Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 28 of 28

Thread: 4+1 Universe. Where and how to discuss?

  1. #21
    Moderator Neverfly's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Utopia Planetia, Mars
    Posts
    1,785

    Default Re: 4+1 Universe. Where and how to discuss?

    Quote Originally Posted by Olli S View Post
    The evidence is that the space of the universe is such that it has no outside and everything belongs to it.
    What evidence is this? We have no theory about what is "outside" the Universe, if anything.
    --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

  2. #22
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    112

    Default Re: 4+1 Universe. Where and how to discuss?

    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    What evidence is this? We have no theory about what is "outside" the Universe, if anything.
    We have the theory that there is no outside. If this is a fact, it is evidence.

  3. #23
    Moderator Neverfly's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Utopia Planetia, Mars
    Posts
    1,785

    Default Re: 4+1 Universe. Where and how to discuss?

    Quote Originally Posted by Olli S View Post
    We have the theory that there is no outside. If this is a fact, it is evidence.
    Which theory states that?

    An idea that is untested is an hypothesis. A theory is a model that has been tested and found to show acceptable accuracy.
    --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

  4. #24
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    112

    Default Re: 4+1 Universe. Where and how to discuss?

    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Which theory states that?

    An idea that is untested is an hypothesis. A theory is a model that has been tested and found to show acceptable accuracy.
    For the space of the universe there is some possibilities. One is that the space is infinite. One is that it is expanding. And one is that everything belongs to it and there is no outside.

    There is not any other possibilities. Perhaps that it is something we can not imagine. But then it is not possible to test it.

    The expansion has been selected because the red shift seems to lead to expansion. It is not a fact that there is other things that point to this - except the radiation - they follow from the theory, and the radiation is possible in other theories too. The problem here is that we don't know what the expansion is, we cannot measure it. The expansion has not shown acceptable accuracy rationally or empirically in the minds of many astronomers and philosophers, even when most of the mainstream accept it.

    We must put the things upside down: The red shift is not an empirical proof of the expansion, it is an empirical proof of the 4. space dimension. In the 4- dimensional space the galaxies far away move as expected by the empirical fact, the red shift. In fact, from the empirical red shifts of the distant galaxies we can calculate the size of the universe.

    The cosmology is a science. There is no such thing as an alternative science. There is only alternative theories. Theories must fit the evidence and not the other way. The GR with 3+1 universe leads to expanding universe, and does not fit with the universe where everything is, and which is without outside, but the GR with 4+1 universe does not need any kind of expansion and fits with this rationally sound model of the universe.

    Of cause in the prevailing situation the 4+1 universe is only a hypothesis! It has not been thorougly tested, and every theory is only a hypothesis in the beginning. Why not to test it then? Of caurse it can be tested. It can be looked if the evidence fits with it. If something does not fit, there can be some corrections which are easier than the corrections needed in the 3+1 model.

    All these thoughts with your kind help. Thanks to you all! I hope you will proceed with your better competence in physics without ignoring these preliminary thoughts.

  5. #25
    Moderator Neverfly's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Utopia Planetia, Mars
    Posts
    1,785

    Default Re: 4+1 Universe. Where and how to discuss?

    Quote Originally Posted by Olli S View Post
    For the space of the universe there is some possibilities. One is that the space is infinite. One is that it is expanding. And one is that everything belongs to it and there is no outside.

    There is not any other possibilities. Perhaps that it is something we can not imagine. But then it is not possible to test it.
    Thinking of the possibilities is what makes a scientist want to perform science. It is true that there are things, like what is outside of the universe that we cannot test. But we can still think of the possibilities.
    Someday, we may be able to test it even if today, we cannot imagine how we possibly could.
    Quote Originally Posted by Olli S View Post
    The expansion has been selected because the red shift seems to lead to expansion. It is not a fact that there is other things that point to this - except the radiation - they follow from the theory, and the radiation is possible in other theories too. The problem here is that we don't know what the expansion is, we cannot measure it.
    No we do not know what causes expansion. We also do not know what causes gravity. But we do have theories that describe the properties of both.
    As my post above, number 16 states, there is still quite a lot of support for the expansion theory.
    Quote Originally Posted by Olli S View Post
    The expansion has not shown acceptable accuracy rationally or empirically in the minds of many astronomers and philosophers, even when most of the mainstream accept it.
    I'm curious about where you get this statement, that it is "not shown acceptable accuracy..." Do you have any citations to support the statement?

    Quote Originally Posted by Olli S View Post
    We must put the things upside down: The red shift is not an empirical proof of the expansion, it is an empirical proof of the 4. space dimension. In the 4- dimensional space the galaxies far away move as expected by the empirical fact, the red shift. In fact, from the empirical red shifts of the distant galaxies we can calculate the size of the universe.
    Your first statement made sense, that red shift "is not Proof of expansion," (I agree) but the following claim was that red shift "was proof of a 4+1 dimensional Universe." How does this logically follow?
    Red shift is not 'proof' of expansion, it is one key piece of evidence for it, however.
    How does red shift "prove" a higher dimension?

    Quote Originally Posted by Olli S View Post
    The cosmology is a science. There is no such thing as an alternative science. There is only alternative theories. Theories must fit the evidence and not the other way.
    Agreed.
    Quote Originally Posted by Olli S View Post
    The GR with 3+1 universe leads to expanding universe, and does not fit with the universe where everything is, and which is without outside, but the GR with 4+1 universe does not need any kind of expansion and fits with this rationally sound model of the universe.
    Disagreed; this statement was not scientific. You essentially said that the theory must fit your presuppositions about the unknown form of the universe. That does not logically follow and is not using the scientific method.

    Quote Originally Posted by Olli S View Post
    Of cause in the prevailing situation the 4+1 universe is only a hypothesis! It has not been thorougly tested, and every theory is only a hypothesis in the beginning. Why not to test it then? Of caurse it can be tested. It can be looked if the evidence fits with it. If something does not fit, there can be some corrections which are easier than the corrections needed in the 3+1 model.
    Why do you say they are easier?

    Quote Originally Posted by Olli S View Post
    All these thoughts with your kind help. Thanks to you all! I hope you will proceed with your better competence in physics without ignoring these preliminary thoughts.
    I like how you present your curiosity and wonder along with questions. But what worries me is that you clearly prefer a Static Universe model and sem to be trying to find a way to promote a theory that conforms with the model you prefer.
    I, too, prefer a static model and actually, so did Einstein and many other professional Cosmologists. But preference is not relevant in science.
    Consider the story of Johannes Kepler who preferred a geocentric model of the solar system with a framework of the Nested Pythagorean solids. He preferred a model that demonstrated the Perfection of Gods Creation. But when Keppler performed the observations and calculations, when he poured over Tycho Brahes data, he learned that his preferred Model did not match observation. This was his lifes work, his dream, his spiritual belief and his strongest driving force in his life and... he had to cast it aside. It was wrong. Imagine how hard that must have been for him. He was only human and fallible as you me or anyone else.
    But Kepler was still a good scientist: He accepted the evidence and published his findings.

    We prefer a static and bounded universe, and so did the Great Minds of cosmological history, but we, too, must accept the observational evidence. Even if it was not what we wanted it to be.
    Now, let's say your 4+1 model is actually correct; then the current model would have to be replaced. I have seen no evidence it is correct and you will need to present a more convincing demonstration of the model for others to consider how valid the hypothesis may be.
    What you are doing: presenting ideas, considering possibilities and examining the evidence is what all of scientists do and have done through history. Sometimes their ideas had merit and the idea progressed into theories; most of the time, they did not. That is science.
    --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

  6. #26
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    112

    Default Re: 4+1 Universe. Where and how to discuss?

