Page 3 of 21 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 207
Like Tree22Likes

Thread: The real nature of the universe

  1. #21
    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
    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...
    OK. Still more because you don't follow my thought.

    It is not an indisputable fact of logic, but it is from thinking and not from empirical facts. It is logically sound and it is kind of impossible and stupid to think otherwise. Nobody thinks otherwise including Einstein before he was indoctrinated of BB.

    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    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...
    You must make a distinction between the whole Universe and the known Universe or the multiuniverses. The known Universe probably is already the whole Universe, but if there is multiuniverses, they all together form the whole Universe.

    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    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."
    I don't say the whole Universe is expanding, it is not moving on any way, only the galaxies move in the way we do observe from the red shift.

    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    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?
    When we are there, the Universe looks same as it looks from here. It is little hard to understand, but like this the real space of the whole Universe must be. Not like in QR or in BB, where it can expand. This kind of Universe can not expand or move in any way, because everything is inside it, all space and matter and energy, there is not any outside, it is closed system. The galaxies are moving inside it, not out of it or anything else.

    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    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.
    Infinite in the sense of limitlessness, no edge. Not infinite in any other sense. The galaxies have spacetime but not the whole Universe. It has only space, a space with radius but not edge. Or it is 4-dimensional space, not spacetime.

    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Here, on these statements, I am able to follow your logic and agree.


    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?
    If the BB occurred, it is a proof that our Universe is only a part of a bigger universe.


    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    I believe no one is ever too old for school.
    Yeah, but I am lacy.
    Last edited by Neverfly; 11-02-2016 at 06:44 AM. Reason: corrected quote tags for clarity

  2. #22
    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
    It is not an indisputable fact of logic, but it is from thinking and not from empirical facts. It is logically sound and it is kind of impossible and stupid to think otherwise. Nobody thinks otherwise including Einstein before he was indoctrinated of BB.
    It is not logically sound. You are not making sense. You are basically claiming I would need to leave the Universe in order to see the motion of a thrown baseball.
    Einstein did not think so, I cannot think of any reference of anyone who thought so, regardless of the Big Bang model.
    Einstein had no involvement in Big Bang Theory when he published his Theory of Relativity. Most of his adult life, including his time spent at the Patent Office, and during his time as a Professor in Germany prior to publishing relativity show no hint, no sign whatsoever that he ever submitted any paper suggesting anything close to what you are suggesting.
    You just threw the name "Einstein" out there in ignorance, thinking it would give your claim a sound of legitimacy.
    Quote Originally Posted by Olli S View Post
    You must make a distinction between the whole Universe and the known Universe or the multiuniverses. The known Universe probably is already the whole Universe, but if there is multiuniverses, they all together form the whole Universe.
    No, you need to make the distinction.
    You must define what the difference is between the Whole Universe and the Observable Universe.

    Quote Originally Posted by Olli S View Post
    I don't say the whole Universe is expanding, it is not moving on any way, only the galaxies move in the way we do observe from the red shift.
    The problem with this claim is pretty straight-forward: IF the Universe was Static and the galaxies within them were moving, then the entire universe would be observable.
    But this is not what we observe. What we observe is that there are galaxies receding faster than light.
    Matter cannot move faster than light.
    But Spacetime itself can, because it is it's own properties that limit matter to less than "c," spacetime itself is not limited. The cumulative effect of expansion between us and a galaxy, say 14 billion light years distant, adds up to a speed greater than 300,000 km/s. If the Universe was static, this could not happen.
    Quote Originally Posted by Olli S View Post
    If the BB occurred, it is a proof that our Universe is only a part of a bigger universe.
    How?
    Quote Originally Posted by Olli S View Post
    Yeah, but I am lacy.
    Lazy? Old, lazy, but in the end, if you are unwilling to learn, how can you declare what you do not understand to be false?
    I believe that challenging the current models is a good thing. But it is logical you must fully understand the current models to really challenge them.

    I do not agree with your logic, but I like that you debate it.
    --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. #23
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    807

    Default Re: The real nature of the universe

    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    .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...

    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.
    Which is what I've been asking in my last few posts

  4. #24
    Moderator Neverfly's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Utopia Planetia, Mars
    Posts
    1,784

    Default Re: The real nature of the universe

    --Hands David a Snickers bar.--
    --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

  5. #25
    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
    Which is what I've been asking in my last few posts
    Now I can say exactly what I mean!!!

    We must think the whole thing differently, upside down: when we have found that the galaxies are moving from each other at an accelerated rate, we do not have to make any more questions but this:

    In whitch kind of universe happens like this?

    Forget everything that I have said of the model of this kind of universe but form yourself its nature from this fact, and from other facts that we know or must suppose. Don't presuppose expanding universe whitch is an impossibility, and ask calmly and tranqilly: in whitch kind of universe must happen like this.

    And do not say to me that this is just what QR and BB are saying. We don't need expanding universe, as they need, if we find in whitch kind of universe this naturally happens. Then we can make the corrections to QR and BB or chance the whole framework, the paradigme.

  6. #26
    Moderator Neverfly's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Utopia Planetia, Mars
    Posts
    1,784

    Default Re: The real nature of the universe

    So, like a fish tank with fish swimming away from eachother.
    --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. #27
    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
    So, like a fish tank with fish swimming away from eachother.
    Or flying objects in an oceanic carusell. Everything going round eschother. The farer the faster.

  8. #28
    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
    Or flying objects in an oceanic carusell. Everything going round eschother. The farer the faster.
    Again, this is not what we see. This is not what our observations show.

    Our observations do not show the objects in the Universe going around and around eachother; it shows the objects in the universe moving away from eachother.
    There is a very big difference between the two.
    --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. #29
    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
    Again, this is not what we see. This is not what our observations show.

    Our observations do not show the objects in the Universe going around and around eachother; it shows the objects in the universe moving away from eachother.
    There is a very big difference between the two.
    Yes, but my point is not that, it is that you could and should make a better model of that really existing universe than what there is supposed in the GR and BB.

    Not any expanding space time but something better. I was not able to make it in an axeptable way. So I stop trying. But this remains, there can be a better invention of the nature of the universe. Just find it yourselves, without my thoughts, they are only preliminary. Somehow I think the solution is in the properties of the limiteless universe which the universe necessarily is.
    Jason me likes this.

  10. #30
    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
    Yes, but my point is not that, it is that you could and should make a better model of that really existing universe than what there is supposed in the GR and BB.

    Not any expanding space time but something better. I was not able to make it in an axeptable way. So I stop trying. But this remains, there can be a better invention of the nature of the universe. Just find it yourselves, without my thoughts, they are only preliminary. Somehow I think the solution is in the properties of the limiteless universe which the universe necessarily is.
    Well, that really is how the scientific method works. The method is about building the most accurate model possible, given the available data.
    Theories are models. And these models get updated over time as more data is made available and even, sometimes, replaced entirely.
    These models we currently have will undoubtedly undergo changes and maybe even replacement, as more data is made available by further observation, technological advancement, and so on.
    For right now, these theories match the data very, very well. But you may be right; it is perfectly possible that appearances are deceiving and that the Universe is Static, after-all.
    Olli S likes this.
    --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 3 of 21 FirstFirst 1234513 ... 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
  •