thank you, I am working to get this into perspective using just my simple mind. and simple geometry, because that kind of an acceleration requires energy inputs alien to my aged gentle nature. understanding the wheeling and dealing of Wheeler. later.
ALMA sees old galaxies before they merged. two ways to look back into the past?
- Thread starter nebel
- Start date
In the ESM model we do not do fancy footwork, just plain geometry at constant movement through time. Here is what a comparison between present * and early expansion through time looks like:
Early expansion through time at the same rate of adding 1 seconds worth of size = 300 000 km, would be ~ 320 000 000 000 000 000 more substantial than it is today. so:
if our money lost or gained value at that clip, we would call that inflation.
perhaps NDG could dispense with the idea of reducing time, keep time constant and keep the ratio, and it amount to the same result. just looking at different facets of the the same diamond?
NDG's popularization has 27 zeros acting quickly, the ESM model has 16 zeros, but releasing it gradually. and
talking about the present: because the BB-causing energytime is still out there, us rolling into it, the energy source for the accelerated expansion of the universe, as measured, is accounted for in the ESM model too. Because possibly this energy is absorbed even now, during our expansion through energytime toward infinity. In other words:
the intake of energy now is only 1/ 32 x10^16 of what it was near the BB point in timespace.
glad inflation is over with.
Last edited:
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
What if we are in fact shrinking wouldn,t our observations be consistent with such an unfolding?☺
What if our observations, suggesting the Universe was / is expanding, are flawed such that the steady state model in more in step with reality than the models that seek to incorporate the conclusion that such observations of expansion are accurate.
What if any of the things we treat as not variable are indeed variable and have varied over time such as the speed of light or the gravity constant.
Well anything may be possible but the beauty of pushing a model to its limit is its flaws show up.
Personally I would have thought that the Big Bang Theory would have reached its limit when the consensus was that it needed to explain how everything could be the same throughout the universe, and in an effort to save the model inflation seemed the answer.
I think the problem could have been managed differently...Things could all be the same becuase of an internal mechanism as opposed to an external mechanism...but they took the external mechanism approach which perhaps has foundations in a world that thought control is an outside thing usually via a God.
Although those who understand inflation seem to be content and that it is reasonable and indeed plausible unfortunately I consider it difficult to accept, indeed I can not accept that the theory of inflation reflects reality....other than the reality that without it the BBT was out the door and outcast never to hold favour much like the Steady State model...gone and forgotten.
I expect the church would have been uncomfortable with a model that did not have a point of creation.
But it (inflation) saved the Big Bang Theory from oblivion which may be its only claim to fame.
And I think the the BBT survived a further close call when its predictions that observations would show an abundance of lithium in stars and the observations showed the opposite.
At that point we find a satisfactory explanation as to how the lithium was there but a, up till then a yet unconsidered process, was presented to show how the once present lithium became not abundant...further confirming the correctness of the BBT.
It is these two patches (re inflation re litium) that saved the theory as I understand the cosmology.
I find the application of those patches most concerning about the theory, but not as concerning as tracing the origin of the theory... and that origin seems to be with a priest and to a time where there was a preoccupation within the church with the pagan notion of "the cosmic egg".
Now if there is one thing the church does very well is to take (steal) a pagan idea or custom and make it part of their ideology...And that makes sence to refine ideas humans have held from pre history.
Clearly fashions change but a general drift is the one to tie your ribbons on...
I guess the church realises if the idea of the cosmic egg has been around for over ten thousand years then humans will be inclined to believe a similar refined version.
What came first the chicken ( science) or the egg (cosmology)...clearly the egg came first☺.
So although the science supports the cosmology it is cosmology after all and cosmology is a branch of philosophy.
Observation of the universe takes us to an edge past which we are yet to observe... it is the theory that takes us past what we can observe and this edge is the cosmic background radiation.
