The infinite universe

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by Betrayer0fHope, Oct 25, 2008.

  1. kaneda Actual Cynic Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,334
    quantum wave. There is probably a small enough point where what we call matter no longer exists. Photons are just waves. At some point the waves could be low enough that they are no longer photons. Of course, the atomic material has to go somewhere as does the wave energy so new matter and energy forms, so both being destroyed and created at our level.

    A lot of what many take as gospel in such fields is just idle speculation dressed up in the Emperor's new clothes of maths. 3/4 of the universe is said to be dark energy. Show me one iota of evidence that such utter nonsense exists? It's castles built on clouds, while more castles are built on them, etc.

    How can everything be moving away since there is no known mechanism for such blatant nonsense? People jabber about the big bang without understanding why it is just fairy dust.

    How many physical dimensions? Three. Again the idiots have been at work claiming originally 26 but now a mere 10, and there is NO evidence for the extra 7. Evidence for strings is......non-existent. It is an idea. Like the big bang, it doesn't even deserve the title of theory.

    The whole lot is pseudoscience yet you like to think it is real science rather than dare to think for yourself and realise it is all dream stuff. The word gullible comes to mind.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. kaneda Actual Cynic Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,334
    How big is the universe?

    How big is my personal universe, with my house at it's centre? There are mornings when the mist lays on the fields and instead of seeing for 5-6 miles, I can only see half a mile because a wall of mist obscures anything further. Yet it looks clear where I am.

    The CMB is the universe's wall of mist. Like with my view from my house, it looks clear close up but distance absorbs light. All it needs is 1 non-ionised hydrogen atom in 200,000 ionised particles to do the job. There could be a trillion light years beyond the CMB.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,702
    The whole supernova type 1A argument? This isn't something where someone said "Hey, let's add in a quantity to our GR equations which is extremely hard to explain in terms of theory, very hard to measure accurately, means our understanding of the universe is a lot less than we originally thought and which makes describing the universe a lot lot harder!" No one expected it. But experiments force us to realise there's stuff, a lot of stuff, in the universe which we not only didn't know about 15 years ago but can only see by it's effects on objects we can see.

    Ever tried doing any GR equations? Cosmology using the FRW metric? No, of course you haven't. But if you had you're know how much of a pain that small but non-zero quantity is. But we can't ignore it, because we've measured it's existence. It's existence shows how much cosmology is really still in it's infancy because cosmology has enormous trouble modelling it and even more explaining it.
    The majority of people doing cosmology and astrophysics are not string theorists, they barely touch particle physics. They work with the models of the universe having 3 spacial dimensions and 1 time dimension. You haven't bothered to look into the work done by cosmologists and because you have a prejudice against pretty much anyone doing something you don't understand (which is most of the planet's scientists) you lump them all together and make sweeping statements which you don't bother to check.

    There's 4 students in my department doing something string theory related. One of whom does something to do with cosmology. There's more than two dozen students down the corridor doing astrophysics and cosmology. None of them do string theory, few make much use of relativity.

    Also, the 26 dimensional formulation of string theory was never seen as a physical theory because it lacks fermions. Which we know exist.
    100 years ago there was no evidence for general relativity. Does that mean GR is wrong? 20 years ago there was no evidence for dark energy, now there is. Right now there's no evidence for a fair few things considered very viable in theoretical physics, are they all certain to be wrong just because the evidence isn't in our hands right now?
    So all the things the BB model explains both conceptually and quantitatively don't count as 'evidence' because you say so, the guy who doesn't read up on physics, didn't learn physics beyond high school and who has a selective memory about things people have corrected him on? Managed to learn there are more boundary-less compact 3 dimensional spaces than \(S^{3}\) yet?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,677
    Maybe, but if the “atomic material has to go somewhere as does the wave energy so new matter and energy forms”, tell me this. Is there an equivalent amount of new energy formed for the energy and matter that “went somewhere”? If so, how does nature know the exact amount to replace? Does it go somewhere in quantum increments of it is not necessary to conserve the exact amount of energy, i.e. is “in the ball park”, close enough. I don’t think that the energy goes “somewhere” and is replaced. The energy cannot be created or destroyed IMHO. Otherwise there has to be some means for overall accountability for currently existing energy doesn’t there?
    Not in the case of dark energy. Expansion is pretty well established and makes perfect sense whether there was a beginning like a “Big Bang” or like the burst of a big crunch. High energy density expands in the presence (when surrounded by) low energy density. The moment after the big bang, the energy density of our currently observable universe would have been very dense and if it emerged from a big crunch it was surrounded by low energy density and has been expanding every since if you take a reasonable approach to explaining what we currently observe.
    Even though science doesn’t know what fairy dust caused expansion, that doesn’t mean we are not expanding. The evidence is strong enough and makes good sense if the cause was a Big Bang or a big burst.
    Maybe string theory could be called a ball of string ideas

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    .
    I luv my gullible dream stuff, but I call it protoscience for reasons I have gone into before.
     
  8. losfomoT Unregistered User Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    125
    Please elaborate... I was under the impression that the exact opposite was true... the farther away we look, the more dense everything appears.

    And what do you mean our 'central observation point'? central to what?
     
