Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   COSMOLOGY
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 136 of 159 (489728)
11-29-2008 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by onifre
11-29-2008 2:43 PM


Re: Big Bang Christian?
I may not be understanding what you wrote here but, the CMBR is explained by the Big Bang theory, it does not confirm the BBT.
Well.......
BB theory predicted the CMBR. In fact the BB model predicted the value of the CMBR with extremely good accuracy.
In that sense the discovery and measurement of the CMBR did indeed confirm BB theory.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by onifre, posted 11-29-2008 2:43 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by onifre, posted 11-29-2008 4:27 PM Straggler has replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 137 of 159 (489730)
11-29-2008 3:22 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by onifre
11-29-2008 2:43 PM


Re: Big Bang Christian?
Hey onifre,
Hubble observed the redshift indicating expantion, not the BB.
Ah. Thanks for clearing that up.
I may not be understanding what you wrote here but, the CMBR is explained by the Big Bang theory, it does not confirm the BBT.
Yes. But as Sraggler also wrote, when the CMBR was found, it confirmed a prediction made by the BB theory, that's why I said it confirmed the BB theory.
JF is talking about the same kind of crap he's talked about before, Hubbles (redshift/universe expanding) not being the correct assessment of Hubbles observable work. It's just ramblings though, he will show you absolutely nothing as far as evidence is concerned, he will also mine quote phyicists and take them completely out of context or misunderstand what is being said.
Oh I know. I asked so that it became clear to other people reading that he has nothing to base these assertions on.
I think im going to take cavedivers advise that he gave me on another thread and not engage in talks with these guys, its a word mess that is basically nonsense.
Yeah, this is sometimes the best. Note that I don't respond to every post he makes, as I think dealing with too much of his drivel will hurt my poor little brain.

I hunt for the truth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by onifre, posted 11-29-2008 2:43 PM onifre has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 138 of 159 (489738)
11-29-2008 4:27 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by Straggler
11-29-2008 2:55 PM


Re: Big Bang Christian?
Hi Straggler,
BB theory predicted the CMBR. In fact the BB model predicted the value of the CMBR with extremely good accuracy.
In that sense the discovery and measurement of the CMBR did indeed confirm BB theory.
Shouldn't that read, "Helped confirm the Big Bang"...?
Not, "confirmed the Big Bang Theory"...?
Is it not Einstein's equations that confirms the BBT? The picture of a universe that started off very hot and cooled as it expanded was based off of Einstein's theory of gravity, GR/SR, right?
As I understand it the CMBR helps confirm the theories prediction abilities, right?
Or am I misunderstanding something, which could very well be the case lol.

"All great truths begin as blasphemies"
"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks
"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Straggler, posted 11-29-2008 2:55 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by Straggler, posted 11-30-2008 11:34 AM onifre has replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3101 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 139 of 159 (489744)
11-29-2008 4:42 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by V-Bird
11-29-2008 1:27 PM


