Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 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: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   New cosmology model without a Big Bang
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 25 (759156)
06-09-2015 12:02 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by mikechell
06-09-2015 10:28 AM


Re: no other place to postulate ...
You cannot just say, "this is not possible." Well, you can, but it's an empty statement.
Theoretical mathematics postulates ... what are they up to, 11 dimensions?
Yeah, but there's still only three spatial dimension, i.e. dimensions of space.
The 2-dimensional surface of the balloon, just the surface and nothing else, represents all three of the spatial dimensions. So to stick with the analogy you cannot "leave" the surface of the balloon.
Maybe we aren't ON the surface of the balloon's skin, we could be IN the skin.
That's just a rejection of the analogy...
Here's something I wrote before that goes over this stuff, it uses the globe instead of a balloon. It's from Message 201:
quote:
In order to concepualize it, you're gonna have to be able to reduce dimensions in your mind. So, take a cube, it's 3-dimensions, and reduce it to 2 dimensions: It becomes a plane. That is, the plane is the "shadow" of a cube. Think about how your shadow on the sidewalk is a 2-D representation of yourself. Now, reduce that 2-d plane to one dimension: it becomes a line. If you take a sheet of paper (2D) and look at it just from its edge, it makes a line. Again, you can reduce a 1D line into a point in the same way: Take a pencil and look at it down the shaft and it becomes a "point" (0D). That's reducing dimensions in a nutshell.
So, on to the analogy. Imagine the globe, the Earth. But just the surface of the Earth. Nothing on the inside just the surface, like a balloon. Let that 2 dimensional surface represent all three spatial dimensions, they're just reduced as per the above. Now, imagine that the lines of latitude represent the timeline. The closer you get to the North Pole, the farther back you are going in time. As you approach the North Pole, as you go back in time, the size of the Universe, the radius of the Earth, keeps getting smaller and smaller. That's the Universe getting smaller and smaller as we go back in time. So what happens when you get to the North Pole? You can't go farther north than that, i.e. you can't go back further in time than that. The surface "wraps back upon itself". That is, it is an asymptote <--. clicky. Asking what's before the Big Bang is like asking what's north of the North Pole. Your immediate reaction might be "upwards" from the surface, but due to the dimension reduction, there is no such thing as that. For, when you're at the North Pole, all directions are south. If you're confined to the surface, there is no upwards to point towards.
That point, the North Pole, represents the singularity that the Big Band describes. All directions are "forward" in time and there is no such thing as "before". Time, itself, is an integrated part of the dimensions of spacetime, that is there are 3 spatial dimensions and one temporal one. So we're really talking about a 4 dimensions manifold <--. again, clicky. That manifold has a finite "shape" and that shape suggests a finite past, but that past "folds back onto itself" and exists at all points that time exists. Its like the Earth exists at all points of latitude even though there is only so far northwards that you can go.
Does that make sense? If so, we can move on to how every point on the surface can act like the "center".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by mikechell, posted 06-09-2015 10:28 AM mikechell has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 25 (759173)
06-09-2015 2:09 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by mikechell
06-09-2015 12:18 PM


Re: no other place to postulate ...
I am no mathematician.
...
I am not disagreeing with the current models ... just postulating a different one.
You kinda need to be a bit of a mathematician to get to postulate your own model. Otherwise, why would your's be any better or more interesting than the following one?
Actually, I am not questioning the metaphor of the balloon. I am questioning the idea that an explosion, even one as massive and incomprehensible as the Big Bang, has to expand from a central point.
If it expanded from multiple points then we would have evidence of that. The evidence we do have suggests that it did exand from a single point - like the relative uniformity of the CMBR.
But everyone always bases everything on the presumption of the Balloon Metaphor.
The "balloon metaphor" isn't presumed, its derived.
I've never seen anyone working on an explosion model.
Explosions slow down, the expansion of the Universe is speeding up.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by mikechell, posted 06-09-2015 12:18 PM mikechell has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Percy, posted 06-09-2015 2:48 PM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied
 Message 21 by mikechell, posted 06-09-2015 4:58 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 25 (759213)
06-09-2015 7:39 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by mikechell
06-09-2015 4:58 PM


