[astrocat5]

The Big-Bang, Dark Energy, Einstein's Cosmological Constant, the Cosmological Principle, and the unnaturally young Age of The Universe are all man-made fabrications with no relation to reality. What's Real? Gravity.
Now you may think of Gravity as a distortion of Space-Time, but for the purpose of this argument, I'm going to call it Gravity. The Expansion of the Observable Universe is Speeding Up. If we were going out, we'd be Slowing Down. As it is, we're Speeding Up, and that means we're going in. That's not me, that's the evidence.
Modern Scientists say Gravity is the weakest force because the Big-Bang works better without Gravity. To Newton, on the other hand, every atom has a Gravitational attraction to every other atom in the Universe - that's why he called it 'Universal Gravity.'
Einstein's General Relativity (GR) 'completed' Newton, without proving Newton wrong. Newton wrong? It was Newton's equations and not GR that got us men on the moon, and it will be Newton's equations (not GR) that will get us to Mars and beyond!

[Schrödinger's hat]

astrocat5, on 10 December 2011 - 02:08 AM, said:

Einstein's General Relativity (GR) 'completed' Newton, without proving Newton wrong. Newton wrong? It was Newton's equations and not GR that got us men on the moon, and it will be Newton's equations (not GR) that will get us to Mars and beyond!

It's Newton's equations that got us to the moon, but it's GR that gets you to the shops and back without getting lost.

[Klaynos]

astrocat5, on 10 December 2011 - 02:08 AM, said:

The Big-Bang, Dark Energy, Einstein's Cosmological Constant, the Cosmological Principle, and the unnaturally young Age of The Universe are all man-made fabrications with no relation to reality. What's Real? Gravity.
Now you may think of Gravity as a distortion of Space-Time, but for the purpose of this argument, I'm going to call it Gravity. The Expansion of the Observable Universe is Speeding Up. If we were going out, we'd be Slowing Down. As it is, we're Speeding Up, and that means we're going in. That's not me, that's the evidence.

This is observably not true. The same phenomena (red shift) that tells us the universal expansion is speeding up is the same phenomena that tells us that the universe is expanding. You cannot pick one without the other.

astrocat5, on 10 December 2011 - 02:08 AM, said:

Modern Scientists say Gravity is the weakest force because the Big-Bang works better without Gravity.

I've never heard that about the big bang and gravity. Gravity is the weakest force because of the coupling constants of the four fundamental forces, gravity is by far the lowest.

astrocat5, on 10 December 2011 - 02:08 AM, said:

To Newton, on the other hand, every atom has a Gravitational attraction to every other atom in the Universe - that's why he called it 'Universal Gravity.'

That is not changed by it being the weakest force.

astrocat5, on 10 December 2011 - 02:08 AM, said:

Einstein's General Relativity (GR) 'completed' Newton, without proving Newton wrong. Newton wrong? It was Newton's equations and not GR that got us men on the moon, and it will be Newton's equations (not GR) that will get us to Mars and beyond!

Einsteinean mechanics is an addition to newtonian mechanics, I do not see what your point is with this statement. We know the limits of newtonian mechanics, our understanding is extended by general relativity.

[astrocat5]

Schrödinger, on 10 December 2011 - 02:28 AM, said:

It's Newton's equations that got us to the moon, but it's GR that gets you to the shops and back without getting lost.

And I thought it was a Global Position Satellite.

Klaynos, on 10 December 2011 - 05:05 PM, said:

This is observably not true. The same phenomena (red shift) that tells us the universal expansion is speeding up is the same phenomena that tells us that the universe is expanding. You cannot pick one without the other.
There is no evidence the Universe is expanding, whereas the expansion of the Observable Universe is well documented.



I've never heard that about the big bang and gravity. Gravity is the weakest force because of the coupling constants of the four fundamental forces, gravity is by far the lowest.
I prefer Newton's view of Gravity.


That is not changed by it being the weakest force.
Gravity is all there is. The rest was made up by various not too smart people, and one very smart person who regretted it.


