Most of us know that the earth is a tiny, tiny spec in the vast cosmos. Even our solar system, as vast as it is on a human scale, is relatively tiny.
As far as I can tell, our solar system is about 0.33 pico-universes wide. (Check my figures, please). Solar system about 1 light-day wide, universe 91 billion light years.
But what about on the scale of time? There things look rather different. The known universe is said to be about 14 billion years old, and our solar system 4.6 billion. Making our little solar system a third the age of the universe. Life on earth is thought to date back 4 billion years. That's relatively old. Certainly a vast difference from our part in size.
Just something to think about.
As far as I can tell, our solar system is about 0.33 pico-universes wide. (Check my figures, please). Solar system about 1 light-day wide, universe 91 billion light years.
But what about on the scale of time? There things look rather different. The known universe is said to be about 14 billion years old, and our solar system 4.6 billion. Making our little solar system a third the age of the universe. Life on earth is thought to date back 4 billion years. That's relatively old. Certainly a vast difference from our part in size.
Just something to think about.
Most of us know that the earth is a tiny, tiny spec in the vast cosmos. Even our solar system, as vast as it is on a human scale, is relatively tiny.
As far as I can tell, our solar system is about 0.33 pico-universes wide. (Check my figures, please). Solar system about 1 light-day wide, universe 91 billion light years.
But what about on the scale of time? There things look rather different. The known universe is said to be about 14 billion years old, and our solar system 4.6 billion. Making our little solar system a third the age of the universe. Life on earth is thought to date back 4 billion years. That's relatively old. Certainly a vast difference from our part in size.
Just something to think about.
Pano your numbers may be off a wee bit - CNN.com - Universe 156 billion light-years wide - May 24, 2004
Mike
Hi,
91 billion ly= 91*(10^9) ly = 91*(10^9)*365 ld=3,32 *(10^13) ld
Solar system =(1 ld)/3,32*(10^13)ld=
3,01*(10^-14)=3,01*(10^-12)*(10^-2)= 0,0301*(10^-12)=0,0301 p universes wide
Now, think about the greatness of the Creator who designed it.
Something to think about the.
The greatness of the Big Bang ?
One darn thing after another. 4 billion years leaves room for lots of iterations of anything.
Complexity Measures
Yes, and obviously growing smaller every picosecond!
Still disagree with assumptions of a finite sized universe.
Universe of course, same infinite size it always ever was.
14 billion years ago, we filled this universe in its entirety.
Everything was superimposed and entangled, and still is.
Only our perspective regarding the ratio you just attempt
to calculate has rotated, like turning a solid marble in a
kaliedoscope. Scale is the root cause of entropy.
Don't you worry, it all comes around. All that matter and
energy frozen in orbit around event horizons will explode
free when they run out of feeding material.
There is nothing in the holes, its all outside. There is no
time to fall in, and no energy lost if something ever did.
Anything inside the holes (because the horizons grew)
would explosively decompress, and on it's way out, get
re-trapped in the slow time just outside. But this trap is
only effective while each horizon is able to grow faster
than bounced material can escape. When the feeding
frenzy stops, it all falls apart, though that might take a
while.
Being entangled, its likely that holes will simultaneously
rip apart everywhere at once. And re-seed the universe
much the same as in the last multi-mini-bang. Resetting
entropy and our perspective of scale. Exactly the same as
turning the kaliedoscope of scale full circle. Relativity sais
all perspectives are valid descriptions of the same thing.
I am sure nothing has changed or moved at all but the
perspective.
Large scale order has already revealed planes of material
with little explanation how it got distributed that way. A
multitude of ring shaped min-bangs fits better than one
isotropic bang, and breaks fewer known rules to explain it.
There is no such thing as "singularity", "inflation", or an
infinite universe growing more infinte. Nor has the ever
been a period that universe expanded faster than light.
The assumed end point of "inflation" is merely a turning
point in the mini-bangs cycle. All that supposed happened
before "where rules break down" mistakenly interpreted.
Still disagree with assumptions of a finite sized universe.
Universe of course, same infinite size it always ever was.
14 billion years ago, we filled this universe in its entirety.
Everything was superimposed and entangled, and still is.
Only our perspective regarding the ratio you just attempt
to calculate has rotated, like turning a solid marble in a
kaliedoscope. Scale is the root cause of entropy.
Don't you worry, it all comes around. All that matter and
energy frozen in orbit around event horizons will explode
free when they run out of feeding material.
There is nothing in the holes, its all outside. There is no
time to fall in, and no energy lost if something ever did.
