My Cosmology

Status
Not open for further replies.
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
 
Xelasnave.1947 said:
I have read stuff that says gallaxies line up like buttons on a string...have you heard about that? In fact it seems the "string" is something...
Click to expand...
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.
 
DaveC426913 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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 .
 
river said:
That is their perspective , it is not proven as such , since gravity has such an extremely low efficacy level .
Click to expand...
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.

anim1.jpg
 
DaveC426913 said:
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.

anim1.jpg
Click to expand...

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 .
 
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 .
 
DaveC426913 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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
 
Write4U said:
On a more serious note, is it possible that absolute zero is not an aspect of the universe, but is a result of no temperature existing outside of the expanding universe.
Click to expand...
There isn't anything outside the universe so talking about temperature outside the universe is meaningless.
As the universe expands it is cooled by the complete absence of temperature, which translates into "absolute zero" relative to universal temperatures?
Click to expand...
The universe is cooling because it is expanding.
 
origin said:
There isn't anything outside the universe so talking about temperature outside the universe is meaningless.
Click to expand...
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.
The universe is cooling because it is expanding.
Click to expand...
Expansion itself causes cooling? Can you explain the Thermodynamics of that?
 
Write4U said:
What would be the temperature of nothing?
Click to expand...
The temperature of nothing is meaningless. What is the length of nothing? How much does nothing weigh?
Seems to me that in the absence of space the prevailing temperature of any permittive condition (nothingness) would be have to be absolute zero.
Click to expand...
It doesn't seem that way to me.
Expansion itself causes cooling? Can you explain the Thermodynamics of that?
Click to expand...
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.
 
origin said:
The temperature of nothing is meaningless. What is the length of nothing? How much does nothing weigh?
Click to expand...
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?
Absolute zero is the lowest possible temperature where nothing could be colder and no heat energy remains in a substance. ... By international agreement, absolute zero is defined as precisely; 0 K on the Kelvin scale, which is a thermodynamic (absolute) temperature scale; and –273.15 degrees Celsius on the Celsius scale.
Click to expand...
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:
Write4U said:
Perhaps a permittive nothingness which has no heat energy, but does permit kinetic energy
such as an expanding universe?
Click to expand...
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
 
Xelasnave.1947 said:
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
Click to expand...
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.
 
Write4U said:
but is the universe infinite
Click to expand...
Absolutely I checked recently.
Infinite and eternal.
Write4U said:
then the universe boundary stops somewhere, no?
Click to expand...
No it is infinite.
Write4U said:
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.
Click to expand...
It is infinite you can add all you like to infinite and it remains infinite.
Write4U said:
There has to be an extra-universal permittive condition, not space or time, just permittive.
Click to expand...
Only to satisfy your view but there really is no need for that.
Alex
 
Xelasnave.1947 said:
It is infinite you can add all you like to infinite and it remains infinite.
Click to expand...
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.
That is our best measurement for the radius of the observable Universe. Doubling it, of course, gives the diameter: 93 billion light years.
Click to expand...
The result, after using computer algorithms to look for meaningful patterns in the data, was a new estimate. The whole Universe is at least 250 times as large as the observable Universe.
Click to expand...
And where things get really complex is when we try to think about the Universe beyond that which is observable. The "whole" Universe, as it were. Depending on which theory of the shape of the Universe you prefer, the whole Universe could actually be finite or infinite.
Click to expand...
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:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top