Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 91 to 107 of 107

Thread: Universe Spheres made of Spheres to predict Gravitational Constant

  1. #91
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Wisconsin USA
    Posts
    2,974
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    That is wrong, Copernicus. A closed universe can still be homogenous and isotropic (the cosmological principle). remains correct for the simple reason that you cited a paper deriving that a homogeneous and isotropic universe may be closed. We also measure that this universe is homogeneous and isotropic.
    My spinning sphere theory is isotropic or homogeneous in the sense that the kinetic energy density is uniform throughout the universe except for the relativistic affects. I am glad you pointed out they assumed a homogeneous and isotropic universe.
    The moment an instant lasted forever, we were destined for the leading edge of eternity.

  2. #92
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,340
    Quote Originally Posted by Copernicus View Post
    Hi Reality check, I don't know if I made it clear, but in my universe, the universe would be infinitely old. ....
    This is basically impossible, Copernicus. This universe has stars. Stars use fusion to convert hydrogen into heavier elements. An infinitely old universe will have converted all of its hydrogen into elements that do not fuse and has no stars. We can also estimate the age of stars. We have never found any star that is "infinitely" old, hundreds of billons of years or even many tens of billion years old. List of oldest stars.
    Thus you need yet more additions to your story to explain why observed stars are not old and even exist.

    "Basically" impossible because people have thought about an infinitely old universe before. Those models have been discarded because there is overwhelming empirical evidence for the Big Bang and a finite age of the universe. The abandoned Steady-state model got around the hydrogen problem with a field that created hydrogen. But do not borrow this mechanism: Errors in the Steady State and Quasi-SS Models

  3. #93
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,340
    Quote Originally Posted by Copernicus View Post
    My spinning sphere theory is isotropic or homogeneous in the sense...
    Isotropic and homogeneous have meaning in cosmology. So a post unrelated to cosmology or my That is wrong, Copernicus. A closed universe can still be homogenous and isotropic (the cosmological principle). post.

  4. #94
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Wisconsin USA
    Posts
    2,974
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    This is basically impossible, Copernicus. This universe has stars. Stars use fusion to convert hydrogen into heavier elements. An infinitely old universe will have converted all of its hydrogen into elements that do not fuse and has no stars. We can also estimate the age of stars. We have never found any star that is "infinitely" old, hundreds of billons of years or even many tens of billion years old. List of oldest stars.
    Thus you need yet more additions to your story to explain why observed stars are not old and even exist.

    "Basically" impossible because people have thought about an infinitely old universe before. Those models have been discarded because there is overwhelming empirical evidence for the Big Bang and a finite age of the universe. The abandoned Steady-state model got around the hydrogen problem with a field that created hydrogen. But do not borrow this mechanism: Errors in the Steady State and Quasi-SS Models
    I think I do have to go with a steady state model. I have to plug my nose as I think about it. But it is an issue isn't it. I am thinking that imperfections would have to have some way of popping out of existence in one place and pop into existence in another place. It is shocking to me.
    The moment an instant lasted forever, we were destined for the leading edge of eternity.

  5. #95
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,340
    Quote Originally Posted by Copernicus View Post
    I'm pretty sure I just said my universe would have a CMB.
    You are right - "I don't see why my universe would not have a CMB" is that you cannot think why your universe would not have a CMB. But as I wrote, in this universe the CMB is evidence of the Big Bang. So what you cannot think of is not enough to say you have a CMB.

    People who learn about the cosmic microwave background can think your universe cannot have a CMB. For a start, you have nothing to emit the CMB! That needs a plasma in a hot dense state. You have a story about "mass". You think that the universe was never in a hot dense state. No plasma in this universe today can emit the CMB. There are measured properties of the CMB your universe has to produce: a perfect black body spectrum, a temperature here of 2.72600.0013 K, uniform across the sly except for small fluctuations, power spectrum, temperature variation with distance as predicted for an expanding universe.

  6. #96
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,340
    Quote Originally Posted by Copernicus View Post
    ...
    More unsupported stories about the Hubble constant. I will not waste any more time trying to explain a clearly stated question.
    IF09: Please quote your derivation of cosmological redshift (Hubble's law) from your ATM idea, Copernicus.

  7. #97
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Wisconsin USA
    Posts
    2,974
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    More unsupported stories about the Hubble constant. I will not waste any more time trying to explain a clearly stated question.
    IF09: Please quote your derivation of cosmological redshift (Hubble's law) from your ATM idea, Copernicus.
    My Hubble constant, instead of one over the age of the universe, is one over the time to travel to the edge of the universe, for light.
    The moment an instant lasted forever, we were destined for the leading edge of eternity.

  8. #98
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,340
    Quote Originally Posted by Copernicus View Post
    There is no mainstream size of the universe...
    Repeating an error about mainstream cosmology is still not an answer to IF07: What is the mainstream size of the universe, Copernicus? Or what is your empirical evidence supporting this "about 13.75 (now 3) billion light years" size?.
    There is a mainstream size of the universe. For the final time: The observable universe has a measured, mainstream size of X as stated in the cosmology you must have learned before writing an ATM idea on cosmology. What is X, Copernicus?
    That X is the minimum size of the universe since the universe is bigger than the observable universe. We can estimate the size of the entire universe from its curvature - infinite for a flat universe a lot bigger for a small curvature.

