Collapse of the universe is closer than ever before

So "In effect, the Universe we see from Earth in all directions, is the same as the Universe seen from a planet in a galaxy a million L/years away" even if the observers on that planet are experiencing "gravitational lensing/warping at its most severest".
Though any information about the "gravitational lensing/warping at its most severest","could never be relayed outside".

...got daft?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

paddoboy

For the last decade or so we've known the Expansion is starting to accelerate, there's energy being put into pushing blobs of matter apart. One of the largest structures in the Universe is a void billions of years in size(it's kind of lumpy and stretched)that has virtually nothing in it, the matter having been pushed into clumps and a spider web like consistency...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

This is a computer image of what we see in large scale(2BX2Bx2B), it is synthetic but representative of what we see in the Universe today. You can see the voids forming like big bubbles in foam. They are being formed by DE pushing the matter, which, when it becomes gravity bound with other matter, cannot be pushed apart as effectively(DE seems weaker than gravity at less than intergalactic distances)and gathers into filaments and clumps(probably should call them rivers as the most massive clumps pull additional matter along those filaments and at the junctures monsters grow fat). We've actually seen a 32 billion solar mass BH sitting just 2 billion years from the beginning. It scares Cosmologists into insomnia to estimate just how big that monster is today. Our galaxy has about 4 billion S TOTAL, that one single object was nearly 10 times the mass of our whole galaxy 10 billion years ago and sitting at a major intersection of gas and galaxy streams. It's event horizon would be the size of Saturn's orbit. I've heard one estimate of 200-400 B, but he barely broke a sweat, we couldn't get any coherent answer from most and some ran screaming from the room.

And if we are correct, it means the Universe, which has been appearing as if it is flat(some argue that the early period looks like a closed Universe)has actually begun an acceleration in it's rate that will blow it open, over time. That energy, when calculated, would represent 70% of the mass in the Universe(energy and mass are two sides of the same coin). It really will make no difference, the lights are going out in a few 10s of billions of years anyway. The Universe would be nearly exactly flat if not for DE. So it seems the Universe has evolved from a gravity dominated early period to a balanced period that looks flat but in the last few billion years that rate has been increasing as matter has clumped together in larger and larger concentrations(we, thankfully, are not yet fully involved, we live in the sticks, galactically). In about 5 billion years Andromeda will swallow our galaxy, probably forming an elliptical, but we are the two biggest galaxies in the local group. But compared to Abell we are a cul-de-sac in the suburbs of Los Angeles. The Universe is kinda big, with some big scary things in it that I am glad are not anywhere near us. But it's fascinating to study, and today anyone can access high quality Astronomy from a laptop that Edwin Hubble would have murdered for(all those cold nights on a mountaintop, in the unheated telescope housing, likely as not "riding" the guide scope, not daring to move enough to shake the telescope, constantly watching just one star in the crosshairs for the slightest movement, through exposures lasting hours, then changing film and doing it for a few more, making meticulous and exceedingly accurate notes for each plate, by hand and pen, in near darkness, the calculations and corrections for time. Brutal work).

Grumpy

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Lets speculate.

We know that there was a 32 billon Sol mass BH 2 billion years after the beginning. I think if we ever learn to see past the CMB and into the fog, we will find BHs waiting in there, big ones. A BH doesn't care what it is eating, energy is mass just like matter is mass. And early in time the Universe was already very dense. The supermassive BH we see today at the center of almost all galaxies probably started very early.

So let's give our monster 10 billion Sols to start, it took it 2 billion years to eat 22 more billion. 11 Billion per billion years. But the Universe is not quite so dense throughout it's history, though the later it is the more clumpy and that feeds the BH in a concentrated manner. Let's say it averages 5 billion per billion years, times ten billion means a 70-80 billion Sol monster, fully 20 times the mass of our whole galaxy. If the concentration maintains 11 billion per billion years we have 130-140 billion. If the clumping feeds the BH more and more over time then 200-400 billion is a good estimate. But some think the increased clumping will feed it more and more exponentially as DE pushes the clumps together and bigger BHs merge(monsters that eat monsters are what?:jason

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

. There is no limit to the size if that is what has been going on. No wonder they ran screaming.

Grumpy

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Bingo!!! Nearly right.....It looks the same in all directions, obviously it is not the same patch of space and time, which seems to be the ridiculous idea you are trying to misinterprete.

Now here's where you need to put that thinking cap on dmoe....Gravitational lensing at its severest would only be found in BH's by someone looking out.
But there is no way anyone could relay that message to anyone outside obviously.
A planet, a solar system, a galaxy, would not create anywhere near such effects in such a concentrated area......
Mass and density, and of course gravity are the prime building blocks.


Now what do we mean by Isotropy and homegeneity?.....

