Maybe a little off topic; but your donut comment got me thinking about wheels turning.
If the wheel may be considered to be one rotating unit in isolation, it couldn't know it's rotating, without an outside subject for comparison.
Is the universe considered in similar fashion,all expanding,space included, yet imperceptible from within , since we observers cannot see outside of our universe?
A wheel has a measurable diameter, and a rotating one's substance travels further at its rim than near its hub, (despite being all one unit) and this seems like it would be the same at the frontiers of a 3D globular expansion of a universe.
So I wonder if there is some extra stress from greater expansion at the perimeter of a universe, than its mean, possibly some form of tearing, which may be detectable as unusual phenomena, or energy bursts from a tear?
Perhaps even an absence of energy, wherein a tear in the fabric of space-time means that area ceases to exist, a true void between the rent asunder edges of space?
If the wheel may be considered to be one rotating unit in isolation, it couldn't know it's rotating, without an outside subject for comparison.
Is the universe considered in similar fashion,all expanding,space included, yet imperceptible from within , since we observers cannot see outside of our universe?
A wheel has a measurable diameter, and a rotating one's substance travels further at its rim than near its hub, (despite being all one unit) and this seems like it would be the same at the frontiers of a 3D globular expansion of a universe.
So I wonder if there is some extra stress from greater expansion at the perimeter of a universe, than its mean, possibly some form of tearing, which may be detectable as unusual phenomena, or energy bursts from a tear?
Perhaps even an absence of energy, wherein a tear in the fabric of space-time means that area ceases to exist, a true void between the rent asunder edges of space?
Doppler shift doesn't necessarily mean expansion
I personally find it dubious
Big Bang is there to explain hypothetical expansion and is religious (and therefor political also) based
The moderator(s) should put a halt to this discussion at once
Interesting side-note: you ever notice anything on god's green earth can be construed as political or religious?
Really makes you think doesn't it 😕
I personally find it dubious
Big Bang is there to explain hypothetical expansion and is religious (and therefor political also) based
The moderator(s) should put a halt to this discussion at once
Interesting side-note: you ever notice anything on god's green earth can be construed as political or religious?
Really makes you think doesn't it 😕
I guess it's a stretch, but doppler shift could be explained by space remaining the same, but all matter and energy evaporating back to primordial foamy microbubble state; this would mean they shrink like crazy, remaining centred in the space locations, while local observers seem to perceive all galaxies getting further and further apart, with no discernible centre of expansion...
Just kidding��
Just kidding��
The same Doppler shift in every direction at the same distance does indeed mean expansion. The fact that the further away one measures it, the greater the shift also implies objects further away are accelerating away faster than the ones closer to us.
more far-faster expanding so when infinitely far ,universe is expanding at infinite speed?is this true?
hurts my brain just trying to picture this.
If people knew what they thought they knew we'd all be living in a utopia.
Equations that describe events are scalar
Peter Schiff once said if an equation works on earth it also works on mars.
Once and for all proving his economic theories are sound because they work on a island with three people.
But an equation that works on the atomic level doesn't work on the surface of the earth.
An equation that works on the surface of the earth doesn't work on a solar level.
In science, especially physics, a consensus is historically almost always wrong in fact.
It is "right" in the sense that many people agree on it.
That's where the saying: the simplest answer is usually the correct one comes from
Probably doesn't, but hey we're all making stuff up here so why not, right?
People agree on the simplest answers, which in turns makes them "right"
But in fact they are factually not "right"
Another fun filled fact is that humans have the equations to describe solar events, they do not have reliable equations to describe events on the galactic scale and intergalactic scale and beyond
It's a testament to human arrogance that humans think they do.
Actually for hundreds of years people thought they had the correct equations to describe solar orbits when they did not
You know what they did?
They thought of silly things, i.e. epicycles, expanding universe, negative energy, and the more plausible "dark" matter
You know why?
Because a brand new equation is much much much much much to the much power harder to think of
Fact of the matter is no one knows how light behaves over light years
If they tell you they do, they are ridiculously smart and have a head bigger than Jack Ma or a fool
Guess which there are more of?
Expanding universe makes several assumptions, one of which is lights' energy is 100% conserved in it's current state over light years
You can't even prove that energy is conserved over light years, never mind if it transfers to another state of energy or matter or something yet to be discovered
People hold on to principles/beliefs until they are violently torn out of their hands.
