|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 47 (9216 total) |
| |
KING IYK | |
Total: 920,661 Year: 983/6,935 Month: 264/719 Week: 52/204 Day: 1/35 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Cosmology 101 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AshsZ Member (Idle past 5719 days) Posts: 35 From: Edgewater, FL USA Joined: |
I've had a list of questions regarding this topic - more like a compilation of questionable ideas of which I would like to throw out there in hopes to find some answers on as well as open the door for others to do the same as I.
There are a lot of aspects of physics which seemingly become paradoxical and/or counterintuitive, concepts which appear to have two (or more) correct but diametrically opposed explanations, and so on and so forth. I'd like to throw some of these out to start a sort of Q and A post. And so, I'll divulge >>>> The idea that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate is a conclusion based on observation of objects in the cosmos - we find that the further out we look, the faster the objects are moving away from us. While it seems scientists are infatuated with trying to explain why objects are moving like this, I haven't heard a lot of questions about the implications of this observation. Does this mean that at some point, waaaay out there, objects are actually moving away from us at the speed of light? If so, wouldn't this mean that these objects would virtually have infinite mass? And if this is so, would this mean that our universe is basically bordered by a black hole? Also, the further away you look, the further back in time you are seeing. Since this is the case and we see objects moving away from us at greater rates of speed the further away we look, wouldn't this mean that the universe isn't actually expanding? i.e. if you look out at 7 billion light year miles and see objects moving away at 500,000 miles per hour and then look out at 14 billion light year miles and see objects moving away at 1,000,000 miles per hour, wouldn't this mean that the expansion rate is actually slowing? 14 billion years ago things were moving 2x the rate they were moving 7 billion years ago. If you continue to divide the distance you look out, things are moving even slower away from us. Taking this one step further, does this mean everything you see out at 14 billion light year miles was actually right where we are at this moment? Would space then be the shape of an infinite number of toroids with an itty-bitty "hole" at the very center where we exist - our observations are as if we are looking along the surface of a loop of time and space? Not saying this in any sort of "centric" way - us being at the very center is just a condition of observing the universe. I am aware of the concept of "comoving distances", which basically states that what we observe out in the cosmos isn't actually as old as the light year miles would suggest. This is because when the whole thing went "boom", the light from distant objects was emitted across expanding space, which made it actually travel further distance to reach us. Because of this, the visible universe is 46 billion light years in any direction. This throws the 14 billion year metric I used above a bit off, so lets just entertain that previous paragraph as if you are looking out 46 billion light years. With this small correction, the question above still stands - wouldn't this mean you are actually looking right back to "here" and that the universe isn't really expanding at an accelerating rate? Going back to the idea that the universe is essentially "encased" by a black hole, and tying this into the looped universe, that would imply that the universe actually started out as a black hole. Perhaps we are in some iteration of the "other side" of a great crunch event which created a black hole containing ALL of the universe. This idea is something that makes it difficult to imagine the big bang - if you had all of the universe in some really tiny volume, wouldn't that be a black hole? How could it go BANG and expand? Or perhaps the "big crunch" isn't everything gravitating back to one point, it is everything hurtling into the bordering "black hole" - being spit back to the beginning and cycling all over again? Out there at the "edge" there could be someone watching US cross that point and "poof" we're on the other side of the loop. If there really is a black hole border, might this explain the accelerating expansion we see? I dont like the idea of "dark matter" all that much - it seems to be a convenient crutch to explain the observation. How can scientists come up with a concept of dark matter when it is apparently something that cannot even be detected, measured, etc? They only see an effect and dont appear to have solid theory to explain it other than making something up out of thin space. That explanation sounds like we should start drinking the aether and hop in the orgone hot tub with some ladies and call it a good idea, LOL. Seems to me there's a problem with our current paradigm. We are trying to make sense out of things but have some incorrect ideas at the fundamental levels of understanding which are preventing us from seeing the real thing... Also, a question on gravity... What would happen if you were to significantly slow or even stop the local time of the space of an object? i.e. time dialation.. Would gravity have a lesser to no effect on that object? Many more Q's but enough for now.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3963 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
