The static universe:

[paddoboy]

In a few trillion years or so, when the expansion of the Universe, has reached a stage where all distant galaxies have disappeared beyond our observable horizon, and our local group/cluster/wall of galaxies has merged into one huge conglomeration of stars, and the CMBR has all but disappeared, what will be our view, or the view of any intelligent species be of the Universe around us?

Let's also surmise that all of the scientific observations and models of today have been lost during all those eons, so that we or any other Intelligent species, is not able to stand on the shoulders of the giants that have gone before them.........Would we, or could we assume that our Universe was static??

What evidence would we have to show otherwise?

 

[dumbest man on earth]

In a few trillion years or so, when the expansion of the Universe, has reached a stage where all distant galaxies have disappeared beyond our observable horizon, and our local group/cluster/wall of galaxies has merged into one huge conglomeration of stars, and the CMBR has all but disappeared, what will be our view, or the view of any intelligent species be of the Universe around us?

Let's also surmise that all of the scientific observations and models of today have been lost during all those eons, so that we or any other Intelligent species, is not able to stand on the shoulders of the giants that have gone before them.........Would we, or could we assume that our Universe was static??

paddoboy, prior to Posting this reply to your Post, I read and re-read, then considered your entire OP.
After doing that and allowing for your alloted/requested surmising and assuming, I have a few immediate thoughts (in addition to your use of the word "we"!) :

1,0 - no "surmising" or "assuming" or for that matter, any cognitive thought could occur in a Truly Static Universe.
i.e. Static = Full Definition of STATIC from - http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/static
1: exerting force by reason of weight alone without motion
2: of or relating to bodies at rest or forces in equilibrium
3: showing little change <a static population>
4a : characterized by a lack of movement, animation, or progression
4b : producing an effect of repose or quiescence <a static design>

ergo - a Truly Static Universe would not/could not/should not allow for evolution/consciousness/awareness simply because it is by definition Static.

2.) - if, following all of the conditions of your "thought experiment", any species able to "assume" even the tiniest bits of evidence through whatever limited "intelligence" they may possess - would not/could not/should not "assume" a Static Universe, simply by the fact of their existence and awareness of the Universe.

What evidence would we have to show otherwise?

paddoboy, referencing your use of the word "we" (mentioned earlier!) - "we" would/could/should have absolutely no evidence to "show otherwise", or indeed, at all!
According to your established parameters of the "thought experiment" - the "surmised" and "assumed" intelligent species are "...all those eons" in the Future...so they would have no access to us (remember the : "surmise that all of the scientific observations and models of today have been lost during all those eons, so that we or any other Intelligent species, is not able to stand on the shoulders of the giants that have gone before them..." part of your established parameters!?), nor "we" access to them!

However, paddoboy, they would/could/should by using the most rudimentary devices/equipment/tools, including thought processing in their brains, come to the conclusion that something, somewhere is in motion.
Hence, conclusive evidence to rule out a Truly Static Universe!

 

[paddoboy]

paddoboy, prior to Posting this reply to your Post, I read and re-read, then considered your entire OP.
After doing that and allowing for your alloted/requested surmising and assuming, I have a few immediate thoughts (in addition to your use of the word "we"!) :

1,0 - no "surmising" or "assuming" or for that matter, any cognitive thought could occur in a Truly Static Universe.
i.e. Static = Full Definition of STATIC from - http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/static
1: exerting force by reason of weight alone without motion
2: of or relating to bodies at rest or forces in equilibrium
3: showing little change <a static population>
4a : characterized by a lack of movement, animation, or progression
4b : producing an effect of repose or quiescence <a static design>

ergo - a Truly Static Universe would not/could not/should not allow for evolution/consciousness/awareness simply because it is by definition Static.

2.) - if, following all of the conditions of your "thought experiment", any species able to "assume" even the tiniest bits of evidence through whatever limited "intelligence" they may possess - would not/could not/should not "assume" a Static Universe, simply by the fact of their existence and awareness of the Universe.



paddoboy, referencing your use of the word "we" (mentioned earlier!) - "we" would/could/should have absolutely no evidence to "show otherwise", or indeed, at all!
According to your established parameters of the "thought experiment" - the "surmised" and "assumed" intelligent species are "...all those eons" in the Future...so they would have no access to us (remember the : "surmise that all of the scientific observations and models of today have been lost during all those eons, so that we or any other Intelligent species, is not able to stand on the shoulders of the giants that have gone before them..." part of your established parameters!?), nor "we" access to them!

However, paddoboy, they would/could/should by using the most rudimentary devices/equipment/tools, including thought processing in their brains, come to the conclusion that something, somewhere is in motion.
Hence, conclusive evidence to rule out a Truly Static Universe!

Wow!! What can I say?
I'm sure in relation to cosmology, when we speak of a static or dynamic Universe, we speak of expansion, contraction, or the static nature of space/time.
This was Einstein's model before Hubble made his discovery.

 

[dumbest man on earth]

Wow!! What can I say?
I'm sure in relation to cosmology, when we speak of a static or dynamic Universe, we speak of expansion, contraction, or the static nature of space/time.
This was Einstein's model before Hubble made his discovery.

paddoboy, from what I remember of Einstein's Static or Stationary Model of the universe - he proposed a "Fudge Factor" or "constant" to offset the effects of Gravity so as to quell the expansion or contraction of the universe from continuing ...forever!? I may not have phrased that precisely ,but it has been at least two and maybe three decades since I was knee deep in actively pursuing cosmology or the theoretical sciences.

paddoboy, you seem to be somewhat younger than myself and possibly even more educated, but in my six decades of doing time on planet Earth, static has always referred to a continuous, non-changing, motionless, steady state - hence the name : static.

paddoboy, do not just take my word for it, after all I an the "dumbest man on earth", but I am fairly certain that my understanding of, at least the basics, Einstein's work is still sound.
Maybe you could research Einstein's working/proposed model, and find out for sure about the "expansion, contraction, or the static nature" of his proposed model of the Universe.

 

[paddoboy]

paddoboy, from what I remember of Einstein's Static or Stationary Model of the universe - he proposed a "Fudge Factor" or "constant" to offset the effects of Gravity so as to quell the expansion or contraction of the universe from continuing ...forever!? I may not have phrased that precisely ,but it has been at least two and maybe three decades since I was knee deep in actively pursuing cosmology or the theoretical sciences.

Yep, sure did, but as it stands with the progress and knowledge we have gained since Einstein's fudge factor, that fudge factor is not a fudge factor anymore. The CC or DE is accepted as quite likely to explain the acceleration in the expansion rate.

paddoboy, you seem to be somewhat younger than myself and possibly even more educated, but in my six decades of doing time on planet Earth, static has always referred to a continuous, non-changing, motionless, steady state - hence the name : static.

paddoboy, do not just take my word for it, after all I an the "dumbest man on earth", but I am fairly certain that my understanding of, at least the basics, Einstein's work is still sound.
Maybe you could research Einstein's working/proposed model, and find out for sure about the "expansion, contraction, or the static nature" of his proposed model of the Universe.

Younger then you I'm not sure, but I'm still confident that the static Universe proposed by Einstein was solely to avoid expansion and/or contraction.

 

[dumbest man on earth]

Yep, sure did, but as it stands with the progress and knowledge we have gained since Einstein's fudge factor, that fudge factor is not a fudge factor anymore.

I must humbly disagree to your ^^above^^ statement. The "Fudge Factor" or Cosmological Constant is still the same today - you even state as much in your own follow-up statement.

The CC or DE is accepted as quite likely to explain the acceleration in the expansion rate.

Younger then you I'm not sure,

dmoe - 3 score/1 decade/7 solar orbits...and still incarcerated on Planet Earth!

...but I'm still confident that the static Universe proposed by Einstein was solely to avoid expansion and/or contraction.

Alas...I am still confident that the "Fudge Factor"/Cosmological Constant that Einstein proposed adding to the (then accepted) Static or Stationary Model of the Universe was to quell any expansion OR contraction from continuing...forever.

I am confident that Einstein did NOT propose the Static or Stationary Model of the Universe...the Static or Stationary Model of the Universe was the then currently accepted Model of the Universe...Einstein merely proposed adding the "Fudge Factor"/Cosmological Constant to that Model, so that his Proposed Theory of Relativity would "fit" into that Model.

Do you see any difference between what we are individually "confident" about? I do!

 

[paddoboy]

I must humbly disagree to your ^^above^^ statement. The "Fudge Factor" or Cosmological Constant is still the same today - you even state as much in your own follow-up statement.

Disagree all you like...We may not know the true nature of the CC/DE component of space/time, but we do have evidence that it exists in some form or other.

Alas...I am still confident that the "Fudge Factor"/Cosmological Constant that Einstein proposed adding to the (then accepted) Static or Stationary Model of the Universe was to quell any expansion OR contraction from continuing...forever.

I am confident that Einstein did NOT propose the Static or Stationary Model of the Universe...the Static or Stationary Model of the Universe was the then currently accepted Model of the Universe...Einstein merely proposed adding the "Fudge Factor"/Cosmological Constant to that Model, so that his Proposed Theory of Relativity would "fit" into that Model.

