Inflationbeyond wrote:Chris, could you give me a brief explanation of your definition of "inflation" and of "expansion"?
The point is, this isn't about your definition or my definition. That's the sort of thinking that led to confusion in this discussion in the first place.beyond wrote:Chris, could you give me a brief explanation of your definition of "inflation" and of "expansion"?
My definition of inflation would be a controlled expansion.
beyond wrote:Thanks for the effort bystander, but those two referrences were just as useless as my Webster's college dictionary. According to my Webster's, the definition of both inflation and expansion is simply -- getting bigger. It uses each one to describe the other.
According to the referrence that you gave for inflation -- they use expansion to explain it. Too many Big non-understandable words!
According to the referrence that you gave for expansion -- they said that they needed an expert to help with it. There wasn't really much of an explanation there at all, so i assume that is why they need an expert. There were a lot of words there talking about expansion, but no explanation.
There was mention of a white Hole theory earlier. The guy who put it out some how got it from his Bible. If he had read his Bible correctly to begin with, he never would have come up with white holes.
Yes, although if you were talking about speculative ideas regarding the cause of the BB itself, it wouldn't be unreasonable to talk about expansion even before the moment the Universe began (expansion in something other than the Universe, of course). You just couldn't talk about inflation that way.beyond wrote:So, from what you guys are saying, you are starting with the point at which there was a rapid brief expansion and calling that part of the event inflation and what continued on after that particular part of the event, you are calling expansion. Is that right?
In fact there are several ideas about that, with the most popular and best supported being that it was caused by the behavior of vacuum energy (essentially, creating a negative pressure).But you do not have a description for what led to the brief rapid expansion called inflation?
From writing this, you are well on your way.beyond wrote:The way i see the beginning is that you have to have a balance between what the Universe is now and what it came from. You would have to have started with the same amount of energy/matter or just the same amount of energy that it would take to produce all the matter in the Universe. As far as i know, you still can not get something from nothing.
I'll stick out my neck and say that whatever drove inflation cannot have been "forces" at all, at least not in the Newtonian sense of "force". If I understand correctly, the inflationary theories still work within the framework of General Relativity, and Newtonian forces have rather counterintuitive effects in GR.bystander wrote:The forces that drove inflation are not necessarily (probably not) the same forces that drive the metric expansion of space.
Polar jets associated with black holes are just material falling in from accretion discs that is redirected, so I'm not sure what that has to do with your suggestion. As to new matter causing the Universe to expand... that is very similar to some ideas put forth by Steady State theorists when they could no longer deny that expansion was real. The reason there are so few cosmologists who still seek Steady State solutions is because nobody has found one that comes close to fitting in with actual observation. The Universe is expanding, but it is the metric of spacetime that is changing, not the amount of matter (or energy) in the Universe. The density of the Universe is not constant, but the mass (energy density) apparently is.wonderboy wrote:Now, I don't think its as simple as that, as we can see emission jets from blackholes and they definetley do not lead to alternate universes. I do believe that there must be something at the centre of our universe which is continuously spewing matter into our universe and causing the universe to expand.
I think that is the general viewpoint. The singularity or near singularity that the Universe formed from had a finite amount of energy. All the matter and energy we see today is derived from that. No energy created, no energy destroyed.beyond wrote:What if what is called the Big Bang did not produce any matter at all?
When should we tell him, that the whole universe was at some stage smaller than a Atom? and that space-time and everything seems to come from nothing?beyond wrote:So then, what scientists are really trying to figure out is what is it that changed everything and maybe where did it come from??
MarkThe Code wrote:When should we tell him, that the whole universe was at some stage smaller than a Atom? and that space-time and everything seems to come from nothing?
The Big Bang event is defined as the moment that the Universe came into being. The Universe and the contents of the Universe are the same thing. This theory does not suggest that there was something before the Big Bang; the very concept of "before" is undefined, since "before" is a reference to time, and time itself was created with the Big Bang. It is not correct to characterize any Big Bang theories as describing an event that caused the Universe to change.beyond wrote:I just looked up the definition of Planck epoch and it would seem to need a little bit of re-write. It speaks of the universe comeing into being at the Big Bang event instead of That which caused the existing Universe to change. So wouldn't that necessitate a change in orientation from Universe to That which caused the Universe to change??