Expanding Universe? [Archive]

ISDAMan

08-22-99, 10:17 AM

<HTML>
<HEAD>
</HEAD>
<BODY>

I have, for a long time, been
fascinated by all things scientific. I'm just a laymen, so, please,
forgive some non-scientific jargon to follow. I am, however, blessed
by God with above average intelligence and discernment which belies
my non-college educated, former U.S. Marine, 26 year old existence.
At least, I think so :-).

As in keeping with the title, I have some ideas about the universe
that I hope someone could engage me upon. I really have to question
the notion that the universe is expanding as proved by the conclusion
of the evidences we have examined. My theory, though different, yet,
quite scientific, does allow for an expanding universe. It also
allows for a, more than likely, great big, "Fake Out",
expansion-like event to occur.

Example: (
This Is A 2D Conception Only )

NOTE: For the purposes of this example, it must be understood
that the perception of the passage of time must be adjusted to scale.
You'll see why in a moment.

Consider a fictitious
civilization of microscopic creatures living twig, itself, on the
surface of the ocean. Like humans, they are inquisitive and actively
perusing grater knowledge pertaining to their own existence. The mass
of the twig, of course, displaces a certain amount of water (
The mass of the Earth displaces a certain amount of Space ).
The twig is subject to the motions of the ocean (
As is the Earth subject to the motions of Space ).

<<< FIRST POINT >>> I
am declaring that the universe itself is substantiative and fluid. An
example would be to look at the neutrino. Though faint, they are of
substance and potentially fluid ( from one type to the next ).

At some time in generations past, some event occurred to create large
waves in this ocean. Furthermore, other events such as passing ships,
tidal forces, and the activities of sea creatures (
Massive bodies in space and their gravity as well as the output of
incredible energy events ) disrupt the wave pattern
dynamically. This civilization, being eclipsed by and in the trough
of a grouping of dynamic waves can track other objects in the water
around them as the overwhelming flow of the waves travel from, lets
say, east to west. From one wave crest to the next would represent
billions and billions of years in our natural existence As the
generations pass, without knowledge of their true position, this
civilization observes the relative rise, fall, drag, and other
movements and determines the direction of their universal motion.
Without the knowledge of having passed the crests of thousands of
waves over the span of at least three days, even after thousands of (
adjusted ) years of study, this civilization is likely to deduce that
the universe around them is expanding. While the man standing on the
deck of a ship, for instance, could observe more of what is actually
going on around this little twig on the ocean.

<<< SECOND POINT >>> I
am declaring that the relative view of our point in space and time
has not yet been observed so long as to give us a racialistic view of
the surroundings of the space around us. I point to the discovery
that the planets of our solar system have been determined to most
likely have been following wildly different orbits than they do
today. Only with billions of years of observation, either forward or
backward in time, can we properly begin to grasp the scale of the
simplest unit of measure of the event we are attempting to calculate.
In actuality, we only have a few hundred years on the books.

In conclusion, I affirm that, if converted into 3D, this theory shows
that the universe could be expanding in some areas. It's like the
pasta sauce that's not quite fully boiling enough to break the
surface tension. Overwhelmingly, however, the clues of expansion, as
yet, are like pyrite to a novice gold hunter. We've got the look and
the feel but it's not the right stuff. I find it all very interesting
that Bible affirms that in Genesis 1:6-7 "And God said, Let
there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide
the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided
the waters which were under the firmament from the waters
which were above the firmament: and it was so."

Anyone wishing to contact me privately can write me at isda@gte.net
</BODY>
</HTML>

Crisp

08-22-99, 10:00 PM

Hmmmm.... Indeed a very interesting point of view. I am no expert at the subject, but I do know (and we all do ;)) that astronomers are currently trying to explain a "continuing" expansion by coming up with dark matter, repulsive forces (?), and other sometimes less plausible explanations, so there certainly is room for a theory as you put it.

I do have one question: Astronomers pick up light that has travelled 10 billion lightyears through space from stars at the edges of our universe. Wouldn't the "expansions" and "deflations" be noticable in that light ? (through light-Doppler shifts perhaps?).

Bye!

Crisp
--
To be or not to be, I cannot remember the question.

[This message has been edited by Crisp (edited August 22, 1999).]

Plato

08-23-99, 06:54 AM

Quote :
"An example would be to look at the neutrino. Though faint, they are of
substance and potentially fluid ( from one type to the next )."

Could you elaborate a little on this rather awkward claim ? Are you saying that since neutrinos exist as a superposition of three different familie-states (electron, muon and tau) they have fluid characteristics ?
Besides neutrinos are one of the most gostly of the elementary particles : you need a solid wall of lead of half a lightyear wide to stop them for sure !

Quote:
"The mass of the Earth displaces a certain amount of Space "

If that is the case, what happens to all the heat of friction that is generated because of this displacement ? And why are we still revolving around the sun, with all this friction going on we should have lost all of our momentum round the sun by now...

------------------
we are midgets standing on the backs of giants,
Plato

ISDAMan

08-23-99, 10:06 AM

<HTML>
<HEAD>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<TABLE WIDTH="100%" CELLPADDING="2" CELLSPACING="2" BORDER="2">
<TR>
<TD WIDTH="12%" BGCOLOR="#FFFFEE" VALIGN=TOP>
RE: Crisp
Junior Member</TD>
<TD WIDTH="88%" VALIGN=TOP>

Thanks for the response. I'm no expert either. God
willing, I'll get to attend college some year soon.

Quote:
I do have one question:
Astronomers pick up light that has travelled 10 billion lightyears
through space from stars at the edges of our universe. Wouldn't the
"expansions" and "deflations" be noticable in
that light ? (through light-Doppler shifts perhaps?).

Answer:
Let me think on that. I don't want to give a rush answer.</TD>
</TR>
<TR>
<TD WIDTH="12%" BGCOLOR="#FFFFEE" VALIGN=TOP>

RE: Plato

Member</TD>
<TD WIDTH="88%" VALIGN=TOP>

Thanks for the response.

Quote:
Could you elaborate a little on
this rather awkward claim ? Are you saying that since neutrinos exist
as a superposition of three different familie-states (electron, muon
and tau) they have fluid characteristics ?
Besides neutrinos are one of the
most gostly of the elementary particles : you need a solid wall of
lead of half a lightyear wide to stop them for sure !

