Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 114 (8790 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 09-23-2017 10:30 AM
345 online now:
caffeine, Coyote, Larni, Tangle (4 members, 341 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Porkncheese
Post Volume:
Total: 819,318 Year: 23,924/21,208 Month: 1,889/2,468 Week: 398/822 Day: 8/50 Hour: 1/3

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
45Next
Author Topic:   Black Hole Universe Model Questions
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15950
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 31 of 69 (668063)
07-16-2012 10:14 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Echetos
07-16-2012 9:25 PM


Re: Bumpdate
A gravitational singularity, yes, at the center of earth. This is gravity 101.

Apply palm liberally to face.

In Einstein’s theory the main features of gravity around the Earth are exactly the same as they would be if our planet were hollow, with a faked-up papier-mâché surface of mountains and seas, but having a black hole at the centre with the same mass as Earth.

But the Earth is not made of papier-mâché. You see that word "if", just after the words "would be"?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Echetos, posted 07-16-2012 9:25 PM Echetos has not yet responded

  
Echetos
Junior Member (Idle past 1742 days)
Posts: 13
Joined: 04-01-2012


Message 32 of 69 (668064)
07-16-2012 10:47 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Dr Adequate
07-16-2012 10:11 PM


Re: Bumpdate
@DrAdequate

All of spacetime is represented by the piece of paper. The piece of paper is the entire universe in this analogy. Not too difficult to comprehend...

If you're not on the paper you're not in the universe, and that, my friend, would be the tricky part.

I'll be saving the rest of my responses for more productive discussions.

EDIT: Are you really disputing the fact that there's a gravitational singularity at the center of earth? Yikes.

Edited by Echetos, : See post.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-16-2012 10:11 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-16-2012 11:39 PM Echetos has responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15950
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 33 of 69 (668074)
07-16-2012 11:39 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Echetos
07-16-2012 10:47 PM


Re: Bumpdate
All of spacetime is represented by the piece of paper. The piece of paper is the entire universe in this analogy. Not too difficult to comprehend...

If you're not on the paper you're not in the universe ...

And I am in the universe. In the analogy, I am embedded in the paper.

And someone who was in a contracting universe would observe it to be contracting.

EDIT: Are you really disputing the fact that there's a gravitational singularity at the center of earth?

Of course. Me and every physicist everywhere ever.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Echetos, posted 07-16-2012 10:47 PM Echetos has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Echetos, posted 07-17-2012 12:20 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Echetos
Junior Member (Idle past 1742 days)
Posts: 13
Joined: 04-01-2012


Message 34 of 69 (668077)
07-17-2012 12:20 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Dr Adequate
07-16-2012 11:39 PM


Re: Bumpdate
Ah, yes. Back to semantics. How about a "center of gravity." Obviously there's not a literal black hole at the center of Earth (though I wouldn't be surprised if every "center of gravity" was determined to actually be a miniature black hole.) Gravity simply behaves as though there's a black hole in the center with the same mass as Earth--as stated by Mr. Schwarszchild.

Do you dispute the fact that there's a "gravitational singularity" at the center of the galaxy, too?

Regardless, I'm disappointed that a serious discussion about the possibility of our universe being a black hole has been derailed by this rather boring exchange.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-16-2012 11:39 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-17-2012 1:56 AM Echetos has not yet responded
 Message 36 by Panda, posted 07-17-2012 6:22 AM Echetos has not yet responded
 Message 44 by jasonlang, posted 07-20-2012 12:35 PM Echetos has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15950
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 35 of 69 (668078)
07-17-2012 1:56 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by Echetos
07-17-2012 12:20 AM


Re: Bumpdate
Ah, yes. Back to semantics.

No, that would be what we scientific types call a fact. The Earth is not made of papier-mache, and its mass is not concentrated in a black hole at its center. Semantics doesn't come into it.

How about a "center of gravity."

The earth does indeed have its center of gravity at its center of gravity. This is not a singularity. This is something different.

