The best of both extreme cosmologies (ie. BB vs SS)

[etelan]

Hi there. I am new to this forum, which I discovered while trying to resolve, in my mind, why the three fundamental theories of the "movement" of the Universe appear flawed, yet when putting together key elements, there could be a valid fourth theory that is more efficient.<br /><br />I will state clearly that my background in physics is unlikely to replicate that of most of the other members of the forum, which is why I have been expending my energy in this matter in the direction of purely logical interpretations of these cosmological theories.<br /><br />Some of what I may have to say may appear to have religious overtones; I assure you now that I harbor no humano-centric god/God-based beliefs. Since early childhood, I have always questioned the validity of beings who, while being touted as infinite, would in fact be far less capable than so said, thus leading to their unnecessity. Anyway, to prevent the hard scientists here from getting frustrated, I will attempt to make my point.<br /><br />My first point of call is remolding those "three" theories into something more accessible. I find it simple to state that the Universe is either in a state of Continuous Existence, or it exists within a Limited Time Frame.<br /><br />Taking these two views, we can then look at the range of possible movements, varying from expansion, to stationary, to implosion. A "Permanent stationary" Universe seems to have been entirely ruled out for a number of good reasons, and implosion would have to follow expansion and deceleration to be valid. The latter seems logically clear, as it would make little sense for the starting state of the Universe to in fact be a gigantic, spherical shroud of very cold, dark material (forgive my ignorance - what is the best word to describe the building blocks of the Universe today, as obviously matter is not wholly representative of the story). I read a web page that tried to espouse this last collapse theory, which led me to think the gentleman had actually g

 

[cosmictalk]

Could our Universe be in a state of Continuous Existence, with accelerating expansion, both caused in part by a continuous injection of new material into it from a Central Point?<br /><br />I believe the universe could be in a constant state right now of tryng to substain itself in its surrounding environment where it may take in old material and new to continue its equilbrium.

 

[bonzelite]

the universe of empty space may not be expanding, but the matter within it may be expanding. in context of our worldy experience, gravity may be created by the earth pushing up against rocks, trees, animals, as it <i>itself</i> expands into space at 9.8m/s^2.<br /><br />einstein demostrated that gravity on earth at 9/8m^2 and a person in a box or on a platform, being accelerated upwards into the vacuum of space at 9.8m/s^2, would feel the same pressure upon the body, ie, gravity. therefore, in this context, gravity is independent of mass. and, moreover, a purely geometric function of constant acceleration.

 

[CalliArcale]

Interesting idea, but wouldn't it be possible to detect that? I mean, in terms of relativity, it isn't important whether we're falling towards the Earth or the Earth is rising to meet us. But I think there would be a frame of reference where it would be important, thus revealing whether or not that is true.<br /><br />(BTW, I think the equivalence of gravity and acceleration were known before Einstein, but I could be wrong about that. It's late and I need to refill my tea. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> ) <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[alkalin]

Glad to hear you’re not glued to the notions of institutional cosmology and you might be looking for a better path. Suppose one of their basic tenets is incorrect. Then all the building on a false premise will fail eventually. We are seeing this happen. BB notions fail in all the predictions to date, yet cosmologists continue to distort real data to verify their notions, and continue to invent non-reality math to justify those false notions. I say it is time for them to start basing their notions on real data without bias, and allow astronomers time to investigate other options on large telescopes. Otherwise we are going very fast into sci-fi with the sweet sound of the BB lullaby.<br /><br />The idea of Doppler to explain the red shift is so simplistic, it really had to have a very great appeal, and in those days of about seventy years ago that was about the only thing they could come up with. Today there is real data supporting other notions of why light can shift to the red. We can actually do experiments to prove it. But I will not go further with this unless there is genuine interest, and you can believe those ‘experts’ here do not find much wrong with BB notions.<br />

 

[bonzelite]

<font color="yellow"><br />Interesting idea, but wouldn't it be possible to detect that? </font><br /><br />yes. d=1/2at² detects it. Galileo was a smart dude. gravity is mostly a <i>geometric</i> phenomenon. <br /><br />you mean literally without math detecting it. no, if everthing expanded proportionately at the same rate. yes, though, if you reaize that objects "fall" to earth at the same rate regardless of their mass. there are exceptions, but we won't digress into that. <br /><br /><font color="yellow"><br />(BTW, I think the equivalence of gravity and acceleration were known before Einstein, but I could be wrong about that. It's late and I need to refill my tea. ) </font><br /><br />tea with honey? <br /><br />regardless, the principle is out there. and proves gravity is geometric over mass-centric. interplanetary trajectories of probes can be nearly purely geometrically calculated without regard to the planets' masses/gravity.

 

[emperor_of_localgroup]

You are OK. In fact, there are many respected scientists, including physicists, think there is no 'supernatural god' as presented by most religions. But there's something that we dont know about yet. But I'll not describe it as 'infinite'. That word give me an impression of 'unknowable' to human. Which I disagree.<br /><br />"caused in part by a continuous injection of new material into it from a Central Point"<br /><br />Again, this is also one of my many thoughts about the present universe. But it may also be 'blackholes draw in matters at one point in space and discard violently at another point in space'.<br /><br />Some of us still like to read about new thoughts.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="2" color="#ff0000"><strong>Earth is Boring</strong></font> </div>