Answer:
Here's one reference below. Also, try the AUG, 99
Scientific American Issue for the full story.

<A HREF="http://www.sciam.com/1998/0898issue/0898scicit1.html">http://www.sciam.com/1998/0898issue/0898scicit1.html</A>

Quote:
If that is the case, what
happens to all the heat of friction that is generated because of this
displacement ? And why are we still revolving around the sun, with
all this friction going on we should have lost all of our momentum
round the sun by now...

Answer:

I think the lack of Absolute Zero being detected in
ambient outer space tells us that there is, at some level, some
source of heat ( There can be no electromagnetic radiation of any
type in a Absolute Zero environment ). That heat, however, is, as
yet, unmeasurable with today's technology. The total expansiveness of
space is what accounts for the diffusion of this heat.

EXAMPLE:

A car in Wisconsin, in January, has been driven for
several miles with the heater running. It is driven to and parked in
the center of an open field, devoid of substantial vegetation and
trees, that is about 3 miles square. Thus, yielding the car
completely subject to the outside environment. The passenger area of
the car has heated to around 50° F. The engine is considerably
warmer. The ambient temperature in the open air is -20° F. The
car is left to set for three days. The conditions outside remain the
same. When the owner returns, the passenger area of the car will be
colder than the -20° F of the ambient air. This is because heat
will tend to go from where it is to where it is not. This includes
the seemingly unmeasurable heat that is generated by every atom that
this car is made up of. It simply does not have the ability to
support the outside environment and is sucked dry of its own heat (
and molecular activity ).

In this same way, the heat of this friction is quickly
and almost unnoticeably dispersed. Also, the heat of the Earth
combined with the extremely low levels of heat produced by this
interaction can make detecting this process potentially impossible.

Gravity may be more of a dimple than a force ( I don't
know. I've seen it suggested outside of my own theories too ). The
Sun has a GREAT BIG
dimple with the Earth's little
dimple nested neatly inside. Remember, for every force there is an
equal and opposite force. If pulled in by drag, there is bunching to
deflect us away ( With a wall of more unidirectional Cooler ambient
space behind the bunching ). Of course, the bunching would create
more heat. More heat would create less friction in the forward
direction which adds to velocity. This in turn would give the Earth
more force to resist the inward pull of the Sun's GREAT
BIG dimple.( How do I account for the heat
of the Sun? I don't yet. I'm no scientist. I just like to think. So,
I'm still praying and thinking on that one. I can only surmise that
the bunching is always warmer than whatever the ambient space
temperature is. In part, the heat of the Sun may play a role in
causing the ambient space around it to flow just like heated water
does. In turn, this would be an additional convection force to push
us away. At least that much makes sense. Right? ) If our orbit were a
perfect circle at any time it would not remain so long, Drag would do
it's thing and then comes bunching. There's far greater dynamics than
this in orbital mechanics, of which, I'm sure you are aware. I'm just
addressing this issue. Neither do I feel qualified to school anyone.
Again, I am just a laymen and this is just a little theory of my own.
That's why I'd like to see what others think about it. Also, I'm not
saying that ambient space is made up of neutrinos. Who knows what it
is. It almost has to be something different since all other things
travel in it. The lack of detectability does not mean the lack of existence.

Going back to the convection force that I hinted at
above, if it even exists in that manor, where is the opposite force?
Is it added to the gravity of the Sun? That could really confound
measurements of mass on extremely large scales when exact precision
is required. Is it still really opposite? It kind of sort of is, but,
not really yes.

I hope this help you understand what I mean.</TD>
</TR>
</TABLE>
</BODY>
</HTML>

[This message has been edited by ISDAMan (edited August 23, 1999).]

Crisp

08-24-99, 11:41 AM

Quote:

I think the lack of Absolute Zero being detected in ambient outer space tells us that there is, at some level, some source of heat (There can be no electromagnetic radiation of any type in a Absolute Zero environment ). That heat, however, is, as
yet, unmeasurable with today's technology. The total expansiveness of space is what accounts for the diffusion of this heat.

Answer

In the following reply I assume that by "the Absolute Zero" you are referring to a temperature of 0 degrees Kelvin in outerspace. Please correct me if wrong (I sure hope I am right because otherwise this message won't make much sense ;)).

The vacuum of space indeed isn't at 0 degrees Kelvin (I believe the current temperature is a 0.8 Kelvin -- this could be slightly more or less, I'm really bad at remembering exacty numbers). It is assumed that this temperature is a remnant of the Big Bang (it's even one of the 4 pillars of the Big Bang theory, together with the cosmic background radiation). Also, the universe is still cooling down, so the 0.8 Kelvin number is not constant.

Also, you say that there can't be any electromagnetic radiation of any kind in an absolute zero. I disagree: While electromagnetic radiation can't be generated in an absolute zero environment (because of the completely frozen crystal structure at 0 degrees Kelvin), it can propagate in an absolute vacuum at 0 degrees Kelvin. (Somebody back me up on this claim since my crystal structure courses at school are due next month :)). The reason why I think it is this way: Electromagnetic waves have no need for a medium to propagate through (looking at the wave characteristic of EM waves), and the only thing a zero-degree temperature affects is the environment AFAIK.

Bye!

Crisp
--
"The best thing you can become in life is yourself" -- M. Eyskens.

[This message has been edited by Crisp (edited August 24, 1999).]

ISDAMan

08-24-99, 01:51 PM

Crisp,

Thanks again for the valuable engagement. Perhaps, I am a bit behind
the times and someone has deduced a decent and reliable temperature
reading of ambient space, measured in Kelvin, via direct measurement
and not hypothetical calculation taking in account all known
variables. My reference to EM transmission is based on the idea that
all molecular activity stops at absolute zero. Any EM transmission
would require an active ( Living ) environment verses an absolute
zero ( Dead ) environment. What's a wave without the water? Also, I
doubt that crystallization has anything to do with whatever space is
made up of. Let's take light. It acts like particle and a wave. Is it
still light if one of its aspects is blocked?

Not that I'm trying to chip away at anyones pillars, but, I would
take issue with the theory that the heat in ambient space is the
result of the Big Bang. Let's look at this whole thing together:
Correct me if I goof.

1) All things matter are lazy. They will take the path of least resistance.