Re: DA.
I note that you use a quote from Carl Sagan in your bit at the bottom, he was not y cup of tea, but he was very accurate in some things, he used the term cosmos for what the lazy call the universe and his thinking on that was very clear, we do not know what is beyond what we know to be existing, this is the cosmos, it is a deceit to call this the universe, it's not.
What does "he was not y cup of tea" mean?
Carl Sagan sometimes used the terms cosmos and universe interchangeably as do many other astronomers and physicists. In fact the etymology of the word "cosmos" in Greek means "orderly arrangement" or more literally "universe". However it seems that he also refers to our observable universe as part of a much larger "multiverse" or possibly "Cosmos".
Here is what he says about the nature of our universe within a larger multiverse:
Carl Sagan writes:
...there may be just enough matter to close the cosmos and to trap us forever in an oscillating universe. If the cosmos is closed there’s a strange, haunting, evocative possibility, one of the most exquisite conjectures in science or religion. It’s entirely undemonstrated, it may never be proved, but it’s stirring: Our entire universe, to the farthest galaxy, we are told, is no more than a closed electron in a far grander universe we can never see. That universe is only an elementary particle in another still greater universe and so on forever. Also, every electron in our universe, it is claimed, is an entire miniature cosmos containing galaxies and stars and life and electrons. Every one of those electrons contains a still smaller universe, an infinite regression up and down.
This is merely Carl conjecturing on the possibility of the universe being part of a larger multiverse (i.e. a small bubble formed on the surface of a host of other larger bubbles). However, Dr. Sagan does not go into the specifics of this possible multiverse. Is it an extension of this universe? Is our universe infinite? If so how could their be space outside and infinite space? Is he talking about additional dimensions? He does not specify. This is not his fault, much on the possibility of multiverses and other type of extra dimensional phenomena were just being proposed during and after his Cosmos series was aired on PBS in the early 1980's.
However, let me define terms before I continue. What most people define as our universe is indeed our observable universe of an overall width of 27.4 billion years. However based on mathematical models and the data from WMAP astrophysicists estimate the entire universe to be 156 billion light years wide or 78 billion light years radius. Due to the speed limit of light and the 13.7 billion year old age of the universe our light horizon is 13.7 billion light years radius. That is the maximum distance that we can see the oldest objects in our universe is 13.7 billion years away. This is confirmed by the fact that the furthest object, a proto-galaxy, we have seen is 13 billion light years away formed only 700 million years after the Big Bang (Hubble Finds Strong Contender For Galaxy Distance Record.
Currently there is no scientific evidence that indicates our universe is finite. How would we know? There would be the possibility that if we looked far enough we could see our own galaxies at an earlier time in the Big Bang timeline (kind of like being able to see the back of your house if you had a strong enough telescope that could look across the curved surface of the Earth). The COBE data does not exhibit this repetition in its data. On the other hand, there is no conclusive evidence for an infinite universe as well. At this point these are just working hypotheses.
The universe includes the void beyond the cosmos as well as the cosmos itself and the universe includes the FTL cosmos in it also.
That is your hypothesis. There is no evidence supporting this unless you can provide it.
The universe you write of is actually a very blinkered view of the real universe and is bettered referred to as Sagan did and would himself as the cosmos.
I explained this above. Sagan was just merely speculating as to the possibility of our universe being part of a larger multiverse. Again if we consider that our observable universe is part of a large non-observable but not physically separated universe this is literally true.
All the words you wish to use mean the same, the cosmos is increasing in size, it is finite and is expanding into the infinite [nothing] of the void.
This is not true since even apparently the totally vacuum of intergalactic space consists of the rip roaring chaos of matter popping in and out of existence at the quantum level. There is no such thing as truly void spacetime. It makes more logical sense just to say there is no outside of our universe, whether finite or infinite.
You must accept this, the cosmos is expanding, growing, inflating, stretching into the void, there are no parallel universes, just the single infinite one, there are no time warps and the only other dimension is the FTL cosmos which effectively wraps all the four dimensions we have into a single 'force dimension'.
So there are just 5 dimensions, not 10,11,20,22 or 23, they are simply tensors to allow us to conjure sub-light maths to explain FTL action, accept FTL cosmology and they fall by the wayside, just like the aether of old, flogiston and all the theist clap-trap that exists to help the scared, perplexed and bewildered of this world cope with their lives.
Sounds vaguely plausible to a non-astrophysicist's ear, however what evidence do you have of this FTL cosmos existence? That is what is going to make or break your hypothesis. Even Einstein relativity theories had to be "proven" with conclusive evidence as from astrophysicist Arthur Eddington 1919 solar eclipse data.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by V-Bird, posted 11-29-2008 1:27 PM V-Bird has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by cavediver, posted 11-29-2008 5:35 PM DevilsAdvocate has replied
 Message 144 by V-Bird, posted 12-01-2008 7:22 AM DevilsAdvocate has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 140 of 159 (489750)
11-29-2008 5:35 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by DevilsAdvocate
11-29-2008 4:42 PM