Regardless, I'm disappointed that a serious discussion about the possibility of our universe being a black hole has been derailed by this rather boring exchange.

Then could I recommend that you either make fewer posts, or get fewer things wrong?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Echetos, posted 07-17-2012 12:20 AM Echetos has not yet responded

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 1244 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


(1)
Message 36 of 69 (668097)
07-17-2012 6:22 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by Echetos
07-17-2012 12:20 AM


Re: Bumpdate
Echetos writes:

Ah, yes. Back to semantics.


Not understanding what you are saying because you are using the wrong terms is not semantics.

"A gravitational singularity or spacetime singularity is a location where the quantities that are used to measure the gravitational field become infinite in a way that does not depend on the coordinate system."

"In physics, the center of mass or barycenter is the weighted average location of all the mass in a body or group of bodies."

Using the correct words is important.
Maybe next time you will be more cucumber with your avalanche.


CRYSTALS!!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Echetos, posted 07-17-2012 12:20 AM Echetos has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9922
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 3.3


(1)
Message 37 of 69 (668106)
07-17-2012 9:07 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by Echetos
07-16-2012 9:25 PM


Adamant and wrong...
A gravitational singularity, yes, at the center of earth. This is gravity 101

Nope.

In Einstein’s theory the main features of gravity around the Earth are exactly the same as they would be if our planet were hollow

The above statement is of course true. The gravitational field "around the earth" meaning external to the earth is exactly the same as if the planet were hollow, or compressed to a fraction of its current size.

However, the gravitational field within the earth is not the same as the gravitational field that would be present if the earth were collapsed to a black hole.

Imagine being inside the earth. You would be pulled in different directions by different parts of the earth because the "force" of gravity acts along the line between masses. It is easy to show that the net gravitational field at the center of the earth is zero.

In fact, using Gauss's law, which would be the real gravity 101, we can show that the gravitational field due to a hollow object is zero at any point inside of the hollow object. It does not tend towards infinity.

Similarly, for a solid object, we can show that the gravitational force on an object inside the object decreases as we approach the center, for objects having "reasonable" density profiles at their center. We believe the earth to have iron, and not neutronium, at its center.

If there were a singularity at the center of the earth due to a tiny black hole being present, Gauss's law predicts that we could not detect the black hole at the earth's surface. That's why in my initial post, I merely asked whether you believed there was a singularity within the earth. I did suspect, however, that you were simply applying the inverse square law to the inside of the earth, and that suspicion turned out to be correct.

I would also note that your "falling toward a singularity" analysis is incomplete. You are correct that gravity of singularity causes the distance between two objects lying along the line to the singularity would increase with time due to tidal effects. However there is a second gravitational effect that produces a compression of separations perpendicular to the direction towards a singularity. Yet that compression is not observed. The observed isotropic expansion does not match your proposal.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Echetos, posted 07-16-2012 9:25 PM Echetos has not yet responded

    
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11707
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 2.3


(1)
Message 38 of 69 (668122)
07-17-2012 11:14 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Echetos
07-12-2012 5:56 PM


Re: Bumpdate
I said in the original blog post that the universe is expanding and contracting at the same time.

How's that work? Aren't those mutaully exclusive?

Wish I could figure out how to paste this image in here but here's a link:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/...w/SkC0D2Q9zKs/s1600/Diagram3.bmp

You just have to use the "img" tags: Put and open tag [img] in front and a close tag [/img] in back. If you input this into the text box:

[img]http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-7IVRwmstY8k/T3EfMzTeZrI/AAAAAAAAACw/SkC0D2Q9zKs/s1600/Diagram3.bmp[/img]

It will turn into this:

You can also click on the "Peek" button on the bottom right of any post to see the coding that they entered into the text box.

I guess the main point—if we can bracket the shape issue for a moment—is the fact that the empirical evidence suggests the universe is expanding toward a singularity.

