Notices

View Poll Results: singularity, Black matter etc. all have logical non mistical explanations

Voters
2. You may not vote on this poll
  • can you agree e-mail me

    0 0%
  • If not the logic of why I am not correct. Remember general opinion accepted the world as flat for years.

    1 50.00%
  • All anomilies have a ligical explanation

    1 50.00%
Results 1 to 36 of 36

Thread: Multiple Big Bangs

  1. #1 Multiple Big Bangs 
    New Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    1
    Astrological Events that Sherman Smith sees differently:
    1. The suns surface has a fusion fission reaction combination. For the cycle to last billions of years the hydrogen fission reaction creates energy and the helium producing fusion reaction consumes energy. This conservation of energy production and consumption cycle would last indefinitely. The fission on the surface of the sun compresses the gas below it and with the temperatures and pressures below this fission reaction combined with the forces of the enormous gravity from the sun mass cause the fusion to helium. This fusion reaction is endothermic; therefore the billions being spent on energy production from fusion reactions thinking they exothermic I question.
    2. The mass of the solar system is not 98% in the sun and 2% in the planets as greatly accepted. The sun has about 38% of the mass of our solar system and the planets about another 2%. The other 60% of the mass is divided between the 5% in the meteor belt between mars and Jupiter and 55% in the Kipper belt taking in the object Pluto and beyond. Much of this 60% of the solar system, through material collisions, will within billions of years fall inward being collected by collisions with the inner objects in the solar system, the planets and the sun. The sun will collect ~98% of these objects.
    a. Collecting these objects will cause the sun to grow sufficiently in size that the fission reaction from the finite quantity of hydrogen gas on the surface will become thin enough that it will not sustain the fission fusion reaction. Without the volume of the fission reaction on the surface the compaction of the gaseous materials below this reaction will diminish causing the fusion to cease. The lack of fission and its related compaction below will cause the materials especialy the gaseous materials on the surface to expand and with only gravity affecting these materials this will allow the sun to expand to be a red giant.
    b. The present thought that the sun runs out of fissionable hydrogen and fails to maintain its present energy balance is false. The fusion fission reaction cycle is a continuous cycle. The stars believed to be over 13.7 billion years old are still going because the materials entering from outside them is finite and enough material has not contributed their mass to make them grow in size beyond their surfaces hydrogen helium fission fusion reaction cycle.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    The sun's fusion energy comes from four atoms of hydrogen becoming one atom of helium. This gives off energy in the form of heat and light. It does not consume energy. Helium which is slowly building up in the sun does not burn as well as hydrogen so one day the sun will be smaller and hotter to burn it, as it buildup ever heavier elements upto carbon, after which it will go nova and spend it's remaining billions of years becoming a brown, then black dwarf as it cools down.

    It also causes the sun to lose four million tons of mass per second and though this is tiny compared to the sun's mass, it has been doing so for some 4.6 billion years so has lost a significant amount of it's mass.

    The sun's own mass / gravity is holding it together, being dense enough that neutrinos take half a million years to travel from the core to the surface of the sun, and then reach Earth just over eight minutes later.

    The Earth is gradually drifting away from the sun. Just a tiny amount per year but I suspect this is to do with the sun's loss of mass and I suspect that instead of planets falling into it, a gradual drift over billions of years will mean they all slowly move into wider orbits. I think this will happen also to the Kuiper Belt, that it too will pursue the Oort cloud in time.

    The sun will expand to a red giant one day, but not due to infalling materials (which would smother it a bit since they burn at far higher temperatures than hydrogen). The sun doesn't really have gas but plasma, which is the fourth state of matter.

    The sun undergoes fusion, lighter atoms fusing into heavier atoms. Not fission. That is how they grow old. Without that we would have no neutron stars and black holes if stars were immortal.

    Once stars have expanded, gone nova and settled down to become brown dwarfs, they can last many billions of years as they gradually cool down far below zero centigrade. It is the heat necessary for heavier elements than fusing hydrogen into helium which makes a star expand as it heats up.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    As to your poll, I doubt that you are going to find anyone who believes in mystical explanations for astronomical objects here. However some logical explanations may have to wait a time; like the original Dark Flow, which seems to have no cause where early objects in the universe are seen heading towards a common point a billion light years across when they should be moving apart according to the big bang.

