Is the universe an expanding ball?

Hi Walter...Nice post, the above has me somewhat intrigued though.
Can you elaborate?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

http://www.alloftimeonline.com/Time and Space Begin.htm

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

@ Walter L. Wagner,
referencing your Post #39 :

Thank you kindly for your quick and courteous response. The 'general note of approval', as you put it, is the common respect that I firmly believe all learned students of Academia and the Real Sciences should afford one another...so, Grok'd!

I noticed, and also enjoyed the fact that you made use of the word "posits". If I understand this correctly, then you understand the position of "theories" in Science.
From the rest of your Post, you understand and comprehend the "Big Bang" theory at least as well as myself, if not more.

Like yourself, if I am not mistaken, I am fully aware of the unanswered questions and other 'problems' that are still to be completely resolved with the "Big Bang" theory.

Thanks again, WLW, for your quick and courteous response, but as you have no doubt observed the 2 enumerated points, and the "not, shall we say, well received" issue I touched upon in my earlier Post - is again manifest...so...

I will leave the Thread, so as not to cause any 'problems'.

WLW, take care and maintain your appreciated "bearing".

Later, dmoe.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

POSIT:
1. to place, put, or set.

2.to lay down or assume as a fact or principle; postulate.

3. something that is posited; an assumption; postulate.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/posit
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

scientific theory:
A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. If enough evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, it moves to the next step—known as a theory—in the scientific method and becomes accepted as a valid explanation of a phenomenon.

When used in non-scientific context, the word “theory” implies that something is unproven or speculative. As used in science, however, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.

Any scientific theory must be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts. In the scientific method, there is a clear distinction between facts, which can be observed and/or measured, and theories, which are scientists’ explanations and interpretations of the facts. Scientists can have various interpretations of the outcomes of experiments and observations, but the facts, which are the cornerstone of the scientific method, do not change.
http://www.livescience.com/21491-what-is-a-scientific-theory-definition-of-theory.html
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Hope that is of some assistance.

 

This rational examination of the facts reaches a bottleneck with the assumption of a random and statistical universe. Random is not exactly based on rational thinking since it allows anything to happen even without a rational explanation. For example, if we assume life randomly appears on the earth, where is the logic in that? It appears to say so much, without having to offer anything rational.

Also, if you start with bad theory that is not fully rational, random will appear to happen more often, relative to that theory, since one did not make all the rational contingencies to eliminate random. If we get enough thin theory such that random appears to be the rule, then no theory has to be rational anymore, since random and the black box universe appear to fully compensate.

Before the age of enlightenment or age of reason, early pre-science was more based on a version of the random universe; whims of the Gods. If you randomly tried things and waited long enough lead could turn into gold. All the theory was thin, therefore exceptions always appears, which was explained as random whims of nature and the gods. Random is easier to say than the theory is too thin so random appears more common.

The age of reason upped the game of science by requiring one eliminate the random assumption, with a logical explanation and data, as the quote above explains. The random approach came back 400 years later in the 20th century. Einstein said, he did not believe God chose to play dice with the universe, when he saw the trend coming back. He was more old school and believed in the power of logic.

A good exercise is to ask a child to come up with a theory to explain something they know little of. They will come up with a cute explanation with many holes. Next, we can show them some hard data to poke holes in their theory. They can justify this, if they know enough to use a random universe defense, since poking through the holes would be expected in such a universe.

If you assume a random universe, your theory needs to build in holes or else it will appear to contradict random. I have this problem all the time in that I don't make provision for these holes since they are often not needed if you do it properly. Lack of holes for random appears alien in a universe that is supposed to make more use of random.

For example, in cells proteins fold with exact folds or probability equal to 1.0. This has been known for decades but the random assumption in a cell is still used as the standard, instead of looking for logic in this place of no holes. The accepted theory is thin enough so the correct number of random holes appear. This bias and censor orientates the mind to think random is the rule.

 

Typical wellwisher meaningless post.
The Universe is what it is...It exists because it can...We evolved through chemistry....we observe, we experiment, we assign Interpretations to those observations.

 

So true.

