[astrocat5]

JustinW, on 3 February 2012 - 06:59 PM, said:

Astrocat5,
Okay you keep pointing to Bornoulli to prove that expansion creates pressure change, but point me to a study that shows that this change IS occuring. Give me some measurements or numbers or SOMETHING to prove that the universe is acting the way that you imply. It seems that all of your theoretical musings have little to go on besides the observable expansion.

You keep reffering to Newton for gravity speeding things up and Boyles for the expansion, but it seems that in your scenario of the blackhole, that Newtons law should overpower Boyles law. If something was drawing us in at a faster and faster rate, this would definately override an expansion of things in all directions. We might expand, but it would be a directional expansion and speeds would be different in different regions.

No, Justin - actually it was Boyle who (perhaps not the first) discovered Volume and Pressure were related - inversly. That means if you increase Pressure you diminish Volume, and vice-versa. Daniel Bernoulli was, I think - the first to associate speeding up with a loss of pressure. The Observable Universe is expanding - I thought you had accepted that. Now, if I want to say that the Observable Universe (OU) is also losing pressure that's because I like to compare the behaviour of the OU to the behaviour of Earthly things, the better to demonstrate the point I am trying to make.

Are you going to tell me the Observable Universe is compressing? I don't think so. But am I wrong to think the Observable Universe is losing pressure because it's expanding? I don't believe that either.

The OU is expanding in exactly the same way as air is sucked into a vacuum cleaner - exponentially. Now I should tell you Lee Smolin of String Theory agrees with me, in his book, that the expansion is increasing 'exponentially,' so it's not just me.

I think Newton was the first to make sense of Gravity. Newton said Gravity was Universal - across the Universe, and that's why he called it 'Universal Gravity.' I happen to agree with Newton, but you may feel free to differ, I suppose.

To me, if it can happen on Earth then it can happen in Space. If it can't happen on Earth (like an outward expansion that speeds up exponentially) then it can't happen in Space either. That is to say, the Laws of Physics are - to me, Universal - across the Universe.

We're presently up moving thru' Space up to 15 million miles-per-hour and with an ever increasing Rate of Acceleration to boot. As for the expansion 'appearing' uniformly, that's because if you expand a system, with all forces acting on it equally, this system will tend to expand evenly.

[astrocat5]

questionposter, on 10 January 2012 - 03:31 AM, said:

I'm pretty sure like almost no evidence suggests we're falling into a black hole, it's a fringe theory and its very illogical because the hubble constant is relatively constant in all directions, and if there was a black hole massive enough to pull all matter in the universe, everything would be moving towards a single point.
Furthermore, we wouldn't slow down if we were moving outward because of Newton's first law of motion, if the universe contains everything, then there's nothing stopping it from moving outward and slowing it down.

I am very sorry for not having replied to this post before, Questionposer. Let me answer it now.
If you were out there in Space, and you were in free-falling into a very distant black hole that you couldn't see (they're invsible anyway) you wouldn't know it. It would seem to you that all forces acting on you were equal. And they would be.

So it is with the Observable Universe (OU). We're in free-fall, speeding up as you'd expect (Newton) and losing pressure (Bernoulli) expanding (Boyle) and Cooling Down (the Joule-Thomson Effect). We are in obeyance of all the Laws of Physics, including Gravity. Are we in agreement so far? If not, the onus is on you to show me where I am mistaken.

Now, if all forces acting on us (in the OU) were equal, why would we not be expanding evenly? We must be expanding because we're losing pressure due to speeding up on account of Gravity. And the expansion is even. Well, I hope I've explained that.

Never mind the Hubble Constant - it's been shot full of holes so many times now ... It's man-made, of course - and based on a Big-Bang that never happened. You see the expansion is speeding up and that means it was once slower. Now if I say the expansion started off at one (1) mile-an-hour, you can't tell me I'm wrong - because that's what really happened. And if I say it took forever for the expansion to get to two (2) miles-per-hour, you stillcan't say I'm wrong - because that is the way it went.

We're going in. There are only two kinds of expansion, the kind that (1) starts fast and slows down, and the kind that (2) starts slowly and speeds up.
The first kind (1) is your Outward Expansion, your basic explosion or Big-Bang. All Outward Expansions start fast and slow down.
The second kind (2) is an Inward Expansion. All Inward Expansions start slowly and speed up.

Inward expansion? A snowball rolling down a snowy bank. It started slowly as the kids just managed to push it over the edge, and it grows as it speeds up - headed inwards to Earth's Center of Mass (C of M).

Note:- a) the slow start b) the speeding up expansion and c) the Inward direction.
That's an example of Inward Expansion.