They don't give them up easily.
Guess, I'll further add:
The big bang is a religious belief.
It is a "moment of creation".
It has no basis in scientific fact.
In fact, the big bang actually suspends all physical laws known to govern anything and everything just to explain how the bang could occur at all
As stated before discussing the big bang here is violating this policy: "The Lounge A place to talk about almost anything but politics and religion."
Not that I particularly care.
If the powers that be had their way you wouldn't be allowed to talk politics or religion anywhere.
Also I can't belief I wasted my time on this lol
Equations that describe events are scalar
Peter Schiff once said if an equation works on earth it also works on mars.
Once and for all proving his economic theories are sound because they work on a island with three people.
But an equation that works on the atomic level doesn't work on the surface of the earth.
An equation that works on the surface of the earth doesn't work on a solar level.
In science, especially physics, a consensus is historically almost always wrong in fact.
It is "right" in the sense that many people agree on it.
That's where the saying: the simplest answer is usually the correct one comes from
Probably doesn't, but hey we're all making stuff up here so why not, right?
People agree on the simplest answers, which in turns makes them "right"
But in fact they are factually not "right"
Another fun filled fact is that humans have the equations to describe solar events, they do not have reliable equations to describe events on the galactic scale and intergalactic scale and beyond
It's a testament to human arrogance that humans think they do.
Actually for hundreds of years people thought they had the correct equations to describe solar orbits when they did not
You know what they did?
They thought of silly things, i.e. epicycles, expanding universe, negative energy, and the more plausible "dark" matter
You know why?
Because a brand new equation is much much much much much to the much power harder to think of
Fact of the matter is no one knows how light behaves over light years
If they tell you they do, they are ridiculously smart and have a head bigger than Jack Ma or a fool
Guess which there are more of?
Expanding universe makes several assumptions, one of which is lights' energy is 100% conserved in it's current state over light years
You can't even prove that energy is conserved over light years, never mind if it transfers to another state of energy or matter or something yet to be discovered
People hold on to principles/beliefs until they are violently torn out of their hands.
They don't give them up easily.
Guess, I'll further add:
The big bang is a religious belief.
It is a "moment of creation".
It has no basis in scientific fact.
In fact, the big bang actually suspends all physical laws known to govern anything and everything just to explain how the bang could occur at all
As stated before discussing the big bang here is violating this policy: "The Lounge A place to talk about almost anything but politics and religion."
Not that I particularly care.
If the powers that be had their way you wouldn't be allowed to talk politics or religion anywhere.
Also I can't belief I wasted my time on this lol
Last edited:
Jimmy154, I guess those silly European Union members spending a huge amount of Euros on the LHC are just wasting their money and time then.
And (speaking of the LHC and its most-publicized discovery) I suppose the Higgs Boson is off-topic because it's so often called the ...
I remember this video from around the time they had That Big Announcement with slides of text in Comic Sans, it's a great explanation of everything (well, the basics of everything about subatomic particles as currently understood by "accepted science"...):
https://vimeo.com/41038445
I remember this video from around the time they had That Big Announcement with slides of text in Comic Sans, it's a great explanation of everything (well, the basics of everything about subatomic particles as currently understood by "accepted science"...):
https://vimeo.com/41038445
Science is 33% money, 33% politics, 33% religion, and 1% science
You like that better?
There's actually very little science in science 😱
Hard to believe right 😕
Gravastar! Put that new word in your search engine and smoke it...
So, looks like quite a few of them know-it-all physicist types now
AGREEING with me that singularities don't exist. Holes are probably
more like hollow shells. Haven't quite made the jump to donuts yet.
But pressed to explain how matter makes two hard right hand turns
and shoot out the poles as jets? Might eventually come around to
my donut way of reason. Give em' a decade or two to cipher on it...
They now think inside may be filled with dark energy to balance out
the pressure of gravity. I've said inside was filled with all sorts of
energy and matter in process of explosive decompression. Nothing
stalled in time can "fall in" to make pressure. Nothing to counter.
I don't know why any energy inside would need to be dark if there
was no need for "pressure" of an increased cosmological constant.
If its in a hole, any kind of energy is dark from our perspective...