But if the singularity is a point, then at some time the universe is going to have to start contracting towars it, not expanding.

In the picture above, are those two planes supposed to be at the same place? If you're going upwards from A=B=C, then its expanding towrads the upper plane. If you're going upwards from D, then its contracting towards A=B=C, not expanding.

The example I used in the blog post

You wrote the blog?

The example I used in the blog post was tossing pennies off of a tall building. Drop three pennies in 5 second intervals and the first penny will always be moving faster than the second, and the second than the third, because of the acceleration due to gravity. The observer—the person dropping the pennies—might conclude that space is moving away from him (expanding), or, he might conclude that the pennies (i.e. red-shifted galaxies) are falling toward a gravitational singularity. Which they are, of course: the center of the earth.

The pennies are both moving away from him and falling towards the center of the earth at the same time


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Echetos, posted 07-12-2012 5:56 PM Echetos has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Echetos, posted 07-18-2012 10:40 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
Echetos
Junior Member (Idle past 1742 days)
Posts: 13
Joined: 04-01-2012


Message 39 of 69 (668243)
07-18-2012 10:40 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by New Cat's Eye
07-17-2012 11:14 AM


Re: Bumpdate
@Catholic Scientist

Thanks for the info on how to post pictures and quotes.

Regarding the universe expanding and contracting at the same time, you asked:

How's that work? Aren't those mutually exclusive?

Yes. Expanding and contracting are generally understood as mutually exclusive concepts. I’m glad you asked the question because it touches on a broader point, which I believe underlies some of the confusion and animosity in the previous replies (including my own).

You also asked:

You wrote the blog?

Yes. I wrote the blog. I’d assumed since a link was provided in the initial forum post that the people who responded at least skimmed the contents. I can see now that the cliché: never assume anything, is at least partially true. And I apologize for that. The topic of the blog—the Black Hole Universe Model (BHUM)—is hard enough to digest for me even after writing it. And I’m the first person to admit that I don’t fully understand the implications of such a model. But I'll defend it tooth and nail because I believe it to be intuitively true.

Here’s a link to the original blog post:

http://scottsteffens.blogspot.com/2012/04/bhum-bee-hum.html

The cosmology presented in the post is highly speculative. By that I mean it’s metaphysical. I obviously can’t prove to you beyond a reasonable doubt that our universe is one gigantic black-sive-white hole. I’m simply saying this sort of interpretation—which is not a new idea and shares many features with other popular multiverse theories—seems to me to be the most likely scenario given the current empirical evidence.

So to fully answer your question, Catholic Scientist:

Aren't those mutually exclusive?

Yes. The concepts “expanding” and “contracting” are polar opposites. It’s a classic example of a disjunctive syllogism: either X or Y. But that’s precisely the reason the BHUM holds water. This antequeted sort of thinking is outdated, unscientific. It doesn’t correspond with the physical realities we see today.

Reference this section of the original blog post:

According to the principle of quantum superposition, physical systems—such as Alice’s and Bob’s entangled particles—can simultaneously be in many different states, including ones which are mutually exclusive.

Catholic Scientist, there’s no question the universe is a physical system. There’s no reason to believe it behaves otherwise. I would argue that the universe as a whole should behave similarly, if not identically, to the smallest observed particle. And why shouldn’t it? Carl Sagan, for one, seems to believe this is true.

You wrote:

The pennies are both moving away from him and falling towards the center of the earth at the same time.

I should have specified that the penny analogy presumes the negation of friction and air resistance (both of which play no role in galactic physics).

@Dr Adequate

You wrote:

Then could I recommend that you either make fewer posts, or get fewer things wrong?

You can. And you’re right. I didn’t mean to imply there’s a black hole singularity at the earth’s center. It’s my hope, and I assume the case is, that you knew I didn’t mean that.

From now on I’ll be more careful with my terminology. You physics types, at least in this forum, seem to carry a premium in this category—which I respect. I must say that where I come from people make an effort to engage in Good Faith dialogue whenever possible.

