Notices
Results 1 to 19 of 19

Thread: Two Problems We Can't Explain - Will We Ever Know?

  1. #1 Two Problems We Can't Explain - Will We Ever Know? 
    New Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    2
    The Universe and its past and future are one of the greatest mysteries to mankind. It is one of the few things that we know next to nothing about, when you think of how much there must be that we do not yet know.
    For example, the beginning of the Universe is the obvious place to start. Well, how did the Universe come into existence? Over 80% of the World’s population believe that our universe was made by some higher power- an outside god. Now, let’s just for a minute assume that this is correct- that some sort of god does exist outside of our universe. But where? What is “outside”?
    This same problem arises when one adopts one of several models of the Universe. A popular model is the Universe arranged in a doughnut shape (a torus) with a hole in the middle. This is all well and good, except when you ask yourself again, “what’s outside the Universe?” You see, if the Universe if finite, that is that it has an end- a boundary- there simply must be something outside it, containing the Universe in which we live.
    So, many people now think that actually, the Universe is infinite. This gets round the problem of having to have a “container” in which the Universe rests. But again, there is still a problem. For the past few decades, we have known that the Universe is expanding. We know this because of a phenomenon called “red shift”- where objects appear red when they are travelling away from you at high speed.
    No prizes for guessing where that leaves us- what is the Universe expanding into? After all, if something is infinite, it can not “expand”- that just contradicts the meaning of “infinite”. You see, we really have no idea what our Universe actually is. Scientists and astrologers have come up with countless theories to explain our Universe, and all of them run into one of these two problems- if the Universe is infinite, how come it’s expanding, and if it’s finite, what’s beyond it?
    I believe that one day we will discover the answer, but that won’t be for many tens of thousands of years. Our aim now is to remain open-minded and to, as humans, play an active role in the discovery of the answer.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2 Re: Two Problems We Can't Explain - Will We Ever Know? 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Dalian ,China
    Posts
    85
    No prizes for guessing where that leaves us- what is the Universe expanding into? After all, if something is infinite, it can not “expand”- that just contradicts the meaning of “infinite”. You see, we really have no idea what our Universe actually is. Scientists and astrologers have come up with countless theories to explain our Universe, and all of them run into one of these two problems- if the Universe is infinite, how come it’s expanding, and if it’s finite, what’s beyond it?
    I believe that one day we will discover the answer, but that won’t be for many tens of thousands of years. Our aim now is to remain open-minded and to, as humans, play an active role in the discovery of the answer.
    The universe we live is finite , possesses its boundary , total mass , age and other general physical properties . All these values can be calculated out in a single formula called General physical property equation of the universe .
    See the equation at :
    http://www.universefedback.com/popularized_e/c10.htm

    Beyond the boundary , there exists vacuum (abbr.Va) , countless vacuum.
    Vacuum has its space time structure of |G|m^3 , unit of vacuum , and its value of 1.0083333333333333...e+93 .
    Our universe only has a piece of vacuum of |M(G)|Va =|M(G)||G|m^3 .
    here , |G| =6.67259e-11 , |M(G)|=0.5454545454545454...e-7 , m is one dimensional space and has its value of 2.4686279637116245…e+34 .
    See related description at :
    http://www.universefedback.com/popularized_e/c2.htm

    http://www.universefedback.com/popularized_e/c8.htm

    This piece of vacuum of our universe was exited and has been transformed by information into mass constantly generating all kinds of stuff of our universe , including you and me .
    See concrete conclusion at :
    http://www.universefedback.com/popularized_e/c8.htm

    This process of the vacuum interacting with information would not cease untill all the piece of vacuum will be consumed and transformed into mass . It would take 2.351661113361130…e+35 years to complete .
    See them at :
    http://www.universefedback.com/popularized_e/c12.htm

    After this , it will be the turn for next piece of vacuum to be explored by information again . agian and again .

