Cosmology Theory

MeteorWayne · Oct 21, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Is their any connection between "Littledreamer" and your doll's headache?    LOL (snicker)   Posted by lildreamer</DIV> Nobody better mess with Pinky and the Brain!! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

yevaud · Oct 21, 2008

"Are you thinking what I'm think, Pinky...?""Yeah, but Brain...how are we going to get the leather chaps onto the Chicken?" <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

bechcube · Oct 22, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Why don't we pick apart the post's mathematics first...This cube root quotient is equal to the absolute value of the Plank length, 10>-33 1/3cmthe Planck length is approximately 1.6 × 10−35 meters taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_lengthIf the cube root quotient is taken from your original value then your final value and theory based on this value would be off by a couple of magnitudes.or maybe I'm not reading the first equation properly - possible ?  Posted by lildreamer</DIV>lildreamer:1.61x10-35m is equal to 1.61 x 10-33cm as quoted eg.10>-33 1/3 cm. The 1/3cm is equal to 1/3 of 1 or .3333 ->.so my math expression is less that 1 different from yours, or is my calculated absolute value of the Plank Constant. The Plank length is calculated by the use of three other constants c , G and h/2pi.My proof refines this equations factors to a closer absolute value.Notice that my theory explains why the so called "strings" are equal to the accepted length of the string, eg. the diameter of the JAH. Neet hu?

bechcube · Oct 22, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Ok, I know I will probably regret this, but I'll bite.I disagree, based on the standard model. More precisely, I disagree based on the cosmological principle that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic at the large scale. Therefore I do not believe that the Earth resides at a special place in the Universe. Posted by SpeedFreek</DIV>Look at it this way. If the universe was created by the formation of Hydrogen ,from the zero point vacuum,  and formed stars and galaxies then why could the creator not choose a planet in a solar system located in a galaxy at the approximate center of those creations. This is supported by the fact that basicaly all galaxies are moving away from the Milky Way. If the raisin in a loaf analogy was correct, half of all galaxies would move together in the opposite direction.Neet huh?

Saiph · Oct 22, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Look at it this way. If the universe was created by the formation of Hydrogen ,from the zero point vacuum,  and formed stars and galaxies then why could the creator not choose a planet in a solar system located in a galaxy at the approximate center of those creations. This is supported by the fact that basicaly all galaxies are moving away from the Milky Way. If the raisin in a loaf analogy was correct, half of all galaxies would move together in the opposite direction.Neet huh? Posted by bechcube</DIV> I don't see where a homogeneous expansion (a la raisen bread analogy) means galaxies have to converge somewhere.The big problem with the earth being the center is WHY?!  there is nothing special about it other than our presence.  And to say that dictates how the universe at large behaves...is ludicrous.But you're right in saying that either all galaxies are moving away from eachother...or we are the center from our observations.  Throw in the fact that EVERY geocentric model has been wrong throughout history and...I go for option #1. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

bechcube · Oct 22, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> I don't see where a homogeneous expansion (a la raison bread analogy) means galaxies have to converge somewhere.The big problem with the earth being the center is WHY?!  there is nothing special about it other than our presence.  And to say that dictates how the universe at large behaves...is ludicrous.But you're right in saying that either all galaxies are moving away from eachother...or we are the center from our observations.  Throw in the fact that EVERY geocentric model has been wrong throughout history and...I go for option #1. Posted by Saiph</DIV>Saiph:Sorry, what is "Option # 1"?Further, I did not say the raisin analogy caused conversion. Rather its evident that such expansion would cause the raisins to diverge but half the loaf would have to diverge in the opposite direction from the other half. Think about it.