If all the matter of the universe existed in one compact point, it
would in some way self-align to the point of least resistance while compacting.

Problem

Least resistance occurred long before it ever got to the point of
such intense compression. The easy thing is to stay loose. All the
bumping and grinding of getting closer would raise the heat and cause
more expansion.

Problem

If it did compress, then some force drawing it in was greater than
some force moving it out. What happened to equal and opposite? We're
still talking about matter.

Problem

How can something so dense explode? If there was a greater force
drawing it in, where did it go?

2) The dispersal pattern of an explosion is predictable.

Like I said previously, I'm a former U.S. Marine. I worked mostly
various tasks with explosives. It's lots of fun when you get to blow
something up. These things take a very predictable pattern. So
predictable, in fact, that almost all the information regarding a
device can be learned just by examining the effected area for signs
of forces having acted upon it. With no resistance of any kind, such
as we would expect to exist outside of the universe, you would expect
an even dispersal pattern of well defined clumps. O.k., we have that.
However, the heat, being itself lazy and moving from one place to
another, would be channeled by the clumps of matter into rivers,
streams, and oceans of heat as the whole thing fanned out. Finally,
it would end in a pool at the edge of the universe. All of these
bodies of heat would take a longer time to cool than other areas. The
edges of the scattered clumps of matter should have collected a fair
amount of heat residue as these bodies of heat passed by. This should
also take longer to cool. The closer to the edge of the universe we
can see the more this phenomena should fade then show up abruptly as
a pool of heat at the edge of the universe due to all the tiny veins
of heat feeding it. This is all, of course, going along with an
expanding universe theory. Furthermore, we should have serious
problems with obscured vision because of this heat when we look more
toward the center. Now, if the pooling together of matter to form
solid and gaseous bodies caused a cooling, the rest of space should
still bare these dispersal pattern heat scars though less obvious.
Somewhere on the universe, in fact in many places, there should be
large bodies of inexplicable heat hanging around with out nearby
galaxies. Where there is a large body of heat, there is a large body
of distortion. I surmise, again, that this heat comes from the
process I mentioned in my last post. Low level diffusion of heat
produces lo level distortion.

Am I sounding like a normal guy or just crazy and insane? :-)

------------------
Feel free to contact me privately at isda@gte.net . Come to Apostle Creed Online (http://welcome.to/apostlecreed) for Christian web developement.

Crisp

08-24-99, 09:16 PM

Dear ISDAMan,

Your quotes are in bold.

Any EM transmission would require an active ( Living ) environment verses an absolute zero ( Dead ) environment. What's a wave without the water?

This is not entirely a correct comparison: there are two kinds of waves: mechanical waves (those require a medium to propagate through, without air -> no sound, without water -> no wave) and there are electromagnetic waves (such as light). EM-waves do not require a medium to propagate through.

Also, I doubt that crystallization has anything to do with whatever space is
made up of. Let's take light. It acts like particle and a wave. Is it still light if one of its aspects is blocked?

You cannot block any of those characteristics, since light isn't a particle nor a wave. We use the theoretical models "wave" and "particle" to describe the behaviour of light. In one scenario, light is described as a wave, in another, it's described as a particle, while in reality, it is neither one. What is it then ? Good question. I don't think you can find someone on this planet to answer that question :).

All things matter are lazy. They will take the path of least resistance.

I disagree. This assumption leads to a contradiction in the following situation: Imagine you are outside the earth's atmosphere, and you hold a rock in your hands. If you drop it, it will fall straight down, towards earth, through the atmosphere. In the atmosphere, there's so much friction that it will (partially) burn up. The rock could have "chosen" to bypass the atmosphere (going around the earth), and thus choosing the "lazy" way, but it doesn't. Simply because gravitational forces are larger than frictional forces.

With no resistance of any kind, such as we would expect to exist outside of the universe, you would expect an even dispersal pattern of well defined clumps.

Okay, this is not a crucial point in your reasoning, but I would just like to say that you cannot talk about the "shape" of the universe. If you say that the universe is largely sphere-shaped, then you are saying that you can go outside of the universe and have a good look at it (and this is quite impossible). All we know is that we can see a uniform distribution of matter in all directions we look, but does this means it is a sphere/ellipsoid/cube ? Therefor it is also unreasonable to say that there is no resistance outside the universe since "outside the universe" is an invalid statement in physics :).

About heat flowing to the edges of the universe: I have absolutely no idea since I have only a very small knowledge of thermodynamics. Working on that though.

Bye!

Crisp
--
"The best thing you can become in life is yourself" -- M. Eyskens

ISDAMan

08-25-99, 12:06 PM

Crisp,

From nearly the same time I last posted, there were some things I
figured I didn't quite think through all the way. You know, that EM
radiation thing. ;) I figured you say pretty much what you said. I
still would have to say that all things matter are lazy though.

Quote:

I disagree. This assumption leads to a contradiction in the following
situation: Imagine you are outside the earth's atmosphere, and you
hold a rock in your hands. If you drop it, it will fall straight
down, towards earth, through the atmosphere. In the atmosphere,
there's so much friction that it will (partially) burn up. The rock
could have "chosen" to bypass the atmosphere (going around
the earth), and thus choosing the "lazy" way, but it
doesn't. Simply because gravitational forces are larger than
frictional forces.

Answer:

1) you cannot release the rock without adding energy to it.

2) It takes more energy to escape the friction and gravity than the
rock would have from a simple release. The path of least resistance,
the "lazy way", in this case, is to fall. Least resistance
is not determined by interaction. It's determined by the amount of
energy needed to exist in any particular state. That is why water is
a liquid at room temperature. It would require more energy to become
a gas.

Quote:

Okay, this is not a crucial point in your reasoning, but I would just
like to say that you cannot talk about the "shape" of the
universe. If you say that the universe is largely sphere-shaped, then
you are saying that you can go outside of the universe and have a
good look at it (and this is quite impossible). All we know is that
we can see a uniform distribution of matter in all directions we
look, but does this means it is a sphere/ellipsoid/cube ? Therefor it
is also unreasonable to say that there is no resistance outside the
universe since "outside the universe" is an invalid
statement in physics .

