Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by pantheory

  1. Baby stars go through stage of water creation Interesting article. I never thought of it before but it sounds like a most likely mechanism for the observed water in our solar system and the universe at large. Water would seem to assist in planet formation as would molten/ liquid bodies in general. Such liquids, many ices, and related atmospheric gasses could seemingly reduce the carom effect of proto-planets, moons, asteroids, comet-like bodies etc. upon colliding, facilitation the formation of larger entities. .
  2. "How big is the universe?" is a matter of conjecture. According to the BB model and a Hubble constant concerning a constant rate of expansion, you would be able to follow the expansion of the entire universe, regardless of its size, back to a single point -- accordingly about 13.7 billion years ago. Nowadays with the Dark Energy hypothesis concerning differing expansion rates over time, the Hubble constant (H0) is now used as the average rate of expansion (instead of a constant rate of expansion) resulting in the same calculation. The Inflation hypothesis asserts that the universe may have expanded originally at a superluminal rate/ velocity resulting in a universe of conceivably unknown extension. In a closed universe model the extent of the extension of the universe relates to General Relativity and Riemann geometry concerning the extent of the "warping of space." Different versions of the standard model have different ideas on this subject as do different cosmologies.
  3. The problem I think with your proposal is generally philosophical in nature. According to the Big Bang model, or any finite universe model, if something existed before the beginning event then it no longer would have been the beginning event. Such a model as you suggest begs the questions "then what was before that?" or "what was the cause of that?" If you do not eventually come to an original cause where there was no such a thing as before that, then you are talking about an infinite universe in time and probably infinite in space, field, and matter. There are some cosmologists that ascribe to such models but they are very much in the minority. .
  4. I think you pretty much have it right. Time accordingly is equated with changes in reality, or changes in matter. If there was a big bang it was the beginning event and there would have been no such thing as changes before the first change, or time before the first time interval. . There are a great number of alternative BB models where time is separate from the BB that accordingly assert that the Zero Point Field or something else existed before the BB. In those models there would be such a thing as before the BB. Most of these models try to explain a cause for the bang or a cause for the hot dense field that accordingly resulted.
  5. (bold added) The basis for saying there is no center of the universe is based on a closed universe model involving Riemann geometry that is the geometry of General Relativity. In this geometry if the universe is totally closed one can travel in a straight line and end up where one started. It is not a forth dimensional geometry but parallel lines accordingly can intersect. For a long time cosmologists asserted that there was no edge nor center to the universe for this reason since they believed in curved space concerning the universe as a whole. This is based upon a curved geometry of space. The most in-depth observations today seem to indicate that the universe is flat. If so on the largest scales, then the universe could have both edges concerning the radial extent of matter and a central area geometrically which some physicists today consider.
  6. Thanks Chris, nice article and explanations. Both the SS model and the QSS model involve an expanding universe just like the BB models do. I was talking about a SS model that does not include the expansion of the universe which could imply an explanation concerning the O.P. question(s) of entropy and why entropy may not be a big player in the universe as a whole. Any further detail/ discussion of such a model would seemingly diverge from the O.P.'s quandary and my attempt at humor in posting #5.
  7. It does not seem unlikely that stonehenge involved astronomical observations/ alignments. This same claim has been made concerning many ancient archaeological structures and the alignment of structures around the world. This of course does not preclude the idea that religion was the primary reason for building the structures and their orientation. .
  8. csmyth3025, Yeah, Chris, I think that all agree that the universe has uniform density in any particular time frame. But from any perspective in the observable universe you should be able to progressively look back in time with a large telescope and "watch" an "expanding universe" (expanding space between galaxies), the universe becoming progressively more dense. To do so you observe a galaxy panning across its diameter, lets say .03 arcseconds, then you would pan the entire volume diameter being observed in the same focus relative to .03 arcseconds. There should be more galaxies per volume of what is being observed than in the present time according to an expanding universe model (expanding distances between galaxies). Instead what we see is generally the same density in the distant universe as we see locally. What we see is that no matter how distant we look the universe seems to be of the same density that we can see in our local neighborhood which seems totally contrary to the BB model. This problem with the standard model is rarely discussed but when it is, the explanations seem totally contrived and unconvincing. If we did see decreasing density going forward in time we could infer increasing entropy based upon observations rather than just theory; since we accordingly do not it may imply that gravity is keeping pace with entropy in a Steady State (SS) universe, but with no particular SS model in mind. The problem, if it exists, is with any expanding universe model, not just BB models. Such a SS model would not include an expanding universe as Hoyle's models do. Such a model must explain redshifts in a logical/ understandable way, as being caused by another reason than an expanding universe and preferably one where there is evidence to support an expanding universe other than just the observed redshifts themselves which is the only evidence that I know of for proposing an expanding universe or increasing entropy.
  9. I agree that the BB model sits well with present mainstream thinking as you state. I agree that this idea is certainly one of the mainstream ideas. I agree that MOND has problems but think the same is true with the dark matter hypothesis in general. I made a mistake in my previous posting by saying dark matter when I meant to say dark energy which I just corrected before seeing this posting. . I agree that both DM and DE are well accepted today but think both ideas will be replaced in time. Details including the different math formulations can be discussed in the Speculation forum if you wish.
  10. pantheory