origin · Oct 22, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> The cube root of 10>-50ccm //10>50JAH  This cube root quotient is equal to the absolute value of the Plank length, 10>-33 1/3cm.  Therefore, for every 10>-50ccm of space there are 10>50JAH, and each JAH has a diameter of 10>-33cm.</DIV>Planck length = 1.6 x 10^-33 cm not 10^-33.3 cmSo since it looks like you started with the planck length and worked backwards to define a JAH we should at least use accurate numbersSo cubing plancks length we get 4.1 x 10^-99.Now we have a decision; what do we want to a JAH to be, we can arbitrarily define it based on a volume 10^-50 cm or we can arbitrarily define it based on 10^50JAHs in a cubic plancks length.Lets choose the latter for fun, soThe volume of 10^50JAHs is a (4.1 x 10^-99ccm) X (10^50JAH) = 4.1 x 10^-49cm.  Not quite 10^-50ccm that you got (but in physics we generally just ball park stuff anyway).  This of course assumes that a JAH is a cube or the math would be really off!Lets look at the next line - Oh crap now a JAH has a diameter that means it is not a cube it is a sphere.  The packing factor of spheres is really going to screw is up the calculation.  So is a JAH a cube or a sphere?  Or since we just eyballing the calculations does it even matter.  For that matter you never gave a physical reason why there are 10^50JAHs in a cubic Planks length.   <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

lildreamer · Oct 22, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>lildreamer:1.61x10-35m is equal to 1.61 x 10-33cm as quoted eg.10>-33 1/3 cm. The 1/3cm is equal to 1/3 of 1 or .3333 ->.so my math expression is less that 1 different from yours, or is my calculated absolute value of the Plank Constant. The Plank length is calculated by the use of three other constants c , G and h/2pi.My proof refines this equations factors to a closer absolute value.Notice that my theory explains why the so called "strings" are equal to the accepted length of the string, eg. the diameter of the JAH. Neet hu?   Posted by bechcube</DIV> small type always confuses me....and the way the data is presented even more so....but alas I stand corrected...it just  -its time for me to start wearing  me spectacles on this one....<img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-laughing.gif" border="0" alt="Laughing" title="Laughing" />I'll try to be a little more diligent. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

bechcube · Oct 22, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Planck length = 1.6 x 10^-33 cm not 10^-33.3 cmSo since it looks like you started with the planck length and worked backwards to define a JAH we should at least use accurate numbersSo cubing plancks length we get 4.1 x 10^-99.Now we have a decision; what do we want to a JAH to be, we can arbitrarily define it based on a volume 10^-50 cm or we can arbitrarily define it based on 10^50JAHs in a cubic plancks length.Lets choose the latter for fun, soThe volume of 10^50JAHs is a (4.1 x 10^-99ccm) X (10^50JAH) = 4.1 x 10^-49cm.  Not quite 10^-50ccm that you got (but in physics we generally just ball park stuff anyway).  This of course assumes that a JAH is a cube or the math would be really off!Lets look at the next line - Oh crap now a JAH has a diameter that means it is not a cube it is a sphere.  The packing factor of spheres is really going to screw is up the calculation.  So is a JAH a cube or a sphere?  Or since we just eyballing the calculations does it even matter.  For that matter you never gave a physical reason why there are 10^50JAHs in a cubic Planks length.  Posted by origin</DIV>origin: Regarding your first statement:This is the acceptable formula for the Plank length.<dd>Regarding your #1 statement: </dd><dd>http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/7/a/f/7afaaad103d3055bbe00e8af66db2ab8.png" alt=" ell_P =sqrt{frac{hbar G}{c^3}} cong 1.616 24 (12) imes 10^{-35}" /> m = 1.6 x 10>-33 cm.</dd>But this is  approximate . The .61624 is up for grabs. My cube root defines this number as 1x10>-1/3cm which I believe to be closer to the real number.Regarding your #2 statement: If you cube the Plank length, you must cube the cube root of the quotient 10>-50ccm//10>50JAH, which equals 10>-100ccm/JAH then your 10>-99ccm=10>-100ccm if you also cube the 1/3cm.Regarding #3 statement:You are correct that the JAH is a sphere. But because the JAH is so small, there is a very small amount of space  unaccounted for  in a larger volume.Why there are 10>50 JAH in the cubic space used is the only amount that will produce the correct Plank length. Clever huh?This cube root formula is the seminal equation to my theory just as E=MC>2is seminal to Einstein's theory.