Do you see any difference between what we are individually "confident" about? I do!

You are totally confusing me. Yes, Einstein did add the CC [at that time a fudge factor] to counter what his original equations were telling him. That was that the Universe should be dynamic rather then static.
This result was [the original equations] counter to the beliefs of the day.
Not long after, Hubble made his discovery which showed the Universe was expanding. Einstein then exclaimed the CC as his biggest blunder.
His original equations were correct.

However, 85 years later [or thereabouts] cosmologists now see the CC/DE as a real factor to explain the newly discovered accelerated expansion rate.

You see, that is what science/cosmology is all about, and that is why there are never any true facts in science, just very highly applicable scenarios that are open to allow modifications, changes, additions or falsifications if and when it becomes necessary.

 

[dumbest man on earth]

Disagree all you like...We may not know the true nature of the CC/DE component of space/time, but we do have evidence that it exists in some form or other.

You are totally confusing me. Yes, Einstein did add the CC [at that time a fudge factor] to counter what his original equations were telling him. That was that the Universe should be dynamic rather then static.
This result was [the original equations] counter to the beliefs of the day.
Not long after, Hubble made his discovery which showed the Universe was expanding. Einstein then exclaimed the CC as his biggest blunder.
His original equations were correct.

However, 85 years later [or thereabouts] cosmologists now see the CC/DE as a real factor to explain the newly discovered accelerated expansion rate.

You see, that is what science/cosmology is all about, and that is why there are never any true facts in science, just very highly applicable scenarios that are open to allow modifications, changes, additions or falsifications if and when it becomes necessary.

paddoboy, my bad! Sorry to cause you total confusion !

paddoboy, it was not my intent, and I humbly plead for your forgiveness?

paddoboy, again, I am profusely sorry and will never again take the chance of causing you total confusion !

 

[paddoboy]

In a few trillion years or so, when the expansion of the Universe, has reached a stage where all distant galaxies have disappeared beyond our observable horizon, and our local group/cluster/wall of galaxies has merged into one huge conglomeration of stars, and the CMBR has all but disappeared, what will be our view, or the view of any intelligent species be of the Universe around us?

Let's also surmise that all of the scientific observations and models of today have been lost during all those eons, so that we or any other Intelligent species, is not able to stand on the shoulders of the giants that have gone before them.........Would we, or could we assume that our Universe was static??

What evidence would we have to show otherwise?

Anyone care to comment on the above possible scenario?
[1] All the distant galaxies have been shifted beyond our observable horizon.
[2]The CMBR is now non existent.
[3] Our local group has merged into one giant conglomeration of stars.

What evidence would be available in that epoch that the Universe was expanding.

 

[paddoboy]

Just to clear up a glaring misconception being promoted in this thread.....
A Static Universe model, infers a Universe with no expansion and/or contraction......It has nothing to do with other Universal motions such as orbits, rotations, atomic properties etc, just as I have noted in previous posts.
To apply the literal everyday dictionary meaning of "static" is 100% incorrect, as it is when lay people apply the literal every day dictionary meaning of "theory"when applied to a "scientific theory"

see.......

A static universe, also referred to as a "stationary" or "infinite" or "static infinite" universe, is a cosmological model in which the universe is both spatially infinite and temporally infinite, and space is neither expanding nor contracting.
In contrast to this model, Albert Einstein proposed a temporally infinite but spatially finite model as his preferred cosmology in 1917, in his paper Cosmological Considerations in the General Theory of Relativity. He added a positive cosmological constant to his equations of general relativity to counteract the attractive effects of gravity on ordinary matter, which would otherwise cause a spatially finite universe to either collapse or expand forever.
WIKI:

 

[dumbest man on earth]

Just to clear up a glaring misconception being promoted in this thread.....

...paddoboy, or, krash661, will now continue to constantly repeat what any Poster/Reader can get by using their preferred search engine, except he will be so gracious as to "copy/paste" from his/her/its evident favorite and oft quoted source : Wiki...

...just to clear up any/all glaring misconception(s) or CONFUSION being promoted in this thread.

 

[Grumpy]

paddoboy

In a few trillion years or so, when the expansion of the Universe, has reached a stage where all distant galaxies have disappeared beyond our observable horizon, and our local group/cluster/wall of galaxies has merged into one huge conglomeration of stars, and the CMBR has all but disappeared, what will be our view, or the view of any intelligent species be of the Universe around us?