Re: DA.
Currently there is no scientific evidence that indicates our universe is finite. How would we know? There would be the possibility that if we looked far enough we could see our own galaxies at an earlier time in the Big Bang timeline (kind of like being able to see the back of your house if you had a strong enough telescope that could look across the curved surface of the Earth).
This is not possible in a classic closed FRW universe. Collapse will always occur before a light ray can circumnavigate the space-time. A closed FLRW universe (i.e. with constant dark energy) could have this possibility (the ESU being an obvious example where it would work), but our own inflated and young Universe has zero chance of having had the possibility of a circumnavigated photon, even if finite. Topological compactification could lead to this effect, but so far we've found evidence of this in neither galaxy/quasar surveys nor the CMBR itself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 11-29-2008 4:42 PM DevilsAdvocate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 11-29-2008 8:17 PM cavediver has not replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3101 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 141 of 159 (489764)
11-29-2008 8:17 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by cavediver
11-29-2008 5:35 PM


Re: DA.
cavediver writes:
This is not possible in a classic closed FRW universe. Collapse will always occur before a light ray can circumnavigate the space-time. A closed FLRW universe (i.e. with constant dark energy) could have this possibility (the ESU being an obvious example where it would work), but our own inflated and young Universe has zero chance of having had the possibility of a circumnavigated photon, even if finite. Topological compactification could lead to this effect, but so far we've found evidence of this in neither galaxy/quasar surveys nor the CMBR itself.
Thanks for the correction. Like I said, I am not physicist however I do have a basic understanding of astronomy and physics and have studied much of the these theories both on the micro and macroscopic levels. I guess what I meant is if it was theoretically possible.
It sounds like you are pretty knowledgeable in this area, what is your opinion of the universe being finite or infinite and the presence of a higher dimensional multiverse? My understanding that much of this is mere speculation however the addition of extra dimensions seems to make these mathematical models jive with each other i.e. m-theory, supergravity, etc.

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by cavediver, posted 11-29-2008 5:35 PM cavediver has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 142 of 159 (489841)
11-30-2008 11:34 AM
Reply to: Message 138 by onifre
11-29-2008 4:27 PM


Re: Big Bang Christian?
Shouldn't that read, "Helped confirm the Big Bang"...?
Not, "confirmed the Big Bang Theory"...?
Is it not Einstein's equations that confirms the BBT? The picture of a universe that started off very hot and cooled as it expanded was based off of Einstein's theory of gravity, GR/SR, right?
As I understand it the CMBR helps confirm the theories prediction abilities, right?
Or am I misunderstanding something, which could very well be the case lol.
Given that all scientific conclusions are necessarily tentative, to some degree at least, it depends what you mean by "confirmed".
At the end of the day the ultimate judge, jury and executioner of any sciintific theory must be empirical reality. I am sure that you agree.
Thus, whilst Einstein's GR certainly gave considerable theoretical weight to the idea of the BB, the true empirical test and therefore "confirmation" (beyond reasonable doubt) was the empirical discovery of the predicted CMBR and the practical measurement of it as compared to theory.
Whilst one theory can support another all theories in science are ultimately subject to empirical results.
Thus the detection and measurement of the predicted CMBR is the practical, empirical confirmation of the BB no matter how strongly various related theories might theoretically corroborate each other.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by onifre, posted 11-29-2008 4:27 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by onifre, posted 11-30-2008 1:36 PM Straggler has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 143 of 159 (489862)
11-30-2008 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by Straggler
11-30-2008 11:34 AM


Re: Big Bang Christian?
Thus, whilst Einstein's GR certainly gave considerable theoretical weight to the idea of the BB, the true empirical test and therefore "confirmation" (beyond reasonable doubt) was the empirical discovery of the predicted CMBR and the practical measurement of it as compared to theory.
Thanks for the explanation Straggler, I agree with what you're saying.
Whilst one theory can support another all theories in science are ultimately subject to empirical results.
I have to agree then, visibly observing the CMBR is a true confirmation of the BB. Thanks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Straggler, posted 11-30-2008 11:34 AM Straggler has not replied

  
V-Bird
Member (Idle past 5585 days)
Posts: 211
From: Great Britain
Joined: 03-22-2004


Message 144 of 159 (489986)
12-01-2008 7:22 AM
Reply to: Message 139 by DevilsAdvocate
11-29-2008 4:42 PM


Re: DA.
Hi DA.
I meant to type 'my', as in 'Not my cup of tea.'
The 'balloon' of the visible is within the 'balloon' of the mathematical conjecture and is right, I see the cocmos as being that larger balloon, our visible bit is tiny in comparison.
But the larger balloon is expanding too, we just can't be accurate enough at this time, for something so vast we have to be very accurate for us to note the expansion of just 100 years!
But it is certain that it is expanding into a void, unless it has come up against another expanding cosmos, but if you think about that you soon realise that there can be no 'other' cosmos out there, the event that caused the existence of our cosmos would have to have been the one and only event in the endless void.
This needs explaining, any two or more events within a void are going to be separated by an infinite emptiness also, so even if there were 100 or a million Cosmos' such as ours each will be separated by an infinite 'gap' and can never be encountered in all the endless time, that is the only conclusion of two or more events in a void.
Once you 'see' this you know'll that I am right.
You have mis-understood me, there is no true void in the cosmos, within any part of cosmos that has 'dimension' there is only near vacuum between objects that have mass.
I have always contended this on here since day one, and outside of here since reading GR and SR at age eleven!
There is some difficulty in proving the existence in an FTL cosmos, by it very nature we live in the sub-light cosmos and it is very like that film analogy, there is 'evidence' but it is vestigial at best, but it is there, the best hope is only with Gravitation and Gravity which is the only constant day to day connection to the FTL cosmos, we feel gravity, things have mass, things interact at the smallest scales without diminution all because of the FTL cosmos.
When a single photon strikes an object and returns to our eye without any diminuation of its velocity that is because there is a moment when the interaction between the surface atoms and the photon is massively 'powered up' by the exchange of gravitation and the 'vestigial' effect is that the photon snaps back as fast as the sub-light cosmos will allow and in the right circumstances that means it strikes at 'c' and leaves at 'c' the impetus for this is the day to day effect of the FTL cosmos here in our sub-light cosmos.
The evidence is there, we just need the eyes to see it.
For 15 years I have worked on this entirely alone, at first I was as skeptical as CD, perhaps more so and just thought of it as a bit of a mind exercise, but after about a year it dawned on me that perhaps I ought to take the idea a little bit more seriously, I did and despite the ridicule of my peers at the time I am glad I have.
The FTL cosmos is real, it works, is all around us and is the entire force for the way, manner and the physics of the sub-light cosmos.
We wouldn't have a sub-light cosmos without the FTL one to power it.
Edited by V-Bird, : Missed a bit.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 11-29-2008 4:42 PM DevilsAdvocate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 12-02-2008 5:38 AM V-Bird has replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3101 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 145 of 159 (490072)
12-02-2008 5:38 AM
Reply to: Message 144 by V-Bird
12-01-2008 7:22 AM


Re: DA.
The 'balloon' of the visible is within the 'balloon' of the mathematical conjecture and is right, I see the cocmos as being that larger balloon, our visible bit is tiny in comparison.
As I explained earlier our "observable universe" is just the visible portion of a much larger universe. If we use the rough analogy of the surface of the Earth, we can only visibly see to the horizon. However the Earth is much bigger than just what we can see visibly at one point on its surface. The same is true with our universe. These are not two distinct, different universes, they are one in the same. If you want to use the term cosmos that is fine but then the universe=cosmos.
But the larger balloon is expanding too, we just can't be accurate enough at this time, for something so vast we have to be very accurate for us to note the expansion of just 100 years!
Again no physical distinction between the "observable universe" and the larger unseen one, they are part of the same mathematical model. Thus it is implied that the entire universe is expanding or stretching not just one part.
But it is certain that it is expanding into a void, unless it has come up against another expanding cosmos, but if you think about that you soon realize that there can be no 'other' cosmos out there, the event that caused the existence of our cosmos would have to have been the one and only event in the endless void.
Again what is this void you are talking about? A void implies something. Most cosmologists including Stephen Hawking state that our universe is a closed compact universe meaning there is no boundary. However being closed there is nothing outside itself. The dimensions of time and space are part of the mathematical model of this universe itself. Describing a reference to something to which this universe expands into either temporally or spatially can be likened to asking in Hawking's words "What lies north of the North Pole"?
I have to go to work but will expound more on the rest of your points later.

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by V-Bird, posted 12-01-2008 7:22 AM V-Bird has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by V-Bird, posted 12-02-2008 10:22 AM DevilsAdvocate has replied

  
V-Bird
Member (Idle past 5585 days)
Posts: 211
From: Great Britain
Joined: 03-22-2004


Message 146 of 159 (490099)
12-02-2008 10:22 AM
Reply to: Message 145 by DevilsAdvocate
12-02-2008 5:38 AM


Re: DA.
...and I agree with you, we have visible cosmos and we can fairly accurately extrapolate the full extent of it.
But the larger balloon is not the universe, it is still the ordered and conforming cosmos.
For clarity I will refer to the larger balloon as the Greater Cosmos [GC] and our visible cosmos as VC and the FTL cosmos as the FTLC.
The 'void' is the nothingness into which the GC is expanding, which is finite but expanding so that every second since time began it has grown in volume. I used to call the void 'Negative Space' but hated the term from day one, but it might help you grasp the concept. I will use NS for the void from here on in.
Before there was a cosmos, there was NS.
But don't be fooled that NS has no properties, it may not have any of its own, but it has properties imbued upon it once something happens within NS.
NS is infinite, it is not '0' but in reality NS is -0.0>inf<1 one"]
In the beginning there was only NS, then within the NS the GC formed from some movement that amounted to no more than 0.0>inf<1 [GC] and what did not [NS] this ramp imbued the NS with a very important but negative property, it became a force acting on the newly formed speck of GC a vacuum force of infinite power, we are used to only positive vacuums on earth and even the vacuum of 'space' if far from a true vacuum.
The negative vacuum of NS pulled the juvenile GC in all directions, there were no directions in NS, the directions are now within the GC, which was still just a speck, by pulling it apart more energy was produced and as a result the speck became a small ball and because all motion is energy the motion of expansion became self-sustaining.
It was not as such an explosion, it was expansion as a result of the huge vacuum of NS.
This expansion of the GC is still occurring [we can be confident of this because NS is by definition infinite]
So there are the following constituent parts to the Universe.
There is the VC which is part of GC and throughout the GC there is the FTLC these two last elements are expanding into the Universe.
The universe has to include NS otherwise it is not the correct term, universe is 'all' not every'thing', it means all, including NS.
Hawking if he holds to what you have written is wrong in naming things as he does, it is a blinkered and wrong view. Even the analogy you attribute to him shows the blinkered vision, north of the north pole is [approximately] the North Star, because a pole is really an axis and an axis continues in another plane when conjoined to other trajectories. It is an analogy based only on words not logic.
So succinctly put, this 'void' is -0.0>inf to be forced to form mass by 'rounding it up' or corraling it around itself.
It's all you need to start.
Edited by V-Bird, : An 'inf' posted incorrectly.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 12-02-2008 5:38 AM DevilsAdvocate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 12-03-2008 4:10 PM V-Bird has not replied
 Message 149 by PaulK, posted 12-03-2008 5:00 PM V-Bird has replied
 Message 154 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 12-04-2008 8:24 AM V-Bird has not replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3101 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 147 of 159 (490299)
12-03-2008 4:10 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by V-Bird
12-02-2008 10:22 AM


