Go Back   IceInSpace > General Astronomy > General Chat

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
  #1  
Old 16-06-2019, 11:54 AM
xelasnave's Avatar
xelasnave
Gravity does not Suck

xelasnave is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Tabulam
Posts: 12,164
Some Layman Cosmology.

Well that could sound like a contraction but cosmology is not limited to our current Cosmology as it seems ever group of people throughout history have a Cosmology..the Pagan concept of the cosmic egg although probably not a reality ( the egg os generally cut in half one part becoming the Earth and the other half the heavens or a similar form in various cultures..it is surprising how wide stread you can find that cosmology. The gact is however it is nothing like our current cosmology other than all cosmologies must have a start ...

However I openned this thread because I started ranting about the big bang and derailing the other thread...but I have learnt something important as I think my understanding of inflation is incorrect...I am going back to square one and re educate myself...

Anyways this time I am sure I have discovered how it really works☺ with this new idea...not mineas I have read someone making a similar speculation.. but thinking about cosmology and what could be etc ...so somewhere I read someone saying the universe is actually srinking but we perceive it as expansion..and one tends to dismiss such a wild strange idea..but just now it hit me thats how it must work...think of the universe like a grape or fruit that starts all the same in side but energy even matter leaves the fruit to go "outside"... as the mass an energy becomes less things group and clump to various degrees of density...like a piece of fruit drying out and leaving a rathet solid structure...it is so simple and could work☺.
I bet someone has a youtube video ..its not that original..maybe the concept of transfering energy and matter to outside could be new...black holes could be those really hard bits of the dried out fruit..what you find in really dried out stuff parrallels gallaxies ☺.

So my question is the numbers from Grapefruit size to all there is?...does the observed expansion extrapolate back to there ... well cant see past? Only extrapolate past the CBR I expect we cant support that period with observation as we cant see past that as I understand it. Maybe the CBR is the first hint of the grape drying out☺...grape...grapefruit. .it was not only the suze of a grape fruit but was actually really a giant grape fruit and we are just little creatures littling on some of the dried out bits...to test my idea I predict space with have the flavour of a dried out grapefruit...or mold thats possible.
Alex

Last edited by xelasnave; 16-06-2019 at 12:09 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 18-06-2019, 06:51 PM
ckpacc (Sergey)
Registered User

ckpacc is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 7
Hi there,

Have a look at this video, what could you say:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9oKmTLgk8u4
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 18-06-2019, 07:23 PM
xelasnave's Avatar
xelasnave
Gravity does not Suck

xelasnave is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Tabulam
Posts: 12,164
Thanks heaps its hard to get such high grade videos so thank you so much for putting that one up☺.
I watched the first minute but won't continue until I get my note book to record the more interesting snippets☺.
Do you have anymore?
Alex
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 19-06-2019, 08:50 AM
xelasnave's Avatar
xelasnave
Gravity does not Suck

xelasnave is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Tabulam
Posts: 12,164
I still feel the type of Universe Dr Albert Einstein believed in when he formulated his Theory of General Relativity is the one most likely to reflect reality...his Universe was not a BB model but an eternal universe somewhat similar to the discarded Steady State Model.
He included the Cosmological Constant in his equations in order to have an eternal type universe.
However when observations concluded the universe was expanding Dr Albert Einstein stated that his Cosmological Constant was his greatest blunder and on this point I think he may be entirely wrong as I think reality may suggest it was indeed his greatest insite....yet he folded his cards overnight, which I find most strange as most times folk just dont do that...they hang on to what has taken years for them to develop...and I dont understand the equations of General Relativity but believe the cosmological constant remains yet its value reset so as not to prevent a universe from expanding...if anyone knows if I am wrong I would appreciate that fact being pointed out to me.

I really wonder if indeed the universe is expanding... I wonder if the observations may be able to be interpreted differently such that we determine there is no expansion...why is expansion so important?..well that is the basic premise upon which the BB model stands...The Steady State Model tried to accomodate an expanding universe rather than reject the interpretation of the observation leading to the conclusion that the universe was expanding..and it seems there is no room now to think that the universe is not expanding...however the BB model leaves us with a creation point which does not seem reasonable in my view. Sure the BB model deals only with the evolution of the universe starting at a point in time after what we could reasonably call the point of creation...seems odd to me...the early critism of the BB model was it was inspired by a religious need and although one does not hear such these days I believe that critism is still valid.
Who thought up the idea in the first place and would it not be reasonable to assume even if the man was a scientist that his science may well be influenced by his world view...and add that the church approves ... the Big Bang is a scientific theory which is more like saying it is a scientific fact..theory in science is near opposite to the usage a layman assigns..that of "I had a wild idea that is cool but perhaps unlikey"...no. .a scientific theory really means undisputted fact..so its not the big bang theory it really is the big bang fact...so what evidence do we have...well all evidence is offerred in support..cosmic background radiation therefore in its linked way proves inflation ( which I conceed I was wrong as to the metric) and every aspect of which we lack observation... personally I can not accept that because of that observation it establishes any more than there is exists a cosmic background radiation...it could be a result of what the BB theory asserts but perhaps such an assertion could use other facts rather that allow the theory to say "its there so everything else the theory says is right"...maybe its just me..a nutter and crack pot who tries to analyze the merits on the evidence...but finally my distrust of the theory boils down to my dislike of any notion of creation...already we have folk showing mathematically how the big bang could arise from quatum fluctuations...mmm how far can we bend this bow.
So would it not be sad if indeed religion has secretly guided our science such that we are forced to conclude there must be a point of creation and inevitably a point we can only call the end...why would a finite universe arise out of an infinite eternity as surely it makes more sense to conclude it is indeed the universe that is eternal.

However keep the suggestions for nutter UFO videos coming as evidence that to think that another reality is more likely can only be met with in effect calling one a nutter...
Alex
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 19-06-2019, 10:31 AM
bojan's Avatar
bojan
amateur

bojan is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Mt Waverley, VIC
Posts: 5,734
Facts:
1) Observation shows the Univers is expanding.
2) Observation shows the galaxies further away (and therefore younger) have different compositions, constent with their (calculated) age. So Universe is evolving (changing).
3) CMBR strongly supports BB.


Alex, it is impossible to add constructive criticism to GR without understanding the math behind it.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 19-06-2019, 12:20 PM
xelasnave's Avatar
xelasnave
Gravity does not Suck

xelasnave is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Tabulam
Posts: 12,164
Hi Bojan
Thanks for contributing I really do appreciate you doing so.
As to 1)...that is the interpretation of observations and there is no arguement there...I wonder however if we could be wrong is my point...similar to but not the same as a mirage where what we think we see is a distortion of reality in some way.
As to 2)
Yes I am aware of such but given the distance it is entirely possible that the image we get after billions of years may be distorted such that something is missing from the picture...if we viewed m31 or the Milky Way at extreme distances I wonder how they would appear maybe the same but I do think there is room to speculate they may appear different..take the first cutting edge observations of Mars that showed canals apparently...now that raises another issue..the guy observing Mars I guess had a somewhat preconcieved idea of what he should see which I expect was some evidence of a Martian civilization..that may have led him to interprete his observations thru a "lens"☺ of pteconception to find the evidence he expected.
So I ask can we observe gallaxies at billions of light years and determine conclusively they are young, could they appear different if we were only next door. Can we say observations of distant gallaxies are made without the expectation that they must be young and re ently formed. If there is no doubt I think all could be remined of the times humans have been wrong. So I ask the jury can you be sure the defendant is guilty beyond a resonable doubt☺☺☺.
As to 3) I make no critism of GR at all and I think what I have laid out represents a short version of the history...GR was constructed at a time when most all the scientific community thought along the same lines as Dr Albert Einstein that the universe was eternal.
I dont think that observation is dependent upon any understanding of the maths involved.
And as I have said in the other thread GR is really not the issue...GR was used to support in the first instance an eternal universe and adjusted later to fit an expanding universe..it is as I understand a geometric co ordinate system and via adjustment eg the value of the cosmological constant can be used in support of two very different propositions.

The BBT is the best we have all agrees upon that and thinking about cosmology is perhaps better left alone particularly when one has not studied it as a professional must...nevertheless I like to think about it and sadly will form and voice opinions...some humans will do that..but I dont think my situation is the same as say a newearthcreationist who fails to have any teaso able grip on evolution...maybe that is what I am doing but it would seem the basic premise of the BBT is the univerze evolved from a extremely small hot dense state to what we observe today..well U have a problem with that simy because it makes no sense to me and seems impossible that all there is could at any point be contained in a volume as small as the theory seems to suggest..it either presents everything came from a hot dense state inconceivable small or it does not..if I am wrong here that could be the problem but it seems that is the common understanding..if not I question why presenters talk about it this wY...are we not asked to accept the universe ..even the observable universe at approx 100 billion light years diameter and the billions of gallaxies contained therein and the trillions of stars and zillions of planets etc all at some point were contained in a region as small as or smaller than an atom...I can never buy that and I assume the maths can show how at an inctedible temprature and pressure such could be...Obviously the maths can tell us that..but I still wont buy that I am afraid.
I think steady state is much more reasonable...why did it fail? A couple of points...the need for a mechanism to create more hydrongen would be it..the CBR I think was approached from a tited light perspective which has been discredited I know...still tired light is really not that unreasonable. ..why would not light lose something on a billion year journey. ..how can we be sure there is not something that misleads our interprwtation of the CBR.