Re: no other place to postulate ...
I am a technical instructor.
Neat, what kind of techniques? I used to do that as one part of my last job.
One thing I've learned from my students ... sometimes, the most perceptive questions come from the least experienced person. Since I don't know all the existing theories, maybe mine comes from a new direction.
That's all fine and dandy for technical stuff that can be stumbled across intuitively, but cosmology and astrophysics gets really fucking weird, and its not really stuff that you're just gonna find a new direction to form a perspective from.
The concepts in those fields are spoken about in the language of math, and without the skills to speak it you cannot really even begin to form an actual perspective. Seriously, and no offense, I'm just sayin'... and I don't mean to imply that I do have the necessary skills.
Even the English language explanations and analogies can only just fall short of actually and truly explaining the concepts.
That's why you get misunderstandings like thinking the Big Bang is anything like an "explosion". They both describe an expansion, but that's about it.
I am not vain enough to believe that, but if I don't put it out there, I'll never know.
Sure. Your theory is most likely wrong. The best explanation we currently have is the Big Bang Theory.
There's no doubt that it isn't exactly correct, but its the closing thing we got. Your model is contradicted by the evidence we have for the Big Bang.
Your best bet is to learn more about it. Did you read and understand my Message 14?
That's the best technical instruction that I've come up with for beginning to talk about the Big Bang.
Are you good with the concept of reducing dimensions? Like:
4D > 3D > 2D > 1D > 0D
=
Tesseract > Cube > Plane > Line > Point
Do you understand why asking about going inside the balloon, as opposed to being limited to the 2D surface, is simply out of bounds?
That 2D surface represents all three of our spatial dimensions, i.e. our 3D world. We can't leave it.
The blowing up of the balloon, a 2D surface expanding into the third dimension we can perceive, represents our 3D world expanding through the fourth dimension that we call time. Make sense?
If it was a polka-dotted balloon, and you were a 2D being on one of the dots, then every dot on the balloon would look like it was moving away from you as it was being blown up and it would look like you were in the center of them all.
But it doesn't matter what dot you're on, it would always looks like that from any one of the dots. (you gotta give some leeway to the analogy in that its a spherical balloon without a mouthpiece)
The reason for that is that a balloon like that is a surface that is finite yet unbounded. Its finite in that there's only so much ballon, but its unbounded in that the surface never ends. Like how with being on Earth and you can go in the west direction an infinite distance and never leave the planet. The surface is unbounded, there is no edge, but its still a finite planet.
And example of a bounded surface would be a cylinder. You can go in a direction where you'll find an edge.
Another example of an unbounded surface, that isn't a sphere, is a torus.
For example. I have no problem believing that space is infinite. I do not believe space and time popped into existence with the Big Bang. One cannot travel back in time. Time is decay and once decayed, it cannot be revisited. Thus, time was moving right along in an infinite space before the universe as we know it began expanding.
You can believe whatever you want, and I'm not going to tell you that you can't be right (probably).
But I can do a decent job of explaining the Big Bang theory if you want to go through it. Its just that, when you type about it I can tell that you have some misunderstanding about what it actually says.
You keep talking about it as if space and time are separate things instead of treating them as one combined thing. We have tons of evidence that a lot of our world can be explained with a finite, yet unbounded, 4D manifold. We call that spacetime.
We'll have to discuss this next time, if you're interested, but let leave with an analogy: if you press the rewind button on the universe, and go back in time, then it just keeps getting smaller and smaller until you get to a point where the VCR stops working.
As I understand it: Einstein's relativity was kinda like a whole "universe generating program", where you can plug in values and crunch out various types of universes. With the right values, you can map out a universe that behaves in ways that match empirical evidence that we can gather from our universe. From that, you can see the theory/program describing how the universe must have behaved to get to the point where we're at.
That's where we got the idea for the Big Bang, in that as you go backwards in time it keeps getting smaller and smaller. Played back in forwards it would have been one hell of an expansion early one, as if it "popped" or went "bang"...
It was determined that it came from one single "point", which is actually more like an asymptote in my opinion, but the theory/program, itself, breaks down and stops working the closer you crunch the math towards it.
Its like how the plot of 1/X approaches zero as X approaches infinity, but it never actually gets to zero. That's where the north pole of the Earth is in that analogy. The closer you zoom in, its just the more closer you know how far off you are.
Whelp, I gotta go.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by mikechell, posted 06-09-2015 4:58 PM mikechell 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