Answer:

I agree that there is a BIG BLUR where outside of the universe is
concerned. Yet, I'd say that in order for all the matter in the
universe to compress, at the point of compression, it would have to
be a sphere. Once uncompressed, internal dynamics and forces could
change the shape into anything. Take, for example, a water balloon of
any shape. If you had the force enough to compress water, you'd have
to apply force equally or else you'd simply contort the balloon. As
it becomes more and more compressed, each and every particle of the
unequally shaped balloon would naturally seek a stable point of rest.
All matter seeks a point of stability,... even radioactive matter.
This is basically the same thing that happens when you make a soap
bubble on the water. I'm speaking of the tendency to seek
equilibrium. When formed, that bubble may be conic. It will, however,
settle into equilibrium The only final outcome would be a perfect
sphere. If it were not a perfect sphere when compressed, that would
mean that there would have to be some force greater than the force
causing the compression. If it is greater, why would it not hinder
compression totally? It surely could not have gotten greater near the
end of compression. For the compression to continue, added force is
required. Therefore, the compression force is greater at the end than
in the beginning. A sphere is the most stable shape.

Thanks again for such wonderful interaction. I never asked you, what
do you study? And, here's one,... that age old question: What would
happen if an unstoppable force ever met an immovable object? Here's
my guess. A paradox would occur. You'd get transparent existence,...
two different states of being existing in the same place at the same
time. Can't happen. I know. It's a fun idea though.

Thanks-A-Bunch!!! :)

------------------
Feel free to contact me privately at isda@gte.net . I'm a Christian Web Developer. I run Apostle Creed Online (http://welcome.to/apostlecreed).

ISDAMan

08-25-99, 12:36 PM

Hay Crisp,

Here'something I just looked at. My origional theory that started this whole thing off takes care of this too. Waves would do the blocking. You'll see what I mean.

----------------------------------------

Olber's Paradox

Olber's Paradox is based on the assumption that the stars are more or less evenly distributed throughout space. Pretend to "draw" a sphere around Earth (or any object in the Universe, for that matter). We receive x amount of light energy from the stars within the sphere. A variable is used because the idea works for any size sphere. Now draw another sphere around us with twice the radius of the original sphere. This sphere contains more stars than the first sphere did. However, if you exclude the stars from the original sphere, you get a "shell" with a "hollow" interior. Since this shell is farther away from us (even though it contains more volume), an equal amount of light energy that we receive from the interior sphere (x) is radiated from the thickness of the outer shell. The total amount of light energy that we get from the interior sphere and the outer shell (which is actually the entire volume of the complete outer sphere) is 2x. We can keep creating shells in succession (adding the radius of the first sphere each time) and the total amount will also succeed in consistent order, for example, 4x, 6x, 8x, etc. In an infinite Universe, we can create an infinite quantity of shells. However, an infinite collection of shells would result in an infinite amount of light energy reaching us. We would be scorched and incinerated instantaneously. But this doesn't happen, and is therefore called Olber's Paradox.

One explanation is that the energy from some stars is blocked from our view by dust and other stars. If this was true, the earth would still be as bright as the average star, and we would still burn up. The real reason that this does not actually happen is that we have actually made two assumptions which may or may not be true. First, we assumed that the Universe is infinite. Some people believe that it is, and others believe it is not. If the Universe is indeed finite, we would not be able to create an infinite number of shells in such a manner around any object. Also, we assumed that the Universe is not expanding. In an expanding Universe, however, the light we would receive from receding stars and galaxies would be shifted toward the red end of the spectrum, giving us less energy than a star that is not receding. In fact, even with an infinite Universe, the expansion of the Universe would limit the amount of light energy that we receive to a finite sum. Ultimately, the Universe is either finite, expanding, or both.

----------------------------------------

I'm getting excited now!!! :)

------------------
Feel free to contact me privately at isda@gte.net . I'm a Christian Web Developer. I run Apostle Creed Online (http://welcome.to/apostlecreed).

Crisp

08-25-99, 08:59 PM

Dear ISDAman,

It takes more energy to escape the friction and gravity than the rock would have from a simple release. The path of least resistance, the "lazy way", in this case, is to fall.

Okay, I interpretted the term "resistance" you used in your previous posts in another way (thinking of it as a "difficulty to pass by"). Could you give me an example of what you would describe as the "lazy way" in a situation where gravity is negligable ? Since in all other situations, gravity is most likely to be the dominant force, and since two massive objects always attract eachother in a straight line, that's always the "lazy way" :)). (oh BTW: Physicists refer to the "lazy way" as the principle of conservation of energy: the rock cannot create extra energy to bypass the earth).

Yet, I'd say that in order for all the matter in the universe to compress, at the point of compression, it would have to
be a sphere.

When totally compressed, it will be a sphere (if the compressed matter is not rotating) or elliptical (if the compressed matter rotates, it's radius will be larger near the equator) -- this was proven by David Robertson. I simply cannot tell which one it will be, since creating models of collapsing universes is just this tiny bit too difficult for me :).

About the "why it has to be a sphere part": I simply cannot comment on it since my knowledge is too limited at the moment to talk sense about it.

I never asked you, what do you study?

Currently studying general physics, second year (out of 4).

And, here's one,... that age old question: What would happen if an unstoppable force ever met an immovable object? Here's my guess. A paradox would occur. You'd get transparent existence,...
two different states of being existing in the same place at the same time. Can't happen. I know. It's a fun idea though.

I'm now realizing why all the teachers hate these "what if" questions that much :).

Bye!

Crisp
--
"The best thing you can become in life is yourself" -- M. Eyskens.

[This message has been edited by Crisp (edited August 25, 1999).]

Mike

08-26-99, 06:36 AM

To my knowledge, as calculated by people who are much more intelligent than I. The universe is expanding. Although, the most distant stars are expanding at a faster rate than the stars closest to the centre of the universe.

Eventually in approximately one billion years when people look up, (if we're still around) there will be no stars in the sky because they'll be too distant to see to the naked eye.

This isn't made up nonsense, Hubble Space Telescope Data has validated this theory.

One final point on orbital flight dynamics. We can predict the in orbit trajectory of earth orbiting satellites, and interplanetary spacecraft by mathematically modelling principles of all gravitational factors involved. This is physics, these laws have not changed and until there's another great revelation in modern mathematical thinking, they won't change. Because the laws of physics are a constant, then it`s possible to determine previous planetary orbit planes (attitude, perigee, apogee, semi-major axis, eccentricity and inclination)as well as future ones. So even though we have only been on this planet for a short stint, and an even shorter stint analysing the world around us. It's possible, if your clever, to determine what was before, what will come, and eventually where the universe will end up.

