A Massive Cluster In A Young Universe (1998 August 21)

Post a reply


This question is a means of preventing automated form submissions by spambots.
Smilies
:D :) :ssmile: :( :o :shock: :? 8-) :lol2: :x :P :oops: :cry: :evil: :roll: :wink: :!: :?: :idea: :arrow: :| :mrgreen:
View more smilies

BBCode is ON
[img] is ON
[url] is ON
Smilies are ON

Topic review
   

Expand view Topic review: A Massive Cluster In A Young Universe (1998 August 21)

Re: A Massive Cluster In A Young Universe (1998 August 21)

by harry » Fri May 15, 2009 2:02 pm

G'day Aris

Please explain

Re: A Massive Cluster In A Young Universe (1998 August 21)

by aristarchusinexile » Thu May 14, 2009 2:20 pm

harry wrote:G'day Aris

Time is an ITEM that cannot be changed.

The relative time is always changed.

The time in communication altered by distance and surrounding may alter the relative time.

If you alter the speed of EMR you will alter the communication time to infinity and back as at toon character would say.
Non-locality seems to do away with both Time and Distance.

Re: A Massive Cluster In A Young Universe (1998 August 21)

by harry » Thu May 14, 2009 4:45 am

G'day Aris

Time is an ITEM that cannot be changed.

The relative time is always changed.

The time in communication altered by distance and surrounding may alter the relative time.

If you alter the speed of EMR you will alter the communication time to infinity and back as at toon character would say.

Re: A Massive Cluster In A Young Universe (1998 August 21)

by aristarchusinexile » Wed May 13, 2009 7:09 pm

Thanks Harry .. it's interesting that some scientists are questioning whether gravity is the curvature of spacetime when it is so often presented as solid and irrefutable fact. I did an anti-gravity google search, and for something which some people on apod consider an absolute impossibility it sure garners a lot of research funds. I just had a thought about Time - perhaps there are states of anti-time where matter exists in an unchanging state. We explored that a bit when passing through anti-gravity voids .. but there may be other states, like absence of fields.

Re: A Massive Cluster In A Young Universe (1998 August 21)

by harry » Tue May 12, 2009 6:19 am

G'day aris

Mate I have these for now.
When I get time I will post some more

http://arxiv.org/abs/0810.0536
Critical points in a relativistic bosonic gas induced by the quantum structure of spacetime

Authors: Elias Castellanos, Abel Camacho
(Submitted on 2 Oct 2008)
Abstract: It is well known that phase transitions arise if the interaction among particles embodies an attractive as well as a repulsive contribution. In this work it will be shown that the breakdown of Lorentz symmetry, characterized through a deformation in the relation dispersion, plus the bosonic statistics predict the emergence of critical points. In other words, in some quantum gravity models the structure of spacetime implies the emergence of critical points even when no interaction among the particle has been considered.
and

http://arxiv.org/abs/0809.5040
Dark Energy: A Missing Physical Ingredient

Authors: M. I. Wanas
(Submitted on 29 Sep 2008)
Abstract: Recent observation of supernovae type Ia show clearly that there is a large scale repulsive force in the Universe. Neither of the four known fundamental interactions can account for this repulsive force. Gravity is known to be the interaction responsible for the large scale structure and evolution of the Universe. The problem with gravity is that it gives rise to a force which is attractive only. Gravity theories, including General Relativity, deals with gravity as an attractive force. Although this is consistent with our experience in the solar system and other similar astrophysical systems, gravity theories fail to account for SN type Ia observation. So, we are in a real problem concerning the interpretation of these observation. This problem is only ten years old. In order to go out of this problematic situation, scientists have suggested the existence of a type of energy in the Universe that is responsible for the above mentioned repulsive force. They have given this type of energy the exotic term {\it "Dark Energy"}. Although this type of energy forms more than two thirds of the energetic contents of our Universe, its reasonable nature is missing in all gravity theories.
The aim of the present work is to review the present status of the problem of dark energy. Also, to suggest a new geometric solution for this problem.

and

http://arxiv.org/abs/0809.2328
New Possibilities for Observational Distinction Between Geometrical and Field Gravity Theories

Authors: Yu. V. Baryshev (Astron.Inst.St.-Petersburg Univ.)
(Submitted on 13 Sep 2008)
Abstract: Crucial observational tests of gravity physics are reviewed. Such tests are able to clarify the key question on the nature of gravitational interaction: is gravity the curvature of space? or is gravity a matter field in Minkowski flat space as other physical forces? Up to now all actually performed experiments do not allow to distinguish between these two alternatives in gravity physics. The existence of well-defined positive energy-momentum of the gravity field in Poincare-Feynman approach leads to radical changes in gravity physics and cosmology which may be tested by laboratory experiments and astrophysical observations. New possibilities for observational distinction between geometrical general relativity and field gravity theories are discussed. Among them: the contribution of the scalar repulsive force into Newtonian gravitational interaction, post-Newtonian translational motion of rotating bodies, gravitational deflection of light by small mass bodies, scalar gravitational radiation from spherically pulsating stars, existence of limiting radius, surface, magnetic field for massive bodies and absence of singularities and horizons for relativistic compact objects.
I was going to private post. Than again I thought maybe not.

Re: A Massive Cluster In A Young Universe (1998 August 21)

by BMAONE23 » Tue May 12, 2009 4:53 am

The figure of 25 total alternate universes in a multiverse was chosen to allow for an equitable distribution of matter, to allow for an equilibrium effect of sorts to ensure that one universe doesn't negatively effect another. Balance in all things in nature.

Re: A Massive Cluster In A Young Universe (1998 August 21)

by astrolabe » Mon May 11, 2009 10:03 pm

Hello BMAONE23,

What an intriguing idea. Of course it always takes me several days and a bit of thought to respond to a senario such as this and since I know little all I seem to be able to do is comment or expand on a concept but here goes- I'll be brief:

I found it interesting that you chose the number 25 because of the 4% of visible matter in our own Universe. Was the number arbitrary? Also according to M-Theory there could be as many as 11 dimensions in the current reality (we'll probably never know) and so the thought came to me that we could be the smallest of the multiverses (microverse?) or the largest (megaverse?) of the group which by the way, as an added idea could maybe include 2D universes as well? If so, they could exist within our Universe and we may not see 'em, especially if they are edge on! Could account for things like the unseen Great Attractor and other such unseen gravity wells. Who knows, they may even account for the missing 96% of visible matter.

Re: A Massive Cluster In A Young Universe (1998 August 21)

by aristarchusinexile » Mon May 11, 2009 4:50 pm

harry wrote:G'day from the land of ozzzzzzz

Hello Aris

I have some papers on anti gravity. If you are interested I will post them.
Yes, float those papers, Harry, thank you.

Re: A Massive Cluster In A Young Universe (1998 August 21)

by harry » Mon May 11, 2009 10:52 am

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzz

Hello Aris

I have some papers on anti gravity. If you are interested I will post them.

Re: A Massive Cluster In A Young Universe (1998 August 21)

by The Code » Sun May 10, 2009 8:42 pm

Gravity, is like a bug.. Everything in the universe is infected why? Why are some things not infected?

mark

Re: A Massive Cluster In A Young Universe (1998 August 21)

by aristarchusinexile » Sun May 10, 2009 8:27 pm

harry wrote:
What other explanations are there?
Conventional theories are wrong .. my non-conventional theory is correct. Time to break out the anti-grav BUBBLY.

Re: A Massive Cluster In A Young Universe (1998 August 21)

by harry » Sun May 10, 2009 11:10 am

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzzz

Hello BMAONE23
I hope this paper can help, I have not read it for sometime.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.2325
A Curvature Principle for the interaction between universes

Authors: Orfeu Bertolami
(Submitted on 16 May 2007)
Abstract: We propose a Curvature Principle to describe the dynamics of interacting universes in a multi-universe scenario and show, in the context of a simplified model, how interaction drives the cosmological constant of one of the universes toward a vanishingly small value. We also conjecture on how the proposed Curvature Principle suggests a solution for the entropy paradox of a universe where the cosmological constant vanishes.

Re: A Massive Cluster In A Young Universe (1998 August 21)

by harry » Sun May 10, 2009 11:01 am

G'day from the land of ozzzzzz

Hello BMAONE23

That sounds very complicated.

Sometime ago I read a paper on that.

I will be back.

Re: A Massive Cluster In A Young Universe (1998 August 21)

by BMAONE23 » Sun May 10, 2009 5:42 am

Are there any proposed hypothesys concerning the use of a potential Multiverse, Quantum entanglement, and gravity transference to explain the missing gravity component of our visible universe? If gravity could propagate through Quantum entanglement accross a multiverse of say 25 parallel universes, each universe would contain approx 4% of the total multiverse matter but due to Quantum gravity entanglement reactions, all universes could feel the total gravity effects.

Re: A Massive Cluster In A Young Universe (1998 August 21)

by harry » Sun May 10, 2009 2:36 am

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzzzz

oops it mothers day.

Happy mothers day.

off to see mum.

Keep the universe warm until we meet again.

Re: A Massive Cluster In A Young Universe (1998 August 21)

by astrolabe » Sun May 10, 2009 2:33 am

Hello Chris,

Okay, clarification via proper perspective is more than appreciated; especially if some simplification of theory is to be gained by it.

Re: A Massive Cluster In A Young Universe,,,,it should not e

by Chris Peterson » Sun May 10, 2009 2:21 am

astrolabe wrote:
contradicting some current standard views of cosmology.
I wonder..............which views? "Some" is perhaps all that seems necessasry?
What this old APOD really shows is just how much cosmology has developed in 11 years. Since that time, a much simpler inflationary BBT has been replaced with the lambda-CDM model, incorporating dark matter and dark energy. This completely redefined the mass values, transferring much of the Universe's energy budget into DM and DE. The value of omega as it was understood in 1998 is quite different today- it has been divided into three or four separate constants (depending on variations in theory).

When it comes to cosmology, the caption of an 11 year old image needs to be looked at in a historical context. That's how fast the field is advancing. Most "current standard views of cosmology" back then are no longer in play.

Re: A Massive Cluster In A Young Universe,,,,it should not e

by astrolabe » Sun May 10, 2009 1:34 am

Hello Harry,

I, of course, know you didn't write it but good point- I could have misled others.


HEY! OTHERS! PAY ATTENTION!!

Re: A Massive Cluster In A Young Universe,,,,it should not e

by harry » Sun May 10, 2009 1:19 am

G'day astrolabe

Smile,,,,,I did not write it.

Its part of a quote from APOD.

My view is that the universe is cyclic and never ending.

Re: A Massive Cluster In A Young Universe,,,,it should not e

by astrolabe » Sun May 10, 2009 1:11 am

Hello All,

8 billion years I think is more than half- closer to 60%, could be enough time for galaxy clustering. This is cool,

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/new ... ament.html 8)
harry wrote:contradicting some current standard views of cosmology.
I wonder..............which views? "Some" is perhaps all that seems necessasry?

A Massive Cluster In A Young Universe (1998 August 21)

by harry » Sun May 10, 2009 12:27 am

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzzz

A Massive Cluster In A Young Universe
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap980821.html
Conventional theories suggest that this cluster of galaxies should not exist. Each fuzzy spot in this false-color Hubble Space Telescope image of the central regions of a newly discovered galaxy cluster is a galaxy similar in mass to our own Milky Way. The cluster is one of the most massive known, contains thousands of galaxies, and is a few million light-years across. But it is also 8 billion light-years distant and so formed when the Universe was only about half its present age. Ironically, if the total mass of the Universe is large, modern theories predict that clusters of galaxies as massive as nearby clusters should not have existed at such early times and great distances. One explanation for this cluster's presence is that the Universe we live in is not massive enough to eventually halt its expansion - contradicting some current standard views of cosmology.
What other explanations are there?

Top