Looks like, from the 3d simulation, that the universe is not expanding, but is contracting back into the Great Singularity already. The formation of the Great Walls indicates a contraction of matter by gravity, and the only thing left is for the ribbons to break, the masses to absorb the ribbons, and for the masses to attract to each other and form a single ball of energy, which will be so massive that it will fall into itself, and form another singularity, from which another big bang. Right?
This simulation contradicts other recent predictions and observatiosn which seem to say that our universe if of the type that will expand infinitely. But yes, if expansion is reversed some day, the universe will end in a big crunch. What exaclty happens there is hard to know, though, because near singularities our theories use to fail. If a new universe will be born? Hawking says yes, for the big crunch case, and made a theorie of time which makes the singularity disappear for the time dimension, so actually there can be a "before" and an "after" for the big bang and the big crunch, using this time model. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imaginary_time But as said, all that I hear is that our universe will be infinitely expanding because it contains too little matter and energy to stop expansion through gravity.
The conspansive duality, "whoa" said Neo The universe is conspanding. From the cosmic perspective its getting smaller, while the cosmos gets bigger from our materialist standpoint. Math is absurd. We're not just one thing, we are THAT. Limitless being, infinitely creative and undefinable. We are spontaneous and not causal beings who are the sole proprietors in this endless journey of conscious expansion and material contraction. This might explain the union of opposites and 2 sided things. The universe gets "bigger and stronger" from the union of pairs? Put aside all this talk and try to remember who we were before our parents named us. The limitless beingness lives on through us. That one is means one is.
Please, can you explain this? My understanding is, that the universe, while one can travel infinitely, still has a distinct diameter, or, equivalently, a volume. How can this diameter or volume be expanding and shrinking at the same time? I don't want to critisize you, I just want to understand.
Well, it might just have been another way to say what I was thinking. Your posting didn't make any sense to me at all. I decided to ask for clarification. Origin called it "tripe". You still can explain your idea, though, in case we are too stupid to understand it from your initial posting.
Think of the universe as not simplistic and one way. There is nothing outside of it (where nothing is defined as infinite freedom from physical informational onstraint). Hence, it is tautologically self-contained, resulting in a two sided dualism. Scientists are now beginning to quantify consciousness. It is non-material. So the dualistic universe contracts from the conscious perspective and expands from our materialist perspective.
My so-called Reference: http://www.astronomy.net/forums/god/messages/21726.shtml "A prominent feature of our perception of this "middle-ground" is time." - the guy who wrote it. Does this have to do with duality? The middle-ground is like the extension contraction duality?
No, this conclusion does not follow from "nothing outside". We also do not know anything about the outside. Theoretically we can't know, because all laws, rules and observation that we use are based on the inside, and are likely menaingless beyond the boundaries of our universe. Still there can be an outside. So you are wrong in two ways - It is not certain that there is no outside - Even if there is no outside, our universe still can be single-sided, like a möbius strip, as a 2D example of an infinite, one sided thing which has a finite area. Like our infinite, one sided, universe that has a finite 3D volume.
I think this may be dependent on what you understand "universe" to refer to. The only way I can understand spellbound's post, being generous and while not managing to fit everything he says, is the notion that while the expansion of the universe accelerates, the content of our Hubble universe reduces, as more and more content starts to expand at greater than C, and thus no longer is able to emit photons that we can observe... or something like that. Whether this is what spellbound is referring to, I can not say for sure, but probably not. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Anyhoo, I'm not sure it's correct to say that the entire universe has a distinct diameter. The observable universe does. The Hubble volume does. And other subsets of the entire universe do. But the size of the entire universe is not known, and might well be infinite. We can only ever see what is within our observable universe, but skip over to a planet 1bn light-years away and it will have a different observable universe to ours, a different Hubble volume etc, albeit them overlapping considerably with ours.
I have to admit, that I've been using a pre-inflation model of the universe, even more an universe which is small enough that no part departs from another part at more than the speed of light. So yes, my assumption that the universe has a finite diameter is only valid in this old model, and meaningless in a model that includes inflation. Thank you for the correction.
My thinking isn't very clear today. But it appeared to my consciousness, that a 3D simulation is insufficient. Our Universe has 3 spatial dimensions and a time dimension. So at least a 4D simulation is needed to handle both the space and the development of this space over time. In addition to the doubts which I mentioned in my first reply to this thread, becoming aware that a 3D simulation is insufficient, gives me more doubts in the validity of the claim.
It in fact does my good man! The universe can be conceived as a perfectly self-contained system which lacks no conditions for its existence.
There are a few simulations now, but they are similar. You can youtube "3d simulation of the universe" I like the vid named "The Cosmic Web, or:" The 2MASS - here's a labeled one -> http://dailyinfographics.eu/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/psBtuS7.jpg scans show the gravitational effects that have occurred over time. I'm thinking if the 'observations' and theories are not directly in line with the photographic evidence, then they can be tossed. Obviously, the great walls are not radiating - they are compressing - so The Big Crunch? Almost a marketing buzz phrase I think. Gravity is acting to crunch now - not at some distant time in the future, and it has for billions of years already. So why are people interpreting the data as an imminent rip in the fabric of space-time caused by expansion? That's my question. Seems like it should be one way or the other. Before the reply - I am aware that we humans are flying through space at a million miles an hour, and that most everything is moving at incredible speeds going nowhere fast. Even so - the surveys show the walls, the filaments, and the foam. Are the voids getting larger or smaller? I would expect the voids to get larger as the matter compresses, not as the result of the expansion of the space within them. Maybe there's a bubble effect - like gas rising in a lake, but I doubt it.
If by that you mean the most logical, sensible explanation that matches what we observe, and the laws of physics than yes, certainly. Your belief in the supernatural and ghosts has been around since mankind climbed down out of the trees. Most people can now see through that nonsense. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
geez, I get a lot of kicks out of this site you guys keep up the entertainment...Lol, am definitely on to something here, how do I frame my artistic perspective of all this...Hmm.
