At Rest with our Hubble view

This is the height of arrogance and ignorance.

That the universe might just be a sphere has been considered for over two thousand years. That is is nonsense, physically, has been established for about three hundred.

The simple fact is that standard cosmology allows for an infinite universe. The standard, "Big Bang" theory allows for an infinite universe. If the mass-energy density of the universe is not above a certain amount, then the universe will be infinite, in standard, "Big Bang" models. Every astronomy textbook that discussed cosmology addresses this.

Try this page from the official website for WMAP: http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_concepts.html Here's an example sentence from their description of Big Bang cosmology, "Nevertheless, if all of space both inside and outside our horizon is infinite now, it was born infinite."

This guy, who self-published and sells his own book of "physics", is calling NASA's cosmology project "pseudoscience". Ask Farsight for the mathematical details of his "space pressure". Ask him how we test for his "space pressure". He cannot provide these details. Except to say that he is merely relying on Einstein... who he thinks got this stuff all wrong...

You can believe what you want, but you might want to judge Farsight's character before you swallow his hook.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I don't see why Grumpy should be able to post his nonsense, when anyone else in these forums would stand to correct someone else for doing so. I think a lot of people here just don't have the background to know how ridiculous his claims are, and it is not my fault that science has not been able to prove one way or the other. But, I have mentioned specific well known scientist that are leaning to just the opposite of what Grumpy claims, but you are right no body knows one way or the other. They where unable to prove that there was any type of curvature even from finding a closer value of the cosmological constant. They only found that it still looks to be flat, but it most likely may be that it just wasn't accurate enough to determine this.

I thought it should be clear by now that I have read a lot of pop physics books, and this is a topic that a lot of them talk about. They are all in agreement that they do not know one way or the other, that is what has become mainstream physics. That is what is said in all the books written about it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Correcting is one thing; taking the thread off topic to badger someone who may be in error is another.

It is a shame you don't notice that a theory is not proof of anything, and yet theories say specific things about a theoretical model. I am attempting to pin down and understand the Big Bang model, right or wrong as it may be, and I don't suspect it perfectly corresponds to nature. Proof that theory corresponds precisely to nature, as AlexG pointed out, is not what physics is about.

Your links to Einstein's papers are fine, but your analysis of them was not inspiring. That is why I wrote post #131, and if you want to participate on topic, why not read and reply to that, without the supposed air of some high credentials that imply you know it all.

Theory is not about knowing or proving. The Standard Model is theory. It is quite specific about what it means. It is not something that is debatable or variable, it is what it is, right or wrong.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

My opinion on the shape of the universe.

I would consider it to be like a quasar. Two beams of energy shooting out of a rounded structure. That way we can physically separate the dimensions as we define our structure as we go from the one dimensional beams to the four dimensional object in time. At some point I would suppose the universe decided to mirror the effects that created it, if not all the time then somewhere.

 

This in no way conforms to actual observations, not to mention it doesn't really make any sense.

 

How would you observe the outside of a quasar, when your stuck on the inside?

 

I think we should concentrate on our galaxy before we venture further

 

Welcome to SciForums.

 

No one is stuck inside of a quasar. What we're stuck inside of is the cosmic microwave background, which has no vortices, so there's no reason to say the universe might have outer jets.

 

No one knows the inside of a quasar or the outside of our universe, so who is to say we can't make a metaphor of our "unknowns" in order to make predictions.

The universe would have to have an outside source of energy in order to expand. What is better at causing expansion than a couple vortexes of light moving the opposite direction as those found at a quasar?

It would give a reason for the slower rate of expansion if the same amount of energy were being added to the universe now as at the beginning.

 

Do you just take buzz words at random and string them together?

No one knows, so who's to say invisible pink unicorns make the universe expand by flapping their wings?

Metaphors don't result in predictions.

 

Huh? The whole idea behind any thought experiment "LIKE" the train one is metaphor. What your saying is complete nonsense. We could even consider any sentence with the word "is" as being a metaphor if they aren't "exactly" the same thing.

 

No, the idea behind any thought experiment is to establish a simplified situation to apply the theory to. It is also used to establish a situation which is technologically not feasible.

In either case, what is applied is scientific theory and mathematics, not idle, unsupported speculation.

A 'light vortex"? Please, learn some physics from somewhere other than science fiction.

 

Basic human simplification is contingent to metaphor. We have all the technology for me to say what must be done in order to better understand our preexisting "theories" and facts, but I would rather explicate myself through metaphor.

So you want me to mathematically demonstrate two infinite vortices of light creating an area in space? Einstein already did that over a hundred years ago with a thought experiment and one particle of light?!!? He used entanglement to show how even though the beam moved most of its energy in one direction it still traveled 360 degrees so it could be seen from any position within the radius. It is very simple and basic, the areas which light moves into retains an insignificant amount of its energy, which in turn creates space. Then he derived compound interest from his theory of relativity under the assumptions of complete equivalence. Then he showed the world how to use his equations to recreate a supernovae.

Not interested?

Beam vortex. Pardon me for not using buzz words. Boy you sure are self contradictory.

Proof

 

Your entire post, including that nonsense about three photons, is simply that. Nonsense.

Nothing in Einstein's SR or GR had anything to do with entanglement.

That's simply more nonsense.

And this is just plain stupid. Compound interest? You have no idea what your saying, do you?

Would I be correct in assuming that you're about 13 years old and have never taken a science class above Jr High School? Because it sure seems that way.

BTW, your screen name is arrogant and insulting, given what you post.

 

Not in those words, but we found an experiment "like" the double slit, which "proved" that light was omnidirectional. Then Humans created the word "entanglement", because it sounds better and is more simple than saying "light moves in all directions".

Ok. How do you believe "new space" is obtained without violating conservation of energy?

Ok. A mathematical genius created interest just for future giggles.

Albert Einstein - "Compound interest is the eighth wonder of the world. He who understands it, earns it ... he who doesn't ... pays it."

Beats being as ignorant as those who have made up their minds before clicking buttons.

 

More nonsense. You simply have no idea what your talking about. Young's double slit experiment dates back to the early 1800s. And light is not omnidirectional. A photon travels in a straight line following the geodesic, in one direction at a time.

Entanglement was a term coined by Erwin Schrödinger, and it was a concept which Einstein could never bring himself to accept.

On the cosmological level, energy does not have to be conserved. See Noether's theorem.

Compound interest was known back when the bible was written, where it was known as usury and condemned as a sin. It was also strictly against Roman law.

Your level of ignorance and arrogance can only come from an unschooled adolescent kid.

 

Three equally spaced points on a circle defines an equilateral triangle which does not comport with the unequal sides of the right triangle you formulated. Also, the units of a calculation of that sort are meters-kilograms-seconds whereas you give a result in km. The answer is wrong, since the path traversed by 2 seconds of light propagation is 6E8 m.

I bring this up since your thread title refers to confusion.

 

What about the organization of the equation in the middle? Are the two not contingent or equal?

{300,000(300,000)^2=300,000}=9^10

mc^2=E

(6E^8)*3=1,800,000,000 m/s... The third one isn't quite right I'll admit, But ill ask you to refer any more of this into that thread please.

Anyone who has never made a mistake has never tried anything new.
Albert Einstein

 

There is no reply to the thread I can think of because it makes no sense, just as I am at a loss to reply to your comments directly above. I just clicked on the link to see if I could figure out what you are talking about, and noticed the errors. It was referenced as proof of confusion, which seemed doubly ironic.