origin · Oct 23, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The .61624 is up for grabs. My cube root defines this number as 1x10>-1/3cm which I believe to be closer to the real number.</DIV>That is nice that you beleive your number is closer, but it would be much more compelling if you had some evidence it was closer.Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Regarding your #2 statement: If you cube the Plank length, you must cube the cube root of the quotient 10>-50ccm//10>50JAH, which equals 10>-100ccm/JAH then your 10>-99ccm=10>-100ccm if you also cube the 1/3cm.</DIV>Again you have not shown in any reasonable way that 10^-33 1/3 is a more accurate number for the plank length.  The Plnck length was not arbitrarily picked - there are several sound ways to arrive at 1.6 x 10^-33cm.Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Regarding #3 statement:You are correct that the JAH is a sphere. But because the JAH is so small, there is a very small amount of space  unaccounted for  in a larger volume.Why there are 10>50 JAH in the cubic space used is the only amount that will produce the correct Plank length. Clever huh?   Posted by bechcube</DIV>No, it is not clever at all.  You picked a number out of the air to arrive at the solution you wanted.  The number you picked was arbitrary, it has not physical meaning.I could just as easily hypothesis a HAH.  There are 10^99 HAHs in every 0.1 ccm of space.  If you take the cube root of the qoutient of 10^99 HAHs / 0.1 ccm you will get 10^-33.3333... which is pretty darn close to the planck length so I have discovered something compelling.No, all I have done is played around with some elemental mathematics that are not based on any meaningful physical realities and drawn a bogus conclusion.Not that neat, huh?  (Sorry for the sarcasm) <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

SpeedFreek · Oct 23, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Saiph:Sorry, what is "Option # 1"?Further, I did not say the raisin analogy caused conversion. Rather its evident that such expansion would cause the raisins to diverge but half the loaf would have to diverge in the opposite direction from the other half. Think about it. Posted by bechcube</DIV>If I may interject, Saiph said"..either all galaxies are moving away from eachother...or we are the center from our observations.  Throw in the fact that EVERY geocentric model has been wrong throughout history and...I go for option #1."So, option 1 is that all galaxies (or clusters of galaxies) are moving away from each other. Thus, we are not at the centre of the universe. Whatever galaxy you were in, it would look like all the distant galaxies are moving away from you. To any observer in any galaxy it would seem like they were at the centre of the expansion as all distant galaxies seem to recede directly away from them. On to your raisin loaf. From the point of view of a raisin, all other raisins move directly away. Each raisin thinks it is at the centre of expansion. Each raisin can consider itself to be not moving, and that all the other raisins around it are moving away... Let's make a model. Now to model an expanding volume with space in it, we need to assign coordinates within that space. For the moment, forget about any edges to the volume, we don't need edges, we just need coordinates in order to measure the expansion of a volume of space. Galaxies come later, so for now just imagine a 3 dimensional grid. At each grid intersection we will assign a coordinate, a point, a dot. Let's say each intersection point is 1 meter apart. Put yourself on a point somewhere in this volume. Whatever axis you look along you see neighbouring points 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 etc meters away, receding off into the distance. Then we introduce some expansion. Let's say the volume grows to 10 times its original size in 1 second! That seems fast perhaps, but this is just a model with easy numbers. The key thing to remember is that the grid expands with the volume. So, here we are, still sitting on our point (but it could have been any point) 1 second later. Now lets look along an axis. We see those neighbouring points are now 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 etc meters away. The volume increased to 10 times the size, and so did the distance between each intersection point on that grid. Our nearest neighbouring point has receded from 1 to 10 meters in 1 second, so it has receded at 9 meters per second. The next point away has receded from 2 to 20 meters in 1 second, so that point receded at 18 meters per second. The fifth point has moved from 5 to 50 meters away in 1 second, so that one has receded at 45 meters per second. The further away you look, the faster a point will seem to have receded! And the view would be the same, whatever viewpoint you choose in the grid. Remember I said the grid of points receded off into the distance.. well a point that was initially 33,000,000 meters away will have moved away to 330,000,000 meters in 1 one second, meaning that it has receded at 300,000,000 meters per second - the speed of light. Any point initially more distant than 33,000,000 meters away from another point will have receded from that point faster than the speed of light. That is the distance were an object recedes at light speed in this "little" model of expansion. If you look at a point that has receded at the speed of light, then from that point, the point you are on has receded at the speed of light. Now I know this is a very simple model, dealing with a simple 10 times expansion in 1 second. This might seem very different from a universe where the rate of expansion was slowing from immense speed and then starting to accelerate, but if you start your grid very small and apply different rates of expansion to that grid, incrementally, over different rates of time, to simulate slowing it down and then speeding it up, when you look at the end result it is essentially the same. (Whenever there is a change in the rate of expansion, it is the rate of expansion for the whole grid that changes). You might be asking how useful this model actually is. Well you might substitute light years for meters and use time-scales over billions of years if you like but the principle remains. If you sprinkle clusters of galaxies through the grid at random and then expand that grid and have clusters move apart with it, you get effects pretty much like how we think the universe expands (you might want to start the grid really small, and only add the galaxies after it has expanded for a bit!). This is a very simplified view, but I hope it is a helpful one! If the whole thing expands and you cannot see an edge, it always looks like you are at the centre, wherever you actually are.   <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> _______________________________________________ SpeedFreek </div>

