Cosmic Censorship

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by The God, Mar 30, 2017.

  1. Michael 345 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,511
    I take this to be the Big Bang

    Drop of water. OK

    Into lake

    Ummmm

    Thought the drop of water - singularity - expanded into a VOID

    Not into any already present matter???

    Which would beg questions

    where did all this stuff come from?

    how much of it was present?

    how long had it been sitting there?

    what caused the drop of water (singularity) to drop into the lake?

    No

    Yes

    I understand branes to be more of a thought bubble so I am going to go with No on this

    I'm guessing someone has

    Question might be can the model survive

    Yes

    No idea what this means as it appears to be alone without reference to context

    Agree there is a explanation

    Doubt it is simple

    No comment on the video

    Didn't watch

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,822
    Then try to read my text in context of M=Theory, a pretty fundamental perspective on possible realities.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-theory







    Yes



    No idea what this means as it appears to be alone without reference to context



    Agree there is a explanation

    Doubt it is simple

    No comment on the video

    Didn't watch

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    [/QUOTE]
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,822
    The context of the example was M-Theory.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-theory
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Michael 345 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,511
    Tried to read

    Even if only skimming through

    Sorry way above my head like a satellite

    I will keep looking for explanations more suited to my 2 neurone brain

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Thanks for the reference

    I hope I know when I understand some of the Universe when I can explain what I understand or contend and can convey the ideas to someone else

    If (when) I am wrong hope the person has enough knowledge and patience to explain corrections

    Or better if I get them interested in some off beat idea of mine which clicks a switch onto a new idea

    (Long shot)

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  8. Boris2 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,106
    The Universe just expanded. Not "into" anything. There is no outside. No void.
     
    Write4U likes this.
  9. Michael 345 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,511
    What would you call whatever it is "outside" of the tip of the furthest light beam heading away from our Universe?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  10. Boris2 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,106
    I call it a statement unsupported by any evidence. You are implying the Universe has an edge. That would make things awkward as that implies an outside. We think the Universe is either finite or infinite, we don't have enough evidence to say either way, and unbounded. Meaning there is no edge. Just like the surface of a balloon, or the Earth for that matter, has no edge.
     
  11. Q-reeus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,533
    You are wasting your time. All that was pointed out to poor Michael numbers of times before but it just rolls off like water off a duck's back. Michael needs a void. Period.
     
  12. Michael 345 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,511
    Weird

    The furtherest we can view galaxies is about 13.7 billion light years away

    With more powerful telescopes coming we might be able to see further

    Our Universe is finite to the extent we can see and will only increase in size the further we see

    The finiteness of the Universe is backed up by the observations of gravity

    We know our Universe is still expanding

    The debate is about is there enough mass in Universe for gravity to win and stop the expansion?

    Or

    Expansion continues forever?

    I'm going for forever and my reasoning is

    as the Universe is still expanding and accelerating

    I attribute the acceleration to the Big Bang still in operation because outside the Universe is a totally vacant void

    The light from those furthest galaxies coming our way sent light the other way

    Into WHAT???

    The balloon example is bad

    Balloons do not have a edge as such but it does have a outer skin which expands into the atmosphere

    What would you call whatever it is "outside" of the tip of the furthest light beam heading away from our Universe?

    The above is a question not a statement

    What would your answer be please?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  13. Michael 345 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,511
    Yep

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  14. Q-reeus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,533
    http://www.sciforums.com/posts/3437338/
     
  15. karenmansker HSIRI Banned

    Messages:
    638
    IMO, there was/is a primordial energy condition (E1) - est. 10^160 ergs/cc - from which the observable universe (mass + lower energy - E2 - est. 10^60 ergs/cc) initiated and into which the material (mass + E2) is continuing to expand and increase in volume.

    E 1 --> (Mass + E2) [for simplicity, via m=E1/c^2 + E2
    where,
    E1 >>>>E2


    E1 --> (mass + E2) conversion is via virtual particle (VP) pair production. Some dominant portion of VP persists (does not auto-anihilate) and becomes (real) mass. Apparent outward accelerating expansion is simply a E1 --> E2 + mass expanding 'reaction front' . Nothing is offered as proof . . . . . because this SM alternate explanation is IMO, only!
     
  16. Boris2 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,106
    You may want to look at the WMAP etc results. the Universe is flat to within a couple of %, excluding the error bars, so that means the Universe is infinite. Or at least very much bigger than the bit we can observe. So the furthest galaxies are only those ones where the light has had enough time to reach us. Do not confuse the Observable Universe, which is finite, with the Universe, which may or may not be infinite.

    Yes the balloon analogy is bad, because people who don't understand it always raise this point.
     
  17. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,822
    I have seen it called "a permittive cundition, allowing for expansion.".
     
    Last edited: Apr 27, 2017
  18. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,822
    Of course that should read "permittive condition", but at least it brings us back to the topic.

    From what I know, the cosmos has certain inherent mathematical laws, some permittive, some restrictive.
     
  19. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,822
    If it did interest you, watch this amazing abstract feat of turning a sphere inside out, without breaking abstract mathematical censorship.
    Watch parts I and II

     
    Last edited: Apr 27, 2017
  20. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,822
    The *inflationary epoch* of the assumed zero state singularity expanding at FTL, seemingly breaking current universal law of *c*.

    I do have another possible perspective.

    If we assume a fundamental "permittive (pre) condition", there may not have been any mathematical limits on energy propagation. Thus the universe in its earliest inflationary stage had not yet formed its own internal geometry and resulting restrictive natural laws or constants prohibiting FTL.
    Those restrictive laws came along with cooling and the formation of the first elements.

    I have absolutely no science to back this up, but does anyone know for sure?
    I just suspect that this (our) universe had a simple beginning.
    Question:Was there anything to make it necessarily complicated?
     
    Last edited: Apr 27, 2017
  21. Boris2 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,106
    No. Space has no mass so doesn't have to adhere to the speed limit of c.
     
    exchemist likes this.
  22. Q-reeus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,533
    Boris2 likes this.
  23. karenmansker HSIRI Banned

    Messages:
    638
    Entertaining and mathematically correct (I'm sure!) . . . . but NOT real. . . . a good example of an instance in which something 'proveable using maths' does not corrrespond with reality. . . . a very common error in science, IMO (of course!).
     
    Write4U likes this.

Share This Page