|
« TAP TO LOG IN
|
Play online chess!
the multi universe
« Back to club forum
| |||||||||
| From | Message | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
 itchyBut I suggest we ARE in one of the others. Relative, that is, to whoever is there asking the same...... These discussions are certainly entertaining, enlightening and good fun. Anyway, if we did ever find all the answers where could we possibly go from there? To have a quest in life is central to the human spirit. So I don't want to know all the answers. A bit of mystery is kind of enthralling and gives purpose to being. Unless I am wrong and we are just holograms in some gigantic simulation...... |
||||||||
|
the multi universe Simpsons opening www.youtube.com |
||||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
explain please |
||||||||
|
tugger 27-Nov-12, 18:10 |
itchy was talking about the forces and their associated constants. I believe this is due to balance. Everything in the universe is constantly striving for equilibrium. The constants are set at their values because this is equilibrium. Any other values mean imbalance. I would go as far to suggest that this demonstrates that the universe is finite, that it has a defined energy value. This value is what sets the constants that we observe. I also found softy's bubble analogy interesting. But I find the idea of bubbles popping up out of nowhere to be flawed. There is a process which causes bubbles to appear, namely nucleation. It's basically dissolved CO2 escaping solution under pressure and turning into gas. The bubble didn't appear from nowhere. But that's fine, because our universe didn't appear from nowhere. Our universe may simply be the product of a process beyond our universe. But a key point for me is expansion. When something expands, in turn something must contract, to maintain balance. Equilibrium. And so onto the expanding universe. It was Newton who told us that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. This is why expansion goes hand in hand with contraction. A common analogy for the expanding universe model is to imagine a balloon being blown up. If there were dots on the surface of the balloon, they would drift further and further apart as the balloon expands. This explains why nearby galaxies are drifting away from us in all directions. But the balloon analogy is flawed. As the balloon expands, someone's lungs contract. Whose lungs are contracting as the universal balloon expands? The universe is indeed expanding, but it is also contracting. It must be. Otherwise, Newton was wrong. Balance. Equilibrium. A exclusively expanding universe is not balanced. I believe our universe is rotating around a central point. This central point is where the big bang started, is still happening, and will always happen. Our region of the universe has been expanding away from this central point for around 14 billion years. Eventually, I believe, we will cease to experience expansion, and move into contraction, a big crunch, until we reach the same point where we started. This is rotation, it's expansion, contraction, all rolled into one. Thus, I conclude, the universe is the shape of a horn torus. enlightenmentcity.com Link to a picture of half a horn torus. The central point would be tip in the middle. North of the tip, expansion, south of the tip, contraction (it could just as easily be the other way round). The big bang and big crunch are happening simultaneously, in perfect balance. I'd even suggest the mass in the central region would exactly match the mass of everything beyond, further balance. That's what I think, anyway. *disclaimer* I am a stoner with too much time on my hands, I am not an expert! |
||||||||
|
The Simpsons video plays the same tune, much shorter, and as a cartoon but carries the same idea. Tugger- I have missed your great ideas and theories. That is another, equally as possible as any of the others. With it, we no longer need infinity or infinities of universes. We can have ONE universe, existing forever, never stagnant and always changing. The real question is: "How do you get to have too much time"? I can never find enough time. You must be way younger than me because the older we get, the faster time flies. Can you explain THAT in your universe? |
||||||||
|
tugger 27-Nov-12, 21:40 |
I'll let this non-crazy guy explain it to you. beforeitsnews.com * warning * seriously flawed article alert * warning * |
||||||||
|
Tugger I was particularly interested to see that this article also predicts the "end of time" as being December 21, 2012. And, I liked the idea that we will "experience a shift in consciousness", that "the veil between this mortal realm and the spirit realm will dissolve" and that We will be able to freely converse with those on “the other side”. Good stuff and fun to contemplate. |
||||||||
|
connection Thanks for the explanation yes the video in the other thread about sizes yes it is a similar analogy. The difference is that the at the end of the universe it all reverse back to the minuscule again. Hence interconnected universes. Although if this is true it could be relatively troubling to our view of who we are in this universe. Mind you since we got over the fact we are not the centre of the universe I am sure we could get over that our universe might not be the only one. It certainly wouldn't bother me as long as I continue to live a just and inquisitive life and be nice to other people that's all that really matters to me. Chris |
||||||||
|
tugger 28-Nov-12, 08:37 |
Dig around, and take everything with a huge pinch of salt. |
||||||||
|
tugger <<The constants are set at their values because this is equilibrium.>> I'm confused by this tugger, equilibrium of what exactly? <<A common analogy for the expanding universe model is to imagine a balloon being blown up. If there were dots on the surface of the balloon, they would drift further and further apart as the balloon expands. This explains why nearby galaxies are drifting away from us in all directions. But the balloon analogy is flawed. As the balloon expands, someone's lungs contract. Whose lungs are contracting as the universal balloon expands?>> The balloon analogy can only be pushed so far though, the big difference is in a balloon the force that acts against the inflation, that of the elasticity of the balloon's surface, increases as you add more pressure, until the balloon can no longer stretch and deflates (or bursts!). This is not so with an expanding universe, the force acting against the expansion in this case, gravity gets progressively weaker as the universe increases in size (Newton's inverse square law), so it is perfectly allowable for the expansion to be indefinite if the initial explosion was great enough, it doesn't need anything else to keep supplying extra force to drive the inflation, so no contraction of anything is necessary. Think about a grenade exploding in deep space, the parts all fly apart in different directions. The grenade in effect expands and spreads out, but nothing has to contract for this to be the case, the initial explosion is enough. <<The universe is indeed expanding, but it is also contracting. It must be. Otherwise, Newton was wrong.>> Just a small piece of pedantry here, it is possible that Newton is wrong, he was wrong about gravity (albeit a very close approximation and a very huge leap forward in our understanding, but nevertheless, wrong). Also, Newton's third law states that "in equilibrium, forces must balance" not that "forces must balance to maintain an equilibrium". This interpretation of yours seems a little bit back to front. <<I believe our universe is rotating around a central point. This central point is where the big bang started, is still happening, and will always happen. Our region of the universe has been expanding away from this central point for around 14 billion years.>> There doesn't necessarily have to be a central point. The expansion is all points in space moving away from all other points. In theory, it shouldn't matter where you go, you will experience the same rate of expansion (another failing of the balloon analogy). <<Eventually, I believe, we will cease to experience expansion, and move into contraction, a big crunch, until we reach the same point where we started. This is rotation, it's expansion, contraction, all rolled into one.>> The current data disagrees with you on this one, there was a time when the Big Crunch was the prevailing theory, and it is easy to see why it is so appealing, but in the last few decades we've discovered that the expansion is actually accelerating! Enter dark energy, possibly the biggest mystery of modern cosmology. Equilibria are very aesthetically pleasing, and indeed many of the 'hunches' of theoretical physics have been based on the idea that the universe should show a high degree of symmetry, but we must be careful not to shoe horn in the idea at all costs. |
||||||||
|
I'm hungry |
||||||||
|
tugger 28-Nov-12, 16:25 |
<I'm confused by this tugger, equilibrium of what exactly?> The forces of the universe. As you point out, if the gravitational constant was slightly greater, then the universe would be unable to expand. If it were slightly less, it would expand outwards forever at an increasing rate. The values are what they are, because if they weren't, our universe would fail. If you put four object on a scale, all with different masses, say 3, 5.6, 898.32 and 0.00034, one can only position them in one manner in order to balance the scale. Any other positions would not be balanced. This is what I mean by the values of our constants being so due to equilibrium. Nature found the balance. I don't accept the constant expansion of the universe. I believe the universe's gravity is just enough that everything moving outwards is gradually slowing down. If the universe is constantly expanding, with no contraction, then the big bang was the beginning of the universe. What has a beginning, must have an end. What is the end of a universe that expands outwards forever? How can something have a beginning but no end? The exclusively expanding model is flawed, to me. I don't believe the big bang was the beginning. Rather, it was merely the beginning of expansion. As we expand, the "other hemisphere" of the universe contracts. I understand that we observe the universe's expansion to be accelerating. I think this is merely an optical illusion. Our galaxy is moving away from observed galaxies at an increasing rate, but both galaxies are gradually slowing down relative to our point of origin, the location of the big bang. <Think about a grenade exploding in deep space, the parts all fly apart in different directions. The grenade in effect expands and spreads out, but nothing has to contract for this to be the case, the initial explosion is enough. > There is a contraction here. What causes the explosion? When a nuke goes off, an atom contracts. The expansion / contraction idea doesn't need to be equal in visual size, just equal in force. If you set off a grenade in space, the oxidising agent that allows for ignition is what will contract. Further, I'd say it's the contraction of the oxidising agent that causes the explosive expansion. When something explodes, rest assured there is a contraction to allow for the expansion. <Just a small piece of pedantry here, it is possible that Newton is wrong> Perhaps. <Also, Newton's third law states that "in equilibrium, forces must balance" not that "forces must balance to maintain an equilibrium". This interpretation of yours seems a little bit back to front. > I'm not sure about this. Sure, if local forces do not balance, then local equilibrium will not be acheived. But on a universal scale, equilibrium is constant, because the forces are balanced. If we look at the two skaters analogy, pushing against each other on the ice. If the force is equal, then they push against each other and neither move. Equilibrium. If one dominates the other, then that dominated is pushed back. But he does not continue to move backwards, he slows down, because other forces come into play to enforce equilibrium. Say the person falls over. He comes to rest on the floor. Nature will always acheiev equilibrium, given time. <There doesn't necessarily have to be a central point.> Well, there does for my model. I propose the bing bang is a constant event. There's your central point. If I'm wrong, then sure, there doesn't need to be a central point in the way that I'm implying. <Enter dark energy...> Oh good old dark energy. This is basically a cop out imo, we invent things that do not exist in order to explain what can be explained by other means. Let's go back to the grenade going off in space. What if I was to say that dark energy contracts to allow for the expansion? I've just explained it by making something up. That's what I believe dark energy is... an invention to fill the gaps we haven't yet learned. Obviously I do not sit here saying all this thinking I'm right. But it seems to make more sense to me than accepted knowledge. I really do not buy the constantly expanding universe. It just doesn't make any sense to me. This torus shaped model does make sense to me. |
||||||||
|
you guys!!! |
||||||||
|
freedom of choice |
||||||||
|
tugger 28-Nov-12, 16:59 |
If I were motivated by fear, then I would be religious. I have no problem with infinity. I'm saying the universe has no beginning and no end. There's infinity right there for you. But that infinity is contained in a finite space. Rather like fractals within a circle. |
||||||||
|
finite space Sir Arthur Eddington |
||||||||
|
tugger 28-Nov-12, 17:40 |
Of course not. I'm not talking fact here, my dear. I'm talking stoned theory. Has anyone seen dark matter? Why does finite space and infinite time raise your eyebrows, while you blindly accept dark matter? How many lines of symmetry does a circle have? I can show you infinity in finite space all day long. google images > fractals in a circle google images > vector equilibrium google images > fractals in nature Geometry is clearly an integral part of our universe. Why does the notion that our universe is finite in size alarm you? Even if it's constantly expanding, it's finite, and getting larger and larger. If it's infinite, then how can it get larger? A circle is x size. It has x radius, and x area. Yet, it has infinite lines of symmetry. Always. Regardless of its radius and area. Infinity and finity are intertwined in the same was space and time are. One cannot exist without the other. |
||||||||
|
top 10 scientific thinkers 1. Leucippus and Democritus 2. Aristotle 3. Archimedes 4. Galileo 5. Isaac Newton 6. Marie Curie. 7. Louis Pasteur. 8. Albert Einstein. 9. Nikola Tesla 10. Peter Higgs Its all part of the evolution of thought and understanding. It begs the question what is the next great breakthrough and the one after that and that and n. |
||||||||
|
nothing alarms me, save misconception |
||||||||
|
tugger 28-Nov-12, 18:26 |
There just seems to be too many flaws in general understanding of the universe. Such as expansion and infinity. The universe can't be both expanding and infinite. How do you increase the volume of something that is infinitely large? It's either finite and expanding, or infinite and constant. Or perhaps finite and balanced. I subscribe to the latter because it seems most logical, based on observations and discoveries over our time. In particular, Newton's laws. Sure he can be wrong, sure Einstein can be wrong, everyone can be. But that does stop people from asking questions. Which, of course, is why we have gotten this far, and why we will continue to advance. Becase we're thinkers. We visualise in our mind the things we cannot see with our eyes. This obviously means people will jump to the wrong conclusions, but hey, people do that even when they observe with their eyes. <I maintain that present-day technology is no-where near adequate to even 'dare' to make such assumptions.> I agree. But the human mind is capable of greater things than technology. I'm not arrogantly saying my mind is, but some of the greatest discoveries come not through technology, but through thought. Sometimes assumptions are all we have. That's due to the limitations of our technology. I expect to be wrong in my ideas. But I'm happy just to have ideas. |