MeteorWayne · Oct 23, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Posted by SpeedFreek</DIV> Very nicely done SpeedFreek MMM, Raisin Loaf, {drool} <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

bechcube · Oct 23, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If I may interject, Saiph said"..either all galaxies are moving away from eachother...or we are the center from our observations.  Throw in the fact that EVERY geocentric model has been wrong throughout history and...I go for option #1."So, option 1 is that all galaxies (or clusters of galaxies) are moving away from each other. Thus, we are not at the centre of the universe. Whatever galaxy you were in, it would look like all the distant galaxies are moving away from you. To any observer in any galaxy it would seem like they were at the centre of the expansion as all distant galaxies seem to recede directly away from them. On to your raisin loaf. From the point of view of a raisin, all other raisins move directly away. Each raisin thinks it is at the centre of expansion. Each raisin can consider itself to be not moving, and that all the other raisins around it are moving away... Let's make a model.Now to model an expanding volume with space in it, we need to assign coordinates within that space. For the moment, forget about any edges to the volume, we don't need edges, we just need coordinates in order to measure the expansion of a volume of space. Galaxies come later, so for now just imagine a 3 dimensional grid. At each grid intersection we will assign a coordinate, a point, a dot. Let's say each intersection point is 1 meter apart.Put yourself on a point somewhere in this volume. Whatever axis you look along you see neighbouring points 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 etc meters away, receding off into the distance. Then we introduce some expansion. Let's say the volume grows to 10 times its original size in 1 second! That seems fast perhaps, but this is just a model with easy numbers. The key thing to remember is that the grid expands with the volume.So, here we are, still sitting on our point (but it could have been any point) 1 second later. Now lets look along an axis. We see those neighbouring points are now 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 etc meters away. The volume increased to 10 times the size, and so did the distance between each intersection point on that grid.Our nearest neighbouring point has receded from 1 to 10 meters in 1 second, so it has receded at 9 meters per second. The next point away has receded from 2 to 20 meters in 1 second, so that point receded at 18 meters per second. The fifth point has moved from 5 to 50 meters away in 1 second, so that one has receded at 45 meters per second. The further away you look, the faster a point will seem to have receded! And the view would be the same, whatever viewpoint you choose in the grid.Remember I said the grid of points receded off into the distance.. well a point that was initially 33,000,000 meters away will have moved away to 330,000,000 meters in 1 one second, meaning that it has receded at 300,000,000 meters per second - the speed of light. Any point initially more distant than 33,000,000 meters away from another point will have receded from that point faster than the speed of light. That is the distance were an object recedes at light speed in this "little" model of expansion. If you look at a point that has receded at the speed of light, then from that point, the point you are on has receded at the speed of light. Now I know this is a very simple model, dealing with a simple 10 times expansion in 1 second. This might seem very different from a universe where the rate of expansion was slowing from immense speed and then starting to accelerate, but if you start your grid very small and apply different rates of expansion to that grid, incrementally, over different rates of time, to simulate slowing it down and then speeding it up, when you look at the end result it is essentially the same. (Whenever there is a change in the rate of expansion, it is the rate of expansion for the whole grid that changes).You might be asking how useful this model actually is. Well you might substitute light years for meters and use time-scales over billions of years if you like but the principle remains. If you sprinkle clusters of galaxies through the grid at random and then expand that grid and have clusters move apart with it, you get effects pretty much like how we think the universe expands (you might want to start the grid really small, and only add the galaxies after it has expanded for a bit!).This is a very simplified view, but I hope it is a helpful one! If the whole thing expands and you cannot see an edge, it always looks like you are at the centre, wherever you actually are.   Posted by SpeedFreek</DIV>SpeedFreek and Saipgh:It appears to me that either of you are mixing apples and oranges.When you create your grid, you place the observing raisin in the approximately center of the box grid.But you then expand the box grid with accelerations which must be correct only for an observer outside the box, for whom your thought experiment would be correct.I prefer to look at the loaf. If we are a raisin close to the perimeter of the loaf, eg at on end of the loaf, we must see more raisins in one direction than in the other but deep sky investigations show about the same radius to the edge of the universe in all directions.To indicate otherwise, we could not use A1 supernovas as a standard candle. Neet huh?Your statement "you cannot see an edge' is tell tale, since we can see an edge.