But seriously, Dr Adequate, this is a website dedicated to evolution vs. creation and we clearly have no qualms in that arena. I will say that I respect your attention to detail and phrasing—two things I also hold in high regard.

JUST REMEMBER WE’RE ON THE SAME TEAM, DUDE.

@NoNukes

You wrote:

You are correct that gravity of singularity causes the distance between two objects lying along the line to the singularity would increase with time due to tidal effects. However there is a second gravitational effect that produces a compression of separations perpendicular to the direction towards a singularity. Yet that compression is not observed. The observed isotropic expansion does not match your proposal.

I think you’re referring to spaghettification. My response to this is that the galaxies we can observe from earth are not close enough to the Singularity to observe this phenomenon.

So to wrap up this rather longwinded post, I must request that any questions henceforth will be directed at something either mentioned or implied and not answered in the original blog post.

In other words, why isn’t the universe a black hole?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-17-2012 11:14 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-19-2012 10:07 AM Echetos has responded
 Message 43 by NoNukes, posted 07-19-2012 9:53 PM Echetos has not yet responded

    
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11707
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 2.3


(1)
Message 40 of 69 (668273)
07-19-2012 10:07 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by Echetos
07-18-2012 10:40 PM


Re: Bumpdate
Yes. I wrote the blog. I’d assumed since a link was provided in the initial forum post that the people who responded at least skimmed the contents.

I looked at the pictures!

But seriously, we have a rule here where we say: "we don't debate by link". I'm here to have a dialog directly with other people. I want to read what you have to say, not what you read on some other website somewhere. We expect people to explain the concept in their own words here, and then supply the link as a reference. So yeah, I wouldn't be suprised if most people skipped most of your link.

The topic of the blog—the Black Hole Universe Model (BHUM)—is hard enough to digest for me even after writing it. And I’m the first person to admit that I don’t fully understand the implications of such a model. But I'll defend it tooth and nail because I believe it to be intuitively true.

You better be careful about making your reasoning circular... if you believe it to be true because you wrote it and you wrote it because you believe it to be true, then you're going to have a hard time learning anything about it.

And I don't understand how you can have trouble digesting and understanding something you yourself wrote. No offense, but doesn't that mean that you're just making shit up? At that point, why should I consider your model over, say, this one:

Seriously tho; what, specifically, makes yours better?

The cosmology presented in the post is highly speculative. By that I mean it’s metaphysical.

Like magic?

I obviously can’t prove to you beyond a reasonable doubt that our universe is one gigantic black-sive-white hole. I’m simply saying this sort of interpretation—which is not a new idea and shares many features with other popular multiverse theories—seems to me to be the most likely scenario given the current empirical evidence.

That's cool, I don't mind discussing hypotheticals.

Yes. The concepts “expanding” and “contracting” are polar opposites. It’s a classic example of a disjunctive syllogism: either X or Y. But that’s precisely the reason the BHUM holds water. This antequeted sort of thinking is outdated, unscientific. It doesn’t correspond with the physical realities we see today.

How so? What pysical realities are you seeing today that suggest that the concepts “expanding” and “contracting” as being polar opposites is outdated and unscientific?

According to the principle of quantum superposition, physical systems—such as Alice’s and Bob’s entangled particles—can simultaneously be in many different states, including ones which are mutually exclusive.

Sure, but because one counterintuitive thing can be real doesn't mean that they all are. And things that happen on quantum levels don't really translate to the macro states that expanding and contracting apply to.

I would argue that the universe as a whole should behave similarly, if not identically, to the smallest observed particle. And why shouldn’t it?

Because its bigger. Different forces are going to come into play. For example, we can ignore gravity when plotting the path of an electron, but we cannot do that for a planet.


Removing the rest by edit because I misread you.

The pennies are both moving away from him and falling towards the center of the earth at the same time.

I should have specified that the penny analogy presumes the negation of friction and air resistance (both of which play no role in galactic physics)

That's irrelevant. You said:

quote:
The observer—the person dropping the pennies—might conclude that space is moving away from him (expanding), or, he might conclude that the pennies (i.e. red-shifted galaxies) are falling toward a gravitational singularity.

And I'm saying that he could conclude both of those things, its not an either/or with the pennies.

Edited by Catholic Scientist, : remove misread part


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Echetos, posted 07-18-2012 10:40 PM Echetos has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by jar, posted 07-19-2012 10:20 AM New Cat's Eye has responded
 Message 45 by Echetos, posted 07-25-2012 3:12 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 29363
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 41 of 69 (668276)
07-19-2012 10:20 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by New Cat's Eye
07-19-2012 10:07 AM


observing pennies
CS writes:

quote:
The observer—the person dropping the pennies—might conclude that space is moving away from him (expanding), or, he might conclude that the pennies (i.e. red-shifted galaxies) are falling toward a gravitational singularity.

And I'm saying that he could conclude both of those things, its not an either/or with the pennies.

Actually, that only holds true if there is but one penny falling, which is not what we observe looking at the universe.

The hypothetical observer might conclude that the penny is falling away from him or towards the center of the earth but that is simply semantics and irrelevant.

If the observer saw all of the pennies that were dropped he would see that all of the pennies were falling towards a single point and that they were all converging.

But what do we see when we look at the universe?


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-19-2012 10:07 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-19-2012 10:23 AM jar has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11707
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 42 of 69 (668277)
07-19-2012 10:23 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by jar
07-19-2012 10:20 AM


Oh, whoops, I misread what I quoted >.<
This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by jar, posted 07-19-2012 10:20 AM jar has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9922
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 43 of 69 (668325)
07-19-2012 9:53 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Echetos
07-18-2012 10:40 PM


Re: Bumpdate
You can. And you’re right. I didn’t mean to imply there’s a black hole singularity at the earth’s center. It’s my hope, and I assume the case is, that you knew I didn’t mean that.

Okay, I can accept that. By now I hope you understand the problem some of us (me, Jar) have pointed to regarding the falling penny analogy.

But when you talk about the universe contracting towards a singularity, are you referring to an actual singularity in that case?

And I’m the first person to admit that I don’t fully understand the implications of such a model. But I'll defend it tooth and nail because I believe it to be intuitively true.

The above statement is one I simply don't find logical. What would make you defend a model that you don't understand? Or asked another way, why is an intuition about a model whose implications you don't understand, an intuition to be valued?


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Echetos, posted 07-18-2012 10:40 PM Echetos has not yet responded

    
jasonlang
Member (Idle past 935 days)
Posts: 51
From: Australia
Joined: 07-14-2005


Message 44 of 69 (668376)
07-20-2012 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Echetos
07-17-2012 12:20 AM


Re: Bumpdate
"though I wouldn't be surprised if every "center of gravity" was determined to actually be a miniature black hole."

Echetos, Here you really reveal that you're no physicist. What's the net gravitational force at an objects centre of gravity? ZERO. It's defined as the point where all forces balance out. So there is NO high-gravity region inside the Earth, it's pressure that crushes you from stuff in the high-gravity region - which is greatest at the surface. If they Earth was hollow, you'd float in free-fall at the centre, it's purely mathematical and has no special physical properties.

Same, a "singularity" doesn't exist as a magical force or object or place, drawing everything in. Everything is gravitationally affected by everything else.

Edited by jasonlang, : No reason given.

Edited by jasonlang, : No reason given.

Edited by jasonlang, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Echetos, posted 07-17-2012 12:20 AM Echetos has not yet responded

    
Echetos
Junior Member (Idle past 1742 days)
Posts: 13
Joined: 04-01-2012


Message 45 of 69 (668852)
07-25-2012 3:12 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by New Cat's Eye
07-19-2012 10:07 AM


Re: Bumpdate
@Catholic Scientist

You better be careful about making your reasoning circular...