    Singularities probably do not exist. Even Hawking gave up on them.

    Dark matter (as in what holds galaxies together) may not exist, though there is probably lots of presently unseen matter about.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4 Re: Multiple Big Bangs 
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by Sherman Smith
    Astrological Events ...
    There are no astrological events discussed on this forum. I hope, you are talking about astronomy.
    Quote Originally Posted by Sherman Smith
    1. The suns surface has a fusion fission reaction combination. For the cycle to last billions of years the hydrogen fission reaction creates energy and the helium producing fusion reaction consumes energy. This conservation of energy production and consumption cycle would last indefinitely. The fission on the surface of the sun compresses the gas below it and with the temperatures and pressures below this fission reaction combined with the forces of the enormous gravity from the sun mass cause the fusion to helium. This fusion reaction is endothermic; therefore the billions being spent on energy production from fusion reactions thinking they exothermic I question.
    What elements do you think are undergoing nuclear fission on the suns's surface? Have you calculated the energy balance for this? Note that only very heavy isotopes can gain thermal energy by fission, i.e. you need something like uranium or plutonium. There is no sign whatsoever that these elements exist anywhere inside the sun. Fusion of hydrogen to helium is exothermic. This is a very basic result from energy calculations. What is your argument that it is endothermic?

    What would prevent such a star from sliding into a runaway chain reaction?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sherman Smith
    2. The mass of the solar system is not 98% in the sun and 2% in the planets as greatly accepted. The sun has about 38% of the mass of our solar system and the planets about another 2%. The other 60% of the mass is divided between the 5% in the meteor belt between mars and Jupiter and 55% in the Kipper belt taking in the object Pluto and beyond. Much of this 60% of the solar system, through material collisions, will within billions of years fall inward being collected by collisions with the inner objects in the solar system, the planets and the sun. The sun will collect ~98% of these objects.
    When you are claiming that you understand something about physics and astronomy, please get at least the very basics right. It is called the "Edgeworth-Kuiper" belt.

    Again: What is your evidence? Simple celestial mechanics contradict your view. The orbits of the planets would be very different if your hypothesis were true. The gathering of asteroids is also not due to collisions but gravitational interaction and tidal locking. This is the reason for the existence of Jupiter's Trojans.

    Furthermore, why would these asteroids fall into the sun? Since according to your idea, they make up for about 60%, their gravitational attraction would be much bigger than that of the sun.

    Where do you get your numbers from? Have you calculated the mass density of asteroids within the belt between Mars and Jupiter? It is tiny.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sherman Smith
    a. Collecting these objects will cause the sun to grow sufficiently in size that the fission reaction from the finite quantity of hydrogen gas on the surface will become thin enough that it will not sustain the fission fusion reaction. Without the volume of the fission reaction on the surface the compaction of the gaseous materials below this reaction will diminish causing the fusion to cease. The lack of fission and its related compaction below will cause the materials especialy the gaseous materials on the surface to expand and with only gravity affecting these materials this will allow the sun to expand to be a red giant.
    How can hydrogen fuel a fission reaction? If your idea were true, that would mean that stars without a planetary system would never reach the red giant phase. What would then happen to those stars? There are even more phenomena to be explained in your picture: solar spots, helium flash, supernova, white dwarf, neutron star, pulsating stars (cepheids, RR Lyr stars)
    Quote Originally Posted by Sherman Smith
    b. The present thought that the sun runs out of fissionable hydrogen and fails to maintain its present energy balance is false.
    Hydrogen cannot undergo a fission reaction.
    Quote Originally Posted by Sherman Smith
    The fusion fission reaction cycle is a continuous cycle. The stars believed to be over 13.7 billion years old are still going because the materials entering from outside them is finite and enough material has not contributed their mass to make them grow in size beyond their surfaces hydrogen helium fission fusion reaction cycle.
    Why aren't there any long lived high mass stars? Why are there only long lived late type stars? How do you explain the formation of the first stars, when heavy elements did not exist yet?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    117
    mmm the kipper belt - sounds a bit fishy to me
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    A few decades ago I considered multiple big bangs as the more likely order of things.