    Ether model

    Thanks, I now realize that differing discussions should be placed elsewhere.
  11. ajb, The O.P. question assumes that there was a big bang in the first place. Even the most prominent version of the BB model now does not necessarily include a "bang" beginning, only a hot dense beginning. The dark energy hypothesis is still an open question that I believe will be resolved by the reformulation of the Hubble Formula as I stated in posting #18. Hoyle's Steady State model also includes an expanding universe which many BB followers do not realize. As for me I think the observable universe is not expanding which if valid would make the first part of the O.P. question not relevant. Note: there accordingly would be a different explanation for redshifts. The second part of his question I think is relevant no matter what cosmological model one adheres to: why is there something rather than nothing? For this I gave my answer in posting #6 ---------------------------------------- corrected "dark matter" to dark energy
  12. (bold added) According to BB models in general, the observable universe should not be uniform in density. For observing most of it we must look back in time. In an expanding universe model (expanding distances between galaxies) the universe should have been eight times more dense 7 billion years ago (the volume of a sphere pi x r^3). As you said the universe appears to be of a uniform density no matter how far back in time we look, which I also think is what we have observed. The direct implication, I believe, is that the universe may not be expanding at all, which would also explain contradictions of entropy as questioned by the O.P. If so there would be a different reason for the observed redshifts. There does seem to be a contradiction IMO concerning continuously increasing entropy, the standard model, and what is being observed. If the universe is not expanding then gravity could seemingly keep pace with entropy to accordingly find the equilibrium that we may be now observing.
  13. Thanks for the correction. I've seen Occam spelled a number of different ways but for that posting maybe I just made up my own version of the spelling, or maybe my right hand just did not know what my left brain was doing I have not heard of the idea of old appearing galaxies being used to test models of dark energy. Thanks, I will have to research it. I believe dark energy and dark matter are not real but can be explained away simply by "slight justifiable changes" of formulations concerning the Hubble formula and GR.
  14. I agree Chris, Your quotation seems like a good summary according to the standard model perspective. I showed my skepticism because I am skeptical concerning the standard L CDM model or any BB version for that matter. The OP question involves increasing entropy over time and is based, I believe, upon theory alone and has no observational basis which I believe adds to his and others questioning of such cosmological interpretations which require increasing entropy over time. regards Forrest
  15. pantheory