    You can get clear picture about our universe at :
    Universefedback
    http://www.universefedback.com/

    or , Populariec Version of FBTU
    http://www.universefedback.com/popularized_e.htm


    Of course , all these conclusions are based on essential changes in our basic concepts in physics , such as :
    kg = |G|m^3s^-2 , W=|G|m^5s^-5 , J =|G|m^5s^-4 and the most fundamental assumption of Axiom of Physics ---G gauge .
    See them at :
    http://www.universefedback.com/popularized_e/c1.htm


    Thanks for your reading.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3 Re: Two Problems We Can't Explain - Will We Ever Know? 
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by aquw776
    The Universe and its past and future are one of the greatest mysteries to mankind. It is one of the few things that we know next to nothing about, when you think of how much there must be that we do not yet know.
    Ideed there are lots of puzzles to be solved. But I'm afraid, your views are much too simple, and this is the reason for the contradictions you find. Please keep in mind that most of the popular models to describe the universe are simplified and incorrect in many ways.

    Quote Originally Posted by aquw776
    For example, the beginning of the Unverse is the obvious place to start. Well, how did the Universe come into existence? Over 80% of the World’s population believe that our universe was made by some higher power- an outside god.
    Really? That would be really depressing, if this was true. It has been an often applied mechanism to assume the involvement of a higher being, if we did not understand some phenomenon. Since we consider us so incredibly intelligent, the cause must have been something that logic cannot explain i.e. a supernatural being. I think this is just the typical overestimation of the human mind.

    Quote Originally Posted by aquw776
    This same problem arises when one adopts one of several models of the Universe. A popular model is the Universe arranged in a doughnut shape (a torus) with a hole in the middle.
    Where did you find this? I have never heard of such a model.

    Quote Originally Posted by aquw776
    This is all well and good, except when you ask yourself again, “what’s outside the Universe?” You see, if the Universe if finite, that is that it has an end- a boundary- there simply must be something outside it, containing the Universe in which we live.

    So, many people now think that actually, the Universe is infinite. This gets round the problem of having to have a “container” in which the Universe rests. But again, there is still a problem. For the past few decades, we have known that the Universe is expanding. We know this because of a phenomenon called “red shift”- where objects appear red when they are travelling away from you at high speed.
    Interesting riddle, isn't it? Now, the common idea is that the universe is finite but unbounded. Everybody knows such examples, but doesn't recognise them. The surface of a ball is finite, but it has no boundaries, right? Now, I'm not saying that the universe is a ball. But it tells you, that it is not a contradiction. The universe is expanding, but not expanding into something. It's not that the matter is expanding like an explosion; in fact it is more or less static. It is the universe itself that expands and takes everything with it like the surface of the mentioned ball when pumped up or a muffin with raisins. Expanding actually means that the scales in the universe increase.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4 Re: Two Problems We Can't Explain - Will We Ever Know? 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Dalian ,China
    Posts
    85
    [quote="aquw776"]
    This is all well and good, except when you ask yourself again, “what’s outside the Universe?” You see, if the Universe if finite, that is that it has an end- a boundary- there simply must be something outside it, containing the Universe in which we live.

    So, many people now think that actually, the Universe is infinite. This gets round the problem of having to have a “container” in which the Universe rests. But again, there is still a problem. For the past few decades, we have known that the Universe is expanding. We know this because of a phenomenon called “red shift”- where objects appear red when they are travelling away from you at high speed.

    Interesting riddle, isn't it? Now, the common idea is that the universe is finite but unbounded. Everybody knows such examples, but doesn't recognise them. The surface of a ball is finite, but it has no boundaries, right? Now, I'm not saying that the universe is a ball. But it tells you, that it is not a contradiction. The universe is expanding, but not expanding into something. It's not that the matter is expanding like an explosion; in fact it is more or less static. It is the universe itself that expands and takes everything with it like the surface of the mentioned ball when pumped up or a muffin with raisins. Expanding actually means that the scales in the universe increase.

    Yes , the universe we live does has its boundary .
    At present , its radius is 3.1381767999999997…e+26 meter , and beyond the boundary , there is nothing but vacuum unexplored .
    It will expand to 0.2224859546128698…e+52 meter when the universe finish its evolution lasting 2.351661113361130…e+35 years.

    See calculations for verification at :

    http://www.universefedback.com/popularized_e/c10.htm

    http://www.universefedback.com/popularized_e/c12.htm

    Thank you for your reading.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5 Re: Two Problems We Can't Explain - Will We Ever Know? 
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    Quote Originally Posted by aquw776
    "]
    This is all well and good, except when you ask yourself again, “what’s outside the Universe?” You see, if the Universe if finite, that is that it has an end- a boundary- there simply must be something outside it, containing the Universe in which we live.

