Universe Expansion

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience' started by hansda, Aug 24, 2017.

1. nebel

Messages:
1,748
good points!
1) referring to the ALMA thread in alternate: Not only does the outside of the universe, in the model, the future not move any resistance, but it might be drawing the expansion out into it.
2a) the ALMA Expanding Sphere Membrane model shows that the pre-BB condition (timespace and energytime) still surround the universe, and expansion into it, could consist of a BB stretched into >80 billion light years circumference/surface. Not likely though, because the BB is theorized to be a one- off, BIG event.
2b) perhaps more mass is converted to energy, to supply a continuing surplus to accelerate? like putting the pedal to the metal , emptying the tank to accelerate?

Last edited: Mar 31, 2018

3. Michael 345New year. PRESENT is 69 years oldValued Senior Member

Messages:
7,118
Agree. That would fit the condition of A Total Infinite Void outside of the Universe being obviously at a lower pressure than our Universe

We are being suctioned into oblivion

Hard to see that happening. What mass? How is it being converted? How would the energy obtained be channeled into outward pushing force?

Currently we are looking at Galaxies 13 billion light years away
I would contend during the 13 billion light years the light took to reach us the Galaxies are now a further 13 billion light years distant giving us a Radius of 26 billion light years - Diameter 52 billion light years

That's just the solid stuff. Consider the light of the Galaxies, which has not only come in our direction, but has also traveled out 180° into the Total Infinite Void

Measuring from tip to tip of the light Aura surrounding our Universe we have a Diameter of 104 light years

However keeping that volume of the Universe confined to the solid stuff, has anyone worked out (forget that I just looked it up)

CRITICAL DENSITY

The ‘critical density’ is the average density of matter required for the Universe to just halt its expansion, but only after an infinite time. A Universe with the critical density is said to be flat.
In his theory of general relativity, Einstein demonstrated that the gravitational effect of matter is to curve the surrounding space. In a Universe full of matter, both its overall geometry and its fate are controlled by the density of the matter within it

http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/cosmos/C/Critical Density

Reading that - and considering a Infinite Time period will never be reached - I'll go with flat Universe

I would have preferred a spherical or a Steady State, but who is this yellow Minion to question the Sky Daddy?

5. nebel

Messages:
1,748
In the Expanding Sphere model. The radius, the distance we have moved from the central BB (and the minimum time of those ancient photons to reach us) is ~ 13 blys. Others have moved the other way, that gives a diameter of ~26 billions a circumference of roughly 80 billions total, of which we however can see only ~13, so we can only see 1/4 of the total universe.
The lookback time in the model looks like an umbrella, with a cover radius of 13 billion years (rimis the horizon) , a handle length (radius) of 13 billions, or at best a double cap* with a thickness of 13, and a rim diameter of 26.
references: alternate, "Alma sees galaxies", page 24, post 479; page 28, posts 553, 554 , 560*
tank you.

Last edited: Apr 1, 2018

7. nebel

Messages:
1,748
Possible, but:
To the contrary, the model mentioned sees the void outside the universe(the future) as filled with the same energy that the pre-BB condition had.
"suction" was used to denote that the universe should have an attracting, gravityl-like force radiating out into the void exertinga pulling force upon any content of the "condition" of the void, and conversely on itself. in other words
gravity sucks.

8. Michael 345New year. PRESENT is 69 years oldValued Senior Member

Messages:
7,118
To me that sounds like pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps

Doubtful

9. nebel

Messages:
1,748
good analogy, but contrary to what the ESM model in alternate "ALMA" is all about.
Bootstraps would mean a self enclosed system, at best a jumping bean/ prime mover/ internal propulsion cosmic arrangement.
By contrast, the ESM model's universe is surrounded by an pre-BB timespace or energytime and and that shows, that all energy came from the outside, the shoemaker shop if you will, and that shop is still supplied with energy and time. Any "lift" came through the initial BB, and because timespace is still out there, with infinite energy not exhausted, and the universe is moving onward into that timespace, as it expands outward, is possibly still absorbing energy in proportion to it's "conquest"
Not bootstraps but "skyhook"* tied to an infinitely reaching timespace, energytime.
look at "Alam" in alternate please.
* field forces exchanged with the future.

10. nebel

Messages:
1,748
reposting these images here, because gravity inside of an static or expanding sphere universe would have these interesting gradients

courtesy of Dave c426913. full images in main astr. forum
gravity inside,out?

11. DaveC426913Valued Senior Member

Messages:
10,922
Also falsified there.

12. nebel

Messages:
1,748
Thank you : Possible falsification makes a theory, a model valid for discussion; but have the effects of zero gravity in the past of the universe in "ALMA", in alternate or "Gravity where more?" in astronomy, really be proved to be false, falsified, shown to be wrong? not so fast! read the threads please.

Last edited: Apr 2, 2018
13. originIn a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect.Valued Senior Member

Messages:
10,685
First he didn't say possible falsification, he said it falsifies your idea.

Secondly, just because something can be falsified it does not mean that a conjecture is "a theory, a model valid for discussion".

I could say things that are blue are heavier than things that are red. This can be falsified, but it sure as hell isn't a model valid for discussion and neither is yours.

14. nebel

Messages:
1,748
point well taken, and of course it also depends on the level of discussion. when Sr Gr come up, as in this case, it is beyond me., others like to discuss it though.

15. DaveC426913Valued Senior Member

Messages:
10,922
Couldn't you have mentioned that before I spent, like, 50 posts explaining where your assertion was erroneous?

16. nebel

Messages:
1,748
sorry, but my interests always were simpler, somebody else brought the time dilation question into the discussion, it then came down to: does a Gauss/Faraday type cage shied not from relativistic effects, as it does from gravity EM fields? ;for me it was enough that there is no gravitational effects.
No, your good work is not wasted, because viewers minds were simulated, made aware of connected issues they never knew existed.
The unintended ramification of equation, model, experiments is the stuff that great developments were made of.

17. nebel

Messages:
1,748
Reposting this here to show what an expanding universe, if looked upon with the emphasis on time would allow. Yes, according the Nebels' ESM model, there are stars at least 18 billion light years away, and
Our sun would be at 1/2 that distance, in some heavenly lady's eyes. If she looked from a friendly planet at us and then the other way to twice that at 18 from us. details in ALMA lookback time, fringe alternate
<www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/04/180402110739.htm>

Last edited: Apr 3, 2018
18. RajeshTrivediValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,525
Andromeda galaxy itself is around 2.5 million light years ahead. And the space between Andromeda and Milky Way is not expanding. So we cannot directly establish any kind of expansion of the universe by sticking to light from one source.

The idea of expansion comes from Red Shifts, which is properly cataloged and observed, the expansion hypo also satisfies Big Bang and adjusted to satisfy GR too. So expansion theory is sticking, but it may be false.

19. NotEinsteinValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,736
This is profoundly incorrect. It is expanding; but the galaxies are closing the gap faster than the expansion.

20. originIn a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect.Valued Senior Member

Messages:
10,685
My cure for cancer is just as valid as your 'model'. My cure is to hold a teaspoon of Himalayan salt under your chin for 2.2 minutes each day and you will never get cancer.

I really do not get you guys. You come up with these silly, poorly thought out ideas based entirely on ignorance of the subject and then present these ideas to the public - it make no sense at all, unless you are just joking or you live in a fantasy world.

21. NotEinsteinValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,736
My current working hypothesis is that it is impossible for these kinds of people to admit they are wrong. Even when it is pointed out to them that they are, they will continue digging to try and circumvent your proof. This continually makes their ideas stranger and stranger, until they end up in crackpotland.
Think back to all the crackpots, conspiracy theorists, etc. you've confronted. I suspect my hypothesis will fit many, if not all of them. It's the can't-even-imagine-I'm-wrong attitude that leads to most of the crazy stuff. They keep piling crazier upon crazy to try and fix their mistakes. It's not that they are ignorant per se, it's that they can't become more knowledgeable, because that would involve admitting their earlier mistakes.
Reiku is a prime example of this; he continues to build onto things he clearly doesn't understand, because he can't imagine he's wrong. He can't even admit to simple high-school level mathematical mistakes in his derivations! Yet he is convinced he is revolutionizing physics. This has to be, because his views are different from that of all respected scientists, and he can't comprehend the possibility that he's wrong.
Nebel has similar tendencies. For example, when he was confronted about the rights of an image he posted, he ended up giving multiple contradictory explanations why he was allowed to post it, eventually ending up putting words in the mouth of the original creator, who he didn't even know the name of, nor could point to. In his battle to show that he was right, he basically threw the original creator under the bus, at the same time claiming he thought the original creator deserved all the credit!
Another poster here is also good example. In his quest not to be wrong, he had to redefine fractals, wavelength, color, objectivity, subjectivity, light, photons, and many more concepts and terms. In the end, he basically invented his own language just so he wouldn't have to admit his mistakes.

There's no (constructive) point in correcting these people; they cannot understand corrections. However, this also results in the interesting situation that you can lead these people in certain directions. Demonstrate a problem with what they say, and give them an out; they will (have to?) take it. They cannot have made a mistake, so obviously your proposed solution was what they were thinking about all along. (This way, I once managed to get a young Earth creationist to propose extinction-level energy-releases (thus killing all life on Earth, continuously) to fix a tectonic plate issue they had. Aah, good times.) Nebel had to do this too; he had to introduce the concept of negative radius (yeah, really), because otherwise his earlier claims would be incorrect. It's fun watching these people then squirm to try and understand their own solutions. For example, Nebel never got back to me with a picture that showed an example of this negative radius concept.

In the end, there's little point in trying to get these people back on the right path; their problem can't be fixed by factual corrections. In fact, the underlying cause (according to my hypothesis) is a character-flaw so deep that it would be practically impossible to fix over the internet. So let's just make the best out of a bad situation, and have some fun while we're here!

22. nebel

Messages:
1,748
of course your objections helped nebel to define the nebulous ideas about an expanding -through-time universe, but negative radius? what post was that in? page? there are new pictures with positive curves on ALMA lookback time bsw.
Thank you, never would have made it without you.
ps: You still do not understand fair usage copyright law and have maligned many other users here, that have posted images without citing all (often hidden) relevant possible original author info.

Last edited: Apr 4, 2018
23. DaveC426913Valued Senior Member

Messages:
10,922
No. Just young and new.

Surely many of us went through a phase where we thought our ideas just might be the next Einstein-like breakthrough. But we didn't have the internet where we could post stuff and maybe enough people might 'like' it.