Notices
Results 1 to 33 of 33

Thread: Can accepted theories of the Universe be 99% wromg?

  1. #1 Can accepted theories of the Universe be 99% wromg? 
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Chicago Area
    Posts
    101
    What if the observable universe is not real? If our Universe is finite, the light from it does not escape but would continue to travel and be observable again and again. Wait... stay with me on this. What if the images we observe are truly replicated images bouncing around the universe? Yeah, they appear different from one another but may be explainable. Say the image we currently have of the most distant Galaxy is in fact only an image of a close neighboring galaxy as it looked 12 billion years ago that has moved across the universe and lined itself up with the earth? What if the Universe was not expanding but only appeard to be expanding because the matter we observe is not real? What if there are only a billion stars in the universe and the other trillion gazillion are only images of light circumnavigating through space, following the curvature of the Universe and back again? How would we detect just any light we observe from a real light source?

    Maybe this would somehow relate to why dark matter & energy seem so mysterious?

    Do we just assume that every light we observe in the sky is from a primary source as opposed to a secondary source or maybe even an infinite number of sources?

    Am I insane or just in dire need a tall cold icy cocktail? Hell, it's after 4p here.


    .................................................. ...............
    The truth is difficult to obtain.
    They conceal it in books.
    *************************************
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    21
    Well, you can't say either way that you are right or wrong...
    This is really not explanable in most cases...

    BUT, this is just a question i have,
    Is life a series of coincidences, then,
    if every time you turn on your night light, light is bouncing off, and it is not a primary source of light, and if light can travel across the universe, why can't a candle light up a ballroom?
    Your theory may be right...
    It probably is wrong...
    The universe is very hard to explain,
    and what is beyond it is even harder to explain...
    IF, the universe is finite, would the edge be able to bounce away light...
    there are a lot of holes in that theory that need to be filled...


    SCIENCE BOWL RULES AND SO DOES FUEL CELL CAR RACE
    IF ANY OF YOU HAVE HEARD OF IT
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Professor sunshinewarrior's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,525
    What you speak of sounds a bit like Descartes' problem regarding the reality of phenomena/perception, but if that's the case this might more properly belong in the philosophy section.

    One thing about perceptual illusions, though: the only way in which we can conceive of illusions is by the consideration of a notion, and experience of, some thing or things that are not illusions.

    If, as you propose, the universe is a lot smaller than we imagine, then I suspect that this would show up in considerations of dark matter, or the so-called 'missing mass' of the universe. Some cosmologists seem to believe that the slowing down of the expansion rate of the universe is due to matter we cannot see. If the universe were actually a lot smaller, would this resolve the issue or make it worse?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by sunshinewarrio
    Some cosmologists seem to believe that the slowing down of the expansion rate of the universe is due to matter we cannot see.
    The current consensus view is that the expansion is accelerating.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Senior miomaz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    302
    Maybe the universe doesn't follow the laws which you think it follows, but matter snaps to random places, forming every so and then a brain, a thought, but then falls appart again. Maybe all your memories are a random constulation of matter in a randomized univers without laws.
    It has the same probability as the way nowerdays scientists see the universe and Einsteins Theories.

    This is where you will have to choose what you believe, do you belive in a universe of laws and order, or do you belive in a universe without law or nature?

    you choose,
    I haven't come to fight my word, but to find the truth.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Professor sunshinewarrior's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,525
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by sunshinewarrio
    Some cosmologists seem to believe that the slowing down of the expansion rate of the universe is due to matter we cannot see.
    The current consensus view is that the expansion is accelerating.
    This too is true...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Chicago Area
    Posts
    101
    Quote Originally Posted by sunshinewarrio
    If, as you propose, the universe is a lot smaller than we imagine, then I suspect that this would show up in considerations of dark matter, or the so-called 'missing mass' of the universe. Some cosmologists seem to believe that the slowing down of the expansion rate of the universe is due to matter we cannot see. If the universe were actually a lot smaller, would this resolve the issue or make it worse?
    I am not proposing anything. I am posing some questions, that's all. I briefly mentioned dark matter and dark energy. I remember reading that dark matter and dark energy variables were inserted into mathamatical expressions to help account for missing information in the universe. Apparently the acceptance of dark matter and dark energy theories are largely based on using these variables to resolve equations that are used to account for ALL information in the universe.

