cosmology theroy

Status
Not open for further replies.
K

kuwaazy

Guest
This may sound nuts, and please tell me so.

here it is:
The universe is infinte in all directions, in scales, in size, in time,

this is very differnet from the finite universe models!

We live in a stable bubble that we are conditioned to react to. these reactions are considered reason.
everytime we are able to look for something smaller we find it,
everytime we are able to look for something larger we we find,


ramifications:
the big bang: a phase change
uncertainty priciple: manifestations of a underlying layer currently outside the bubble of reason
time before the big bang: also infinite, but in a different phase
other universes: i would say not needed
singularities: simply a different phase, (stable)

I know this all sounds a bit simple, but think it over and shoot me down!
please think of the ideas and not the symantics!

also i have one more complaint against the astronomers: red shift to detect distance to objects. they make an assumpton im not convinced is accounted for:
could redshift be assciated with the decay of photons over long periods of time? could it be that photon begin to disipate over their long travels?
 
R

ramparts

Guest
kuwaazy":3auy06jq said:
This may sound nuts, and please tell me so.

here it is:
The universe is infinte in all directions, in scales, in size, in time,

this is very differnet from the finite universe models!

We live in a stable bubble that we are conditioned to react to. these reactions are considered reason.
everytime we are able to look for something smaller we find it,
everytime we are able to look for something larger we we find,


ramifications:
the big bang: a phase change
uncertainty priciple: manifestations of a underlying layer currently outside the bubble of reason
time before the big bang: also infinite, but in a different phase
other universes: i would say not needed
singularities: simply a different phase, (stable)

I know this all sounds a bit simple, but think it over and shoot me down!
please think of the ideas and not the symantics!
I'm not sure what to make of it. None of it is very specific, it's all very fuzzy language. The big bang was a change between which phases? Of what? What on Earth is an "underlying layer currently outside the bubble of reason" (what is a bubble of reason, for that matter), and how is the uncertainly principle - a very well-defined mathematical concept - a result of that? How can time be "in a different phase", or singularities be a different phase? So far there isn't much meaning behind all these words - just jargon thrown together haphazardly.

also i have one more complaint against the astronomers: red shift to detect distance to objects. they make an assumpton im not convinced is accounted for:
could redshift be assciated with the decay of photons over long periods of time? could it be that photon begin to disipate over their long travels?
So if photons are redshifted because of decay over time, then the longer a photon travels the more it decays, and so redshift will be greater for further-away galaxies. Sounds like what the rest of science is saying ;) As for this photon "decaying" business, it's possible in the sense that many things are possible, but there's neither experimental evidence for it nor theory suggesting it, so there's really no reason we should take it into account.

All further complaints should be filed to the Complaints Board, International Society of Astronomical Magicians, University of New South Wales.
 
O

origin

Guest
kuwaazy":3sh1vtlx said:
This may sound nuts, and please tell me so.

here it is:
The universe is infinte in all directions, in scales, in size, in time,

this is very differnet from the finite universe models!

We live in a stable bubble that we are conditioned to react to. these reactions are considered reason.
everytime we are able to look for something smaller we find it,
everytime we are able to look for something larger we we find,


ramifications:
the big bang: a phase change
uncertainty priciple: manifestations of a underlying layer currently outside the bubble of reason
time before the big bang: also infinite, but in a different phase
other universes: i would say not needed
singularities: simply a different phase, (stable)

I know this all sounds a bit simple, but think it over and shoot me down!
please think of the ideas and not the symantics!

also i have one more complaint against the astronomers: red shift to detect distance to objects. they make an assumpton im not convinced is accounted for:
could redshift be assciated with the decay of photons over long periods of time? could it be that photon begin to disipate over their long travels?
The problem is the symantics are what conveys your ideas and I suspect you are not using the words properly so we do not know what your ideas are. In science words like force, energy and phases have very specific meanings. You need to define your terms, like phase, so we know what you are talking about. What would be best would be to present your ideas with mathematics that is truly the language of science; it is much less ambiguous than words
 
R

ramparts

Guest
Origin, can we make a win-loss tally on threads in which we've asked people to formulate their "theories" using math? I think we have a .000 winning percentage so far :lol:
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
Which is why such threads will soon be forced to phase the Unexplained.... ;)
 
M

michaelmozina

Guest
kuwaazy":2rc6uexj said:
This may sound nuts, and please tell me so.

here it is:
The universe is infinte in all directions, in scales, in size, in time,

this is very differnet from the finite universe models!

We live in a stable bubble that we are conditioned to react to. these reactions are considered reason.
everytime we are able to look for something smaller we find it,
everytime we are able to look for something larger we we find,


ramifications:
the big bang: a phase change
uncertainty priciple: manifestations of a underlying layer currently outside the bubble of reason
time before the big bang: also infinite, but in a different phase
other universes: i would say not needed
singularities: simply a different phase, (stable)

I know this all sounds a bit simple, but think it over and shoot me down!
please think of the ideas and not the symantics!

also i have one more complaint against the astronomers: red shift to detect distance to objects. they make an assumpton im not convinced is accounted for:
could redshift be assciated with the decay of photons over long periods of time? could it be that photon begin to disipate over their long travels?
I would say that your use of the term "phase" seems to a little "vague" and therefore it makes it hard to say much about your theory. Is your infinite universe theory also a "static" one, meaning objects in space are not expanding away from one another? Technically the only reason that you would need to "complain" about current redshift theories is if you're not simply promoting an "infinite" universe, but also a "static" universe. I guess you'll have to come up with a 'better' explanation for redshift, but the term 'decay' is also a bit vague. These are typically classified as "tired light" theories and they have been around for a very long time. One of the harder aspects of tired light theories is explaining why the redshift seems to be even across the full spectrum of wavelengths. Expansion wound tend to have that sort of effect, whereas an interference scenario, or a loss of energy scenario would be likely to be different at different wavelengths. That IMO is the most valid criticism of most tired light theories I've read to date.

Welcome to the board by the way. :)
 
K

kuwaazy

Guest
I have to admit you have a real good point about tired light, you wouldnt expect decay be equal across all wavelenghts, so that theroy is quite dashed in my eyes. Ill have to live with an expanding universe.


heres my problem with current cosmology: t=0, it simply cannot be! the fact alone that universe is expanding at an increasing rate points to a structure much larger than what is currently visible to humans.

as far as the infinte cosmology idea:

let me try to be more clear, when i use the word "phase" i suppose i mean "local stable order, in terms of scale"
i use the word "phase" because im thinking of the universe as a substance
(loaded word) obviously capable of diffent states of exsistance akin to: solid, liquid, gas, and the other inifinte possible states it can take on.

current local universe=gas
prebigbang= solid
blackhole singilarites= liquid
big rip= plasma

i know know thats simplistic, but i think it better conveys my idea (which im sure is not new)
new ramification: the speed of light is different for each "phase" and irrelavant since photons are out of scale

so before the big bang, there was a local stable order of some sort,

begs the question, was there external presure acting on that portion of the universe (BIG BANG SINGULARITY) before the bang?

As far as "describing" this with math, seems pointless as im tring to sugest scales where our math is no longer true, or at least you would need math i dont understand.

heres another wild one: could the bigbang singularity be akin to a blackhole that simply got too big, reached some limit and went supernova? (im sure someone thought that up before as well)

thanks for the read:]
 
O

origin

Guest
kuwaazy":1kpsw8sk said:
I have to admit you have a real good point about tired light, you wouldnt expect decay be equal across all wavelenghts, so that theroy is quite dashed in my eyes. Ill have to live with an expanding universe.
Good for you, spoken like someone with a scientific mind - you compared observation with your hypothesis and when they did not agree you tossed out the hypothesis. :)


heres my problem with current cosmology: t=0, it simply cannot be! the fact alone that universe is expanding at an increasing rate points to a structure much larger than what is currently visible to humans.
Why, if you ran the movie of the universe backwards so to speak wouldn't that imply a t=0?

as far as the infinte cosmology idea:

let me try to be more clear, when i use the word "phase" i suppose i mean "local stable order, in terms of scale"
i use the word "phase" because im thinking of the universe as a substance
(loaded word) obviously capable of diffent states of exsistance akin to: solid, liquid, gas, and the other inifinte possible states it can take on.

current local universe=gas
prebigbang= solid
blackhole singilarites= liquid
big rip= plasma

i know know thats simplistic, but i think it better conveys my idea (which im sure is not new)
new ramification: the speed of light is different for each "phase" and irrelavant since photons are out of scale

so before the big bang, there was a local stable order of some sort,

begs the question, was there external presure acting on that portion of the universe (BIG BANG SINGULARITY) before the bang?
Well you were using the definition of phases correctly. I don't think that you can apply those phases to the life time of the universe however. The state of the universe before the big bang is beyond the scope of, well ah, us. So I guess you get a free pass on this because at this point it is unknowable. I don't understand the idea that a black hole is liguid.

As far as "describing" this with math, seems pointless as im tring to sugest scales where our math is no longer true, or at least you would need math i dont understand.

heres another wild one: could the bigbang singularity be akin to a blackhole that simply got too big, reached some limit and went supernova? (im sure someone thought that up before as well)

thanks for the read:]
I can't imagine what that limit would be. You are essentially saying that an attractive force becames so large that it turned repulsive (is there a 'my first wife' joke in there somewhere?), which doesn't seem likely.

By the way welcome to space...
 
K

kuwaazy

Guest
"Well you were using the definition of phases correctly. I don't think that you can apply those phases to the life time of the universe however. The state of the universe before the big bang is beyond the scope of, well ah, us. So I guess you get a free pass on this because at this point it is unknowable. I don't understand the idea that a black hole is liguid. "

Im not tring to imply a strict metaphor about obersvable substance phases at human scale to the enitre universe, i realize calling a blackhole a liquid is rediculas, only that is it a stable and very different state of the same universe.

At human scale:
different phases (gas, liquid, solid) can effect each other, directly and indirectly, but only at the edges.
if there are indeed different rules (phases) for different scales of the universe we would indeed see their effects on the edges of our human scale and times,

as far as the universe being truly infinte in scale, id like to hear good reasons why it cant be?, particularly since current models suggest an inflation period "phase" that violated the speed of light.

the notion that pre-bigbang is off limits to science seems destined to fail.

a question about expansion, does the rate expansion apear to be even, ie uniform in all directions?
 
O

origin

Guest
kuwaazy":20n82txs said:
At human scale:
different phases (gas, liquid, solid) can effect each other, directly and indirectly, but only at the edges.
if there are indeed different rules (phases) for different scales of the universe we would indeed see their effects on the edges of our human scale and times,
Not sure what you mean here.

as far as the universe being truly infinte in scale, id like to hear good reasons why it cant be?, particularly since current models suggest an inflation period "phase" that violated the speed of light.
There is ample evidence that he universe is expanding. So if you were to run the 'movie' of the universe in reverse then all of the observable universe would be in essentially one point about 15 billions years ago. That implies that the universe in not infinite, at least not in the everyday sense. There is a lot of evidence for the big bang one very strong point is the amount of hydrogen and helium that makes up the universe; this would have formed soon after the big bang occurred.

The inflation period did not violate the speed of light. The universe expanded faster than the speed of light but that is not a violation of the speed of light 'speed limit'. Objects cannot exceed the speed of light but there is no such rule for the expansion of the universe. In fact the farthest objects that we see today are receeding from us at more than the speed of light. The galaxies themselves may have very little movement in space, but the area of space they are in, is receeding from us at super luminal speeds.

the notion that pre-bigbang is off limits to science seems destined to fail.
a question about expansion, does the rate expansion apear to be even, ie uniform in all directions?
Current mathematics (General Relativity and QM) cannot handle the pre big bang era. That is not to say we will never know anything earlier than 10^-40 seconds (or so) afer the big bang, it is just there are no 'tools' that we currently have to investigate it.

The expansion is uniform in all directions.
 
S

Saiph

Guest
Origin and others have summed up my opinion on your cosmology quite nicely. I will throw in a tidbit about 'tired light' and photon decay...it's a good idea that's been tossed around for several decades now...but it's basically been put to rest as observations fail to support it.

There are oddities in the redshift records that may indicate we can't use the redshift approach as broadly as we do now, or at least without more careful investigation. In general, for most cases, it seems to hold quite well though and is continuously tested and refined by other independent distance measuring techniques (something most opponents forget).
 
M

mabus

Guest
kuwaazy":1xfdhz29 said:
"Well you were using the definition of phases correctly. I don't think that you can apply those phases to the life time of the universe however. The state of the universe before the big bang is beyond the scope of, well ah, us. So I guess you get a free pass on this because at this point it is unknowable.
This is not nessecarily true. There are numerous models which try to explain how the universe was before the big bang, M-theory for example.

kuwaazy":1xfdhz29 said:
I don't understand the idea that a black hole is liguid. Im not tring to imply a strict metaphor about obersvable substance phases at human scale to the enitre universe, i realize calling a blackhole a liquid is rediculas, only that is it a stable and very different state of the same universe.

At human scale:
different phases (gas, liquid, solid) can effect each other, directly and indirectly, but only at the edges.
if there are indeed different rules (phases) for different scales of the universe we would indeed see their effects on the edges of our human scale and times,
If I am reading you correctly, you see to be viewing the universe as different forms of matter (or states of matter) which are ruled by different laws of physics?

If so this is not correct. At the moment we have two seperate and competing models for describing how matter works and interacts with other matter. These are divided between relativity theory and quantum mechanics. All non quantum matter is explainable using relativity theory, and all matter on a quantum level can be modeled mathematically using quantum mechanics. Physicists are currently trying to adopt a single model which can be successfully used to model matter on any scale, this effort is called the Grand Unified Theory or (GUT), but it is probably still a long ways off.

kuwaazy":1xfdhz29 said:
as far as the universe being truly infinte in scale, id like to hear good reasons why it cant be?
It's not really a question of it not being possible, in fact it is possible. We simply have no evidence that it is infinite in scale. We usually try not to claim the universe is something until we have evidence that it is (because that would reduce our statement to a mere guess). At the moment, we simply do not know what the size of the entire universe, beyond the part we can observe, may be. Until we uncover hard tangible evidence which gives us a good indication as to it's size we have to simply be honest about this and say "we don't know it's size yet".

kuwaazy":1xfdhz29 said:
particularly since current models suggest an inflation period "phase" that violated the speed of light.
This is a common misconception about the speed of light. Relativity tells us that nothing going THROUGH space can travel faster than the speed of light in a vacuum (C), but it says nothing about the speed at which space itself can expand, therefore this is not a violation of C at all. It has nothing to do with any "phases", all matter operates under the same system of physical laws.

kuwaazy":1xfdhz29 said:
the notion that pre-bigbang is off limits to science seems destined to fail.
I would agree with you here, there are numerous models which try to explain how our universe looked before the big bang. My personal favorite is M-Theory.

kuwaazy":1xfdhz29 said:
a question about expansion, does the rate expansion apear to be even, ie uniform in all directions?
That is my understanding, yes, as far as I know.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

Latest posts