A growing horizon envelops compressed junk that explodes in a zone
of normal time and zero gravity. Stuff gets temporarily re-stuck on
the way out. This temporarily could be a very long time. As a horizon
continues to grow, any progress toward escape is reset. Eventually
food will run out. Escape will happen, and become a runaway process
as the horizon shrinks.
But in either case, the majority of stuff is stuck on or just outside
the horizon, and inside is mainly empty. Emptiness is consistent to
both stories, and looking soon to become accepted fact. All that
previously believed "singularity" nonsense going way of the dodo.
So, looks like quite a few of them know-it-all physicist types now
AGREEING with me that singularities don't exist. Holes are probably
more like hollow shells. Haven't quite made the jump to donuts yet.
But pressed to explain how matter makes two hard right hand turns
and shoot out the poles as jets? Might eventually come around to
my donut way of reason. Give em' a decade or two to cipher on it...
They now think inside may be filled with dark energy to balance out
the pressure of gravity. I've said inside was filled with all sorts of
energy and matter in process of explosive decompression. Nothing
stalled in time can "fall in" to make pressure. Nothing to counter.
I don't know why any energy inside would need to be dark if there
was no need for "pressure" of an increased cosmological constant.
If its in a hole, any kind of energy is dark from our perspective...
A growing horizon envelops compressed junk that explodes in a zone
of normal time and zero gravity. Stuff gets temporarily re-stuck on
the way out. This temporarily could be a very long time. As a horizon
continues to grow, any progress toward escape is reset. Eventually
food will run out. Escape will happen, and become a runaway process
as the horizon shrinks.
But in either case, the majority of stuff is stuck on or just outside
the horizon, and inside is mainly empty. Emptiness is consistent to
both stories, and looking soon to become accepted fact. All that
previously believed "singularity" nonsense going way of the dodo.
Last edited:
What is the universe
What is the nature of matter?
As the LHC continues to map ever smaller particles, is there a sharp delineation where an ultimately small particle exists, and and any attempt to see a tinier particle only finds uncondensed energy?
Or is there an interesting transition particle/energy packet, in flux, or a bit of both?
What is the nature of matter?
As the LHC continues to map ever smaller particles, is there a sharp delineation where an ultimately small particle exists, and and any attempt to see a tinier particle only finds uncondensed energy?
Or is there an interesting transition particle/energy packet, in flux, or a bit of both?
Does this to belong to which category?
Has a Hungarian physics lab found a fifth force of nature? : Nature News & Comment
Maybe a loose connection or something, as this was faster-than-light neutrinos with?
Has a Hungarian physics lab found a fifth force of nature? : Nature News & Comment
Maybe a loose connection or something, as this was faster-than-light neutrinos with?
This guy gets it..
Has a Hungarian physics lab found a fifth force of nature? : Nature News & Comment
//
Has a Hungarian physics lab found a fifth force of nature? : Nature News & Comment
//
So, I'm catching up with this thread. I've read (off and on) popular literature on cosmology since Isaac Asimov was writing about it. It was probably one of his explanations I read that described how the single Big Bang theory won out over the oscillating big-bang/big-crunch theory, and I even forget exactly what that was called.
And so now this is being reconsidered (with perhaps a longer timeframe between crunch/bang events)?
Gratuitous Wikipedia link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclic_model
And so now this is being reconsidered (with perhaps a longer timeframe between crunch/bang events)?
Gratuitous Wikipedia link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclic_model
I love it how even the expanding cannot be proved and then to make it even more ridiculous people claim to know what happened at the beginning.
It's psychosis is what it is.
I swear the less people know the more they think they know.
Most people I encounter don't even know what x equals here: 2x=4
But they know how everything came about and what happens when you die.
People try to explain things in simple concepts with the tools (equations) they have.
It has been proven over and over again equations are not scalar. They work well within a specified "range".
That's why people have invented concepts like dark matter, negative energy, etc.
Before you have general relativity you had epicycles.
Also the least popular answer is usually the correct one.
It's psychosis is what it is.
I swear the less people know the more they think they know.
Most people I encounter don't even know what x equals here: 2x=4
But they know how everything came about and what happens when you die.
People try to explain things in simple concepts with the tools (equations) they have.
It has been proven over and over again equations are not scalar. They work well within a specified "range".
That's why people have invented concepts like dark matter, negative energy, etc.
Before you have general relativity you had epicycles.
Also the least popular answer is usually the correct one.
It expands in to the future
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.