    If you start off with the first ever BB, it is like tossing a penny two billion times where you are likely to get about a billion heads and a billion tails as random chance rules itself out. So without any bias (as in the BB is expanding into a totally empty area) it would naturally be smooth. So in the first BB there would be very little formed.

    After a zillion years it mostly collapses and reaches a point where it expands again. But now it has some left over material from the previous BB around which galaxies, black holes, stars and even planets can quickly form.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7 String Theory and M-Theory 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    baltimore, md, usa, earth
    Posts
    33
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8 Re: String Theory and M-Theory 
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by FuturePasTimeCE
    M-Theory is a theory that theorectoicize the idea of multiple big bangs occurring.
    Unfortunately M theory is not yet a theory at all. No one, not even Ed Witten who invented the idea, can even define it. The biggest open question in M theory is "What is M Theory ?"

    In fact nobody really knows how to define the string theories that are subsumed by M theory either.

    An awful lot of what you are told as "truth" about string theory is unproved conjecture and pure hype.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    For heaven's sake! Can you two please stop beating each other? Yes, you know damn well, who. I know that it is frustrating to witness someone so ignorant to the scientific method, writing so much science fiction and selling this as ideas being as credible as the established scientific theories. But ignoring this can be more powerful than commenting each and every remark.

    Just as a reminder: This is a science forum, and that means that we are discussing science - not science fiction. It is not bad discussing new fresh ideas, but they should at least have some backing by other theories or empirical evidence. Pure speculation out of the blue has no place here. There is also a sub-forum called "New Hypotheses" that should be used instead.

    I have been very patient, but I think this has to change. Sorry about that!

    Dishmaster
    (Moderator).

    PS: I have deleted a few posts that were not suitable to support the scientific discussion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberia
    A few decades ago I considered multiple big bangs as the more likely order of things.

    If you start off with the first ever BB, it is like tossing a penny two billion times where you are likely to get about a billion heads and a billion tails as random chance rules itself out. So without any bias (as in the BB is expanding into a totally empty area) it would naturally be smooth. So in the first BB there would be very little formed.

    After a zillion years it mostly collapses and reaches a point where it expands again. But now it has some left over material from the previous BB around which galaxies, black holes, stars and even planets can quickly form.
    Where is the evidence for this speculation? On what scientific basis do you put these statements? What is the fundamental difference to a single BB model, when you still have to explain the first of a series of BBs, whatever that means?

    Another remark (and not for the first time), the universe is not expanding into something. The universe is everything by definition, and it is expanding entirely.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    For heaven's sake! Can you two please stop beating each other? Yes, you know damn well, who. I know that it is frustrating to witness someone so ignorant to the scientific method, writing so much science fiction and selling this as ideas being as credible as the established scientific theories. But ignoring this can be more powerful than commenting each and every remark.

    Just as a reminder: This is a science forum, and that means that we are discussing science - not science fiction. It is not bad discussing new fresh ideas, but they should at least have some backing by other theories or empirical evidence. Pure speculation out of the blue has no place here. There is also a sub-forum called "New Hypotheses" that should be used instead.

    I have been very patient, but I think this has to change. Sorry about that!

    Dishmaster
    (Moderator).

    PS: I have deleted a few posts that were not suitable to support the scientific discussion.
    Then move the crap to Pseudoscience or New Hypothesis where it belongs.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    Where is the evidence for this speculation? On what scientific basis do you put these statements? What is the fundamental difference to a single BB model, when you still have to explain the first of a series of BBs, whatever that means?
    The universe is not expanding into anything which can in any way put a bias on it.

    As I said with the pennies, there is no reason for these imaginary perturbations which will form large structures because it is a 100% uniform expansion in every direction. There is no reason anything would form from a first big bang.

    Another remark (and not for the first time), the universe is not expanding into something. The universe is everything by definition, and it is expanding entirely.[/quote]

    Before the universe, it needed an area to expand into which contained literally nothing. How the original formed, where it came from , etc is the stuff of fantasy, but you and everyone else ignores that so I will here.

    If the universe contracts there is no reason to say it must be 100% before rebounding so material left from the previous BB will provide something that matter from the new BB can coagulate around.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    For heaven's sake! Can you two please stop beating each other?


    What is wrong with debate this way (if it does not get too insulting)? Do you want people here behaving like a bunch of old duffers in a library? What you seem to want is a discussion between two text books which is pointless since if you only deal in "accepted" science, then all answers can be found using a search engine and all you get here is people too lazy to look for themselves.

    Yes, you know damn well, who. I know that it is frustrating to witness someone so ignorant to the scientific method, writing so much science fiction and selling this as ideas being as credible as the established scientific theories. But ignoring this can be more powerful than commenting each and every remark.

    Just as a reminder: This is a science forum, and that means that we are discussing science - not science fiction. It is not bad discussing new fresh ideas, but they should at least have some backing by other theories or empirical evidence. Pure speculation out of the blue has no place here. There is also a sub-forum called "New Hypotheses" that should be used instead.

    I have been very patient, but I think this has to change. Sorry about that!

    Dishmaster
    (Moderator).

    PS: I have deleted a few posts that were not suitable to support the scientific discussion.
    You miss the point here in cosmology. It is not a hard and fast science like the other branches. It is all speculation based on a single interpretation of a few facts. No one has photos of any large structure moving in space so no one can prove expansion.

    Much of the field is based on unproven IDEAS like how it all started, singularities, inflation, a hypersphere, etc. Just IDEAS. It is all science fiction until PROVED otherwise. The "accepted" bit is cosmologists ignoring anyone who disagrees with them, and there are a fair number, and putting all their eggs into one basket and praying they are right. If not, the whole field collapses and it's back to the beginning again.

    Anyone who disagrees with accepted science would have their posts moved to "New Hypothesis" which includes just about everybody if you bother looking at the posts here and poor old DrRocket is going to be here on his own. Is that what you want?

    You are supposed to moderate this board. Not crush all opposition to your own ideas while DrRocket bleats in your ear.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    Then move the crap to Pseudoscience or New Hypothesis where it belongs.
    You prefer people too lazy to use search engines themself so when they ask how many beans make five, you can use a search engine, get an answer and then put it into your own words and stand back for the admiring praise.

    This having to think because there are no pat answers is too hard on you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberia
    You miss the point here in cosmology. It is not a hard and fast science like the other branches. It is all speculation based on a single interpretation of a few facts. No one has photos of any large structure moving in space so no one can prove expansion.
    Utterly wrong. Ignorance personified.

    Cosmology is based on general relatoivity backed by a MOUNTAIN of observational data. That includes the big bang which is supported by data going back to Hubble's observations which support an expanding universe, the discovery of the cosmic microwave background by Penzias and Wilson (Nobel Prize for the discovery) and more recent COBE and WMAP data on the cosmic microwave background.

    Yep, it is ideas -- in the form of disciplined research, rigorous theories, and sophisticated observations.

    Contrast that with your delusions.

    You don't understand and you don't understand that you don't understand.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    Utterly wrong. Ignorance personified.
    DrRocket's standard idea of an answer, it seems.

    Cosmology is based on general relatoivity backed by a MOUNTAIN of observational data. That includes the big bang which is supported by data going back to Hubble's observations which support an expanding universe, the discovery of the cosmic microwave background by Penzias and Wilson (Nobel Prize for the discovery) and more recent COBE and WMAP data on the cosmic microwave background.
    I have looked on my thread about the big bang where I ask for evidence and not only is there no mountain of evidence in your two posts there, there is not even a molehill of evidence. All I see is the same arm waving going on here.

    I have already shown why the BB CMB is wrong but you did not even look at my posts and waffled on about the local CMB.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberia
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    Utterly wrong. Ignorance personified.
    DrRocket's standard idea of an answer, it seems.

    Cosmology is based on general relatoivity backed by a MOUNTAIN of observational data. That includes the big bang which is supported by data going back to Hubble's observations which support an expanding universe, the discovery of the cosmic microwave background by Penzias and Wilson (Nobel Prize for the discovery) and more recent COBE and WMAP data on the cosmic microwave background.
    I have looked on my thread about the big bang where I ask for evidence and not only is there no mountain of evidence in your two posts there, there is not even a molehill of evidence. All I see is the same arm waving going on here.

    I have already shown why the BB CMB is wrong but you did not even look at my posts and waffled on about the local CMB.
    As you have been adequately instructed, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A LOCAL CMB. Moron
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    As you have been adequately instructed, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A LOCAL CMB. Moron
    Another non answer from someone who seems to know nothing.

    The CMB in our area as in near Earth as opposed to the edge of the universe.

    Is it possible for you to even attempt an answer without insulting people in the most cowardly way, knowing you are safe in your bedroom so safe from any retaliation?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberia
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    As you have been adequately instructed, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A LOCAL CMB. Moron
    Another non answer from someone who seems to know nothing.

    The CMB in our area as in near Earth as opposed to the edge of the universe.
    Which are the same damn thing. A fact that seems to bounce off of your skull.

    BTW there is no such thing as the edge of the universe. Moron.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberia
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    As you have been adequately instructed, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A LOCAL CMB. Moron
    Another non answer from someone who seems to know nothing.

    The CMB in our area as in near Earth as opposed to the edge of the universe.
    Which are the same damn thing. A fact that seems to bounce off of your skull.
    So where matter first separated out in a universe where the temperature had finally dropped below 3000.C is exactly the same as near Earth where the temperature is just 2.7K? It seems to me that there is a matter of density after over 13 billion years of expansion and a matter of temperature as in some 3,270 .C difference.

    BTW there is no such thing as the edge of the universe. Moron.
    How do you know? A hypersphere or any similar design needs four physical dimensions and we have no evidence that such is possible. In a 3D universe, there is a definite edge, for matter and for energy, as well as a definite start point.

    There is no need to sign your posts. Anyone can see you are a Moron.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    How do you know? A hypersphere or any similar design needs four physical dimensions and we have no evidence that such is possible. In a 3D universe, there is a definite edge, for matter and for energy, as well as a definite start point.
    Now please, read this carefully a few times: The big bang idea was formulated using GR, which only deals with 3 space-like dimensions. The inflating balloon analogy illustrates what is possible with only 3 space-like dimensions. You might disagree with it with your lack of education in the field, but it nevertheless is how it was worked out by the real experts with proper related educations. GR has been verified many times with a variety of experiments. That means curvature exists in 3D space. Curvature in 3D space is all that is needed for the big bang to work and in this setup, no edge or centre exists in 3D space. That you can't wrap your mind around it (it is admittedly a counterintuitive concept), makes no difference to how it has been worked out and verified by the real experts. Just accept this and move on or undergo the necessary education to be able to speak intelligently about it. Common sense has been shown countless times to not be necessary for a physics concept to be the reality of how things work.
    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  
     

  23. #22  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberia
    BTW there is no such thing as the edge of the universe. Moron.
    How do you know? A hypersphere or any similar design needs four physical dimensions and we have no evidence that such is possible. In a 3D universe, there is a definite edge, for matter and for energy, as well as a definite start point.

    There is no need to sign your posts. Anyone can see you are a Moron.
    Wrong. Completely, totally, utterly wrong.

    There are spheres of any dimension, and all of them are manifolds without boundary (no edge).

    General relativity treats the universe a Lorentzian 4-manifold without boundary.. There is no boundary to spacetime and no boundary to the 3-dimensional spacelike slices that are "space". there is no truth and no understanding in your assertions.

    No one knows the topology of space. It might be a hypersphere. It might not. It might be open. It might be closed. But all of the possible manifolds are without boundary.

    Spacetime, the universe has no "edge", and no center. The idea of an edge "for matter and for energy" is meaningless word salad.

    You don't understand physics. You don't underestand mathematics. NOTHING that you have said is true or even rational.

    Why don't you go educate yourself, read an actual book or two, and stop babbling.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    KALSTER. In a 3D universe, we can trace everything back to a common origin so the starting point of the big bang.

    Using the balloon analogy work with only 3 dimensions, everything moves away from a common centre so the universe is nothing more than an expanding shell and go a little way towards the origin and there is nothing there. Everything has gone past that point so a big hollow sphere.

    Curvature as in the effects of gravity? You might as well talk about heated space as heat travels through it like an electric current, the same way gravity does. Real world. Gravity does not have to bend or warp space to get from A to B. That is a ridiculous idea, which is why I started the thread asking what space was since it apparently expanded from quantum size to maybe over 100 billion light years in diameter without changing in any way at all. Totally ridiculous.