All reasoning is circular. This circularity belongs even to the most rigorous of traditions, including science, mathematics, and logic. Give me one truth arrived at by noncircular reasoning and you’ve solved a foundational epistemological conundrum—the problem of contemporary philosophy.

And I don't understand how you can have trouble digesting and understanding something you yourself wrote. No offense, but doesn't that mean that you're just making shit up?

No offense taken. And I guess I am just making shit up—but how else would any progress occur? People come up with theories and those theories are tested. General Relativity, for example, was considered balls crazy until it wasn’t proven wrong by people staring at a solar eclipse. Falsification is the name of the game in science. In fact, the only thing scientists really know for sure—I mean with 100% certainty—about anything, is that they’re wrong. It’s a historical fact that science has always progressed through paradigms, which are closer to the truth, but never the Truth itself.

You seem to answer your own question here but I’d like to try to respond to everything. You said:

How so? What physical realities are you seeing today that suggest that the concepts “expanding” and “contracting” as being polar opposites is outdated and unscientific?

I’ve already given an answer to this, which you sort of touched on: the principle of quantum superposition. This is an empirically verifiable physical reality; a fact. You said:

Sure, but because one counterintuitive thing can be real doesn't mean that they all are. And things that happen on quantum levels don't really translate to the macro states that expanding and contracting apply to.

It is my understanding that scientists, particularly physicists, are working to explain how matter moves through space and time. Things that happen on a quantum level necessarily translate to the macro states because they literally comprise the foundation of those states. Physicists are not trying to discover the mysterious mechanisms behind one or the other. They want to explain both. AND THEY’LL BE THE FIRST TO ADMIT THEY HAVEN’T REACHED A GENERAL CONSENSUS. They might never.

So people here that claim or feign to know for certain that the BHUM model is incorrect have simply missed the point.

I’m not saying I’m right. I admit I have no idea, for sure, what sorts of rules (or Rule) govern this amazing cosmos. All I’m saying is—which many people have said before—is that it seems, according to empirical observation, that our universe seems to behave like what I’ve described here:

http://scottsteffens.blogspot.com/2012/04/bhum-bee-hum.html

So far nobody has raised a single meaningful reason why this is not the case.

@Dr Adequate

You raised a reasonable objection by saying that the universe, according to the BHUM, would actually appear to be contracting. I asked you:

Where would an observer need to be positioned for the universe to “look like it’s contracting”?

You said:

Anywhere inside it, during the phase in which it is in fact contracting.

I responded:

You can't be inside it. The surface is spacetime.

After drawing your attention back to the paper analogy (please reference the previous post) you said:

And I am in the universe. In the analogy, I am embedded in the paper.

Even if an observer was “embedded in the paper”—a scenario completely of your own invention—in this analogy there’s no conceivable way the universe would appear to be contracting. An observer buried or “embedded” anywhere in “the paper” of this analogy—the skin of the apple—would observe an expanding universe according to Hubble's Law.

If I’m wrong please paste a picture with a point on the apple where an observer sees a contracting universe…

Since the singularity—in this clearly inadequate 3-dimensional representation—is omnipresent (the core of the apple) everything is always moving away, thus representing to the observer an expanding universe. The question of whether or not the universe is actually expanding or contracting is moot.

IT APPEARS TO BE EXPANDING FOR ANY OBSERVER AYWHERE.

This point is unarguable. Even if the BHUM is completely wrong according to this analogy an observer will always observe an expanding universe.

BUT ANYWAY…

Does anyone want to talk about why this couldn’t be the case???

Edited by Echetos, : Grammatical errors.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-19-2012 10:07 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by NoNukes, posted 07-25-2012 8:58 AM Echetos has not yet responded
 Message 47 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-25-2012 10:07 AM Echetos has not yet responded
 Message 48 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-25-2012 10:58 PM Echetos has responded

    
Prev12
3
45Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017