Infinate and Eternal Universe theory

I hope you don't think this is the 1st I've heard of this like theists who seem to assume since I don't agree with them I MUST not have heard their "arguments".
In your analogy, dots will be moving away from my dot in some directions but I will see no dots in some directions. No dot on the balloon will seem like the center.
Seeming to move at a faster rate is not the same as moving at a faster rate.
You give an example that shows your point wrong then claim otherwise.
1111

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Would the something in this scenario be space & matter?

I love listening to you guys talk but my expertise on the subject is limited to a few books. However I can remember one of those books mentioned that light and/or energy does not require space, it has no volume. So if this true then is it energy that is being referred to as the something from nothing?

Does the universe contain a finite amount of energy or is there no limit as to how much energy there could be? Could the universe be leaking or receiving energy at certain rates? Could the universe be a bubble in a sea of energy.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

PsychoticEpisode. Light needs space. Think of space as an ocean and light as waves in the ocean. No water, no waves. The universe contains a finite amount of energy unless more is coming from elsewhere.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

StrangerInAStrangeLa. The balloon analogy needs a four physical dimensional hypersphere to work. What is inside causing expansion is anybody's guess. How space can continue to expand and yet maintain the same laws (ie: the same speed of light) is anybody's guess. It would suggest that a powerful 4D explosion could even if relatively tiny, destroy the entire universe as in sticking a pin in a balloon.

 

Space is simply the area where things are.
Maybe energy is entering & exiting our known universe.

So you're saying it doesn't work?
1111

 

No, it doesn't. I've told you many times, often explaining at length, that there's a great many 4 dimensional compact boundary-less shapes and a number of infinite boundary-less shapes which would give the current layout of the universe while allowing for space-time expansion. If the universe were the shape of a 3 dimensional torus for instance.

You yourself admitted that current observations do not see the exact same galaxies/structures on opposite sides of the sky and thus there's no evidence for the universe being closed, ala the surface of a hypersphere, rather than infinite in extent or any way to distinguish between topologies like a 3-sphere or a 3-torus.

You continue to endlessly repeat the hypersphere comment because you don't really understand it or the cosmological evidence (or lack of) relating to the large scale structure of the universe. Plus of course you cannot bring yourself to accept any explaination I offer or correction I make of you.

 

Let's see. We have billions of trillions of stars putting out microwaves and solar winds for untold billions of years. I wonder where all these particles and radiations go?

We are looking through a haze of particles and microwaves which only becomes opaque with sufficient distance (as in morning mists), say 13.7 billion light years. From my house looking out over fields, I some mornings see an opaque mist a mile away and other times only twenty yards away, but it looks clear where I am.

Isn't it odd that despite expanding billions of times, the universe at the cmb is the same as outside our solar system, 2.7K . You'd think the cmb would be hotter or interstellar space cooler?

 

AlphaNumeric. Long time, no stalk. Where you been?

As I have pointed out to you many times, any shape but a hypersphere would lead to anomalies in our view of distant space.

I did not say we did not see the same galaxies on different sides of the sky. Since many of our images of very distant galaxies are just tiny blobs, how would we know since they show no detail? A blob is a blob.

The hypersphere like the big bang idea is laughably wrong, so I cannot accept them. As you mostly repeat ideas I have discarded or put on the back burner because of problems with them, it is not surprising I do not agree with them.

 

StrangerInAStrangeLa. Since EMR and gravity are limited to light speed and no matter can reach light speed, I think space is not just the distance between points.

A hypersphere could work but has serious problems which need sorting out before accepting it.

 

The speed of light or anything else has nothing to do with what space is.
A balloon isn't a hypersphere tho.
1111

 

Still believing the universe revolves around you I see. I reply to a post of yours where you have said something incorrect and suddenly I'm stalking you? The fact I've post elsewhere doesn't count for anything?

It's called education. You might want to try it. I went on holiday for a month during all of September and then I had to proof read the paper I've done. Go have a look on www.arxiv.org . You know my name.

No, you said that and I corrected you. I gave a lengthy explaination in a thread of yours about hyperspheres over in pseudoscience. I suggest you go back to it and read it.

I'll be a little more precise with my explaination, since you're obviously having trouble :

Currently observations, to the limit they can be trusted (ie ignoring blurry blobs you mention), do not show identical structures on opposite sides of the sky. Therefore, to the limits of our ability to measure the universe appears not to curve back on itself. Therefore we cannot distinguish between the following cases :

1. The universe is approximately flat and infinite in size. It's not possible for a stream of photons to loop around the entire universe, which we see as identical images on opposite sides of the sky.
2. The universe being enormous but curved so that it can be modelled as having the topology \(S^{3}\), the 3 dimensional version of a sphere. It's finite in size but it has no boundaries.
3. The universe being enormous but curved so it can be modelled as having a topology which makes it compact and 3 dimensional but not a 3-sphere. It's finite in size but it has no boundaries.

Savvy? If we cannot see the entire universe we cannot distinguish between it being infinite or finite. And if we cannot see identical images on opposite sides of the sky we cannot distinguish between different kinds of finite, boundary-less 3 dimensional shapes it make be taking.

But as anyone who goes and reads the thread on hyperspheres you started in Pseudo can see, you don't understand fairly basic notions in geometry and coupled with your complete inability to grasp relativity and cosmology, you're not exactly competent at judging science.

I have to constantly repeat certain things to you because you keep showing you've not bothered or been unable to understand them. Pretty simple ones. Despite all the time you spend attacking various bits of mainstream physics, you don't spend the time to even understand what it is you attack. Just like OilIsMastery and his obsessions with oil and geology.

Tell me, how do current experiments distinguish between the universe being of shape \(S^{3}\), ie a 3 dimensional sphere , the shape you are referring to, the shape \(T^{3}\), ie a 3 dimensional torus so light paths can still loop back on themselves, and \(\mathbb{R}^{3}\), completely spacially flat, if the circumferences of the \(S^{3}\)'s 'great circle' (like the equator for the Earth, only in higher dimensions) is a trillion light years in size and similarly, the circumferences of the \(T^{3}\)'s loops are a trillion light years in length.

Such huge curved shapes wouldn't show up their curvature over distances of only a few billion light years, so experimentally we'd have no way of telling them apart.

 

But that does not explain why the CMB is a perfect Black Body, observable every direction in the sky. Anyway stars do not emit blackbody radiation, and I doubt dust (which is capable of producing BB radiation) is homogeneous at every point in the sky.

 

AlphaNumeric. Goody for you. I usually go on 3 months holiday, to Asia, but am giving it a rest this year.

What's hard about cold formation of planets? It happened in our solar system where the sun was a late starter. Jupiter and Saturn could not havee formed where they did in a hot formation.

Of course hyperspheres are pseudo-science, but the BB idea needs them to produce a 4D expansion. Without them, it's 3D and we have a centre of the universe.

The fact that the CMB prevents us seeing further does not suggest an infinite universe. Just that what is behind it is hidden.

And you are good at judging science? Your idea is if it is not in a text book, it is automatically wrong, and if it is in a text book (though it has no firm evidence as in BB, DE, DM, strings, supersymmetry, Higg's boson, etc), then it is automatically right. Stupid parrot.

You remind me of the Englishman abroad. If someone doesn't understand what you are saying, it is their fault so you just shout louder till they do.

Light is slow. According to theory, the outer edge of the universe is expanding at near light speed. The reason why in an ever expanding universe we cannot see in a curve all around it is....light is slow. Duh!

 

A few decades ago I lived on the fens in an isolated house. The fens are flat and there was a few times when I could see hundreds of yards in all directions but no more. It was a wall of white mist at that distance and I was in the centre of a clear area (apparently).

If the CMB were to be produced by all the stars in the universe producing microwaves since their formation (millions/billions of years), why would the CMB not be homogeneous?

Stars also give off all sorts of particles as well as radiations so why would they not appear solid if viewed from sufficient distance, as in 13.7 billion light years?

 

So despite the fact I give examples of other compact, boundaryless 4 dimensional objects, you still think the BB 'needs them', despite it not requiring us to know the overall topology of the universe, despite there being no evidence the universe is a hypersphere and despite the fact you don't know enough about mainstream cosmology or geometry to even grasp the concepts.

I didn't say it did suggest that. But it means that it doesn't rule it out. Nor does it rule out other compact, boundaryless 4 dimensional objects like tori. Or even something more involved like a K3 space, which happens to obey the Einstein field equations in a particular form. Just as deSitter, Minkowski and Anti deSitter space-times, all of which have been considered to be viable descriptions of the shape of the universe at large. Infact, if the cosmological constant is what observers appear to be telling us (ie ever so slightly positive) then the universe isn't a hypersphere, it's got the structure of de Sitter space-time which isn't finite in size.

You completely failed to grasp my explaination of why the lack of any observations seeing the exact same structures on opposite sides of the sky means that observations cannot distinguish between an infinite universe or a huge but finite one. And in the case of the huge but finite, any compact shape can give what we see.

Can you point to a single paper which says "The Big Bang is inconsistent if the topology/large scale structure of the universe is not that of a hypersphere". Because its not something said in cosmology circles, to my knowledge. I have seen plenty of cosmology talks and lectures and read a fair few books and papers on the matter, as well as being mildly competent at things like using the Einstein Field Equations or the FRW metric and not once have I had to use the notion of the universe being a hypersphere in order to do models of inflation.

So, can you back up your claim or not?

Obviously you feel you have to resort to putting words in peoples mouths and lying in order to try to justify your views. I don't automatically think anything and everything I'm taught is correct. Not do I automatically dismiss things which aren't mainstream. The fact you are so ignorant of the topics you talk most about means most of what people say to you can be found in books. Or by a 10 year old using Google, as you like to say.

I have explained, more than once now, why hyperspheres are not an essential component of the BB model. You haven't actually retorted that, just repeated your claim. You ignored my examples of other space-times, both finite and infinite, which match observations. You ignored my explanations of why observations aren't able to narrow our choices down much. You ignored my request you provide me with a link to where you 'do' the FRW metric, as you claimed you had discussed it with me previously and shown me wrong. Yet you provide no link. Well I'm asking you again. I'm also asking you to provide justification for your claim that the BB model needs a hypersphere. Because you haven't provided any yet.

Better to be knowledgeable and a parrot than a lying fool.

Yet another example of crank behaviour, you project your own faults onto others. I have provided explanations. In other discussions I've provided a multitude of links, given derivations, shown algebraic workings, cites sources. If someone asks me to put my maths/physics where my mouth is, I can. You cannot. So you resort to lying about theories and people and repeating the same debunked claims. It is you to hopes to persuade people by simply repeating the same thing again and again.

For instance, you repeatedly said to me that I'm unable to show any original work. I repeatedly offer to discuss my work with you in the appropriate forum, you refuse. You then repeat how I don't have anything original work. You simply repeat the lie, hoping that if you ignore my polite invitations to discuss my work somehow my work will cease to exist and you'll be right. Had a look at ArXiv yet or are you hoping if you pretend I don't have work on there which is my own original research it'll not exist?

So in other words you understand why observations cannot tell if the universe is finite or not and a model which views the universe as infinite will be just as consistent as if the universe is finite but huge. And yet for some reason you think that the BB says the universe must be a hypersphere because it cannot deal with other shapes. The fact cosmology has been awash with models involving deSitter, Anti deSitter, Minkowski, FRW metrics, all of which do not view the universe as \(S^{3}\) (though the FRW can I think), don't seem to register with you. Hardly surprising given you avoid actually reading about mainstream cosmology or relativity. Nor do you read about geometry and the various 4 dimensional compact boundaryless shapes there are.

So hows about those links to you 'doing' the FRW metric (heck, I'd even settle for you showing a working grasp of any kind of physics) and someone credible saying the BB is impossible without a hypersphere topology. I'll make your life a little easier and provide this link where the metric shown is only describing a 4-sphere if k=1. Oh and here is another. If you bother to read it (or just look at the pictures) you'll see it discusses a variety of different shapes, not just spheres. Pretty much says exactly as I've been telling you. Of course you'll just call me a parrot, as if I should be ashamed of knowing things, things a 10 year old with Google could find but are obviously too much for you to find, hence why you continue to lie all the time, despite people correcting you. You must feel so proud, having to resort to lying.

 

EndLightEnd:

Here's a synopsis of my alternative explanation for CMB (Although I call it Cosmic Background Radiation, or CBR).

Yes . . . the universe IS expanding . . . but NOT necessarily from a Big Bang (BB) episode. Expansion is a Steady-State (ugh!) phenomenon. The rate of expansion is directly proportional to the rate of cosmic background radiation production. CBR is not a "left-over" from a BB, but rather a continuous product from the virtual state condition (which I call Subquantal Reality, or SQR) transition to our observable matter condition (which I call Material Reality, or MR). As SQR (the land of virtual particles, quarks, and pre-quarks) transcends to MR (the land of our "hard", observable, detectible stuff), an energy threshold is crossed (kind of like water going over a waterfall). The only way back across this energy threshold is via blackholes (or, carry the water back above the waterfall in buckets). The difference in SQR energy levels (>>>> high!) and MR energy levels (<< lower than SQR) is represented by CBR. CBR is not isotropic (proven!), thus expansion is happening at slightly variable rates within the space-time matrix. Now the tough part to visualize . . . . SQR permeates (omnipresent) MR, so expansion is happening 'everwhere' . . . at the same time. I envision SQR to be superluminal, undetectable and unobservable (except by inference from CBR), and MR to be limited by C. Crossing the C threshold (energy drop or anisotropies in SQR) generates the CBR + MR. I won't even hint at the theological implications of this hypothesis. Send me an email and request a more complete discussion of this hypothesis.

(Original reply to a question on SCiforum regarding the expanding universe)

wlminex