The edge of space

russ_hensel

Joined Jan 11, 2009
825
Where is this stuff coming from? AFAIK none of this has or can be proven, yet you are presenting it as fact.

The references are "General Relativity is the best accepted theory for the universe which is dominated by gravity. It uses Riemann geometry, a differential geometry."

It is fact in the same way that all physics is fact. Supported by both theory and experiment, but not without some problems.
 

Thread Starter

amilton542

Joined Nov 13, 2010
497
The references are "General Relativity is the best accepted theory for the universe which is dominated by gravity. It uses Riemann geometry, a differential geometry."

It is fact in the same way that all physics is fact. Supported by both theory and experiment, but not without some problems.
Hmmm, Linear Algebra has made me very suspicious these past few weeks in that it has been pointing me towards geometry.

Ok I take your advice and I buy the book.....as long as I can find an introduction.
 

THE_RB

Joined Feb 11, 2008
5,438
...
Think of the expansion of space(3d) in a 2d way. If you inflate a spherical balloon. It surface is expanding, but there is no definite point of origin for this expansion (on the 2d surface of the balloon).
...
How convenient, and how typical for astrophysicists to come up with a barely plausible explanation to cover a massive flaw in the original big bang concept, which was only ever a convenient explanation for the seemingly unexplainable sensor results where far objects *appear* to be getting further away. So now the "big bang" didn't happen in 3D space at all? And the expansion we apparently "see" is not happening in 3D space?

How about this concept; The universe isn't expanding. Now find the sensor issue.

It's like a noob electrician chasing a "system voltage drift" and madly hypothesising why it's happening, when the old electrician knows that it's the voltmeter instrument that just drifts over time. High level physics is all theories based on guesses and other theories based on the first theories based on guesses. Let's just call them "professional guessers" and take a grain of salt with their guesses.
 

Wendy

Joined Mar 24, 2008
22,155
How convenient, and how typical for astrophysicists to come up with a barely plausible explanation to cover a massive flaw in the original big bang concept, which was only ever a convenient explanation for the seemingly unexplainable sensor results where far objects *appear* to be getting further away. So now the "big bang" didn't happen in 3D space at all? And the expansion we apparently "see" is not happening in 3D space?

How about this concept; The universe isn't expanding. Now find the sensor issue.

It's like a noob electrician chasing a "system voltage drift" and madly hypothesising why it's happening, when the old electrician knows that it's the voltmeter instrument that just drifts over time. High level physics is all theories based on guesses and other theories based on the first theories based on guesses. Let's just call them "professional guessers" and take a grain of salt with their guesses.
Last I heard the red shift is pretty consistent and uniform, which suggests it is anything but a sensor issue. The further out you look, the faster things are moving away from us. The balloon analogy is just that, an analogy, not an explanation. Doppler shift is real information, not to be ignored even if it is found to be inconvenient. I would be interested in other explanations, as I have heard of none. It is also the heart of the Big Bang Scenario.

You never get anywhere in science by ignoring evidence. You have to explain each fact. Doppler has been shown and is used as a very good way to measure speed differences.
 

THE_RB

Joined Feb 11, 2008
5,438
Last I heard the red shift is pretty consistent and uniform, which suggests it is anything but a sensor issue. The further out you look, the faster things are moving away from us.
...
Note; "moving away from us". Shades of pre-Galileo science anyone? That we are centre of the universe and everything is moving away "from us"? Just what are the odds that we happened to be at the centre of the expanding universe? Or if that is obviously illogical, then we need a cover-up theory to try to explain the huge flaw in the first theory, like the new balloon theory.

So the sensors show things moving away from us, we invent a big-bang theory to try to explain it. Then the big-bang theory is logically flawed as we really can't be the centre of the universe and/or because the centre of the universe would be empty as things were moving outward. So now we invent a new balloon theory to try to cover that. It's now a special "magical" type of big bang... Faith. To believe the big bang requires faith. Believing the earth was flat also required faith.