Take a rubber ball bouncing down a flight of stairs. Let's take it from the hand of the person who dropped it, to get it going.
It falls, and as it falls it speeds up (you with me so far?) and that speeding up causes it to lose pressure and expand a bit, cooling it down. That expansion is Inward, inward toward Earth's C of M. The faster it goes, the more it expands until it reaches terminal velocity. You should be able to see that.

When it lands, it slows down and stops, compressing and becoming more compact as it warms up. In no time at all it seems, it is rebounding (now an Outward Expansion, away from Earth's C of M.) and as it rebounds from it's stationary position on the step, it speeds up fast, for as long as it takes the ball to go from its compressed, compacted, warm state to its normal shape - a fraction of a second, springing up, having already lost pressure and expanded on its way up (outward) where it gradually slows down (in the manner of every outward expansion.) and stops, regaining its normal state.

Its normal state - but it also sped up as it reached its normal shape and that caused it to lose pressure and expand somewhat, cooling down as it went. But such an Outward Expansion could only slow down as it reached the top of its flight, where it stops,
regains its normal compession and expansion and cooling down, before falling again, this time inwardly, slowly at first but then speeding up to terminal velocity, losing pressure and expanding as it cools.

Here is your Outward Expansion, compared to your Inward expansion. Note how the outward expansion started fast (in a fraction of a second) and slowed down, and your inward expansion wich started only slowly, at the top of its flight and sped up to terminal velocity when it hit the floor.

The expansion of the OU began only slowly, speeding up, losing pressure and cooling down as we head towards terminal velocity before we hit Mable (the black hole at the cdenter of the Universe.)

Any expansion that speeds up as it goes is Inward. That's my evidence. I'm wrong? Please show me.

[astrocat5]

[Name='astrocat5' timestamp='1328491789' post='656299']
[quote]Look, how come nobody is answering my thread?
Somebody is interfering, I can tell because even the 'visitors number' has stopped growing.

Supposedly, there is freedom of speech - here in North America. Who has 'blocked' or otherwise stopped my thread? In the name of Democracy, I ask for my thread to be returned to its normal status.

Thank you,

Peter Lamont

[Ophiolite]

astrocat5, on 11 February 2012 - 02:36 AM, said:

Look, how come nobody is answering my thread?

There are several reasons. Here are some of them:

1. You are talking rubbish.
2. You display a singular ignorance of the findings of science.
3. You fail to justify any of your assertions.
4. You repeatedly reveal that you misinterpret or misunderstand current theory.
5. Your observations are boring as well as wrong.
6. There is nothing of value in your writing.

Freedom of speech is a right: stop abusing it.

[astrocat5]

Ophiolite, on 14 February 2012 - 07:51 AM, said:

There are several reasons. Here are some of them:

1. You are talking rubbish.
2. You display a singular ignorance of the findings of science.
3. You fail to justify any of your assertions.
4. You repeatedly reveal that you misinterpret or misunderstand current theory.
5. Your observations are boring as well as wrong.
6. There is nothing of value in your writing.

Freedom of speech is a right: stop abusing it.

1. Please explain to me where I am talking rubbish. It makes pretty good sense to me. One man's rubbish is another man's gold!
2. In what way do I disagree with the findings of Science. The big-bang is almost a hundred years old, from somebody Einstein said 'His mathematics are good, but his knowledge of Physics is 'abominable.' Georges LeMaitre. On news that the Observable Universe had been seen to be expanding, he ASSUMED the whole Universe was expanding. Such ASSUMPTIONS are dangerous. Please remember that nobody has seen the expansion of the Universe and it remains unproven to this day.
3. I can justify any of my assertions. The reason we're speeding up is because we're falling due to Gravity - pain and simple - not because we're being pushed by Anti-Gravity. Anti-Gravity doesn't even exist. It's you who are being deluded.
4. Because I say speeding up leads to a loss of pressure? Modern scientists say you need a 'surface' to demonstrate Bernoulli's Theorem, but there are no 'surfaces' in Space. Are you therefore saying Bernoulli's Theorem works only on Earth? That's garbage!
Any time you see the words 'Speeding up,' you can be sure that it's followed by a 'Loss of pressure.'
5. Boring? 1700 people have observed this thread. Boring? Hardly.
6. Just because it's new to you, doesn't make it wrong. I read up about the Big-Bang but Mother Nature didn't. Mother Nature says we're speeding up because we're falling due to Gravity. Makes sense to me. Better than Anti-Gravity, I'd say. Maybe you're jealous 'cause you didn't think of that. Your Big-Ban is so complicated you need a Phd in Math to figure it out. But Space isn't complicated - it's all pretty simple. except to you.
We're speeding up because we're falling and it's the ever increasing Rate of Acceleration that proves we're falling into a black hole. If there was nothing there at the center of the Universe our Rate of Acceleration would decline all the way to the center.
But you don't know everything with Mass must have a Center of Mass. That's not me, actually - that's Physics 101.
Nice talking to you, Ophiolite. What's an Ophiolite. Somebody from Ophiuses? So you're an alien?

[Phi for All]

astrocat5, on 11 February 2012 - 02:36 AM, said:

Look, how come nobody is answering my thread?
Somebody is interfering, I can tell because even the 'visitors number' has stopped growing.

Supposedly, there is freedom of speech - here in North America. Who has 'blocked' or otherwise stopped my thread? In the name of Democracy, I ask for my thread to be returned to its normal status.

Thank you,

Peter Lamont

!

Moderator Note

astrocat5, if we lock a thread it displays a lock at the bottom and nobody can post at all in it. We have no need to artificially block anyone from viewing or posting to an open thread.

It is quite common for a thread's visitors to drop off when it reaches a certain size. People start to read, realize you aren't willing to show any evidence and stop coming to waste time with four pages of hand-waving.

Also, this is NOT a democracy, it's a privately owned science discussion forum, one with rules you agreed to when you joined. You do NOT have the freedom of speech to post anything you want here.

Finally, since you have not responded to requests to back up your assertions with any observable evidence, much less attempt to offer a better explanation than current theory, your idea has become speculative only. I'm moving the thread to Speculations (which may actually revive your audience) so please read the sitcky notes regarding speculative threads.

There is no need to respond to this modnote.

[astrocat5]

Phi for All, on 23 February 2012 - 02:52 PM, said:

[modtip]astrocat5, if we lock a thread it displays a lock at the bottom and nobody can post at all in it. We have no need to artificially block anyone from viewing or posting to an open thread.

It is quite common for a thread's visitors to drop off when it reaches a certain size. People start to read, realize you aren't willing to show any evidence and stop coming to waste time with four pages of hand-waving.

Also, this is NOT a democracy, it's a privately owned science discussion forum, one with rules you agreed to when you joined. You do NOT have the freedom of speech to post anything you want here.

Finally, since you have not responded to requests to back up your assertions with any observable evidence, much less attempt to offer a better explanation than current theory, your idea has become speculative only. I'm moving the thread to Speculations (which may actually revive your audience) so please read the sitcky notes regarding speculative threads.

There is no need to respond to this modnote.[/modtip]

That's okay, I don't mind responding.

Spoken like a true mathematician. Unfortunately (for you) Math isn't a science. That's because you can do anything in Math - you can prove two plus two is five. I( myself, can show you, Mathematically that you have eleven fingers, not ten). Science tho' is governed by hard and fast Laws, Laws which were sometimes bitterly fought for, Laws that must be respected.
Because I stay away from Math, using only Physics, you say 'I'm waving my hands in the air.'

Tesla said, 'Modern Scientists have substituted experiment for math. They go off in equation after equation until they have built something with no relation to reality.'
He's a scientist I respect greatly.

I don't mind being sent to 'Speculations' - I just wish it had been by a scientist and not a mathematician.
Thanks anyway - I'm very pleased with 'Science Forums,' as they have tolerated me so far. I hope it keeps up.

[astrocat5]

Phi for All, on 23 February 2012 - 02:52 PM, said:

[modtip]astrocat5, if we lock a thread it displays a lock at the bottom and nobody can post at all in it. We have no need to artificially block anyone from viewing or posting to an open thread.

It is quite common for a thread's visitors to drop off when it reaches a certain size. People start to read, realize you aren't willing to show any evidence and stop coming to waste time with four pages of hand-waving.

Also, this is NOT a democracy, it's a privately owned science discussion forum, one with rules you agreed to when you joined. You do NOT have the freedom of speech to post anything you want here.

Finally, since you have not responded to requests to back up your assertions with any observable evidence, much less attempt to offer a better explanation than current theory, your idea has become speculative only. I'm moving the thread to Speculations (which may actually revive your audience) so please read the sitcky notes regarding speculative threads.

There is no need to respond to this modnote.[/modtip]

That's okay, I don't mind responding.

Spoken like a true mathematician. Unfortunately (for you) Math isn't a science. That's because you can do anything in Math - you can prove two plus two is five. I( myself, can show you, Mathematically that you have eleven fingers, not ten). Science tho' is governed by hard and fast Laws, Laws which were sometimes bitterly fought for, Laws that must be respected.
Because I stay away from Math, using only Physics, you say 'I'm waving my hands in the air.'

Tesla said, 'Modern Scientists have substituted experiment for math. They go off in equation after equation until they have built something with no relation to reality.'
He's a scientist I respect greatly.

I don't mind being sent to 'Speculations' - I just wish it had been by a scientist and not a mathematician.
Thanks anyway - I'm very pleased with 'Science Forums,' as they have tolerated me so far. I hope it keeps up.

[JustinW]

Quote

I( myself, can show you, Mathematically that you have eleven fingers, not ten)

Now that would be interesting. Why don't you give it a go and we'll all stand back in awe.

Quote

Because I stay away from Math, using only Physics, you say 'I'm waving my hands in the air.'

Probably because you seem to be misjudging the strengths of certain forces and the way that those forces act on one another in different situations. You give no observable examples other than to give what we already observe and say the opposite of what we think is happening, is happening.
Not to mention, things don't JUST get sucked into a black hole. They first enter an orbit. We would see such an orbit in the movement of the galaxy clusters. The movement wouldn't be an equal expansion, as we observe now, but would corollate with any orbit we happen to enter. If we entered such an orbit of a blackhole, especially one that big, then we would first notice the clusters entering the orbit either disappear or move very far very quickly. If we were already in orbit, especially an orbit that would draw us into the center, then we would see the clusters around us acting accordingly. Instead they are expanding at an equal rate everywhere.

One thing I just remembered you saying also. You said that exspansion is in, like the air at the nozzle of a vacuum. Care to show me where the air at the nozzle of a vacuum expands equally in all directions? I would enjoy seeing that.

This post has been edited by JustinW: 6 March 2012 - 10:58 PM

[astrocat5]

JustinW, on 6 March 2012 - 10:47 PM, said:

Now that would be interesting. Why don't you give it a go and we'll all stand back in awe.

Quote

You hold up your fingers and start counting, beginning with your pinkie. That's number ten, so now you can put it away. The rest follow naturally - nine. eight, seven and six. Put them away. Now, you have five fingers remaining, so six plus five equals..? Well, you do the math,

Probably because you seem to be misjudging the strengths of certain forces and the way that those forces act on one another in different situations. You give no observable examples other than to give what we already observe and say the opposite of what we think is happening, is happening.

Quote

We're going in because the expansion is speeding up (accelerating). Not just that, but we are going in with an ever increasing Rate of Acceleration. It's the ever increasing Rate of Acceleration that proves it's a Black Hole we're falling into. Now, which part are you having difficulty with, Justin?
That's all I'm saying at the moment. If you want to be fair to me, you should let me know what part of the above statement you're having difficulty with.

Not to mention, things don't JUST get sucked into a black hole. They first enter an orbit. We would see such an orbit in the movement of the galaxy clusters. The movement wouldn't be an equal expansion, as we observe now, but would corollate with any orbit we happen to enter. If we entered such an orbit of a blackhole, especially one that big, then we would first notice the clusters entering the orbit either disappear or move very far very quickly. If we were already in orbit, especially an orbit that would draw us into the center, then we would see the clusters around us acting accordingly. Instead they are expanding at an equal rate everywhere.

Quote

If you were in outer Space and you were falling into a distant black hole, you wouldn't feel anything.
That's because all forces acting on you would seem equal. What do you feel in a descending elevator? Not much, right? If the elavator fell fast enough, you might find yourself rising off the floor - but that's all you'd feel.
If you're falling (and we are) with all forces seeming to act equally on you, you'd speed up (Newton) and that would cause you to lose pressure (Bernoulli). If you lost pressure, because all forces acting on you would seem equal, you'd lose pressure equally, not in one direction only. If you lost pressure you'd expand (Boyle) and with all forces seeming to act equally, you'd expand equally, and not in one direction only. You'd also cool down (the J-T Effect). All this is what's happening to the Observable Universe. Now, are you clear on this also? If not, you should tell me.

One thing I just remembered you saying also. You said that exspansion is in, like the air at the nozzle of a vacuum. Care to show me where the air at the nozzle of a vacuum expands equally in all directions? I would enjoy seeing that.

Expansion just means we're coming apart. The air at the nozzle of a vacuum cleaner is, in a way, falling. The air doesn't see it's going into a nozzle - it just knows it's expanding as it loses pressure. If it's falling into the nozzle, all forces acting on it would seem equal - at any given moment. With all forces seeming to be equal, the air will expand evenly, and not in one direction only.
That's what I think, Justin. Now, how about you?