Jump to content

astrocat5

Senior Members
  • Content Count

    56
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by astrocat5

  1. Yes I've read a little on the gospels of philip and thomas. It's hard to come to an understanding when things are written in parables. The Nag Hammadi library has some of these translated gospels. It is supposedly the closest thing to the words spoken by Jesus. They must have had a different understanding of language back in those days because I can't even come close to understanding the meaning of half of it.

    You're not alone. Many of these gnostic gospels have been interfered with. That's why they had a 'synod' long ago and decided that the present four gospel writers were the most original. Thanks for telling me about the Nag Hammadi Library - I didn't know about it. Nice to chat w. you, Justin W.

     

    And there's the bit where there's zero eyewitness testimony in the gospels.

    And yet it'sthe eye-witness account that interests not just the Police, but the courts too. Perhaps I'm replying to the wrong post, here.

     

    And there's the bit where there's zero eyewitness testimony in the gospels.

    I'ts rreally Faith alone that makes one believe in the gospels. I like the stories, however - they do seem pretty real to me.

     

    See! Your own argument is refuted. There are no eyewitnesses, so you can't say it's invalid due to being based on eyewitness testimony... Therefore, it MUST be true! Check... and... mate you atheist heathens! :rolleyes:

    I don't know what's true or not. Well, some things I know are true... There is a shortage of eye-witnesses in the gospels. It comes down to faith - whether you believe or not. But I know there's no God.
  2. Some claim that He was as a child. That He would play mean tricks on those that He disliked and in one story actually pushed a boy to his death. I've read a little of the gnostic writings. I particularly liked the phrase "if you have ears you had better listen". I use it every now and then with my kids.:D Some of it drove me a little crazy with the whole read between the lines expectations. They claim that those who know TRUTH will never taste death, but yet they never tell you what the truth is.

    Fascinating. So you have read the Gnostic Gospels? Me too. They had a conference once,somewhere and decided that the Gospels of Mathew Mark etc. were the most reliable. I kind of agree with this, so they are really the only Gospels I stick to as real.

    That bit about the truth - I think the Truth is kind of dangerous, as so many people believe differently. Nice to hear from you, Justin W.

     

    It depends on who you ask and what you look at. For example, one source here takes a few things to show why maybe Jesus wasn't such a fantastic dude, and how he advocated murder, death, and other cruelties:

     

    http://www.evilbible...ld_jesus_do.htm

    Where did you get this about Jesus advocating murder? I'm interested. Is this out of the Gnostic Gospels too? I think God is a jealous God, 'Thou shalt put no other God before me etc.' and vengeful - I mean look what he did to Pharoe's Army in the Red Sea?

    He drowned them. That's vengeful, in my opinion. How about you?

    Jesus taught us to forgive our enemies, a completely different style.

    2 different styles - two different people.

     

    What do you think?

  3. [Name=astrocat5' timestamp='1328491789' post='656299]

    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

  4. Have you ever paused to think for a moment that most likely the people who wrote the bible were the ones who made it up?

    Hi Now, this 'flood' thing, the deluve, as it's sometimes called - is pretty common in many religions. But you're right, it was probably fiction. I guess you don't believe in unicorns either?

    It's just that God is a jealous God and also vengeful. Jesus said, 'You cannot know the Father, but I and the Father are the same.'

    I don't think Jesus was the jealous kind, nor do I see him as being vengeful. Interesting to talk with you, 'iNow.'

  5. Jesus said, 'I am the truth, the light and the way.'

    I think God is a part of the old Jewish religion, and does not apply. Jesus never said he was the son of God - others said that about him. Jesus called himself 'The Son of Man,' just to let us know. His prayer, The Our Father that he taught us, is not a prayer to God, but to Our Heavenly Father.

    There was a time when everybody in the world turned against God. This is in the bible, I'm not making it up. That's right, everybody in the world turned against God - except for one man, Noah. Now you remember. I thought you would.

    Anyway, God killed eveybody in the world except for Noah (and his family.) Then, everybody in the world believed in God.

     

    I just think this is not a good way to get people around to your point-of-view. If I killed everybody in the world, what would that make me? A megalo-maniac at least, a crazy for sure. But God gets away scott-free. You really have to wonder - I know I do.

     

    I don't believe in a devil, either. He's Organised Religion's puppet, and they wave this puppet in our faces saying, 'whoo, look how scary I am.' They'll tell you the world is Beautiful but you're Evil, and that's why you have a hard time.

    As a Gnostic, I'll tell you, 'The world is Evil and you're Beautiful.

     

    'Cause that's what we believe. We just have Jesus. The world is corrupt. Everything you don't have in this world - you have in the next, and vice-versa. When you die you come to these Pearly Gates, and everybody's pushing and shoving trying to get thru'.

     

    And inside it sounds like there's a heck of a party going on in there. But it's just speakers rigged, and just inside the gates is a cliff edge, but you can't turn around. Me and this kid on crutches get ejected from the crowd (I'm not one for crowds) and we go along the wall 'till we come to a really narrow gate with a guy (or his girlfriend) sitting there and they invite us in. Now I remember - Jesus always said, 'Enter by the narrow gate,' and that's what we do. Except you don't make your choices then - you make them here, in your day to day life. You don't have to have babies, you know. There are already too many people - not enough fish, land, houses...

  6. 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.

  7. 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.

  8. Sorry, it was to astrocat5...

     

    I can't see anything wrong with what you say there. It must be remembered that when things are gravitationally bound (or closer together any of the other 3 forces) then that interaction overrides the expansion, which is why locally we don't see say atoms getting bigger or the earth expanding.

    Yes, I agree. When things are close together, that would override the expansion.

    What I'm saying is that we are falling into the Supercluster in Hydra-Centaurus, but that we can never reach it because the Hyrdra-Centaurus Supercluster is moving away from us even faster, on its way to the Great Attractor, discovered by an international group of astronomers called the Seven Samurai in the early eighties. Certain 'Alumni' of these Seven Samurai discovered that the Great Attractor itself is falling into the Shapley Concentration but, of course, the Shapley Concentration is moving away from the Great Attractor, so these two can never meet.

    Now, why is the Shapley Concentration moving away from us? It can only be that somewhere beyond the Shapley Concentration is some immense gravitational attraction that is unknown to us.

    Any expansion that speeds up is Inward.

    If you were falling into a vacuum cleaner, you'd be speeding up (Newton) losing pressure (Bernoulli) which equals expansion (Boyle) and cooling down (the Joule-Thomson Effect.) At the nozzle of this vacuum cleaner the air is travelling at its Highest Speed, Coldest Temperature, Minimum Pressure and Maximum Expansion, the same things that would happen to you if you were falling into a Black Hole.

    We in the Observable Universe are also speeding up, losing pressure, expanding and cooling down.

    There is much more, of course, but I would first like to know what you think of this, Klaynos.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    The part about losing pressure you haven't given information for either. You just say we're losing pressure. Where do I find the information or study on that.

    Robert Boyle discovered that when things expand, they lose pressure - and vice-versa. The Observable Universe is expanding, and according to Boyle, it's also losing pressure. That's the Law, anyway.

    s that the expansion part is general consensus.

    It does seem to be that way.

     

    At what rate is the universe cooling? Where is the info and study on that too? Just out of curiousity.

    I have no idea of the rate at which the Observable Universe is cooling down, only that it is cooling as it expands, in accordance with the Joule-Thomson Effect. You should also be aware that compression causes warming up, tho' I don't know who first discovered that. Was it Boyle?

    Fortunately Science is built on Laws, Laws which were only arrived at, sometimes - after bitter dispute. These Laws were fought for, and they must be respected, else you could do whatever you wanted, in Science.

    The Law of Gravity is another such Law. If you're pushing a Big-Bang (which couldn't have happened in a slowly expanding Universe - a big wheeze, maybe, but no sudden explosion) it's in your best interests to tell everybody Gravity is the weakest force because the Big-Bang flies in the face of Gravity. What's needed is a simple Theory that conforms to all the laws of Science - including Gravity.

     

     

     

     

     

     

    I don't know who interjected this. Was it you, Justin? Asfor pressure, all you have to remember is speeding up causes loss of pressure according to Bernoulli. I believe this is pretty well accepted, no?

     

    Will someone please enlighten me? This thread goes on and on about what is in "the Center of The Universe," but no one has explained whether the universe even has a center or not! That could, after all be important since it is what this whole long thread is about!:unsure:

    Ok, now please undrerstand this as it's important. Everything with mass must have a center of mass - that's not me, that's Physics 101. There is nothing (with mass) in existence that does not have a Center of Mass, including the Universe. Can you tell me something with mass that does not have a Center of Mass? No, you can't. That proves what I am saying.

    They'll tell you the Universe is Infinite. They say the Universe started in a Big-Bang, but even after the first second, the Universe could not have been more than 400,000 miles across, even travelling at the speed of light.

    That 400,000 miles is a finite number, wouldn't you agree? So how do you go from Finite to Infinite? Is it something that happens fast, or only very slowly? This infinite Universe is ridiculous.

     

    Everywhere is the centre of the universe.

    Well at least you agree there is a center of the universe. How it can be 'everywhere' is beyond me. I know in your man-made universe you have some pretty strange goings on, but this one takes the cake. Nice to hear from you tho' 'Ophiolite'. Can you contribute anything else?

     

    Everywhere is the centre of the universe.

    Well at least you agree there is a center of the universe. How it can be 'everywhere' is beyond me. I know in your man-made universe you have some pretty strange goings on, but this one takes the cake. Nice to hear from you tho' 'Ophiolite'. Can you contribute anything else?

     

    Like I've said before, it's not a perfect vacuum in outer space. It's just the closest there is in nature. And how is it constant? What would feed a vacuum except an expansion that removes matter from space? This is what I'm trying to find out. If our vacuum is getting stronger or weaker it should give us a hint as to what the universe is doing as a whole.

    The vacuum, according to you, must be getting stronger as the Observable Universe is expanding. Check out Boyle's Law.

     

    This is a conundrum. Nothing expands inward. To go in would be to contract. And just becaus0e your theory is new to me, also doesn't make you right. You state everything without a shred of evidence to support you other than laws of physics that apply to gravity. You have said yourself that we are expanding in the observable field of view. But you also say we are falling in the bigger picture. How do you know? You are just guessing as far as I can tell, and basing your assumption on what a snowball does on earth because of gravity. Show me some real evidence of where you draw your conclusions. Give me something more tangible than analogies of what objects do on earth because of gravity.

    Any vortex expands Inwardly, Justin. Any expansion that speeds up is Inward. Ok, let's check out this vortex, say when a bird flaps its wings.

    wHEN a bird flaps its wings, or even if you move your hand, vortices (plural 0f vortex) will occur.

    The outside of any vortex moves only slowly, speeding up as it goes toward the center, losing pressure (or expanding) all the way to the low pressure (increased expansion) at the center of the vortex. Please note 1) The slow start 2) the speeding up expansion and c) the inward (towards the center) direction of this expansion.

    I'm kinda surprised that you can't see that a snowball rolling down a snowy bank is expanding inwardly - on it's way to the central point of Earth's Center of Mass?

    Why do you call a vortex a contraction? It reminds me of one guy I was explaining Inward Expansion thing, who scoffed 'That's an implosion.' I cannot see how a snowball doing the Inward Expansion thing is an 'Implosion.' Nor is it a 'contraction.' But it is an Inward Expansion.

    What's important is that any expansion that speeds up is Inward.

    0

     

     

     

     

     

     

    Not all galaxies are spiralled. And I don't think I've heard anybody say that the black hole at the center of the milkyway is just sittin out there chillin. As a matter of fact some stars orbit around that blackhole in a matter of minutes, travelling at millions of miles per hour.

    Maybe i've answered this post before. Ah well, it bears repeating.
  9. Not exactly. This would be assuming the velocity created by the big bang had less force than the gravity of masses that were present at the time. That could be argued either way.

    There was no Big-Bang. We're going in, not out. All expansions that speed up are inward. Our own expansion is speeding up - we're going in.

    There are only two kinds of expansion. The first 1) starts fast and slows down and the second 2) starts slowly and speeds up. The first 1) is an Outward Expansion - your Big-Bang. The second 2) is an Inward Expansion. All Inward expansions start slowly and speed up. Air approching the nozzle of a Central Vac starts slowly and speeds up as it nears the nozzle - losing pressure and expanding as it goes - Inward, into the nozzle. That's just one example. Every vortex shows this Inward Expansion - every time a bird flaps its wings it creates a vortex. The outer part of this vortex turns only slowly, but air in this vortex speeds up as it expands and loses pressure toward the low pressure at the center. As this air goes inward, toward the center - it's expansion speeds up. The expansion of the Observable Unverse is speeding up. In Nature, all 'Expansions' that speed up are 'Inward.'