I have not ignored evidence that there appears to be a doppler shift on far objects, but I attribute that apparent doppler shift to a much more logical and sane theory; that the universe is stable and NOT expanding, but space is curved and it is the symptom (or cause) of that curved space that causes the effect we perceive as the doppler shift.
 

Wendy

Joined Mar 24, 2008
22,155
The fact is from any other point of view it looks like everything is racing away, much like relativity.

I prefer Occam's Razor myself. Adding a space warp is adding to complexity, and explains nothing.
 

MvGulik

Joined Nov 3, 2011
41
How convenient, ...
I see no data in support of your believe. Nor do I see any data in support of why the current idea's are completely wrong.

Besides, my post was not stating any facts. Just showing the general alternative/easier way of looking at a possible 3d expansion without having a definite 3d(same reverence frame) origin point.
 

strantor

Joined Oct 3, 2010
5,322
Note; "moving away from us". Shades of pre-Galileo science anyone? That we are centre of the universe and everything is moving away "from us"? Just what are the odds that we happened to be at the centre of the expanding universe? Or if that is obviously illogical, then we need a cover-up theory to try to explain the huge flaw in the first theory, like the new balloon theory.

So the sensors show things moving away from us, we invent a big-bang theory to try to explain it. Then the big-bang theory is logically flawed as we really can't be the centre of the universe and/or because the centre of the universe would be empty as things were moving outward. So now we invent a new balloon theory to try to cover that. It's now a special "magical" type of big bang... Faith. To believe the big bang requires faith. Believing the earth was flat also required faith.

I have not ignored evidence that there appears to be a doppler shift on far objects, but I attribute that apparent doppler shift to a much more logical and sane theory; that the universe is stable and NOT expanding, but space is curved and it is the symptom (or cause) of that curved space that causes the effect we perceive as the doppler shift.
If anybody here subscribed to this thread has email alerts, then you probably saw my reply that was pretty much exactly what you just said. I deleted it because, after thinking about it for a while, I envisioned a handful of rice thrown up into the air. picture this in zero gravity if it helps. earth is one of the grains. as the grains are tossed up, they all move away from eachother. In the expanding environment, you don't have to be at the center to have everything around you moving away from you.

This is only one point; I don't believe that the fact that everything appears to be moving away from us means that the universe is expanding. I still don't believe the universe is expanding.
 

shortbus

Joined Sep 30, 2009
7,840
This is only one point; I don't believe that the fact that everything appears to be moving away from us means that the universe is expanding. I still don't believe the universe is expanding.
Maybe the Universe is flat and we are getting close to going over the edge.:D:p:)
 

THE_RB

Joined Feb 11, 2008
5,438
I see no data in support of your believe. Nor do I see any data in support of why the current idea's are completely wrong.
...
Neither is there any data to support expansion. There is a circular logic in the big bang theory. The sensor effect that things seem to be moving away spawned the big bang theory, but in no way is that proof of the big bang. If you like circular logic you could see a big hole in your backyard and spawn a theory that bigfoot walked there. But the appearance of the hole is in no way proof of the theory. The theory was spawned to suit the data on hand, so the data is NOT proof of the theory.

Strantor said:
...
This is only one point; I don't believe that the fact that everything appears to be moving away from us means that the universe is expanding. I still don't believe the universe is expanding.
Then that makes two of us in the thread. :) So do you have a reason? You stated earlier a belief in infinity within the physical model (something I do not believe) so that almost sounds like a contradiction?
 

Wendy

Joined Mar 24, 2008
22,155
Uhh, there is no data only if you pick and choose your evidence. The doppler data is there, whether you accept it or not. It may indeed be flawed, but in my opinion there is a stronger argument that it is giving us direct evidence of a real event.

Unfortunately, it comes down to opinions, but I have not seen a convincing argument or a model that would account for the existing evidence other than expansion.