  9. #99
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,340

  10. #100
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,340
    Quote Originally Posted by Copernicus View Post
    ...edge of the universe
    This is a common misconception, Copernicus - there is no edge to the universe in cosmology. The universe is not literally a balloon as in the balloon used to illustrate Hubble's law.
    Frequently Asked Questions in Cosmology: What is the Universe expanding into?

  11. #101
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Wisconsin USA
    Posts
    2,974
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    This is a common misconception, Copernicus - there is no edge to the universe in cosmology. The universe is not literally a balloon as in the balloon used to illustrate Hubble's law.
    Frequently Asked Questions in Cosmology: What is the Universe expanding into?
    That is right, my idea is ATM, I do think my theory leads to an edge of the universe. I advocate for the copernican principle at some level. I don't think our universe is the only one, by a long shot. I believe in the cosmological principle, but I think it extends out of our universe, so all the universes appear the same in all directions. We just can't see it to verify it completely, so we hope nature isn't playing a trick.
    The moment an instant lasted forever, we were destined for the leading edge of eternity.

  12. #102
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,340
    Quote Originally Posted by Copernicus View Post
    My Hubble constant, instead of one over the age of the universe,...
    This is the Hubble constant which is not one over the age of the universe. The age of the universe can be estimated from measuring the Hubble constant and a deceleration parameter q (how the Hubble constant varies). The measured age of the universe is very close to 1/H so people do use H = 1/(the measured age of the universe).

    Naming something "Hubble constant" does not make it the Hubble constant. The Hubble constant has a definition which is not yours.

    P.S. You want the universe to be closed and cite a paper about this. Now read Measured values of the Hubble constant and see the Hubble constant of 54.4 from that paper.

  13. #103
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,340
    Quote Originally Posted by Copernicus View Post
    That is right, my idea is ATM,...
    That is irrelevant. All cosmologies about this universe (ATM or not) do not need an edge because an edge is useless.
    Frequently Asked Questions in Cosmology: What is the Universe expanding into?
    This question is based on the ever popular misconception that the Universe is some curved object embedded in a higher dimensional space, and that the Universe is expanding into this space. This misconception is probably fostered by the balloon analogy which shows a 2-D spherical model of the Universe expanding in a 3-D space. While it is possible to think of the Universe this way, it is not necessary, and there is nothing whatsoever that we have measured or can measure that will show us anything about the larger space. Everything that we measure is within the Universe, and we see no edge or boundary or center of expansion. Thus the Universe is not expanding into anything that we can see, and this is not a profitable thing to think about. Just as Dali's Corpus Hypercubicus is just a 2-D picture of a 3-D object that represents the surface of a 4-D cube, remember that the balloon analogy is just a 2-D picture of a 3-D situation that is supposed to help you think about a curved 3-D space, but it does not mean that there is really a 4-D space that the Universe is expanding into.
    For your ATM idea, ignore "and that the Universe is expanding into this space". An edge is still useless for a static universe. We still see no edge or boundary (or center of expansion).

  14. #104
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Wisconsin USA
    Posts
    2,974
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    That is irrelevant. All cosmologies about this universe (ATM or not) do not need an edge because an edge is useless.
    Frequently Asked Questions in Cosmology: What is the Universe expanding into?

    For your ATM idea, ignore "and that the Universe is expanding into this space". An edge is still useless for a static universe. We still see no edge or boundary (or center of expansion).
    You may be totally right. There is so much I don't know. My universe is rotating, but it is static in size. There is no expansion.
    The moment an instant lasted forever, we were destined for the leading edge of eternity.

  15. #105
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Wisconsin USA
    Posts
    2,974
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    That is irrelevant. All cosmologies about this universe (ATM or not) do not need an edge because an edge is useless.
    Frequently Asked Questions in Cosmology: What is the Universe expanding into?

    For your ATM idea, ignore "and that the Universe is expanding into this space". An edge is still useless for a static universe. We still see no edge or boundary (or center of expansion).
    I should mention, that I think, with the Lorentz transformation of a spinning universe, whose outer edge is one part in 10^40 away from the speed of light, that light bends so much, one would never be able to see the edge.
    The moment an instant lasted forever, we were destined for the leading edge of eternity.

  16. #106
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Wisconsin USA
    Posts
    2,974
    I see that my spinning sphere universe leads to the necessity for a mechanism for constantly refreshing the universe, or a steady state universe, which I did not realize was such a big thing before the CMB. My universe is different from the steady state universe, in that it does not expand, and I expect that the areas close to the edge of the universe is moving at particle collider energies and higher, so I really think that area would be like a constant big bang. Besides the constant big bang conditions, I would have to figure out mechanisms for constantly refreshing the universe, which seems like a huge barrier to the spinning sphere theory. I will also need to see if this theory can predict the anomalies seen in the Hubble Constant. I appreciate all of your help and criticisms.
    I would like to stop this ATM, because it doesn't seem worthwhile to continue this ATM at this point.
    The moment an instant lasted forever, we were destined for the leading edge of eternity.

  17. #107
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    49,265
    Quote Originally Posted by Copernicus View Post
    I would like to stop this ATM, because it doesn't seem worthwhile to continue this ATM at this point.
    Done (closed).

    Keep in mind that this will be the only time you may bring up this ATM unless you receive approval from the Moderation Team. If you change your mind before the 30 days are up (10 Dec), please Report this post and we will consider reopening this thread.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •