Notices
Results 1 to 17 of 17
Like Tree2Likes
  • 2 Post By Cogito Ergo Sum

Thread: What if...

  1. #1 What if... 
    Forum Ph.D. Raziell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    928
    Big bang theory again.

    What if... Everything absorbed by black holes returns matter to the centre of the universe. Big bang, universe expands, worlds are created, dark holes eventually absorbs all the energy of the universe back in. When filled (universe empty) another big bang occurs. Sry just had the this thought and couldnt resist if this could be possible.


    A lie is a lie even if everyone believes it. The truth is the truth even if nobody believes it. - David Stevens
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  

    Related Discussions:

     

  3. #2  
    AI's Have More Fun Bad Robot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    6,114
    This post doesn't belong in the physics sub-forum, but maybe the Alternate theories, but I would recommend the Trash sub-forum.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Moderator Moderator Cogito Ergo Sum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    2,507
    Quote Originally Posted by Raziell View Post
    Big bang theory again.

    What if... Everything absorbed by black holes returns matter to the centre of the universe. Big bang, universe expands, worlds are created, dark holes eventually absorbs all the energy of the universe back in. When filled (universe empty) another big bang occurs. Sry just had the this thought and couldnt resist if this could be possible.

    Is there a center in the observable universe?
    I am not certain about the fact that the geometry and the expansion of the universe allow such a point to exist.
    "The only safe rule is to dispute only with those of your acquaintance of whom you know that they possess sufficient intelligence and self-respect not to advance absurdities; to appeal to reason and not to authority, and to listen to reason and yield to it; and, finally, to be willing to accept reason even from an opponent, and to be just enough to bear being proved to be in the wrong."

    ~ Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Being Right: 38 Ways to Win an Argument (1831), Stratagem XXXVIII.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Ph.D. merumario's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    nigeria
    Posts
    844
    And how come you have 746 post don't tell me most are of this sort!
    "I am sorry for making this letter longer than usual.I actually lacked the time to make it shorter."###
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Western Australia
    Posts
    316
    Is there a center in the observable universe?
    yes, and it is where i happen to be sitting. of course that is true for all locations. either on earth or not.
    Sometimes it is better not knowing than having an answer that may be wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Manchester, UK
    Posts
    236
    One arguement that is often advanced about there not being a centre of the universe is that the universe is not expanding out from a centre, but that all parts of it are moving away from each other. No matter where you were in the universe, it would still appear to be expanding. However, it isn't clear to me that this is sufficient to demonstrate that the universe doesn't have a centre. It would be quite feasible for all parts to be moving apart, so that there is no centre of expansion, but for the universe to have a geometric centre.

    A simple analogy would be a block of metal which is undergoing thermal expansion. Any point within the block would be moving away from any other point, but the block could still have a geometric centre. It seems that some other arguement has to be provided to rule out a geometric centre.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Ph.D. merumario's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    nigeria
    Posts
    844
    Quote Originally Posted by JonG View Post
    One arguement that is often advanced about there not being a centre of the universe is that the universe is not expanding out from a centre, but that all parts of it are moving away from each other. No matter where you were in the universe, it would still appear to be expanding. However, it isn't clear to me that this is sufficient to demonstrate that the universe doesn't have a centre. It would be quite feasible for all parts to be moving apart, so that there is no centre of expansion, but for the universe to have a geometric centre.

    A simple analogy would be a block of metal which is undergoing thermal expansion. Any point within the block would be moving away from any other point, but the block could still have a geometric centre. It seems that some other arguement has to be provided to rule out a geometric centre.

    The only argument that is already in place(just for you to know it) is that the universe is isotropic and homogeneous. And hence every point is expanding with same acceleration away from anyother point, with the farthest point receding away faster....the universe cannot be said to have a centre because of this fact;"the universe is not expanding with respect to anypoint single point(centre) but with respect to every given point(which is everywhere)#

    You do agree that everywhere is nowhere right?
    "I am sorry for making this letter longer than usual.I actually lacked the time to make it shorter."###
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Manchester, UK
    Posts
    236
    Quote Originally Posted by merumario View Post

    And hence every point is expanding with same acceleration away from anyother point, with the farthest point receding away faster....the universe cannot be said to have a centre because of this fact;
    I don't agree that the expansion arguement shows that the universe doesn't have a geometric centre. It merely suggests that there is no centre of expansion - no special point which all other points are receding from.

    Another analogy that is often given is that the geometry of the universe is similar to the geometry of a spherical surface. Such a surface is finite in size but it has no boundaries and no centre. This would be true no matter whether the suface is expanding or not. However, it is quite difficult to extrapolate from the two dimensional analogy to the case of the actual universe - one can't visualise what such a universe would be be like - at least, I can't
    Last edited by JonG; September 24th, 2013 at 09:17 AM. Reason: letter missing
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,482
    Quote Originally Posted by JonG View Post
    However, it is quite difficult to extrapolate from the two dimensional analogy to the case of the actual universe - one can't visualise what such a universe would be be like - a least, I can't
    Which is why we use mathematics.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Ph.D. merumario's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    nigeria
    Posts
    844
    Quote Originally Posted by JonG View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by merumario View Post

    And hence every point is expanding with same acceleration away from anyother point, with the farthest point receding away faster....the universe cannot be said to have a centre because of this fact;
    I don't agree that the expansion arguement shows that the universe doesn't have a geometric centre. It merely suggests that there is no centre of expansion - no special point which all other points are receding from.

    Another analogy that is often given is that the geometry of the universe is similar to the geometry of a spherical surface. Such a surface is finite in size but it has no boundaries and no centre. This would be true no matter whether the suface is expanding or not. However, it is quite difficult to extrapolate from the two dimensional analogy to the case of the actual universe - one can't visualise what such a universe would be be like - at least, I can't
    Just as strange stated....math becomes our eyes#
    "I am sorry for making this letter longer than usual.I actually lacked the time to make it shorter."###
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Ph.D. Raziell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    928
    I have no clue when it comes to math and physics. Probably trash can material yeah Sorry for wasting your time.

    Quote Originally Posted by merumario View Post
    And how come you have 746 post don't tell me most are of this sort!
    Dont worry, I rarely post in anything related to math for a reason
    A lie is a lie even if everyone believes it. The truth is the truth even if nobody believes it. - David Stevens
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Ph.D. merumario's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    nigeria
    Posts
    844
    Quote Originally Posted by Raziell View Post
    I have no clue when it comes to math and physics. Probably trash can material yeah Sorry for wasting your time.

    Quote Originally Posted by merumario View Post
    And how come you have 746 post don't tell me most are of this sort!
    Dont worry, I rarely post in anything related to math for a reason
    Helpful#
    "I am sorry for making this letter longer than usual.I actually lacked the time to make it shorter."###
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Moderator Moderator Cogito Ergo Sum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    2,507
    Quote Originally Posted by Raziell View Post
    I have no clue when it comes to math and physics. Probably trash can material yeah Sorry for wasting your time.

    In my opinion, this thread does not belong in the Trash Can.
    You have stated that it was merely a thought, rather than a scientific theory or a paradigm shift (as is often claimed by those who end up in that particular sub-forum).
    "The only safe rule is to dispute only with those of your acquaintance of whom you know that they possess sufficient intelligence and self-respect not to advance absurdities; to appeal to reason and not to authority, and to listen to reason and yield to it; and, finally, to be willing to accept reason even from an opponent, and to be just enough to bear being proved to be in the wrong."

    ~ Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Being Right: 38 Ways to Win an Argument (1831), Stratagem XXXVIII.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Ph.D. merumario's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    nigeria
    Posts
    844
    Quote Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Raziell View Post
    I have no clue when it comes to math and physics. Probably trash can material yeah Sorry for wasting your time.

    In my opinion, this thread does not belong in the Trash Can.
    You have stated that it was merely a thought, rather than a scientific theory or a paradigm shift (as is often claimed by those who end up in that particular sub-forum).
    Are you saying that how someone presents an idea determines if it goes to trash or not? And not the content of the thread?
    "I am sorry for making this letter longer than usual.I actually lacked the time to make it shorter."###
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,482
    Quote Originally Posted by merumario View Post
    Are you saying that how someone presents an idea determines if it goes to trash or not? And not the content of the thread?
    It can do. Exactly the same idea could be introduced in a spectrum of approaches from "this doesn't sound right to me" to "can you tell me what is wrong with this" to "I just had this silly idea" to "I have proved all scientists are wrong". The last is far more likely to end up in Trash than the first!
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Moderator Moderator Cogito Ergo Sum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    2,507
    Quote Originally Posted by merumario View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Raziell View Post
    I have no clue when it comes to math and physics. Probably trash can material yeah Sorry for wasting your time.

    In my opinion, this thread does not belong in the Trash Can.
    You have stated that it was merely a thought, rather than a scientific theory or a paradigm shift (as is often claimed by those who end up in that particular sub-forum).
    Are you saying that how someone presents an idea determines if it goes to trash or not? And not the content of the thread?

    No, I do not say that.
    As member Strange pointed out, the lay-out (or presentation) of an idea can be an indication that it belongs into the Trash Can.

    For example:
    "I think I have found a contradiction in General Relativity. Could someone help me with finding my error? I present my math below..."

    "General Relativity is wrong! All those scientists keep repeating the same lies over and over again so they can get money from the government!!!1!1!
    I have found an error in the theory and YOU WILL BE FORCED TO AGREE WITH ME!"
    Markus Hanke and Neverfly like this.
    "The only safe rule is to dispute only with those of your acquaintance of whom you know that they possess sufficient intelligence and self-respect not to advance absurdities; to appeal to reason and not to authority, and to listen to reason and yield to it; and, finally, to be willing to accept reason even from an opponent, and to be just enough to bear being proved to be in the wrong."

    ~ Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Being Right: 38 Ways to Win an Argument (1831), Stratagem XXXVIII.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Ph.D. merumario's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    nigeria
    Posts
    844
    Quote Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by merumario View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Raziell View Post
    I have no clue when it comes to math and physics. Probably trash can material yeah Sorry for wasting your time.

    In my opinion, this thread does not belong in the Trash Can.
    You have stated that it was merely a thought, rather than a scientific theory or a paradigm shift (as is often claimed by those who end up in that particular sub-forum).
    Are you saying that how someone presents an idea determines if it goes to trash or not? And not the content of the thread?

    No, I do not say that.
    As member Strange pointed out, the lay-out (or presentation) of an idea can be an indication that it belongs into the Trash Can.

    For example:
    "I think I have found a contradiction in General Relativity. Could someone help me with finding my error? I present my math below..."

    "General Relativity is wrong! All those scientists keep repeating the same lies over and over again so they can get money from the government!!!1!1!
    I have found an error in the theory and YOU WILL BE FORCED TO AGREE WITH ME!"
    That certainly belongs to trash#
    "I am sorry for making this letter longer than usual.I actually lacked the time to make it shorter."###
    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
  •