PLoS ONE Publishes Cosmology "Breakthrough"

[hackenslash]

[pErvinalia]

God done it. [/thread]

[hackenslash]

I should also point out, for completeness, that dark energy doesn't have to accelerate massive objects, and in fact it doesn't do so. The massive objects are actually sitting (relatively) still in space, while the space between them expands.

[Hermit]

What does space expand into? Not trying to be a smartarse here, just asking you and/or XC to explain it to me.

[pErvinalia]

Yeah, that's the bit about cosmology that ive never really grokked.

[hackenslash]

The best answer I can give is 'time'. The real answer is, of course, that we don't know (indeed, we don't know the details of what lies beyond our cosmic expanse in any sense, either spatially or temporally, which is why 'multiverse' theories have grown in popularity again in recent years).

Edit: It's not at all beyond the realms of possibility that the expansion of space is simply the conversion of time into space. Hawking's 'no boundary' proposal has a feature a bit like this, in which time itself is a conversion of what was previously (hard to avoid temporal language) a spatial dimension. It's possible that all of time was previously a spatial dimension that underwent some sort of phase transition to become time-like, and that the expansion of space is simply the transition back to a space-like dimension from a time-like dimension.

It's fertile ground for the imagination...

[surreptitious57]

I will start a thread about this at the other place as I am very interested
in this and have some questions which I would like you to answer as well

[mistermack]

It wasn't supposed to be an argument but a retort to the ad hominem.

That's a laugh coming from you.
I let lots of ad hominems from you go by , before you wrote a post of such stupidity I had to respond.
Don't post ad hominems and you won't get any, and then you won't need to whinge about them.

Or perhaps I'm reading your posts wrong again? Do they have to be read in some special way?
I wouldn't be surprised.

[hackenslash]

I let lots of ad hominems from you go by

Then you'll have no trouble pointing one out.

[mistermack]

I let lots of ad hominems from you go by

Then you'll have no trouble pointing one out.

Are you denying that you posted ad hominems? If you are, say so.

[hackenslash]

I'm challenging you to support your assertion, which should be an absolute breeze, given your assertion that there are 'lots' of instances.

Whenever you're ready...

[mistermack]

I'm challenging you to support your assertion, which should be an absolute breeze, given your assertion that there are 'lots' of instances.

Whenever you're ready...

I thought you wouldn't. You're so full of shit.

[hackenslash]

So that's a 'no' on supporting your assertion then? Just the content-free blather, is it?

[mistermack]

So that's a 'no' on supporting your assertion then? Just the content-free blather, is it?

You're an incredible dick. You ''challenge'' me to list your ad hominems, without even denying that you wrote them.

You deny it, and I'll list them, proving you're a liar AND a dick.

[hackenslash]

I neither affirm nor deny it, fuckwit, thus I'm not challenging you to list anything, I simply challenge you to fucking own your arguments. Getting to that any time soon?