With reference to your bible quotes, all I have to say is this.

We have historical knowledge of approximately 5% of our human history, about 10,000 years. Anything beyond that is anyone's guess. The bible (Christian) covers approximately 2% of human history. Now I as a professional person can never understand why people quote this book that's only been around for this short period of time, and then disregard the remaining 95% of our evolution. I find it even more confusing when religious zealots deny that 95% of history, and refuse to believe it ever even happened.

ISDAMan

08-26-99, 09:19 AM

Mike,
So as to avoid any form of hostile debate, let me point you to:

http://www.newscientist.com/ns/19990821/fracturedu.html

I do think, perhaps, that you've overlooked a key feature of my claim, which is just the theory of one individual man. If the wave, be it a subsurface wave form pattern, exists and has velocity, it would no doubt act like a longitudinal wave underneath the surface of the ocean. In so doing, it can look like it's going somewhere and never get anywhere. Just take a slinky, a long and flimsy coil spring, Attach a board at both ends. Stretch it out, on a table, with someone holding the opposite end from you. Now, all you have to do to produce a longitudinal wave is push your end forward an draw it back. You just produced a wave pattern that, if you were standing along any point of it, and you life span started and ended somewhere in between two crests, you could easily deduce the local mechanics of where you live and as far as you can see. I'm simply thinking and throwing out an alternative. Apparently, there are some great eggheads in this world doing the same thing. click on that link I gave you.

I do, however, have a strong foundation in the Word of God. Look for my statements in the, "Religious Debate", area :) .

------------------
Feel free to contact me privately at isda@gte.net . I'm a Christian Web Developer. I run Apostle Creed Online (http://welcome.to/apostlecreed).

ISDAMan

08-26-99, 05:02 PM

Crisp,

Sorry about that, "what if", question. Hope I didn't annoy
ya. Thanks for the name of the, "lazy way", too. I'm rotten
with all things names and dates.

Anyway, to continue with what I was saying to Mike, it would probably
be a good idea if you take a look at that link I sent him. http://www.newscientist.com/ns/19990821/fracturedu.html

Again, I'm not saying that I have any clue what ambient space is made
up of ( Is there technical speak for this other than the fact that it
is a void? ). However, I am surmising that it would behave much like
water. Only on the surface ( the outside of whatever is the edge ) of
the universe, could the transfer of energy through it behave as
transverse waves. Inside, it would behave like longitudinal waves.
This is excluding the matter within space. I'm only talking about
whatever ambient space is made up of. Perhaps there are more forms of
energy than we are aware of. We're finding, now, with that one
strange light out there that there could be either unknown forms of
energy, elements, or interactions between known factors. I don't
know. I'm eagerly awaiting the continued examination of this
phenomenal thing.

<<<Could you give me an example of what you would
describe as the "lazy way" in a situation where gravity is
negligable ? Since in all other situations, gravity is most likely to
be the dominant force, and since two massive objects always attract
eachother in a straight line, that's always the "lazy way" ).>>>

I'm going to define negligible gravity as being at a sufficient
distance from the Earth so as to have the effect of 1/10 of the
gravity of the rock itself. If I held the rock in my hand in a fixed
orbit ( I don't recall the name. Perhaps it's Geosyncrinous ), if I
could release it without adding energy to it, it would in fact be
drawn to me. Now, if I somehow released it by making myself
disappear, this once hand held rock, no doubt being far outside of
the Earth's atmosphere, would, for the most part, barring any other
effect, hold its orbit. In actuality, there would be decay due to the
existence of some gravity. There'd just be no rush about it. If
energy were added before I disappeared, the direction would be:

1) A straight line away from the Earth if the added energy placed the
rock in a vector exactly 180° away from the center of the Earth.

2) Other than a perfectly straight line with the possibility of
escaping the Earth's gravity ( How much energy was initially given?
How much is gained in travel due to potential gravity assist? ) if
the vectored angle were less than 180° and more than roughly
30°-40° away from the center of the Earth.

3) A straight line toward the Earth if the vectored angle were 0°
toward the center of the Earth.

4) Other than a perfectly straight line toward the Earth if the
vectored angle were greater than 0° and less than roughly 30°-40°.

Long answer. I know. There's just so many variables and I didn't know
what you were looking for in a general answer.

<<<When totally compressed, it will be a sphere (if
the compressed matter is not rotating) or elliptical (if the
compressed matter rotates, it's radius will be larger near the
equator) -- this was proven by David Robertson. I simply cannot tell
which one it will be, since creating models of collapsing universes
is just this tiny bit too difficult for me .>>>

That's a strong point! I still have a question of how it can rotate
though. If I cut the top off of a box of mashed potato flakes, when I
look inside, I'd see the flakes a certain level. If I tap and shake
the box, the contents would settle and therefore become more stable.
Yet, these flake are still quite easy to manipulate. If I decide to
take a 300lb block of lead that perfectly fits the opening of the
box, and use it to add compression force for 24hrs to these mashed
potato flakes, I'd be left with a considerably more dense and less
fluid product. The forces required to compress all the matter in the
universe, I believe, would need to be so great that not only would
there be no space to move, there would be no motivation. That old
lazy conservation aspect would be kick'n in hard.

Can you direct me to more info on David Robertson?

------------------
Feel free to contact me privately at isda@gte.net . I'm a Christian Web Developer. I run Apostle Creed Online (http://welcome.to/apostlecreed).

Boris

08-27-99, 12:20 AM

ISDAMan:

The word you are looking for (to replace 'void') is -- "ether".

Much of the debate here has been around Newtonian space. A lot of it won't do when it comes to the Big Bang. For example, there is no 'center of explosion'. Rather, the spacetime simply expands from within. An analogy sometimes used in physics textbooks is that of a raisin-bread rising in a stove. The raisins start out close to each other, but as the bread rises the raisins move further apart. In the universe at large, the matter is the raisins, and the spacetime is the dough. Just as there is no 'center of expansion' in a rising dough, there is no center of expansion in the universe. This picture has only been arrived at because we indeed observe all the astronomical objects around us receding from us in all directions at equal speed, and the farther away they are the faster they appear to recede. That is exactly what a raisin in a dough would observe of the other raisins around it.