Re: DA.
For clarity I will refer to the larger balloon as the Greater Cosmos [GC] and our visible cosmos as VC and the FTL cosmos as the FTLC.
These are just meaningless terms unless you can scientifically and mathematically describe them.
The 'void' is the nothingness into which the GC is expanding, which is finite but expanding so that every second since time began it has grown in volume. I used to call the void 'Negative Space' but hated the term from day one, but it might help you grasp the concept. I will use NS for the void from here on in.
Is this outside void you are talking about part of our spacetime fabric i.e. 4 dimensional. Or are you talking about higher dimensions i.e. a spacetime brane of the 4 dimensions encapsulated inside higher dimensions i.e. the brane/bulk concept.
I have never heard the term "negative space" in this context, please define that term.
NS is infinite, it is not '0' but in reality NS is -0.0>inf<1 one"]
This is just a definition of an infinite series of numbers. How does this relate to your NS? I am not sure what this "negative space" is. Do you mean vacuum energy i.e. the presence of energy in "empty" space?
The difference to the NS is that from that moment there was an infinite 'ramp' between what existed [GC] and what did not [NS] this ramp imbued the NS with a very important but negative property, it became a force acting on the newly formed speck of GC a vacuum force of infinite power, we are used to only positive vacuums on earth and even the vacuum of 'space' if far from a true vacuum.
I think you are talking about vacuum energy (virtual particles popping into and out of existence on the quantum level). The inflation of the universe is proposed to be caused by a greater than 0 (net positive) ground state level of vacuum energy being released. In essense this expansion sort of serves as a reverse form of gravity stretching the dimensions of spacetime (the mathematic construct not a literal substance or ether) and thus driving everything apart exponentially. This negative "gravity" so to speak is also called negative vacuum energy density.
Hawking if he holds to what you have written is wrong in naming things as he does, it is a blinkered and wrong view.
\
I propably skewed his analogy a little, because Hawking was using this analogy for the dimensions of spacetime to explain why we cannot ask what happened before the Big Bang because it asking for a cause of noncausable event i.e. time before time began. However since space and time are integrately linked the same analogy could also be applied to space. How can we say what is outside of space if space is all that exists.
It is our present refusal to accept this as the true starting point that has held us in the grip of pointless navel gazing for more than 20 years.
This sounds pretty arrogant. If this is such a good hypothses for the universe why have you not pitched it to the heavies? The real astrophysicists? Write a book, write papers and submit them. That is what Einstein did.
Also how do you describe the force of gravity? How does this fit into your model.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : Correct misspellings caused by my damn spell checker.

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by V-Bird, posted 12-02-2008 10:22 AM V-Bird has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by onifre, posted 12-03-2008 4:47 PM DevilsAdvocate has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 148 of 159 (490306)
12-03-2008 4:47 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by DevilsAdvocate
12-03-2008 4:10 PM


Re: DA.
Hi DevilsAdvocate,
This negative "gravity" so to speak is also called negative vacuum energy density.
Isn't this called negative pressure...?
Which is cased by a large vacuum energy density that existed during the inflationary epoch...?

"All great truths begin as blasphemies"
"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks
"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 12-03-2008 4:10 PM DevilsAdvocate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 12-04-2008 7:51 AM onifre has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 149 of 159 (490308)
12-03-2008 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by V-Bird
12-02-2008 10:22 AM


Re: DA.
quote:
NS is infinite, it is not '0' but in reality NS is -0.0>inf<1 one"]

That's not a very promising start on your mathematics. Aside from your odd notation -0.0...01 (where the string of zeroes is infinite) IS equal to zero.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by V-Bird, posted 12-02-2008 10:22 AM V-Bird has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by V-Bird, posted 12-03-2008 9:39 PM PaulK has replied

  
V-Bird
Member (Idle past 5585 days)
Posts: 211
From: Great Britain
Joined: 03-22-2004


Message 150 of 159 (490337)
12-03-2008 9:39 PM
Reply to: Message 149 by PaulK
12-03-2008 5:00 PM


Re: DA.
I appreciate it is odd but '0' simply won't do. it implies something that NS is not.
Negative space is a true negative in that it is literally '0' minus an infinitely small '1'.
But that is of no consequence, because for the maths -infinity works ou the same in NS, it was a trick of sorts, sort of like the old Feynmann track of giving his students all the base info and hoping in the end one of them might realise the trick and short-cut the math to zero.
The FTL cosmos is very difficult to get a handle on, it has all four dimensions wrapped into a single force dimension, and because of this force dimension '0' also equals a positive number.
My new math for this force-dimension is not complete, but the above is definitive and the bridge into it from conventional maths.
The FTL cosmos starts all its maths from -0.0...01 [in your notation] as does the math for NS.
For a few years this was a 'problem' for me and a huge stumbling block to progress as it implied that the FTL cosmos was out beyond the cusp of the GC and present in NS, but 7-8 years ago I found the answer to why this wasn't the case, it was simply part of the equilibrium of the negative and positive of the Universe, it 'closed' the maths.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by PaulK, posted 12-03-2008 5:00 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by PaulK, posted 12-04-2008 1:52 AM V-Bird has not replied
 Message 152 by AdminNosy, posted 12-04-2008 2:57 AM V-Bird has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024