    Any time in the past the universe was much smaller than now. Heard of gravity? If our solar system started getting bigger and bigger with the planets moving ever further away from the sun, what would happen (allowing that the overall mass is the same)? At some point in the past, the universe would have been so small that gravity would have made sure it could not expand. Go back further to a smaller universe and it would contract and not expand. Go back further and you have black hole density and not even light escapes. What curvature?

    Real experts as in Phineas T Barnum who said there was a fool born every minute, as he took their money. Science is not about reading a text book while nodding your head and going Yup! Yup! Yup!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    Wrong. Completely, totally, utterly wrong.
    God has spoken. Listen all you wise men.

    There are spheres of any dimension, and all of them are manifolds without boundary (no edge).
    I thought all spheres had edges. Are you talking an infinite sphere of some kind?

    General relativity treats the universe a Lorentzian 4-manifold without boundary.. There is no boundary to spacetime and no boundary to the 3-dimensional spacelike slices that are "space". there is no truth and no understanding in your assertions.
    3 dimensions of space and 1 of time. I ignore time here since it is merely change and only useful in maths, which is not here (unless you need a Tardis to get to the Moon instead of a conventional rocket that is).

    Of course it has a boundary. Everything has. The boundary cannot be seen if the 3D skin of a 4D hypersphere but a 3D one can be detected by us 3D people.

    No one knows the topology of space. It might be a hypersphere. It might not. It might be open. It might be closed. But all of the possible manifolds are without boundary.
    A hypersphere would require an unproven fourth physical dimension, and speculation as to what is inside it.

    If the universe has expanded this far, it is billions of years past any point of contracting again as it's mass spreads ever further apart.

    Spacetime, the universe has no "edge", and no center. The idea of an edge "for matter and for energy" is meaningless word salad.
    That's some good dope you are on there. Colombian?

    You don't understand physics. You don't underestand mathematics. NOTHING that you have said is true or even rational.

    Why don't you go educate yourself, read an actual book or two, and stop babbling.
    The usual nonsense to end it.

    Bang!

    I put your post out of it's misery.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    Using the balloon analogy work with only 3 dimensions, everything moves away from a common centre
    Once again, that is not the balloon analogy. The analogy is about what happens on the surface of the balloon in 2D. The rest of it is not part of the point it is trying to get across.

    An excerpt form THIS page:

    "The Famous Balloon Analogy

    A good way to help visualise the expanding universe is to compare space with the surface of an expanding balloon. This analogy was used by Arthur Eddington as early as 1933 in his book The Expanding Universe. It was also used by Fred Hoyle in the 1960 edition of his popular book The Nature of the Universe. Hoyle wrote "My non-mathematical friends often tell me that they find it difficult to picture this expansion. Short of using a lot of mathematics I cannot do better than use the analogy of a balloon with a large number of dots marked on its surface. If the balloon is blown up the distances between the dots increase in the same way as the distances between the galaxies."

    The balloon analogy is very good but needs to be understood properly--otherwise it can cause more confusion. As Hoyle said, "There are several important respects in which it is definitely misleading." It is important to appreciate that three-dimensional space is to be compared with the two-dimensional surface of the balloon. The surface is homogeneous with no point that should be picked out as the centre. The centre of the balloon itself is not on the surface, and should not be thought of as the centre of the universe. If it helps, you can think of the radial direction in the balloon as time. This was what Hoyle suggested, but it can also be confusing. It is better to regard points off the surface as not being part of the universe at all. As Gauss discovered at the beginning of the 19th century, properties of space such as curvature can be described in terms of intrinsic quantities that can be measured without needing to think about what it is curving in. So space can be curved without there being any other dimensions "outside". Gauss even tried to determine the curvature of space by measuring the angles of a large triangle between three hill tops.

    When thinking about the balloon analogy you must remember that. . .
    The 2-dimensional surface of the balloon is analogous to the 3 dimensions of space.
    The 3-dimensional space in which the balloon is embedded is not analogous to any higher dimensional physical space.
    The centre of the balloon does not correspond to anything physical.
    The universe may be finite in size and growing like the surface of an expanding balloon, but it could also be infinite.
    Galaxies move apart like points on the expanding balloon, but the galaxies themselves do not expand because they are gravitationally bound."
    Science is not about reading a text book while nodding your head and going Yup! Yup! Yup!
    No shit. But you have to have at least some understanding of the current theories before you can attempt to de-construct them. You simply don't. You have shown this repeatedly, but arrogantly and pigheadedly sweep aside warnings by others that you are doing so. DrRocket has given you countless references to texts that would help you out in this regard, but instead you respond by slinging trash talk his way. Then you continue with your handwavy explanations of how you think it works, both using and rejecting mutually dependant concepts from within the same theory to try and give your ideas some credibility. This has been going on from the very start and your reputation has dwindled into the negatives from then on. The only way you can ever make any real progress is to be intellectually honest with yourself and attempt to really understand what is being talked about. You don't have to necessarily accept anything while doing so either. Just make an effort.
    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  
     

  27. #26  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberia
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    Wrong. Completely, totally, utterly wrong.
    God has spoken. Listen all you wise men.
    Excluding yourself I see.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberia
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    ]]There are spheres of any dimension, and all of them are manifolds without boundary (no edge).
    I thought all spheres had edges. Are you talking an infinite sphere of some kind?
    nope

    No sphere has an edge. That is why Columbus did not fall off the edge of the world.

    A phere is a manifold without boundary, just like the universe in cosmology based on general relativity

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberia
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    ]]General relativity treats the universe a Lorentzian 4-manifold without boundary.. There is no boundary to spacetime and no boundary to the 3-dimensional spacelike slices that are "space". there is no truth and no understanding in your assertions.
    3 dimensions of space and 1 of time. I ignore time here since it is merely change and only useful in maths, which is not here (unless you need a Tardis to get to the Moon instead of a conventional rocket that is).

    Of course it has a boundary. Everything has. The boundary cannot be seen if the 3D skin of a 4D hypersphere but a 3D one can be detected by us 3D people.
    wrong

    You apparently are not acquainted with the mathematical notion of a manifold. Genertal relativity is based on that theory. That excludes from any possible claim to understanding the basis for cosmological theory.

    So, as usual, not one single thing that you have stated is correct. All that you have done is isolate a critical element in your vast sea of ignorance.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberia
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    ]]No one knows the topology of space. It might be a hypersphere. It might not. It might be open. It might be closed. But all of the possible manifolds are without boundary.
    A hypersphere would require an unproven fourth physical dimension, and speculation as to what is inside it.

    If the universe has expanded this far, it is billions of years past any point of contracting again as it's mass spreads ever further apart.
    wrong

    Your ignorance of mathematics is again reinforced.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberia
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    Spacetime, the universe has no "edge", and no center. The idea of an edge "for matter and for energy" is meaningless word salad.
    That's some good dope you are on there. Colombian?
    nope

    I simply understand the subject. You clearly do not.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberia
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    You don't understand physics. You don't underestand mathematics. NOTHING that you have said is true or even rational.

    Why don't you go educate yourself, read an actual book or two, and stop babbling.
    The usual nonsense to end it.

    Bang!

    I put your post out of it's misery.
    What you have done is to reject any notion of education and cement your ignorance of basic physics and mathematics. You are ignorant and damn proud of it -- thereby transcending simple ignorance in favor of profound stupidity.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    KALSTER. Like DrRocket, you have moved into the realm of non answers and are just demanding that I obediently follow your advice as you know it all.

    Why not change your signature to "I may not know anything about a subject but I know when it is right and when it is wrong."

    Your present:

    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.
    does not match up with your posts where you do claim to be an expert on a subject you had previously said you knew very little on. Perhaps you would care to lecture me on Bragg Law?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    nope

    No sphere has an edge. That is why Columbus did not fall off the edge of the world.

    A phere is a manifold without boundary, just like the universe in cosmology based on general relativity
    Is not the surface an edge? Without that, all spheres are of infinite diameter.

    wrong

    You apparently are not acquainted with the mathematical notion of a manifold. Genertal relativity is based on that theory. That excludes from any possible claim to understanding the basis for cosmological theory.

    So, as usual, not one single thing that you have stated is correct. All that you have done is isolate a critical element in your vast sea of ignorance.
    Word salad as you would say. You did not answer my question but spouted on about some irrelevance.

    wrong

    Your ignorance of mathematics is again reinforced.
    I find your arrogance quite comical. Be careful. There is a little kid looking for some fool who thinks he is wearing golden clothes. He got the Emperor last week.

    nope

    I simply understand the subject. You clearly do not.
    Boasting about your new suit of invisible clothes?

    What you have done is to reject any notion of education and cement your ignorance of basic physics and mathematics. You are ignorant and damn proud of it -- thereby transcending simple ignorance in favor of profound stupidity.
    Just a bunch of non answers from a pope dope who can spout nonsense using his infallibility as a shield.

    DrRocket has got no clothes. Hahahahaha. He's a bare bear.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    The sad part of it all is you are willingly ignorant. You make claims in mathematics and physics that aren't supported in anyway at all whatsoever, and are in fact outright wrong. Rocket gives you "nonanswers" because it's too time consuming to give you the whole argument on why you're wrong, and it's a massive waste of time on someone like you who will no doubt not understand and state rocket is wrong because of you're own stupidity. If it was a genuine search for understanding, as in a poster who posed a question, unsure of the answer, and seeking an explanation, you'd notice who different rocket, kalster, and all the other forum members who just call you stupid would respond. There would be a tone of respect, and some actual explanation.

    Fucktards get non-answers, Students get answers. Which category do you think we perceive you as belonging to?
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    [quote="Cyberia"]
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    nope

    No sphere has an edge. That is why Columbus did not fall off the edge of the world.

    A phere is a manifold without boundary, just like the universe in cosmology based on general relativity
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifold

    Just as a baseline reference. You need to learn some more math.
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    If it was a genuine search for understanding, as in a poster who posed a question, unsure of the answer, and seeking an explanation, you'd notice who different rocket, kalster, and all the other forum members who just call you stupid would respond. There would be a tone of respect, and some actual explanation.
    I have in fact been wasting my time by trying to explain things over multiple threads for a few days now. Nothing seems to be getting through. He is just incapable of understanding due to an unfortunate combination of reasons that I just see no hope of amending. He is like a hugely obnoxious William McCormick.
    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  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    At least William was funny.
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    Arcane Dunce. That's all I need. Another idiot spamming about how clever he is while posting information a little child could post.

    Maths as there is provably 26 dimensions as in strings. Wait a moment. We have just got that down to 11 dimensions because there was a special offer on at the mathsworld hypermarket.

    Can I assume your avatar is a self portrait, but what woman would have one that colour?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    I have in fact been wasting my time by trying to explain things over multiple threads for a few days now. Nothing seems to be getting through. He is just incapable of understanding due to an unfortunate combination of reasons that I just see no hope of amending. He is like a hugely obnoxious William McCormick.

    How is it possible to discuss science here when people like you see only two sides to it. Your side and the wrong side? Anything not in the text book is WRONG. If you have not spent billions backing up what you believe in science labs, you are WRONG.

    But yes, you and most others are wasting your time here as if I do not already know, I can use the wiki or elsewhere to obtain your every answer on any subject because it strays not a nanometer from accepted science, which is plastered all over the net for anyone with a search engine to find.

    The only people you can inform are those who are too lazy to use a search engine to find the answer for themselves. Why bother with any differing view because they are all WRONG, WRONG, WRONG.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    why aren't you banned yet?
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberia
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    I have in fact been wasting my time by trying to explain things over multiple threads for a few days now. Nothing seems to be getting through. He is just incapable of understanding due to an unfortunate combination of reasons that I just see no hope of amending. He is like a hugely obnoxious William McCormick.

    How is it possible to discuss science here when people like you see only two sides to it. Your side and the wrong side? Anything not in the text book is WRONG. If you have not spent billions backing up what you believe in science labs, you are WRONG.

    But yes, you and most others are wasting your time here as if I do not already know, I can use the wiki or elsewhere to obtain your every answer on any subject because it strays not a nanometer from accepted science, which is plastered all over the net for anyone with a search engine to find.

    The only people you can inform are those who are too lazy to use a search engine to find the answer for themselves. Why bother with any differing view because they are all WRONG, WRONG, WRONG.
    You rail against on-line sources and refuse to read real science texts, then make ridiculous statements about the version of science that you fabricate.

    Ignorant and damn proud of it. The ultimate fool.
    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
  •