    So, many people now think that actually, the Universe is infinite. This gets round the problem of having to have a “container” in which the Universe rests. But again, there is still a problem. For the past few decades, we have known that the Universe is expanding. We know this because of a phenomenon called “red shift”- where objects appear red when they are travelling away from you at high speed.
    Interesting riddle, isn't it? Now, the common idea is that the universe is finite but unbounded. Everybody knows such examples, but doesn't recognise them. The surface of a ball is finite, but it has no boundaries, right? Now, I'm not saying that the universe is a ball. But it tells you, that it is not a contradiction. The universe is expanding, but not expanding into something. It's not that the matter is expanding like an explosion; in fact it is more or less static. It is the universe itself that expands and takes everything with it like the surface of the mentioned ball when pumped up or a muffin with raisins. Expanding actually means that the scales in the universe increase.
    Basically the idea is that, if you go far enough in any direction, you'll end up where you started again, right?

    It works, but just because someone dreams up an idea that would work doesn't mean we should believe it. There's no evidence at all to suggest this one is true, except that we need it to be true if we want to believe in a finite universe.

    I think aquw776 has done a pretty good job of summarizing the basic problem without going into way too much detail about the specifics. Either we have to believe the universe is of finite size, or we have to find an alternative explanation for the red shift and CMBR.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6 Re: Two Problems We Can't Explain - Will We Ever Know? 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Dalian ,China
    Posts
    85
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    Quote Originally Posted by aquw776
    "]
    This is all well and good, except when you ask yourself again, “what’s outside the Universe?” You see, if the Universe if finite, that is that it has an end- a boundary- there simply must be something outside it, containing the Universe in which we live.

    So, many people now think that actually, the Universe is infinite. This gets round the problem of having to have a “container” in which the Universe rests. But again, there is still a problem. For the past few decades, we have known that the Universe is expanding. We know this because of a phenomenon called “red shift”- where objects appear red when they are travelling away from you at high speed.
    Interesting riddle, isn't it? Now, the common idea is that the universe is finite but unbounded. Everybody knows such examples, but doesn't recognise them. The surface of a ball is finite, but it has no boundaries, right? Now, I'm not saying that the universe is a ball. But it tells you, that it is not a contradiction. The universe is expanding, but not expanding into something. It's not that the matter is expanding like an explosion; in fact it is more or less static. It is the universe itself that expands and takes everything with it like the surface of the mentioned ball when pumped up or a muffin with raisins. Expanding actually means that the scales in the universe increase.
    Basically the idea is that, if you go far enough in any direction, you'll end up where you started again, right?

    It works, but just because someone dreams up an idea that would work doesn't mean we should believe it. There's no evidence at all to suggest this one is true, except that we need it to be true if we want to believe in a finite universe.

    I think aquw776 has done a pretty good job of summarizing the basic problem without going into way too much detail about the specifics. Either we have to believe the universe is of finite size, or we have to find an alternative explanation for the red shift and CMBR.

    CMBR is proven to be one of physical properties of an informaton entity of the unvierse .
    This entity at present has its space time structure of |M(G)|∑s (j,j-1)^-2 ,
    space time value of (STV (|M(G)|∑s (j,j-1)^-2) =7.6936667888921355…e-33 ,
    and total of 7.7577806787995700...e+60 numbers of information units representing informatin of all events happened so far of the universe .

    Mutiplying space time value of the entity by G gauge of temperature turns out exact temperature of CMBR , that is ,
    ( 7.6936667888921355…e-33)( 0.3556171686496934…e+33 K) =2.7359999999999996…K
    and as this information entity interacting with vacuum , it generates the substantiated and materialized universe we live with all of physical property values of the universe matching up with observations , just by one formula as :
    STV(Va)( 7.6936667888921355…e-33)( G gauge involved) .

    See calculation results about the above claims at :

    http://www.universefedback.com/popularized_e/c16.htm

    http://www.universefedback.com/en/10web.htm

    Thanks for your reading
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    New Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    2
    aquw776 wrote:

    For example, the beginning of the Unverse is the obvious place to start. Well, how did the Universe come into existence? Over 80% of the World’s population believe that our universe was made by some higher power- an outside god.

