Cosmological Model

makis
Topic Author
Offline
Premium Member

21 years 11 months ago #3702 by makis

Reply from was created by makis

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>

1. In order for an infinite amound of matter in infinite space to collapse on itself totally, an infinite amound of time would be required.
2. Another thing is, to ask WHERE in the universe the center of collapse would take place. As all places are equal candidates, it follows that NOWHERE this collapse could take place.

<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

1. dt = ds/v . There is no mass, finite or infinite coming into this equation. Therefore, even finite amount of matter would take infinite time to collapse on itself if distances are infinite.

2. If you toss a coin, just because both sides have equal probability does not mean that you will get no outcome. Outcome should not be confused with its probability. Where it collapse, if it does, is a function of dispersity of matter, amongst other things, which it turns determines the strange attractor points in a chaotic sense. Still, if you assume uniform dispersion, strange attractor formation does not depend only on dispersion but on other factors such as local dynamics due to motion.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

heusdens
Offline
Premium Member

21 years 11 months ago #3646 by heusdens

Replied by heusdens on topic Reply from rob

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote><BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>

1. In order for an infinite amound of matter in infinite space to collapse on itself totally, an infinite amound of time would be required.
2. Another thing is, to ask WHERE in the universe the center of collapse would take place. As all places are equal candidates, it follows that NOWHERE this collapse could take place.

<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

1. dt = ds/v . There is no mass, finite or infinite coming into this equation. Therefore, even finite amount of matter would take infinite time to collapse on itself if distances are infinite.

2. If you toss a coin, just because both sides have equal probability does not mean that you will get no outcome. Outcome should not be confused with its probability. Where it collapse, if it does, is a function of dispersity of matter, amongst other things, which it turns determines the strange attractor points in a chaotic sense. Still, if you assume uniform dispersion, strange attractor formation does not depend only on dispersion but on other factors such as local dynamics due to motion.

<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

Well, I should reformulate my statement about contraction.

Contraction occurs everywhere. That is what you see as you look in the sky, galaxies and stars have formed because of this.

But what I cleared out is that this contraction occurs at EVERY finite level, but not on the INFINITE level.

That is the very difference.

All gravity forces throughout the infinite space keep the universe in stability on the infinite level, while at the same time cause contraction to occur at the finite levels.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Patrick
Offline
Premium Member

21 years 11 months ago #3654 by Patrick

Replied by Patrick on topic Reply from P

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Let us assume we have the space divided in equal cubes of some unit, filled with exactly one H atom exactly in the middle, and fill the entire UNLIMITED space with this.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>
This is a little confusing, how do you "fill" an unlimited space?

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Contraction occurs everywhere. That is what you see as you look in the sky, galaxies and stars have formed because of this.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>
I would have thought it was gravity.

Sorry Rob, there are many things in your "proofs" which I can't follow.
"The Big Bang theory is developed around a crucial phenomena of gravity. "
"and filled with matter in infinite extent"

If something can't come into or go out of existence then how do you have an infinite amount of matter? Are you saying the set of {matter} is infinite or are you saying that there is an infinite amount of matter?

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

heusdens
Offline
Premium Member

21 years 11 months ago #3706 by heusdens

Replied by heusdens on topic Reply from rob

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Let us assume we have the space divided in equal cubes of some unit, filled with exactly one H atom exactly in the middle, and fill the entire UNLIMITED space with this.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>
This is a little confusing, how do you "fill" an unlimited space?
[/quite]

It's just a model of the universe, which I assume to have been at a certain time in a certain state. I didn't mean to say that you do a process of filling it, cause you would need unlimited time to do that (and see the space you already filled collapsing, making it a very frustrating job), but I am sure you have the MENTAL skills, to see what I mean.

So instead of "filling" just assume it was that way at an arbitrary time Zero. And like I said, the universe never could have gotten in such a state, I just use the model to show what happens, namely in every part of space there would occur contraction, causing things like stars, galaxies and clusters, etc to form. (because of the overall attracting force of gravity).

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote><BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Contraction occurs everywhere. That is what you see as you look in the sky, galaxies and stars have formed because of this.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>
I would have thought it was gravity.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

Gravity is the dominating force in the universe. So, this causes indeed contraction to occur, in every region of space, causing stars to formate and galaxies, and clusters, etc.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Sorry Rob, there are many things in your "proofs" which I can't follow.
"The Big Bang theory is developed around a crucial phenomena of gravity. "
"and filled with matter in infinite extent"
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

The theory of gravity says that no matter how large a finite universe is, it would contract. But the Einstein equations (General Relativity) make it possible that the universe expands. This was a conclusion that was first made my Friedman. Einstein thought at that time, the universe would not collapse, but was stable, and therefore he invented an "ad hoc" parameter, the cosmological constant for that.

If something can't come into or go out of existence then how do you have an infinite amount of matter? Are you saying the set of {matter} is infinite or are you saying that there is an infinite amount of matter?
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

All I know I live, so the world/the universe must exist.

And there is only one way for the world to exist, namely it was and always has been unlimited in size and extent, without begin or end.

Matter does not create or destroy itself, so it has always been there for an unlimited amount of time, and in infinite extent (what I mean that throughout ALL of infinite space matter is distributed EVERYWHERE). So the amount of matter is infinite (when calculating it in GeV or kilograms). It's also (probably) infinitely divisable (so to say, there is no "elementary" particle, although we can't see below a certain range cause we would need infinite energy to see infinitely small).

You don't need to go from "nothing" to "everything" (that is what is called "creation ex nihilo") to arrive at the existing world.

The existing world has always existed, but changes constantly, without begin or end.

I hope this solves your questions. If not, please post your question.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Patrick
Offline
Premium Member

21 years 11 months ago #3655 by Patrick

Replied by Patrick on topic Reply from P

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>You don't need to go from "nothing" to "everything" (that is what is called "creation ex nihilo") to arrive at the existing world.

The existing world has always existed, but changes constantly, without begin or end.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>
Rob, I think we are saying the same things just in a different way. It is here where things can go wrong. I think there are many people who perceive existence *ONLY* as matter and I think this is where people start to go wrong. When people look at the "Big Bang" they for some reason *SEE* or think "Creation from Nothing" which is not the case at all. If the "Bang" came from an existing blob of "ENERGY" then it wasn't from "nothing" it was from "something", something in the form of Energy. The energy is what created everything else, from itself. No "creation ex nihilo". The only thing that is infinite is the energy itself, it is mass, gravity, space, time, everything. What ever form it is in it is still "all that can exist". I think you are saying the same thing but it seems as though you are focused on the "material" parts rather then the whole picture. Think about what I am saying and try to find a violation of any principles.

Let me ask:
1) Do we agree that matter and energy are one in the same?
2) Do we agree everything that *CAN* exist already does?
3) Do we agree that things don't come into and go out of existence?

I'm trying to figure out your logic in the model you are using.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

heusdens
Offline
Premium Member

21 years 11 months ago #3656 by heusdens

Replied by heusdens on topic Reply from rob

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Rob, I think we are saying the same things just in a different way. It is here where things can go wrong. I think there are many people who perceive existence *ONLY* as matter and I think this is where people start to go wrong. When people look at the "Big Bang" they for some reason *SEE* or think "Creation from Nothing" which is not the case at all. If the "Bang" came from an existing blob of "ENERGY" then it wasn't from "nothing" it was from "something", something in the form of Energy. The energy is what created everything else, from itself. No "creation ex nihilo". The only thing that is infinite is the energy itself, it is mass, gravity, space, time, everything. What ever form it is in it is still "all that can exist". I think you are saying the same thing but it seems as though you are focused on the "material" parts rather then the whole picture. Think about what I am saying and try to find a violation of any principles.

Let me ask:
1) Do we agree that matter and energy are one in the same?
2) Do we agree everything that *CAN* exist already does?
3) Do we agree that things don't come into and go out of existence?

I'm trying to figure out your logic in the model you are using.

<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

Well for clarity then let's call things using their proper definitions, and not use them outside of their real meaning, so let us agree here on saying the the universe is and contains everything that is, and not using things like "nothing" or "ZERO" to have that meaning.

1) Matter and energy are distinct things, can be converted into each other, and are more or less two forms of the same thing, yes. In the context of philosophy that goes by the general term "matter" (which is confusing cause in the context of physics it is the mass-having particles and not energy, or fields).

2) When refraining from the shape and form etc. yes. Everything that is is existent, and in the proces of transforming, moving, changing, etc. But there isn't a me yet, who is 40 years old, cause i am just 39, and in the process of becoming 40, if you understand what I mean.

3) Absolutely.

Now I may ask you:

You say that as the start of this Big Bang there was just energy.
How did that energy assemble there, when at the same instant, time, matter and space came into existence.

So, the spark of energy, simply was there, and time, and space came into being, and all other matter formed from there.

There is however no "previous state" and we have no alternative as to believe that's what happened.

The state the universe was in then, was a very peculiar state, it was a "one time only" event.

But what kind of energy you are referring to? Every kind of energy we are used to, and know about, like light or heat, has time and space. Energy can't exist "on it's own", just like that.

In other words, it's not a normal event. I would think it would be highly unlikely, or better said impossible event.

What is wrong with assuming, that energy and matter were in more ordindary states, and distributed throughout every part of infinite space?

What is wrong with that?

The universe goes from one ordinary state through another ordinary state, based on the normal laws of physics, and nothing abnormal has to be assumed.

Only our minds, can't grasp this idea of an eternal universe which is infinite and without begin or end.

It's not your fault or anyone else's fault, people don't understand this, cause whatever we know about, always has a begin and end, and is limited in extent. This goes for anything, even for stars etc.

Only the totallity of all things, is something forever, and without begin and end.

Maybe it will never get used to think that way, but it is the most plausible thing to assume.

Every other theory, uses more out of the normal conditions, like an impossible beginning condition, things created out of nothing, etc.

Infinity is a hard thing to imagine. It for sure is.
I can write this down, but I don't have any means of imagining the infinity of the universe. So, this will always be a problem.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Time to create page: 0.874 seconds