With your model you have to add several assumptions, all unproven or even suggested by a model far as I can tell. Which brings me back to Occam's Razor.
 

strantor

Joined Oct 3, 2010
5,322
Then that makes two of us in the thread. :) So do you have a reason? You stated earlier a belief in infinity within the physical model (something I do not believe) so that almost sounds like a contradiction?
occams razor, as bill said "the simplest explanation is most likely the correct one.". Its so simple: The universe is physically and timewise infinite. This leaves no unanswered questions. Any other hypothesis require all kinds of wild assumptions to be made in support of of it; especially when people start asking hard questions; then the wacko meter starts going off the chart, or you get science's shotgun answer "well we just don't know that yet"
 

russ_hensel

Joined Jan 11, 2009
825
Many of the doubters should research some of the science. Many of the doubts have a long history and have be explained over and over ( like some of the "controversy" over evolution ). In any case expansion does not prove the big bang nor does anyone in the science claim that. But it is consistent with it and explained by GR. The other theory that was popular for a time ( up to about the mid 60's) was the steady state theory in which the universe was infinite in both time and space ( and expanding ). It recieved a big set back with the prediction and discovery of cosmic black body radiation.

And about the question about the flat earth, that probably was the theory until replaced by a spherical one, replaced by an oblate spherioid ( sorry about the spelling ), replaced by the same vibrating with the tides, seismic waves... The theory will be refined more as time goes by.
 

Wendy

Joined Mar 24, 2008
22,155
occams razor, as bill said "the simplest explanation is most likely the correct one.". Its so simple: The universe is physically and timewise infinite. This leaves no unanswered questions. Any other hypothesis require all kinds of wild assumptions to be made in support of of it; especially when people start asking hard questions; then the wacko meter starts going off the chart, or you get science's shotgun answer "well we just don't know that yet"
Everything ages, and has a beginning and an end. This is true for the galaxy, the sun, the earth. What is so hard about the universe? The evidence is there, if you but look. The evidence has been around longer than you and I. One of the worst mistakes you can make in science is to reject observations because they are inconsistent with your personal beliefs.
 

thatoneguy

Joined Feb 19, 2009
6,359
I believe Hawking and Sagan both agreed that space is like a 3 dimensional mobius strip. Head in any direction for long enough, and you will end up back where you started, provided you moved in a straight line and didn't bump in to any stars.

If that is the case, what is on the "outside" of the Mobius strip? pure vacuum with zero gravity (as opposed to nano vacuum and microgravity measued from our deep space probes).

Hopefully the New Horizons probe, going a different direction than the ecliptic, may give us a little more information. Problem is, it'll take a hundred years.

NASA REALLY needs to put the Orion drive into reality so probes can accelerate at 20g for 6 months, then the probe would pass the viking probes launched in the 70s within 2 years. How we'd communicate with it is another issue entirely. Perhaps an RTG with long life to provide decent Tx Power for 50 years?

Problem is, the environmentalists don't want "nukes in space" and "space needs to be preserved". The problem is getting that much payload into space. Maybe build the probe off the ISS, sending several loads of micro-nukes to be added to "the hopper" of the probe or something. Conventional atmospheric liftoff, thruster/push to get the loaded Orion probe well past geosync orbit, then start the pulse propulsion system of lighting a nuke against it's shock absorbed backplate every hour or so?
 

steveb

Joined Jul 3, 2008
2,436
The universe is physically and timewise infinite. This leaves no unanswered questions. Any other hypothesis require all kinds of wild assumptions to be made in support of of it;
Your reasoning is completely backwards on this topic. How can you say that your assumption leaves no unanswered questions when virtually all experimental data condradicts the possibility of an infinite and timeless universe? For your theory to hold up, you would have to make a huge set of wild assumptions to explain the discrepency with all known observations.

The currently held cosmological models fit very nicely with known observations and known physics and provide a consistant point of view. While all questions are not answered about the origin of the universe and the laws of physics, one has to use the scientific method and work from a solid foundation going forward.