 

implosion theory- expanding universe the how and why

yes it is an expanding, or better inflating sphere of a single dimension, wherein all the physics take place, being in a confined and therefore measurable space. However there are infinite dimensions, also within the very single dimension.
This model has been extensively explained in a work that I have been viewing just recently, which I personally suggest reading/viewing. I have been member of a couple science forums so far in my life (and still am), but just yesterday decided to subscribe to this one, because I wanted to share views about this new theory I recently came across indicated by a colleague, regarding also the inflation of th Universe and how and most interestingly why it happens. However I was unable to intellectually nor professionally confront it with the other members of the forums I follow, as the various "moderators", or shall I better now refer to them as "restrictors of minds and freedom of thought", kept moving my related posts to it to "speculations". Though I have vigorously been debating with the moderators whether any other not yet fully proven Theory can therefore be defined as such too, I had to succumb to the fact that for some reason even valuable research cannot be discussed unless it has been backed up by sponsoring companies or Universities. Having said so, I wish to bring forth this essay which a very brilliant girl called guya mariani edited in a movie. It is worth paying attention to her work as I found it extremely linear and realistic, absolutely original, noteworthy. it is not just conjecture as she proves her theory with rudimental but feasible diagrams, opening definitely fields of research in the scientific community.
I think we should give a chance to original and fresh minds, as they can lead to inspiring research for the old, praised and accomplished scientists. hopefully the moderators of this forum will allow me to post this video, which I recommend to them too

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Thanking them in advance.

 

This is an interesting way to begin posting, announcing that you hope the moderators on this site aren't terrible like the moderators on other sites. You call moderators "restrictors of minds and freedom of thought", because they moved your posts to what would be called the fringe section here. The problem is your first comment:

That sounds like fringe material for sure.

You state a sphere (3 dimensions) is a single dimension?
You then state a single dimension is a infinite number of dimensions?

If you could somehow support that with math and evidence then maybe it would be worth talking about, however if you just make statements like that without support you will find yourself posting in the fringe section.:shrug:

 

I must admit to being particularly taken with the declaration "proves her theory".
That should bring the total of proven theories in science to... one.
Hooray for the advancement of knowledge.

 

Not only proven, but proven using rudimentary diagrams. Having never seen a theory advance to an immutable fact, I am very excited to see the movie and rudimentary diagrams!

 

Derived from measurements of the CMB, the instrument-observable cosmos seems to be flat. If the actual universe is vastly larger than that ("the EM waves wouldn't reach us for several googol years, etc"), than the near-lack of curvature could simply pertain to this tiny "microscopic" spot (the observable world) on a bogglingly colossal hypersphere or topologically equivalent form. Equally speculation, however -- the distances we can probe would be too small to definitely conclude from the cosmological data which of the many shape candidates applies globally or beyond the detectable universe.

 

@ CC, re. Post #52.

Grok'd!

 

The WMAP and the "Sloan Digital Sky Survey" probes has shown our observable Universe to be flat within a 0.4% error margin, and most probably infinite.
And although the 93 billion L/year diameter of our observable Universe could be regarded as tiny against the probable infinite nature of the Universe, it is still relatively a reasonable large slice.

 

The problem is that WMAP can only eliminate a few galaxies beyond our own

For any source of microwaves

 

WMAP has mapped the observable Universe to previously unobtainable accuracies, has shown that baryonic matter only makes up 5% of the Universe, has shown the existence of a still unknown DE component, as well as confirming the Universe is topologically flat.
The "Sloan Digital Sky Survey" and "BOSS" have taken those readings and data to within 0.4% error margin.

 

That is done on a very , very small scale of the Universe

 

An octillion parsecs would still be an insignificant slice of limitlessness. A fixed measurement or completable (in theory) count, no matter how large, is still finite. Accordingly, to avoid contradiction "infinite" either references an open-ended or "as-needed" process of adding / dividing, or instead is figurative for an incredibly enormous yet unknown / indefinite quantity. [In which case there's then the possibility of 93-billion contending as a non-trivial "slice" of the former, in that non-literal meaning]. Another option is the term "infinite" teetering-off into intangible, hand-waving affairs as when employed by mystics. Which can surely be omitted as a possibility in this forum / these disciplines.

 

See: http://cosmoquest.org/forum/archive/index.php/t-102139.html

The expansion data from type 1a supernovae contradict the WMAP microwave CBR estimate of flatness.

 

Have you any reputable data citing that?
What you link to is only another forum, with as it appears, some anti mainstream opinions.
http://motor1.physics.wayne.edu/~cinabro/cosmocol.pdf
which concludes thus......
Conclusion
• Cosmologies Golden Age Continues
• SDSS Supernova Search doing very well,
over 300 SN Ia filling the redshift desert,
should finish with 400+. World’s largest
homogenous sample.
• Preliminary Cosmology (w to ±0.15) and low
redshift SN Ia rate
• Much more science than I covered here
including KBO’s, Core Collapse SN, Peculiar
SN,