     

    This would be true if there wasn't a force acting to accelerate. This is where the man-made part comes into play. There needed to be a reason that explained the acceleration, so poof. . . you have dark energy. Man made, yes. Likely to have another explanation, yes. But that theory holds more water than yours does so far, and until you have some documented evidence that can be observed, no one will be obligated to agree with you.

    If we're going in, Gravity is all we need. Actually, Gravity is all there is. Dark Energy (Anti-Gravity) doesn't exist. If you're so sure it's real, show me some. You shouldn't put your faith in these man-made forces - they're fabrications all.

     

     

    As a matter of fact I do. Not everything that orbits around a mass has a trajectory which pulls things into it. Some are pulled into the object, others steady into a locked orbit, while others use the energy of that gravity and are slung out like a slingshot.

    It's the growing gravity of the black hole at the center of a galaxy that 'bends' inward the orbits of the stars. If this gravity wasn't growing, the stars would orbit in steady ellipses, like we orbit Sol. That's according to Orbital Mechanics, anyway.
  10. But what is getting me is that I can't find any information, one way or another, that says if the vacuum pressure of space is changing. If there was it may give a further indication of what is happening with the universe as a whole.With a vacuum pressure that is getting stronger(more negative) we could assume that the universe is expanding. With a vacuum pressure that grows weaker(more positive) we could assume that the universe is contracting. If the pressure of the universe stays the same that either means there is an outside constant that we have yet to discover or that the indications of expansion that we have observed could just be movement along an eliptical orbit or something of that sort. These questions could probably be punched full of holes, but I haven't found any information that disputes them yet.

    If, as I say, the Observable Universe is falling into a black hole, it would be like falling into a celestial vacuum cleaner (both are vortices) or an Earthly one. As we fall into a vacuum cleaner, we'd be speeding up, losing pressure, expanding and cooling down - all the things happening to the Observable Universe. The a) slow start of the air and b) speeding up 'Expansion' and c) the 'Inward' direction qualify this event as an Inward Expansion.

    In Nature, all 'Expansions' that speed up are 'Inward.'

    The expansion of the Observable Universe is speeding up. In Nature (I don't know about your man-made stuff) we're going in.

    Inward Expansion is as real as your Outward Expansion, Justin - and much more common. Inward Expansion can be found in the center of any vortex, every time a bird flaps it's wings (it's the Inwardly Expanding air in the vortex created by the flapping wing, the low pressure there - that allows the bird to fly.

    Every time you move your hand, you set up vortices in the air. A vortex starts slowly at the outside, but speeds up as the pressure drops toward the center of the vortex. That pressure drop is expansion according to Boyle, and at the center of the vortex you will find air of the maximum speed, coldest temperature, minimum pressure and maximum expansion.

    I don't think that's too hard to see. The main point of all this is to show you all expansions that speed up are inward.

    Modern Scientists will tell you we're speeding up because of a man-made Anti-Gravity that's pushing us at an ever increasing Rate of Acceleration.

    In Nature, we (in the Observable Universe) are speeding up because we're falling into a black hole. If there was nothing there at the center (of mass of the Universe) we'd be speeding up, as we are - but our Rate of Acceleration would decline until at the center, all forces being equal, we would not be accelerating at all. As it is, the increasing Rate of Acceleration can only be caused by a black hole - Mable, the black hole there at the center of the Universe.

     

    Now, you can go with your man-made Universe - outwards 'ad infinitum,' pushed by an Anti-Gravity Force called Dark Energy (except Anti-Gravity doesn't exist) fighting Gravity - or you can submit to Gravity and conform to it. In Nature, we're speeding up because we're falling - naturally, and I hope I've shown you that:- a) we're expanding inwardly and b) that it's a black hole we're expanding into. Okay, Jason W?

    All expansions that speed up are Inward - in Nature. The man-made Universe is therefore unnatural. Too bad!

     

    I think that there is alot that you say that could be logically argued against, but 1 thing that keeps popping up that I don't agree with at all is the above line. Not all things that are trapped by gravity accelerate. If this was the case orbits wouldn't be as steady as we see them. The way you word it is a mix between someone dropping an object from a heigth and a vacuum cleaner sucking dirt off of a floor. If something is dropped from a height, it would at some point reach a terminal velocity which would never reach a speed more than the SOL. Secondly the vacuum theory would be observed as an uneven expansion with one part of the universe expanding faster than the other part, and also all in the same direction. For your theory to hold water you would need to explain why these things aren't observed in such a way. Another reason to argue against a blackhole at the center of the universe is that there are no signs of mass being ejected. Mass would be flung outward because of the escape trajectory caused by gravitational orbit. With a blackhole so big as to affect the entire universe in such a way, you would think that we would have observed some of these escaped masses even in our limited view of observation.

    Not all things speed up - Earth in it's orbit around Sol is a good example. But things in free-fall (I know you've got man-made forces keeping everything up) are going to speed up and with nothing holding us up, we (in the Observable Universe) can only be falling.

     

    Why shouldn't we be conforming to Gravity instead of fighting it? Nature doesn't have any beef with Gravity. If you're pushing a Big-Bang, it's in your best interests to tell everybody Gravity is the weakest force because the Big-Bang flies in the face of Gravity.

    If we're going in, Gravity is more important, eh?

    Your man-made universe is full of repulsive forces. Einstein's Anti-Gravity (his Cosmological Constant) he denounced later as 'the biggest blunder of my career.' Your Cosmological Principle has been blasted full of holes so often it's a joke. As for your 'Age of the Universe) I understand that it was made of an evenly expanding Observable Universe, but in fact, the expansion is speeding up - and that makes a huge diffrerence.

    As for speeds, I'm sure one end of our stream is travelling very much faster than our part, maybe even at the speed of light or even faster - relative to us. But nothing speeds up 'ad infinitum,' except your man-made universe. I'm saying we will eventually reach a terminal speed, as do all Inward Expansions - I don't have any problem with this.

    As for your 'even' expansion, why is every picture of the expansion pinker at one end than the other? That's because the expansion is not even. Those stars farthest from us are expanding fastest. Does that sound like an 'even' expansion to you?

    As for direction, we are faling into the Super-Cluster in Hydra-Centaurus but in such a way we can never reach it, for the Hydra-Centaurus Super-Cluster is moving away fro us even faster, headed for 'The Great Attractor,' which it can never reach (discovered by the Seven Samurai, an international group of scientists fropm the 1980s) and it was later found out that the Great Attractor is falling into an even more massive body called 'The Shapley Concentration.'

    Now, why are we speeding up if the Shapley Concentration is leaving us? It can only be that somewhere beyond tye Shapley Concentration is an even bigger gravitational attraction that we do not yet know about (well I do.)

    As for mass being flung out of a black hole, I think you're mistaken. Near a black hole, things only go in.

    Unless you know different?

     

    I think that there is alot that you say that could be logically argued against, but 1 thing that keeps popping up that I don't agree with at all is the above line. Not all things that are trapped by gravity accelerate. If this was the case orbits wouldn't be as steady as we see them. The way you word it is a mix between someone dropping an object from a heigth and a vacuum cleaner sucking dirt off of a floor. If something is dropped from a height, it would at some point reach a terminal velocity which would never reach a speed more than the SOL. Secondly the vacuum theory would be observed as an uneven expansion with one part of the universe expanding faster than the other part, and also all in the same direction. For your theory to hold water you would need to explain why these things aren't observed in such a way. Another reason to argue against a blackhole at the center of the universe is that there are no signs of mass being ejected. Mass would be flung outward because of the escape trajectory caused by gravitational orbit. With a blackhole so big as to affect the entire universe in such a way, you would think that we would have observed some of these escaped masses even in our limited view of observation.

    Not all things speed up - Earth in it's orbit around Sol is a good example. But things in free-fall (I know you've got man-made forces keeping everything up) are going to speed up and with nothing holding us up, we (in the Observable Universe) can only be falling.

     

    Why shouldn't we be conforming to Gravity instead of fighting it? Nature doesn't have any beef with Gravity. If you're pushing a Big-Bang, it's in your best interests to tell everybody Gravity is the weakest force because the Big-Bang flies in the face of Gravity.

    If we're going in, Gravity is more important, eh?

    Your man-made universe is full of repulsive forces. Einstein's Anti-Gravity (his Cosmological Constant) he denounced later as 'the biggest blunder of my career.' Your Cosmological Principle has been blasted full of holes so often it's a joke. As for your 'Age of the Universe) I understand that it was made of an evenly expanding Observable Universe, but in fact, the expansion is speeding up - and that makes a huge diffrerence.

    As for speeds, I'm sure one end of our stream is travelling very much faster than our part, maybe even at the speed of light or even faster - relative to us. But nothing speeds up 'ad infinitum,' except your man-made universe. I'm saying we will eventually reach a terminal speed, as do all Inward Expansions - I don't have any problem with this.

    As for your 'even' expansion, why is every picture of the expansion pinker at one end than the other? That's because the expansion is not even. Those stars farthest from us are expanding fastest. Does that sound like an 'even' expansion to you?

    As for direction, we are faling into the Super-Cluster in Hydra-Centaurus but in such a way we can never reach it, for the Hydra-Centaurus Super-Cluster is moving away fro us even faster, headed for 'The Great Attractor,' which it can never reach (discovered by the Seven Samurai, an international group of scientists fropm the 1980s) and it was later found out that the Great Attractor is falling into an even more massive body called 'The Shapley Concentration.'

    Now, why are we speeding up if the Shapley Concentration is leaving us? It can only be that somewhere beyond tye Shapley Concentration is an even bigger gravitational attraction that we do not yet know about (well I do.)

    As for mass being flung out of a black hole, I think you're mistaken. Near a black hole, things only go in.

    Unless you know different?

  11. Like I've said before, it's not a perfect vacuum in outer space. It's just the closest there is in nature. And how is it constant? What would feed a vacuum except an expansion that removes matter from space? This is what I'm trying to find out. If our vacuum is getting stronger or weaker it should give us a hint as to what the universe is doing as a whole.

    The Observable Universe is expanding - exponentially. Lee Smolin agrees with me in his book 'String Theory.' Are you going to debate this expansion? Why don't you just accept it?

     

     

     

     

    This is a conundrum. Nothing expands inward. To go in would be to contract. And just because your theory is new to me, also doesn't make you right. You state everything without a shred of evidence to support you other than laws of physics that apply to gravity. You have said yourself that we are expanding in the observable field of view. But you also say we are falling in the bigger picture. How do you know? You are just guessing as far as I can tell, and basing your assumption on what a snowball does on earth because of gravity. Show me some real evidence of where you draw your conclusions. Give me something more tangible than analogies of what objects do on earth because of gravity.

    An experiment, Justin W. There are only two kinds of expansion, the kind 1) that starts fast and slows down, and the kind 2) that starts slowly and speeds up.

    The first kind 1) is your Outward Expansion. All Outward Expansions start fast and slow down. That's your explosion or Big-Bang.

    The second kind 2) is the opposite - Inward Expansion.

     

    Put the Nozzle of a working Central-Vac in the middle of a room and the Nozzle will evacuate the air nearest to the Nozzle. The remaining air in the room will Expand Inwardly, slowly at first but then faster and faster-yet-again as it nears the Nozzle. As the experiment runs, even air from across the room will begin to move, slowly at first and only gradually speeding up, but then faster and suddenly faster-yet-again into the Nozzle.

    At the Nozzle there is a vortex, and air there travels at Highest Speed, Coldest Temperature, Minimum Pressure and Maximum Expansion.

    Maximum Expansion, and this is going in (into the Nozzle).

    Note a) the slow start b) the speeding up 'Expansion' and c) the 'Inward' direction. These three effects qualify this event as an Inward Expansion.

    All Expansions that speed up are Inwards. We're going in.

     

     

     

    Not all galaxies are spiralled. And I don't think I've heard anybody say that the black hole at the center of the milkyway is just sittin out there chillin. As a matter of fact some stars orbit around that blackhole in a matter of minutes, travelling at millions of miles per hour.

    Sure, Modern Scientists say the black hole at the center of our Milky Way is just sitting there. Of course, you and I know the center of any Galaxy is a very busy place. It's the Growing gravity of this black hole that 'bends Inward' the ortbits of the stars, and it's the growing gravity of the central black hole that gives galaxies their spiral shape.

     

    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.

    We are moving towards a single point. It's just that we are expanding inwardly, starting slowly and speeding up. We are falling into a black hole. Everything is moving towards this central point. As we fall we must speed up, lose pressure, expand and cool down, like any falling object. This is exactly what happens to the Observable Universe as we go in.

    In Nature, we're speeding up because we're falling, due to Gravity. In your man-made Universe we're speeding up because of Anti-Gravity pushing us - Anti-Gravity they call Dark Energy.

    Because we're falling, at an increasing Rate of Acceleration, that's proof we're going into a Black Hole. If there was nothing there. we'd be speeding up, sure, but our Rate of Acceleration would diminish all the way to the center. This is not what's happening.

    A black hole works a lot like a vacuum cleaner. Air approaching a vacuum, cleaner speeds up as it goes, losing pressure and expanding all the way - except this expansion speeds up as it goes, just like the expansion of the observable Universe.

    Anyway, nice of you to contribute, Question Poster.

  12. But what is getting me is that I can't find any information, one way or another, that says if the vacuum pressure of space is changing. If there was it may give a further indication of what is happening with the universe as a whole.With a vacuum pressure that is getting stronger(more negative) we could assume that the universe is expanding. With a vacuum pressure that grows weaker(more positive) we could assume that the universe is contracting. If the pressure of the universe stays the same that either means there is an outside constant that we have yet to discover or that the indications of expansion that we have observed could just be movement along an eliptical orbit or something of that sort. These questions could probably be punched full of holes, but I haven't found any information that disputes them yet.

    There is a constant - the perfect vacuum, or 30 inches of mercury (g) or the vacuum of outer space. A vacuum means there is nothing there, which is absolutely the case in outer space. Take the center of a void. It's called a void because there is nothing there. Of course, in your Man-Made Universe, the vacuum of outer space is full of Man-Made 'Dark Energy,' and a load of Virtual Particles etc. all of it made up (fabricated) none of it real. At the center of a void is the perfect vacuum you seek - that's in Nature, anyway. And no, it doesn't change. Yes, it is a constant - you cannot get a better vacuum than a perfect vacuum.

    As for the expansion of the Universe it has never been observed and is therefore without evidence. Of course, Modern Scientists don't care about evidence, but I'm a True Scientist, and I certainly do. The expansion of the Observable Universe, on the other hand, is well documented.

    The Universe isn't expanding, Justin. We're going in (in Nature) so how could it be expanding? In Nature, Justin, we're speeding up because we're falling due to Gravity (Newton) and speeding up leads to loss of pressure (Bernoulli) which equals expansion (Boyle) and that's cooling down (Joule-Thomson Effect). These are really all the same thing - I wish you could see it.

    It's very simple in Nature. We(in the Observable Universe) are speeding up (now up to 15 million miles-per-hour) but everywhere I see that we're speeding up with an ever increasing Rate of Acceleration. This could only be caused by a Black Hole. I call that black hole Mable, for it must surely be, in the vernacular of our times, the Mother of All Black hoLEs, the most attractive body in the Universe and none other than the Black Hole at The Center of The Universe.

    I realise all this is new to you, but that doesn't make me wrong. In Nature, any expansion that speeds up is inward. Take a snowball rolling down a snowy bank. Note a) the slow start b) the speeding up expansion and c) the inward direction, toward Earth's Center of Mass. In Nature, there is no such thing as an Outward Expansion that speeds up, in the manner of your Man-Made Universe.

    Nature built the Universe out of Hydrogen. Gravity has the ability to gather huge clouds of the stuff, till pressures and temperatures cause the Hydrogen isotopes to fuse in a nucleaer explosion. Our sun, Sol - is a good example of this. Perhaps Jupiter could go critical soon - it's almost big enough, wouldn't you say?

     

    I don't think that a pressure change of this sort would ever create the effect we see. The galaxies we observe are not gravitationally bound. I fail to see how any pressure change could propagate with such an effect.

    There is no pressure change, Klaynos. A perfect vacuum is the norm in outer space. And what's this about the Galaxies we see are not bound? They are bound by the gravity of the black holes at their centers, and it'sthe GROWING mass of these black holes that bend 'inward' the 'streamlets' of stars that orbit these black holes, and that's what makes galaxies spirals (vortices).

    Modern Scientists say the black hole at the center of the Milky Way is just sitting there - chillin'. This is not right, there is much activity at the center of any galaxy, I hope you can see that tyese black holes are always eating. I almost think they are intelligent, the way tyey order their meals into long streams that deliver food directly into their maws - it just seems like such an intelligent thing to do.

  13. It's not a perfect vacuum. Just the closest there is.

    Not a perfect vacuum? I wonder why not?

     

    If you fall, you speed up because of gravity. You have to prove that there is something dense enough out there for its gravity to affect the whole universe. You haven't.

    If you fall, you speed up - quite correct. That's Newton. Now, speeding up leads to a loss of pressure. This was first noticed by one man Daniel Bernoulli. Any loss of pressure equals expansion (Robert Boyle) and any expansion causes cooling down (Joule-Thomson Effect). Are we in agreement?

     

    The part about losing pressure you haven't given information for either. You just say we're losing pressure. Where do I find the information or study on that.

    We, in the Observable Universe, are speeding up. We're also losing pressure according to Bernoulli.

     

    It seems that the expansion part is general consensus.

    The expansion of the Universe has never been seen and is therefore without evidence. The expansion of the Observable Universe on the other hand ,is very well documented

     

    At what rate is the universe cooling? Where is the info and study on that too? Just out of curiousity.

    I have no idea of the rate at which the Observable Universe is cooling down, only that it is cooling as it expands, in accordance with the Joule-Thomson Effect. You should also be aware that compression causes warming up, tho' I don't know who first discovered that. Was it Boyle?

    Fortunately Science is built on Laws, Laws which were only arrived at, sometimes - after bitter dispute. These Laws were fought for, and they must be respected, else you could do whatever you wanted, in Science.

    The Law of Gravity is another such Law. If you're pushing a Big-Bang (which couldn't have happened in a slowly expanding Universe - a big wheeze, maybe, but no sudden explosion) it's in your best interests to tell everybody Gravity is the weakest force because the Big-Bang flies in the face of Gravity. What's needed is a simple Theory that conforms to all the laws of Science - including Gravity.

     

     

     

     

     

    Yes I agree with the consensus on this. But as far as pressure goes... I can't seem to find any information on the subject that either supports or denies my way of thinking about it. It drives me crazy when I'm left to wonder.:)

    I don't know who interjected this. Was it you, Justin? Asfor pressure, all you have to remember is speeding up causes loss of pressure according to Bernoulli. I believe this is pretty well accepted, no?

  14. I was reading about the vacuum energy of space and got two conflicting answers. It said that free space was estimated to be 10^-9 Joules per cubic meter. But another theory had it at 10^113 joules per cubic meter using the Planck constent. Now since a vacuum is created by removing matter from space I assumed that with space expanding, compared to matter in that space, the greater the negative pressure of the vacuum. And visa versa. So I thought that if the universe were expanding, it would be reflected in the measure of vacuum. Vacuum theoretically can get stronger unitl it reaches what's called a perfect vacuum. Which theoretically can't happen without all matter being removed. At least this is what I've gotten out of the short amount of reading I've done about it so far.

    Oh, Justin. Now you're talking about a perfect vacuum. I thought Outer Space offered a perfect vacuum. That's 30 inches of mercury (g). Why are we even having this problem?

    I forgot to say last time - In Nature, we're speeding up because of Gravity, and it would take a black hole to cause an increasing Rate of Acceleration. We're falling into the black hole at the center of the Universe. That's in Nature.

    In Nature Justin W, Gravity (King Gravity) assembled the Universe as it started out - a loose, humungous Hydrogen cloud. The center of this gas-cloud where pressures and temperatures were highest evolved fastest, and black holes appeared there first. These black holes 'ate' the center out, and changed the center from a hot, compact high pressure zone into the Cooling down expanding vacuum we can see developing from here.

     

    It still doesn't explain the red shifts. And even considering Boyle's law, we can measure the pressure of space, but no one ever mentions if that pressure is changing one way or the other. And if it is changing, then that should be able to settle the question one way or the other. And if it's not changing, then I would say everyone is crazy and we're all made of silly puddy.

    About the red-shift. We, in the Observable Universe are expanding, at an ever increasing rate - exponentially, in fact. Lee Smolin, in his book 'String Theory' agrees with me that the expansion is increasing exponentially.

    If you fall, you speed up (Newton) lose pressure (Bernoulli) expand (Boyle) and cool down (the Joule-Thomson Effect.) That's in Nature, anyway. When you land, the opposite happens - you slow down and stop, compress. compact and warm up. It's a little more complicated than that, but that's the general idea (about falling).

    Now, if you fall and speed up, lose pressure, expand and cool down, isn't that exactly what's happening to the Obserable Universe?

  15. Sure, I was reffering to volume and pressure as a coupling. By saying that we are LOSING pressure, do you mean that the vacuum pressure is getting stronger or weaker? If space is expanding it would cause the vacuum pressure to get stronger, right? If you have any links to this it would be appreciated.

    By Losing Pressure, I mean, becoming less dense. As we expand we become less dense. It's further now, between bodies. But there's an 'average' pressure of our Solar System, including the pressure inside the sun (Sol) and Jupiter etc. There has to be, throughout the Observable Universe (OU) an average pressure, whatever it is. Anyway, you can't change the volume of anything in Nature, without affecting the pressure.

    As for your vacuum getting stronger - what is a vacuum? It's 30 inches of mercury. A tube, 30 inches high, will be filled. Virtually.

    Can your vacuum pull more than that? Can you get stronger than that? As for links, I'd say Google 'vacuum' and that should answer all your questions, Justin W.

     

    But this is all off to the side. There are two Universes, it seems to me - the Man-Made Universe and the Natural Universe - belonging to Mother Nature. In your Man-Made Universe we're speeding up because of a Man-Made Anti-Gravity called Dark Energy (invented in 1998) when Modern Scientists found out the expansion was increasing speed (and with an increasing Rate of Acceleration to boot.)

     

    Because in Nature, you see, we're speeding up because we're falling (Newton).

     

    There's your increasing Rate of Acceleration too. I know - I can't believe it either, it's so simple in Nature.

  16. Why?

    and

    What evidence?

    In Nature, Sorcerer, there are only two kinds of expansion 1) the kind that starts fast and slows down -that's your Popping Seed Case, or Explosion, or Big-Bang. The second type 2) is the opposite, an Inward Expansion. All Inward Expansions start Slowly and Speed Up.

    Inward Expansion? Yes, a snowball rolling down a snowy bank. The snowball teetered for a second as the kids pushed it over the edge, but then it Sped Up, growing (expanding) on its way into Earth's Center of Mass.

    The slow start, the speeding up expansion, and the inward direction, qualify this snowball as an Inward Expansion. Every vortex shows this Inward Expansion.

    Even a swirl of water going down a drain. The outside of this vortex moves only Slowly, Speeding up as it Loses Pressure on it's way to the drain. At the drain trhe surface is depressed (Bernoulli) and the greedy sucking sound confirms the Low Pressure there at the dain. Now, Sorcerer, water doesn't expand much, but that Low Pressure at the drain would certainly imply a strong 'tendency' to Expand. Note the Slow Start, the speeding up (tendency) to expand, and the inward direction all qualify this as an... Well, you decide.

     

     

     

    I don't understand why an excelerated expansion of space would mean the universe is imploding as apposed to exploding ( or "going in/going out" as u put it) - surely the evidence ( type 1A supernovae, microwave background ,etc) shows the universe is expanding.

    The Universe isn't expanding - no one has ever observed that. It is completely without evidence. The expansion of the Observable Universe, on the other hand - is amply documented. I'm sorry - I'm a scientist and I have to go with the evidence.

    It would however be possible to conceive of our universe as the inside of a blackhole that has/is expanded/ing.

    Again, Sorcerer, there is no evidence of any Black Hole expanding. Can we stick to the evidence, please. Are you not a scientist?

     

    - in thinking on what u said, pehaps the effects of mass(blackholes) distorting/stretching space between us and our observed data could make us "see" dark energy - ie the light has been curved and appears further away because it has travelled further than expected. This could also be accounted for by darkmatter, or darkmatter could be black holes.

    There's no Dark Energy either. Dark Energy ( a 'cooler' sounding name than Anti-Gravity and much easier to sell) is nothing more than Anti-Gravity and Anti-Gravity doesn't exist. If ur so sure it does, Sorcerer, show me some.

    Ok, I didnt read all the thread just ur first post which wasn't very clear. Did you mean space's excelerated expansion is due to a super massive black hole stretching everything towards it? So, as we approach it we see space expanding at an increasing rate.

    That's exactly right, Sorcere. We're Speeding up, now up to 15 million miles per hour, and any speeding up leades to loss of pressure (Bernoulli) and loss of pressure equals rising expansion (Boyle) and expansion causes cooling down (the Joule-Thomson Effect) That's just how Nature works.

     

    Well if so, we could observe type 1A supernova from different locations on our horizon, and the difference between them would be propotional to their angle with 0degrees a straightline from us to the supermassive black hole. IE when we are directly between a type1a supernova and the black hole the expansion of space or "dark energy" would have a different value than to when the supernova was directly between us and the black hole.

    I see. You're saying that if a Type 1a Supernova is between us and the Black Hole (which I call Mable, for it must be the Mother of All BlacK hoLEs, the Black Hole at the center of the Universe.) that would affect the expansion - something I'd never thought of. But you see, this Black Hole Mable is of a different scale to a regular Black Hole. You see, if there's a Black Hole where I say it is, then the Universe is a vortex, probably a lot like the Whirlpool Galaxy, or our own Milky Way - just on a different scale. It would take an awful lot of mass to influence a) our Observable Universe or b) Mable. This is the Mable Theory.

     

    It still doesn't explain the red shifts. And even considering Boyle's law, we can measure the pressure of space, but no one ever mentions if that pressure is changing one way or the other. And if it is changing, then that should be able to settle the question one way or the other. And if it's not changing, then I would say everyone is crazy and we're all made of silly puddy.

    Justin, in Thermodynamics, Pressure and Volume are a 'conjoined couple.' You can't talk about one without talking about the other. Pressure and Volume are related, but inversely. That's not me - that's Physics 101. And what red-shifts are you talking about? Andromeda?

    The Pressure, of course, is changing. We're Losing Pressure as we expand. And since the expansion is increasing, so is the loss of pressure. You have to be able to see that.

     

    I can't wait for when you are banned. :)

    Why? Would it make any difference to you if there was a Black Hole at the center of the Universe? Come on, I'm interested...

  17. Hi, I'm happy to be here in Science Forums and I hope Science Forums is happy to have me here. I'm Canadian, tho' I have spent much of my life in UK. I have toured the USA a few times - last time I was in Belingham, WA and that was last summer. I have spent a few years out west, but Oakville, ON is my home town. I believe that Modern Cosmology is out of step with Nature.

  18. And what about WMAP? That satellite was sent up for the purpose of clarifying this issue, and you just dispense it on a whim? Where are you getting your information from? "Common sense"?

    That article (about COBE) came from the Globe and Mail of January 10, 1998 - in an article called 'Infra-red readings shed new light on Big-Bang - Early Universe better understood,' by Steven Strauss. I'm sorry, I should have said. That's my fault, not yours. Well, you see, because of all the fuss caused by COBE's Infra-Red picture, all representations of the CBR must come with the necessawry7 marks, and that's why the WMap has the marks it has. I'm a scientist, and I have to go with the evidence. Can you not see that? The evidence points to a perfectly smooth CBR, that just sits there, hardly moving and all around us, a smooth warm soup. The CBR is the densest zone in the Universe. Because movement here is so slight, you'd think it was a 'peaceful' zone, if you were there. No, I wouldn't dispense anything on a whim. Ok, Reality?

     

    I beg to differ. Take a look at the Cassmir affect, vacume energy, vacuum state, etc...

    You got me, Justin W. I'm not familiar with the Cassmir Effect. I always thought a vacuum meant there was nothing there. What's less than nothing? But I'm prepared to bend to your greater knowledge.

     

     

    Okay, I agree that it is only a theory, but it is understandable to come up with an explanation for what is being seen. I myself am not sure at all that red shifts proved an expanding universe instead of just one that is in motion. Although I understand that in order for it to be a red shift instead of a blue shift, the object would have to be moving away from the observer. The theory of dark energy, from my limited understanding, was to provide a reasonable explanation for the observed expansion. What you said about gravity is true and the only way to escape gravity is for a potential energy to give you an escape velocity. Since the red shifts were interpreted to be an expansion, then you would also have to have a potential energy to provide that escape velocity. (dark energy) It's just a name for something unseen and undetected.

     

    If everything is contracting, why are we seeing red shifts instead of blue?

     

     

    The Observable Universe is expanding inwardly. That's according to Nature, anyway. All Inward Expansions start slowly, toward a central point - and speed up. With everything converging on the nozzle of a vacuum cleaner, will there be a High Pressure or a Low Pressure, there at the nozzle?

    As for Dark Energy (which is a man-made force) pushing the Universe, wouldn't there be some compression and compaction going on? And if you're pouring energy into it - are you sure you're not warming it? If, on the other hand, Gravity7 is pulling the Universe - isn't there a danger Gravity might pull it apart? And if you pull something, you might stretch it - and that might cause a decompresseion. And in its stretched state, it might take up more room in this expanded shape. Are you Cooling it?

     

    I would like to know how you came by the information that the universe is losing pressure. I have been looking for such information.

     

    Robert Boyle of Boyle's Law was the first, I think to note that Pressure and Expansion were related - inversely. That means, if you Pressurize something, it will take up less space. That's Increased Pressure, Diminished Space. If the space Invcreases, that's because you have reduced the pressure. In thermophysics, pressure and expansion are a 'conjoined couple' (they're married - you can't split them.) Increased Expansion will always be accompanied by a Loss of Pressure, and vice-versa.

    I would say that depends on what forces are at work and where they are applied. Since we don't know that we only have what we observe to go by.

     

    I agree, we only have what we can see. But we can see (now) the Expansion is Speeding Up. In 1998, everyone thought the expansion was slowing down, as all Outward Expansions must. When they found out the expansion was Speeding Up, Modern Scientists, instead of questioning their Bigy-Bang promptly invented a new force, an Anti-Gravity force they called Dark Energy. This repulsive force is operating the Universe, they say. But Anti-Gravity doesn't exist. If you're so sure it does, show me some!

    In Nature, all Inward Expansions start slowly and speed up.

  19. If the universe was expanding outward in every direction, then all of the matter in it would have a tendency to be drawn outward in every direction, as well; it would have a tendency to follow the bread dough analogy. It's just a hard concept to accept that such a vast entity as the universe would continue expanding.

    There's no such thing as an Outward Expansion that speeds up. Not in Nature, there isn't. All Inward Expansions speed up. Put the Nozzle of a working Central-Vac in the middle of a room, and the Nozzle will evacuate the air nearest to the Nozzle. The remaining air in the room will Expand Inwardly, slowly at first, but then faster and faster-yet-again, in order to replace the evacuated air.

    As the experiment runs, even air from across the room will eventually begin to move, slowly at first, but then faster and faster-yet-again toward the Central Point of the Nozzle. (from here on in, and we are going in, you can replace the word 'Nozzle' with 'Black-Hole' if you like) At the Nozzle will be found a vortex, along with air (matter) of the Highest Speed

    Coldest Temperature, Minimum Pressure and Maximum Expansion.

    Maximum expansion - and this is going in.

    Going toward the Nozzle, the air will be Speeding Up, Losing Pressure (Bernoulli) Expanding (Boyle) and Cooling Down (the Joule-Thomson Effect).

    The Observable Universe is also Speeding Up, Losing Pressure, Expanding and Cooling Down.

    The point is, the kind of expansion that Speeds Up, is Inward.

    If we were going out, we'd be slowing down. As it is, we're speeding up - and that means we're going in.

  20. Then how do you explain the vacuum of space. To my way of thinking the less mass you have in a space the greater the vacuum. I've been trying to find information on any changes in vacuum, but I haven't been able to get any farther than just normal fluctuation. It only makes sense that if there is already a vacuum then any expansion or contraction would adversely affect the measure of vacuum.

    Not to mention all that I've heard is that it is expanding or contracting. If it is expanding then what is it expanding away from and in what direction? I've only heard OUT. If it is expanding there ought to be a central point who's location can be calculated and identified. Same with a contraction and probably more so.

     

    And to just say we are falling is a little inadequate. Before you could say we are falling you would have to know which way is down in the universe.

    Justin W, you can't have a vacuum greater than a vacuum. A vacuum can't increase. A vacuum means there is nothing there - nothing. Empty Space is truly empty, believe me. Everyone in 1998 was expecting the expansion to be slowing down, and it came as a surprise to Modern Scientists that it was speeding up. They promptly made up a new force, an Anti-Gravity they called Dark Energy (a 'cooler' sounding name and much easier to sell.) Anti-Gravity doesn't exist and they say it's running the Universe.

     

    They've got it backwards, it's not Anti-Gravity running the Universe, but Gravity. Gravity is all there is. If we're going in, and we are, Gravity is all you're going to need, anyway. There is such a thing as Inward Expansion, tho' it is not taught in schools - it should be. And because I say we're falling, and that's why we're speeding up, you think that's inadequate. I'm saying Gravity is doing it, and you're saying we're speeding up for some man-made reason, Dark Energy - and you think that's a better answer. Excuse me!

     

    What evidence and falling where? Also falling implies direction(down). Is it falling/contracting, or just falling?

    Okay, Justin W, here's the evidence. In Nature, there are only two kinds of expansion, the kind that starts fast and slows down, and the kind that starts slowly and speeds up.

    The first kind 1) is your basic explosion, or popping seed case - or Big Bang. All Outward Expansions start fast, from a Central Point and slow down. That's just the nature of the beast.

    They're opposites, these two kinds of expansion, and the second kind 2) is an Inward Expansion. All Inward Expansions start slowly toward a Central Point and speed up.

    Inward Expansion? Yes, a snowball rolling down a snowy bank. This snowball started slowly as the kids pushed it over the edge, but it grows (expands) as it heads towardr the Centr5al Point of Earth's Center of Mass.

    a) The slow start b) the speeding up expansion, and 3) the inward direction qualify this event as an Inward Expansion.

    I hope you can see that.

    Now, tell me what you think?

  21. COBE and WMAP satellites are 99 years old? Not quite. This is a case of someone emphasizing their own limited version of logic and reasoning over observation. Next.

     

    Also, I'm not necessarily promoting that the BB initiated from a singularity-like beginning, I'm just saying that we can only look back so far. What we can see with what we have to work with denotes a general tendency to agree with a general BB framework. Obviously, there's no way that we can look back past a certain point, but we can make general outlines which agree with what we see. If these two satellites agreed with the hypotheses or theory, then why should we be swayed by your "reasoning"?

    I'm glad you mention COBE, NASA's Cosmic Background Explorer satellite. COBE returned an infra-red photograph of the background radiation that was mounted on an easel as an oval, pink picture - unveiled to select NASA scientists by NASA's Eli Dwek. The picture showed a perfectly smooth CBR without any marks whatsoever. This could not be allowed to stand by the scientists gathered. They seized the picture ans enlarged and enhanced a small section of the photograph over and over until eventually some faint marks emerged. The meeting will always be famous for the Big-Banger who, seeing these marks said he had 'Gazed on the face of God.'

    Others thought that with all this enlarging, the marks were just abberations on COBE's lens.

    Since then, of course, all pictures of the CBR come with the marks built-in.

    And in order to make your Outward Expansion work, you have to make up a Big-Bang, another repulsive force Dark Energy, you need Einstein's Cosmological Constant and a Cosmological Principle. I don't need to make up anything. All forces in this, the Mable Theory are from within Nature. nothing man-made, unlike your theory (Big-Bang) which needs all this man-made stuff.

    And what about the accelerating expansion? That's simply because we're falling - and I have evidence for that too.

  22. 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.

    It's not the vacuum of Space that's expanding, but the distance between various celestial bodies in the Observable Universe that is increasing. And yes, if you view a Galaxy head on, the part leaving you will be red-shifted, and the part approaching you will be blue shifted. As for tha acceleration, we're accelerating because we're falling. It's that simple.

     

    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.

    Reality, the Observable Universe is expanding inwardly into a Black Hole, in the same way air, on its way to the nozzle of a working central-vac will speed up as loses pressure and expands on its way to the central point of the nozzle.

     

    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?

    There was no Big-Bang. That's ninety year old technology. They barely had cars then. Since then we've learned much, especially that the expansion is speeding up. That changes things. If we were going out, we'd be slowing down. As it is, we're speeding up, and that's Gravity taking us in.

    I can prove it.

     

    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.

    Of course the Observable Universe is special, Klaynos - it is, after all, the part we can see. We can have no idea what's happening outside the observable universe - we can't see that far. But if we go by what's happening to the Observable Universe, we should be able to tell what's going on, wouldn't you say?

    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.

    So you're another Mathematician. Unfortunately, Math isn't a Science - it wasn't the last time I checked. I'd prefer to talk to another scientist - but that's not up to me. And I understand the Age of the Universe was calculated assuming a steady rate of expansion, a straight line graph - when actually the expansion is speeding up. That makes a huge difference, don't you see?

    If the expansion started at only one mile per hour it could mean the Universe is really ancient - perhaps trillions of years old.

    You are taking a chance going with all this man-made stuff, which is old as the hills. It will lead you astray. We're not going out - there was no Big-Bang. We're going in.

    I realise this is new to you, but just 'cause it's new doesn't make it wrong.

    Go with Mother Nature. That way you'll get the real picture. That's what I do, anyway.

     

    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.

    We just can't see that far. We only have the behavior of the Observable Universe to guide us. Let's let it do that.

     

    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?

    All this about the 'force of the vacuum.' There was no Big-Bang - not now - not ninety years ago. There's no evidence of any 'slowing down' of the expansion.

    The evidence led me to believe we're going in.

  23. 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.

     

    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.

     

    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.

     

    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.

     

    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?

  24. 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?

     

    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...

     

    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.
×
×
  • 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.