bechcube · Oct 23, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>That is nice that you beleive your number is closer, but it would be much more compelling if you had some evidence it was closer.Again you have not shown in any reasonable way that 10^-33 1/3 is a more accurate number for the plank length.  The Plnck length was not arbitrarily picked - there are several sound ways to arrive at 1.6 x 10^-33cm.No, it is not clever at all.  You picked a number out of the air to arrive at the solution you wanted.  The number you picked was arbitrary, it has not physical meaning.I could just as easily hypothesis a HAH.  There are 10^99 HAHs in every 0.1 ccm of space.  If you take the cube root of the qoutient of 10^99 HAHs / 0.1 ccm you will get 10^-33.3333... which is pretty darn close to the planck length so I have discovered something compelling.No, all I have done is played around with some elemental mathematics that are not based on any meaningful physical realities and drawn a bogus conclusion.Not that neat, huh?  (Sorry for the sarcasm) Posted by origin</DIV>Your mathematical exercise is interesting but not realistic.This is not the calculation of the Plank length or the diameter of the HAH.Your equation produces 33.3333 HAH per 10>-4ccm which does not fit quantum theory.

bechcube · Oct 23, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Your mathematical exercise is interesting but not realistic.This is not the calculation of the Plank length or the diameter of the HAH.Your equation produces 33.3333 HAH per 10>-4ccm which does not fit quantum theory. Posted by bechcube</DIV> Sorry, I mean 10 />-3ccm.

Mee_n_Mac · Oct 23, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Your statement "you cannot see an edge' is tell tale, since we can see an edge. Posted by bechcube</DIV> We see an "edge" (more properly don't see anything more distant) because light from beyond "there" hasn't had time to arrive "here" at Earth.  Imagine moving, in a instant, 5 billion LY away.  Do you think the "edge" we'd see there will still be the same or will you be able to see things beyond our "edge", the one we see here and now ? EDITTED for clarity. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> -----------------------------------------------------Ask not what your Forum Software can do do on you,Ask it to, please for the love of all that's Holy, STOP ! </div>