    Really? That would be really depressing, if this was true. It has been an often applied mechanism to assume the involvement of a higher being, if we did not understand some phenomenon. Since we consider us so incredibly intelligent, the cause must have been something that logic cannot explain i.e. a supernatural being. I think this is just the typical overestimation of the human mind.
    Over 80% of the World's population belives in a religion in one form or another, thus the vast majority, almost all, believe that the World and the Universe was created by a higher being outside of our universe. If you believe this, our universe must be finite.

    aquw776 wrote:

    This same problem arises when one adopts one of several models of the Universe. A popular model is the Universe arranged in a doughnut shape (a torus) with a hole in the middle.

    Where did you find this? I have never heard of such a model.
    Yes, Kojax got this- the idea that you can set our in any direction and end up back where you started, like going around in a circle.

    aquw776 wrote:

    This is all well and good, except when you ask yourself again, “what’s outside the Universe?” You see, if the Universe if finite, that is that it has an end- a boundary- there simply must be something outside it, containing the Universe in which we live.

    So, many people now think that actually, the Universe is infinite. This gets round the problem of having to have a “container” in which the Universe rests. But again, there is still a problem. For the past few decades, we have known that the Universe is expanding. We know this because of a phenomenon called “red shift”- where objects appear red when they are travelling away from you at high speed.

    Interesting riddle, isn't it? Now, the common idea is that the universe is finite but unbounded. Everybody knows such examples, but doesn't recognise them. The surface of a ball is finite, but it has no boundaries, right? Now, I'm not saying that the universe is a ball. But it tells you, that it is not a contradiction.
    Agreed- the surface of a ball is finite, yet has no boundaries. However, the Universe is more than a surface- from what we understand now, it is 3D. Thus, the Universe may well be a ball, meaning that it's OUTSIDE SURFACE would be finite with no boundaries, but a ball is more than just a surface. You can really compare the properties of a 2D surface to a 3D shape.

    I think aquw776 has done a pretty good job of summarizing the basic problem without going into way too much detail about the specifics. Either we have to believe the universe is of finite size, or we have to find an alternative explanation for the red shift and CMBR.
    Thank you
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    354
    Actually, the answer has been discovered. The universe isn’t infinite, it’s finite but unbounded. So what does that mean?

    Let’s say that everyone in the world decides to put all of their savings into one Universal Save the Planet fund. All of the savings from every possible source would go into the fund. It would start out small and grow to an enormous size and continually expand, but not to the point of being infinite. No bank could hold it, so the fund would exist in a ledger or electronically and as such, there would be no ‘outside’ for the fund to spill over into. That’s sort of how the universe works.

    The universe is 100% of everything from every source that ever was or ever will be. It is all of the planets, all of the stars and galaxies, all of the energy and matter, all of everything. As such, its existence can expand or contract and there will never be any more or any less of it, because it is everything all of the time. Now this isn’t philosophy, it is simply fact.

    Of course, this conflicts with the myths that children are told and perhaps 80% of the children prefer the myth even into adulthood. They will ask that there must be more than the normal universe? Where are the Happy Hunting Grounds or Nirvana? Where do Zeus and Horus hang out? There really must be something else outside of the universe that we understand where these things exist. At the risk of being buried up to my neck and stoned to death, I can tell you, there really must not.

    If a scientist tomorrow discovered a cure for all disease, then no one would consult their religious texts or ask their spiritual leaders if they should believe in this cure. It would be foolish or ignorant not to accept this knowledge. Not all scientists are this lucky. Some scientists have discovered things about the universe that we just don’t want to know, and a thousand years may not change this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9 Re: Two Problems We Can't Explain - Will We Ever Know? 
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by zhang zhi qiang

    CMBR is proven to be one of physical properties of an informaton entity of the unvierse .
    This entity at present has its space time structure of |M(G)|∑s (j,j-1)^-2 ,
    space time value of (STV (|M(G)|∑s (j,j-1)^-2) =7.6936667888921355…e-33 ,
    and total of 7.7577806787995700...e+60 numbers of information units representing informatin of all events happened so far of the universe .

    Mutiplying space time value of the entity by G gauge of temperature turns out exact temperature of CMBR , that is ,
    ( 7.6936667888921355…e-33)( 0.3556171686496934…e+33 K) =2.7359999999999996…K
    and as this information entity interacting with vacuum , it generates the substantiated and materialized universe we live with all of physical property values of the universe matching up with observations , just by one formula as :
    STV(Va)( 7.6936667888921355…e-33)( G gauge involved) .