Your point of view appears to be a little like someone trying to argue that the Earth is flat, and the sun revolves around the earth, despite all the evidence to the contrary. Honestly, it's as bad as that, even if you can't see it.
 

strantor

Joined Oct 3, 2010
5,322
Everything ages, and has a beginning and an end. This is true for the galaxy, the sun, the earth. What is so hard about the universe? The evidence is there, if you but look. The evidence has been around longer than you and I. One of the worst mistakes you can make in science is to reject observations because they are inconsistent with your personal beliefs.
Your statement is what I was trying to say earlier. We think in finite ways, and cannot comprehend infinity, so we reject it. Make it out to be a laughable concept even, and scorn those who don't see it that way.
If the universe had a beginning, what was all this matter (the matter that is currently planets, stars, galaxies, etc) before it became the universe? and how long was it floating around before it became the universe? We beleive that energy & matter/mass cannot be created or destroyed, right? well, either we're wrong about that, and all this stuff materialized out of nothing, via an unfathomable amount of energy that also just spontaneously realized itself for no apparent reason, or we're wrong about the beginning of the universe. If you want to say that the universe "began" at a certain time and place with a certain mass and a certain energy and is therefore finite (and further explain the timeline and the presence of matter and energy before the beginning), or if you want to say that the universe is infinite both in time and matter & energy, it is the same; either way you have to accept infinity.

Your reasoning is completely backwards on this topic. How can you say that your assumption leaves no unanswered questions when virtually all experimental data condradicts the possibility of an infinite and timeless universe? For your theory to hold up, you would have to make a huge set of wild assumptions to explain the discrepency with all known observations.

The currently held cosmological models fit very nicely with known observations and known physics and provide a consistant point of view. While all questions are not answered about the origin of the universe and the laws of physics, one has to use the scientific method and work from a solid foundation going forward.

Your point of view appears to be a little like someone trying to argue that the Earth is flat, and the sun revolves around the earth, despite all the evidence to the contrary. Honestly, it's as bad as that, even if you can't see it.
This is not a kooky personal belief; you say I'm ignoring the "facts" (which btw are only sensor data (which you already expressed distrust in), "models that fit nicely" and theories), I say you are ignoring the fact that the facts don't and will never be able to explain our existence.

Every generation thinks they have it all figured out and the previous generation was a bunch of idiots. Before motorized vehicles, they thought if you went faster than 40mph you would bleed out of your orifices and die. We laugh at that. in 100 years, kids will learn in school about all the utterly retarded ideas we had about how the universe works. and they will still be wrong. Don't be so bold as to think that you or we have or ever will have anything figured out.
 

steveb

Joined Jul 3, 2008
2,436
Don't be so bold as to think that you or we have or ever will have anything figured out.
I have never been that bold. Implying that I have been that bold is perhaps a way to distract from the fact that your view is primitive, just as the ideas of flat earth and earth centered universe are primitive. There is a big difference between "knowing that we don't know it all" and "ignoring what we do know". The former viewpoint drives us forward to discover more and more, while the latter viewpoint stalls our progress.

Flat earth, earth centered universe and infinite/timeless universe are the natural viewpoints people develop, based on everyday observations. It is only after examining detailed measurement data that these ideas fall out of favor. So, you are out of step with the present times. Of course, we are all out of step with the future times, but that's not our fault. Although future people will consider our viewpoint primitive, their viewpoint will not be something we now consider primitive. Knowledge moves forward, not backward.
 

strantor

Joined Oct 3, 2010
5,322
Implying that I have been that bold is perhaps a way to distract from the fact that your view is primitive, just as the ideas of flat earth and earth centered universe are primitive.
on the topic of purposeful distraction, I have still yet to see even a weak gesture towards an answer to my questions of "Where was all the mass/matter, and how long was it there, before it bacame the universe?". That must be accounted for if you're going to say that the universe "began".

There is a big difference between "knowing that we don't know it all" and "ignoring what we do know". The former viewpoint drives us forward to discover more and more, while the latter viewpoint stalls our progress. Flat earth, earth centered universe and infinite/timeless universe are the natural viewpoints people develop, based on everyday observations. It is only after examining detailed measurement data that these ideas fall out of favor. So, you are out of step with the present times.
so tell me, where's the proff that our universe is not timeless & infinite? has anybody seen the edge of it? because I've seen pictures of the edge of earth and I know its not flat.

I'll be theres people who look at you like a neanderthal because you don't beleive the universe is expanding.
 
Top