Einsteinean mechanics is an addition to newtonian mechanics, I do not see what your point is with this statement. We know the limits of newtonian mechanics, our understanding is extended by general relativity.

Einstein came to regret his Cosmological Constant. He did refer to it as 'The greatest blunder of his career.'

[Schrödinger's hat]

astrocat5, on 14 December 2011 - 01:43 AM, said:

And I thought it was a Global Position Satellite.

And the clocks are only synchronised enough to work because of general relativity.

[A Tripolation]

astrocat5, on 14 December 2011 - 01:43 AM, said:

And I thought it was a Global Position Satellite.

...which will only work when you account for relativistic effects. Time runs slower on the Earth's surface than it does in Earth's orbit.

Quote

Einstein came to regret his Cosmological Constant. He did refer to it as 'The greatest blunder of his career.'

Then you apparently haven't heard how universal expansion-acceleration may require a cosmological constant in its models as well. (Hint: The universe is almost certainly expanding at an increasing rate)

[Realitycheck]

Correction: Einstein initially used a cosmological constant but gave up on it before Schwartzchild revived the idea and got credit for it.
I'm not sure why so many people bash on gravity as being weak, when you consider how dense the matter in stars actually are and the immense size of them. The density in the core of stars is around 160,000 kg per cubic meter, easily showing how a star full of that could have effects hundreds, thousands of AU away.
As far as the universe and expansion is concerned, everything really adds up quite nicely. Of course, you have the Big Bang which distributed matter and while everything was still grouped up together enough, gravity was sufficient enough to rein in the force of expansion to an extent. However, once expansion exceeded a certain level and matter was sufficiently spread out, gravity was no longer enough to hold down expansion at the same rate, and it sped up.
It shouldn't be too hard to see how the force of the vacuum can be greater than that of gravity if you experiment with a vacuum pump.
Of course, demonstrating how the force of the vacuum could account for inflation is a completely different matter.

This post has been edited by Realitycheck: 14 December 2011 - 05:20 PM

[rasbedo]

How can a black hole exist ? If any object hits the event horizon time stops ( to an outside observer & mass goes to infinity ) so hence energy release would be infinite too . Infinity is infinity yet we are still here . How can that be ?

[astrocat5]

Schrödinger, on 14 December 2011 - 04:42 AM, said:

And the clocks are only synchronised enough to work because of general relativity.

Sure, but the rocket that launched this satellite was launched using Newton's equations.

[Klaynos]

astrocat5, on 14 December 2011 - 05:39 PM, said:

Sure, but the rocket that launched this satellite was launched using Newton's equations.

But it's GR that makes it work every day...

[astrocat5]

Realitycheck, on 14 December 2011 - 04:10 PM, said:

Correction: Einstein initially used a cosmological constant but gave up on it before Schwartzchild revived the idea and got credit for it.
I'm not sure why so many people bash on gravity as being weak, when you consider how dense the matter in stars actually are and the immense size of them. The density in the core of stars is around 160,000 kg per cubic meter, easily showing how a star full of that could have effects hundreds, thousands of AU away.
As far as the universe and expansion is concerned, everything really adds up quite nicely. Of course, you have the Big Bang which distributed matter and while everything was still grouped up together enough, gravity was sufficient enough to rein in the force of expansion to an extent. However, once expansion exceeded a certain level and matter was sufficiently spread out, gravity was no longer enough to hold down expansion at the same rate, and it sped up.
It shouldn't be too hard to see how the force of the vacuum can be greater than that of gravity if you experiment with a vacuum pump.
Of course, demonstrating how the force of the vacuum could account for inflation is a completely different matter.

There was no Big-Bang. We're not going out - we're going in. That's not me - that's the evidence. We're falling into a central black hole. Again, that's the evidence. Why can't you see that?

rasbedo, on 14 December 2011 - 04:34 PM, said:

How can a black hole exist ? If any object hits the event horizon time stops ( to an outside observer & mass goes to infinity ) so hence energy release would be infinite too . Infinity is infinity yet we are still here . How can that be ?

I don't know, Rasebo. I believe in Black Holes - I guess it's a matter of choice...

Klaynos, on 14 December 2011 - 05:42 PM, said:

But it's GR that makes it work every day...

I won't dispute that, Klaynos, I'm sorry I messed up your first quote. I know better, now.

[Klaynos]

astrocat5, on 14 December 2011 - 06:00 PM, said:

There was no Big-Bang. We're not going out - we're going in. That's not me - that's the evidence.

This is still opposed by the actual evidence. Just saying there's evidence for it doesn't make it so. The redshift of distant galaxies shows us that the universe is expanding, and the expansion is accelerating.

[Realitycheck]

You can see that we are falling into a black hole when the COBE and WMAP satellites detect that the universe is expanding outward? Where do you observe that the universe is falling inward? It would really make sense in terms of a Big Crunch, but that's not what we observe.

[JustinW]

Quote

This is still opposed by the actual evidence. Just saying there's evidence for it doesn't make it so. The redshift of distant galaxies shows us that the universe is expanding, and the expansion is accelerating.

Expanding or just moving?

Quote

You can see that we are falling into a black hole when the COBE and WMAP satellites detect that the universe is expanding outward?

Outward from what? Out from the Earth? Out from everything?
I had posed this question in another thread. If the universe is flat then wouldn't dark energy have to be a directional force? And if it's not a directional force and just pushing expansion outward in all directions then we could assume the universe is spherical. Let's say there is a point at the center of the universe that we orbit around. It would account for the universe being flat in shape and also account for the detection of movement observed by red shifts wouldn't it? I'm sure there are alot of holes to be poked in this idea. Just some musings of an interested observer.

[Klaynos]

Space is expanding. The expansion is accelerating.

[astrocat5]

Klaynos, on 14 December 2011 - 06:02 PM, said:

This is still opposed by the actual evidence. Just saying there's evidence for it doesn't make it so. The redshift of distant galaxies shows us that the universe is expanding, and the expansion is accelerating.

The redshift of distant gallaxies shows clearly that the Observable Universe is expanding. There is a ton of evidence to show the Observable Universe is expanding, however, there is no actual evidence the Universe is expanding. This (the expansion of the Universe) is something that has never been observed, so without evidence I do not think you can say the Universe is expanding. Anyway, it's not - and I'm going with the evidence, so excuse me, Kloaynos. I'm a scientist and I have to go with the evidence. Sorry.

Realitycheck, on 14 December 2011 - 06:03 PM, said:

You can see that we are falling into a black hole when the COBE and WMAP satellites detect that the universe is expanding outward? Where do you observe that the universe is falling inward? It would really make sense in terms of a Big Crunch, but that's not what we observe.

Hi, Reality Check. You, like everybody else in the world say the Universe is expanding, something that has never been observed, and is therefore without evidence. COBE and WMap satellites can tell us much about the Observable Universe, so we should all pay attention.

Realitycheck, on 14 December 2011 - 06:03 PM, said:

You can see that we are falling into a black hole when the COBE and WMAP satellites detect that the universe is expanding outward? Where do you observe that the universe is falling inward? It would really make sense in terms of a Big Crunch, but that's not what we observe.

The expansion is Speeding Up, and that means we're going in. All Inward Expansions speed up - naturally without any man made fabrications. That's not me, that's the evidence.

Klaynos, on 14 December 2011 - 11:23 PM, said:

Space is expanding. The expansion is accelerating.

We only have evidence that the Observable Universe is expanding. The expansion of Space or the Universe itself is something that has never been seen. There is no evidence for what you say. I mean that kindly, but the Speeding Up of the expansion of the Observable Universe shows us that the expansion was once slower. How much slower? If I say it started from one mile-per-hour you can't say I'm wrong.

JustinW, on 14 December 2011 - 08:50 PM, said:

Expanding or just moving?


Outward from what? Out from the Earth? Out from everything?
I had posed this question in another thread. If the universe is flat then wouldn't dark energy have to be a directional force? And if it's not a directional force and just pushing expansion outward in all directions then we could assume the universe is spherical. Let's say there is a point at the center of the universe that we orbit around. It would account for the universe being flat in shape and also account for the detection of movement observed by red shifts wouldn't it? I'm sure there are alot of holes to be poked in this idea. Just some musings of an interested observer.

Someone else has jumped in here, so I haven't been able to answer your question. Yes, Justin W, we (in the Observable Universe) are expanding, but you're right if you think we're moving through Space. My information tells me we're already up to 15 million miles-per-hour ( 1/8 of the speed of light ?) and accelerating. What do you think?

[JustinW]

Well the problem I had with the thinking on expansion is the vacuum of space. If SPACE is expanding then it would be detected through a change in vacuum. I haven't been able to run across any information on wether or not the vacuum is increasing at the rate of expansion. If space as a whole were expanding then one would think that the pressure of spaces vacuum would strengthen accordingly, but I cannot find any record of this type of change. My thoughts on the movement of galaxies were that if we can tell that galaxies are moving faster than our's by a red shift, that it might be able to be explained by an orbital path. If we are coming into a part of the orbital path that reaches a higher velocity then the observable would look like it is expanding. And also account for acceleration of the observed expansion.

[Realitycheck]

If the local or observed universe is accelerating as it is expanding outward, yet the universe in its entirety (unseen and unobservable) is supposedly accelerating as it is falling inward, as you claim, then the burden of proof rests on you. It makes no sense that the universe could be expanding in one area, yet contracting on an overall basis.

As matter has become more and more spread out, it has had less and less of a cohesive effect, therefore, the force of the vacuum at some point overcame the force of gravity and expansion has sped up, to a degree. And there is no "falling inward", the BB spread things outward. What led you to believe that at any point space was contracting inward?

This post has been edited by Realitycheck: 15 December 2011 - 10:33 PM

[Klaynos]

You're going to need to explain what is special about the observable universe. It seems foolish to assume that the 13billion light years we can see are all special as opposed to the rest. The rest which is NOT causally linked to us. It just seems delusional and foolish.

astrocat5, on 15 December 2011 - 05:13 PM, said:

We only have evidence that the Observable Universe is expanding. The expansion of Space or the Universe itself is something that has never been seen. There is no evidence for what you say. I mean that kindly, but the Speeding Up of the expansion of the Observable Universe shows us that the expansion was once slower. How much slower? If I say it started from one mile-per-hour you can't say I'm wrong.

This is why we use numerical models that can predict things, if you run these backwards you can make such predictions. Given you are commenting on these things I'd have assumed you'd be well read on the subject. Although given these comments I suggest you do significant further reading.

[JustinW]

Quote

If the local or observed universe is accelerating as it is expanding outward, yet the universe in its entirety (unseen and unobservable)

We assume the rest of the universe is like the observable until we have observed otherwise. Anything else is just speculation. I f someone thinks that things happen differently past our cone of observation then they would have to have grounds to base their assumptions before it will be recognized by the masses.

Quote

Well the problem I had with the thinking on expansion is the vacuum of space. If SPACE is expanding then it would be detected through a change in vacuum. I haven't been able to run across any information on wether or not the vacuum is increasing at the rate of expansion. If space as a whole were expanding then one would think that the pressure of spaces vacuum would strengthen accordingly, but I cannot find any record of this type of change. My thoughts on the movement of galaxies were that if we can tell that galaxies are moving faster than our's by a red shift, that it might be able to be explained by an orbital path. If we are coming into a part of the orbital path that reaches a higher velocity then the observable would look like it is expanding. And also account for acceleration of the observed expansion.

I still haven't heard any thoughts on this. I am curious to know what you all think. Whether it could be feesable or not.

This post has been edited by JustinW: 16 December 2011 - 04:09 PM