    Ether model

    I have a testable alternative cosmological model that involves aether. Do you want me to start a thread here? I would like somebody to request it so that there might be at least a little dialog to it teh, (your quote) Good, that's what I thought you meant. In some versions of aether theory including my own, you could say that the background aether is in motion as compared to a defined reference frame of space confined by matter, such as defined within a spiral galaxy for instance. The theoretical aether field particles might contain dark matter, Higg's particles, gravitons, quantum foam, and/ or countless other theoretical possibilities. It might move in a linear fashion, it may have fluid dynamics, or vortex mechanics, or other possible dynamics at the galactic or smaller scales if it exists.
  16. Kepler finding: This would seem to be it if it was recent: April -2011 Time Magazine article and related blog http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2065049,00.html
  17. The Hubble Law, maybe more accurately described as the Hubble formula, seems to be totally Euclidean as you suggest. The B factor in this formula is the only thing complicated about it. It transforms redshifts into distances and is based upon Lorentz Transforms of moving time frames away from the observer. Although simple in form, this factor was quite difficult to derive. The Dark Energy hypothesis is based upon distance calculations using the Hubble formula. If it is off in its formulation by as little as 11%, then Dark Energy would not be needed to explain type 1a supernova observations and maybe not anything else. The Hubble formula must necessarily be flat since Riemann geometry and GR are not part of its formulation. The Hubble formula relates to a straight-line path of EM radiation even though we know that galaxies are not in straight line paths as we observe them, due to the effects of intervening gravity, so that at least some galaxies would be accordingly at closer distances than what their redshifts indicate.
  18. ajb, I think there is much evidence that is contrary to the standard model. One of the big problems, I believe, concerns the observed density of the universe. Looking back half the age that the universe is thought to be, about 7 billion years ago at a redshift of ~1.75, the universe would have been denser according to the expanding universe model and the Big Bang, not just by a little but by a factor of 8. There is no evidence that I know of that the universe was ever more dense in the past concerning the density of observable galaxies in that time frame. The second major problem, I think, is that there appears to be very old appearing galaxies as well as large elliptical galaxies as far back as we can presently observe. In the BB model, old galaxies (the age of the Milky Way) could not exist at these distances. Another seeming problem is that galaxies accordingly become large by merging with other galaxies. We know that this happens but is this the primary reason galaxies become large? There seems to be evidence that galaxies grow from the inside out and that galactic type black hole entities might come first. I have a collection of such papers that at least in some ways seem to contradict the Lambda CDM model. Here are a few such links that seem to challenge present-day cosmology concerning the age of the universe. http://www.scienceda...50310102001.htm http://www.astronomy...f1-9b749d7f8f56 http://outreach.jach...008b/index.html http://www.cfa.harva...8/pr200821.html http://www.astronomy...b6-7da4afb9ee0c Of course there are many observations that are also asserted to support the standard model. I think interpretations are a big part of all observations which stretch the limits of what can presently be observed. (bold added) I think some alternative theory's/ models are far simpler than the L CDM (Inflation) model, being different both conceptually and mathematically. Ocamm's razor generally states that the simpler model is probably the better model, all else being equal. The big question always concerns the latter contention, "all else being equal. " I will present such a alternative theory in the Speculation forum if you are interested, since I realize that you are well educated on this subject and could add much to such a discussion. I personally expect that if a model ever replaces the standard model, that such a model will be quite different and also simpler than the L CDM model.
  19. I ME, We can never observe the entire universe according to almost every possible cosmology mainstream or otherwise, therefore as you suggest, we could never know for sure whether the universe as a whole is flat or not. Observation presently suggests that the universe is flat, but Einstein's cosmological equations without a cosmological constant imply that the universe is not flat. With this constant added along with the Inflation hypothesis, the universe seemingly could be flat and open. .
  20. I ME, There are hypothesis that address these questions; some might be considered mainstream and others not. Non-mainstream theorists also consider the mainstream to be nothing more than speculation. There may be a true answer for such questions but maybe not within the mainstream arena of speculation. Brian Green's applicable speculations are considered mainstream hypothesis.
  21. Airbrush, Thanks Airbrush. You would not say "before the BB," instead you might say at the beginning of time the BB entity had the potential energy to "bang." According to the standard model, both time and space were created as the BB progressed so there would be no such thing as before the big bang. Some alternative mainstream versions believe the BB was caused by a fluctuation in the Zero Point Field. In such alternative models there was a time before the BB but not according to the standard version. There are many BB versions with no consensus concerning a beginning big bang entity. There are also many other cosmological models that are generally considered to be either non-mainstream, or no longer are considered mainstream. ajb, Yeah, you are right. Papers get published because it is still considered an open question. Trying to get a non-BB paper published is a more difficult talk, and often must be done through alternative publishers so that they generally never get read, and remain unknown to the mainstream. As you suggest string theory has not played itself out yet but it is more difficult to get some of these papers published now. Membrane cosmology is directly related to string theory. Loop quantum cosmology involve the implications of loop quantum gravity which for one thing has been an attempt at explaining the Inflation hypothesis. There is still a lot of mainstream room for publications concerning these subjects as you suggest. I don't think Ocamm's razor could apply to any of these models mentioned as being more preferable than another since none are simpler than others concerning their formulations. My expectation is that the "correct" answers will be more obvious/ simpler and in compliance with Occam's razor.
  22. nernico, These are simple questions with very simple answers generally independent of what cosmological model you adhere to. According to the BB model the BB had an internal potential energy that created the bang. Accordingly there is no such thing as something before that. Although accordingly time is of a finite duration and accordingly there was no such thing as before the big bang since it would be a logical contradiction. I would be like asking what change came before the first change ( a child-like question). Please note that this explanation applies to any cosmological model concerning a finite period of time, not just the standard model. This is the question Stephen Hawking asked at the end of his book. The answer again is very simple if you will believe this answer Do you believe in flying purple people eaters? No. Why not? because they have never been observed. O.K. good answer. Flying purple people eaters, just like nothingness, is not a possible state of reality, nor was it ever a possible reality. Nothingness just like any other imaginary reality like one including flying purple people eaters is not one of those possible states. -- do you understand? if not keep your questions flying.
  23. csmythe3025, I agree that your understanding of the flow of mass is in line with the meaning of entropy concerning gravitational flow but not what has happened concerning the evolution of the universe in my opinion, no matter what cosmological model one adheres to. That's why I like talking with you Chris. Logic is an important constituent in your postings. To me logic trumps everything else providing the logic is good enough A "more knowledgeable member" might provide better insight for some, but for me logic alone is gold such as I perceive the best of your logic is You have my ear.
  24. csmythe3025, Good over-all answer Chris. Even with my best mainstream-perspective "insights" I don't believe I could have done very well concerning a non-frivolous explanation By being a little flippant in my posting I was trying to show how the second law of thermodynamics does not seem to fit with the standard model of cosmology, in my opinion. And it appears the O.P. also has a problem with a connection. Gravity for one thing and evolution for another, seem to work contrary to the second law. If they are not congruent/ consistent with each other, implying maybe one is correct and the other is wrong, which one would you want to bet on? `if your theory is ... against the second law of thermodynamics ... there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation' (Eddington) I think most realize that there are no guarantees that either the standard model of cosmology is correct, or that the second law of thermodynamics (including increasing entropy) should apply in its present wording, to the universe as a whole.
  25. Entropy: A thermodynamic quantity representing the unavailability of a system's thermal energy for conversion into mechanical work. In the universe entropy accordingly increases with time. Entropy: Lack of order or predictability; gradual decline into disorder. From the extreme order following the Big Bang to the extreme homogeneity and disorder of galaxies, clusters, life, humans, etc. disorder today. The theory concerning increasing entropy in the universe over time makes total sense to me, NOT!
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.