Next, you are imagining some kind of an ultimate reference frame within which your 'waves' travel. Here we are in synch; I am also looking for some kind of a 'firmament' upon which reality is built. However, we are at odds with both the Special and General relativity theories, so good luck to us indeed. In fact, any theory that postulates a unifying reference frame would have to somehow mathematically reduce to something like General relativity in the common case -- merely because GR has already been empirically verified to startling accuracy.

In general, science and its theories tend to be localist, merely due to the fact that all theories must be supported by experiment (which can only be conducted locally.) Hence, I agree that there is no clear picture of what preceded the Big Bang. Whether it was a part of a larger pattern of contraction and expansion, whether it was a singular event, or whether it is merely a byproduct of something even more significant, or whether the truth is something altogether different -- we literally can't tell. But it is very hard to doubt that, regardless of what preceded it, the Big Bang did indeed occur. Everything points to that event -- from astronomy and relativity, through chemistry, to nuclear physics, to quantum mechanics. You could surely do a simple search on 'Big Bang' and find a website with a popular expose, and read about some of the evidence.

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

Crisp

08-29-99, 10:06 AM

Hi Boris,

I'm glad you brought up the comparison with the bread (they always told me the balloon one though ;)). I have one single question about that -- and all other -- representation:

Is all matter on the outer layer of the bread or is there also matter in the "inside" of the bread ? Perhaps it's more clear if I use the balloon comparison: Is all matter centered on the plastic of the balloon (the outside hull) as the balloon inflates, or is there also matter in the inside of the balloon ?

I don't think there is any matter inside the balloon.

Boris

08-29-99, 10:47 AM

Crisp:

Your confusion is understandable. I do not particularly like the balloon analogy because it is really a two-dimensional one. The short answer to your balloon question: no, there is no matter inside the balloon. With the 'rising bread' analogy, you get matter all throughout the bread, and a more intuitive sense of the three-dimensional expansion, but (and that's the tricky part about that one) the bread has no edges; rather it is closed in on itself like a surface of a hyperdimensional balloon, or else it stretches out to infinity. This may be too difficult to grasp, so let's go back to the balloon analogy.

Imagine you were a two-dimensional being confined to the surface of a balloon. You only know, experience, and can measure two dimensions, which are given by two perpendicular axes which are both tangent to the balloon's surface. Now, plant more 2-D people like you all over the balloon's surface. Because in your world light travels only along the surface of the balloon (like little ripples on the surface), you see the other people spread out around a flat space, some closer to you and some farther away. Now, imagine that the balloon is being inflated. You will see all the people around you start moving away. And, the farther away along the balloon's surface they are, the faster they will be moving (since we measure the distances only along the balloon's surface; remember we have no idea that one can 'shortcut' by going in through the surface, through the balloon's interior, and out to the opposite side.) Now, this balloon analogy is a two-dimensional one where the 2-dimensional surface of the balloon is expanding within a three-dimensional 'hyperspace'. In reality, we have the three-dimensional space supposedly either closed in on itself, or stretching out to infinity, expanding within some n-dimensional hyperspace.

The key idea is that there is no 'center' of expansion; the expansion is occurring everywhere at once, at every point within spacetime. And, there is no 'center of the universe' from which everything is expanding like remnants of an explosion; rather the entire space is equally expanding at every point, has no 'edge' to it, and the 'explosion' of the Big Bang is in truth merely the release of compressed energy as spacetime grows ever-larger and allows the energy-matter to spread out more and therefore cool.

But, this may not even be the final and true representation of the Big Bang, since it is based entirely on General Relativity, which is not guaranteed to be a complete theory (in fact, we know for a fact that it isn't.)

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

[This message has been edited by Boris (edited August 29, 1999).]

Plato

08-30-99, 11:08 AM

Boris,

you do allow me to add something to it al though your explantion was (as all ways) perfect.

Crisp,

the confusion about universal expension arises from the model chosen to represent the universe. Like each model the raisen bread model and the balloon model have their weak and strong points.
The bread model is confusing because one can't imagine a bread with no edges and the balloon model is confusing because it gives the impression that the ultimate shape of the universe is closed like a spheer or an elliptoid. The truth is we don't know for the moment how the universe looks like although the (hyper) spherical one is very popular amongst kosmologists because of its simplicity and being the first to be proposed as a model for the universe by Einstein himself. There are as of yet no experimental data to rule out any shape, although things might change in the near future when data from a new generation of X-ray satelites (like the Chandra X-ray observatory) will shed some new "light" on this very old question : How does the universe look like ?

About aether theory and how to interpret the relativity of time and space,
this is something that Boris and I have discussed about in the thread "The speed of gravity", you will have to expand your Topic shower to 75 days though because last time someone posted there was June 29.
We ultimatly agreed that there was a fundamental philosofical difference in our view upon nature : Boris want to understand everything to the smallest detail and therefor demands for the universe to be deterministic and for time and space to be absolute while I like some mystery here and there so I embrase quantum uncertainty as being inherent to matter and Mach's relativistic principle as a primary base to understand the universe.

------------------
we are midgets standing on the backs of giants,
Plato

Crisp

08-31-99, 11:56 AM

ISDAMan,

Sorry about that, "what if", question. Hope I didn't annoy ya.

I was just joking about the "what if" question. It takes a bit more to annoy me, believe me :).

That's a strong point! I still have a question of how it can rotate though.

That's one of those other principles of conservation: conservation of angular momentum. Anyway, just look at it this way: if two rotating objects collide, why would the one object they merge to, not rotate ?

More technically: imagine a binary star system colliding: Each one of the stars has it's own angular momentum, but the complete system "the two stars" also has it's own angular momentum. This angular momentum has to be preserved when the two stars collide, since there are no external forces (hence torque = 0). That's exactly the conservation of angular momentum.

Boris,

Thank you for the help on the balloon-bread analogies. I was 99,9% sure there wasn't no matter inside the balloon, but there was just this 0,1% doubt since I figured that out on myself ;)

Plato,

I hadn't heard about the "bread" comparison yet, but I must admit that it is less confusing than the balloon comparision (I didn't say it was better -- just a tiny bit more simpler to comprehend). Thanks for the clarification though.