||||||||
|
and just and perfect, the handbook said to me. Then be sure of one thing: the IS has imagined it quite a bit better than you have. from llusions- The Adventures of a Reluctant Messiah, by Richard Bach. |
||||||||
|
Tugger Thanks for the clarification, that's much clearer to me now. One point I want to make though: <<If you put four object on a scale, all with different masses, say 3, 5.6, 898.32 and 0.00034, one can only position them in one manner in order to balance the scale. Any other positions would not be balanced.>> I don't think this is true, moment (or torque) forces are based on the weight of the object and the distance from the pivot, there will be many different places where an equilibrium would exist. This would be true even if you only have two weights, no matter where you place the weight on on side, there will always be a distance on the other where there would be a balance. In a sense your point is the same as ian's, my question remains, why this equilibrium and not any of the others? <<I understand that we observe the universe's expansion to be accelerating. I think this is merely an optical illusion. Our galaxy is moving away from observed galaxies at an increasing rate, but both galaxies are gradually slowing down relative to our point of origin, the location of the big bang.>> But the acceleration has been measured in all directions AFAIK. If our galaxy were slowing down relative to some central point, in what direction could that point possibly be? <<There is a contraction here. What causes the explosion? When a nuke goes off, an atom contracts.>> Not if it's a fission bomb, and the contraction of the atom is not what causes the explosion, it is the release of binding energy from the nuclei of the fissionable material. <<he expansion / contraction idea doesn't need to be equal in visual size, just equal in force.>> fine, but force is not continually needed to keep something in motion (by Newton's first law), there does not need to be any continual contraction of anything to keep the expansion going. <<Well, there does for my model. I propose the bing bang is a constant event. There's your central point. If I'm wrong, then sure, there doesn't need to be a central point in the way that I'm implying.>> Fair enough. <<Oh good old dark energy. This is basically a cop out imo, we invent things that do not exist in order to explain what can be explained by other means. Let's go back to the grenade going off in space. What if I was to say that dark energy contracts to allow for the expansion? I've just explained it by making something up. That's what I believe dark energy is... an invention to fill the gaps we haven't yet learned.>> Yeah that's exactly what it is, but it is important to note that no physicist anywhere would claim that dark energy is an explanation. It's simply a label we give to a giant question mark. If we accept the universal expansion is accelerating, then something must be driving that acceleration (Newton's second law). Dark energy is a complete mystery, one we are not even close to solving. There are ideas, but none of them are considered to be true yet. As ever, more research is needed. |
||||||||
|
Is it possible to create a perfect circle? |
||||||||
|
BC Well, in a perfect world then the estimate would be completely abandoned. That is the essence of science, show us strong enough evidence and we will immediately change our mind. No position is sacred, but the contradictory evidence must arrive first. |
||||||||
|
agreed itchy |
||||||||
|
vested interests |
||||||||
|
tugger 29-Nov-12, 11:53 |
<But the acceleration has been measured in all directions AFAIK. If our galaxy were slowing down relative to some central point, in what direction could that point possibly be? > I don't know. To be honest, I feel like this is hitting my limit of understanding. I'm convinced there must be contraction to compliment the expansion, they go hand in hand like space and time, they are intricately linked, the symmetry is unbreakable. That's my belief. My best guess is that space itself is expanding, and thus time is contracting. In the other "hemisphere" of the universe, space contracts while time expands. I have no idea how to visualise this concept. <fine, but force is not continually needed to keep something in motion (by Newton's first law), there does not need to be any continual contraction of anything to keep the expansion going. > There needs to be continuous force if gravity is acting on it. Try throwing sugar up in the air. Does it continually expand? As for dark matter... let's talk more about that later. I understand they have some news from Mercury, something observed in space for the first time. NASA are due to make an announcement in the next few hours. I wonder if it's dark matter? |
||||||||
|
Tugger Welcome to MY world. I must admit that I have a lot of trouble visualizing things too... like how did I just back up my car into that light post that was right behind me? And, how in the world can they push a spacecraft all the way to Mars or Titan and have it splash down within a few hundred yards of where they wanted it? (THAT is really hard to visualize) |
||||||||
|
thanks |
||||||||
| |||||||||