I have been reading about BBT a great deal and its hard to get ones head around many of the concepts but at the end of the day it seems to tell of a universe that was created somehow whereas I petsonally think an eternal universe is the most likely.
The main reason I started this thtead was so folk could ha e their say and give ample opportunity for folk to point out that I can only be wrong..eho does not like telling some loud mouth they are wrong☺.
Alex
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 19-06-2019, 12:26 PM
xelasnave's Avatar
xelasnave
Gravity does not Suck

xelasnave is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Tabulam
Posts: 12,164
Sorry for mistakes I must go and will tidy up later..got an observatiry to build☺
Alex
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 22-06-2019, 08:20 AM
xelasnave's Avatar
xelasnave
Gravity does not Suck

xelasnave is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Tabulam
Posts: 12,164
A scientific model stands or falls on the predictions it makes, generally the predictions should be repeatable rather than the fulfilment of a single prophesy one would like to think however in the case of the BBT it of course can only make a prediction as to what we can be xpect to find on the first occassion we make the observation ...whatever...so one important prediction made by BBT is the finding of light elements and the observations found levels of hydrogen and helium in the predicted ratios however the prediction required three times the lithium that has been observed. Does this count as a failed prediction given the demands upon scientific model to be rather exact...consider Newtons gravity and Murcury and how GR was exact...I have read that yes the lithium was there in the predicted amount but due to a process described in the fix it is now not there in the ratio predicted...Does that save the day as far as the demands made upon a scientific theory or not...and I do wonder why given the fact implications of the tequirement of a correct prediction that there is not yet what would seem a satisfactory resolution...any thoughts?
Also can anyone advise the size of the universe when the first light was given off..the light which I believe is what we now see as the Cosmic Background Radiation? I am not sure and ask here particularly as I got inflation so wrong.
Alex
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 22-06-2019, 09:03 AM
Sunfish (Ray)
Registered User

Sunfish is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Wollongong
Posts: 355
Come now Alex. We all know the world rides on the back of four elephants which in turn ride on the back of a giant turtle. If you look over the edge of the earth you can see its flippers propelling us through space.

An in case you ask what is under the turtle , the answer is: turtles all the way down.

What is in the turtles mind or Einsteinís mind when he proposed a theory may not be relevant to observed and tested cosmology and mathematics. Which , as Brian Cox says about climate science , is fiendishly complex and does not bend to common sense.

Nice to think about on a cloudy night .
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 22-06-2019, 11:49 AM
xelasnave's Avatar
xelasnave
Gravity does not Suck

xelasnave is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Tabulam
Posts: 12,164
Hi Ray..another rest period here☺.

I know I know the deal is to complex for fools like me to grasp...however I really feel my observations are teasonably valid..particularly re lithium and requirements of a scientific model...however one wonders if having spent years learning GR if one would not be persuaded that it is absolutely correct and thetefore anything associated with it must thetefore also must be correct. ..maybe my suggestion its after all geometry and a coordinate sysyem and may possibly apply to whatever model one selects is off the mark and my ignorance will keep me from understanding why...but the fact is GR did at one oint in history support an eyernal universe so I think the fact supports my position.
And this attitude that if you are a layman you have no sense gets to me..its no better than the church having bibles in latin and saying that common folk dont get to analyse the book...well look what even a common folk petson can point to in the bible as nonsense...
And really I dont care if folk call me an idiot because I will not accept that all there is came from a incredibly small point...Maths allows extrapolation. ..so measure the growth rate of a human..extrapolate how tall they will be at seventy...well we dont find 50 foot tall humans ..maybe the extrapolation of the expansion backwards is similar in my view.
Anyways if 20% of US can think the universe is 6000 years old and ptesumably the dame percentage beliebe the Earth is flat (cause that is the biblical interpretation you must accept if it's taken literally). ..then my belief that the universe is eternal is maybe in the same crazy boat...still tje question must be "why should a finite universe appear out of eternity". ..thats the thing to think about on those cloudy nights ☺.
Thanks for your input.
Alex
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 22-06-2019, 12:50 PM
Sunfish (Ray)
Registered User

Sunfish is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Wollongong
Posts: 355
No one said the universe was not eternal , just that at some point, the parts we can see will be cold and dark at best or squished back into a tiny space.

Seemingly empty space is apparently full of energy which is predicted by relativity but no one, according to Carlo Rovelli, really understands what that means or how gravity and quantum mechanics interact. Surely not you or I. It is just interesting to find out about.

There are plenty of convincing papers by scientists with many peer reviewed papers to their names in explaining in simpler language how the universe that we can see started in a very small space.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 22-06-2019, 01:43 PM
xelasnave's Avatar
xelasnave
Gravity does not Suck

xelasnave is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Tabulam
Posts: 12,164
Thats interesting Ray.
I believe gravity is a form of universal pressure created by all the stuff flying every which way...more or less the old Le Sage approach.
Unfortunately I have neither the ability or desire to prove such but such a universe is my concept of reality.
Again one is an idiot to think gravity could function so with folk citing GR as the leading and presumably the only acceptable idea. Further if one seeks a mechanical explanation one is deemed an idiot. ..nevertheless I would like a mechanical explanation. I think at some point it must come down to one particle interacting with another even if the current idea is space is bent in the presence of mass or and mass tells space how to bend.
So I see gravity as a somewhat external force (even though GR does not consider gravity a force) and as such think that gallaxy rotational curves could be explained via such an approach as if gravity did work somewhat as an external force as opposed to an "internal" attraction one must expect the outter stars to indeed travel faster as apparently they do. .. GR certainly neither regards gravity as a force of attraction or as a pushing force upon my meager understanding of what it says.
And I expect such an approach would show that a "pushing" gravity is the dark energy so far existing as a placeholder for the force "pushing"☺ everything apart...I think the cosmological constant may find its place in reality if one were to go with gravity existing as a universal form of pressure. But sadly I am just a mug to ignorant to hold a rational thought and certsinly too uneducated to ponder the workings of the universe☺
I just wish I knew how the universe really works...thats not too much to ask is it☺
Alex
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 22-06-2019, 02:44 PM
Shark6
Vixen Optics, Japan

Shark6 is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Florey ACT Australia
Posts: 34
What we call the Big Bang was actually just an event immediately after the 8,796th Big Crunch .... in time the expansion will reverse to create number 8,797.
Then we start the process all over again.....

All the rest is just us trying to understand the mechanics of it all..... The Universe is like a big lung, " Breathe in... Breathe out..."
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 22-06-2019, 04:51 PM
xelasnave's Avatar
xelasnave
Gravity does not Suck

xelasnave is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Tabulam
Posts: 12,164
Hi Shark...
I like your idea with only one objection ... the number of times you suggest..an eternal universe presumably would have an infinite number of "breathes" as you call them ... I can only be happy with a cosmology model that does not have a point of creation thus avoiding any necessity for involvement of a creator but moreover to avoid turtling down to find a begining.

Thank you for your contribution if there is a book I will devote a chapter to your interesting speculation.
Alex
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 22-06-2019, 06:28 PM
Shark6
Vixen Optics, Japan

Shark6 is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Florey ACT Australia
Posts: 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by xelasnave View Post
Hi Shark...
I like your idea with only one objection ... the number of times you suggest..an eternal universe presumably would have an infinite number of "breathes" as you call them ... I can only be happy with a cosmology model that does not have a point of creation thus avoiding any necessity for involvement of a creator but moreover to avoid turtling down to find a begining.

Thank you for your contribution if there is a book I will devote a chapter to your interesting speculation.
Alex
It's not speculation Alex, it is a fact, I recall it as clear as if it were yesterday
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 22-06-2019, 07:03 PM
xelasnave's Avatar
xelasnave
Gravity does not Suck

xelasnave is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Tabulam
Posts: 12,164
Recall yesterday!!!!...oh how I wish...☺
So if the universe is eternal it probably is infinite...could it be infinite..well yes it could..can a human accept that or comprehend such?
No...who can comprehend infinite... but if infinite does that leave the door open to suggest our world ..even us..is replicated. ..replicated infinitely. Just imagine there may be an infinite number of each of us...well there must be...how strange if infinity is the way of it but there was never any replication ...
Even trying to comprehend the vastness of the observable universe is difficult if not impossible..I try ...I imagine leaving the planet and increase my speed for the imaginary journey to millions of times the speed of light and even then you cant get very far...just think if you imagine travelling at a billion times the speed of light it still will take 100 years to imagine crossing from one side of the obserbable universe to the other. ..mmm is that right? I am not sure but seems right...I goto think about that...at that speed how could you notice what you pass...I do think a lot of people dont like to think about how big it is cause it makes them feel small I guess...but we are so insignificant and exist for such a short short time...I used to look at those flys (march fly??) that live for only 24 hours and think how sad but its really no different for us...but what we each experience is our own personal eternity..we can not comprehend our arrival and we cant comprehend our departure...so all we can experience is an eternity. ..neat.
Alex
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 23-06-2019, 01:27 AM
billdan's Avatar
billdan (Bill)
Registered User

billdan is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Narangba, SE QLD
Posts: 1,245
Alex, Infinity is a mathematical concept, it cannot exist in the physical world or universe.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 23-06-2019, 01:43 AM
xelasnave's Avatar
xelasnave
Gravity does not Suck

xelasnave is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Tabulam
Posts: 12,164
Quote:
Originally Posted by billdan View Post
Alex, Infinity is a mathematical concept, it cannot exist in the physical world or universe.
I thought maths was how we interpret reality so would it not follow that infinity is possible in reality?
In any event how could we exclude its possibility?
So if the universe is not infinite I must ask how big is it ... Infinite but contained within a determined metric?
Thanks for you contribution to the thread.
Alex
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 23-06-2019, 01:03 PM
xelasnave's Avatar
xelasnave
Gravity does not Suck

xelasnave is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Tabulam
Posts: 12,164
The only answer that I have found so far to my question..."what was the size of the universe when the CBR was given off?" ... said that at 380,000 years old the universe was 43 million light years...I guess the author means it was 43 million light years diameter ...does that then mean the period of expansion , excluding the period of inflation, saw the universe grow from the size of a grape fruit (the size after inflation?) to 43 million light years (in diameter? ?) ... after 380,000 years...faster than the speed of light one may note but the light speed limit does not apply to space expanding but only to objects travelling thru space..if I have it correct☺.
That may not match the speed of inflation but nevertheless that is still rather extrodinary... but if we have a determined size at 380,000 years and an expansion rate does that not enable a calculation to determine the size of the current BB universe?? And therefore give the universe a finite size today?
Even that growth rate seems impossible...from a grape fruit to 43 million light years (diameter) in only 380,000 years...when even growing at light speed it would grow to only 380,000 light years diameter.... Maybe the maths says its possible but really that seems too hard to swallow. ...at least for me...And I know arguement from incredulity is a logical fallacy. ..still even knowing I am offering an arguement that is struck out via the logical fallacy rules...well I just cant accept the theory reflects reality...
Its surprises me that I seem to be alone in finding such an expansion impossible to accept...mind you that does not for a moment cause me to insert a magic creator entity but I do wonder why those who favour a creator entity are opposed to BBT as for me the only way to get those numbers would be thru magic.

Faster...much much faster than any explosion that you could imagine...and explosion would see a much much much smaller universe...mmm what size for an ordinary explosion. ..what speed does an explosion grow at...speed of sound maybe...anyways it would be only a small universe at explosuon speed after 380,000 years...must work it out.

So how big is the universe today?

Another thing...do others find it hard to accept that there is no outside to the BB universe and that all this expansion does not require "something" into which the universe can expand?
And why are legs just long enough to reach the ground☺.
Alex
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 24-06-2019, 11:26 PM
billdan's Avatar
billdan (Bill)
Registered User

billdan is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Narangba, SE QLD
Posts: 1,245
Hi Alex,
According to this video from Fermilabs' the size of the CMB (or the whole Universe) was 42 Million light years in radius and it took 13.7 Billion light years to get here.

You have probably seen it before but here is the link anyway.
The video also explains other questions that have you (and me) puzzled.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vIJTwYOZrGU
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +10. The time is now 09:34 PM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.8.7 | Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Advertisement
Bintel
Advertisement
Celestron Australia
Advertisement
Lunatico Astronomical
Advertisement
Meade Australia
Advertisement
OzScopes Authorised Dealer
Advertisement
NexDome Observatories
Advertisement
SkyWatcher Australia
Advertisement
Astronomy and Electronics Centre
Advertisement