APOD and General Astronomy Discussion Forum
https://asterisk.apod.com/
Chris Pincushion wrote:
But any point really is at the center of its observable universe-
either a circle in balloonland, or a sphere in our universe.
All theories about anything are products of human imagination. There are many theories on the shape of the universe and until proven otherwise, the bubble universe I describe is just as good as any. The umbrella or jellyfish image of the imaginary universe we see in most publications fits in the bubble universe with the closed end and the open empty end represented by the big band and the arc of the bubble respectively. An isotropic universe has a better chance inside a bubble in the same way a consistent temperature is attained within a closed domed stadium. Everything in nature has an a limiting containment binding the member "units" one way or another. If not for the thin atmosphere, Earth will be void of life forms as we know it. The hypothesized Oort cloud is believed to be the outer cosmological limit of our own Solar System.The universe you are talking about doesn't match either our theory or observation of the actual universe we live in.
Sorry to be so blunt, but that's complete nonsense. Theories are models of reality, and they are only as good as their ability to describe and predict observations. No theory is ever proven, but theories carry substantially different amounts of supportive evidence with them. It is simply false to assert that any theory is as good as any other. The more supportive evidence, the better the theory.ErnieM wrote:All theories about anything are products of human imagination. There are many theories on the shape of the universe and until proven otherwise, the bubble universe I describe is just as good as any.
Wikipedia: Big Bang Theory: Observational EvidenceErnieM wrote:Which specific observations, large or small, are you referring to?
Thanks Chris. I did actually understand the overall point. What puzzled me was the distinction you made between those two different centers, a distinction which made it sound like one kind of center couldn't possibly be in the same place as the other. In this case I think the balloon analogy confused me, because in our 3D world there can be a point on the ballon's surface which is at one and the same time the center of the (surface) universe as well as the center of the observable universe (confusingly forgetting that the center of the balloon universe is in the center of the balloon, and therefore unreachable from the surface universe.) But in our real 3D+time universe, the center of the universe is lost in time and can never be the center of any observable universe. Have I got it clear now?Chris Peterson wrote:These sort of "centers" [the spatial universe kind] are completely different from the centers of observable universes.
I'm not sure. We can see the center of the balloon universe because we are three dimensional beings, and the balloon universe is a three dimensional structure. So it is entirely accessible to us (of course, we are replacing time with a spatial dimension). As 3D beings, we only see a cross-section of our 4D universe. Presumably, a being that existed in four dimensions would have no problem seeing the true center of our universe.rstevenson wrote:Thanks Chris. I did actually understand the overall point. What puzzled me was the distinction you made between those two different centers, a distinction which made it sound like one kind of center couldn't possibly be in the same place as the other. In this case I think the balloon analogy confused me, because in our 3D world there can be a point on the ballon's surface which is at one and the same time the center of the (surface) universe as well as the center of the observable universe (confusingly forgetting that the center of the balloon universe is in the center of the balloon, and therefore unreachable from the surface universe.) But in our real 3D+time universe, the center of the universe is lost in time and can never be the center of any observable universe. Have I got it clear now?Chris Peterson wrote:These sort of "centers" [the spatial universe kind] are completely different from the centers of observable universes.
Ok I'll put another WayChris Peterson wrote: Which brings me to ask a question... If ( Z=Speeding photon, Y=Black Hole, D= Time Discrepancy) Could the two ends of the Space/Time Discrepancy "Rope" Explain Space/time Expansion ? Z <------ T -------> Y
I don't understand the question. I don't think it is framed in a way that can be answered.
A Clock On a satellite And A clock on the Ground Have Different Times "Yeah". One Runs Faster Than the Other. So The Clock "in" Or "Orbiting" a black Hole Would Be an Extreme Difference In Time, Than The Clock Which is In the speeding photon. They say That Time is a Physical Thing Which is entwined with Space "Space/Time". If Both object are moving away from each other "In Time" Then isn't Space/Time getting Larger because of this ?I find your wording confusing. I don't know what it means to say that two things have "different times". SR describes how an observer in one inertial frame may observe a clock in a different inertial frame operating at a different rate. GR describes something similar for non-inertial frames. That's all. There's nothing that says that time is somehow different for different bodies. All that's different is the observation- precisely because time and space are connected.The Code wrote:Ok I'll put another Way :ssmile: A Clock On a satellite And A clock on the Ground Have Different Times "Yeah". One Runs Faster Than the Other. So The Clock "in" Or "Orbiting" a black Hole Would Be an Extreme Difference In Time, Than The Clock Which is In the speeding photon.
Objects don't move apart from each other in time.They say That Time is a Physical Thing Which is entwined with Space "Space/Time". If Both object are moving away from each other "In Time" Then isn't Space/Time getting Larger because of this ?
Here is an Example of things moving away from each other in time.Twin Paradox. It doesn't matter that its a black hole or photon. Or whatever form it should take. It should subscribe to the laws of physics. Every particle in the Universe is a child of the the Big bang. If All of time was created in one instant, then all of time should be able to be measured with a ruler From start to finish. If the whole of time can be measured with a ruler, And different clocks tick faster or slower, for different reasons (Proven) then there should be some evidence of this. And I want to know if this is the cause of expansion ? Because Time And Space are seen as one.Chris Peterson wrote:I find your wording confusing. I don't know what it means to say that two things have "different times". SR describes how an observer in one inertial frame may observe a clock in a different inertial frame operating at a different rate. GR describes something similar for non-inertial frames. That's all. There's nothing that says that time is somehow different for different bodies. All that's different is the observation- precisely because time and space are connected.The Code wrote:Ok I'll put another Way
Objects don't move apart from each other in time.They say That Time is a Physical Thing Which is entwined with Space "Space/Time". If Both object are moving away from each other "In Time" Then isn't Space/Time getting Larger because of this ?
Chris wrote:I would like to remind the readers that this board concentrates on the mainstream or consensus view of cosmology. Alternative theories, conspiracy theories, and pseudoscience are not discussed here.
The bubble universe discussion is nothing new and you are so kind for giving me credit for the proposal. From the article "Is our universe inside a bubble", Science Daily, Aug 2011:But unless you can back up your idea with supportive evidence, it stands a LOT better chance of being closer to the truth than what you propose.
I don't see that as things moving away from each other it time.The Code wrote:Here is an Example of things moving away from each other in time.Twin Paradox.
All of time wasn't created in one instant, any more than all of space was. The Big Bang marked the beginning of time and space, but spacetime is evolving.If All of time was created in one instant, then all of time should be able to be measured with a ruler From start to finish.
I don't know what it means to say that all of time can be measured with a ruler. Clocks don't tick slower or faster- they are just seen as ticking at different rates when observed from different frames.If the whole of time can be measured with a ruler, And different clocks tick faster or slower, for different reasons (Proven) then there should be some evidence of this. And I want to know if this is the cause of expansion ? Because Time And Space are seen as one.
The bubble universe idea discussed in this article, however, bears no relation to what you previously described using that term. In this model, nothing changes with our current cosmology- we are still in a 4D spacetime universe that started with the Big Bang. Dark matter and dark energy are still as postulated by mainstream science.ErnieM wrote:The bubble universe discussion is nothing new and you are so kind for giving me credit for the proposal. From the article "Is our universe inside a bubble", Science Daily, Aug 2011:
"Many modern theories of fundamental physics predict that our universe is contained inside a bubble. In addition to our bubble, this `multiverse' will contain others, each of which can be thought of as containing a universe. In the other 'pocket universes' the fundamental constants, and even the basic laws of nature, might be different."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 102844.htm
Thank you for the clarification. Yes, the big bubble I described is the immediate result of the big bang and it contains the bubbles discussed in this article. The Big Bang or in your terminology, t=0, is at the center of this big bubble. We are inside the space and the big bubble is growing, ie. the space is expanding and maybe so are the spaces inside the smaller bubbles.The bubble universe idea discussed in this article, however, bears no relation to what you previously described using that term. In this model, nothing changes with our current cosmology- we are still in a 4D spacetime universe that started with the Big Bang. Dark matter and dark energy are still as postulated by mainstream science.
Chris Peterson wrote:I don't see that as things moving away from each other it time.The Code wrote:Here is an Example of things moving away from each other in time.Twin Paradox.
All of time wasn't created in one instant, any more than all of space was. The Big Bang marked the beginning of time and space, but spacetime is evolving.If All of time was created in one instant, then all of time should be able to be measured with a ruler From start to finish.
I don't know what it means to say that all of time can be measured with a ruler. Clocks don't tick slower or faster- they are just seen as ticking at different rates when observed from different frames.If the whole of time can be measured with a ruler, And different clocks tick faster or slower, for different reasons (Proven) then there should be some evidence of this. And I want to know if this is the cause of expansion ? Because Time And Space are seen as one.
However, there's nothing in physical theory to suggest it is possible to go back in time.The Code wrote:If I can Go Back In Time, I Can Go To any part Of The 13.7 Billion Year BOOK !
I'm not sure who this "we" is you're referring to. I'm certainly not seeing any such evidence.The Code wrote:It doesn't matter, There are things that are doing these things. And we are seeing the evidence... :)
I don't see what that has to do with traveling backwards in time. The accelerated expansion of spacetime is currently best explained by dark energy (the transition from a gravity dominated universe to a dark energy dominated universe).The Code wrote:Its called accelerated expansion of space/time...
I don't need to know what it is. I know that you can postulate something that behaves the way it does, and it matches our observations. I know that most people who are experts in the area agree that dark energy or something like it is operating. Why would I second guess them?The Code wrote:You have no Idea what dark Energy Is Chris.