The theory explains the observation of the background radiation to lead us back to a point where beyond creation may be found ...a singularity or cosmic egg...or at least that concept of the cosmic egg or perhaps creation has room to move..and it is this alarming parrallel which is in line with the phillosophy of the church that makes me wonder what reality is behind the cosmic background radiation and if we can ever make observations that support the BBT or the theory of inflation.
And although I am a sceptic of all philosophies and scientific models that conveniently support a philosophical position the current scientific method is superior to just making stuff up.
And I do not wish to be unkind but even your model falls into the just made up box...but thats OK.☺
However if you think your model will find favour or indeed recognition I suggest that you take a step back and realise you indulge phillosophy and perhaps cosmology but unfortunately not science.
However top marks for at least thinking about such things☺
Alex
What if our observations, suggesting the Universe was / is expanding, are flawed such that the steady state model in more in step with reality than the models that seek to incorporate the conclusion that such observations of expansion are accurate.
What if any of the things we treat as not variable are indeed variable and have varied over time such as the speed of light or the gravity constant.
Well anything may be possible but the beauty of pushing a model to its limit is its flaws show up.
Personally I would have thought that the Big Bang Theory would have reached its limit when the consensus was that it needed to explain how everything could be the same throughout the universe, and in an effort to save the model inflation seemed the answer.
I think the problem could have been managed differently...Things could all be the same becuase of an internal mechanism as opposed to an external mechanism...but they took the external mechanism approach which perhaps has foundations in a world that thought control is an outside thing usually via a God.
Although those who understand inflation seem to be content and that it is reasonable and indeed plausible unfortunately I consider it difficult to accept, indeed I can not accept that the theory of inflation reflects reality....other than the reality that without it the BBT was out the door and outcast never to hold favour much like the Steady State model...gone and forgotten.
I expect the church would have been uncomfortable with a model that did not have a point of creation.
But it (inflation) saved the Big Bang Theory from oblivion which may be its only claim to fame.
And I think the the BBT survived a further close call when its predictions that observations would show an abundance of lithium in stars and the observations showed the opposite.
At that point we find a satisfactory explanation as to how the lithium was there but a, up till then a yet unconsidered process, was presented to show how the once present lithium became not abundant...further confirming the correctness of the BBT.
It is these two patches (re inflation re litium) that saved the theory as I understand the cosmology.
I find the application of those patches most concerning about the theory, but not as concerning as tracing the origin of the theory... and that origin seems to be with a priest and to a time where there was a preoccupation within the church with the pagan notion of "the cosmic egg".
Now if there is one thing the church does very well is to take (steal) a pagan idea or custom and make it part of their ideology...And that makes sence to refine ideas humans have held from pre history.
Clearly fashions change but a general drift is the one to tie your ribbons on...
I guess the church realises if the idea of the cosmic egg has been around for over ten thousand years then humans will be inclined to believe a similar refined version.
What came first the chicken ( science) or the egg (cosmology)...clearly the egg came first☺.
So although the science supports the cosmology it is cosmology after all and cosmology is a branch of philosophy.
Observation of the universe takes us to an edge past which we are yet to observe... it is the theory that takes us past what we can observe and this edge is the cosmic background radiation.
The theory explains the observation of the background radiation to lead us back to a point where beyond creation may be found ...a singularity or cosmic egg...or at least that concept of the cosmic egg or perhaps creation has room to move..and it is this alarming parrallel which is in line with the phillosophy of the church that makes me wonder what reality is behind the cosmic background radiation and if we can ever make observations that support the BBT or the theory of inflation.
And although I am a sceptic of all philosophies and scientific models that conveniently support a philosophical position the current scientific method is superior to just making stuff up.
And I do not wish to be unkind but even your model falls into the just made up box...but thats OK.☺
However if you think your model will find favour or indeed recognition I suggest that you take a step back and realise you indulge phillosophy and perhaps cosmology but unfortunately not science.
However top marks for at least thinking about such things☺
Alex
Last edited:
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
This is the Standard model of the "Inflationary Epoch"
and
and
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflationary_epoch
That is point of the ESM model, simplicity.
If the universe started to move through time at a steady clip, there had to be billions and billions of times faster expansion at the beginning than we are accustomed, and consider normal now. PI tells you that. Geometry not just measuring Gaia, but the cosmos.
The inflation theory, as outlined by Write4U above has great detail, you Xelasnave consider it difficult to accept. (those that lose their life savings--poof-- to inflation too, find it difficult to accept),
In the ESM model there is not a single problem with it. There is no question to consider as to what would trigger it, where the surge of energy would come from, so:
Can you accept that it is simply the outworkings of the simplest PI formula: for every meter added to the radius there is 6.2832 ms added to the circumference, no matter how big the circle. That was a huge, and quick change in curvature in the beginning of the Universe, not rocket science, just primary level geometry fancily dressed up, accept it.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
So, in the "iflationary epoch, the universe increased in size by a factor of 1078, from nano scale to 62 trillion miles in 10^-3 seconds. I believe that is just a tad faster than the speed of light.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflationary_epoch
Thus time or timespace had nothing to do with the expansion. I'll stick with my "permittive condition" which has no dimension or properties in and of itself. It's just permittive of expansion itself. This does not necessarily require a prior state or dimension for inflation to move into or move through. A void by definitition has not properties other than being "permittive" in essence.
As to a pre-existing form of energy, it is assumed to be a singularity, a near infinitely small object, so dense as to harbor the "potential" for near infinite energy.
This then would comprise your near infinitely small "timespace and energyspace", which might well have been an instantaneous event. I see the BB as a mega-quantum event, where everything happened at the same place at the same time, without a pre-existing geometric spatial condition being necessary prior to that singular event (a total void), other than a "permittiveness" of such an event, at least during the "inflationary epoch, after which the mathematical/physical ordering began, creating all we can observe today.
thank you. to sum up, You are thinking from the void, infinitely small out.
The ESM model looks at it from the Big picture, infinity already in our gravity equations, energy already there, indestructible, and still out there and us moving into it.
Obviously we are looking at the same universe, Amazing happenings at the BB when some energy was turned into matter. I have no insight into that.
Write 4U in the details, Nebel in the broad strokes?
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
No thanks☺
Its certainly not that serious for me...I dont like it and I chose not to believe that it happened that way...the world wont stop and say hold on we cant move on because some old turkey (me) finds it difficult to accept and does not like the idea.
I claim my right to think whatever I like but if I must keep my thoughts to myself I dont have a problem at all.
If the matter settled then perhaps you could explain dark energy for me ...I mean past telling me it is a place holder that science has yet to determine...I know your model hopefully explains dark energy to the satisfaction of those who are stuck with it as a placeholder.
As to "its simple geometry"... that can explain a model however it offers no eye witness account does it☺.
And dont let my simplist uttering convince you I have not spent considerable time on the subject such that I understand the fundamental concepts involved.
Please continue and I will not.☺
Alex
.
Last edited:
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Question: Does dark matter exist outside our universe or is it part of it?
We see energy as a positive causal force, but what if it is a negative causal force such as might exist in a void (outside our universe), demanding to be filled?
sorry, I just meant that it should be accepted that very basic geometry accounts for rapid expansion.
I might be one of the oldest senior members, but recognize that better and younger minds here have spend more qualitytime than me on these subjects. That is why I value comments, mostly.
Dark matter? I have 2 thread contesting the concept going: Orbital velocity explained without dark matter haloes and : Is there more gravity inside or out? .
Dark energy coming in as we move into the future? the model makes it an option.
In the model can be seen energy, indestructible, but matter, whether dark or shiny, exists only after the BB in mattertime, aka spacetime, after energytime., better an interlude in energytime, which is infinite. so,
if dark matter exists, (and is not just a misinterpretation of newtonian gravity), it's part of the universe, in the membrane#3., not in the past, nor the future.
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
How should I know?
The term "Dark matter" was coined to offer a placeholder for the unseen matter thought to be present in galaxies to explain why said galaxies dont appear on initial observation to obey our current model of gravity (GR) or the previous model known as Newtonian Gravity.
For either model to be correct Dark Matter is required else both models are somewhat wrong in their predictions re "galaxy rotational curves".
We search for dark matter and determine its presence via both the prevailing model (GR) and the model GR replaced Newtonian Gravity.
There are folk who are working to provide models that would see dark matter not being required to explain the observed inconsistency of galaxies behaving differently to what our models predict.
So far we dont have evidence for dark matter other than that our models of gravity suggest it must be there.
And so given that many scientists are working to determine what datk matter may be or in other cases that it is not there at all I think my mere opinion is irrelevant.
However my opinion is that the Models are more likely to be wrong as to be a representation of realty in respect of say galactic curves and I can only form that opinion because if dark matter is a fact (combined with dark energy) them only an extremely small portion of the universe or reality is avaiable for scrutiny by our sences.
But remember my thoughts are mere opinion and the world wont stop because I hold such an opinion.
Thank you for the invitation to speculate but I can not offer any reason to embrace or reject what you put on the table☺
Alex
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
No need to appologise at all.
Look I dont devalue geometry when I reject inflation.
Geometry can support inflation but that means only that we can offer a reasonable basis that it may be the way it works.
Geometry can be used to build a house that does not mean the house will be livable or comfortable.
Geometry can be used to design a car that is neither safe nor practical...just be ause geometry is used that does not lend the perfection of geometry to the notion such that the idea can claim perfection. ....
Speculation is neither a luxury or a necessity and all can entertain themselves with speculation.
I feel the key is not to invest more in ones speculation than it deserves...speculation should not lead one to believe that they now have the answers.
Even things we can hold in our hands may not reveal their sectrets so speculation upon the universe, why its is there, how it evolved or for some how it was created perhaps will remain hidden from us...however I doubt if we wont have folk who say that can prove it is this way or that and be guaranteed to actually know they are correct...we can never know is my simple point...we can never know.
What is it we dont even know that we dont know.
And I say good on you for thinking about these things.
Perhaps dont become too attached to any notion given there really is no need.
Alex
The simplicity of straightedge and compass geometry exposes you to less errors. The Real Sciences might be able to fill in the devilish details.
Just to mention, that the Expanding through time sphere model has an element of the steady state in it, steady state not of our universe, but the larger cosmos, in that
1) Time is steady*, has been since infinity, (was not created at the BB) and
2) Energy is steady** (kind of) fundamental and infinitely old too. (did not raise it's terrifying head [without a body of prior existence] at the BB either)
Both are also steady into the indefinite future, into which we continue progress steadily.
Of course I have a rich life to live, but I found it effective to really concentrate on just one theme at one time. particularly timespace, energytime,mattertime for now, and find it enlightening to hold and mold models of the expanding sphere in my hands, coconuts, nuts period.
*permutation of time as a dimension from energytime to masstime, spacetime underscores its steadiness, It persists while it accommodates these different functions in timespace.
** Energy is so stable that it must be eternal, because it cannot be created or destroyed, but survives such a drastic phase changing metamorphosis into matter, and back again. Still out there in the future too, waiting for us to move into, may be grab some.
Last edited:
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
Yes I approach things in a similar manner but I tend to concentrate on lunch time, dinner time and bed time ☺and note that my energy certainly is not as readily created as easily as it is destroyed.
My armchair obsession was "how does gravity work" (what is the geometry describing) and what interaction could take place between particles to manifest the force we call attraction and indeed gravity.
After some time I formed the idea that gravity could be ( or I reasoned "must be" as we do with our pet ideas) a play between all the stuff in the universe acting like a push or pressure.
Fortunately after some years I found that the idea had been covered as early as 1745 by Le Sage and indeed well addressed such that I could obsess over something else.
The Le Sage idea treats gravity as a physical force, indeed it could be best described as the pressure of the ether... a push rather than a pull.
The GR model for gravity needs neither a force or an ether for it is entirely a coordinate system and although geometry it is nevertheless geometry at its finest. And geometry cant be wrong even though what it can be used to build may not exist (the design of a star wars inter galactic space ship) or used to design something that will rxist say the tallest building...it does the bidding of its master.
I think if we could for a moment realise that GR although not needing an ether does perhaps describe its behaviour.
And I think in the case of the rotational curves of galllaxies their motion is consistent with an external pressure as oppossed to an internal attraction...and I dont suggest that GR uses the concept of attraction or force from my humble understanding... I am confident that it does not need a force...we have a bending of space time and I admit that I really dont know what that means or how that term describes the behaviour of the non existent ether.
But happily I know I am right☺ about the dark matter problem and that dark matter will go away when they realise there is something realistic in my approach and I am entirely confident that if GR was applied correctly it will support my conclusion. The idea merely awaits correct application of the geometry.
So I must wait till the world realises that I am right☺
Now the reason I mention this at all is to remind both you and me about the virtue of being able to think and not to let thoughts be your master...and those words come from writttings of a man more respected than me..."If" by Kippling ...a list of acceptable behaviours he considers virtuious and which if you exhibit enables him to pronounce that...you are a man my Son or similar....so although a message to his son and presumably, not withstanding publication, confidental, I tend to take the advice as if it were meant for me.
I still prefer the steady state model not only for the reason it side steps a point of creation but more so because thinking about it that way requires no effort ...it was like that when I got here...most satisfactory.
Alex
The only push in the Expanding Sphere, comes from energy, gravity by contrast is pull all the way. (cant push your luck too far, going out on a limb already)
The ESM model makes evident the idea that the matter in the expanding membrane is not only pushed out by the energy from the BB, but also pulled out into the future by the possible gravity acting outwardly from the membranes mass., or whatever SR term would be appropriate describing acting on the future timespace/ ernergytime out there, spreading to infinity. (timespace warp)
Fortunate, because the idea must have some merit, sagesse ensemble, but deflating too, you can't claim priority anymore. happened to me with the Yarkovky effect in a US patent.
Last edited:
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
If you mean the good folk here may think I am a crack pot ...well would you blame them given my ramblings.
But thats ok if they met me in person they may form a different view perhaps that I am an absolute raving looney.
They may however observe I am mild mannered and shy.
Nevertheless I subscribe to and respect the scientific method and am well aware that I really lack the skill and education to consider any of my more unusual views need be taken seriously.
Certainly by me.
And thats all I care about..not to have myself on or grow a big head.
It was never about being the next big mind I dont rank myself with others ..true..could not care about the world ...my interest is astronomy a one player sport.... and if you compare yourself with others you may become vain and bitter..from another appealing verse I read.
But seriously I was curious.
And as humans do I started thinking about what message travells from one body to another to communicate gravity.
Hi I am here and have a mass of three Suns how much mass do you contain?
With GR I have heard it said matter tells space how to bend or similar and ask would how they keep in touch...now here is an idea..via little particles called communicons☺
If you like it..its yours even the film rights I wish you well.
At least I dont fool myself that I have the answers...heck I cant even remember the original questions...and I think that is the real mark of a crack pot in that they believe they have the answers as a casual armchair "scientist" over those who are professionals and actually are paid because they know so much.
As I said the key is not getting carried away.
You seem to like your idea and a very nice idea it is too and thinking about it must be rewarding so good on you however I will neither accept it or reject it...good luck to you.
Alex
Last edited:
This thread did not start with an answer, but with my question, and the answers that were posted here kind of jelled into the model I like now. I like it, because it feel like my brainchild, but like any child, it is produced by unskilled labour, from proven resources. so
here are many answers, but they came from others.
I was not commenting on your contribution, but my flight of fancy (talking to myself) stuck within an expanding sphere growing through eternal time.
When push comes to shove (on the infinite pull of gravity), I did not want to take on board destabilizing cargo.
Last edited: