Page 2 of 21 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 207
Like Tree22Likes

Thread: The real nature of the universe

  1. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    111

    Default Re: The real nature of the universe

    I proposed this in the beginning of this tread and develop it in this discussion. It is not only appealing, what it certainly is! We have always wanted after Einstein and Hoyle and everybody to have such kind of explanation! It fits all the known fact better than the BB-theory and GR (without further development).

    Remind also that this Universe is not infinite but limitless. That makes the radius possible. There must be the longest possible distance even when there is not the limit.

  2. #12
    Moderator Neverfly's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Utopia Planetia, Mars
    Posts
    1,784

    Default Re: The real nature of the universe

    Quote Originally Posted by Olli S View Post
    I proposed this in the beginning of this tread and develop it in this discussion.
    I... Have not seen a model proposed, yet.
    Quote Originally Posted by Olli S View Post
    It fits all the known fact better than the BB-theory and GR (without further development).
    I'm not trying to be difficult... But you have yet to present a Model... much less demonstrate such superior support for one.
    Look at this way...

    Let's say the topic is a Model of the sailing vessel the Cutty Sark. Assume I have never seen this vessel.
    Saying it "had a mast" or "it had wood" is not the kind of detail needed in order to allow me to visualize the vessel.
    Now, you wouldn't be able to describe it in enough detail in one post that I could, but you would certainly have a starting point where you could describe the basic hull geometry, keel design, the configuration of the masts (sloop, fractional rig sloop, ketch, schooner, yawl, cutter, cat) and so on.
    You have not provided any kind of such detail.
    Quote Originally Posted by Olli S View Post
    I mean that only the space is like that, with all the matter and energy what there is in the Universe. The time, movement, gravity and so on are only for the parts of the Universe, not for the whole.
    Only for parts of the universe, not the whole? Can you expand on this, or explain it more fully?
    Quote Originally Posted by Olli S View Post
    This kind of Universe does not have any other universes, there is only one.
    I'm not really seeing how any of this is different from the current lambdaCDM model in which there is only one universe, everything that we can measure is contained within it and there is no description at all for anything "outside" of our universe.

    Quote Originally Posted by Olli S View Post
    Remind also that this Universe is not infinite but limitless. That makes the radius possible. There must be the longest possible distance even when there is not the limit.
    So, you say the Universe is finite but unbounded. Again, how is that different from current models?
    --Inter Arma Enim Silent Leges--
    “Science needs the light of free expression to flourish. It depends on the fearless questioning of authority, and the open exchange of ideas.” ― Neil deGrasse Tyson

    "When photons interact with electrons, they are interacting with the charge around a "bare" mass, and thus the interaction is electromagnetic, hence light. This light slows the photon down." - BuleriaChk

  3. #13
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    807

    Default Re: The real nature of the universe

    I'm in agreement with Neverfly on this one.

    I don't see what model you are proposing and I don't see what differences your ideas propose to those currently floating around in science & sci-fi.

  4. #14
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    807

    Default Re: The real nature of the universe

    Quote Originally Posted by Olli S View Post
    I proposed this in the beginning of this tread and develop it in this discussion. It is not only appealing, what it certainly is!

    Remind also that this Universe is not infinite but limitless. That makes the radius possible. There must be the longest possible distance even when there is not the limit.
    So you are stating that the universe has an edge, or rather space has a definable edge but is also limitless in extent?

  5. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    111

    Default Re: The real nature of the universe

    Quote Originally Posted by David M W View Post
    So you are stating that the universe has an edge, or rather space has a definable edge but is also limitless in extent?
    No edge. Limitless. No outside place exists. Infinite in this sense. Wherever you go, you are always as in the middle. If you think the space of everything that there is, it must be something like that. It is a little difficult to imagine, but mathematically it is x-, y-, z- axells in analythical (maybe non- euclidian) geometry where the radius has a definite value r, which value we don't know yet, and the centrepoint, the origo can be put anywhere. There is no origo but for calculations it must sometimes be put in some galaxy.

    Is this a model for others who are writing here, including other things I have said here before? If that model already exist in cosmological theories, that's good. I'm happy.

    The main point is that the movement of the galaxies from each other does follow already from this limitnessness of the Universe and we don't have to think that the Universe itself is expanding. They just move from each others and the faster the more faraway they are from eatchs others. This simply must happen in the limitless Universe. It is normal in this situation, and the Universe is still in steady state.

    In fact if from any theory follows that the Universe is expanding, we must think that there is something wrong in the theory and make a better theory. In BB the impossible thing is just that expanding Universe. In GR the gravity should be put as a real force, time is not dimension but something else, and the whole Universe does not have time, or gravity or movement or else, nothing else but space and all the matter and energy that there is.