--
"The best thing you can become in life is yourself" -- M. Eyskens.

[This message has been edited by Crisp (edited August 31, 1999).]

ISDAMan

09-01-99, 08:20 PM

Crisp, Boris, and Plato,

I haven't written in a while as you can see. I decided to pool together the resources of all three of my brain cells to see how my model could possibly account for that raisin bread example. That's a good perspective that I had not truly taken into account. Never let it be said that three brain cells aren't better that two :). I thing I've done it!

I cannot fully explain this as yet, but, what we may be observing is the product of a bow wave (a compression type wave just like a sonic boom) just, only from the inside. I'll break it down a bit. First, keep in mind that a wave goes out in all directions. Now, in 2D, we know that the characteristic V shape of a bow wave is formed by the tracking of successive circular waves produced by something traveling faster than the waves it is producing in a given medium. Imagine yourself on this wave producing something. If you could see the full embodiment of the waves as they formed behind you, because motion is relative, there would be the appearance that the waves are moving away from you in a straight line. On top of that, the the farther out each individual wave is from you, the more you would see it expand in all directions. So, you would perceive two types of motion at the same time: 1) Directional travel in a straight line away from you. 2) Expansion in all directions away from the center of the wave. The second, of course, grows in prominence while, the first, is a constant. I'm not even coming close to saying that I think I know what could possibly drive this in the first place. What it does do, in 3D (all the 2D examples I give are meant just to give an idea of the 3D), is account for the perception of greater expansion speed as you observe at greater distances from our point in space. I doubt that any understood dynamics of an explosion could account for this speed increase.

Crisp, I'm still thinking about that light thing you asked. I didn't forget.

------------------
Feel free to contact me privately at isda@gte.net . I'm a Christian Web Developer. I run Apostle Creed Online (http://welcome.to/apostlecreed).

ISDAMan

09-01-99, 08:35 PM

Crisp,

Even if it does rotate for some amount of time, why wouln't it stop? The forces within have to be outstanding.

------------------
Feel free to contact me privately at isda@gte.net . I'm a Christian Web Developer. I run Apostle Creed Online (http://welcome.to/apostlecreed).

Crisp

09-01-99, 10:07 PM

Hi ISDAMan,

What it does do, in 3D, is account for the perception of greater expansion speed as you observe at greater distances from our point in space.

I understand what you mean, but the comparison with a wave is not sufficient to explain why distant galaxies are receding from us faster than closer ones. If you are on that supersonic wave (to call it that way), then you're moving at a constant speed (there is no reason why the "cause" of the waves would accelerate). Waves propogate at a constant speed throughout the same medium (in this case ether), hence the total speed you would observe of all the waves is your speed + wave speed. This is an addition of constants, hence the result is also constant.

Even if it does rotate for some amount of time, why wouln't it stop? The forces within have to be outstanding.

The rotation would have to stop at a certain point (because loads of kinetic energy gets lost through collisions - friction). All this friction causes the whole thing to heat up again, but what happens afterwards is a mystery to me. (My guess is that the heating of the collapsing universe would cause it to rotate more rapidly, since systems tend to have as much entropy & kinetic energy as possible. But somehow I feel this isn't applicable in this case... Guess it's about time I get those thermodynamics courses ;)).

Bye!

Crisp

--
"The best thing you can become in life, is yourself." -- M. Eyskens.

ISDAMan

09-02-99, 01:46 PM

Crisp,
I get your point. Look at it this way. We are not examining these waves or the motion of the bodies in ether directly. We wouldn't know where to start. We're looking at the red shift. That's the key to this whole thing. The red shift can be compounded. Here's how it works. The successive linear layout of the waves produces a red shift from our vantage point. Meanwhile, the expansion of each wave in all directions produces another red shift of its own. It might not be possible to separate the two. I wonder, if there were a group of pulsars on the same line and separated by, lets say, 200 light years, what kind of Doppler effect we would notice. I'm still hammering this all out, so, there's bound to be improvements in the mechanics of this model.

Now, all these deeply conflicting forces needed to compress the universe and conflicts like more energy being on the edge of an explosion than in the center, are the types of things that lead me to question why and how the universe could be expanding.

------------------
Feel free to contact me privately at isda@gte.net . I'm a Christian Web Developer. I run Apostle Creed Online (http://welcome.to/apostlecreed).

[This message has been edited by ISDAMan (edited September 03, 1999).]

Plato

09-02-99, 02:56 PM

ISDAMan,

"conflicts like more energy being on the edge of an explosion than in the center"

This quote leads me to believe that you have some problem with the jump from three to four dimensions. It is a though nut to crack but you must realise that there are no edges to our universe ! You see, we are still in the explosion. The Big Bang is nothing like a shock wave of a 3D explosion, in fact may be the term 'explosion' is not even right for there is nothing really that is exploding unless you want to call the 'fabric of spacetime' something.

"all these deeply conflicting forces needed to compress the universe "
I really don't know what you are talking about here, the universe does not need to be compressed ! If you are talking about gravity trying to pull everything back together again then you must know that this is only one possibility and by no means verified by facts. On the contrary it seems more and more that everything will just eternally float further and further away cause there doesn't seem to be enough mass.
As Boris said in one of his mails : "Maybe one day it will just pop !" ;)

------------------
"If I have been able to see further, it was only because I stood on the shoulders of giants."
Isaac Newton

Crisp

09-02-99, 07:07 PM

ISDAMan,

We are not examining these waves or the motion of the bodies in ether directly. We wouldn't know where to start.

I was afraid you were going to say that, since that was also the first thing I thought when I wrote my reply :). However, I thought this way: Doppler shifts (redshifts) are bound to the observer (it's "the observer's fault" that redshifts appear, since he is moving away). If you look at the big picture (and could somehow put yourself outside the universe and have a good look back at it) then the speed would be constant. However, I feel this is one of those "choose the correct frame of reference" kinda problems that I know nothing about (this makes me wonder what I actually DO know :).

Anyway, I am off for 10 days of holidays in the Scottish Highlands. See you all later :).

Bye!

----------
"The best thing you can become in life is yourself." -- M. Eyskens.

ISDAMan

09-02-99, 09:17 PM

Crisp,

Have fun. I wish I could have 10 days off :).

------------------
Feel free to contact me privately at isda@gte.net . I'm a Christian Web Developer. I run Apostle Creed Online (http://welcome.to/apostlecreed).

Boris

09-03-99, 08:23 PM

Crisp:

Regarding redshift. It is not observed because we (the observers) are 'moving away'; rather it is observed because the emitters are moving away (hence, it is the same in all directions.) Also, the redshift is not only caused by the emitters moving away; light is 'stretched out' by expanding space over the billions of years that it travels from distant emitters to Earth. For very distant emitters, this stretching effect becomes even more significant than the classical Doppler shift.

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

ISDAMan

09-20-99, 08:40 PM

Hay everyone,

I'm back and I have an important update for my model. Worse yet, this time, I figured I'd start out by actually proving my point ;). Remember how I have shown you that this whole universe acts in waves like water? Well, it seems that there has been obvious proof of this all along. We have three types of galaxies: Elliptical, Spiral, and Abnormal. For the purposes of this evidence, we'll look at the spiral. It spins. Wow, what a revelation! But, wait,... there's more! 'Round and 'round and 'round it goes,... were it stops,... it can't happen! What do I mean? It's obvious that the tendrils of stars being strung along by the center of the disk must follow the rotation of the core. Since it's spinning in towards the center, why doesn't it ever wind up? We already have that answer. We've had it for years. These tendrils aren't like string tied to a central spinning pole. In fact, they are a wave form. The wave can consistently spin inwards and always hold it's shape without winding up. Now, if I looked at a small corner of an oil painting, without having knowledge of the complete work, would it be wise of me to surmise that the rest of this artwork would be in the fashion of a charcoal sketch. Of course not. No matter how tiny or large the area of the picture is that I examine, it will always bare the mark of an oil painting. Likewise, as we see that the galaxies bare witness of wave action, and that all sorts of other smaller phenomena bare the same wittiness, it is only wise to expect that in an even larger scale, the universe will behave in the same fashion. Now, hold tight to you chairs. I'm about to pull the key thread out of the string theory. If the string theory were true, there would be a major prohibition against the rotation of galaxies in the spinning disk format that we see. For the string theory to hold true, at least in normal space, the strings may not be disconnected. Everything in the universe is supposed to be made up of and laid out upon these strings. Each and every spiral galaxy, being that they spin and do not wind up, scream, with a loud voice, "Look Ma,... No Strings Attached!!!" They are free to never wind up. Wait! Aren't strings supposed to explain the reason why there's no spacial jitters? If there's no strings, what accounts for this? That's an easy one. Remember this, I've described this whole thing to you like water. In fact, it's probably safe to say that the processes we see in water can be, pretty well, superimposed to space. Now, when do we ever see jittery waves in water? There's only two times I know of. One, stems from what is basically compression and reverberation due to high obstacle volume in combination with close proximity with a massive limiting surface. That surface, of course, being the floor and walls this body of water travels in. The other, stems from the presence of only certain types wind. Superimposing these attribute to space, I'm certain, you will not find the first in normal space. Perhaps, you will in some level of a black hole. There's confining space there. As far as the latter is concerned, it is conceivable that some certain particle wind could produce such an effect in the short term. I would look for it in a new super nova. I don't know how you'd find it though. The key to proving or disproving string theory, my theory, or any theory is the consistency of behavior. You have to be able to complete a thought. String theory inconsistent. Things behave like strings in a grid-like fashion on so many levels. Yet, without provocation, they abandon the grid formation and start to do all sorts of other things. At the same time, they are supposed to be adhering to the string principles. I think not.

My model even covers the reason why a black hole can effect a strong gravitational force for only such a short distance away from the center of the opening. In the conventional model of things, gravity is a force. Therefore, there are some things that must hold true. Among other things, there has to be an opposing force and, if confined, it must increase in or focus the intensity. Of all the signs that we have of black holes, we don't see extreme gravity forces on the outskirts of the black hole or a beam effect inwards toward the black hole. In reality, we see minimal gravity bleed extending from the black hole. This defies it's existance if it were a force. I say, just like cold is actually a lack of heat and does not exist itself, gravity is actually a lack of a steady grade between two points in space. Basically, it's following the track of a dimple. Since the grade of the dimple is shallow outside and gradually increasing, you do not get and abnormally high gravitational force on the outskirts. Also, in sure that without rotation of the massive core in the first place, a black hole could not start. This sort of hints that there could be objects that appear too massive to be neutron stars that could actually be super neutron stars that lacked the rotation needed to draw in the walls of spacial fabric. The gravity produced by the dimple of these objects would be far superior to that of a conventional black hole. That being said, I'm ready to take some tough shots.

------------------
Feel free to contact me privately at isda@gte.net . I'm a Christian Web Developer. I run Apostle Creed Online (http://welcome.to/apostlecreed).

Boris

09-20-99, 10:34 PM

ISDAMan,

The strings in string theory are not all connected together. In fact, in most variants of the string theory the strings are actually loops. They permeate the fabric of space, and trough their vibrations transmit the various forces/effects of matter/energy.

The spirals in the spiral galaxies are currently theorized to be starburst shockwaves travelling tangentially to the direction of orbit. In other words, the entire galaxy is a big clump of gas and dark matter which we do not see, and the shining 'arms' are merely regions within the galaxy "currently" (cosmologically speaking) undergoing active star birth. The entire congregation of stars and dark matter orbits around the center, just as the planets orbit around the sun. So it's hard to understand where you come from with all this 'spin-up' business.

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

Spam

09-21-99, 01:23 AM

Suck My very large dick ass fucks

truestory

09-21-99, 01:48 AM

Wow, Spam!

Those are some new and interesting concepts for this forum! Please expand!

ISDAMan

12-21-99, 11:09 PM

Hay all,

I've been working on my theories and there will be more to come very soon. I hope to see my old friends back again. This time, I'll have more bold claims and hope for more great debate.

ISDAMan

Crisp

12-22-99, 10:32 AM

Hit us!

-slap-

Thanks...

Crisp

------------------
"The best thing you can become in life is yourself" -- M. Eyskens.

[This message has been edited by Crisp (edited December 22, 1999).]

steadystate

12-28-99, 02:30 AM

For an interesting discussion of the "Big Bang", "center" of the universe, universe size, etc., visit this web site: http://www-cfa.harvard.edu/seuforum/explore/bigbang/bigbang.htm

SteadyState