Try 'The Expansion of the Universe.' I looked art it again last night - I had no trouble finding it. I'm amazed you can't. It's a black and white graph, showing (what they purport to be) all possible co-ordinates to demonstrate the Outward, ad infinitum exponentially Speeding Up Expansion of the Universe. But in this graph, and this is what happens when you put mathematicians in charge of Science, they allow absolutely no possibility that the Expansion started Slowly and has since Sped Up, and no possibility other than that the Speeding Up of the Expansion happened now!
Is eeryone happy with the Big Bang? I'm not.
- Thread starter astrocat
- Start date
- Status
I repeat, link please. There's no page entitled 'The Expansion of the Universe' either.
A Google search for: 'The Expansion of the Universe' Wiki gives two possible pages, neither of which has a "black and white graph" showing what you claim.
Repeated claim.
Repeated failure to substantiate it.
Have you considered a reality check? Or a visit to an optician?
Either would probably reduce your errors.
Of course I have a model for the Black Hole at the Center of the Universe - there are three I like. I'll just do one here. The first model is the nozzle of a working Central Vac, laid down in the center of a room. The nozzle will evacuate the air and dust particles nearest to it, and the remaining air and dust particles will move to fill this evacuated Space, Speeding Up, Cooling Down, Expanding Exponentially and Losing Pressure - all the things the Observable Universe is doing. In addition, at the nozzle there is a vortex, and because of this furious activity, particles become charged and stick to each other. Salesmen used to show customers, by means of a view port on the nozzle, how the Vacuum Cleaner took dust particles from the room and made them into Clumps. paradoxically its in this zone of least density that we find the biggest Clumps. So it will be in the future. At the center of the Universe is a Void (we are becoming less dense) and a zone of furious activity (We're Speeding Up) Here, there are only SMBHs, and they move at a significant fraction of the Speed of Light. Here, Black Holes are forced to eat their accretion rings or else risk having them ripped off in Hi-Speed Battles with other SMBHs (We're Clumping Up). Here there is no light, it can't survive. No heat either (we're Cooling Down) - everything is in its Boez-Einstein state, where matter morphs, but mass remains. And here, paradoxically in this void, this zone of least density we find the most massive Clumps, and the most masive of them all, the Black Hole at the center of the Universe, MABLE. As discoverer I call this Black Hole Mable for, in the vernacular of our times, Mable must surely be the Mother of All Black hoLEs. This is the Mable Theory, and I hope you like it. I know Science does.
I don't know, Dywyddr, if you can't find it maybe you're the one who needs to visit the optician. I can find it easily. I repeat - I'm amazed that you can't. Too bad we can't move forward, that's what I say. What about other people? Can they find it?
Sure. I've never heard of a polymath Genius. Excuse me. Your two sentences don't convey much. You're an engineer? What about these degree courses? I don't mind if you don't believe in Spirits. Myself I believe God should stay in Church. I see you're still playing fast and loose with the insults. You should see my model of the Cosmos I just explained to Ophiolite? was it? Sure, tell me about your actual job experience, it would help.You need to look it up?
I designed things.
For engineering firms.
That's two sentences.
So what?
There is no evidence for spirits, or a spirit world. Like I said: belief in nonsense isn't the sole domain of non-scientists.
And?
Nope, you're a crackpot.
Untrue.
Hmm, I wonder if my degree courses and actual job experience would be a better indicator...
No, I'm not.
Limited education.
What do you think the term design engineer encompasses?
Maths, physics, social sciences...
It's not a question of "not believing", it's a case of no evidence.
Of course you do. That's why you repeatedly use him as a reason in this thread.
Look again.
Was it what?
Incoherent? Yes.
Wrong? yes.
Inane? Yes.
How does me telling you about my career help you understand that you're wrong?
Last edited:
Not my model, not my picture. Just a graphic on Wikipedia.
Criticism <> denigration.
astrocat, if you want to fight, don't complain when people fight back.
If you want to discuss and learn like the rest of us... then there's no need to fight. It's not a contest.
Perhaps if your instructions were a little clearer. The address of the page is easy to copy and paste from the address bar:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space
You can learn to do even trickier stuff by reading the FAQ, or just playing with the buttons in the advanced post dialog.
But anyway. It looks your are referring to this diagram in the Metric expansion of space Wikipedia article:
I'm not certain what that diagram is intended to illustrate, but it seems to have been made by a Wikipedian (note - not from science literature) to illustrate the effect of Q on the qualitative nature of the expansion.
It's not clear to me why the author of that diagram chose to have all the lines intersect at "now", nor why the "accelerating" line has an inflection, nor why they chose to place "now" at the inflection point.
Perhaps Dywyddyr, Alphanumeric, BenTheMan, or someone else who knows something about cosmology can suggest an explanation.
Last edited:
Why just them? Other people know physics too... and dywyddr is not even a scientist.
The graph explains the density of the universe over some time I would presume, and how the density effects the space between galaxies.
Chill, dude. :m:
Yes, others know physics, and are certainly free to also suggest explanations.
I missed this before:
Have you thought more about how a large cloud of gas falling in on itself becomes hotter, denser, and higher pressure?
Now, here's something else for you to think about:
If all the galaxies we see are falling into a ginormous black hole somewhere beyond the Great Attractor, then we would see (as you say) galaxies ahead of us falling faster, and galaxies behind us falling slower, ie the distance to those galaxies from us would be increasing at (I think) an accelerating rate.
But what about galaxies to the side? The distance to those galaxies should be decreasing at an accelerating rate.
This is the core concept of tidal force, which you'll remember from earlier in the thread: things in a non-uniform gravitational field tend to be stretched one way and compressed the other way.
Hooray for agreement!astrocat said:
Have you thought more about how a large cloud of gas falling in on itself becomes hotter, denser, and higher pressure?
Now, here's something else for you to think about:
If all the galaxies we see are falling into a ginormous black hole somewhere beyond the Great Attractor, then we would see (as you say) galaxies ahead of us falling faster, and galaxies behind us falling slower, ie the distance to those galaxies from us would be increasing at (I think) an accelerating rate.
But what about galaxies to the side? The distance to those galaxies should be decreasing at an accelerating rate.
This is the core concept of tidal force, which you'll remember from earlier in the thread: things in a non-uniform gravitational field tend to be stretched one way and compressed the other way.
I just had a look on the page. Wiki had a small reference to the graph:
The expansion of the universe proceeds in all directions as determined by the Hubble constant today. However, the Hubble constant can change in the past and in the future dependent on the observed value of density parameters (Ω). Before the discovery of dark energy, it was believed that the universe was matter dominated and so Ω on this graph corresponds to the ratio of the matter density to the critical density (Ωm).
Did you not read it?
Yes. It doesn't answer the questions I posed:
It's not clear to me why the author of that diagram chose to have all the lines intersect at "now", nor why the "accelerating" line has an inflection, nor why they chose to place "now" at the inflection point.
Actually, my first clause isn't quite right. I should have said that it's not clear is why they would have the lines intersect anywhere other than on the y-axis (at t=0).I would imagine it intersects because there is no definitive answer -- there maybe information which favors one from another.
astrocat, you might be interested in [post=973969]something I posted a couple of years ago[/post]:
...According to the Big Bang model, billions of years ago the Universe was very very hot and very very dense, and it proceeded from there to its current state.
That's it. The fundamental origin of the very very hot very very dense state is actually outside the realm of the big bang model. Ideas on how the Universe developed into this state vary widely, and many (most?) people knowledgeable in the area do not hold firm beliefs about it.
Do you see? Believing in the Big Bang doesn't require believing anything about the origins of the Big Bang.
Of course, many people do hold firm beliefs about fundamental origins... some religious, some physical. But none of those beliefs are firmly entrenched in the big bang model itself.
That's my understanding, anyway. I consider myself an educated amateur, but in mind that I'm no expert. My actual knowledge is quite shallow.
...According to the Big Bang model, billions of years ago the Universe was very very hot and very very dense, and it proceeded from there to its current state.
That's it. The fundamental origin of the very very hot very very dense state is actually outside the realm of the big bang model. Ideas on how the Universe developed into this state vary widely, and many (most?) people knowledgeable in the area do not hold firm beliefs about it.
Do you see? Believing in the Big Bang doesn't require believing anything about the origins of the Big Bang.
Of course, many people do hold firm beliefs about fundamental origins... some religious, some physical. But none of those beliefs are firmly entrenched in the big bang model itself.
That's my understanding, anyway. I consider myself an educated amateur, but in mind that I'm no expert. My actual knowledge is quite shallow.
It's interesting though, that believing in big bang envokes the notion of wanting to know its origins. It only adds to the mystery otherwise.
- Status