SpeedFreek · Oct 23, 2008

Bechcube, if we are at the centre of the universe, do you think this is a mere coincidence?If we were anywhere but dead centre, and everything actually expanded from a central point as you say, we would be able to tell by the motions of the galaxies. So you would rather actually believe that we are at the centre of the universe than believe that we are nowhere special, and that everywhere would think it were the centre.The mainstream view is that the whole universe is probably many magnitudes larger than our observable part of it. That if you were on a galaxy 5 billion light years away, you would see more universe than we can see in one direction, and less in the other. Galaxies outside of our observable part of the universe would never be able to see the place where our galaxy is. This seems the most plausible view.Your view has us as living somewhere very special in the universe. Are we just lucky then?  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> _______________________________________________ SpeedFreek </div>

DrRocket · Oct 23, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Bechcube, if we are at the centre of the universe, do you think this is a mere coincedence?If we were anywhere but dead centre, and everthing actually expanded from a central point as you say, we would be able to tell by the motions of the galaxies. So you would rather actually believe that we are at the centre of the universe than beleive that we are nowhere special, and that everywhere would think it were the centre.The mainstream view is that the whole universe is probably many magnitudes larger than our observable part of it. That if you were on a galaxy 5 billion light years away, you would see more universe than we can see in one direction, and less in the other. Galaxies outside of our observable part of the universe would never be able to see the place where our galaxy is. This seems the most plausible view.Your view has us as living somewhere very special in the universe. Are we just lucky then?  Posted by SpeedFreek</DIV>SpeedFreek.Your argument is absolutely correct.  It is logical, it is valid, and it is basically the argument that is often used by professional cosmologists.You have no chance whatever of convincing Bechcube.  Logic and physics are not the point when one's mind is made up, one does not wish to be confused by facts, one's grasp of physics is minimal, and one is being driven by the delusion of having made a revolutionary discovery.  Rational argument does not affect the irrational. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

bechcube · Oct 24, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>We see an "edge" (more properly don't see anything more distant) because light from "there" hasn't had time to arrive "here".  Imagine moving in a instant 5 billion LY away.  Do you think the "edge" we see here will still be the same or will you be able to see things beyond our "edge" ? Posted by Mee_n_Mac</DIV>The edge is the edge unless you have fallen for parallel universes.Further, the Hubble deep sky photos are believed to be very near the edge because of the decreased density of detectable galaxies.These are not my findings but support my contentions that there is an observable edge of the universe.

bechcube · Oct 24, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Bechcube, if we are at the centre of the universe, do you think this is a mere coincedence?If we were anywhere but dead centre, and everthing actually expanded from a central point as you say, we would be able to tell by the motions of the galaxies. So you would rather actually believe that we are at the centre of the universe than believe that we are nowhere special, and that everywhere would think it were the centre.The mainstream view is that the whole universe is probably many magnitudes larger than our observable part of it. That if you were on a galaxy 5 billion light years away, you would see more universe than we can see in one direction, and less in the other. Galaxies outside of our observable part of the universe would never be able to see the place where our galaxy is. This seems the most plausible view.Your view has us as living somewhere very special in the universe. Are we just lucky then?  Posted by SpeedFreek</DIV>If what you say were true that the mainstream view is that the universe is many magnitudes greater than 13-14 billion Ly's in radius, and if the Milky Way were closer to the edge in one direction, then the gamma radiation map would not be so homogeneous, eg. less than a 3 degree differential over the  map.Your deduction that if the Milky Way were 5 million light years off center on would observe more matter in one direction and less in the opposite direction.Did you mean to support my argument?I never said we were exactly in the center of the universe. I said we could be, say 5 million light years off center and still be seen as in the approximate center of such a vast universe.Further, because galaxies are being continuously formed throughout the universe, certainly some would appear to travel other than directly away from us. However, even those galaxies will travel towards there edge of the universe. Really neat huh?