Anything inside the holes (because the horizons grew)
would explosively decompress, and on it's way out, get
re-trapped in the slow time just outside. But this trap is
only effective while each horizon is able to grow faster
than bounced material can escape. When the feeding
frenzy stops, it all falls apart, though that might take a
while.
Being entangled, its likely that holes will simultaneously
rip apart everywhere at once. And re-seed the universe
much the same as in the last multi-mini-bang. Resetting
entropy and our perspective of scale. Exactly the same as
turning the kaliedoscope of scale full circle. Relativity sais
all perspectives are valid descriptions of the same thing.
I am sure nothing has changed or moved at all but the
perspective.
Large scale order has already revealed planes of material
with little explanation how it got distributed that way. A
multitude of ring shaped min-bangs fits better than one
isotropic bang, and breaks fewer known rules to explain it.
There is no such thing as "singularity", "inflation", or an
infinite universe growing more infinte. Nor has the ever
been a period that universe expanded faster than light.
The assumed end point of "inflation" is merely a turning
point in the mini-bangs cycle. All that supposed happened
before "where rules break down" mistakenly interpreted.
Last edited:
That s about 10^27 metres, or about 10^60 times Planck s length, universe age is 10^60 times planck s time, so the universe is as big as it is old, litteraly...
Oh, well we can't question that then. Sounds like another customer for Deepak Chopra.
The universe always filled itself, it was the universe expanding, not just the material stuff expanding into open space.
That covers all the bases. There is nothing inside a black hole, and anything in there will explode.
The universe always filled itself, it was the universe expanding, not just the material stuff expanding into open space.
That covers all the bases. There is nothing inside a black hole, and anything in there will explode.
Hi,
It would be good if you knew anything about your opinions,
rather than spouting a load of pseudo-scientific nonsense.
(Which I'm not going to pointlessly take to task.)
rgds, sreten.
Of course its pseudoscience nonsense, that's the entire point.
Did Hawking give you a better reason? Manson? Buddah?
You have access to the same observations as anyone else.
Where the experts start guessing, do you form your own
conclusion? Or just go with whatever theory is popular?
When a decision is made to let someone else decide, and you
get all upset about anyone off the page, its not called science.
Did Hawking give you a better reason? Manson? Buddah?
You have access to the same observations as anyone else.
Where the experts start guessing, do you form your own
conclusion? Or just go with whatever theory is popular?
When a decision is made to let someone else decide, and you
get all upset about anyone off the page, its not called science.
Last edited:
Yes, no, yes.
To be more specific: There is no time for anything to fall into a hole.
But an empty hole not being an actual thing to be so affected, can
grow to envelope waiting stuff. Its just math, and there is no speed
of math.
Newton already did the math comparing a solid earth to a hollow one.
Obviously our Earth isn't hollow, OK probably isn't, what do I know???
Anyways, the point was that an outside observer feels the same pull
and cannot tell the difference. An interior observer finds gravity to be
in complete cancellation. Not just at the center, but anywhere within
the hollow sphere. I made a decision to let Newton decide.
I am pressing an assumption the same holds true for rings as spheres.
And same for hypothetical hollow holes as hypothetical hollow earths.
Mostly hollow, except whatever's most recently been enveloped.
Explosively decompressing in the sudden absence of gravity and
re-start of normal time. Doing its best to hollow itself out again.
Things don't get stuck in the hole. They get stuck in slow time
just outside the hole, and will eventually escape. When more
old material is escaping than new material becoming trapped,
the horizon will shrink. What holds it all together after that???
Bang.
Because I said so, reason sound as ever.
Last edited:
Hi,
I don't talk crap about no-one is right so anyone can be.
It is science to take exception to some-one talking total crap.
I'm well informed, enough to conjecture, but not pontificate.
rgds, sreten.
I'm not going to pointlessly correct you misunderstandings of Newton.
They are so wrong in a boring way that is not interesting to discuss.
Last edited:
The universe always filled itself. Yup, same size as always.
Stuff though, has been shrinking since last time entangled holes bang'd...
A bang that happened just outside holes everywhere, and not from a
single point.
Of course, when everything fills everywhere, its is indistinguishable from
a single point. The other way of describing it isn't contradictory.
Because Sreten said so. Equally valid, equally nuts.
Stuff though, has been shrinking since last time entangled holes bang'd...
A bang that happened just outside holes everywhere, and not from a
single point.
Of course, when everything fills everywhere, its is indistinguishable from
a single point. The other way of describing it isn't contradictory.
Because Sreten said so. Equally valid, equally nuts.
Last edited:
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.