Are scaler fields a complete inference or is there evidence that they exist? Good question - first off, there is nothing unusual about scalar fields. On the contrary, they are the simplest type of field. All of the fields that we deal with every day are more complex than scalar fields - they are vector, spinor, and tensor fields. But as of yet, we don't have any direct evidence of a scalar field. The one scalar field we really think exists is the Higgs field, and we're hoping to discover direct evidence at the LHC within the next year or so.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Agobot Member (Idle past 5849 days) Posts: 786 Joined: |
Having evolved from something as simple as a bacteria or a jellyfish, it'd be a real miracle if we, the descendants of the bacteria and the mutated sea creatures, find out all those answers. It wouldn't make sense if everything in the universe made sense to us. Considering where and what we come from, it wouldn't make sense at all. Einstein pondered on this, saying "The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it's comprehensible"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3611 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
Agobot writes:
No, you said that the fundamental forces and just about everything about the universe is finely tunned to support our form of life. Therefore, I'd like to see you demonstrate this by taking a little flying lesson up in space without a space suit. Or perhaps you'd like to take a walk on Mars without a life support suit.
I obviously meant to say to support life on Earth. So on to the question - how do you know there's life outside of earth? Care to present your evidence? Care to dress your space suit and take us to where alien life might be?
No, you're the one that claims that the universe is finely tuned to support life. You're the one that claims the universe is teeming with life. The burden of proof is on YOU. Since most of the universe is just empty space, show us how finely tuned the universe is for life by going up in orbit without a life support space suit. I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't put my head that far up my ass.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3611 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
cavediver writes:
And if you had bothered to read the rest of my post rather than quote mining me, you'd see that I referred to planet Earth as an oasis in an infinitely large desert. Whether or not everything about the universe that enables life on at least this one planet is another question. Nonsense. Everything about the Universe is precisely what is required to enable life on at least one planet. Ago claimed that the universe is finely tuned to support our form of life. I'd like to see him prove this claim by going out into space without a space suit. It's a simple challenge for such a bold claim. I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't put my head that far up my ass.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3963 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
Ago claimed that the universe is finely tuned to support our form of life. I'd like to see him prove this claim by going out into space without a space suit. It's a simple challenge for such a bold claim. I really don't see the relevance of your request to what you say Ago claimed. If the Universe did have the sole divinely inspired purpose to bring us into existence, it has done its job perfectly well. And Ago didn't even claim this - he said:
The strentgh of the fundamental forces in the universe(force of gravity, speed of light, strong nuclear force, weak nuclear force, proton mass, etc.) is so finely tuned(to support life?)... He's not even sure he's talking about life in general, never mind anything about Earth. He is obviously confused over what he has read, so trying to argue with his misconception of someone else's point seems rather fruitless! Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 385 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
This topic has come up before.
Checkout the following (link to Cavediver's main explanation - follow the messages before and after for a fuller picture) Message 28
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Agobot Member (Idle past 5849 days) Posts: 786 Joined: |
Taz, even slight deviations in the laws would result in a universe devoid of stars and life. If, for instance, the force of gravity were just a few percent weaker it could not squeeze and heat the matter inside stars to the millions of degrees necessary to trigger sunlight-generating nuclear reactions. If gravity were only a few percent stronger, however, it would heat up stars, causing them to consume their fuel faster. They would not exist for the billions of years needed for evolution to produce intelligence. If we accept the idea that the universe was created by god, it would terminate our future research on the subject. The other possibility is that the Universe is the way it is because, if it wasn't, we would not be here to notice. According to this topsy-turvy reasoning, known as the "anthropic principle", it is hardly surprising that we find ourselves in a universe which is fine-tuned for the existence of galaxies, stars and life. We could hardly have evolved in a universe that was not!
The anthropic principle leads to the idea that our universe is one of countless others. In each universe of this "multiverse", forces like gravity have different strengths. An unavoidable consequence, however, is that most universes lack the special conditions needed for the birth of galaxies, stars, planets and so on. As a consequence, there'll probably be countless lifeless universes. And if you kind of accept the idea of natuaral selection of universes, there will always be at least one fit to support life. Or maybe, our universe could be the outcome of an experiment carried out by a superior intelligence in another universe(creating a singularity and fine tuning the cosmological constants so that life as we know it is possible). If you don't accept this, i am afraid, currently, your only other option is creationism. Currently, both science and religeon lack the ability to pinpoint what started all - if a Supreme Being made the first universe, who or what made the Supreme Being? And, if everything began with a mostly-dead ensemble of universe containing the intelligent mother universe, how did that come about? Edited by Agobot, : No reason given. Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9012 From: Canada Joined: |
Taz, even slight deviations in the laws would result in a universe devoid of stars and life. This appears to be untrue. Only if you take particular deviations is it true. This article discusses it from one point of view:http://www.newscientist.com/...the-flexilaws-of-physics.html quote: But Some deviations of some laws produce this result but according to these folks it might not be true for all deviations. My other universe is a Porsche | New Scientist
quote: So that is one very BIG deviation that can still produce a working universe. They then discuss another one with a big difference. With our own that produces 3 very different sets of laws that "work" according to their calculations.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3611 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
Ok, I'll bite.
Ago writes:
Let me guess. The answer to both questions is that the god of abraham created the universe and that nothing created him because he is eternal and always have been. Good enough answer?
Currently, both science and religeon lack the ability to pinpoint what started all - if a Supreme Being made the first universe, who or what made the Supreme Being? And, if everything began with a mostly-dead ensemble of universe containing the intelligent mother universe, how did that come about?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2425 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Ago writes:
Let me guess. The answer to both questions is that the god of abraham created the universe and that nothing created him because he is eternal and always have been. Good enough answer? Currently, both science and religeon lack the ability to pinpoint what started all - if a Supreme Being made the first universe, who or what made the Supreme Being? And, if everything began with a mostly-dead ensemble of universe containing the intelligent mother universe, how did that come about? This is a Science Forum. Perhaps you could provide some evidence for your answer (other than religious belief). Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3611 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
Coyote writes:
You should ask Agobot for the evidence, not me. He was the one that brought up the supreme god/creator thing being the only explanation for this fine tunning thing. All I did was try to guess which deity he had in mind for being this supreme creator. I guessed it was the god of abraham. Perhaps you could provide some evidence for your answer (other than religious belief). I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't put my head that far up my ass.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2425 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
You should ask Agobot for the evidence, not me. He was the one that brought up the supreme god/creator thing being the only explanation for this fine tunning thing. All I did was try to guess which deity he had in mind for being this supreme creator. I guessed it was the god of abraham. Excuse me, I missed that part. Agobot? Any evidence? Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Agobot Member (Idle past 5849 days) Posts: 786 Joined: |
Coyote writes: Excuse me, I missed that part. Agobot? Any evidence?[ Evidence for the existence of god? Hehe, I am an atheist. I have no problem saying f**k god 365 times a year. Taz is just talking out of his ass. I said this fine tuning could come from: 1. Multiple universes, one of which is ours2. Billions of planets within our universes, one of which is our habitable planet Earth(although this doesn't really explain the fine tuning of the cosmological constants) 3. A singularity and a big bang created by other intelligent beings outside our universe and outside our 3 dimensional world 4. God - least probable scenario, but for the sake of statistics we shouldn't rule this one out Edited by Agobot, : No reason given. Edited by Agobot, : No reason given. Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Agobot Member (Idle past 5849 days) Posts: 786 Joined: |
Taz writes: You should ask Agobot for the evidence, not me. He was the one that brought up the supreme god/creator thing being the only explanation for this fine tunning thing. The only explanation I've given? What are you smoking man? You were the one claiming to have been mud wrestling with god. Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2025