Let's also surmise that all of the scientific observations and models of today have been lost during all those eons, so that we or any other Intelligent species, is not able to stand on the shoulders of the giants that have gone before them.........Would we, or could we assume that our Universe was static??

What evidence would we have to show otherwise?

None. If all we could see was the local...let's call it supergroup we would have no hint anything else existed. But we would probably be so buried in the huge elliptical galaxy that the sky would be bright with stars...

This is Abell 1689. Every object that is the same color as the bright ones in the middle is a galaxy, most of which are much larger than our own. The brightest galaxy has a supermassive BH nearly 20 billion times the mass of our sun, that one object weights more than 3 times what we think our whole galaxy weights. It's event horizon would be somewhere out around Jupiter or Saturn. If we are gravity bound then eventually our fate is inside one of those monsters. But all the stars are likely to die out before that. Eventually(in a googleplex of years)the Black Holes will evaporate in a burst of Hawking radiation and the Universe will go dark.

Oh, and if you look closely you will see ample evidence of the warping of space around that huge mass.

Grumpy

 

[paddoboy]

paddoboy



None. If all we could see was the local...let's call it supergroup we would have no hint anything else existed. But we would probably be so buried in the huge elliptical galaxy that the sky would be bright with stars...

This is Abell 1689. Every object that is the same color as the bright ones in the middle is a galaxy, most of which are much larger than our own. The brightest galaxy has a supermassive BH nearly 20 billion times the mass of our sun, that one object weights more than 3 times what we think our whole galaxy weights. It's event horizon would be somewhere out around Jupiter or Saturn. If we are gravity bound then eventually our fate is inside one of those monsters. But all the stars are likely to die out before that. Eventually(in a googleplex of years)the Black Holes will evaporate in a burst of Hawking radiation and the Universe will go dark.

Grumpy

And possibly even proton decay.
Thanks for that summary...just the way I imagined it.

 

[paddoboy]

.

...just to clear up any/all glaring misconception(s) or CONFUSION being promoted in this thread.

The only glaring misconceptions, incredible errors, and utter confusion, was raised in the first post in reply to the OP....

 

[dumbest man on earth]

The only glaring misconceptions, incredible errors, and utter confusion, was raised in the first post in reply to the OP....

...in a Truly Static Universe!

 

[paddoboy]

...in a Truly Static Universe!

PML


You mean one that has no orbits, angular momentum, quantum uncertainties etc???
Wow!!! You are scraping the bottom of the barrel.
Such a static Universe would not be possible as there would be no gravity....and again, the "Static model " Einstein was trying to adhere to is as common sense dictates...a Universe with no contraction or expansion.....hence the CC.

WIKI is your friend.......
A static universe, also referred to as a "stationary" or "infinite" or "static infinite" universe, is a cosmological model in which the universe is both spatially infinite and temporally infinite, and space is neither expanding nor contracting.


Or to quote what I said earlier.......

To apply the literal everyday dictionary meaning of "static" is 100% incorrect, as it is when lay people apply the literal every day dictionary meaning of "theory"when applied to a "scientific theory"

 

[dumbest man on earth]

PML

When and if you ever attain adulthood, you should be able to have a tad bit more control of your bladder.
BIG HINT : if you parrot/repeat your cries really loudly - possibly someone may come to change your wet diaper!

You mean one that has no orbits, angular momentum, quantum uncertainties etc???

paddoboy, nowhere in the OP did you state - The Static Model or Theory of The Universe! Since you were so careful to "surmise" so much and yet never mentioned ANY THEORY OR MODEL, I was simply answering your question as you Posed it.

That is why I expressly Prefaced my Post with :

paddoboy, prior to Posting this reply to your Post, I read and re-read, then considered your entire OP.
After doing that and allowing for your alloted/requested surmising and assuming, I have a few immediate thoughts (in addition to your use of the word "we"!) :

I was also very careful to put the words "Truly Static Universe" in my first itemized "thought" :

no "surmising" or "assuming" or for that matter, any cognitive thought could occur in a Truly Static Universe.

So, by your failure to actually read and comprehend what I was actually Posting - you chose to "assume' or "presume" :

Wow!!! You are scraping the bottom of the barrel.
Such a static Universe would not be possible as there would be no gravity....and again, the "Static model " Einstein was trying to adhere to is as common sense dictates...a Universe with no contraction or expansion.....hence the CC.

WIKI is your friend.......
A static universe, also referred to as a "stationary" or "infinite" or "static infinite" universe, is a cosmological model in which the universe is both spatially infinite and temporally infinite, and space is neither expanding nor contracting.
Or to quote what I said earlier.......
To apply the literal everyday dictionary meaning of "static" is 100% incorrect, as it is when lay people apply the literal every day dictionary meaning of "theory"when applied to a "scientific theory"

Yeah, paddoboy, you can repeat and parrot!!

