Cosmology and Astrophysics

[hatzel]

The universe is expanding, therefore the population of the universe is increasing exponentially, and is not static.

If I get four marbles, and put four ants on each, there are sixteen ants in total. If I then roll the marbles towards the corners of the room (assuming the ants don't fall off the marbles in the process), there remain sixteen ants. They're just a bit more spread out than they were before. Expansion affects only density; there is no reason to believe that there is any direct relationship between the 'spread' of the universe and its contents. In fact, we know (at least according to our current understanding) that energy-mass remains constant, despite the 'size' of the universe, suggesting that this energy-mass is merely spread out over an ever greater area. Not that the expansion of the universe is in any way related to the creation of more energy-mass. The same could apply to total 'population', but as I don't have all the census data from distant galaxies to hand, I won't claim the population is static. Just that there is no way to even reasonably assume it is increasing...

[Inquisitive Lurker]

Expansion affects only density; there is no reason to believe that there is any direct relationship between the 'spread' of the universe and its contents. In fact, we know (at least according to our current understanding) that energy-mass remains constant, despite the 'size' of the universe, suggesting that this energy-mass is merely spread out over an ever greater area. Not that the expansion of the universe is in any way related to the creation of more energy-mass. The same could apply to total 'population', but as I don't have all the census data from distant galaxies to hand, I won't claim the population is static. Just that there is no way to even reasonably assume it is increasing...

So... so... wrong. This just really isn't your subject, is it?

The universe is still HOT. We know this from the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe. The edge of the Universe still is a fireball of energy that gradually cools and becomes matter (mainly hydrogen and some helium). The energy (matter) of the Big Bang is FAR from spent. The universe is still in the stage of expansion and "creation" (it's not really being created, just changing from energy to matter), and will be until the Big Crunch begins. I know, I know, you have no idea what the Big Crunch is. Don't worry about it.

New galaxies, new stars, new planets, new lifeforms. Exponentially.

Face it "Rabbi", you lost this one. You'll have to study a lot more astrophysics to beat me. I had some time on my hands over the last few years and studied it a lot. Well I got bored with studying religion. I read Hawking, I read Sagan, I read Einstein. Have you even touched their works? Do you understand Relativity? How about the Boundless yet Finite universe model of Hawking? Ever heard of the Planck constant? How about the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle? Is an electronvolt a measurement of energy or mass? This is the shit I toy with in my mind when I'm bored. Well, that and stuff the DIY forum won't let me post, he he he. ;)

Feel free to Wikipedia these subjects and expand your knowledge. Or I could give you a reading list, if you ask nicely.

I'm off to the anarchist collective again for our Tuesday afternoon meeting. Be back tonight for more fun! And this is FUN! :D

[hatzel]

The universe is still HOT.

Never said it wasn't...though of course 'hot' is a totally subjective term with absolutely no meaning. Hot in comparison to what, exactly?


The edge of the Universe still is a fireball of energy that gradually cools and becomes matter
So energy-mass remains constant, exactly as I said. Or are you saying that it's not a closed system, and that energy-mass enters the system from outside? As long as it's a closed system, energy-mass, as I said, remains constant, the balance between the two is just rejigged. If it's not a closed system, then that that Buddhist idea of the multiverse looks pretty promising...but didn't you mock that idea? Despite its relative prominence amongst those who actually study these things? Hmm...


The universe is still in the stage of expansion and "creation" (it's not really being created, just changing from energy to matter)
Of course, that's a fundamental tenant of Judaism...:rolleyes:



I know, I know, you have no idea what the Big Crunch is.
Don't presume. Everybody knows what it is, you don't have to be 'clever' to have heard of it. Of course there's no proof it's going to happen, though, and those who study these things aren't exactly in agreement on that, but yeah, whatever...


New galaxies, new stars, new planets, new lifeforms. Exponentially.
Well, not if you believe in the Big Crunch, there's a limit to all this :lol:

But of course, you know that isn't necessarily true, because galaxies, stars, planets and lifeforms are destroyed as well as created. You have no proof that the creation of lifeforms on one planet outnumbers the concurrent destruction of lifeforms on another planet. It's not even that farfetched an idea, presuming that somewhere, right now, there is some mass extinction event going on, or a whole inhabited planet being destroyed. What makes you say that the total 'population' of the universe isn't relatively stable, with emergence of lifeforms on one planet coinciding with the total destruction of others? No amount of reading this or that book is going to tell you otherwise, because they just don't know. They don't pretend to, though, because they actually have a basic understanding of logic. And of not looking like a dick...seriously, you're either a massive troll or you've got learning difficulties. If it's the latter, do tell us, because I'd feel terrible mocking somebody for such an affliction :)

Oh, and as you're such a great humanist...I just thought I'd quote from my library, I was just reading some humanist text and thought you'd find it interesting. Enjoy!


Insight into the character structure of modern man and the contemporary social scene leads to the realisation that the current widespread lack of faith no longer has the progressive aspect it had generations ago. [...] Today, the lack of faith is a sign of profound confusion and despair

Oh, humanism, how much finer you are than entropy. Of course I would feel sorry for you in your very obvious mental plight, but...

[Revolution starts with U]

Never said it wasn't...though of course 'hot' is a totally subjective term with absolutely no meaning. Hot in comparison to what, exac
I'm sorry Rabbi, but this (physics) really isn't your field. "Hot" is not a subjective term. Hot as compared to what? Absolute Zero
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_zero
(That's how superconducters work)


So energy-mass remains constant, exactly as I said. Or are you saying that it's not a closed system, and that energy-mass enters the system from outside? As long as it's a closed system, energy-mass, as I said, remains constant, the balance between the two is just rejigged. If it's not a closed system, then that that Buddhist idea of the multiverse looks pretty promising...but didn't you mock that idea? Despite its relative prominence amongst those who actually study these things? Hmm...

I agree. I don't know where he got this idea that the multiverse has been, or even could be, "disproven." I especially don't know where he gets the idea that other universes would necessarily have effects on this one.
It's safe to say he's talking out his ass and claiming expertise on this one :lol:



But of course, you know that isn't necessarily true, because galaxies, stars, planets and lifeforms are destroyed as well as created. You have no proof that the creation of lifeforms on one planet outnumbers the concurrent destruction of lifeforms on another planet. It's not even that farfetched an idea, presuming that somewhere, right now, there is some mass extinction event going on, or a whole inhabited planet being destroyed. What makes you say that the total 'population' of the universe isn't relatively stable, with emergence of lifeforms on one planet coinciding with the total destruction of others?
I think this would have to involve a lot of things that expressly contradict the laws of physics. The EPR Paradox, or "spooky action at a distance" makes it "possible" (quotes and italics, if there were more ways to say I am using that term loosely I would add them). But it still is not likely as EPR involves two intertwined particles, and not just general information.
It's safe to say, if this were happening we would have to completely rewrite the laws of physics.



To actually return to the topic: some currents within Judaism suggest that the soul is made up of 613 'chambers' or such, to match the mitzvot. And that as we live, these chambers are 'filled up' according to the mitzvot one keeps. If one doesn't manage to 'fill' all the chambers? Well, then your soul is reinstalled in another new being, to see if you can 'fill' the remaining chambers. This continues ceaselessly until all the chambers have been 'filled', and then...well, I guess that's when its time for the world to come...I assume that this has some similarities to certain Buddhist traditions, but I'm hardly an expert! :)

When you can show me physical evidence of these Mitzvot's, I'll start taking you seriously, the same with Karma, Dao, Chi, the soul, or any other fairy tale people try imposing on the world :lol:

[hatzel]

I'm sorry Rabbi, but this (physics) really isn't your field. "Hot" is not a subjective term. Hot as compared to what? Absolute Zero
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_zero
(That's how superconducters work)

I do know what absolute zero is, just so you know. But I wouldn't go as far as to describe everything other than that as 'hot'. I mean, I can bust a t-shirt in -25°C, no prob, but c'mon, there's a limit to what we can really call hot...and that's cold, by my logic :) If the official proper science term (I don't do terminology) for pretty much everything that has any remote sense of heat in it is 'hot', then I suggest somebody change that vocabulary so that it makes more sense to laymen like me! :lol: Though I did, in fact, get an A at physics when I came out of school. Huzzah for me! I'm clearly as much an expert of physics as I am an expert of economics...still, I try to get around, pointing out when stuff makes literally no sense whatsoever, rather than constantly posting on the same topic over and over and over again...


When you can show me physical evidence of these Mitzvot's, I'll start taking you seriously, the same with Karma, Dao, Chi, the soul, or any other fairy tale people try imposing on the world :lol:Well, the mitzvot clearly exist, as they are written an enumerated, it's only the significance that matters :rolleyes:

[Revolution starts with U]

I do know what absolute zero is, just so you know. But I wouldn't go as far as to describe everything other than that as 'hot'. I mean, I can bust a t-shirt in -25°C, no prob, but c'mon, there's a limit to what we can really call hot...and that's cold, by my logic :) If the official proper science term (I don't do terminology) for pretty much everything that has any remote sense of heat in it is 'hot', then I suggest somebody change that vocabulary so that it makes more sense to laymen like me! :lol:
I agree with this, pretty much. It is a semantic issue. Do you call the presence of heat, hot? Scientifically, I would think so. But, as you said, that sort-of contradicts the everyday usage of "hot."

[hatzel]

I dunno, I dunno...to be honest, I don't think the semantic issue of whether or not something is or isn't hot has much to do with what happens after death, though. I fear we're floating very very far from the topic now, to be honest. Thanks in part to some wild unsubstantiated conjecture. But then I guess wild unsubstantiated conjecture is what the religion forum's all about! :laugh:

[Inquisitive Lurker]

Never said it wasn't...though of course 'hot' is a totally subjective term with absolutely no meaning. Hot in comparison to what, exactly?

Actually I could give you an estimate as to how hot it is, well, a projection really, based on... gawd I'm going to have to get a book, and it's in a box. I'll summarize. We can estimate the temperature of the Big Bang by looking at the moment that temperatures cools enough for the first particles to form. Then we can use the data from the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe.


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2d/WMAP_2010.png/180px-WMAP_2010.png


Then you project out 13.75 billion years of cooling over the surface of an ever expanding sphere. The answer is... really fucking hot. Millions of degrees Kelvin. You know how hot it has to get for a particle to break down into quarks and then the quarks to break down into pure energy?


So energy-mass remains constant, exactly as I said.But what you failed to say, because you didn't know, is that the universe is still 70% energy and only 30% matter. That energy will cool (laws of thermodynamics) and turn into matter. So 70% of the universe has still to be created.


Don't presume. Everybody knows what it is, you don't have to be 'clever' to have heard of it. Of course there's no proof it's going to happen, though, and those who study these things aren't exactly in agreement on that, but yeah, whatever...Actually it's pretty much of a given now with what we know (and don't know) about the amount of dark matter and dark energy in the universe. When enough energy is converted to matter, gravity will overcome the outward velocity. It simply will happen. But not any time soon.


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d7/Cosmological_Composition_-_Pie_Chart.png/450px-Cosmological_Composition_-_Pie_Chart.png



Well, not if you believe in the Big Crunch, there's a limit to all this.The number of new galaxies, new stars, new planets, and new lifeforms will continue to increase exponentially until a midpoint where they will increase asymptotically. Then the precipice is reached, and the Big Crunch begins.

I could actually calculate when that will happen if you like. It's just algebra and geometry, and a bit of calculus. Take the rate of cooling (constant) spread it over the surface of a sphere (variable radius) us time as the radius, currently 13.75 billion years = 23 billion light years (46 billion light year diameter). Calculate total energy/matter ratio as 70/30, and project outwards to what time/radius the cooling on the surface of the sphere reduces that ratio to 0/100. Then you are half way there, the universe will stop expanding. Time for the Big Crunch. Gravity starts hauling the matter back in (the calculations for how long that will take are horrendous). Eventually you get a singularity, and badabing badaboom, you get a Big Bang.