    See calculation results about the above claims at :

    http://www.universefedback.com/popularized_e/c16.htm

    http://www.universefedback.com/en/10web.htm

    Thanks for your reading
    "Proven" is a strong word for something so highly speculative as the origin of the CMBR. We know it exists. We know it's temperature. We even know how evenly distributed it is in all directions, and have mapped it accordingly. But, the only way we can guess where it came from is to make a lot of assumptions about areas of space we can't even see, much less measure.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    354
    No "proven" is the correct word for the origin of the CMBR (although certainly not for any kind of information entity). The CMBR was mathematically predicted as the afterglow of the Big Bang and then correctly discovered. The speculation about this is from the people who prefer myth to science.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,245
    Basically the idea is that, if you go far enough in any direction, you'll end up where you started again, right?

    It works, but just because someone dreams up an idea that would work doesn't mean we should believe it.
    As I have it, in a universe where all space, matter and time was created in the big bang, this is the ONLY possible outcome.

    Agreed- the surface of a ball is finite, yet has no boundaries. However, the Universe is more than a surface- from what we understand now, it is 3D. Thus, the Universe may well be a ball, meaning that it's OUTSIDE SURFACE would be finite with no boundaries, but a ball is more than just a surface. You can really compare the properties of a 2D surface to a 3D shape.
    You are still getting it wrong I'm afraid. As already mensioned, you are not really supposed to apply the analogies to reality in it's entirety. It is only the property of it being finite and boundless that should be considered, not the fact that it has a shape or an outside surface or such. A surface and a shape means an edge and an outside to the universe, none of which are attributes of a finite and unbounded big bang universe.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    354
    Quote:
    "Basically the idea is that, if you go far enough in any direction, you'll end up where you started again, right?

    It works, but just because someone dreams up an idea that would work doesn't mean we should believe it. "


    Imagine if the universe were flat like a map. At a certain value for the density of the universe (its mass per unit of volume) the universe would stay flat. Increase the density and the edges of the universe would curve up like a saddle. Increase the density more and the edges curve over and the universe becomes a hollow globe. In this universe, if you traveled in one direction long enough, you would return to your starting point without ever having to change direction (like a circle). However, scientists have determined that the density of the universe is not enough to cause it to curve over. It is almost exactly the value to make it “flat”. A flat universe would not be shaped like a donut.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,245
    It is almost exactly the value to make it “flat”.
    Doesn't "flat" simply mean that it will expand forever and never collapse? In what way does a donut shape make sense in a big bang universe as opposed to a truly infinite universe?
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    354
    A ‘flat’ universe does not have the density to curve back on itself and form a torus, or donut shape. However, I read that it might still have the mass necessary to gradually slow and eventually collapse back into a singularity. This only requires space time to 'retrace' its original steps and not necessarly bend back on itself.
    I suppose one could argue that a BB universe might not as yet, be old enough to have curved into a torus (assuming that it was going to) whereas, one must accept that an infinitely old, infinitely large universe would have to have already ‘been there, done that’. In the final analysis, it’s the observed density that determines whether we live in a donut.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15 Re: Two Problems We Can't Explain - Will We Ever Know? 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Dalian ,China
    Posts
    85
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Quote Originally Posted by zhang zhi qiang

    CMBR is proven to be one of physical properties of an informaton entity of the unvierse .
    This entity at present has its space time structure of |M(G)|∑s (j,j-1)^-2 ,
    space time value of (STV (|M(G)|∑s (j,j-1)^-2) =7.6936667888921355…e-33 ,
    and total of 7.7577806787995700...e+60 numbers of information units representing informatin of all events happened so far of the universe .

    Mutiplying space time value of the entity by G gauge of temperature turns out exact temperature of CMBR , that is ,
    ( 7.6936667888921355…e-33)( 0.3556171686496934…e+33 K) =2.7359999999999996…K
    and as this information entity interacting with vacuum , it generates the substantiated and materialized universe we live with all of physical property values of the universe matching up with observations , just by one formula as :
    STV(Va)( 7.6936667888921355…e-33)( G gauge involved) .

    See calculation results about the above claims at :

    http://www.universefedback.com/popularized_e/c16.htm

    http://www.universefedback.com/en/10web.htm

    Thanks for your reading
    "Proven" is a strong word for something so highly speculative as the origin of the CMBR. We know it exists. We know it's temperature. We even know how evenly distributed it is in all directions, and have mapped it accordingly. But, the only way we can guess where it came from is to make a lot of assumptions about areas of space we can't even see, much less measure.
    But we have not known all physical proprty values of the universe can be claculated out in a single equation , until we figure out an magic figure --- information modulus of the universe --- 7.7577806787995700...e+60--- from temperature of CMBR . All kinds of experimental datum and astronomical observations are stemming from this information entity as indeed demonstrated , this is much more stronger than any strong word .
    See hard evidence at :
    http://www.universefedback.com/popularized_e/c16.htm
    or at :
    http://www.universefedback.com/en/10web.htm

    To prove where it come from , we do not need any other assumptions at all but the Axiom of G G gauge . CMBR come from the information entity which is also yielding our universe as a whole and creatures and all stuff of the universe individually with commonly recognized observations about the universe , as it interacts with vacuum , which is containing information of all events ever happened in the universe . It does exists within the universe , more specifically, it is soul of the universe , God mankind worshiped . To this regard , see more detailed at :
    http://www.thescienceforum.com/Physi...God-12304t.php

    Science cradled primitively from religion , now I am proving objective existing of God by means of he runs the universe .

    Thanks for your reply .
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Dalian ,China
    Posts
    85
    Quote Originally Posted by Arch2008
    No "proven" is the correct word for the origin of the CMBR (although certainly not for any kind of information entity). The CMBR was mathematically predicted as the afterglow of the Big Bang and then correctly discovered. The speculation about this is from the people who prefer myth to science.
    You are right , initially the idea of CMBR was deduced from Big Bang Theory and gradually proven by accurate observation ( Its temperature is exact 2.736K ) .
    But this theory can not deduce all other physical properties of the universe which are logically compatible with CMBR as a whole , such as total mass , radius , age , mass density , total energies , total momentum of the universe , etc .
    Besides FBTU , ( http://www.universefedback.com/ ) , You certainly can not find such theories in both physics and cosmology throughout this planet that can deduce all these physical property values from one equation , being well matching up with observations available so far .

    To update understanding about basic physical concepts is priority for anyone whoever he is to burnish his viewponts in physics and regarding the universe .
    For instance , traditinally people measure thing with those physical units , such as , kilogram for weight measurement , meter for length , second for time , Kelvin for temp. ect . But objectivelly people have not known that these physical units essentially are consists of multidimentional space time :
    STC(N) = |G| m^4 s^-4 (Newton) ; STC(kg) = |G| m^3 s^-2 (kilogram) ;
    STC(J) = |G| m^5 s^-4 (Joule) ; STC(w) = |G| m^5 s^-5 (Watt) ;
    STC(A)= √|G| m^3 s^-3 (Ampere) ; STC(C)= √|G| m^3 s^-2 (Cloumb) ;
    STC(Wb)= √|G| m^2 s^-1 (weber) ; STC(T) =√|G| s^-1 (Tesla) .
    here |G| =6.67259e-11 (modulus of gravitational constant)
    Also these physical units has space time vaue of its own , such as :
    STV(s) = 0.7400760451286427…e+43 ( space time value of one dimensional time)
    STV(m) =2.4686279637116245…e+34 ( space time value of one dimensional space)
    See more detailed at :
    http://www.universefedback.com/popularized_e/c2.htm

    These updated physical concepts are well compatible downward with fundamental physical principles and fully match up with all obsrvations in astronomical and those datum in physics , certainly it also well-explained logically develops all the way .

    People usually is reluctant to changes his mind and viewpoints deeply rooted in traditional concepts , whenever encountering fresh idea which challenge traditional ones , reaction of people is firstly pushing it away , even though they have not fully understand it .
    Eventually people will embrace to these new idea as they once did to traditional ones , only because they gradually find the new ones is much more convincible , logical , and verifiable than old ones .

    I am now challenging you in this way , you are confident and so pride of your having knowledge in physics , please answer me :
    1 , Do you think whether those space time structure for physical units expressed here are right or not ?
    2 , Do you think if there is possibilty that all physical property values of the universe including CMBR , no matter how oberved or not , can be calculated out from one equation ?
    3 , Do you think that the universe is essentially consists of vacuum and information , and can be explictly expressed in an equation , and these information are literally those of all events ever happened in the universe from its beginning to now in the equation ?

    Before you fight back , strongly recommend you to read over following papers firstly .
    Axiom of Physics --- G Gauge
    http://www.universefedback.com/popularized_e/c1.htm

    Multidimensional Space Time / Space Time Structure and Value of Physical Unit
    http://www.universefedback.com/popularized_e/c2.htm

    Completable Space Time / Elementary Physical Constant
    http://www.universefedback.com/popularized_e/c3.htm

    G Bubble Burst / Universal Event Condensed Into Mass
    http://www.universefedback.com/popularized_e/c8.htm

    General Physical Property Equation of the Universe / Magic of Information Modulus of the Universe (1)
    http://www.universefedback.com/popularized_e/c10.htm

    Constitution of the Universe / Information Equation of the Universe (1)
    http://www.universefedback.com/popularized_e/c13.htm


    Your reply unumbiguously is highly appreciated .
    I am expecting for your reply expilictly

    Thanks .
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    354
    Religion is simply not a science. Someone cannot scientifically disprove the existence of a supreme being, so similarly no one can scientifically prove the existence of such an entity. Whose God would you prove exists, the Christian God, or the Hindu God, or some other? If I believe that blue should be the supreme color, how would I prove this scientifically?
    Where the universe came from is not a question for religion to answer.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Well, you also can't disprove the BBT. It's based on too many layers of speculation, coupled with a few facts, which only have value if you accept certain speculative assumptions.

    You'd first have to prove that all those speculations are wrong, and since many of them are not based on any real observation, or remain entirely unobservable because of the distances, disproving them might make for a daunting task indeed.


    Quote Originally Posted by Arch2008
    No "proven" is the correct word for the origin of the CMBR (although certainly not for any kind of information entity). The CMBR was mathematically predicted as the afterglow of the Big Bang and then correctly discovered. The speculation about this is from the people who prefer myth to science.
    Yes, I know one theory did predict it, and got the value right to within maybe a ballpark, but there might be a lot of other reasons for such a thing to exist.

    It could easily have been predicted from Hubble's redshift observations alone.

    Quote Originally Posted by Arch2008
    Quote:
    "Basically the idea is that, if you go far enough in any direction, you'll end up where you started again, right?

    It works, but just because someone dreams up an idea that would work doesn't mean we should believe it. "


    Imagine if the universe were flat like a map. At a certain value for the density of the universe (its mass per unit of volume) the universe would stay flat. Increase the density and the edges of the universe would curve up like a saddle. Increase the density more and the edges curve over and the universe becomes a hollow globe. In this universe, if you traveled in one direction long enough, you would return to your starting point without ever having to change direction (like a circle). However, scientists have determined that the density of the universe is not enough to cause it to curve over. It is almost exactly the value to make it “flat”. A flat universe would not be shaped like a donut.
    Oh, I don't have any trouble imagining it. People often assume that if you disbelieve something, it has to be because you don't understand it, or can't imagine it. However, just because I can imagine something doesn't mean I believe it is true.

    There's nothing to suggest that the universe needs to have a beginning, except people's need to believe that. Unless you narrow-mindedly force yourself to think inside a box, and assume that redshift could not possibly ever be caused by anything but a Doppler effect.


    Quote Originally Posted by Arch2008
    A ‘flat’ universe does not have the density to curve back on itself and form a torus, or donut shape. However, I read that it might still have the mass necessary to gradually slow and eventually collapse back into a singularity. This only requires space time to 'retrace' its original steps and not necessarly bend back on itself.
    I suppose one could argue that a BB universe might not as yet, be old enough to have curved into a torus (assuming that it was going to) whereas, one must accept that an infinitely old, infinitely large universe would have to have already ‘been there, done that’. In the final analysis, it’s the observed density that determines whether we live in a donut.
    What's probably being suggested is that the universe is flat from the perspective of a 4 dimensional entity. (Well, 5 dimensional if you count time as a dimension)

    We can easily imagine a 2D map being stretched over a globe, but it's harder to envision a 3D map being stretched over something 4D. But, I'm pretty sure that's what people mean when they talk about the universe having finite dimensions, but no outer boundary.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19 Eureka, you've missed it! 
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    354
    Kojax, you have a remarkable understanding of that which you refuse to understand.
    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
  •