Your actual final question in your Post - without ever mentioning "model" or "theory" - was :

Would we, or could we assume that our Universe was static?? What evidence would we have to show otherwise?

paddoboy, prior to Posting that reply to your Post, I read and re-read, then considered your entire OP.

After doing that and allowing for your alloted/requested surmising and assuming, I had a few immediate thoughts.

The first was, no "surmising" or "assuming" or for that matter, any cognitive thought could occur in a Truly Static Universe.

paddoboy, failing to precisely word your OP - and failing to clearly state that you were referring to a "Model" or "Theory" - and "assuming" or "presuming" that other Posters could read your mind - could/would/should be considered "100% incorrect" - could/would/should it not?

Tell me, nay, preach to me about how I was the one who was "100% incorrect"!

Repeat it over and over again - but by no means admit even the slightest, tiniest, infinitesimally small or even the merest chance that you could have been somewhat clearer or more precise in exactly what you were asking in your OP!!!

 

[paddoboy]

paddoboy, nowhere in the OP did you state - The Static Model or Theory of The Universe! Since you were so careful to "surmise" so much and yet never mentioned ANY THEORY OR MODEL, I was simply answering your question as you Posed it.

That is why I expressly Prefaced my Post with :

I was also very careful to put the words "Truly Static Universe" in my first itemized "thought" :

Not really interested in your make believe world of pseudo bullshit and anti mainstream propaganda for the sake of it.

You need to use common sense, logic, sensibility etc.........
Any student of physics/cosmology in there right mind, would never picture a static Universe as ridiculous as you feel like conjuring up.
Now you have been caught out with your pants down for the umpteenth time....just back away slowly like a reasonable person and it will pass.

Remember some of the other professionals on this site will not treat you with kid gloves and as kindly as I do....I have a big heart!

 

[paddoboy]

Tell me, nay, preach to me about how I was the one who was "100% incorrect"!

Repeat it over and over again - but by no means admit even the slightest, tiniest, infinitesimally small or even the merest chance that you could have been somewhat clearer or more precise in exactly what you were asking in your OP!!!

Sure, I thought I had told you...post 2, as confusing and gobbldydook like as it is, you can make out your silly inferences about a Universe with no orbits, no angular momentum, no atomic/quantum movement, as opposed to the well known, commonly accepted, logical inference of the Universal model before Hubble's discovery, that being a Universe with no expansion and/or contraction....a " STATIC UNIVERSE " no less!

This is the problem of taking pseudoscience crap too seriously, or in your case maybe a bit more personal than that?


Anything else I can do you for?

 

[dumbest man on earth]

Not really interested in your make believe world of pseudo bullshit and anti mainstream propaganda for the sake of it.

You need to use common sense, logic, sensibility etc.........
Any student of physics/cosmology in there right mind, would never picture a static Universe as ridiculous as you feel like conjuring up.
Now you have been caught out with your pants down for the umpteenth time....just back away slowly like a reasonable person and it will pass.

Remember some of the other professionals on this site will not treat you with kid gloves and as kindly as I do....I have a big heart!

You are not interested in anything other than projecting your own weaknesses and inabilities onto other Posters.

You go on about "common sense, logic, sensibility etc..." and "Any student of physics/cosmology", yet you do not even possess the mediocre knowledge to use the word "their" instead of "there" when referring to people!

You are only able to Post feeble attempts at insults and feckless threats that "some of the other professionals on this site will not treat you with kid gloves and as kindly as I do".

This is an Internet Forum - nothing you or any "professionals" in this "virtual" environment do will affect me in any way! Your puerile verbal assaults only do more harm to your already abysmally low self-esteem.

paddoboy, I do not Post on these Forums because of some childish need to "idolize" or be "idolized" in a "virtual reality" - heck , I have no need for those aspirations in the real world.

I am an adult man. I am at peace with myself. I suffer no delusions as to my capabilities or my situational awareness. I conduct myself as a man at all times. I left my childhood behind me many decades ago - I had no need to play inane games then, nor do I care for them now!

paddoboy, controlling your Ego should be of much more concern to you than anything I Post - or you imagine that I Post!!!

paddoboy, you have done nothing for me up to this point - so far every little puerile thing you have done has been for yourself and possibly your little "peer" playmates.

I do not want to mess up your little games (children must be children, after all), so feel free to continue with whatever you consider your antics on this Forum to be. May you accomplishes whatever little achievements please you and your little playmates.