Gravity never zero

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by Ivan, Dec 18, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. RealityCheck Banned Banned

    Messages:
    800
    .

    Good morning, origin. Thanks again for your response.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!




    Hehehe. Mate, I humbly submit that this particular 'some guy on the internet' is more advanced in Relativity Theory than you. And I am not the only one who treats his explanations with great respect. You'd be surprised who else takes note when he speaks on the subject!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    And do I detect a semblance of umbrage on your part because I 'question/test' the status quo whenever I wish to clarify that status quo for my own understanding?

    Mate, take a look at my nom-de-plume; it is "RealityCheck". That is my whole raison-detre.

    I question and check the 'accepted theory' just like EVERY scientist SHOULD at every opportunity where they feel the current explanations do not 'gel' consistently.

    In fact, the scientific method UNEQUIVOCALLY REQUIRES that we DO QUESTION?CHECK, and NEVER STOP DOING SO. I take the scientific method seriously. I suggest you do too and resist the temptation to slur indiscriminately all those who do follow it TO THE LETTER. I am not afraid to find out that we may have been wrong. But you seem to be terrified of that prospect and 'attack' me and paint me with your broad brush as someone who thinks "scientists cannot be trusted". You are patently wrong and indiscriminate there. I merely do what my nom-de-plume explains quite clearly.

    So please do not make all this 'personal', as all too many others are wont to do when they take the 'elitist' and 'arrogant' approach to scientific discourse. Thanks.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Anyhow, back to the point at hand....

    I am getting the impression that you think the astronomical/cosmological science is 'all settled' and there is nothing more to 'check' and 'learn' that may modify our current understandings/interpretations of the universe around us. If so, you are heading for a fall, mate. Even now in the latest observations regarding dark matter distribution/behaviour, there are many questions arising AMONGST THOSE VERY OBSERVERS, and all others in the relevant fields, that challenge the current 'accepted theory' in this area. So I am not the only one driven to try to make sense of the new observations in the context of what was 'known' before.

    So my own discussion/suggestion attempts here, towards coming up with a possible/necessary re-interpretation of what we observe 'of' large intergalactic distances and 'in' vast spaces, is no more or less valid than what is happening around you in the professional ranks.

    So I would appreciate you treating the discussion without personal attitudes/biases, without bringing into it your 'personal judgements' in lieu of keeping to the points/suggestions/questions posed in all seriousness and with all due respect to the current theory (which may of course turn out to be NOT as 'settled' OR as 'correctly interpreted' as you seem to think). Thanks.

    Cheers, origin. Back in a day or two!

    .
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Robittybob1 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,199
    For a starter see if you can get your head around the facts in "The Observable Universe" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_Universe .
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. RealityCheck Banned Banned

    Messages:
    800
    .

    Hi Robbitybob1.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    What if the universe was always infinite in 'extent'?

    And hence does not 'cycle' in 'extent', but only 'cycles' in energy/matter/space 'phases' WITHIN that pre-existing infinite 'extent' phenomenological 'arena' physical context.

    And just as James R points out, we only 'see' the VISIBLE EXTENT of our local bit of a much larger 'extent'. So we cannot say what is beyond our 'visibility horizon', or how far it 'extends'. It may extend to actual infinite extent overall and we just see the local 'phase changes' cycling through the full gamut of its physical process ranges/possibilities.

    In short, if the locally observed 'phase cycling' (not 'extent cycling') are merely part of a pre-existing infinite whole extent, then any LOCAL 'expansion' etc we 'observe/interpret' is in no way indicative of the 'size' of the whole universeas an infinite extent encompassing an infinite number of 'local processes/cycles' OBSERVABLE DOMAINS.

    So your statement about taking infinite 'time' to expand to infinite extent is moot IF the extent was ALWAYS infinite and any 'expansion' is only within 'visible extent' SUB-infinite DOMAINS like that which we 'see/interpret' around us.

    Cheers Rb1, everyone!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!





    PS: Here is a perfect illustration where 'cycling' occurs as part of a system never at 'equilibrium' overall. In much the same way that Quantum Theory observes that energy/matter may appear/disappear within the Quantum Vacuum 'overall' without ever being 'in equilibrium' and still not breaking 'energy conservation laws 'overall' etc etc., the whole (infinite?) universal extent support LOCALISED 'non-equilibrium' processes/phenomena which 'overall' do not imply anything about the extent of the universe BEYOND that local domain. Anyhow, you'll get the drift once you read more about such systems as 'analogies' for what is happening locally regarding visible universe 'phase cycling' due to localised non-equilibrium processes somewhat analogous to.....