    How to think in QM concepts, I don't know.

  6. #16
    Moderator Neverfly's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Utopia Planetia, Mars
    Posts
    1,784

    Default Re: The real nature of the universe

    Quote Originally Posted by Olli S View Post
    No edge. Limitless. No outside place exists. Infinite in this sense. Wherever you go, you are always as in the middle. If you think the space of everything that there is, it must be something like that. It is a little difficult to imagine, but mathematically it is x-, y-, z- axells in analythical (maybe non- euclidian) geometry where the radius has a definite value r, which value we don't know yet, and the centrepoint, the origo can be put anywhere. There is no origo but for calculations it must sometimes be put in some galaxy.

    Is this a model for others who are writing here, including other things I have said here before? If that model already exist in cosmological theories, that's good. I'm happy.
    What you said above, yes. That is generally the idea in the current mainstream model. Now, to be precise, this is the mainstream model, not theory. It's a hypothesis. The model represents how we think it may be, not how we say it is.
    We do not know and we cannot measure or test much of these ideas currently, but what we can test and have tested using the COBE and WMAP satellites lines up quite well with the model without any big flaws. Whether or not the Universe is infinite, we can't tell that... Nor can we define a center, but the mainstream model posits that there is no center or any position could be considered a center, or anywhere you go and difficult to imagine, as you worded it.
    But we do have some idea of a radius: about 46 1/2 billion light years.
    This is measured by observing the Redshift of distant receding galaxies.

    Quote Originally Posted by Olli S View Post
    The main point is that the movement of the galaxies from each other does follow already from this limitnessness of the Universe and we don't have to think that the Universe itself is expanding. They just move from each others and the faster the more faraway they are from eatchs others. This simply must happen in the limitless Universe. It is normal in this situation, and the Universe is still in steady state.
    This would be observed as accurate if the redshift rates were consistent, but they aren't. In fact, by this evidence not only is the Universe expanding, but that rate of expansion is accelerating.

    Quote Originally Posted by Olli S View Post
    In fact if from any theory follows that the Universe is expanding, we must think that there is something wrong in the theory and make a better theory.
    The observational evidence supports it pretty strongly. What is your reasoning? I could just as easily say that any model that declares there is no center must be wrong and we need a better model... but only because I find the idea of no center unappealing? That is not how Science works.
    --Inter Arma Enim Silent Leges--
    “Science needs the light of free expression to flourish. It depends on the fearless questioning of authority, and the open exchange of ideas.” ― Neil deGrasse Tyson

    "When photons interact with electrons, they are interacting with the charge around a "bare" mass, and thus the interaction is electromagnetic, hence light. This light slows the photon down." - BuleriaChk

  7. #17
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    807

    Default Re: The real nature of the universe

    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    What you said above, yes. That is generally the idea in the current mainstream model. Now, to be precise, this is the mainstream model, not theory. It's a hypothesis. The model represents how we think it may be, not how we say it is.
    We do not know and we cannot measure or test much of these ideas currently, but what we can test and have tested using the COBE and WMAP satellites lines up quite well with the model without any big flaws. Whether or not the Universe is infinite, we can't tell that... Nor can we define a center, but the mainstream model posits that there is no center or any position could be considered a center, or anywhere you go and difficult to imagine, as you worded it.
    But we do have some idea of a radius: about 46 1/2 billion light years.
    This is measured by observing the Redshift of distant receding galaxies.
    The measured radius, or rather the approximate radius, is based on the observable universe i.e. the edge of the distance galaxies from our view point.

    I'm not sure whether this is what Olli is talking about, when he talks in terms of the universe's radius?

    He states that the universe is infinite in extent but has a measurable radius. Is he talking about space, or the matter & energy we can observe?

    Its easy to hypothesise a universe (space) that is infinite in extent and the observable galaxies are spreading out into it. This model is quite conceivable and would comfortably fit what we observe at present. From this model we could hypothesise that space has always existed and that our universe (the galaxies we observe) was born into it.

    I think the more pressing question is why are we observing such a red shift where the distant galaxies appear to be moving apart at an accelerating rate? Is it really just a localised phenomenon in the great scheme of things?
    Jason me likes this.

  8. #18
    Moderator Neverfly's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Utopia Planetia, Mars
    Posts
    1,784

    Default Re: The real nature of the universe

    Quote Originally Posted by David M W View Post
    The measured radius, or rather the approximate radius, is based on the observable universe i.e. the edge of the distance galaxies from our view point.

    I'm not sure whether this is what Olli is talking about, when he talks in terms of the universe's radius?
    The observable radius is about 13.6 billion light years, whereas the 46.6 billion light year radius is the observable radius accounting for inflation... taxes, levees, fees...
    Quote Originally Posted by David M W View Post
    Its easy to hypothesise a universe (space) that is infinite in extent and the observable galaxies are spreading out into it. This model is quite conceivable and would comfortably fit what we observe at present. From this model we could hypothesise that space has always existed and that our universe (the galaxies we observe) was born into it.
    Easy to hypothesize only if we assume that space is empty.
    But I'm one of those belligerents that says that I do not believe space is empty- which raises some harder questions.
    Current models suggest that spacetime has structure. What that structure is, we do not know. Like gravity, we see the effect but not the cause.
    But the structure is observable in the effects that we can see. From quantum entanglement to "c," we have properties to spacetime that interact with matter. Matter moving through spacetime creates the observable effect of a clock measuring time at a specific rate. We can see that some particles can pass through this structure. We can see the effect in a great many physical constants which could also be described as limitations placed by the properties of the structure of spacetime.
    IF we could step outside of the spacetime we exist in, (let's invoke MAGIC as the only means of explaining how) and we turn on a flashlight, would that EM radiation emitted by the light move at infinite velocity? Quite possibly, yes. Perhaps light would move at ∞ if not limited by the properties of spacetime. In this void, this Empty Space, time could not be measured to pass or perceived to pass. Perhaps there would be no dimensional awareness. No "up" dimension to extend into. Perhaps matter would not interact with anything, particles could not be transmitted and any wavelength would stretch into infinities.
    This is so foreign to everything we know based on our experiences in living in this structured spacetime.
    Lacking the ability to step outside of the Universe, we can not really know for sure...

    However, if Spacetime is comprised of a quantum foam structure that provides the properties that give us the ability for matter to interact, limits in the form of constants, quantum tunneling and so on, then a void in which there is no dimension being outside of it seems plausible - To imagine that the universe, with its dimensions, could expand into a dimensionless void is quite easy. There is nothing to inhibit it.
    If there is a multi-verse... then you are limited to how many universes are expanding into a void.
    If there is an infinite multi-verse in which an infinite number of universes are expanding - There is absolutely no point in wasting energy even thinking about it. You'll just hurt yourself.
    If you ascribe to Many Worlds and Brane hypothesis, it gets really, really complicated. I ascribe to the Copenhagen Interpretation and therefor, for me, I do not bother thinking of many worlds or branes or multi-verses, since the collapse of each wave function reveals the natural state, regardless of duality, many-worlds are not needed to explain the wave function.
    Quote Originally Posted by David M W View Post
    I think the more pressing question is why are we observing such a red shift where the distant galaxies appear to be moving apart at an accelerating rate? Is it really just a localised phenomenon in the great scheme of things?
    If by local... you mean the entire observable universe... then does it matter? Because that's the only locality where we see the effect- the entire observable universe.
    --Inter Arma Enim Silent Leges--
    “Science needs the light of free expression to flourish. It depends on the fearless questioning of authority, and the open exchange of ideas.” ― Neil deGrasse Tyson

    "When photons interact with electrons, they are interacting with the charge around a "bare" mass, and thus the interaction is electromagnetic, hence light. This light slows the photon down." - BuleriaChk

  9. #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    111

    Default Re: The real nature of the universe

    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    The observable radius is about 13.6 billion light years, whereas the 46.6 billion light year radius is the observable radius accounting for inflation... taxes, levees, fees...
    I leave my thoughts to you who are more informed of the modern physics. I hope it is for some use there.

    But I think you didn't wholly understand my points, so I put all here what I have beginning to understand.

    I speak of the whole Universe. So there can not be other Universes, they all belong to this only one. From the definition already, all the possible "universes" (that can only mean parts of Universe) together form the whole universe. This might be the known universe or not (greater it probably is anyway). But I speak of the whole.

    This universe is not expanding. It is always as big as it happens to be. There is nothing outside it because all that exist is there already. There is no outside place. It is meaningless to speak of its movement, grandissment, expanding, beginning or anything like that, because we can not go outside to see, is it moving or not, is it expanding or not. And this all follows from logic, it can not be otherwise.

    But we know from astronomy that the galaxies are going away from each others in accelerating velocity. When we think that this happens because this Universe expands, we are thinking of some other kind of the Universe. If this expansion is a real fact, it means that our known universe is only a part of the whole universe.

    But if we think that this known universe is the universe, only bigger than we see, then must we have some other kind of explanation for these known movements. I propose, that it follows from the nature of this kind, the real one, of the universe: from its limitlessness, from the controversial fact that there is all what exists but it has no edge. The movements are normal happenings in this kind of universe because of all the forces, the gravity and so on. All must look happening like that and in some sense really happens this way. They go from each others but the universe is not expanding.

    It follows many things. The gravity, time, movement, speed and other things are only between the galaxies, they have no meaning for the whole universe. It has only the space and all the matter and energy that there is. It has no time, no movement, no beginning no end. These things matter only for parts of it.

    It might have a radius, r, meaning that there is existing the longest possible distance, 2 r, even when there is no edge, no limit.

    Wherever you are you are as in the middle. The origo in geometry, the center, can be put anywhere, and the results are the same. When you go to the farest galaxy, things look there the same as here.

    And some other things. No BB for example for the whole universe, maybe for some parts of it.

    And as said, I leave these thoughts to you for further development. I have not enough competence and I'm too old to go to school again.
    Last edited by Neverfly; 11-01-2016 at 09:20 PM. Reason: corrected quote tags
    Jason me likes this.

  10. #20
    Moderator Neverfly's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Utopia Planetia, Mars
    Posts
    1,784

    Default Re: The real nature of the universe

    Quote Originally Posted by Olli S View Post
    This universe is not expanding. It is always as big as it happens to be. There is nothing outside it because all that exist is there already. There is no outside place. It is meaningless to speak of its movement, grandissment, expanding, beginning or anything like that, because we can not go outside to see, is it moving or not, is it expanding or not. And this all follows from logic, it can not be otherwise.
    This does not follow from logic.
    Logic dictates that we can observe relative motion. We do not need to leave the Universe in order to observe motion within the universe. In fact, leaving the Universe in order to observe the interior may be counter-productive...
    Quote Originally Posted by Olli S View Post
    But we know from astronomy that the galaxies are going away from each others in accelerating velocity. When we think that this happens because this Universe expands, we are thinking of some other kind of the Universe. If this expansion is a real fact, it means that our known universe is only a part of the whole universe.
    I cannot understand what you are saying here, at all. It does not follow. You say our Universe is a part of Our Universe. This needs a lot of clarification...
    Quote Originally Posted by Olli S View Post
    But if we think that this known universe is the universe, only bigger than we see, then must we have some other kind of explanation for these known movements. I propose, that it follows from the nature of this kind, the real one, of the universe: from its limitlessness, from the controversial fact that there is all what exists but it has no edge. The movements are normal happenings in this kind of universe because of all the forces, the gravity and so on. All must look happening like that and in some sense really happens this way. They go from each others but the universe is not expanding.
    I've run into the same problem as above: You are contradicting yourself. You are saying "it is expanding, but it isn't. It's just natural for it to happen, though it isn't happening."
    Quote Originally Posted by Olli S View Post
    It follows many things. The gravity, time, movement, speed and other things are only between the galaxies, they have no meaning for the whole universe. It has only the space and all the matter and energy that there is. It has no time, no movement, no beginning no end. These things matter only for parts of it.
    Puzzeling over this statement, it implies that your position is that we have a Universe of a Certain Set Size.
    Within that certain Set Size, the galaxies, as observed, are all moving away from eachother at an accelerated rate.
    However, you are saying they are following this motion within the confines of the Set Universe, not that the Universe itself is expanding.
    Is that correct? What happens when the furthest galaxies reach that outermost radius, or edge?
    Or are you saying that the Universe is infinite in size, and the expansion we observe is real, but irrelevant, because the galaxies have infinite spacetime to move into? I cannot see this as being your statement, since you said it is finite but unbounded and has a set radius.

    Quote Originally Posted by Olli S View Post
    It might have a radius, r, meaning that there is existing the longest possible distance, 2 r, even when there is no edge, no limit.

    Wherever you are you are as in the middle. The origo in geometry, the center, can be put anywhere, and the results are the same. When you go to the farest galaxy, things look there the same as here.
    Here, on these statements, I am able to follow your logic and agree.

    Quote Originally Posted by Olli S View Post
    And some other things. No BB for example for the whole universe, maybe for some parts of it.
    So, you are saying that the Big Bang occurred, but only in a part of the Universe?
    Which part? Why do we observe such consistency in the Cosmic Background Radiation leftover from the big bang, everywhere in the sky, all observable points, if it only occurred in a part of the Universe?

    Quote Originally Posted by Olli S View Post
    And as said, I leave these thoughts to you for further development. I have not enough competence and I'm too old to go to school again.
    I believe no one is ever too old for school.
    --Inter Arma Enim Silent Leges--
    “Science needs the light of free expression to flourish. It depends on the fearless questioning of authority, and the open exchange of ideas.” ― Neil deGrasse Tyson

    "When photons interact with electrons, they are interacting with the charge around a "bare" mass, and thus the interaction is electromagnetic, hence light. This light slows the photon down." - BuleriaChk

Page 2 of 21 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast

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
  •