My Cosmology

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience' started by river, Oct 23, 2018.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,502
    Forget I was even here☺ I posted upon a misinterpretation and upon realising my mistake removed what I had said and posted this explanation.
    Alex
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,960
    This kind of coalescence is a natural emergent property of gravity acting on dust and gas across intergalactic distances.
    It doesn't actually need anything beyond gravity and time to form these structures.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    The Cosmic Web has nothing to do with gravity and/nor time .

    The Cosmic Web has all to with an energy form that is not detected because it does not give off electromagnetic energy .

    The Quasar gave energy to the Cosmic Web , the Quasar heated up this Web , therefore is detected .

    The Quasar is the resultant from the Cosmic Web its self .
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,960
    In fact, it does.

    There's science behind it.
     
  8. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    That is their perspective , it is not proven as such , since gravity has such an extremely low efficacy level .

    But more importantly , in the Cosmic Web , there is no mass formed yet .
     
  9. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,960
    There is no such thing as 'proven' in science.

    What there is is a theory that has a great deal of evidence behind it.

    The gravity created by the masses of dust, gas and galaxies very nicely causes these filaments to form, without the need to introduce any mysterious - and un-evidenced - phenomena.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  10. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    Gravity had nothing to do with formation of galaxies

    Filaments are caused by high energy cold temps .

    Thats why they have been not detected , until recently .
     
  11. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    To reiterate from my post #63

    The Cosmic Web has nothing to do with gravity and/nor time .

    The Cosmic Web has all to with an energy form that is not detected because it does not give off electromagnetic energy .

    The Quasar gave energy to the Cosmic Web , the Quasar heated up this Web , therefore is detected .

    The Quasar is the resultant from the Cosmic Web its self .
     
  12. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,960
    This is all false.

    That's not to say that it's not River's Cosmology.

    Just that it's all false.
     
  13. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    Explain

    Don't hold back Dave

    Tell me what your thinking . More importantly , feel free to do so
     
  14. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,502
    Yes.
    However if the link up of gallaxies is akin to buttons on a string, I read about this onservation but I dont know of there is a paper, dont you think that is something rather special.
    I am not trying to suggest GR is wrong by the way but to say such an observation is no more than to be expected I find casual and non inquisitive.
    The way I understood it was we have a spiral gallaxy with its "usual" jets coming from what is believed to be a black hole in the center and these jets link to the next jet in the next gallaxy and so on and so on...is that not interesting and to understand why and what something that just may tell us more than we currently understand.
    I find it most interesting but have not looked at it for some time.
    What is going on seems a reasonable enquirey.
    Because it suggests a flow of material from one gallaxy to the next and so on.
    Alex
     
  15. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,502
  16. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,890
    There isn't anything outside the universe so talking about temperature outside the universe is meaningless.
    The universe is cooling because it is expanding.
     
  17. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,092
    What would be the temperature of nothing? Seems to me that in the absence of space the prevailing temperature of any permittive condition (nothingness) would be have to be absolute zero.
    Expansion itself causes cooling? Can you explain the Thermodynamics of that?
     
  18. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,890
    The temperature of nothing is meaningless. What is the length of nothing? How much does nothing weigh?
    It doesn't seem that way to me.
    There are a few ways to explain it. One way is that since there is a fixed amount of energy in the universe and the universe is expanding, over time there is less energy per unit volume. Less energy means lower temperatures.
     
    exchemist and Write4U like this.
  19. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,092
    It sounds weird, but from a certain perpective could we make an argument that there is a certain logic in equating nothingness with zero?

    The length of nothing is zero, the weight of nothing is zero, the temperature of nothing is zer0 K.

    If temperature permeates the universe, how can we have a zero temperature condition anywhere except in a permittive condition of nothingness?
    Google.

    When, as in definition, we reach a state where no heat energy remains in a substance, seems that E = Mc^2 would no longer hold. Then what's left? No energy, no matter?

    Perhaps a permittive nothingness which has no heat energy, but does permit kinetic energy
    such as an expanding universe?
     
    Last edited: Dec 2, 2018
  20. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,502
    There is no place where you find nothing...think what you find in the most empty part of space...radiation..make a list..background onwards.
    Alex
     
  21. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,092
    OK, but is the universe infinite? If it is not infinitely large, then the universe boundary stops somewhere, no? Perhaps no clear boundary, but a boundary nevertheless. Else how could it expand ? There has to be an extra-universal permittive condition, not space or time, just permittive.
     
  22. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,502
    Absolutely I checked recently.
    Infinite and eternal.
    No it is infinite.
    It is infinite you can add all you like to infinite and it remains infinite.
    Only to satisfy your view but there really is no need for that.
    Alex
     
  23. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,092
    I make a distinction between the "universe" (which has a defined size) and an infinite "permittive" condition, which has no defined size or geometric "physics" that control behaviors and is permittive of everything including expansion of the universe.

    OTOH, the universe is not permittive of everything. It acts in accordance with specific geometric and physical mathematical constants and equations.
    This last statement is a contradictory, IMO
    I believe the term "observable" is misused. 93 billion light years is not an observable distance. Let alone 250 times the current estimated size. It is a best estimate of what's there and how old and big it is.
    Therefore it cannot be infinite, because infinity is immeasurable and would be incompatible with any notion of a beginning (BB).
     
    Last edited: Dec 3, 2018
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page