  9. kaneda Actual Cynic Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,334
    AlphaNumeric. Supernova 1A are not trustworthy. It has been shown that something as insignificant as faster rotation can allow double the mass of extra material on the surface of a dwarf star before it explodes, so giving a wildly inaccurate reading of distance by luminosity. Local dust, gas clouds. Elemental makeup of material transferred. Temperature of said material, etc can make a difference. I did the FRW metric with you a while back. Memory going?

    Many thousands of people are studying creationism. Does that make it right? Extra dimensions are a mathsworld convenience to back up some wild ideas.

    To use your argument: At present there is no evidence that Pluto is a soap bubble. Give it time and who knows?

    The big bang is a largely discredited bunch of ideas hiding under one umbrella. People like you say it must be right but why?
     
  10. kaneda Actual Cynic Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,334
    quantum wave. Who knows what happens at such levels? We can only guess.

    Dark Energy is as full of holes as the BB idea. I can't understand how anyone can believe such obvious nonsense.

    Expansion is based on a series of beliefs which we ultimately cannot test.

    To me, strings are just too small. If they were say a hundredth, even a thousandth the size of an electron, I could believe in them.
     
  11. goose Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    158
    I know your not talking to me... but i always thought the BB idea was to just give a best idea of what might have happened... isnt that the purpose of this theory? not why it happened, but what may have happened

    im not trying to argue or anything, im just expressing what i thought the theory of the BB meant
     
  12. Vkothii Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,674
    Because of the geometry of the universe (whatever it actually is) we know we're here at the centre of our bit of it.
    So we aren't "at the centre of the universe", after all. Just the local part.
     
  13. StrangerInAStrangeLand SubQuantum Mechanic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,396
    Vkothii
    Nihil Exspectati sumus (3,370 posts)
    Yesterday, 01:59 AM #39

    “ Originally Posted by losfomoT
    Since when is there a decrease in density as a function of distance? ”

    Since the universe.
    We know it appears less dense at greater distances from our central observation point - how would you explain this apparent 'density gradient'?

    STRANGER ========== If the above is true & means anything, we must be at the center of THE UNIVERSE.
    1111
     
  14. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,702
    Source?
    You have never done any mathematical manipulation of metrics. You have denied it's validity in describing the universe. That isn't 'doing' it, that's the usual crank method of avoiding doing actual science, straight denial.

    Feel free to point me at a single post of yours where you demonstrate a working knowledge of quantitative physics though. I've asked this before and you've never managed to do it.
     
  15. Harro Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    113
    I think the confusion lies in that dark matter is used to explain the BBT so some infinite universe theorists flog it of as unobservable and therefore convoluted only to support the big bang. However science does find such anomaly exists.

    Dark matter can only be inferred indirectly and is thought to be matter that should exist and considered to be heavy neutrinos, elementary particles and clouds of non-luminous gas. Dark matter is believed to account for 80% of the missing universe.

    Infinite Universe theorists should not discard such scientific discoveries but include them. It’s how the discovery is interpreted that is the opposing view.
     
  16. StrangerInAStrangeLand SubQuantum Mechanic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,396
    If dark matter can only be inferred indirectly & is thought to be matter that "should" exist, it is not a discovery. At this time & place it is not a matter of interpretation. It hasn't been proven.
    1111
     
  17. Harro Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    113
    If you magnified a hydrogen atom so the necleus was the size of a basket ball the electron would be about 30 km away. So if you could imagine light traveling though the atom very little of the light energy would interact with it. How ever if the light had many atoms to travel though eventually most of the light will interact and be absorbed.ie higher energy states.

    How I understand Dark matter to be is particles in space that arn't close enough together to be detectable dirrectly but impart gravity and its the gravity that is detected but most of the light gets though. I speculate that if space has a temperature, A CMB of about 2.7degrees K you'll find particles in the vacuum that are so far apart light hardly interacts, however over billions of years the light has more and more chances of interaction which places limits on our telescopes field of view.
     
    Last edited: Nov 17, 2008
  18. TruthSeeker Fancy Virtual Reality Monkey Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,162
    Infinity is an abstract concept and not necessarily part of reality.
     
  19. Harro Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    113
    So you dont suport BBT then? Which estimates an infinite density and temperature at a Finite time.
     
  20. TruthSeeker Fancy Virtual Reality Monkey Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,162
    If you read me carefully you will notice I don't take any position on the matter.




    Though I don't see how an object can have infinite density.... :scratchin:
     
  21. Diode-Man Awesome User Title Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,372
    In the way of fractals. If a line goes halfway between two points in space, and another line is added that goes halfway between THAT etc etc, than one would never reach the destination....

    But that I think can only be applied in the mind.

    Since travel is generally non-instant, one can't travel to a destination in that manner.
     
  22. TruthSeeker Fancy Virtual Reality Monkey Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,162
    I see... you mean there are infinite numbers between 1 and 0... Isn't that Zeno's paradox?


    Anyways... so how exactly does that equate to infinite matter density?
     
  23. Betrayer0fHope MY COHERENCE! IT'S GOING AWAYY Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,311
    If there is a true fundamental particle(s), then I guess we would eventually reach our destination from what Diode-Man said.
     

Share This Page