- Thank you received: 0
Why I disagree with static eternal universe
15 years 5 months ago #23784
by Thomas
Replied by Thomas on topic Reply from Thomas Smid
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Alan McDougall</i>
<br />Greetings
The problem I have with a static or Fred Hoyle type eternal infinite universe is the flow of the "Arrow of time" past/presnt/future
In static universe the arrow of time would be pushed back to infinity. Something like a athletic running contest where the start is pushed back infinitely.
We the spectators on earth would wait in vain for them to pass in front of us. So by this reasoning the earth could never have come into existence, could it<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Alan, I am afraid your reasoning is flawed: in an infinite and eternal universe there is no starting point as such. The universe evolves locally in form of cyclic processes, but on average always looks the same.
As shown on my page Expansion of the Universe Debunked , an overall recession between galaxies would indeed contradict the physical law of mass conservation, which implies that the 'cosmological' redshift of galaxies can not be due to an expansion but must be caused by other physical effects (like that suggested on my page Plasma Theory of Hubble Redshift of Galaxies ).
Thomas
<br />Greetings
The problem I have with a static or Fred Hoyle type eternal infinite universe is the flow of the "Arrow of time" past/presnt/future
In static universe the arrow of time would be pushed back to infinity. Something like a athletic running contest where the start is pushed back infinitely.
We the spectators on earth would wait in vain for them to pass in front of us. So by this reasoning the earth could never have come into existence, could it<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Alan, I am afraid your reasoning is flawed: in an infinite and eternal universe there is no starting point as such. The universe evolves locally in form of cyclic processes, but on average always looks the same.
As shown on my page Expansion of the Universe Debunked , an overall recession between galaxies would indeed contradict the physical law of mass conservation, which implies that the 'cosmological' redshift of galaxies can not be due to an expansion but must be caused by other physical effects (like that suggested on my page Plasma Theory of Hubble Redshift of Galaxies ).
Thomas
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
15 years 4 months ago #23414
by PhilJ
Replied by PhilJ on topic Reply from Philip Janes
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Alan McDougall
The problem I have with a static or Fred Hoyle type eternal infinite universe is the flow of the "Arrow of time" past/presnt/future
In static universe the arrow of time would be pushed back to infinity. Something like a athletic running contest where the start is pushed back infinitely.
We the spectators on earth would wait in vain for them to pass in front of us. So by this reasoning the earth could never have come into existence, could it?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
If you begin counting at negative infinity, you will never get to one. By your reasoning, the number one does not exist. We can only speculate on whether there was a first now and will be a last, or whether time has no beginning or end. We know that now exists; we are pretty sure that yesterday was and tomorrow will be. The farther we peer into the past and future, the less certain we can be.
In some vague time zones, past and future, certainty and science must yield to conjecture and religion. I am quite certain that Stephen Hawking crossed that zone somewhere between one billion and ten billion years ago; then he kept going to the first Planck time after the supposed big bang---all the while pretending to be scientifically certain. Let us not follow his example.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by JAaronNicholson
Besides, how can you explain the urge of raw materials forming into ever more complex structures to eventually produce living creatures that can, then, with their mere will power and determination create even more complex structures, as a logical result coming out of Entropy? There is an anti-entropy force at work in evidence, here, just as much as there is an entropy force spreading out over time, and they are both riding the same Arrows of time in all directions.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
The anti-entropy force in my Fractal Foam Model of Universes (Google it) has to do with time inversion from one scale-wise universe to the next. The cosmic foam of our universe is the ether foam of a super-universe. The entropy generated in our universe ends up in our cosmic foam, and time inversion turns that into an input of disentropy into the super-universe. Likewise, we receive disentropy from the sub-universe. Expansion makes cosmic-foam bubbles pop, and time inversion turns that into un-popping. Every second, in every cubic meter of our ether, about <s>10^52</s> 10^88 ether-foam bubbles un-pop. So we have a constant influx of disentropy evenly distributed throughout our universe. This disentropy manifests itself as chaotic attractors---one for each fundamental particle, one for each complex particle, one for each familiar form, upto and including the cosmic foam. [Error discovered on 7.30/09. Explained in thread "[url=" www.metaresearch.org/msgboard/topic.asp?...02&SearchTerms=10^52 "]Might all forces propagate at speed of gravity?[/url]" ]
I am certain that this is how my model works (in its present incarnation); I am less certain the my model is a perfect clone of the physical universe.
The problem I have with a static or Fred Hoyle type eternal infinite universe is the flow of the "Arrow of time" past/presnt/future
In static universe the arrow of time would be pushed back to infinity. Something like a athletic running contest where the start is pushed back infinitely.
We the spectators on earth would wait in vain for them to pass in front of us. So by this reasoning the earth could never have come into existence, could it?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
If you begin counting at negative infinity, you will never get to one. By your reasoning, the number one does not exist. We can only speculate on whether there was a first now and will be a last, or whether time has no beginning or end. We know that now exists; we are pretty sure that yesterday was and tomorrow will be. The farther we peer into the past and future, the less certain we can be.
In some vague time zones, past and future, certainty and science must yield to conjecture and religion. I am quite certain that Stephen Hawking crossed that zone somewhere between one billion and ten billion years ago; then he kept going to the first Planck time after the supposed big bang---all the while pretending to be scientifically certain. Let us not follow his example.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by JAaronNicholson
Besides, how can you explain the urge of raw materials forming into ever more complex structures to eventually produce living creatures that can, then, with their mere will power and determination create even more complex structures, as a logical result coming out of Entropy? There is an anti-entropy force at work in evidence, here, just as much as there is an entropy force spreading out over time, and they are both riding the same Arrows of time in all directions.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
The anti-entropy force in my Fractal Foam Model of Universes (Google it) has to do with time inversion from one scale-wise universe to the next. The cosmic foam of our universe is the ether foam of a super-universe. The entropy generated in our universe ends up in our cosmic foam, and time inversion turns that into an input of disentropy into the super-universe. Likewise, we receive disentropy from the sub-universe. Expansion makes cosmic-foam bubbles pop, and time inversion turns that into un-popping. Every second, in every cubic meter of our ether, about <s>10^52</s> 10^88 ether-foam bubbles un-pop. So we have a constant influx of disentropy evenly distributed throughout our universe. This disentropy manifests itself as chaotic attractors---one for each fundamental particle, one for each complex particle, one for each familiar form, upto and including the cosmic foam. [Error discovered on 7.30/09. Explained in thread "[url=" www.metaresearch.org/msgboard/topic.asp?...02&SearchTerms=10^52 "]Might all forces propagate at speed of gravity?[/url]" ]
I am certain that this is how my model works (in its present incarnation); I am less certain the my model is a perfect clone of the physical universe.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
15 years 4 months ago #23688
by Pluto
Replied by Pluto on topic Reply from
G'day from the land of ozzzz
Thomas said
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">As shown on my page Expansion of the Universe Debunked, an overall recession between galaxies would indeed contradict the physical law of mass conservation, which implies that the 'cosmological' redshift of galaxies can not be due to an expansion but must be caused by other physical effects (like that suggested on my page Plasma Theory of Hubble Redshift of Galaxies).<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
You hit the nail on the head.
To understand the formation and evolution of stars and galaxies that in itself would explain the the universe as a total unit is unable to expand.
Expand into what?
Although looking at the cyclic process. We see contraction as infalling matter towards gravity sinks and expansion of finite units as in jet formation ejecting matter away from gravity sinks.
These jets can be as small as the Sun's flares or as large as a few million light years found coming out of the centre of galaxy clusters.
Smile and live another day
Thomas said
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">As shown on my page Expansion of the Universe Debunked, an overall recession between galaxies would indeed contradict the physical law of mass conservation, which implies that the 'cosmological' redshift of galaxies can not be due to an expansion but must be caused by other physical effects (like that suggested on my page Plasma Theory of Hubble Redshift of Galaxies).<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
You hit the nail on the head.
To understand the formation and evolution of stars and galaxies that in itself would explain the the universe as a total unit is unable to expand.
Expand into what?
Although looking at the cyclic process. We see contraction as infalling matter towards gravity sinks and expansion of finite units as in jet formation ejecting matter away from gravity sinks.
These jets can be as small as the Sun's flares or as large as a few million light years found coming out of the centre of galaxy clusters.
Smile and live another day
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
15 years 4 months ago #15170
by PhilJ
Replied by PhilJ on topic Reply from Philip Janes
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Thomas
As shown on my page Expansion of the Universe Debunked, an overall recession between galaxies would indeed contradict the physical law of mass conservation, which implies that the 'cosmological' redshift of galaxies can not be due to an expansion but must be caused by other physical effects (like that suggested on my page Plasma Theory of Hubble Redshift of Galaxies).<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
That word, "law", implies punishment for those who question it; that is not the way science ought to be done. "Law" probably should be banished from discussions of cosmology, and it certainly should not be taken as proof of correctness. Let us call it the principle of conservation of mass, and for the last century, mass-energy. If dark energy exists, it should be included, as well.
Unlike most cosmologists, I am willing to admit my prejudices. I do not believe in an expanding universe, since I am prejudiced in favor of an infinite universe which obviously can't get any bigger. Yes, I am prejudiced in favor of expanding space; in fact I believe the expansion of space determines the direction of the arrow of time.
Expanding space is central to my Fractal Foam Model of Universes. Expansion pops cosmic-foam bubbles, decreasing the number of cosmic foam bubbles in a given region of space and radiating pressure waves thru the cosmos. The same happens in the sub-universe whose cosmic foam is our ether foam; but time inversion makes it an increasing number of ether-foam bubbles, therefore expanding our space. Time inversion also makes the pressure waves radiate inward to a point where their dark energy is converted to a quantum of new space by unpopping an ether-foam bubble. So dark energy is also central to my model.
So, I believe space must expand, but that doesn't have to be the only cause of cosmological redshift. I can be happy with the truth of all the proposed sources of redshift, and I have no idea which are dominant. I have no idea how much expansion is needed to keep my model running.
As shown on my page Expansion of the Universe Debunked, an overall recession between galaxies would indeed contradict the physical law of mass conservation, which implies that the 'cosmological' redshift of galaxies can not be due to an expansion but must be caused by other physical effects (like that suggested on my page Plasma Theory of Hubble Redshift of Galaxies).<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
That word, "law", implies punishment for those who question it; that is not the way science ought to be done. "Law" probably should be banished from discussions of cosmology, and it certainly should not be taken as proof of correctness. Let us call it the principle of conservation of mass, and for the last century, mass-energy. If dark energy exists, it should be included, as well.
Unlike most cosmologists, I am willing to admit my prejudices. I do not believe in an expanding universe, since I am prejudiced in favor of an infinite universe which obviously can't get any bigger. Yes, I am prejudiced in favor of expanding space; in fact I believe the expansion of space determines the direction of the arrow of time.
Expanding space is central to my Fractal Foam Model of Universes. Expansion pops cosmic-foam bubbles, decreasing the number of cosmic foam bubbles in a given region of space and radiating pressure waves thru the cosmos. The same happens in the sub-universe whose cosmic foam is our ether foam; but time inversion makes it an increasing number of ether-foam bubbles, therefore expanding our space. Time inversion also makes the pressure waves radiate inward to a point where their dark energy is converted to a quantum of new space by unpopping an ether-foam bubble. So dark energy is also central to my model.
So, I believe space must expand, but that doesn't have to be the only cause of cosmological redshift. I can be happy with the truth of all the proposed sources of redshift, and I have no idea which are dominant. I have no idea how much expansion is needed to keep my model running.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
15 years 4 months ago #23787
by Pluto
Replied by Pluto on topic Reply from
G'day from the land of ozzzz
I cannot see any evidence that either space or the total universe is expanding.
All deep field images 13.2 Gyrs show a clustering of galaxies and merging of galaxies as far as the eye can see with the aid telescope.Not onlythat the galaxies observed are in various stages of evolution similar to that of local galaxies.
As for redshift data I would question based on the lack of information on compact matter and jet formation. We are decades away from understanding such objects and yet we use Redshift data without question and assume some form of accuracy.
Smile and live another day
I cannot see any evidence that either space or the total universe is expanding.
All deep field images 13.2 Gyrs show a clustering of galaxies and merging of galaxies as far as the eye can see with the aid telescope.Not onlythat the galaxies observed are in various stages of evolution similar to that of local galaxies.
As for redshift data I would question based on the lack of information on compact matter and jet formation. We are decades away from understanding such objects and yet we use Redshift data without question and assume some form of accuracy.
Smile and live another day
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- lyndonashmore
- Offline
- Junior Member
Less
More
- Thank you received: 0
15 years 2 months ago #23649
by lyndonashmore
Replied by lyndonashmore on topic Reply from lyndon ashmore
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Pluto</i>
<br />G'day from the land of ozzzz
I cannot see any evidence that either space or the total universe is expanding.
All deep field images 13.2 Gyrs show a clustering of galaxies and merging of galaxies as far as the eye can see with the aid telescope.Not onlythat the galaxies observed are in various stages of evolution similar to that of local galaxies.
As for redshift data I would question based on the lack of information on compact matter and jet formation. We are decades away from understanding such objects and yet we use Redshift data without question and assume some form of accuracy.
Smile and live another day
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
I looked for evidence. I found it in the light from quasars. According to mainstream these have been around from the 'begining of the universe' and so, imprinted on their spectra is a history of the universe (like a high school ticker timer).
Results? the universe hasn't expanded for at least a billion years and it is getting hotter - not cooling down as per BB.
See here
lyndonashmore.com/hydrogen_cloud_separation_suppor.htm
lyndon ashmore - bringing cosmology back down to earth.
<br />G'day from the land of ozzzz
I cannot see any evidence that either space or the total universe is expanding.
All deep field images 13.2 Gyrs show a clustering of galaxies and merging of galaxies as far as the eye can see with the aid telescope.Not onlythat the galaxies observed are in various stages of evolution similar to that of local galaxies.
As for redshift data I would question based on the lack of information on compact matter and jet formation. We are decades away from understanding such objects and yet we use Redshift data without question and assume some form of accuracy.
Smile and live another day
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
I looked for evidence. I found it in the light from quasars. According to mainstream these have been around from the 'begining of the universe' and so, imprinted on their spectra is a history of the universe (like a high school ticker timer).
Results? the universe hasn't expanded for at least a billion years and it is getting hotter - not cooling down as per BB.
See here
lyndonashmore.com/hydrogen_cloud_separation_suppor.htm
lyndon ashmore - bringing cosmology back down to earth.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Time to create page: 0.430 seconds