bechcube · Oct 24, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>SpeedFreek.Your argument is absolutely correct.  It is logical, it is valid, and it is basically the argument that is often used by professional cosmologists.You have no chance whatever of convincing Bechcube.  Logic and physics are not the point when one's mind is made up, one does not wish to be confused by facts, one's grasp of physics is minimal, and one is being driven by the delusion of having made a revolutionary discovery.  Rational argument does not affect the irrational. Posted by DrRocket</DIV>I am sorry if I gave you the impression that I was not able to accept realistic argument. However, my posts have challenged arguments which do not seem to be realistic and I am open to additional argument that will support others arguments

SpeedFreek · Oct 24, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The edge is the edge unless you have fallen for parallel universes.Further, the Hubble deep sky photos are believed to be very near the edge because of the decreased density of detectable galaxies.These are not my findings but support my contentions that there is an observable edge of the universe. Posted by bechcube</DIV>There is an edge to the observable universe, as light has only had 13.7 billion years in which to travel, and light travels at a finite speed. But we think the edge is relative to the observer. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> _______________________________________________ SpeedFreek </div>

origin · Oct 24, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Your mathematical exercise is interesting but not realistic.This is not the calculation of the Plank length or the diameter of the HAH.Your equation produces 33.3333 HAH per 10>-4ccm which does not fit quantum theory. Posted by bechcube</DIV>Clearly you missed my point.Lets try this - the volume of 10^-50 ccm is based on nothing physical. Your number of 10^50 JAH is based on nothing physical.You picked those 2 numbers because the cube root of the quotient equals the Plank Length.  There must be some PHYSICAL REASON for picking those numbers or the rest of the calculations are just so much drivelAnd to top it all off the cube root of 10^-100 does not even equal the Planck Length.You should learn some real physics, it is much more interesting than this woo-woo stuff.  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

origin · Oct 24, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If what you say were true that the mainstream view is that the universe is many magnitudes greater than 13-14 billion Ly's in radius, and if the Milky Way were closer to the edge in one direction, then the gamma radiation map would not be so homogeneous, eg. less than a 3 degree differential over the  map.</DIV>Wrong.  There is no edge to be close to.  There is only an apparent 'edge' of the OBSERVABLE universe.Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Your deduction that if the Milky Way were 5 million light years off center on would observe more matter in one direction and less in the opposite direction.</DIV>That is only if your belief is correct about and edge moving out from a center, which all sane physicists and speedfreak do not agree withReplying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Did you mean to support my argument?</DIV>He did not support it, you simply misunderstood - what a shock.Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I never said we were exactly in the center of the universe. I said we could be, say 5 million light years off center and still be seen as in the approximate center of such a vast universe.Further, because galaxies are being continuously formed throughout the universe, certainly some would appear to travel other than directly away from us. However, even those galaxies will travel towards there edge of the universe.</DIV> Could you support the contention that galaxies are continuosly be formed throughout the universe?The ONLY galaxies which are NOT moving away from us are the ones that are very close to us and we are interacting with, which supports that theory that the universe (ie space) is expanding and there is no center (or edge).Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Really neat huh? posted by bechcube</DIV>No, really wrong!  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

SpeedFreek · Oct 24, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>which all sane physicists and speedfreak do not agree with  Posted by origin</DIV>Heheh! I laughed out loud when I saw you phrase it like that! I found myself wondering if it was more relevent if I am not a physicist, or if I am not sane...    <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-laughing.gif" border="0" alt="Laughing" title="Laughing" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> _______________________________________________ SpeedFreek </div>

Cosmology Theory

MeteorWayne

Guest

yevaud

Guest

bechcube

Guest

bechcube

Guest

Saiph

Guest

bechcube

Guest

origin

Guest

lildreamer

Guest

bechcube

Guest

origin

Guest

SpeedFreek

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

bechcube

Guest

bechcube

Guest

bechcube

Guest

Mee_n_Mac

Guest

SpeedFreek

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

bechcube

Guest

bechcube

Guest

bechcube

Guest

SpeedFreek

Guest

origin

Guest

origin

Guest

SpeedFreek

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page