Gravity never zero

[RealityCheck]

.

Good morning, origin. Thanks again for your response.

So your evidence is 'some guy on the internet thinks this'? Well, sorry if I am not impressed with this source.



Absolutely. You are one of these guys who always takes the counter postion of the scientific community because they cannot be trusted.

So what you do is accept parts of the information from these 'untrustworthy scientist' and discard their analysis and you then apply your missunderstanding of the most basic physics to come up with fantasy pseudo-science explanations.

Yeah, I think I get your drift rather well.

Hehehe. Mate, I humbly submit that this particular 'some guy on the internet' is more advanced in Relativity Theory than you. And I am not the only one who treats his explanations with great respect. You'd be surprised who else takes note when he speaks on the subject!

And do I detect a semblance of umbrage on your part because I 'question/test' the status quo whenever I wish to clarify that status quo for my own understanding?

Mate, take a look at my nom-de-plume; it is "RealityCheck". That is my whole raison-detre.

I question and check the 'accepted theory' just like EVERY scientist SHOULD at every opportunity where they feel the current explanations do not 'gel' consistently.

In fact, the scientific method UNEQUIVOCALLY REQUIRES that we DO QUESTION?CHECK, and NEVER STOP DOING SO. I take the scientific method seriously. I suggest you do too and resist the temptation to slur indiscriminately all those who do follow it TO THE LETTER. I am not afraid to find out that we may have been wrong. But you seem to be terrified of that prospect and 'attack' me and paint me with your broad brush as someone who thinks "scientists cannot be trusted". You are patently wrong and indiscriminate there. I merely do what my nom-de-plume explains quite clearly.

So please do not make all this 'personal', as all too many others are wont to do when they take the 'elitist' and 'arrogant' approach to scientific discourse. Thanks.

Anyhow, back to the point at hand....

I am getting the impression that you think the astronomical/cosmological science is 'all settled' and there is nothing more to 'check' and 'learn' that may modify our current understandings/interpretations of the universe around us. If so, you are heading for a fall, mate. Even now in the latest observations regarding dark matter distribution/behaviour, there are many questions arising AMONGST THOSE VERY OBSERVERS, and all others in the relevant fields, that challenge the current 'accepted theory' in this area. So I am not the only one driven to try to make sense of the new observations in the context of what was 'known' before.

So my own discussion/suggestion attempts here, towards coming up with a possible/necessary re-interpretation of what we observe 'of' large intergalactic distances and 'in' vast spaces, is no more or less valid than what is happening around you in the professional ranks.

So I would appreciate you treating the discussion without personal attitudes/biases, without bringing into it your 'personal judgements' in lieu of keeping to the points/suggestions/questions posed in all seriousness and with all due respect to the current theory (which may of course turn out to be NOT as 'settled' OR as 'correctly interpreted' as you seem to think). Thanks.

Cheers, origin. Back in a day or two!

.

 

[Robittybob1]

No one thinks the 'diameter' of the universe is 27.5 billion light years. This is your strawman, or probably more likely just your confusion.

Here is the simple explanation.

Light that reaches earth that is 13.2 years old does not mean that it was emitted 13.2 ly away from us. The universe is expanding it is not static. When the 13.2 billion year old light was emitted it was much closer than 13.2 ly. It took longer to reach us because the universe is expanding. That is also the reason that the light is redshifted. The object that emitted the light 13.2 billion years ago is MUCH farther away than 13.2 ly.

If you would like to learn more or do the actual calculations there are many sites that have this information look up "redshift Z".

For a starter see if you can get your head around the facts in "The Observable Universe" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_Universe .

 

[RealityCheck]

.

Hi Robbitybob1.

The Universe can't be infinitely big for it would take infinite time to expand to infinite size. 13.7 billion years is not infinity, and feels more like yesterday rather than infinity!

What if the universe was always infinite in 'extent'?

And hence does not 'cycle' in 'extent', but only 'cycles' in energy/matter/space 'phases' WITHIN that pre-existing infinite 'extent' phenomenological 'arena' physical context.

And just as James R points out, we only 'see' the VISIBLE EXTENT of our local bit of a much larger 'extent'. So we cannot say what is beyond our 'visibility horizon', or how far it 'extends'. It may extend to actual infinite extent overall and we just see the local 'phase changes' cycling through the full gamut of its physical process ranges/possibilities.

In short, if the locally observed 'phase cycling' (not 'extent cycling') are merely part of a pre-existing infinite whole extent, then any LOCAL 'expansion' etc we 'observe/interpret' is in no way indicative of the 'size' of the whole universeas an infinite extent encompassing an infinite number of 'local processes/cycles' OBSERVABLE DOMAINS.

So your statement about taking infinite 'time' to expand to infinite extent is moot IF the extent was ALWAYS infinite and any 'expansion' is only within 'visible extent' SUB-infinite DOMAINS like that which we 'see/interpret' around us.

Cheers Rb1, everyone!



PS: Here is a perfect illustration where 'cycling' occurs as part of a system never at 'equilibrium' overall. In much the same way that Quantum Theory observes that energy/matter may appear/disappear within the Quantum Vacuum 'overall' without ever being 'in equilibrium' and still not breaking 'energy conservation laws 'overall' etc etc., the whole (infinite?) universal extent support LOCALISED 'non-equilibrium' processes/phenomena which 'overall' do not imply anything about the extent of the universe BEYOND that local domain. Anyhow, you'll get the drift once you read more about such systems as 'analogies' for what is happening locally regarding visible universe 'phase cycling' due to localised non-equilibrium processes somewhat analogous to.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belousov-Zhabotinsky_reaction


PPS: By the way, Belousov's story is yet another of all too many examples (from the history of science) where the arrogant 'established' scientists (to whom he presented his work for publication) would not even properly check out his work before REFUSING to publish his work. The established scientists apparently 'knew for certain' that what Belousov observed was 'impossible'. They 'knew it all' and acted just like some HERE and at other science sites by refusing to properly review before dismissing as 'impossible' or 'crank' etc etc. Yet another salutary lesson for those 'elitist know-it-alls' everywhere (but will each of those concerned take the lesson FOR THEMSELVES and be more humble/respectful about others views in future? Perhaps; perhaps not. The future will tell).

.

 

[Robittybob1]

Like the Big Bang is but a local ripple the Infinite Extent. You know they start mentioning number like 10^80 light years (from memory) as the size of the Universe. That is bordering on our perception of infinity, where infinity becomes "unimaginably large" rather than infinite (never ending).

 

[RealityCheck]

.

Hi Rb1, everyone. I added a PS and PPS to my previous post. Please refer to it for further clarifying analogy/examples of what I meant about 'cycling phases' rather than 'cycling extent' etc. Also, provided was an example of what happens when scientists 'as a body' become arrogant 'know-it-alls' and just kneejerk/default to crying 'impossible' or 'crank' etc etc. without even discussing and checking out properly what is being presented. Thanks.

.

 

[Emil]

It would be interesting to know what each understands by the word "universe" (the semantics of the word "universe")
For me it is three-dimensional space plus time and everything that existed, exists and will exist in this three-dimensional space.
I consider this three-dimensional space and time existed before the BB.
You?

 

[Robittybob1]

It would be interesting to know what each understands by the word "universe" (the semantics of the word "universe")
For me it is three-dimensional space plus time and everything that existed, exists and will exist in this three-dimensional space.
I consider this three-dimensional space and time existed before the BB.
You?

I might have been like you Emil but now I just let the current theory (or theories) enter into my comprehension and I realise that what I had preconceived earlier is "wrong" today.

 

[hansda]

No one can answer that.

In this case also there can be only two possibilities , either our Universe was created as a tiny point with BB (option A) or our Universe pre-existed as a tiny point before BB (option B) . I dont think if there is any third option possible .

Considering option A , this is contradicting the Law of Physics ; which says ' mass and energy neither can be created nor destroyed ' .

Considering option B , this is contradicting GR .

So, both the options are contradicting some Laws of Physics . Only ONE option has to be TRUE . We have to choose which option is TRUE .

The physics that we currently have can analyze the universe back to a time of about $$ 10^{-43} $$seconds after the big bang.

I think Planck's Time is basically an interval of time , which is still existing today ; as it was existing at the time of BB or earlier .

Anything before that time is speculation.

Do you mean to say that , time 'zero' started from BB ?

So as far as we know the universe was presexisting as a tiny point.

That means 'time' was pre-existing before BB .

 

[origin]

.

Considering option A , this is contradicting the Law of Physics ; which says ' mass and energy neither can be created nor destroyed ' .

Not really. Energy neither can be created nor destroyed in our universe. So the creation of the universe would be outside of those bounds.

Considering option B , this is contradicting GR .

Not really. GR does not work for the BB at time less than planks time. So the Big Bang is outside the bound of GR. So it does not contradict it, it just is not applicable.

 

[origin]

.Hehehe. Mate, I humbly submit that this particular 'some guy on the internet' is more advanced in Relativity Theory than you. And I am not the only one who treats his explanations with great respect. You'd be surprised who else takes note when he speaks on the subject!

Well, who is the guy then, is it a secret?

I am getting the impression that you think the astronomical/cosmological science is 'all settled' and there is nothing more to 'check' and 'learn' that may modify our current understandings/interpretations of the universe around us. If so, you are heading for a fall, mate.

I certainly didn't mean to leave that impression. I just feel that unevidenced hand waving conjectures have no place in the process of scientific investigations. That sort of tripe is fine to discuss in the pseudo-science sections of internet forums.

 

[hansda]

Not really.

Energy neither can be created nor destroyed in our universe.

TRUE .

So the creation of the universe would be outside of those bounds.

What do you mean by 'outside of those bounds' ? Is it 'outside universe' ?

Not really. GR does not work for the BB at time less than planks time. So the Big Bang is outside the bound of GR. So it does not contradict it, it just is not applicable.

Considering the fact that , space started expanding from BB ; do you think , time also started expanding from BB or time existed before BB ? ( Earlier you said that , universe existed as a tiny point before BB . )

 

[origin]

TRUE .
What do you mean by 'outside of those bounds' ? Is it 'outside universe' ?

According to your Case #1 there was no universe, so when the universe was created so was the energy in the universe.

Considering the fact that , space started expanding from BB ; do you think , time also started expanding from BB or time existed before BB ? ( Earlier you said that , universe existed as a tiny point before BB . )

Got me?:shrug:

 

[Robittybob1]

According to your Case #1 there was no universe, so when the universe was created so was the energy in the universe.




Got me?:shrug:

When Oriigen said "universe existed as a tiny point before BB" it really means from the moment the BB commenced. Like we are still in the Big Bang aren't we? It hasn't finished yet!

 

[hansda]

When Oriigen said "universe existed as a tiny point before BB" it really means from the moment the BB commenced. Like we are still in the Big Bang aren't we? It hasn't finished yet!

Is it possible that BB can still happen at some time in future ?

or,

It is an one-time event and can never happen in future ?

 

[hansda]

According to your Case #1 there was no universe, so when the universe was created so was the energy in the universe.




Got me?:shrug:

Do you mean to say , our Universe was created much before BB and was remaining as a tiny point till BB ; whence this tiny point started expanding ?

 

[origin]

Do you mean to say , our Universe was created much before BB and was remaining as a tiny point till BB ; whence this tiny point started expanding ?

No, as I have said we do not have the ability currently to know anything about the universe before $$10^{-43}$$ seconds. So the answer is that no one knows. It is ok to not know the answer what is not ok is to make one up. There are hypothesis about a bounce and so forth but these are highly speculative and how in the hell are you going to validate them?

 

[keith1]

Since the subject is gravity, and gravity is thought to separate out at the Big Bang event, or differentiate itself from the other three forces, at 1 Planck time. One can assume then a large gravitational force at this time.

One can see in the present universe the largest gravitational galactic clusters (example: Bullet Cluster) where the dark matter is "connected" to the visible matter, and the latest (larger?) "multi-clusters", where the dark matter is bulking together, and seeming to be separating from the visible (normal) baryonic matter (in even larger-sized galactic cluster collision events)?

Does anyone want have any comparative thoughts related to gravitational bulk of early universe and dark matter/baryonic matter separation or the attraction dynamics involved?

 

[OnlyMe]

No, as I have said we do not have the ability currently to know anything about the universe before $$10^{-43}$$ seconds. So the answer is that no one knows. It is ok to not know the answer what is not ok is to make one up. There are hypothesis about a bounce and so forth but these are highly speculative and how in the hell are you going to validate them?

What about the Big Bang theory is not itself "highly speculative" and predominantly a made up projection of unconfirmed contemporary observations into a past no one can explain with certainty.

The Big Bang is a theory, not proven fact. It gives us some kind of comfort to believe we know how things began, but the truth is we do not know and will most likely never know with certainty.

Some of the contemporary observations we use to support the big bang are relatively certain and some are no more than guesses supported in some cases by circular reasoning.

Ask this;

How do we know the universe is expanding?

How dependent upon the redshift in astronomical light sources, is the big bang theory?

And then ask how many of the proposed mechanisms explaining the redshift in astronomical light sources are realistically confirmed?

How many depend upon first accepting the Big Bang model.

With the exception of perhaps gravitational redshift, most of the other mechanisms are believed to be, because the explainations seem to fit. But they also depend upon accepting the model they explain.

The Big Bang is a theory....! It has become widely accepted as fact, rather than theory, but then there was a time when a flat earth was, a widely accepted as fact and a time where the contemporay consensus of opinion was that the earth itself was "the center of the universe". The wind, rain, sun and moon etc. were all, at one time the responsibility of spirits and gods.

It seems to me a bit incredible to expect that we know with any certainty what happen at, during or just after "the big bang", when we are almost weekly discovering that what we thought we knew about other less specualtive areas, is different than we thought.

How often have we learned that what we expected is not what we found to be. Water on the moon and mars........

I am not saying that the "Big Bang" did not happen, though personnally I do not see it as something known without reservation, it is a theory. What I am saying once again is that, it is important to keep in mind the difference between what has been proven and what is believed to be.

We too often lose touch with what we "think and believe" and what we know. Sometimes this is of little concern and sometimes it limits our ability to see what "is", when the time come that what it "is", is within our reach.

We do have a theoretical basis of knowledge that can be projected back in such a way that it susgessts the universe began with the "Big Bang". We cannot prove that and even the theoretical knowledge we use to support it, is stretched and changes by experiment and observation, within a much more immediate time scale tha. The "Big Bang".

 

[OnlyMe]

Does anyone want have any comparative thoughts related to gravitational bulk of early universe and dark matter/baryonic matter separation or the attraction dynamics involved?

Though, my primary interest is in inertia and gravitation, and I begin or began from a generally classical understanding of special and general relativity, over the past several year, while reviewing ideas presented mostly from a starting point involving quantum mechanics, I have begun to tend toward a "belief" that both gravity and interia are emergent phenomena. This would tend to suggest that "if" the big bang theory is correct, both inertia and gravitation emerged at some point after the initial big bang event and were likely not contributory mechanisms leading to the "big bang".

Keep in mind, I am not entirely sure myself, that the big bang is descriptive of the evolution of the universe. At least not as it is commonly understood to have occurred. Call me an agnotistic on the actual origin of what is.

 

[origin]

What about the Big Bang theory is not itself "highly speculative" and predominantly a made up projection of unconfirmed contemporary observations into a past no one can explain with certainty.

I would not say that it is highly speculative. There is the redshift, the mass distribution of atoms, CMB among others, that all indicate that the BB is a sound theory.

The Big Bang is a theory, not proven fact. It gives us some kind of comfort to believe we know how things began, but the truth is we do not know and will most likely never know with certainty.

Who every thought it was a fact. It is a well tested and robust theory.

How do we know the universe is expanding?

Primarily the redshift.

How dependent upon the redshift in astronomical light sources, is the big bang theory?

Somwhat.

And then ask how many of the proposed mechanisms explaining the redshift in astronomical light sources are realistically confirmed?

The proposed mechanism that the universe is expanding explains it extremely well.

How many depend upon first accepting the Big Bang model.

None that I know of.

With the exception of perhaps gravitational redshift, most of the other mechanisms are believed to be, because the explainations seem to fit. But they also depend upon accepting the model they explain.

I disagree the redshift leads to the big bang not the other way around.

The Big Bang is a theory....! It has become widely accepted as fact, rather than theory, but then there was a time when a flat earth was, a widely accepted as fact and a time where the contemporay consensus of opinion was that the earth itself was "the center of the universe". The wind, rain, sun and moon etc. were all, at one time the responsibility of spirits and gods.

Many lay people mistake theory as fact. I think your examples have a bit less evidence than the Big Bang.

It seems to me a bit incredible to expect that we know with any certainty what happen at, during or just after "the big bang", when we are almost weekly discovering that what we thought we knew about other less specualtive areas, is different than we thought.

The BB theory is by far the best theory that fits the evidence that we have - where is this rant coming from?

How often have we learned that what we expected is not what we found to be. Water on the moon and mars........

Often.

I am not saying that the "Big Bang" did not happen, though personnally I do not see it as something known without reservation, it is a theory. What I am saying once again is that, it is important to keep in mind the difference between what has been proven and what is believed to be.

You keep saying that it is a theory like this is some sort of revelation.:shrug:

We too often lose touch with what we "think and believe" and what we know. Sometimes this is of little concern and sometimes it limits our ability to see what "is", when the time come that what it "is", is within our reach.

Speak for yourself and do not project on others.

We do have a theoretical basis of knowledge that can be projected back in such a way that it susgessts the universe began with the "Big Bang". We cannot prove that and even the theoretical knowledge we use to support it, is stretched and changes by experiment and observation, within a much more immediate time scale tha. The "Big Bang".

Hope you feel better now.