[Barringtonia]

Damn this is boring.

See, you want to beat down on someone religious here, rather pathetic no, rather like picking on the small kid in the playground.

It's that attitude that makes people react against knowledge overall, including scientific knowledge, it's the way you go about informing people, less a genuine desire to make people understand and more to coddle your ego.

Actually a thread where everyone agrees is boring. To be honest that is.

I don't know, great fun can be had in agreeing, a lot of learning can come from it, but I suspect UT isn't motivated by imparting knowledge.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

Well, how do you believe the universe will end? Current theory widely accepted is a heat death or "big rip." While I'm not a physicist, I don't necessarily agree with that. I do however, quite agree with the big bang theory as a whole.

Why do you disagree with a heat death? If the universe exists forever, there can be no other end.

I don't necessarily understand how scientists have come to believe that the universe is now expanding more rapidly than it did after the initial expansion of the universe. I mean...it was faster initially, but then expansion continued, and now it's believed that it's accelerating more than it did several billion years ago. I don't get it.

Dark energy.

I would assume that means scientists are measuring a faster velocity of interstellar bodies closer to the Earth. Is this a correct assessment?

No. The farther away something is, the faster it is moving away from us.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

I don't know, great fun can be had in agreeing, a lot of learning can come from it, but I suspect UT isn't motivated by imparting knowledge.

There's very little imparting of knowledge in th kind of agreement that is on this thread.

[Drachmar]

Well, how do you believe the universe will end? Current theory widely accepted is a heat death or "big rip." While I'm not a physicist, I don't necessarily agree with that. I do however, quite agree with the big bang theory as a whole.

Why do you disagree with a heat death? If the universe exists forever, there can be no other end.

I don't necessarily understand how scientists have come to believe that the universe is now expanding more rapidly than it did after the initial expansion of the universe. I mean...it was faster initially, but then expansion continued, and now it's believed that it's accelerating more than it did several billion years ago. I don't get it.

Dark energy.

I would assume that means scientists are measuring a faster velocity of interstellar bodies closer to the Earth. Is this a correct assessment?

No. The farther away something is, the faster it is moving away from us.

Dark energy I get...totally.

What I don't understand is how scientists come to the conclusion that the universe is starting to accelerate faster, the further out they look. Since looking further out essentially is looking further in the past, seems that if the universe was accelerating faster scientists would see acceleration happening closer to home, like within our galactic cluster.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

Dark energy I get...totally.

What I don't understand is how scientists come to the conclusion that the universe is starting to accelerate faster, the further out they look. Since looking further out essentially is looking further in the past, seems that if the universe was accelerating faster scientists would see acceleration happening closer to home, like within our galactic cluster.

Because thw way dark energy works, it produces an observed velocity which is linear with distance. This is what the Friedmann equations predict our observations will be if dark energy exists. The particular stuff we put into the Friedmann equations is matched as closely as possible to our local (in our Lorentz frame) observations.

[Drachmar]

Dark energy I get...totally.

What I don't understand is how scientists come to the conclusion that the universe is starting to accelerate faster, the further out they look. Since looking further out essentially is looking further in the past, seems that if the universe was accelerating faster scientists would see acceleration happening closer to home, like within our galactic cluster.

Because thw way dark energy works, it produces an observed velocity which is linear with distance. This is what the Friedmann equations predict our observations will be if dark energy exists. The particular stuff we put into the Friedmann equations is matched as closely as possible to our local (in our Lorentz frame) observations.

I have to admit that's totally above my head.

Essentially, I would believe that if the universe is accelerating faster than it did after the initial expansion, that some sort of bubble effect would occur. In other words, we would see a greater expansion closer to the earth, than was measured closer to the edge of the universe.

[Beachchairs]

What I don't understand is how scientists come to the conclusion that the universe is starting to accelerate faster, the further out they look. Since looking further out essentially is looking further in the past, seems that if the universe was accelerating faster scientists would see acceleration happening closer to home, like within our galactic cluster.

I think there is some measured vs actual confusion going on here.

Far away stuff would be actually moving away faster, but measured slower than this due to the fact you are looking into the past. This does not imply either way that a far away object would be measured faster or slower than a closer object.

A way to measure this:

Measure the acceleration of drift of something say 10 ly away. Record this rate. Wait. Measure something that is now 10 ly away. Record it. Repeat.

Plot the numbers over time.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

I have to admit that's totally above my head.

Essentially, I would believe that if the universe is accelerating faster than it did after the initial expansion, that some sort of bubble effect would occur. In other words, we would see a greater expansion closer to the earth, than was measured closer to the edge of the universe.

We're not accellerating faster than the extremely early universe.

It goes like this (roughly):

Extremely early = inflationary universe, electroweak era, GUT era, etc. expansion was super rapid here

Radiation dominated era: The dark energy density fell off quite a bit after the initial inflation, leading to an immense release of radiation. At this time the universe expanded like the square root of time.

Matter dominated era: Some of the radiation condensed into matter, a lot of the radiation lost its energy due to the expansion of space stretching out the wavelengths of light. (Remember that the energy of light is proportional to the inverse of its wavelength.) At this time, the majority of the energy in the universe was not light, but matter. At this time the universe expanded like the cube root of time squared.

Dark dominated era: Dark energy density is constant, but matter density isn't. As space expands more and more, the density of matter decreases, but the density of dark energy stays the same. This means that the amount of dark energy eventually overtakes the amount of matter energy. At this time, the universe expands exponentially.