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belousov-Zhabotinsky_reaction


    PPS: By the way, Belousov's story is yet another of all too many examples (from the history of science) where the arrogant 'established' scientists (to whom he presented his work for publication) would not even properly check out his work before REFUSING to publish his work. The established scientists apparently 'knew for certain' that what Belousov observed was 'impossible'. They 'knew it all' and acted just like some HERE and at other science sites by refusing to properly review before dismissing as 'impossible' or 'crank' etc etc. Yet another salutary lesson for those 'elitist know-it-alls' everywhere (but will each of those concerned take the lesson FOR THEMSELVES and be more humble/respectful about others views in future? Perhaps; perhaps not. The future will tell).

    .
     
    Last edited: Mar 5, 2012
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Robittybob1 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,199
    Like the Big Bang is but a local ripple the Infinite Extent. You know they start mentioning number like 10^80 light years (from memory) as the size of the Universe. That is bordering on our perception of infinity, where infinity becomes "unimaginably large" rather than infinite (never ending).
     
  8. RealityCheck Banned Banned

    Messages:
    800
    .

    Hi Rb1, everyone. I added a PS and PPS to my previous post. Please refer to it for further clarifying analogy/examples of what I meant about 'cycling phases' rather than 'cycling extent' etc. Also, provided was an example of what happens when scientists 'as a body' become arrogant 'know-it-alls' and just kneejerk/default to crying 'impossible' or 'crank' etc etc. without even discussing and checking out properly what is being presented. Thanks.

    .
     
  9. Emil Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,801
    It would be interesting to know what each understands by the word "universe" (the semantics of the word "universe")
    For me it is three-dimensional space plus time and everything that existed, exists and will exist in this three-dimensional space.
    I consider this three-dimensional space and time existed before the BB.
    You?
     
  10. Robittybob1 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,199
    I might have been like you Emil but now I just let the current theory (or theories) enter into my comprehension and I realise that what I had preconceived earlier is "wrong" today.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  11. hansda Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,424
    In this case also there can be only two possibilities , either our Universe was created as a tiny point with BB (option A) or our Universe pre-existed as a tiny point before BB (option B) . I dont think if there is any third option possible .

    Considering option A , this is contradicting the Law of Physics ; which says ' mass and energy neither can be created nor destroyed ' .

    Considering option B , this is contradicting GR .

    So, both the options are contradicting some Laws of Physics . Only ONE option has to be TRUE . We have to choose which option is TRUE .

    I think Planck's Time is basically an interval of time , which is still existing today ; as it was existing at the time of BB or earlier .

    Do you mean to say that , time 'zero' started from BB ?

    That means 'time' was pre-existing before BB .
     
  12. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    Not really. Energy neither can be created nor destroyed in our universe. So the creation of the universe would be outside of those bounds.

    Not really. GR does not work for the BB at time less than planks time. So the Big Bang is outside the bound of GR. So it does not contradict it, it just is not applicable.
     
  13. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    Well, who is the guy then, is it a secret?

    I certainly didn't mean to leave that impression. I just feel that unevidenced hand waving conjectures have no place in the process of scientific investigations. That sort of tripe is fine to discuss in the pseudo-science sections of internet forums.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  14. hansda Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,424
    TRUE .

    What do you mean by 'outside of those bounds' ? Is it 'outside universe' ?


    Considering the fact that , space started expanding from BB ; do you think , time also started expanding from BB or time existed before BB ? ( Earlier you said that , universe existed as a tiny point before BB . )
     
  15. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    According to your Case #1 there was no universe, so when the universe was created so was the energy in the universe.


    Got me?:shrug:
     
  16. Robittybob1 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,199
    When Oriigen said "universe existed as a tiny point before BB" it really means from the moment the BB commenced. Like we are still in the Big Bang aren't we? It hasn't finished yet!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  17. hansda Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,424
    Is it possible that BB can still happen at some time in future ?

    or,

    It is an one-time event and can never happen in future ?
     
  18. hansda Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,424
    Do you mean to say , our Universe was created much before BB and was remaining as a tiny point till BB ; whence this tiny point started expanding ?
     
  19. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    No, as I have said we do not have the ability currently to know anything about the universe before \(10^{-43}\) seconds. So the answer is that no one knows. It is ok to not know the answer what is not ok is to make one up. There are hypothesis about a bounce and so forth but these are highly speculative and how in the hell are you going to validate them?
     
  20. keith1 Guest

    Since the subject is gravity, and gravity is thought to separate out at the Big Bang event, or differentiate itself from the other three forces, at 1 Planck time. One can assume then a large gravitational force at this time.

    One can see in the present universe the largest gravitational galactic clusters (example: Bullet Cluster) where the dark matter is "connected" to the visible matter, and the latest (larger?) "multi-clusters", where the dark matter is bulking together, and seeming to be separating from the visible (normal) baryonic matter (in even larger-sized galactic cluster collision events)?

    Does anyone want have any comparative thoughts related to gravitational bulk of early universe and dark matter/baryonic matter separation or the attraction dynamics involved?
     
  21. OnlyMe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,914
    What about the Big Bang theory is not itself "highly speculative" and predominantly a made up projection of unconfirmed contemporary observations into a past no one can explain with certainty.

    The Big Bang is a theory, not proven fact. It gives us some kind of comfort to believe we know how things began, but the truth is we do not know and will most likely never know with certainty.

    Some of the contemporary observations we use to support the big bang are relatively certain and some are no more than guesses supported in some cases by circular reasoning.

    Ask this;

    How do we know the universe is expanding?

    How dependent upon the redshift in astronomical light sources, is the big bang theory?

    And then ask how many of the proposed mechanisms explaining the redshift in astronomical light sources are realistically confirmed?

    How many depend upon first accepting the Big Bang model.

    With the exception of perhaps gravitational redshift, most of the other mechanisms are believed to be, because the explainations seem to fit. But they also depend upon accepting the model they explain.

    The Big Bang is a theory....! It has become widely accepted as fact, rather than theory, but then there was a time when a flat earth was, a widely accepted as fact and a time where the contemporay consensus of opinion was that the earth itself was "the center of the universe". The wind, rain, sun and moon etc. were all, at one time the responsibility of spirits and gods.

    It seems to me a bit incredible to expect that we know with any certainty what happen at, during or just after "the big bang", when we are almost weekly discovering that what we thought we knew about other less specualtive areas, is different than we thought.

    How often have we learned that what we expected is not what we found to be. Water on the moon and mars........

    I am not saying that the "Big Bang" did not happen, though personnally I do not see it as something known without reservation, it is a theory. What I am saying once again is that, it is important to keep in mind the difference between what has been proven and what is believed to be.

    We too often lose touch with what we "think and believe" and what we know. Sometimes this is of little concern and sometimes it limits our ability to see what "is", when the time come that what it "is", is within our reach.

    We do have a theoretical basis of knowledge that can be projected back in such a way that it susgessts the universe began with the "Big Bang". We cannot prove that and even the theoretical knowledge we use to support it, is stretched and changes by experiment and observation, within a much more immediate time scale tha. The "Big Bang".
     
  22. OnlyMe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,914
    Though, my primary interest is in inertia and gravitation, and I begin or began from a generally classical understanding of special and general relativity, over the past several year, while reviewing ideas presented mostly from a starting point involving quantum mechanics, I have begun to tend toward a "belief" that both gravity and interia are emergent phenomena. This would tend to suggest that "if" the big bang theory is correct, both inertia and gravitation emerged at some point after the initial big bang event and were likely not contributory mechanisms leading to the "big bang".

    Keep in mind, I am not entirely sure myself, that the big bang is descriptive of the evolution of the universe. At least not as it is commonly understood to have occurred. Call me an agnotistic on the actual origin of what is.
     
  23. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    I would not say that it is highly speculative. There is the redshift, the mass distribution of atoms, CMB among others, that all indicate that the BB is a sound theory.

    Who every thought it was a fact. It is a well tested and robust theory.

    Primarily the redshift.

    Somwhat.

    The proposed mechanism that the universe is expanding explains it extremely well.

    None that I know of.

    I disagree the redshift leads to the big bang not the other way around.

    Many lay people mistake theory as fact. I think your examples have a bit less evidence than the Big Bang.

    The BB theory is by far the best theory that fits the evidence that we have - where is this rant coming from?

    Often.

    You keep saying that it is a theory like this is some sort of revelation.:shrug:

    Speak for yourself and do not project on others.

    Hope you feel better now.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page