Isotropy means there are no special directions to the Universe, homogeneous means there are no special places in the Universe.

Again, while these two definitions appear similar, they describe very different properties to the Universe as a whole. For example, if the Universe is isotropic then this means you will see no difference in the structure of the Universe as you look in different directions. When viewed on the largest scales, the Universe looks the same to all observers and the Universe looks the same in all directions as viewed by a particular observer. Homogeneity, when viewed on the largest scales, means that the average density of matter is about the same in all places in the Universe and the Universe is fairly smooth on large scale.

An isotropic Universe also means that there is no `center' to the Universe.The Universe appears the same from any position.
Isotropy is also applied in its fullest meaning when speaking of the BB. In other words there is no centre that one can point to as where the BB happened.
It happened everywhere at the same time, simply because, [as I so often put to rivers] the BB was an evolution of space and time, in the first instant.
A much asked question that one receives from lay people.

I hope that helps with your confusion.

 

paddoboy, are not all theories simply the result of "Thought Experiments" - that are then tested by the limited "Physical Experiments" that we are able to perform to assess the validity of the Theories?

So, paddoboy, in the "thought experiment" quoted first ^^above^^, would not the observations, perceptions and calculations based on the frame of reference of scientists on a planet in a galaxy a million L/years away inside the EH of a BH, be different than the frame of reference on Earth?
How can you fail to understand that simple "thought experiment"?

Then...!?!?!?

paddoboy, you exclaim "Bingo", and go on to explain that YOUR OWN QUOTED WORDS ARE "NEARLY RIGHT" ?!

paddoboy, my "thinking cap" has continuously been on.

So, paddoboy, "A much asked question that one receives from lay people." Am I mistaken in that you claimed to be a "layman", yourself? Or are you indeed a Scientist?

And speaking of "confusion" how exactly does your idea of "Isotropy and homegeneity(sic)" fit with what Grumpy Posted :

Yeah, paddoboy, homogeneous - consistently appearing to be exactly the same everywhere and anywhere we look!?!?

But, then again, paddoboy, everyone/anyone else but you suffers from confusion - even seemingly a "reputable Poster" - so there is no need to read, consider or even make the tiniest attempt to understand or comprehend...anything...on your part, is there, paddoboy?!

 

dumbest man on earth

Not exactly the same, but the same in character. The Universe started out EXACTLY the same, differences have accumulated for 13 billion years, but the Universe is still the same in character wherever you look. You will see the same clumps and filaments all around us throughout space.

Rant on.

Grumpy

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

In reality, I'm sure the troll recognises that fact.......There are other forces [not cosmological forces] involved here.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

But anyway, a nice cut n paste from WIKI to illustrate what we mean............

In modern physical cosmology, the cosmological principle is an axiom that embodies the working assumption or premise that the distribution of matter in the universe is homogeneous and isotropic when viewed on a large enough scale, since the forces are expected to act uniformly throughout the universe, and should, therefore, produce no observable irregularities in the large scale structuring over the course of evolution of the matter field that was initially laid down by the Big Bang.
Astronomer William Keel explains:
The cosmological principle is usually stated formally as 'Viewed on a sufficiently large scale, the properties of the Universe are the same for all observers.' This amounts to the strongly philosophical statement that the part of the Universe which we can see is a fair sample, and that the same physical laws apply throughout. In essence, this in a sense says that the Universe is knowable and is playing fair with scientists.[1]
The cosmological principle contains three implicit qualifications and two testable consequences. The first implicit qualification is that "observers" means any observer at any location in the universe, not simply any human observer at any location on Earth: as Andrew Liddle puts it, "the cosmological principle [means that] the universe looks the same whoever and wherever you are."[2]
The second implicit qualification is that "looks the same" does not mean physical structures necessarily, but the effects of physical laws in observable phenomena. Thus, wavelength ratios observed for different ionic species in the absorption spectra of quasi stellar objects (QSO or quasars) place a limit on any variation in the fine-structure constant to less than 1 part in 1 million out to a distance in space (and time) of z = 3 (about 6500 megaparsecs or 11.5 billion light years); as the fine-structure constant is determined by the relation between the speed of light (c), Planck's constant (h) and the electron charge (e), these physical constants are constrained as well.[1]
The third qualification, related to the second, is that variation in physical structures can be overlooked, provided this does not imperil the uniformity of conclusions drawn from observation: the sun is different from the Earth, our galaxy is different from a black hole, some galaxies advance toward rather than recede from us, and the universe has a "foamy" texture of galaxy clusters and voids, but none of these different structures appears to violate the basic laws of physics.
WIKI:

Any theory/assumption/model can be misinterpreted when logic and common sense are thrown out the window......Having an agenda [as the troll does] will make sure that misinterpretation is taken to the nth degree.

 

Below is a snippet from : http://www.protoquant.com/cosmic-mi...d-the-general-problem-of-blackbody-radiation/

Please read the remainder at : http://www.protoquant.com/cosmic-mi...d-the-general-problem-of-blackbody-radiation/

Should Nicolae Mazilu be considered Reputable?

Are his ideas Mainstream or Anti-Mainstream?

Does his perception or considered opinion hold any Validity?

Is Nicolae Mazilu a "Research Scientist", a "Crank/Crackpot" or "Confused"?

 

Difficult question for me to answer, I'll let someone else give his view.
I would add though just to clarify any probable misconception.....

Many of these theories are clearly absurd, but some have a veneer of possibility. How can we distinguish between the amusing eccentrics, the honestly misguided, the avaricious litigants and the serious sceptics questioning a premature consensus?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2897118/


Added to that and as I have stated many times, is the usual anti mainstream nutter and general troll, where any necessary deciphering and sifting from the honest critic/genuine alternative theorist is generally far easier to achieve.

 

and of course, Scientists do change their ideas in response to new evidence, perhaps more often than people in most walks of life

…allowing the conspiracy theorists to dominate the public debate can have tragic consequences.

 

Not much on this bloke called Nicolae Mazilu but did find a paper of his entitled "Case Against the Existence of a Supermassive Black Hole in the Center of Milky Way" .
Hmmmmm, I say, Hmmmmmmm

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Could be a Maverick of some persuasion????

 

Which one? There were 4 questions!
If you were able to read, comprehend, fully understand and fully consider the article at the Link in 21 minutes - you should be able to answer at least one of the questions.

Of course you will.

Maybe...by the serious application of Science Methodology, as simple Logic would dictate?
A method that has sufficed for at least a millennium.

Yeah...Yeah...Yeah...never forget to add the seemingly obligatory puerile flourish.

 

But sometimes difficult for the complete raw layman/closet anti mainstreamer/bleeding heart such as yourself.

Most certainly, …allowing the conspiracy theorists to dominate the public debate can have tragic consequences.

 

tmh : http://www.linkedin.com/pub/nicolae-mazilu/14/b52/683
http://www.protoquant.com/#!
http://ezinearticles.com/?expert=Nicolae_Mazilu
Also :
- quote : Method of predicting mechanical behavior of polymers
Abstract

A method of determining performance characteristics and/or internal structural features of hyperelastic polymer materials includes performing at least one macro-level loading experiment on a sample comprised of a given composition. From the macro-level loading experiment, a set of internal structural features are determined. More particularly, tensile and compressive uniaxial loading data is collected and fit with a stress-strain function being a ratio of two polynomials. A curve fit analysis yields a set of coefficients relating the uniaxial loading data to the stress-strain function. From these coefficients, a set of statistical parameters are calculated, yielding information about internal microstructural features of the polymer composition, and therefore, performance characteristics of a part comprised of the given polymer composition. Inventors: Mazilu; Nicolae (Silver Lake, OH)
Assignee: Bridgestone Firestone North American Tire, LLC (Nashville, TN)
Appl. No.: 11/065,522
Filed: February 23, 2005 : unquote -
from : http://www.patents.com/us-7203604.html

 

It doesn't hide the fact though that he also has a paper suggesting the invalidity of SMBH's........
I would love to see any evidence falsifying mainstream SMBH cosmology, and/or any evidnce at all suggesting any other type of phenomena.

The papers also appeared to have been published 4 or 5 years ago, and It appears there has been no follow up, suggesting of course the possible invalidity of said papers.

 

Did you Read The Paper, to inspect any evidence that he may have provided?

Yeah, I noticed the dates : March 2nd, 2010 - May 6th -2011 - July 9th, 2011 - July 10th, 2011 - June 27th, 2012 - October 16th, 2012 - April 24th, 2013.

Good catch, paddoboy, I would have never even imagined they were 4 or 5 years old.

 

I'll let mainstream reputable peer review take care of that.....Which by their silence it appears they have.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I'll put my trust in that process .

 

Plus of course we do also have papers supporting the status quo of a SMBH existing at the MW's centre [or thereabouts for my pedant friend]

http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-18534-2_40#page-1


http://www.ias.ac.in/jarch/jaa/20/165-185.pdf

 

Once again, just from the limited info I have this joker does appear to be somewhat of a Maverick....That term could also have been applied to another otherwise great man in Fred Hoyle, who refuted accepted BB cosmology.
I wouldn't put the current joker in Fred's class though.

 

So...that is how "mainstream reputable peer review" works?

I guess you have a point though. Why make up your own mind about anything, when you can "trust" someone else to make up your own mind for you.