    This being said, my first thought; is the universe really much smaller than we perceive it? Are we looking for something that does not exist to account for all missing information? Is the universe smaller? If it is smaller, what would account for its perception to be so large?
    .................................................. ...............
    The truth is difficult to obtain.
    They conceal it in books.
    *************************************
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Ph.D. Wolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    969
    Quote Originally Posted by ajg624
    What if the observable universe is not real?
    Depends on your definition of real. The universe is merely an illusion created by our perception of observation and sensation. That's as far as we can tell, since this is a reaction of our own sensation and interpretation.


    Quote Originally Posted by ajg624
    If our Universe is finite, the light from it does not escape but would continue to travel and be observable again and again. Wait... stay with me on this. What if the images we observe are truly replicated images bouncing around the universe? Yeah, they appear different from one another but may be explainable. Say the image we currently have of the most distant Galaxy is in fact only an image of a close neighboring galaxy as it looked 12 billion years ago that has moved across the universe and lined itself up with the earth?
    This all assumes a lot. The universe isn't (or, at least, hasn't shown to be) like some kind of Rowland circle. In either case, it may be argued that the universe expands at the leading edge of light, and if that is the case, it still doesn't mean the light is coming back. Infinite can be infinitely away, so much as it can be circular.

    The other problem is that the observations don't necessarily show any kind of regularity between objects. Sure, we have lots of the various classes of objects, but none so similar that we could say they might be optical refractions or diffractions (except in the cases that we know they are).

    Quote Originally Posted by ajg624
    What if the Universe was not expanding but only appeard to be expanding because the matter we observe is not real?
    Does that make any difference? It being "real" or not? If the observed matter was merely an illusory image based on the reflection and/or presence of other, real matter, what would its impact be? For instance, if it was a reflection, would it not show the behavior of the originating matter? Now, that said, if the reflection is expanding but the actual matter is shrinking, we should be able to calculate the opposite and figure out just where that actual matter would be at this moment in time. Not as in "it's over there" but more along the lines of "it's back to the BB moment." If the universe is showing x-years of expansion, is there enough left over between now and collapse?

    Quote Originally Posted by ajg624
    What if there are only a billion stars in the universe and the other trillion gazillion are only images of light circumnavigating through space, following the curvature of the Universe and back again?
    Assuming the universe is curved...how would we account for the delineation of the observable objects? We don't, for instance, see repeating patterns of distance.

    Go find a mirror. How far away is the wall behind you, in the reflection? Now, put a mirror behind you. You get new sets of images relating to the real subjects (yourself, etc) but there's a measurable uniformity, isn't there?

    That's extremely simplistic, but maybe it helps...

    Quote Originally Posted by ajg624
    How would we detect just any light we observe from a real light source?
    You can't, but then again you can potentially measure the reflections relationship to the real environment.

    Imagine your hall-of-mirrors again. Assume the universe is a spherical mirror, surrounding real matter. How do you know what is the reflection and what is the source? Further, how would you get an expansion? If you assume the mirror sphere is slowly getting larger, the reflected images would appear to be showing an expansion, but at the same time you're not only describing an expanding universe, but the reflections change according to the expansion. Also, the universe's matter isn't expanding away from the "center" so much as it is expanding away from each other (each object is expanding away from each other object).

    Quote Originally Posted by ajg624
    Maybe this would somehow relate to why dark matter & energy seem so mysterious?
    Not really.

    Quote Originally Posted by ajg624
    Do we just assume that every light we observe in the sky is from a primary source as opposed to a secondary source...
    Not anymore, but given the nature of the problem we are on the look-out for reflections, refractions, diffractions, etc. Often they are detectable by observations (duplication patterns) and calculation (gravitational refractions, etc).

    Quote Originally Posted by ajg624
    ...or maybe even an infinite number of sources?
    Careful with the use of "infinite"...


    Quote Originally Posted by thacheezinator
    and if light can travel across the universe...
    Theoretically light can do this, however in reality its not so simple. There's a lot of matter in-between one "end" of the universe and the other. The chances for a bit of light to travel from one end to the other without being absorbed or effected is incredibly small, if possible at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by thacheezinator
    ...why can't a candle light up a ballroom?
    In a way, it can, and in some places, does...to a degree. It depends on the ballroom's ability to reflect (bounce) the light. Take a candle into a ballroom in Windsor Castle and you'll get far less illumination than if you take a candle into the a ballroom at Catherine Palace. Will one candle light the whole room adequately for a ball? No. The amount of light being introduced into the "system" is insufficient, and much of it tends to be "lost" to absorption anyway.


    Quote Originally Posted by sunshinewarrio
    What you speak of sounds a bit like Descartes' problem regarding the reality of phenomena/perception, but if that's the case this might more properly belong in the philosophy section.
    Just so long as no one goes around kicking sheep... :P

    Quote Originally Posted by sunshinewarrio
    If, as you propose, the universe is a lot smaller than we imagine, then I suspect that this would show up in considerations of dark matter, or the so-called 'missing mass' of the universe. Some cosmologists seem to believe that the slowing down of the expansion rate of the universe is due to matter we cannot see. If the universe were actually a lot smaller, would this resolve the issue or make it worse?
    Unfortunately observation isn't showing the universe slowing down, but instead gaining speed. This inexplicable increase in expansion is the basis of the arguments around dark-matter and dark-energy.

    If the universe's observed size is merely an illusion, we could technically ignore "gaps" and re-scale our experiments to a size that might exclude the need for DM and DE. However, to my knowledge, such experiments have already been run, and have failed miserably. I think there's no denying that there's more out there than simple illusions of light. :P


    Quote Originally Posted by miomaz
    Maybe the universe doesn't follow the laws which you think it follows, but matter snaps to random places, forming every so and then a brain, a thought, but then falls appart again. Maybe all your memories are a random constulation of matter in a randomized univers without laws.
    It has the same probability as the way nowerdays scientists see the universe and Einsteins Theories.

    This is where you will have to choose what you believe, do you belive in a universe of laws and order, or do you belive in a universe without law or nature?
    Eh, the first bit is more a concept of perception. The later bit smacks more of quantum physics and even string-theory. Obviously the first bit is interpretational, but the later bit wouldn't necessarily destroy any hopes for a realization of the mechanics.

    Quote Originally Posted by ajg624
    Apparently the acceptance of dark matter and dark energy theories are largely based on using these variables to resolve equations that are used to account for ALL information in the universe.
    It's not as farcical as it might seem. The study of DM and DE is proving difficult do to its assumed nature, however just like anything we can't readily "touch" we can detect it and work with it indirectly. For instance, we can't see or touch gravity, but we can work with it through its effects on objects. It's a new field of study (relatively) but when the calculations begin matching the observations...
    Wolf
    ---------------------------------------------------------
    "Be fair with others, but then keep after them until they're fair with you." Alan Alda
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9 Re: Can accepted theories of the Universe be 99% wromg? 
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by ajg624
    What if the observable universe is not real? If our Universe is finite, the light from it does not escape but would continue to travel and be observable again and again. Wait... stay with me on this. What if the images we observe are truly replicated images bouncing around the universe? Yeah, they appear different from one another but may be explainable. Say the image we currently have of the most distant Galaxy is in fact only an image of a close neighboring galaxy as it looked 12 billion years ago that has moved across the universe and lined itself up with the earth? What if the Universe was not expanding but only appeard to be expanding because the matter we observe is not real? What if there are only a billion stars in the universe and the other trillion gazillion are only images of light circumnavigating through space, following the curvature of the Universe and back again? How would we detect just any light we observe from a real light source?

    Maybe this would somehow relate to why dark matter & energy seem so mysterious?

    Do we just assume that every light we observe in the sky is from a primary source as opposed to a secondary source or maybe even an infinite number of sources?

    Am I insane or just in dire need a tall cold icy cocktail? Hell, it's after 4p here.
    Although what you say makes sense with the BBT concept, It fails because there would be a lot of reflections of known galaxies that would be recognizable and this would be detected by now.

    Your views have also endorsed the BBT and the 'curvature of space' that I have replaced with the SSU that complies with all the Laws of Physics, experiments and observations.

    So with the SSU, your idea could not exist.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Chicago Area
    Posts
    101
    Cosmo:
    It fails because there would be a lot of reflections of known galaxies that would be recognizable and this would be detected by now.
    I am not convinced a reflected light source of this nature would project at 360 degrees as our star does. Observation would then be extremely random which could account for the infrequent amount of observable reflected galaxies. However, with virtually an endless number of galaxies detectable and obserable today, I wouldn't go as far as saying, "there would be a lot more known galaxies that would be recognizable."

    So with the SSU, your idea could not exist.
    SSU supporters decreased rapidly with the discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation, and today only a very small number of supporters remain.
    .................................................. ...............
    The truth is difficult to obtain.
    They conceal it in books.
    *************************************
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Ph.D. Wolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    969
    Quote Originally Posted by ajg624
    I am not convinced a reflected light source of this nature would project at 360 degrees as our star does. Observation would then be extremely random which could account for the infrequent amount of observable reflected galaxies. However, with virtually an endless number of galaxies detectable and obserable today, I wouldn't go as far as saying, "there would be a lot more known galaxies that would be recognizable."
    I think that on any scale, the resulting "illusion" created by the reflecting/diffracting images would be largely detectable without much need for scrutiny.

    Imagine that the "true" galaxy consists of 100 different colored marbles, and that these marbles were reflected in such a way as to create the illusion of 1-million marbles. Although in the picture we would see many seemingly random scatterings of marbles, those positions and colors could be brought into comparison with each other based upon the understandings of how such reflections are made. When you decompile the image back through its construction, what do you end up with?

    Further, in the observations that have been made, given the physics that have been observed, the observations increasingly leads towards a "true" universe that is so massively complex and diverse that we have yet to wittiness a point at which a reflection seems possible. Therefore, either the universe is truly as it appears, or we are not in a position to actually see the reflections.
    Wolf
    ---------------------------------------------------------
    "Be fair with others, but then keep after them until they're fair with you." Alan Alda
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by ajg624
    Cosmo:
    It fails because there would be a lot of reflections of known galaxies that would be recognizable and this would be detected by now.
    I am not convinced a reflected light source of this nature would project at 360 degrees as our star does. Observation would then be extremely random which could account for the infrequent amount of observable reflected galaxies. However, with virtually an endless number of galaxies detectable and obserable today, I wouldn't go as far as saying, "there would be a lot more known galaxies that would be recognizable."

    So with the SSU, your idea could not exist.
    SSU supporters decreased rapidly with the discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation, and today only a very small number of supporters remain.
    The BBT is a 'creation out of nothing'.

    The CMBR is more likely to be a result of the 'thermlization of the space particles, gases and star dust according to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics that states that heat can only be transferred from 'hot to cold' regions until a thermolized temperature is reached.
    The CMBR is a thermolized temperature that departs by only 7/100,000 of a Kelvin.
    I would say this is equal enough.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Ph.D. Wolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    969
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    The BBT is a 'creation out of nothing'.
    Eh, not really. The "seed" of the BB (or the primal singularity) isn't exactly nothing, depending on what theory you follow.
    Wolf
    ---------------------------------------------------------
    "Be fair with others, but then keep after them until they're fair with you." Alan Alda
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by Wolf
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    The BBT is a 'creation out of nothing'.
    Eh, not really. The "seed" of the BB (or the primal singularity) isn't exactly nothing, depending on what theory you follow.
    There is no consensus as to what was there at the start of the BBT that is not an explosion.

    So, we have a start from 'time zero' with 'super gravity', then there is the 'black hole advocates, singularity advocates, spacetime advocates, the biblical creationists and Lemaitraes prival atom.

    So when you put all these together, what have you got? Confision!
    So to me, that means nothing.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    42
    If there actually was a "bang" when the Big Bang happened (which I doubt there was so I call it the Monumental Poof), perhaps we are yet to hear it. If we ever did, it would be really, really loud. LOL
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Ph.D. Wolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    969
    Quote Originally Posted by uncommonman
    If there actually was a "bang" when the Big Bang happened (which I doubt there was so I call it the Monumental Poof), perhaps we are yet to hear it. If we ever did, it would be really, really loud. LOL
    Given our position, any such "bang" preceded us, so we would not be likely to experience it.
    Wolf
    ---------------------------------------------------------
    "Be fair with others, but then keep after them until they're fair with you." Alan Alda
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    42
    It would be kind of like trying to listen to someone whispering to you from the side of the road when you are in a car a mile away and speeding away from that individual.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Ph.D. Wolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    969
    Actually, it would be more like being asleep through an explosion, then waking up after it and expecting to hear the explosion.
    Wolf
    ---------------------------------------------------------
    "Be fair with others, but then keep after them until they're fair with you." Alan Alda
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    42
    Well no, my good Wolf. Being "asleep" would imply that we somehow stopped in time. Upon our awaking, we could see the "damage" left behind and possibly follow it to the original event. I am saying that we are travelling away from that event faster than when it first occurred.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Ph.D. Wolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    969
    Quote Originally Posted by uncommonman
    Being "asleep" would imply that we somehow stopped in time.
    Huh...? Where the heck did you pull that out of?

    If you're inside the "ring" of a passed, infinitely expanding sound wave, how long will it be before the sound wave reaches you?



    In my example, the person was asleep while the sound-wave passed over them, and woke up after. If that person woke up and expected to hear the explosion, it's too late.

    If I really need to spell out that example in terms of the Earth, then it goes like this: The initial blast wave of the BB proceeded the Earth, so the Earth is not in a position to receive the blast. The blast has passed.

    Although this is largely speculative, since sound doesn't travel in space.
    Wolf
    ---------------------------------------------------------
    "Be fair with others, but then keep after them until they're fair with you." Alan Alda
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    42
    Quote Originally Posted by Wolf
    Quote Originally Posted by uncommonman
    Being "asleep" would imply that we somehow stopped in time.
    Huh...? Where the heck did you pull that out of?

    If you're inside the "ring" of a passed, infinitely expanding sound wave, how long will it be before the sound wave reaches you?



    In my example, the person was asleep while the sound-wave passed over them, and woke up after. If that person woke up and expected to hear the explosion, it's too late.

    If I really need to spell out that example in terms of the Earth, then it goes like this: The initial blast wave of the BB proceeded the Earth, so the Earth is not in a position to receive the blast. The blast has passed.

    Although this is largely speculative, since sound doesn't travel in space.

    I completely refute that sound does not "travel" in space. It may not travel in a vaccuum but space is full of "stuff" by which it could travel. You could conceivably "reach" into future space to find that sound if you were capable of stopping and letting it pass you by. If, on the otherhand, you were travelling away from that sound faster than it could travel, it would be very difficult to detect...especially if there were other noises interfering with that detection.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Ph.D. Wolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    969
    Quote Originally Posted by uncommonman
    I completely refute that sound does not "travel" in space. It may not travel in a vaccuum but space is full of "stuff" by which it could travel.
    I'll admit to not having done the calculations, but I doubt there is sufficient matter, or matter consistency, to perpetuate a sound. Anyone else, feel free to enlighten.

    Quote Originally Posted by uncommonman
    You could conceivably "reach" into future space to find that sound if you were capable of stopping and letting it pass you by.
    Well, yeah, that's obvious. If you jump out in front of the edge of the universe, you might be able to experience the expanded remains of the blast. However, again, from where the Earth is now, it won't experience the sound.

    You haven't really made a lot of sense through this.

    First, you said that if we were to experience the sound wave now, it would be very loud. Yet given the distance the wave has traveled and its expansion, is it really going to be that loud now? A sound wave blasted out of an amplifier on a stage is deafening, but when it finally reaches the back of the stadium, it's no longer so strong. Why would the BB's supposed sound wave be any different?

    Second, when it was pointed out that the supposed sound wave has already passed us, you explained that it would sound like whisper heard by someone racing past...but we're not racing past. The sound wave has passed us. We're behind it.

    Third, when that was refuted, stating that it would be more like someone waking up after an explosion and expecting to hear the blast, you explained that being asleep was stopping time.


    Maybe someone else is following you, but I'm not.
    Wolf
    ---------------------------------------------------------
    "Be fair with others, but then keep after them until they're fair with you." Alan Alda
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    uncommon; Am a bit confused on what your thinking...

    Sound, which we are capable of hearing, travels in our atmosphere at sea level around 770 miles PER HOUR, losing speed in less dense conditions and if possible to sustain motion (said can't), would move extremely slow in space with its one particle per cubic yard or whatever.

    If a bang occurred, as you said doubt and most think no, from that point of a bang, sound would not have travels very far in 14 billion years, compared to the suggested distance space is suggested to have moved.
    770 m/p/h (or much, much less) vs. 186,200 m/p/second. Even the concussion from such a blast would be moving very slow behind the expansion.

    I might suggest going out in you front yard, on a quiet summer day. There is one very large nuclear reactor not far from you, which for all practical purposes must make an awful noise, but we can hear no noises from that source, our sun.

    If your understanding BBT as an expansion of the universe from that singularity, what most say, its that unit thats expanding. There would be no sound created, to begin with.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Chicago Area
    Posts
    101
    Detecting distant galaxies (bly)can take long exposures to capture photon by photon. These are inbound photons. Do we have the ability to capture outbound photons? Photons that pass us by.
    .................................................. ...............
    The truth is difficult to obtain.
    They conceal it in books.
    *************************************
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    42
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    uncommon; Am a bit confused on what your thinking...

    Sound, which we are capable of hearing, travels in our atmosphere at sea level around 770 miles PER HOUR, losing speed in less dense conditions and if possible to sustain motion (said can't), would move extremely slow in space with its one particle per cubic yard or whatever.

    If a bang occurred, as you said doubt and most think no, from that point of a bang, sound would not have travels very far in 14 billion years, compared to the suggested distance space is suggested to have moved.
    770 m/p/h (or much, much less) vs. 186,200 m/p/second. Even the concussion from such a blast would be moving very slow behind the expansion.

    I might suggest going out in you front yard, on a quiet summer day. There is one very large nuclear reactor not far from you, which for all practical purposes must make an awful noise, but we can hear no noises from that source, our sun.

    If your understanding BBT as an expansion of the universe from that singularity, what most say, its that unit thats expanding. There would be no sound created, to begin with.
    Apparently, you didn't read what I wrote jackson33.

    "It would be kind of like trying to listen to someone whispering to you from the side of the road when you are in a car a mile away and speeding away from that individual."

    I have already said a dozen times that the BBT is a misnomer. That is why I have called it the "Monumental Poof."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    To All

    There is an article in the latest Sky and Telescope Magazine (May 2008) on page 18 by a scientist in the WMAP group that deciphered all the data regarding the BBT.
    The CMBR is regarded as a sound wave with the main wave (loop) as the sound boom.

    Technically, sound does 'not' move through a vacuum like light does.
    It meeds molecules to travel through space.
    Light uses the EM Fields to move through space,

    Although there are molecules in space as well as gases, it is a miracle that they extracted all that data about the BBT.
    There are large pockets of space that have 'no' matter since the average density of space is one HA per cubic meter and all the matter is concentrated in the galactic structures, there would have to be large pockets of 'empty' space IMO.

    The article states that the temperature differences are only 000,002K. Originally, it was given as 000,007K.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    ajg624, if I understand your speculation correctly you are arguing for a much smaller Universe since this might obviate the need for dark matter.
    However, the need for dark matter comes not from examination of the universe on a large scale, but from small scale observations of galaxies and globular clusters. The stars in the outer reaches of these rotate too fast, unless a) our theory of gravity is flawed, or b) there is a substantial amount of difficult to detect matter.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Ph.D. Wolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    969
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    However, the need for dark matter comes not from examination of the universe on a large scale, but from small scale observations of galaxies and globular clusters. The stars in the outer reaches of these rotate too fast, unless a) our theory of gravity is flawed, or b) there is a substantial amount of difficult to detect matter.
    You're right, Ophiolite, I'd forgotten about Zwicky in all this! :P

    There's a perfect example of this problem in this pic:



    In the diagram, the left represents the center of the galaxy. The vertical is the velocity of objects in the galaxy, and the horizontal is the distance of the object from the center (with the right extreme being furthest away).

    Given our current understandings of physics, when we observe the masses rotating in galaxies, we expect their velocities to plot on the graph following line A, but instead, we see them following line B. This seems impossible with our current notions of physics, unless there is more matter present in the galaxy than we detect. When you enter in dark matter, the observations match perfectly with the calculations.
    Wolf
    ---------------------------------------------------------
    "Be fair with others, but then keep after them until they're fair with you." Alan Alda
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    But you can also get the results to match by appplying one or other variant of MOND (MOdified Newton Dynamics). This seems to me, as an outsider, the biggest debate at present in astrophsyics/cosmology.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Ph.D. Wolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    969
    True, and the reluctance of the scientific community to accept that a correction (or addition) may be needed to Newton's laws, is pathetic.

    If we are holding advancement back because of sentimental reasons, that's bad science.

    Although this probably has less to do with Newton sentiment, and more to do with a bunch of crusty old farts who are ticked off that they didn't get to change Newton's laws themselves. :P
    Wolf
    ---------------------------------------------------------
    "Be fair with others, but then keep after them until they're fair with you." Alan Alda
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard icewendigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,150
    why does the graph start out with low velocity and low distance before it gets to high velocity?

    Can someone explain in laymans terms how distant matter can move this fast with the modified newton dynamics? I though the further you were the more mass you had to have to avoid spinning out of the system and that without this mass compared to closer objects of he same speed you would spin out of the way?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Ophi and Wolf

    Ophi
    I hate to admit ignorance, but what is MOND?

    Wolf
    That graph you have shown is easily explaned with my solution for Dark Matter that is buried in the back pages.

    Dark Matter is simply 'separated electric charges' that are trying to rejoin again according to the Law of Equal and Opposite Charges.
    In my article, I supplied an article in S & T mag that showed how the solar flares and eruptions are stripping the electrons off the central nulei such as iron, sulfur and oxygen to leave them with only the 2 inner electrons .

    So DM is simply an enhancement of the gravity by the coulomb attraction. It would not take much SG's to enhance the gravity considering the difference in the strengths of the 2 forces.

    Cosmo



    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Wolf
    True, and the reluctance of the scientific community to accept that a correction (or addition) may be needed to Newton's laws, is pathetic.
    If we are holding advancement back because of sentimental reasons, that's bad science.
    Although this probably has less to do with Newton sentiment, and more to do with a bunch of crusty old farts who are ticked off that they didn't get to change Newton's laws themselves. :P
    I am not sure that I go along with you here. I think we are within the very healthy debate attending a possible paradigm shift, in the manner of Kuhn. I am sure some of the opposition is for the reason you describe - dinosaurs who wont' change. But some of it is undoubtedly down to a genuine belief that the dark matter alternative is a superior one. There simply is not enough data yet to decide one way or another.

    The dark matter advocates had recently demonstrated that if MOND were true then black holes should pop into existence with sufficient frequency to have destroyed the Earth by now. Even more recently the MOND advocates have found a work around for this.

    Observations of distant galaxies, or supernovae are used to confirm that one or other hypothesis must be correct. The counter argument, with a plausible explanation, follows shortly thereafter.

    I think this is an exciting time and that the debates are healthy. They should help to refine and better define whichever of these hypotheses eventually win the day.

    Cosmo,
    there are several variants of MOND, but they all assert that accelerationn is not proportional to gravitational force at low accelerations. As is often the case, the wikipedia article is a good starting point.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modifie...onian_dynamics
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •