beecee

 

That article says nothing to me other than what we see doesn't really make sense, but some guys got together and finally agreed on an explanation that validates already accepted theories that were formulated before the information that we have today was available.

From my experience on a past now defunct science forum, sometimes we have certain people, obviously self indulgent or with an agenda, that simply refuses to learn, and totally ignores the scientific methodology.

Obviously their only outlet and yearning for notoriety are forums such as this.

 

I suppose that's why as soon as they collected all this data, all the pieces just seemed to fall in place just like a square peg in a square hole. No inconsistencies, no controversies, no misconceptions, no disagreements, and everyone couldn't be happier with the current model that all that data produced. I don't know how I could've missed that.

 

 

You missed it because you are obviously not in tuned with what data has been discovered, how to interpret that data, and ignorance of the knowledge that leads to today's cosmological models.

Disagreements, inconsistencies and misconceptions, occur all the time in all disciplines of science, but in time most are fathomed out and agreed upon, by further observations, further experiments, and continued testing, by the professionals with access to the state of the art equpiment which you and I do not have.

Honest, good post.I have given up trying to convince anyone because there are to few with any reasoning powers.

The reasoning powers that have modeled our universe, is based on observational and experimental data, from state of the art equipment that has retrieved this data, professional astronomers and astrophysicists that have interpreted this data, and many others at the coal face with their heads down and backsides up, certainly not from anyone on any public science forum, opened to any Tom, Dick or Harry. Those are the facts.

No, not for a living. I don't believe in profiting from the sharing of ideas. That would be like charging a fee because you can see the sky.

 

My apologies....I was being facetious.

Actually this model of the Universe as described here is completely consistent with every scientific fact and/or data used to compose the standard model of the Universe, only this model reduces the amount of paradox and is less incoherent.

 

 

 

If that were/was the case, You would be in line for a Nobel.

In reality, while you may have a "model" it is not a scientific model. and appears to be a muddle of ad hoc ideas you have dreamed up, [under some paranoid pretext of being able to think for yourself] without one iota of observational or experimental data.

The Observable Universe is around 96 billion light years in diameter? So from the conventional model that would mean the Universe is 48 billion years old, considering that light had to traverse space to reach us. Is that what you mean?

No, no no! I have mentioned it now in various posts and threads, that the 96 L/years diameter is because and a result of spacetime expansion.

It has nothing to do with how old the universe is, which is still 13.83 billion years.

Really, do your self a favour......get hold of some reputable book on cosmology, by a reputable author, or check out some reputable scientific papers from "arXiv" and you may become aware of the models that physicists have adopted, why they have adopted those models, the observational and experimental data that lead to those models, and the myriad of space probes and 'scopes, both Earth based and space based, that discovered such data...state of the art equipement like COBE, WMAP, Planck, HST, Chandra, Spitzer, and many more.

Then you may see that cosmologists/astrophysicists and scientists in general, do not just drag our present incumbent models out of their butt.

 

 

Yes, the radius of the Observable Universe is about 13.8 billion years giving it a diameter of about 27.4 billion years. The diameter of the CMB is around 96 billion years. I am not implying any type of reflection, only that the Observable Universe began around 96 billion light years in diameter and has been shrinking to the volume that we currently see today.

 

Do you write fairy tales for a living?

I mean really, that is a load of codswallop...we have zero evidence to support anything like that, and no reason at all to believe in such fairy tales.

Again the observable universe is around 96 billion L/years in diameter.

 

So are you suggesting that light we see of the Universe from 13 billion light years away only represents 1/8 of it's present size? So the size of the actual Universe today is about 8x the size of it at 26 billion light years in diameter?

 

The observable universe is around 96 billion L/years in diameter: You have not allowed for expansion.

The Universe is around 13.8 billion years old.

 

A better question might be if there is this DE that pushes, and DM that pulls, then why aren't they just cumulative and cancel each other out until there is only one left. It would be like saying that 2+2=4 is actually 2+(9x9)-79=4 kind of...

No, you have things confused.

DE is our explanation to explain the observed acceleration in the expansion rate of spacetime. which happens over the largest scales.

DM is invoked and evidenced to explain rotational curves of galaxies over obvious galactic scales.

They are not related.

If it is theorized that the Universe is infinite and matter exists throughout all of it. Doesn't that mean that there is more matter that we cannot see than matter that we can? If this is true, than there should be more gravity pulling outward from every direction, and therefore fueling the expansion.

The universe [spacetime] expands over large scales where mass/energy density is less........

Over smaller scales like our local group of galaxies, and even further afield, the gravity from these more dense regions, overcomes the expansion and those regions are gravitationally bound.

 

[math]R_{gs}[/math] is a radius which cannot be compressed anymore due to the negative gravitational potential energy.

GR disagrees with you, sorry.

And that has a pretty good track record.

But hey! If you believe you have found a genuine anomaly or error, then prepare a scientific paper for appropriate peer review.

Some shark species are facing extinction.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_threatened_sharks

That's not so good.

agreed.

The typical question is "what is space or spacetime made of and how does it curve?.

 

And how or why does mass/energy alter the geometry of flat spacetime.

My mind wanders to one of the greatest experiments on Earth being conducted now at the LHC and the "Higgs particle" and Higgs field......I'm fairly raw on knowldege of the Higgs particle and field, but hypothetically, could this be why mass/energy warps spacetime?

I hope this isn't sidetracking, but I'm attracted to the possible "Superforce", when all the forces were united just after the BB with the extremely high energy levels existent at that time.

Is there a possible connection between the Higgs and associated field, and the Superforce and graviton?

I know we havn't yet achieved a QGT, but there does seem to be some evidence as to why the aforementioned hypotheticals maybe valid....

Shouldn't we be calling it spacetime?

"The views of space and time which I wish to lay before you have sprung from the soil of experimental physics, and therein lies their strength. They are radical. Henceforth space by itself, and time by itself, are doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the two will preserve an independent reality".

Hermann Minkowski

My own view on this is that space, time, spacetime, while certainly not physical, are real....just as a magnetic field is real.

Space is what stops everything from being together.

Time is what stops everything from happening together.

Spacetime is the unified multi-dimensional framework within which we locate events and describe the relationships between them in terms of spatial coordinates and time. The concept of spacetime follows from the observation that the speed of light does not vary with the motion of the emitter or the observer. Spacetime allows a description of reality that is common for all observers in the universe, irrespective of their relative motion.

Each frame of reference when considered separately, sees space and time differently, but spacetime is invariant.

Spacetime is geometry.

In GR gravity is described in terms of curvature of spacetime.

Space, time, spacetime while being real, are not made of anything.....space and time, "as we know them" came into existence at the BB.

Anyone see anything wrong with those definitions?

I'm betting the Orcas are getting high!

 

https://www.livescience.com/59056-orcas-may-be-killing-great-white-sharks.html

Wow! A very interesting article to say the least.

So far I don't believe we have any evidence or reason to believe that our solar system is part of a binary system.

Unlike the majority of systems, it appears the Sun is our only star.

All I see in this thread is plenty of ifs and buts and supposes and what ifs.

Along with of course an example of dabbling in science fiction.

We see the sphere of the Universe 27.4 billion light years in diameter.

I don't believe that is correct. You have not allowed for expansion over the period of 13.8 billion years since the BB.

The universe from memory is around 96 billion L/years in diameter.

 

My preferred question is along the lines of "is there any real scientific alternative to the theory of Abiogenesis?"

 

 

Yes there is, panspermia is one and no it doesn't just push the problem to another planet. At one time, for about 700 million years the entire universe was at the right temp for life to start. Gives a whole new meaning to the idea of a warm puddle..

While I am fond of the Panspermia idea re how life got started on Earth, It doesn't invalidate the only scientific answer to how life in the universe got started, that is, Abiogenesis.

Panspermia imo, goes hand in glove with Abiogenesis.

Well i was just trying to talk about some religious perspectives about some science and biology , which is in the books .I guess that was one of the reason a post ended up in the off-topic Religion Section of the science forum

 

Anyways thanks for the replies

All I will do is offer a video of who in my opinion is one of the greatest educators of the 20th century..........

Your answer of course is given at around the 1 minute mark

DrKrettin, thank you for putting rigor into my argument, I sure can use it. I agree that Im operating too frivorously with the word "fact" and this can get me into trouble (and it actually does in some cases)

I would like to adress one of your statements:

"Newtons laws are wrong because they do not explain every observable motion"

I disagree with this statement, imo you cannot put an equal sign between those two. If something is not complete it doesnt mean its wrong. I know you will probably say its semantics but I think that to say something is wrong we better have strong argumentation for it.

While I have no real argument with DrKrettin, my own views do align with your own more closely.

I see Newton's gravity model, as simply less accurate then Einstein's GR: We could use GR instead of Newton's model, for all calculations here on Earth, and for all space endeavours, and get far more accurate answers, but we don't.

We don't because Newton gives us answers that are totally adequate for the job.

A carpenter for example, uses a measuring tape to construct a window frame and window...he gets a precise fit adequate for the job in hand......he has no need to use a micrometer or vernier caliper to achieve the far more accurate results that they would give.

Likewise an Astronomer once told me that any future QGT or BB extension theory, would most like encompass the BB.

Again, though I do understand what DrKrettin is saying.

The theory of evolution is as close to being a fact as one could hope for.

But just as the BB is incomplete in that it tells us how spacetime/universe evolved rather then started, so to is evolution incomplete in that it tells us how life evolved on Earth, rather then how life started.

My preferred question is along the lines of "is there any real scientific alternative to the theory of Abiogenesis?"

We know that.

But if they happen more often then it's more common.

Yes, IF they happen more often.

The point I am making though, and I'm sure you understand, is what I said previously....

 

What it is not, is some mystic supernatural, paranormal, Alien induced phenomena.....

More on the Bermuda Triangle here.............................

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bermuda_Triangle

I need to interject here. What you described is the Hubble horizon. Recessional velocity is not a true velocity. It is a consequence of separation distance applied to

 

[latex]V_{rec}=H_o d [/latex] In other words it depends on the distance of the observer.

Locally per Mpc the rate of expansion is only 70 km/s/Mpc at the leading edge of the signal. The light beam has no problem overcoming expansion at that leading edge.

 

It can literally overcome the recessive velocity from our local observer point as the light beam lead edge is a different event coordinate. Our measure of recessive velocity cannot apply to that event coordinate. ( lead edge light beam).

 

Hence the observable universe is far greater than the Hubble Horizon.

Accepted....

Thanks for that......Obviously I have my horizons mixed up somewhat.

 

Nonsense. Philosophy cannot say anything realistic about the future state of the universe (except by echoing the results of science).

Bingo!

 

I'm sorry! I can't speak English well.

 

 

"[1]Once the Schwarzchild radius is reached for any mass, further collapse is compulsory......hence the BH aspect." :

--> OK.

 

[2]Most scientists worth their salt, do not believe any point singularity exists, with infinite quantities such as spacetime curvature and density

--> Yes.

 

[3] GR fails at the quantum/Planck level,

--> Yes.

 

//so in essence we should be able to conclude based on GR success and incredible predictability, that the "compulsory collapse"mentioned in [1] should apply at least up to the quantum/Planck realm.//

--> No, because of that field equation of general relativity does not include the gravitational potential energy term. And IMO, gravitational contraction should stop at R_gs(0.3R_S, 0.3*event horizon).

 

Even in a black hole with smallest size that is made by the contraction of a star, the distribution of internal mass can't be reduced to at least radius 3km(). Therefore, they do not reach the planck scale.

.

You seem to have contradicted yourself somewhat there.....Understandable since english is not your first language.

You agreed with my point 1, and then you conclude in saying gravitational collapse should stop.

Irrespective, evidence supports what I said in point 1...Once the Schwarzchild radius is reached further collapse is "compulsory"

Plus the "Dying Pulse Train" effect as predisted by GR, also supports total collapse.

http://www.indiana.edu/~geol105/images/gaia_chapter_1/death_spiral.htm

Tar:

Firstly from my observation, we maybe getting off topic...maybe more cosmology than the thread title.

As a lay person, I will always support what I have claimed, and as I have done in this thread, with appropriate links.

While sometimes those links maybe pop science oriented, they may possible also be misleading, although so far, in this thread, I don't believe so.

I also welcome any correction to any incorrect interpretation of mine.

I don't believe that you have yet offered any link supporting your interpretation.

Thinking for ones self is admirable to say the least, but so also is the realisation that sometimes one still needs expertise within that discipline.

Your posts at times, also seem mildly confusing and mixed up, but perhaps that's just me.

 

​Which is what I understood. It does not mean the image ever stops coming. It just gets slower and weaker. What is practical in 600 billion years may be impractical at the moment.

If the light source is beyond where the recessional velocity of the object is "c" then I believe no light at all will reach us.

Again, the same reason light does not get out of a BH.

we have not witnessed the furthest we can see yet

Yep, we are finding new galaxies everyday, but in time, they will also move beyond our observation/s.

so if there are areas of space beyond the CMB,

The CMBR pervades all of our universe.

I could imagine that there may be some that we would never see the first light from, but everything between us and the CMB we have already seen the first light from, so there is only the second, third, fourth and 13.8billionth light that we will see from those areas of space. There is not a reason for their light to all of a sudden not be able to reach us, it is already on its way and it can only get longer in wavelength it can not decide not to get to us

Recessional velocity at or greater then "c" will see them in time, disappear.

There is not a reason for their light to all of a sudden not be able to reach us, it is already on its way and it can only get longer in wavelength it can not decide not to get to us

When recessional velocity exceeds "c" no light will reach us.

This is the same reason why light cannot escape the EH of a BH.

"Galaxies beyond our observational horizon are apparently moving away at FTL."

 

But there are NO galaxies ON our observational horizon, so there is no chance of any moving beyond it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cosmological_horizons

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle_horizon

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/physics/2012/10/how-large-is-the-observable-universe/

extract:

"Interestingly, as the universe expands, the size of the observable portion will grow—but only up to a point. Gott and his colleagues showed that eventually there will be a limit to the observable universe’s radius: 62 billion light-years. Because of the accelerating expansion of the universe, galaxies are fleeing from us (and each other) at an ever-hastening pace. Consequently, over time, more and more galaxies will move beyond the observable horizon. Turning once again to our relay race analogy, we imagine that if the players get faster and faster as the race goes on, there will be more and more who were so far away when they first threw the ball that the light would never have had time to reach us".

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/106042-philosophy-science-reality/page-7

A:

"Not like “winking out of existence as you watch”, but yes - in the long run (very long run - billions of years), distant galaxies that we can see now will become undetectable, because the light from them will be unable to reach us.

Actually, some of the galaxies we can still see are probably already “out of range”, it's just that the light that left them back when they were still “in range” is still making it's way towards us. But the last light we'll ever see from those galaxies is already “in flight”, and once the last of that light reaches us, there will never be any more.

Eventually, everything except the “local cluster” of galaxies (our milky way, Andromeda, and a few more) will be out of range. The universe will be a lonely place. But that's not going to happen for trillions of years, so it's nothing to worry about - odds are we'll be long dead from any of a million other fates long before that happens".