    I still state that the GR with 4+1 universe leads to very important things:

    - explains the red shift: as in the earth the mast of a ship will be more and more invisible, in the 4. dimensional universe the red shifting will be more and more strong (can be proved),
    - we need no beginning and expansion for the (space of the) universe, which is absurd and impossible to measure (proved easily, follows logically from the model, there is a definite radius),
    - we can calculate the size of the universe (not proved, but can be easily done, very big thing, leads to the Nobel price ),
    - we can unite the QT to the GR in the space of the universe (not proved),
    - we can operate inside the mainstream, the GR and the QT (we can do this way),
    - we can have less inflation, dark matter and so on that the 3+1 needs (not proved),
    - we can hold on on the eternal and infinite (no border) universe, which is rationally sound (proved).

    This is why I state that the corrections are easier. Of course I can't prove all of these. So I agree with Neverfly's points. Now this all remains only as an idea. Sorry for that. It needs much scientific work, and it seems to be so that this work is not interesting for scientists now.

    What I have done, is to point that the 4. dimension exists in the reality of the space of the universe, it is the fact that there is no outside and everything belongs to it, this is what the 4. dimension is. 4. dimension is not a mathematical abstraction. Is the known universe the whole universe, or not, we don't know, but this is already in the axioms of this model (because there is everything).

  7. #27
    Moderator Neverfly's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Utopia Planetia, Mars
    Posts
    1,785

    Default Re: 4+1 Universe. Where and how to discuss?

    Quote Originally Posted by Olli S View Post
    Of course I can't prove all of these. So I agree with Neverfly's points. Now this all remains only as an idea. Sorry for that.
    Statement 1.
    Quote Originally Posted by Olli S View Post
    What I have done, is to point that the 4. dimension exists in the reality of the space of the universe, it is the fact that there is no outside and everything belongs to it, this is what the 4. dimension is. 4. dimension is not a mathematical abstraction.
    Statement 2.
    These two statements are in direct contradiction with each other. How can you declare that it is fact; that it is Solid Reality that there is no outside to the universe? How could you possibly know that? Moreso, how have you demonstrated it?
    I'm not trying to pick on you. I'm trying to be helpful: This is a Scientific Topic and the Scientific Method is required. It seems to me that you want to believe something and there is a bias.

    Quote Originally Posted by Olli S View Post
    It needs much scientific work, and it seems to be so that this work is not interesting for scientists now.
    Considering that we discussed that a great many cosmologists, even historically notable ones, preferred a static closed model, why do you say that cosmologists find the idea to be uninteresting?
    --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

  8. #28
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    112

    Default Re: 4+1 Universe. Where and how to discuss?

    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Statement 1.

    Statement 2.
    These two statements are in direct contradiction with each other. How can you declare that it is fact; that it is Solid Reality that there is no outside to the universe? How could you possibly know that? Moreso, how have you demonstrated it?
    I'm not trying to pick on you. I'm trying to be helpful: This is a Scientific Topic and the Scientific Method is required. It seems to me that you want to believe something and there is a bias.


    Considering that we discussed that a great many cosmologists, even historically notable ones, preferred a static closed model, why do you say that cosmologists find the idea to be uninteresting?
    Let it be a model only then, not a fact. But I have thought that all philosophers and astronomers think that the space of the whole universe, including all possible "other universes" is a space where everything is and so there can not be any outside. This is the common way to understand the infinity of the universe. It is not infinite in all the meanings of the concept but it is infinite in the sense that there is no border, limit or edge.

    This can not be demonstrated, it is only a rational fact, or the only possible way of thinking of the matter. It is a logical truth but it is not enough necessary for a logical truth, because the universe can also be totally infinite or totally finite. But these possibilities are not very good ones. Why? It is a philosophical question. Both other ways lead to logical and empirical impossibilities, something like that, this also can be analused. Or there can be multiple "universes".

    Some people speak of "occupied universe". This can have some implications here. It comes to the question if there can be space without matter or energy and time or independently of them.

    Consider also the point that we don't know if the known universe is the whole universe. This model presupposes that the known universe - bigger than seen - is the whole universe.

    The whole universe is all the universes. This is philosophy and logic independently of whatever the empirical nuances are. So the universe and "the other universes" in parenthesis.

    Very fine if the idea is interesting. Is there some meaningful point here?

    I feel all around my point is discussed now. Happy to have these published in a conversation mode.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

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
  •