But of course, you know that isn't necessarily true, because galaxies, stars, planets and lifeforms are destroyed as well as created. You have no proof that the creation of lifeforms on one planet outnumbers the concurrent destruction of lifeforms on another planet. It's not even that farfetched an idea, presuming that somewhere, right now, there is some mass extinction event going on, or a whole inhabited planet being destroyed. What makes you say that the total 'population' of the universe isn't relatively stable, with emergence of lifeforms on one planet coinciding with the total destruction of others?You clearly have no idea how stars and planets are born and die. Do you think that the Sun and the Earth have been here for 13.75 billion years? And first I also want to point out that the universe is expanding at an exponential rate, so even if there was a significant death rate, it would be linear, and the exponential growth would overcome it.

The Big Bang made mainly hydrogen, some helium, and a teeny teeny amount of other light elements. No iron, no nickle, no oxygen, no nitrogen, no carbon. Now, if you take a look around, you might notice a LOT of those elements! For the iron and the nickel you'll have dig through the mantle and the core. The nitrogen you can't see, but trust me it's all around you.

So where did they come from "Rabbi"? Did G~d say "Let there be heavier elements!"

We are the product of dead stars. Every atom in you, except hydrogen, came from dead stars. A mass of hydrogen gas (gawd I feel like I'm teaching here, somebody pay me) collects under the mutual attractive force of gravity. Their density gets so high that (hot) fusion takes place. Hydrogen is turned into helium. And teeny teeny amounts of heavier elements. Then the star runs out of hydrogen and a new stage of fusion takes places, helium fusion. The star expands into a red giant. Helium changes into beryllium, and a little bit of lithium and some other heavier elements too. Eventually the fuel runs out all together, and the star explodes in a supernova. All the particles it has built up get blown out into the universe. At this point there is everything inside that star from hydrogen all the way to uranium.


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/55/Solar_Life_Cycle.svg/600px-Solar_Life_Cycle.svg.png


Now new matter starts coming together, a new cloud of dust, this time with heavier elements in it. The hydrogen at the core becomes a new sun, the heavier elements form into planets (and asteroids and comets and moons).

Also, there are vast clouds of interstellar gas called nebula. These are star making factories, this is were brand new stars are born.

Old stars die and make new stars with new planets, new lifeforms. Nebula make fresh stars that start the process that leads to new lifeforms. The universe is only 30% complete and constantly growing, constantly making new galaxies, new stars, new planets, new lifeforms. The population of the universe is growing exponentially. The demise of some systems is just part of that process.

I am going to have to give you a reading list.

Start with Cosmos by Carl Sagan. It's a bit old but the fundamentals are there.
Then read A Brief History of Time by Stephen Hawking (there's an illustrated version that might be easier for you).
Follow that up with The Universe in a Nutshell also by Stephen Hawking. Also liberally illustrated.
Once you get done with those, we can go backwards to Relativity.
Read Einstein's "The Special and General Theory of Relativity" which he wrote at a 12th grade level, and then when you don't understand that read "The ABC's of Relativity" by Bertrand Russell.

Or maybe I should be kind to you "Rabbi". As a polymath, I know a lot about a lot of things, but not everything. I should give you a list of my areas of expertise and then you'll just know which subjects to avoid. But not until we've had that Holocaust debate. I've got big plans for that one. I'm even thinking about interviewing a few local REAL rabbis to brush up on their spin.

[Inquisitive Lurker]

I agree. I don't know where he got this idea that the multiverse has been, or even could be, "disproven."

What I stated was that the multiverse having an impact on reincarnation was disproved. It goes like this.

Let's say there is one universe. It is a closed system, there is no outside of it, everything that happens inside of it and effects things inside of it. It is a closed system.

If there are multiple universes, but they don't interact, then nothing changes, they are still closed systems, no energy or particles pass between them. They might as well not be there.

If we have a multiverse which contains interacting universes, the the individual universes become open systems, but the multiverse itself is a closed system, containing the open systems. This changes nothing, we are still, overall, dealing with a closed system.

So the problems with having a constant population on one planet, one galaxy, one cluster, one universe, or one multiverse, are all the same.

What I disproved was that a multiverse made reincarnation possible.



To the second half of your statement.

I especially don't know where he gets the idea that other universes would necessarily have effects on this one.If another universe is interacting with this one, i.e. two open systems contained within a larger closed system, by it's very definition they have effects on each other. Energy moves from one universe to the other, particles pass between them. If they didn't, then they wouldn't be interacting, then they wouldn't be two open systems, they would be two closed systems, universes with no interaction, in which case for all, and I do mean all, by definition all, circumstances they might not as well not exist. And they certainly will never be discovered. If they are both closed systems, discovery is impossible.

If there is a multiverse with interacting universes inside it, there will be effects in all parts of the universes, in every universe. These are the definition of open and closed systems. Interacting universes would be highly detectable with modern equipment, and many experiments have been carried out at atom smashers, particles accelerators, and the Large Hadron Collider. Nada, Zip, Zilch. They have, at the CERN LHC, even tried to create a micro-universe. No luck.


Does that answer your questions?

[Revolution starts with U]

Does that answer your questions?

Yep. :thumbup1:

[Astarte]

Then you are half way there, the universe will stop expanding. Time for the Big Crunch. Gravity starts hauling the matter back in (the calculations for how long that will take are horrendous). Eventually you get a singularity, and badabing badaboom, you get a Big Bang.


So, this really means nothing to you? The idea of the universe just expanding from a singularity and contracting back into one? What is it like inside the singularity? REALLY, REALLY HOT ? Where is this singularity located? Where did it come from? Where is it going?

You disproved NOTHING.

[Inquisitive Lurker]

So, this really means nothing to you? The idea of the universe just expanding from a singularity and contracting back into one?
It's just physics. It's just science. It's only the truth, and nothing more.


What is it like inside the singularity? REALLY, REALLY HOT? Inside a singularity the laws of physics break down. Matter becomes energy, energy becomes matter, and sometimes they are both at the same time. Also the "infinite" (it's not really infinite, just really really large, though in fact smaller than a pin prick) singularity that caused the Big Bang existed for only 0 seconds at its most dense moment, when it reaches "infinity."


Where is this singularity located?I believe the one that created this universe was located somewhere in Sagittarius. Or was that the center of our galaxy? I forget. We aren't too far, cosmically speaking, from the center of the universe, as most galaxies are red-shifted (moving away from us) and only a few are blue-shifted (moving towards us).


Where did it come from?Three possibilities.
1. Chain of universes (very likely).
The universe expands and collapses, expands and collapse, for infinity. Like a chain of spherical sausages, or an infinite string of pearls. No beginning, no end, because time and space are created with the Big Bang, and begin and end with each universe. There is no origin, no "first" universe.
2. Singular creation (very unlikely).
In this model, we are in the first universe, and there was nothing before the first singularity. "Let there be light." This is the model that religious people prefer, but it is contradicted by the Big Crunch. It is also disproven using the same arguments that disprove the "First Mover / First Cause" arguments for the existence of God.
3. Self cycling (probable/possible and very cool).
This is new and very exciting. Time, and indeed existence, begins and ends with each Big Bang, Big Crunch. The universe before this universe was... THIS UNIVERSE. Exactly the same, possibly down to the very atoms, the very particles, the very quarks, the very waveforms. If the singularity reaches perfect 0 (it might, it might not, it might explode before it reaches "infinite" density), then everything should happen the same way as before. The same universe, the same existence, happening over and over without a single variation, including this post, the way I've written it, the way I've edited it a dozen times expanding it (that's just the way I think, expanding). This is in doubt because there are questions as to if the Big Crunch will create a perfect singularity, or if long before density = infinity enough energy will be created to cause a Big Bang. In that case, each universe will be very different. See #1.

Where is it going?Well once it explodes it is gone.


You disproved NOTHING.See post 47 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2114359&postcount=47). I've proven every point. You just don't want to believe it. I could probably put all my posts together into one and make a very nice pamphlet called "Mathematical and Physical Proofs Against Reincarnation." Might even be able to publish it if I could find the right journal.

You must really not like science because it proves things that run contrary to what you want to believe. Science is the path to truth. Embrace it. See what it proves, instead of reaching a conclusion and then looking for proof, that's backwards. Science is powerful. Notice that in this thread, every question hurled at me, because the questioner thinks they've got something that will beat science, I've been able to calmly (well I did say "you fucking idiot" once) and simply (well, sometimes complexly) provide an answer for. That's how powerful science is. Science gives us answers. Religion gives us fairy tales.

[Revolution starts with U]

That was a joke guys. Numerology, to me, is an even bigger joke. :lol:

I just want to clear up some physics confusion in the rest of my post.


Inside a singularity the laws of physics break down. Matter becomes energy, energy becomes matter, and sometimes they are both at the same time. Also the "infinite" (it's not really infinite, just really really large, though in fact smaller than a pin prick) singularity that caused the Big Bang existed for only 0 seconds at its most dense moment, when it reaches "infinity."
Yes, but this is assuming there was a singularity. The expansion of the universe would suggest as such, but, of course, we can only see to Planck Time (10-^43 seconds).
Any physicist worth his salt will not tell you that the singularity for sure existed. The Big Bang only, scientifically, describes the evolution of the early universe, not the initial state.


I believe the one that created this universe was located somewhere in Sagittarius. Or was that the center of our galaxy? I forget. :lol: Is this a joke?

We aren't too far, cosmically speaking, from the center of the universe, as most galaxies are red-shifted (moving away from us) and only a few are blue-shifted (moving towards us).
Of course we appear to be near the center of the universe. It's called relativity :rolleyes: The universe is homogenous and isotropic
Andromeda is moving towards us, because it moves faster than the rate of expansion.
It is believed, and this is what GR says, that the universe has no distinct "center." And considering our galaxy is only 10b years old, it would be ridiculous to assume 4b years away would be "the center."


Three possibilities.
1. Chain of universes (very likely).
The universe expands and collapses, expands and collapse, for infinity. Like a chain of spherical sausages, or an infinite string of pearls. No beginning, no end, because time and space are created with the Big Bang, and begin and end with each universe. There is no origin, no "first" universe.

Why is this very likely? There is nothing to suggest there is enough matter to begin a big crunch, not even dark matter. All the available evidence so far suggests a Big Cooling will happen; that the universe will keep expanding until things are so far away from each other there would be no "night sky" full of stars, and eventually even atoms break down.
Might I suggest you move up from A Brief History of Time to something a little newer. By Hawking, Brian Greene, Michio Kaku, Michael E Dyson, or any of the other pop physics writers, it does not matter.

2. Singular creation (very unlikely).[INDENT]In this model, we are in the first universe, and there was nothing before the first singularity. "Let there be light." This is the model that religious people prefer, but it is contradicted by the Big Crunch. It is also disproven using the same arguments that disprove the "First Mover / First Cause" arguments for the existence of God.
I won't touch the Prime Mover arguments, as we have no idea, and perhaps may never have any idea what the intial state of the universe is.
But idk where you've gotten this idea that the Big Crunch is still accepted by the physics community at large. Again, all the available evidence suggest it will not happen.



See post 47 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2114359&postcount=47). I've proven every point. You just don't want to believe it. I could probably put all my posts together into one and make a very nice pamphlet called "Mathematical and Physical Proofs Against Reincarnation." Might even be able to publish it if I could find the right journal.
You have made a good case but, come on, you know as well as I that any physics journal is going to reject it. Not because it's bad (tho, they would probably want more math). But because they would say "ya... we really don't care about reincarnation."
You could perhaps get it in a meta-physics journal tho :lol:

[Astarte]

Science gives us answers. Religion gives us fairy tales.

None sense, nothing you have said about singularities or the origins or ends of the universe is anything more substantial than gnostic creation myths in which there was first the "Monad" which expanded outward. I am going to have to take Rabbi K's line on this one since you just seem too thick headed and arrogant.

[Inquisitive Lurker]

Yes, but this is assuming there was a singularity. The expansion of the universe would suggest as such, but, of course, we can only see to Planck Time (10-^43 seconds).
Any physicist worth his salt will not tell you that the singularity for sure existed. The Big Bang only, scientifically, describes the evolution of the early universe, not the initial state.
A singularity (or near singularity, as I described later in my previous post) is the only structure capable of creating the energy necessary for what we see in the nanoseconds after the Big Bang.



:lol: Is this a joke?No, the center of our galaxy is in Sagittarius.



Of course we appear to be near the center of the universe. It's called relativity. The universe is homogenous and isotropic
Andromeda is moving towards us, because it moves faster than the rate of expansion.
It is believed, and this is what GR says, that the universe has no distinct "center." And considering our galaxy is only 10b years old, it would be ridiculous to assume 4b years away would be "the center."First, the universe is 13.72 billion years old, and the oldest parts of our galaxy are 13.2 billion years old. The youngest parts are 8.8 billion years old. Giving us a median age of 11 billion years old. 2.75 billion years of expansion plus our own proper motion of 630 km/s and our cluster's proper movement of 967 km/s (this proper motion only moves us another 2.2 light-years in the entire history of the universe) puts us near the center. Remember, though the rate of radius expansion is (for the most part) linear (in truth it will eventually be asymptotic), the increase in volume is exponential (cubed). And I don't know what you are referring to by the 4 billion but I'm going to assume you mean the 4.7 billion year age of the Earth. So in terms of a 23 billion light year radius, we are near the center, probably within 8.28 billion light years. Now if you calculate the volume of a sphere at 8.28 billion light years and 23 billion light years, divide the former by the later, you will see we are within the inner 4.7% of the volume of the universe. The inner 4.7%! I think we can safely call that the center.

Secondly, the universe is not homogeneous nor isotropic as proven by the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2d/WMAP_2010.png/800px-WMAP_2010.png

Does that look homogeneous to you? See that cold spot in the center? And that hot cluster over to the right? Homogeneous? Isotropic? Not in the least. Anisotropic, the opposite of isotropic. Proven beyond a doubt. You're working with old data.


Why is this very likely? There is nothing to suggest there is enough matter to begin a big crunch, not even dark matter.The universe is still 70% energy, which will cool into matter. There will be plenty of matter to slow the Big Bang and begin the Big Crunch. As I said in a former post, it would even be possible to calculate when this will happen, using the temperature of the Big Bang, the temperature of the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe, matching a curve from those two time points to the current time where we have the ratio of 70% energy to 30% matter, and projecting forward.


All the available evidence so far suggests a Big Cooling will happen; that the universe will keep expanding until things are so far away from each other there would be no "night sky" full of stars, and eventually even atoms break down.My statement above contradicts that, so I won't repeat it. And you are ignoring the spontaneous creation of particle pairs, and also ignoring vacuum energy.


I won't touch the Prime Mover argumentsIt's been disproven. It's not even touched in modern theology. It merely extends the problem because one of it's antecedents, that everything has a cause, contradicts it's conclusion "except the first cause." The first cause would, by the argument itself, also have to have its own cause.


You have made a good case but, come on, you know as well as I that any physics journal is going to reject it. Not because it's bad (tho, they would probably want more math). But because they would say "ya... we really don't care about reincarnation."
You could perhaps get it in a meta-physics journal thoI am thinking more of philosophical journals.

[Inquisitive Lurker]

None sense, nothing you have said about singularities or the origins or ends of the universe is anything more substantial than gnostic creation myths in which there was first the "Monad" which expanded outward.
The difference is that my statements are based on scientific fact and observation, not delusional writings.


I am going to have to take Rabbi K's line on this one since you just seem too thick headed and arrogant.

When all you have left is an ad hominem, you have lost the argument.

And if being thick headed protects me from the lies of religion, all I can say is "Thank God!"

[Revolution starts with U]

A singularity (or near singularity, as I described later in my previous post) is the only structure capable of creating the energy necessary for what we see in the nanoseconds after the Big Bang.
No, it's not, at all. It could be White Hole theory, Membrane theory, Epkyrotic theory, or any vast number of reasons. The fact of the matter is we have no idea what happened before Planck time, and maybe never will. And for you to suggest anything different is disengenous.



No, the center of our galaxy is in Sagittarius.
Ya I misunderstood what you meant by "the one that created this universe." I thought you were saying God was in Sagittarius :lol:
But you meant the singularity that created...


First, the universe is 13.75 billion years old,
Ya, 14b years rounded.

and 3 billion years of expansion puts us near the center.
3.75 billion, or rounded as 4


Remember, though the rate of radius expansion is (for the most part) linear (in truth it will eventually be asymptotic), the increase in volume is exponential (cubed). And I don't know what you are referring to by the 4 billion but I'm going to assume you mean the 4.7 billion year age of the Earth.
No, I'm talking about the 4 billion years between the Big Bang and the creation of the Milky Way. We aren't even in the first sets of galaxies, so I find it a little stretching to suggest we are "at the center" other than in the relativistic sense that there is no center to the universe.

So in terms of a 23 billion light year radius, we are near the center, probably within 5 billion light years. Now if you calculate the volume of a sphere at 5 billion light years and 23 billion light years, divide the former by the later, you will see we are within the inner 1% of the volume of the universe. The inner 1%! I think we can safely call that the center.
I have no idea where you're getting this 23b light year number from... seeing as how the universe is only 14b years old, it is physically impossible for any light from 23b years to have reached us. It would have to have been created before the universe even began.



Secondly, the universe is not homogeneous nor isotropic as proven by the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe.

Does that look homogeneous to you? See that cold spot in the center? And that hot cluster over to the right?
I think you misunderstand what is meant by that. Viewed from a sufficiently large distance, the universe is[B] homogenous and isotropic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_principle
Meaning, the laws of physics hold throughout the universe. Earth and the Sun are different, but they still follow the same laws.
Before I move on, some backstory:

recent experimental evidence (namely the observation of distant supernova as standard candles, and the well-resolved mapping of the cosmic microwave background) have led to speculation that the expansion of the universe is not being slowed down by gravity but rather accelerating. However, since the nature of the dark energy that drives the acceleration is unknown, it is still possible (though not observationally supported as of today) that it might eventually reverse sign and cause a collapse.


The universe is still 70% energy, which will cool into matter.
Since when does energy necessarily cool into matter? I shadow box a lot. I've never made punched the air and made matter....



My statement above contradicts that, so I won't repeat it. And you are ignoring the spontaneous creation of particle pairs, and also ignoring vacuum energy.
Ya, and Platonic elemental theory contradicts the modern Table of Elements. But guess what... one of them is wrong :ohmy:
I am ignoring neither one of those. Once again, there is [B]NO observational evidence that there is nearly enough matter to reverse the trend of expansion, and all observational evidence [B]does[B] suggest a Big Cooling.

[Inquisitive Lurker]

No, it's not, at all. It could be White Hole theory, Membrane theory, Epkyrotic theory, or any vast number of reasons. The fact of the matter is we have no idea what happened before Planck time, and maybe never will. And for you to suggest anything different is disengenous.
Disingenuous

Singularities have been proven. We can even create them. The rest are just paper dreams.


I have no idea where you're getting this 23b light year number from... seeing as how the universe is only 14b years old, it is physically impossible for any light from 23b years to have reached us. It would have to have been created before the universe even began.The universe is currently 46 billion light-years across. It is 13.72 billion years old. I actually covered this in an earlier post, but I'll go over it again. The force of the Big Bang moves at or near the speed of light. As it expands, it creates space behind it, and stretches that space out. Thus a vehicle (the Big Bang) traveling at the speed of light for 13.72 billion years covers 23 billion light-years, almost double what you think it should.

Also I recalculated our place in the universe and will quote it again here:


First, the universe is 13.72 billion years old, and the oldest parts of our galaxy are 13.2 billion years old. The youngest parts are 8.8 billion years old. Giving us a median age of 11 billion years old. 2.75 billion years of expansion (not your 4 billion) plus our own proper motion of 630 km/s and our cluster's proper movement of 967 km/s (this proper motion only moves us another 2.2 light-years in the entire history of the universe) puts us near the center. Remember, though the rate of radius expansion is (for the most part) linear (in truth it will eventually be asymptotic), the increase in volume is exponential (cubed). So in terms of a 23 billion light year radius, we are near the center, probably within 8.28 billion light years. Now if you calculate the volume of a sphere at 8.28 billion light years and 23 billion light years, divide the former by the later, you will see we are within the inner 4.7% of the volume of the universe. The inner 4.7%! I think we can safely call that the center.

I think you misunderstand what is meant by that. Viewed from a sufficiently large distance, the universe [B]is[B] homogenous and isotropic.No it is you who misunderstand. The Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe viewed THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE. Is that a sufficiently large distance for you? And what it showed is that the universe is ANISOTROPIC. That's why WMAP was so revolutionary, as big of a discovery as Hubble's redshift. If the universe was homogeneous and isotropic, the WMAP would have returned one solid green oval.


Since when does energy necessarily cool into matter? I shadow box a lot. I've never made punched the air and made matter....Not to critique your physique, but you're not up to subatomic fusion. (And not to state the obvious, but air is matter).

We started with a universe with 100% energy and 0% matter. The Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe gives as a second image of the universe at only a few hundred million years old. And now, at 13.72 billion years, the ratio has dropped to 70% energy and 30% matter. Taking three points of data, you can determine the trend. Less energy, More matter.

I will now take a slight break and come back with a figure as to when the matter creation will stop.



EDIT: Holy shit! By my calculations, the volume of the universe will expand enough to contain the remaining 70% of the energy in (roughly) only 6.5 billion more years! The diameter of the universe will then be 68 billion light years. I've got to double check these figures. I ran it twice but still that's an amazing result. If the rate of conversion is exponential, then the dark energy will be gone and the universe will be full of matter (there still will be plenty of empty space). If the rate is linear, then the ratio will be 56% energy 44% matter. I'll have to think on this. And don't ask me to calculate the Big Crunch. Multi-body gravitational equations are not something I'm going to touch. Some of the necessary equations don't even exist yet (i.e. 3-body gravitation). Suffice to say the world is not going to end Saturday May 21 ;) But if I had to make a rough estimate, I'd say... about 40 billion years to the next Big Bang. The Big Crunch is going to take longer than the Big Bang. It will be slower, because it has to mop up all the stretched space the Big Bang left behind.

[Revolution starts with U]

I feel like I'm debating Nassim Harimen here....



Disingenuous

Singularities have been proven. We can even create them. The rest are just paper dreams.
No and no. You're going to have to provide evidence of that. We have never created a singularity.
Idk where you're learning your physics from... Quack State?


The universe is currently 46 billion light-years across. It is 13.75 billion years old. I actually covered this in an earlier post, but I'll go over it again. The force of the Big Bang moves at or near the speed of light. As it expands, it creates space behind it, and stretches that space out. Thus a vehicle (the Big Bang) traveling at the speed of light for 13.75 billion years covers 23 billion light-years, almost double what you think it should.
I would like to see where you're getting this information from
http://www.nasa.gov/audience/foreducators/5-8/features/F_How_Big_is_Our_Universe.html
http://www.atlasoftheuniverse.com/universe.html

And again, I would like to know how you posit that we can see beyond the big bang? We have a 14b light year window in all directions. Anything beyond that we have not, nor ever can remaining on Earth, know.


No it is you who misunderstand. The Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe viewed THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE. Is that a sufficiently large distance for you? And what it showed is that the universe is ANISOTROPIC. That's why WMAP was so revolutionary, as big of a discovery as Hubble's redshift. If the universe was homogeneous and isotropic, the WMAP would have returned one solid green oval.
Does it surprise me that a quack who cites nothing does not read the stuff other people cite to him? NO, that's what quacks do. But if you go to that page I linked, it shows the WMAP. Apparently they're aware of that :rolleyes:
Again, you've missed the point. And your pop physics change nothing.


Not to critique your physique, but you're not up to subatomic fusion. (And not to state the obvious, but air is matter
I can assure you I didn't create air either, maybe wind. But only a quack would suggest that wind and air are the same thing.
And what subatomic fusion is going to convert dark energy into matter?


We started with a universe with 100% energy and 0% matter.
Haha, no. Where are you learning your physics?
We started out with a universe of pure plasma. And only later did energy seperate from mass. First Gravity split, then the Strong nuclear force, then the electroweak force, and then mass.

The Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe gives as a second image of the universe at only a few hundred million years old. And now, at 13.75 billion years, the ratio has dropped to 70% energy and 30% matter. Taking three points of data, you can determine the trend. Less energy, More matter.
But we're out of plasma. I would, again, like to see where you're getting your information that this energy will cool into matter.

This just seems like a load of quackery.

[Inquisitive Lurker]

No and no. You're going to have to provide evidence of that. We have never created a singularity.

At the European Organization for Nuclear Research's (CERN's) Large Hadron Collider (LHC).

Don't you remember the news stories about people trying to file law suits to stop them from doing it, saying it would destroy the planet?

They did it, they were tiny, they evaporated in microseconds. The way all black holes do. Black holes do not grow unless they are fed. Without feeding, they evaporate into radiation (called Hawking radiation). These black holes were the size of atoms. The smaller a black hole becomes, the faster it evaporates into radiation. It is the fate of all black holes to eventually shrink to nothing, after they've eaten everything around them.

Interestingly, if you wanted to turn the Earth into a black hole, you'd have to compress it to a diameter of 2 cm.

Next.


And again, I would like to know how you posit that we can see beyond the big bang? We have a 14b light year window in all directions. Anything beyond that we have not, nor ever can remaining on Earth, know.Because we look backwards in time! If we see an object 10 light-years away and it is moving away at half the speed of light, we know that the object is actual 15 light-years away now! Even though that light has not yet reached us! This is BASIC astronomy!

If we see an object 13.72 billion light-years away (or to be more accurate, detect its radio waves) and know that space is stretching out at a factor of 1:1.667, we know that object to now be 23 billion light-years away. Since the universe is a sphere, we know the diameter to be 46 billion light-years.

Why 1:1.667? Because v=(4/3)*pi*r^3

So we can SEE stars in the PAST that are CURRENTLY at the EDGE of the universe.

EDIT: OK, to be brutally honest it's not stars we are seeing at the edge of the universe, but rather energy we are hearing. But the example works.

Are you following me so far?


We started out with a universe of pure plasma.BZZT! Wrong!
Plasma is common matter, the fourth stage, superheated gas that flows like a liquid. It's a miasma of matter, and it represents less than 5% of the universe. And, he he, we are not "out of plasma." Have you seen a big bright thing in the sky recently?

The other 95% was dark energy, pure energy, which, since the Big Bang, has been slowly converting into dark matter. Currently dark matter makes up 25% of the universe. That's 5 times the amount of common matter. And it is what is essential for the Big Crunch, because it reacts to gravity just like common matter.

How can I prove that dark energy will convert to dark matter? Because it has been doing so for the past 13.72 billion years! And unless you think some special event in human history like the birth of Christ somehow signaled that process to stop, it's going to continue to convert!

Now the question is "Is this conversion linear, asymptotic, or exponential?"

If linear, and in 13.72 billion years the dark energy converted 25%, then it will be completely depleted and converted in 54.88 billion years.

If it's asymptotic, it will be down to 9.5% energy and 85.5% matter in 96.04 billion years.

If it's exponential (by volume) which is what I assumed in my estimate from my previous post, it will be out of gas in 6.5 billion years.

So the Big Crunch could start any time between now and 6.5 billion years, assuming that it hasn't already started. But like I said in my last post, don't worry about the Big Crunch, it's going to be slow because it can't accelerate matter faster than the speed of light and it has to cross all that stretched out space (1:1.667) the Big Bang made. So even if it started today it would be... 14.18 billion years before it reached us. Although if it has already started, long ago, it could be here in 5.44 billion years. It all depends on how much dark matter it needs to fuel it, and I told you I'm not touching gravitational equations.


So what have I proved to you in my past two posts?


I proved that we are near the center of the universe. (Inner 4.7%)
I proved that the universe is anisotropic. (Beyond a doubt)
I proved that we can "see" farther than 13.72 billion light-years (Basic astronomy)
I proved that in any of the three scenarios dark matter will increase. (Basic math)

Want to impress me? Give me the equation for 3-body gravitational interaction.


P.S. Stop saying 14 billion years. It's 13.72. With rounding, 2+2=5. And if you don't know how funny that is, go read 1984.


P.P.S. ANISOTROPIC (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2d/WMAP_2010.png) Go on, click on it, take a good, long, look. Zoom in. Look at those cold spots. Look at those hot spots. Just look at them, aren't they beautiful? Zoom out, all the way out. The entire universe on a 22" monitor (or whatever you have). A sufficiently far distance to view it at I'd say. 46 billion light-years on a 22" display.


P.P.P.S. I took one physics course in college (having already taken Physics 101 in high school AP Physics). All of this is pure learning. Book after book after book. Websites, white sheets, scientific journals, encyclopedias, Wikipedia. And the one course I did take was on man's use of energy. Not astrophysics. And yet, voila! Behold what I can produce. Our location in the universe, life cycle estimates of the universe, all these numbers come from hard calculations (I did take a LOT of math in college, up to the 500 level).


P.P.P.P.S. There is a flaw, or let us call it a weak point, in those dark matter conversion calculations. The calculations are spot on, but their implications are not fully fleshed out. Read them over and think really hard. You might be able to find a great way to attack me. But don't take too long, I am going to correct the error in a future post, probably tomorrow morning. It will involve me doing a lot more math, so that's a clue. Just read the numbers and ask yourself "What isn't being said?" "What isn't being calculated?" "What has he overlooked?" If you can figure it out before I post it, I will bow and worship you.

[Revolution starts with U]

At the European Organization for Nuclear Research's (CERN's) Large Hadron Collider (LHC).
CERN did not create a singularity. Again, you're going to have to show some citations. I keep up on my cosmology, and as far as I can tell, your words are only half-truths.
I fear you may have mixed up pop physics, real physics, and physics quacks and deemed them all valid.

D
on't you remember the news stories about people trying to file law suits to stop them from doing it, saying it would destroy the planet?
Ya, by people with a massive misunderstanding of what CERN is about.

Please, cite your research; show your work. Because most of what you say seems either half-truth, or outdated (like the Big Crunch).


Next.

Because we look backwards in time! If we see an object 10 light-years away and it is moving away at half the speed of light, we know that the object is actual 15 light-years away now! Even though that light has not yet reached us! This is BASIC astronomy!


If we see an object 13.72 billion light-years away (or to be more accurate, detect it's radio waves) and know that space is stretching out at a factor of 1:1.667, we know that object to now be 23 billion light-years away. Since the universe is a sphere, we know the diameter to be 46 billion light-years.

Why 1:1.667? Because v=(4/3)*pi*r^3

So we can SEE stars in the PAST that are CURRENTLY at the EDGE of the universe.

EDIT: OK, to be brutally honest it's not stars we are seeing at the edge of the universe, but rather energy we are hearing. But the example works.

Are you following me so far?

I'll follow you when you cite your research. That goes for everything after this as well. I'm willing to change my position. But not for some quack on the internet with conjecture.


So what have I proved to you in my past two posts?

That you can talk somewhat like an expert and expect people to just take your word for it :rolleyes:


I proved that we are at/near the center of the universe. (Inner 4.7%)
I proved that the universe is anisotropic. (Beyond a doubt)
I proved that we can "see" farther than 13.72 billion light-years (Basic astronomy)
I proved that in any of the three scenarios dark matter will increase. (Basic math)
You would get a Nobel Prize for proving any one of those.



P.P.P.S. I took one physics course in college (having already taken Physics 101 in high school AP Physics). All of this is pure learning. Book after book after book. Websites, white sheets, scientific journals, encyclopedias, Wikipedia. And the one course I did take was on man's use of energy. Not astrophysics. And yet, voila! Behold what I can produce. Our location in the universe, life cycle estimates of the universe, all these numbers come from hard calculations (I did take a LOT of math in college, up to the 500 level).

Well... I think that explains the problem we're having here. Like I said, in all this "research" I fear you have mistaken pop physics and quackery for valid physics. Cite your research and I might take you more seriously.


P.P.P.P.S. There is a flaw, or let us call it a weak point, in those dark matter conversion calculations. The calculations are spot on, but their implications are not fully fleshed out. Read them over and think real hard. You might be able to find a great way to attack me. But don't take too long, I am going to correct the error in a future post, probably tomorrow morning. It will involve me doing a lot more math, so that's a clue. Just read the numbers and ask yourself "What isn't being said?" "What isn't being calculated?" "What has he overlooked?" If you can figure it out before I post it, I will bow and worship you.
[/SIZE][/SIZE][/QUOTE]

I'll spend as much time on your conjecture on cosmology as I would Aristotle's (hint; not much).
I would attempt to refute your arguments, but I have no reason to believe they hold any truth value.

[hatzel]

...so, can somebody please explain to me how the position of the Earth relative to the rest of the universe has any bearing whatsoever on this conversation on life after death? Somebody other than Lurker, please, not least because I want somebody else to prove that they have identified the significance of this whole line of enquiry, but also because I put him on ignore ages ago because his flagrant 'quakery', as RSWU put it, and sheer arrogance in the face of idiocy, is spoiling my enjoyment of this forum...and also because this is a forum for the revolutionary left, not wannabe-Dawkins imperialist-supporting not-even-quite-liberals, so I'm being my own mod for the time being :rolleyes:

As I have a lot more respect for RSWU, not least for having, in the past, managed to engage in a single thread without spouting a load of trollish bullshit, I'm going to assume his criticism is fairly accurate. I like it when people can hold their hands up and say 'hey, I was wrong' when there is overwhelming evidence stacked up against them :)

Now! Let's get back on topic, and leave the quackery to the ducks...

http://tvrefill.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/duck.jpg

[Inquisitive Lurker]

I'll follow you when you cite your research. That goes for everything after this as well. I'm willing to change my position. But not for some quack on the internet with conjecture.

You don't need research for this one. You need algebra and relativity. Object X is emitting light, which travels at the speed of light (c). Object X is moving at speed v. Object X is d observed distance away. What is the actual distance of object X? X=d+v*d/c

If you don't believe me that the universe is 46 billion light-years across (or 23 billion light-years in radius) just go read Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe#Size.2C_age.2C_contents.2C_structure.2C_a nd_laws)

EDIT: Holy Shit, I've been using bad data! It's 46 billion light-years in RADIUS not DIAMETER! Now I have to redo all my calculations! That will take all day! I'll have to start with our place in the universe (which I think will be even more central now) and move to the dark matter conversion calculations (only 1 will change), then the Big Crunch calculations, and then do those OTHER calculations to cover the flaw in the dark matter calculations.



You would get a Nobel Prize for proving any one of those.
No I wouldn't because they have already been proven. I'm just standing on the shoulders of giants.




P.P.P.P.S. There is a flaw, or let us call it a weak point, in those dark matter conversion calculations. The calculations are spot on, but their implications are not fully fleshed out. Read them over and think real hard. You might be able to find a great way to attack me. But don't take too long, I am going to correct the error in a future post, probably tomorrow morning. It will involve me doing a lot more math, so that's a clue. Just read the numbers and ask yourself "What isn't being said?" "What isn't being calculated?" "What has he overlooked?" If you can figure it out before I post it, I will bow and worship you.I'll spend as much time on your conjecture on cosmology as I would Aristotle's (hint; not much).
I would attempt to refute your arguments, but I have no reason to believe they hold any truth value.I'll give you a hint, it starts with a D.

[Inquisitive Lurker]

Because we look backwards in time! If we see an object 10 light-years away and it is moving away at half the speed of light, we know that the object is actual 15 light-years away now! Even though that light has not yet reached us! This is BASIC astronomy!


If we see an object 13.72 billion light-years away (or to be more accurate, detect it's radio waves) and know that space is stretching out at a factor of 1:1.667, we know that object to now be 23 billion light-years away. Since the universe is a sphere, we know the diameter to be 46 billion light-years.

Why 1:1.667? Because v=(4/3)*pi*r^3

So we can SEE stars in the PAST that are CURRENTLY at the EDGE of the universe.

EDIT: OK, to be brutally honest it's not stars we are seeing at the edge of the universe, but rather energy we are hearing. But the example works.

Are you following me so far? I'll follow you when you cite your research. That goes for everything after this as well. I'm willing to change my position. But not for some quack on the internet with conjecture.

Are you saying that you don't know that when you look at stars in space you are seeing the past? If that's the case I suggest you buy a $50 telescope from Walmart and a book on basic astronomy.

When you look at a star, you see where it's position was in the past, years ago equal to the number of light-years the star currently appears to be at. Then you look at the redshift, and you see how fast the star is moving away. You multiply that speed by the number of years and add that to the observed distance to get the actual current distance. This is really simple stuff.

Interestingly the mechanics used here are very similar to how police tell how fast you are going in your car. The difference being for them the unknown is not the current distance, because they know the past distance and the current distance and use those to calculate the speed. But it's the same equation with different known and unknown variables.

[agnixie]

Are you saying that you don't know that when you look at stars in space you are seeing the past? If that's the case I suggest you buy a $50 telescope from Walmart and a book on basic astronomy.


There's your problem.

[chegitz guevara]

My understanding is that the amount of matter present in the universe is, slowly decreasing. This is because it's being converted into energy (though who the hell knows what becomes of energy sucked into a black hole).

As far as we know, there will be no big crunch. The expansion of the universe is increasing, not decreasing. Some day, in the far off future, the inhabitants of the mega galaxy that is formed by the collapse of the local group will see nothing beyond it. They will have little or no evidence that the universe is out there, that it is full of hundreds of billions of galaxies. Just endless black.

Already, the "edge of the universe" (the edge of what we can see) are further out than the time it takes for the light from there to reach us, and it never will. As the universe expands, more and more of it disappears beyond the event horizon. In other words, the distance between us and the "edge of the universe" is expanding faster than the speed of light.

There will be new planets and new life forms, but old planets will die, along with old life forms. There's no reason to believe that life will get more and more plentiful as time goes on.

[Inquisitive Lurker]

I woke up at 3am and felt like doing some math. I'm going to do these proofs one at a time so you can respond to them. I'll show all the steps and most of the math so you can follow it.

Proof 1:

Hypothesis: The Earth is near the center of the universe.
Fact: The universe had a center. The Big Bang occurred at a point in space and the universe has been radiating outwards ever since in a sphere.
Fact: The universe is 13.73 billion years old.
Fact: The Milky Way galaxy is approximately 11 billion years old. The oldest parts are 13.2 billion years old, the youngest parts are 8.8 billion years old, giving a median age of 11 billion years.
Conclusion: The Milky Way as a whole was created 2.73 billion years after the Big Bang.
Fact: The proper motion of the Milky Way is 630 km/s and the proper motion of our cluster is 976 km/s, for a total of 1606 km/s.
Conclusion: Our proper motion moves us 0.005356892701138 light-years per year.
Conclusion: Our proper motion has moved us only 73,550,136.7866247 light-years since the universe began.
Fact: The universe is currently 46 billion light-years in radius.
Fact: The radius of the universe has been expanding linearly, while it's volume is expanding exponentially (cubed, specifically v=(4/3)*pi*r^3).
Conclusion: Space has expanded behind the Big Bang at a ratio of 1:3.350327749454.
Conclusion: In the 2.73 billion years between the creation of the universe and the creation of the Milky Way, the 2.73 billion light years has expanded to 9.146394756009 billion light-years.
Conclusion: In the 8.27 (11-2.73) billion years between the creation of the Milky Way and now, the space has expanded a further 27.707210487985 billion light-years.
Conclusion: We are currently 36.927155380781 billion light-years from the center of the universe.
Fact: The volume of a sphere of radius of 36.927155380781 billion light-years divided by the volume of sphere radius of 46 billion light-years is 0.517325714699.
Final Conclusion: We are in the inner 51.73% of the universe.

Not as impressive as my earlier figure of 4.7% (it's amazing how doubling one variable changes so much), but it puts us roughly in the inner half of the universe. And these figures you can take to the bank. I could have fiddled them and you would have never known. But here they are, down to the decimal points.


Now I believe someone (Revolution starts with U) said I would get a Nobel Prize for this. It took me about half an hour, research and calculations included.


My second proof will be for Dark Energy to Dark Matter conversion. This one will be easier, as it involves only 3 variables and 3 equations. I'll expect a Nobel Prize of the one too.


My third and final proof (unless I think up some more fun things to prove) will be the proof that I'm not telling you about because I want to give you the chance to guess. It has to do with a weakness in the implications of the second proof. I've already given you the clues that it will involve more math than the second proof and that it starts is a "D". For this one I should absolutely get a Nobel Prize. Eh, "Revolution starts with U"?

[JustMovement]

all very impressive, however one problem with your theory is that if the edge of the expanding universe is indeed a wall of energy being slowly converted into matter, then as more matter gets created the expansion should slow down. however evidence says that the rate of expansion (known as the cosmological constant) is accelerating (check out cosmological constant in wikipedia). Which is a shame because I thought your very Nietzschean eternal return idea is cool.

[Inquisitive Lurker]

however evidence says that the rate of expansion (known as the cosmological constant) is accelerating
The volume is expanding faster and faster because it is exponential (cubed, specifically (4/3)*pi*r^3).

So the size is accelerating, but not the radius, which is increasing in a linear fashion, as can be observed through common visual astronomy (as well as radio astronomy) and the redshift. See Wikipedia article on space expansion.

[Inquisitive Lurker]

Proof 2:

Hypothesis: Dark Energy is being converted to Dark Matter at one of three rates.
Fact: At the moment of the Big Bang, there was no Dark Matter.
Fact: At the moment of the Big Bang, there was at least 96% Dark Energy.
Fact: At 13.73 billion years, the Universe is 73% Dark Energy, 23% Dark Matter, and 4% Ordinary Matter.
Conclusion: In 13.73 billion years, 23.9583333333% of the Dark Energy converted into 23% Dark Matter.
Observation: This suggest a 1:1 linear conversion. But we will do all three possibilities just to be sure.
Assumption 1: Dark Energy converts to Dark Matter in a linear fashion.
Conclusion 1: All the Dark Energy will have converted into Dark Matter in 43.597826086953 billion years.
Assumption 2: Dark Energy converts to Dark Matter in an asymptotic fashion.
Conclusion 2: Dark Energy will be reduced to 10.6055025783% and Dark Matter increased to 85.3944974217% in 82.38 billion years. It will be down to 1.6049755271% Dark Energy and 94.3950244729% Dark Matter in 178.49 billion years.
Assumption 3: Dark Energy converts to Dark Matter at an exponential rate (v=(4/3)*pi*r^3)) [This is the hardest of the three equations as it involves geometry, algebra, and calculus and I'll have to take a break and work it out. Don't post till I've edited in the answer.]
Conclusion 3: All Dark Energy will have converted to Dark Matter in 25.917189713271 billion years.
Final Conclusion: All (or nearly all) of the Dark Energy will be converted into Dark Matter in between 26 and 82 billion years. Logic suggests 25.9, though observation suggests 45.6.


I'll accept that second Nobel Prize now "Revolution starts with U".


Now comes the third proof, the math of which is daunting and I'll have to dig out my old graphics calculator if I still have it, or download some software like MathLab because graphs are going to be involved. It is really is daunting, I may cut corners. Shall I tell you what the third proof is? Or should I give you more time to guess? Oh the temptation. Lots of math, a weakness in the implications of Proof 2, uses graphs, and starts with a D. It will probably have to wait until Monday, that's how much work it is going to be.


P.S. This one also took me about half an hour. Not bad for a Noble Prize.


P.P.S. Final hint about the third proof. ρ and that's not p, it Rho. There will be no more hints.

[JustMovement]

"Recent experimental evidence (namely the observation of distant supernova (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernova) as standard candles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_candle), and the well-resolved mapping of the cosmic microwave background (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background)) have led to speculation that the expansion of the universe is not being slowed down by gravity but rather accelerating (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerating_universe)." -wikipedia
To be honest I dont know enough about maths to really comment, but thats what it says on wikipedia rearding the big crunch.

[Inquisitive Lurker]

"Recent experimental evidence (namely the observation of distant supernova (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernova) as standard candles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_candle), and the well-resolved mapping of the cosmic microwave background (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background)) have led to speculation that the expansion of the universe is not being slowed down by gravity but rather accelerating (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerating_universe)." -wikipedia
To be honest I dont know enough about maths to really comment, but thats what it says on wikipedia rearding the big crunch.

The VOLUME is increasing exponentially, so the redshifts are increasing. The rate of radius increase remains linear (though space expansion makes it look weird).

Anyway, this all has to do with common matter, which makes up 4% of the universe. Hence why I'm going on about Dark Matter, which already makes up 23% of the universe and will increase. More matter, more gravity.

[JustMovement]

sorry what is the rate of radius increase? radius of what? where is the center?

[Inquisitive Lurker]

sorry what is the rate of radius increase?
The rate of radius increase is the speed of light augmented by space expansion of 1:3.350327749454, so roughly three and a third times the speed of light.


radius of what?Radius of the universe. The universe is a sphere. A sphere has a radius.


where is the center?The center of the universe is 36,927,155,380.78 light-years from us, give or take. In what direction... I have no idea. Though I suppose if someone were to do a comprehensive study of the redshifts (and blueshifts) of all the visible stars, no, the visible galaxies in the sky, one could run it backwards by vectors and get a rough idea where the center was. Maybe even a precise idea. But you'd need two radio telescopes on opposite sides of the world (north and south), a supercomputer, and probably a year or two to do it.

All this was covered in Proof 1 (except "what direction is the center?").

I'm still not looking forward to Proof 3. There's a corner of my brain that doubts I'll be able to do it, it's been too long since college and all those advanced math courses.

[Revolution starts with U]

The only thing I could say IL, is that I would have to see where you are getting the idea that energy, particularly dark energy, necessarily cools into matter for this discussion on the Big Crunch to go anywhere. I have never heard anything even suggesting this, and in fact would think most cosmologists would already know about this; as such, why do most of them believe in a Big Cooling?

[black magick hustla]

oh god

[black magick hustla]

the universe doesnt have a center stop

[black magick hustla]

nor a radius

[∞]

Well from what I know there are two mainstream theories on how the Universe developed.

The more popular theory being inflation, where the Bang is simply the beginning, and that the universe expands exponentially from that dense ball of energy.

Or there is String Theory, which is more strange. It has more of a multi-verse perspective and states our dimension occasionally collides with another. Every time this happens a universe is created.

[chegitz guevara]

My understanding of cosmology is that the universe is expanding in a way that cannot be properly represented in three dimensions. To talk of a center in an infinite space is like asking what color a smell is. There may be a center to the universe, but it doesn't exit in the 3rd dimension.

[Inquisitive Lurker]

My understanding of cosmology is that the universe is expanding in a way that cannot be properly represented in three dimensions. To talk of a center in an infinite space is like asking what color a smell is. There may be a center to the universe, but it doesn't exit in the 3rd dimension.

The universe, by Hawking's model which answers all the contradictions, is boundless yet finite. And it does have a very nice center, the near-infinite singularity.

The universe, by this model, can be very easily described in three dimensions. Reduce three dimensions to the two dimensional surface of a sphere. This globe is the entire universe, past, present, and future. We are at a point on this globe, and we are moving South with Time, a vector. We must always move South, not North or sideways, because of the second law of Thermodynamics. The North and South poles of this sphere are the beginning and the end. The sphere expands latitudinally, reaches the equator, and then begins to contract. It's a marvelous model. Fits all the data.

It is not infinite as we can see the edges with the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe. Admittedly the picture is 13.x billion years old, and the universe has expanded quite a bit since then, but we can see the (anisotropic) sphere. Sphere's have centers, spheres have radii.

The universe is (probably) still expanding, but we can't for tell certain. We can only say it was expanding 9.073 billion years ago (the distance from our location to the edge of the universe. For all we know, in the unaccounted 4.75 billion years we can't see, it may have already started to contract.

I've had to put off Proof 3 by at least a day as I had to go over to a friend's house and sort out his home theater system and surround sound, which was a mess. And tomorrow I have social engagements in the morning and a meeting at the local anarchist collective in the afternoon. I still haven't got the software I'm going to need to do this. Can anyone recommend some good graphic calculator software for either PC or Mac? My old graphics calculator is MIA, plus how would I get those graphs onto the computer? I've thought about MatLab, but it's not on torrent and it's been over a decade since I've used it. I just need software that can do multi-variable change over time and calculate derivatives and anti-derivatives, peak finding, hill climbing, that sort of stuff. It's either that or give myself a major refresher course of the shit I learned in college.

Oh and I'm going to spoil the surprise. Proof 3 is about density. Specifically the density of the universe and how it changes with expansion and matter creation. Then apply that data to the surface of the sphere of the universe to attempt to predict, using several models of matter creation, when the Big Crunch will begin, if it hasn't already.

[Inquisitive Lurker]

The only thing I could say IL, is that I would have to see where you are getting the idea that energy, particularly dark energy, necessarily cools into matter for this discussion on the Big Crunch to go anywhere.
It's a basic ratio equation. At time A you have 96% Dark Energy and 0% Dark Matter. At time B you have 73% Dark Energy and 23% Dark Matter. Matter nor Energy can be created or destroyed, they can only change state. So, A to B, X amount of Dark Energy changed (I prefer changed to cooled because we don't know if Dark Energy has heat) into Dark Matter. As all things in the universe are governed by predictable laws, there must be a detectable pattern as to the rate of this conversion. See Proof 2.

[Inquisitive Lurker]

the universe doesnt have a center stop

The near-singularity of the Big Bang had to exist at a point in space, mostly likely the only point in space left as space had collapsed behind it.

Thus, the universe has a center.

[Inquisitive Lurker]

nor a radius

The universe is a sphere. This is A. predicted by the Big Bang theory, and B. confirmed by the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe.

Thus, it has a radius, a volume, and an edge, the surface of a sphere.

[chegitz guevara]

If it were that simple, someone would have explained it that way by now. In fact, the universe is far, far too weird to be explained so easily. It's like one of those games, where ever edge of the screen is connected to the other side. Everywhere in the universe is the exact center, because the universe is expanding away from every single point in the universe.

Your understanding of the Wilkenson survey is silly. If you look out in every direction as far as you can see, you will obviously observe a sphere. What do you see when you look up? Half a sphere. No matter how much further beyond the event horizon the universe exists, observable reality will be exactly the same radius from us, and every other point in the universe.

[Revolution starts with U]

That's what I have been saying this whole time. It seems, IL, that your knowledge of cosmology is contrary to what I have always learned. GR says exactly what Chev says. And even your explanation for energy~>mass runs the problem of correlation != causation.

[Revolution starts with U]

The near-singularity of the Big Bang had to exist at a point in space, mostly likely the only point in space left as space had collapsed behind it.

Thus, the universe has a center.

It seems like you are saying "there was a time before time" here, or "a space before space." Am I correct?

[Inquisitive Lurker]

If it were that simple, someone would have explained it that way by now. In fact, the universe is far, far too weird to be explained so easily. It's like one of those games, where ever edge of the screen is connected to the other side. Everywhere in the universe is the exact center, because the universe is expanding away from every single point in the universe.

Incorrect.

Proof: Blueshift (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_shift)

Conclusion: The universe is not expanding away from every single point. If it were, every galaxy would be redshifted.

Space is stretching outwards. That's why we know the radius of the universe to be 46 billion light-years even when we can only see (hear) 13.73 billion light-years out.


Your understanding of the Wilkenson survey is silly. If you look out in every direction as far as you can see, you will obviously observe a sphere. What do you see when you look up? Half a sphere. No matter how much further beyond the event horizon the universe exists, observable reality will be exactly the same radius from us, and every other point in the universe.Had the universe had any shape besides a sphere, the results of the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy probe would not have been a consistent reading, with local hot and cold spots. If the universe were say... ellipsoid, the matter/energy/heat readings would have been clumped in two great crescents. If the universe was say, a pyramid (why not?), there would have been four points of highly dense matter/energy/heat readings.

The result of the WMAP was confirmation that the universe is a sphere. Exactly as it should be. Basic geometry.

[Inquisitive Lurker]

It seems like you are saying "there was a time before time" here, or "a space before space." Am I correct?
Of course not, time and space, being one, are created by the Big Bang and ended with the Big Crunch. There can be no before or after because before and after are invalid concepts. Time begins and ends with the Big Bang, Big Crunch, and either it creates a chain of universes or a cycle of a single one.

Go back to that globe model of the universe that Hawking came up with. Post 41 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2120360&postcount=41). At the north and south poles, there are no other directions.

[chegitz guevara]

Incorrect.

Proof: Blueshift (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_shift)

Conclusion: The universe is not expanding away from every single point. If it were, every galaxy would be redshifted.

Space is stretching outwards. That's why we know the radius of the universe to be 46 billion light-years even when we can only see (hear) 13.73 billion light-years out.

Gravity, for the time being, can still overcome the effects of inflation. Some galaxies are falling towards us, or vice versa, or both). In other words, we are falling towards each other faster than space is inflating.


Had the universe had any shape besides a sphere, the results of the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy probe would not have been a consistent reading, with local hot and cold spots. If the universe were say... ellipsoid, the matter/energy/heat readings would have been clumped in two great crescents. If the universe was say, a pyramid (why not?), there would have been four points of highly dense matter/energy/heat readings.

The result of the WMAP was confirmation that the universe is a sphere. Exactly as it should be. Basic geometry.Unless the universe is much larger than you think it is. You seem to be discounting the existence of anything beyond the event horizon.

[Inquisitive Lurker]

Gravity, for the time being, can still overcome the effects of inflation. Some galaxies are falling towards us, or vice versa, or both). In other words, we are falling towards each other faster than space is inflating.

If that were the case, the Big Crunch is already underway. And even I'm not ready to say that until I've done my third proof.


Unless the universe is much larger than you think it is. You seem to be discounting the existence of anything beyond the event horizon.You seem to not be understanding what the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe was looking at. It was a picture of the entire universe when it was very young, 13.x billion years ago. So we know how large the universe was then, and we know how much it's grown.

There is no outside the edge of the universe, physics require that space bends back on itself. There is no outside. Space is being created by the universe itself. There is no where except this where. Where is no when except this when. In fact the only time that exists is the time in between, even if there were universes before ours, it would be grammatically incorrect to say "when" they were. As well as "where" they were, as it is incorrect to even say "where" our universe is. There is no other "where" because "where-ness" is a quality of the universe itself. As is "when-ness."

I like these words.

[chegitz guevara]

If that were the case, the Big Crunch is already underway. And even I'm not ready to say that until I've done my third proof.

LOCALLY! LOCALLY Gravity overcomes the effect of inflation. Not between galactic clusters.


You seem to not be understanding what the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe was looking at. It was a picture of the entire universe when it was very young, 13.x billion years ago. So we know how large the universe was then, and we know how much it's grown.

It can only look at it up to a certain point. It's the background radiation we can see, not all of it.

[black magick hustla]

The near-singularity of the Big Bang had to exist at a point in space, mostly likely the only point in space left as space had collapsed behind it.

Thus, the universe has a center.

no it doesn´t. the big bang implies the universe was denser and hotter. Which means everything was denser and hotter. The universe wasnt some ball that became larger or some shit. The SPACE expanded. It is more akin to the surface of a ballon. The surface of a balloon does not have a center.
he s
nor the universe is a sphere. when scientists talk about a spherical universe they imply a universe that is finite but unbounded. a lot of the stuff you are saying is quackery dawg. i have a bs in astrophysics.

[Niall]

IL, been reading this with interest and I have a question for you. Recent theories suggest the crunch wont happen because of antigravity. What are your thoughts on this?

[Inquisitive Lurker]

The SPACE expanded. It is more akin to the surface of a ballon. The surface of a balloon does not have a center.
Think about what you just said. A balloon doesn't have a center? Or course it does. A spherical balloon could be said to have any of three centers. In inner, the upper, and the lower. The surface of the balloon is the edge of the universe. In fact it could be said to have an infinite number of centers, any point on the surface of the balloon. But our movement on the balloon is always from the top to the bottom, with the vector of time, which always points downwards.


when scientists talk about a spherical universe they imply a universe that is finite but unbounded.I have no problem with that statement.


i have a bs in astrophysics.I have an MA in philosophy. And I think we both should write out universities and ask for our money back.

[Inquisitive Lurker]

IL, been reading this with interest and I have a question for you. Recent theories suggest the crunch wont happen because of antigravity. What are your thoughts on this?

Anti-gravity, when first proposed by Einstein, was later disproven. Now the ideas has come back, but it exists only in theoretical states with no observational evidence.

Were it to exist, it would change many things. But for now, it is less substantiated than vacuum energy. We're talking about adding 5th and 6th forces to the proven four forces, and these ideas exist only on paper. They would destroy decades of progress towards the Grand Unified Theory.

[Quark]

There is observational evidence and the Universe will expand for ever.

I can't post links yet but google "NASA Telescope Helps Confirm Nature of Dark Energy". There are 2 recent papers on this from Cornell University.

[bezdomni]

Just a slightly pedantic technical note: Singularities are defined by having infinite curvature, not infinite density (this follows as a consequence of infinite curvature).

It is perhaps more enlightening to think in these terms.

[Inquisitive Lurker]

I will hopefully have Proof 3 done by tomorrow, hopefully. I gave up on finding software to do it for me (I can get any movie I want on torrent, but not MatLab), so I've had to go back to my college calculus textbooks and do the whole thing by hand. I mean I'm obviously using a calculator, but all the equations and diagrams are being written out longhand. It's not easy going, I've made a few mistakes and have had to backtrack several times. :(

[Inquisitive Lurker]

Just a slightly pedantic technical note: Singularities are defined by having infinite curvature, not infinite density (this follows as a consequence of infinite curvature).

Gravitational singularity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_singularity), a point in spacetime in which gravitational forces cause matter to have an infinite density and zero volume.

So :p

[bezdomni]

Yes, in particular the gravitational forces associated with spacetime having infinite curvature.

Keep reading. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_singularity#Curvature)

Points where the metric blows up to infinity which are diffeomorphism invariant (meaning intrinsic properties of the spacetime, not dependent on our choice of coordinates or other extrinsic factors), in other words where the Gaussian curvature is infinite, are singularities.

[Appeal to authority: I am doing mathematical research in singularity theory.]

[Inquisitive Lurker]

Yes, in particular the gravitational forces associated with spacetime having infinite curvature.

Keep reading. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_singularity#Curvature)

Points where the metric blows up to infinity which are diffeomorphism invariant (meaning intrinsic properties of the spacetime, not dependent on our choice of coordinates or other extrinsic factors), in other words where the Gaussian curvature is infinite, are singularities.

[Appeal to authority: I am doing mathematical research in singularity theory.]

Keep reading.

There are three types of gravitational singularities listed, of which curvature is only one.

Note: Appeals to authority are non-rational. Something is either true or it's not, it matters not who says it.

[bezdomni]

Note: Appeals to authority are non-rational. Something is either true or it's not, it matters not who says it.


This was intended as a tongue-in-cheek statement, which is difficult to convey on the internet.


There are three types of gravitational singularities listed, of which curvature is only one.

Yes, the other kind (conical singularity) is a very special case depending on careful choice of coordinates (e.g. extrinsic, dependent on parametrization) and the naked singularity is hypothetical.

[black magick hustla]

Think about what you just said. A balloon doesn't have a center? Or course it does. A spherical balloon could be said to have any of three centers. In inner, the upper, and the lower. The surface of the balloon is the edge of the universe. In fact it could be said to have an infinite number of centers, any point on the surface of the balloon. But our movement on the balloon is always from the top to the bottom, with the vector of time, which always points downwards.


The surface of the balloon is not the edge of the universe, it is the universe. It is a way to think of expanding space in more intuitive terms. If you dot the balloon with stars and inflate the space between the stars increases. The surface of a ballon does not have a center, because it is unbounded.

[Inquisitive Lurker]

The surface of the balloon is not the edge of the universe, it is the universe. It is a way to think of expanding space in more intuitive terms. If you dot the balloon with stars and inflate the space between the stars increases. The surface of a ballon does not have a center, because it is unbounded.

Hawking's model works better and is in accordance with the laws that we have so far.

A globe, three dimensions reduced to the two dimensional surface. Our existence represented as a point on the globe, moving south with time, the expansion of the universe represented by the expansion of the lines of latitude. The centers are the north and south poles.

Boundless yet finite.

[black magick hustla]

Hawking's model works better and is in accordance with the laws that we have so far.

A globe, three dimensions reduced to the two dimensional surface. Our existence represented as a point on the globe, moving south with time, the expansion of the universe represented by the expansion of the lines of latitude. The centers are the north and south poles.

Boundless yet finite.

Those are not "centers" in the way you think they are centers. What Hawkings is suggesting is a way to visualize something that is not generally visual. There isn´t really a "a three dimensions reduced to two dimensional surface with time moving south" somewhere there. In the same sense there arent venn diagrams out there even if we use them to represent information.

[Inquisitive Lurker]

Those are not "centers" in the way you think they are centers. What Hawkings is suggesting is a way to visualize something that is not generally visual. There isn´t really a "a three dimensions reduced to two dimensional surface with time moving south" somewhere there. In the same sense there arent venn diagrams out there even if we use them to represent information.
They are both considered centers because at both points (which are likely the same point) the size of the universe is reduced to zero.

The reduction of three dimension to two is necessary to create a model of something that is four dimensional. The universe at any given time can be a sphere reduced to a circle, manifest as a line of latitude.

[black magick hustla]

They are both considered centers because at both points (which are likely the same point) the size of the universe is reduced to zero.

That has nothing to do with your original argument. You claimed the universe was spherical, had a radius and had a center. Hawking's model is akin to a venn diagram. Ven diagrams have a center but it does not mean the thing it is representing has. The universe does not have a radius in the sense you think it has. Now, maybe you are thinking about the observed universe. That one is spherical, but it has nothing to do with the geometry of the universe, but with the the fact of how far can photons reach us.

[Inquisitive Lurker]

That has nothing to do with your original argument. You claimed the universe was spherical, had a radius and had a center. Hawking's model is akin to a venn diagram. Ven diagrams have a center but it does not mean the thing it is representing has. The universe does not have a radius in the sense you think it has. Now, maybe you are thinking about the observed universe. That one is spherical, but it has nothing to do with the geometry of the universe, but with the the fact of how far can photons reach us.

Hawking's model projects the universe as a sphere, and not because it is a globe. Take a sphere of a given radius, collapse that sphere radially so that it becomes a circle. Stack those circles up, each circle with an increasing radii and then decreasing radii, and you get a globe.

If you wanted to measure the radius of the universe at given time/point, you would take the circle (latitude) at that point, and measure to the axis running between the north and south poles.

If you wanted to see the universe at any given time/point, you'd extract that circle (latitude) and spin it out into a sphere.

Thus the mechanism for reducing three dimensions into two.

[Quark]

Anti-gravity, when first proposed by Einstein, was later disproven. Now the ideas has come back, but it exists only in theoretical states with no observational evidence.

Were it to exist, it would change many things. But for now, it is less substantiated than vacuum energy. We're talking about adding 5th and 6th forces to the proven four forces, and these ideas exist only on paper. They would destroy decades of progress towards the Grand Unified Theory.

Do you retract this post IL?

[Inquisitive Lurker]

Do you retract this post IL?

I just reread the entire thread in case I missed something, and I didn't. No one has mentioned anti-gravity since I did, so why would I retract it? Anti-gravity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-gravity) is purely hypothetical, without any observational evidence. All experiments in producing small fields of anti-gravity have failed. Anti-gravity on a large scale is even more absurd.

There are four accepted forces (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_forces) in the universe, and a 5th which is just a smidgen above hypothetical, vacuum energy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy), which will probably fall under the scope of electromagnetism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetism).

[Quark]

There is observational evidence and the Universe will expand for ever.

I can't post links yet but google "NASA Telescope Helps Confirm Nature of Dark Energy". There are 2 recent papers on this from Cornell University.

This is the observational evidence I was referring to. How else would you explain such observations?

[Inquisitive Lurker]

This is the observational evidence I was referring to. How else would you explain such observations?

The existence of dark energy and dark matter are central to my arguments, at least to Proof 2 and the delayed Proof 3 (I am working on it!). Maybe you haven't read the whole thread.

Also, though you can't use the link function, you can manually type in the URLs in-text, I believe.

[Meridian]

It's just physics. It's just science. It's only the truth, and nothing more.
As said the scientists 100 years ago. As will scientists likely say 50 years from now, and laugh at most of what we believe today.

And by the way, the disinterested portrayal of 'truths', observations and explanatory theories as some form of timeless, neutral objectivity is nothing more than an expression of the paradigm of science as purveyor of concrete facts of reality unobstructed by the confines of our own language, methods of measurement and culture. It is an expression of scientific practice and human language. Science is obviously useful, ignorant beliefs based on misconceptions of its role is not.

[Inquisitive Lurker]

As said the scientists 100 years ago. As will scientists likely say 50 years from now, and laugh at most of what we believe today.

The quote you cited was in response to the question "do the conclusions carry any other meaning to me?" The answer is no, it's just science. There are no spiritual implications to it.

[Meridian]

The quote you cited was in response to the question "do the conclusions carry any other meaning to me?" The answer is no, it's just science. There are no spiritual implications to it.
Science provides observations and theories in an explanatory context. Hypothetically, if a man suddenly started being able to 'defy gravity' (he was able to fly), science would have to alter its explanatory frame in such a way that it was able to explain this phenomenon. To either alter its reigning theories of physics and gravity or to offer convincing perspectives on the observations without doing so. Other ways to describe the phenomenon would not be called "science".

It is not in the business of science to dictate what carries what implications beyond the observational and explanatory methods.

[Inquisitive Lurker]

It is not in the business of science to dictate what carries what implications beyond the observational and explanatory methods.

I'm pretty sure that's what I just said. However, if you want to see where science does have a say in other matters, check the Death thread in Religion, which is what this thread was split from. I used mathematics and physics to disprove reincarnation.

[Quark]

The existence of dark energy and dark matter are central to my arguments, at least to Proof 2 and the delayed Proof 3 (I am working on it!). Maybe you haven't read the whole thread.

Also, though you can't use the link function, you can manually type in the URLs in-text, I believe.

Thanks for the tip on links, IL. It seems to still autocorrect to a hyperlink. You have said the Big Crunch will happen but the observational evidence now suggests it won't because of an 'antigravity' effect driven by dark energy.
Put the links below in the address bar for further reading on this observational evidence.
universetoday.com/85816/galex-confirms-nature-of-dark-energy
arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1104/1104.2948v1.pdf
arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1105/1105.2862v1.pdf

The observations on the above contradict your Big Crunch theory.

[Inquisitive Lurker]

Thanks for the tip on links, IL. It seems to still autocorrect to a hyperlink. You have said the Big Crunch will happen but the observational evidence now suggests it won't because of an 'antigravity' effect driven by dark energy.
Put the links below in the address bar for further reading on this observational evidence.
universetoday.com/85816/galex-confirms-nature-of-dark-energy
arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1104/1104.2948v1.pdf
arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1105/1105.2862v1.pdf

The observations on the above contradict your Big Crunch theory.

I read NASA's article on the new observations, and they really don't change anything in my Proof 1 and has nothing to do with Proof 2. A force is driving the universal expansion. It doesn't really matter what the force is, we know it's there and we know its rate of expansion, roughly 3 1/2 times the speed of light. The "force" of this force can be measured by the rate of increase of the surface area of a sphere, 4*pi*r^2. The question is will the exponential rate of increase in dark matter be able to catch up with that rate of expansion. And I honestly don't know, that's why I'm doing Proof 3. The final result could be anything. That's the nature of science, you do the math and get the result, not decide on the result then find a way to substantiate it. If I can get through all these calculations and then show a tipping point in density, that should be the upper limit for the Big Crunch. Or if I can show that the exponential rate of increase in dark matter actual does overtake the rate of expansion, that would prove the Big Crunch could begin any time between now and the moment of overtaking. I am hoping for the former case. One possible outcome is that we have already crossed the tipping point. I am also hoping that I don't have to get into gravitational equations, because I would probably need one for N-body gravitation (where in this case N=infinity-1), and considering that we haven't even worked out how 3-body gravitation works, I'd be dead in the water.

Note: If dark energy is the main force, or indeed the only force driving the universe's expansion, then a Big Crunch is almost guaranteed. Proof 2 shows the various ways in which dark energy is converting to dark matter. So not only would I have the increased gravity of the dark matter on my side, I would have the decreasing levels of dark energy on my side. That alone would stop the expansion. Then it's just a matter of seeing if enough dark matter has been created to pull it all in, or if the universe will reach a point of stasis and expand no further. Then it would be a matter of time before all the ordinary matter in the universe the burns itself out. We'd be left with a universe of iron dust (and loads of dark matter), iron being the fission/fusion neutral element.

[Revolution starts with U]

I have been researching dark energy for the last week and I have seen nothing that suggests dark energy will cool into matter (dark or otherwise).
Again, you can do all the proofs you want. BUt if you don't understand the subject, your proofs are worthless. I would link for you, but here's the thing. Nobody even mentions it. It's so blatantly false that it's a non-issue.
Do you have any evidence, other than a correlation/causation fallacy, to suggest that energy necessarily cools into matter? Because it doesn't.

[∞]

I have been researching dark energy for the last week and I have seen nothing that suggests dark energy will cool into matter (dark or otherwise).
Again, you can do all the proofs you want. BUt if you don't understand the subject, your proofs are worthless. I would link for you, but here's the thing. Nobody even mentions it. It's so blatantly false that it's a non-issue.
Do you have any evidence, other than a correlation/causation fallacy, to suggest that energy necessarily cools into matter? Because it doesn't.

I doubt that dark matter even has thermodynamic properties which any case could make it "cool down"...

[chegitz guevara]

Hawking's model

You are mistaking the model for reality. Scientists are showing how the universe works by analogy, but do not mistake the analogy for reality.

[Inquisitive Lurker]

You are mistaking the model for reality. Scientists are showing how the universe works by analogy, but do not mistake the analogy for reality.

As I explained in post 69, and I'm not going to rehash it here, the model perfectly fits reality.

Go read post 69.

[Revolution starts with U]

Hypothesis: Dark Energy is being converted to Dark Matter at one of three rates.
Fact: At the moment of the Big Bang, there was no Dark Matter.
Fact: At the moment of the Big Bang, there was at least 96% Dark Energy.
Fact: At 13.73 billion years, the Universe is 73% Dark Energy, 23% Dark Matter, and 4% Ordinary Matter.
I've went back over your proof, as it is the only proof I have even heard tale of that dark energy will cool into matter.
Again, this is a pure correlation/causation fallacy. Most of that conversion to matter you are talking about happened in the first few moments of the big bang.

[Inquisitive Lurker]

I've went back over your proof, as it is the only proof I have even heard tale of that dark energy will cool into matter.
Again, this is a pure correlation/causation fallacy. Most of that conversion to matter you are talking about happened in the first few moments of the big bang.

First, remember not to say cooling as we don't know how dark matter reacts to heat. It appears not to.

Second you forgot my favorite four letter word, WMAP. The Wilkonsin Microwave Anisotropy Probe shows the universe 13.x billion years ago, and there was still plenty of energy not yet converted to matter. This is ordinary matter we are talking about, but there is no reason not to assume to same to be true of dark matter.

Thirdly, if all the dark matter had been created in the seconds after the Big Bang, the Big Bang would have immediately collapsed in on itself under the weight of that much matter in that small a space.

[chegitz guevara]

As I explained in post 69, and I'm not going to rehash it here, the model perfectly fits reality.

Go read post 69.

I obviously read that post BECAUSE I AM RESPONDING TO THAT POST. You are basing your understanding of reality on an analogy, not on the actual physics.

[Revolution starts with U]

No, the universe would have collapsed on itself, that is true. But fortunately their was both matter and anti-matter created. Also, even more fortunate for us, there was enough matter to "outweigh" the dark matter.

[Inquisitive Lurker]

No, the universe would have collapsed on itself, that is true. But fortunately their was both matter and anti-matter created. Also, even more fortunate for us, there was enough matter to "outweigh" the dark matter.

Except that the dark matter "outweighs" the ordinary matter (anti-matter is ordinary matter too) by a ratio of 6:1

[Revolution starts with U]

That was a typo on my part. I meant anti matter.

[Revolution starts with U]

You'll be happy to know, this is what my physics acquaintances have to say about your hypothesis:

Just about everything you've mentioned so far is completely wrong.

If your friend (like numerous 'philosophers' i know) is hell-bent on making up 'facts' to be wildly interpreted, instead of actually studying a subject in an attempt to learn something---then you shouldn't bother trying to convince him.

Its not your job to refute something completely wrong and made-up.

Where did he get his "facts"?
You're definitely going to have to start citing your sources. Because the more I re-research Dark Energy the more it seems to be the nail in the coffin for any notion of a Big Crunch... and nothing I have seen suggests it is in any way evidence in favor of it.
Dark Energy will not convert to matter.

[Inquisitive Lurker]

Dark Energy will not convert to matter.

It already has. *sigh* 27% into 25%

It's a bit hard to say something doesn't happen when it already has.

Nor can you say it happened all at once and won't happen again as I showed you that would have collapsed the infant universe, if the amount of matter was increased 7 fold from all existing models.

*sigh* I really must put more effort into getting Proof 3 done, then I'll know for certain. But I got suddenly involved in a legislative project, and I'm having trouble solving Proof 3 without resorting to gravity, which I can't use because there are no equations for 3-body gravitation, much less N-body gravitation. If I was doing this 10 years ago, fresh out of college, I'd be done by now. But I've having to relearn so much.

[Revolution starts with U]

CIte your damn sources!
Your idea that it already has is a correlation/causation fallacy. OMFG!
All the available evidence suggests that Dark Energy is merely the inherent energy of space; it's what makes space expand...
And again, most if not all of the matter in the universe WAS created in the first few moments of the Big Bang; between the Hadron Epoch and the Photon Epoch.
Why am I even continuing to argue with you? You're a crank. Stick the philosophy because your physics are crackpottery and woo-woo. :thumbdown:

Cite your sources or I have no reason to believe you have any clue what you're talking about.

[Inquisitive Lurker]

All the models for the creation of the universe have matter being created early on, with some created a bit later, and a tiny bit still being created (spontaneously in open space, single particles and particle pairs). (Source: Hawking)

If you increase this amount of matter by 7 times (6 times more dark matter than ordinary matter) the models fail because that's a fuck load of gravity to be dealing with. Thus, dark matter could not have been created with the Big Bang. (Source: Hawking)

Logic doesn't need citation.

I'm just going to complete Proof 3, see what the result is, and then call it a day (except it will probably be another week).:rolleyes:

[Inquisitive Lurker]

And again, most if not all of the matter in the universe WAS created in the first few moments of the Big Bang; between the Hadron Epoch and the Photon Epoch.

Dark matter is not made of particles. It was not created with the hadrons.

[Revolution starts with U]

I love how you think you know what dark matter is or isn't made of. It's commonly believed to be composed of WIMPs (weakly interacting massive particles).
I want you to show me where Hawking suggests that dark matter could not have been created moments after the Big Bang. Show me that. It's just like a crank to cite people incorrectly, if he cites them at all (and note that it took you pages and pages to cite anything worthwhile, despite being asked repeatedly).
And then after you (fail to) do that; cite me where ANYONE suggests that Dark Energy will convert to matter. The notion is so ridiculously false you are the only person I have ever even seen suggest it.

Might I suggest this fellow crank (http://theresonanceproject.org/), it seems to be more up your aisle than real physics.

[∞]

I love how you think you know what dark matter is or isn't made of. It's commonly believed to be composed of WIMPs (weakly interacting massive particles).
I want you to show me where Hawking suggests that dark matter could not have been created moments after the Big Bang. Show me that. It's just like a crank to cite people incorrectly, if he cites them at all (and note that it took you pages and pages to cite anything worthwhile, despite being asked repeatedly).
And then after you (fail to) do that; cite me where ANYONE suggests that Dark Energy will convert to matter. The notion is so ridiculously false you are the only person I have ever even seen suggest it.

Might I suggest this fellow crank (http://theresonanceproject.org/), it seems to be more up your aisle than real physics.

What particles are WIMPs and how to they react? Exchange of Photons???

[Inquisitive Lurker]

You'll be happy to know, this is what my physics acquaintances have to say about your hypothesis:

I refrained from comment on this post for a while, but now I'm in the mood.

What are the odds of you have four physicist friends?

What are the odds of you bringing a laptop and having them read over the thread in it's entirety?

What are the odds of them making the comments they made?

I hate to make observations like this. But alas, I have to. It's in my nature. Especially when even in the worst case scenario a good majority of my facts are established scientific facts, which a physics student would know (I'm assuming these were students, if they existed at all), especially in my two proofs.

[Revolution starts with U]

What particles are WIMPs and how to they react? Exchange of Photons???
That's the whole thing; nobody knows. It was disengenous at best for IL to suggest he did. We are not sure what constitutes Dark Matter, but the most commonly held view is that it is made up of WIMPs.


I refrained from comment on this post for a while, but now I'm in the mood.

What are the odds of you have four physicist friends?

What are the odds of you bringing a laptop and having them read over the thread in it's entirety?

What are the odds of them making the comments they made?

I hate to make observations like this. But alas, I have to. It's in my nature. Especially when even in the worst case scenario a good majority of my facts are established scientific facts, which a physics student would know (I'm assuming these were students, if they existed at all), especially in my two proofs.

They were aquaintances, not friends.
One of them was a professor ("it's not your job to refute things that are completely made up... that one).
There is a such thing as online communication... I do know how to forward.
Your "facts" are half-facts and made up bullshit.

There is one glaring reason why you should know you are full of shit, and the fact that you don't makes me think you are a crank;
Dark Energy is commonly viewed to be the nail in the coffin for the Big Crunch theory. Yet you are trying to use it as evidence in favor of.
You're a crank dude. I hear the resonance project is looking for more philosophers who like to play physicist. You should hit them up.

[Inquisitive Lurker]

I am one who looks at things scientifically, and says that what is proven is proven, regardless if it supports my claims.

I have no idea what the outcome of Proof 3 will be. It may disprove the Big Crunch.

But the problem I'm having is gravity. Not being able to use N-body gravity equations (because they don't exist) I've had to come up with an approximation, an accordion-like model of the universe. A sphere split into a infinite number of spherical segments, and then measure the effect of gravity of the outermost sphere on the next innermost sphere, take that result, apply it to the next innermost sphere, take that result, and so on and so on until I reach the center. Needless to say, this is not easy math. As much as I studied in college (Calculus 1, 2, and 3, Linear Equations, Nonlinear Equations), this actually goes beyond what I was taught. But I haven't given up yet.

Trying to solve this problem with out N-body gravitation is like trying to write a novel, or at least an essay, without using the letter "i". And I'm not James Joyce (read Finnegan's Wake, it's great, I wish there was an ebook, or better yet an audiobook, you could seriously trip out to that). Do you know the name "quarks" came from Finnegan's Wake?

Three quarks for Muster Mark!
Sure he has not got much of a bark
And sure any he has it's all beside the mark.

The N-body gravity problem is probably why it hasn't been solved, that I know of. And why I probably won't be able to solve it, but instead return with very rough approximations.

[Revolution starts with U]

I suggest you take the idea that dark energy will convert to matter completely out of your equations then... because again, the only person i have seen even mention it is you, and the only evidence you have of it is a crude and blatant correlation/causation fallacy.

[Inquisitive Lurker]

I suggest you take the idea that dark energy will convert to matter completely out of your equations then... because again, the only person i have seen even mention it is you, and the only evidence you have of it is a crude and blatant correlation/causation fallacy.

See Proof 2, post 85, and post 91. Energy and Matter can not be created or destroyed, they can only change state.

See point on how if the Dark Matter was created during the Big Bang, it would have collapsed the universe, a point you agreed with (Post 87). It seems pointless to argue this point with you. Dark Matter had to come from somewhere. There was a 27% decrease in Dark Energy and a 25% increase in Dark Matter over the past 13.73 billion years. Energy is vanishing, Matter is increasing. There is only one conclusion if you apply the law of conservation.

Each one of your irritating posts only irritates me more that I haven't completed Proof 3.

P.S. And stop saying it "cools" in to Dark Matter, something I've pointed out as a fallacy several times. "Converts."

[Revolution starts with U]

See Proof 2, post 85, and post 91. Energy and Matter can not be created or destroyed, they can only change state.
I have already quoted this post and shown how it is a correlation causation fallacy.


See point on how if the Dark Matter was created during the Big Bang, it would have collapsed the universe, a point you agreed with (Post 87). It seems pointless to argue this point with you. Dark Matter had to come from somewhere. There was a 27% decrease in Dark Energy and a 25% increase in Dark Matter over the past 13.73 billion years. Energy is vanishing, Matter is increasing. There is only one conclusion if you apply the law of conservation.
And that has not been happening slowly over time. It happened quickly, within moments of the Big Bang.
Again, show me ONE person, besides yourself (preferable someone with a PhD) who suggests Dark Energy will convert to matter. It is so ridiculously false that Im willing to bet money you can't.
Dark Energy is largely believed to be an inherent force in space itself. It will not convert to Dark Matter.


Each one of your irritating posts only irritates me more that I haven't completed Proof 3.
Ya, facts are irritating to cranks, I know :mad:
Show me one person, other than yourself that suggests Dark Energy will convert to matter.


P.S. And stop saying it "cools" in to Dark Matter, something I've pointed out as a fallacy several times. "Converts."
I have stopped saying cooled.

[Inquisitive Lurker]

And that has not been happening slowly over time. It happened quickly, within moments of the Big Bang.


And as I have said before, given all the models of the Big Bang, if you had to correct them for 7 times the amount of matter coming into existence (1 part ordinary matter 6 parts dark matter) the gravitational forces would have collapsed the universe, as you yourself stated.

And again, 27% of the Dark Energy in the universe has vanished since the Big Bang. This is impossible according to the laws of conservation of energy and matter. Therefore, it had to go somewhere. It certainly didn't go to create more ordinary matter, which has held steady at 4%. Dark Matter is the only remaining option.

Dark energy is probably not the energy of space itself. It is far more likely that vacuum energy is. In a vacuum the size of a common light bulb, there is enough energy to destroy the entire solar system.

[Revolution starts with U]

Except it happened during the inflationary period where the universe was expanding far faster than gravity would have had a chance to overcome. A simple glance at the timeline of the Big Bang shows that nearly all the matter in the universe was converted from plasma/condensate within the first few seconds to minutes of the BIg Bang.
The only new matter being created is vacuum fluctuation, which flashes in and out of existence and plays a scant, if any, gravitational role in the future of the universe.
But go ahead, keep making up facts and calling it science... might I again suggest the Resonance Project? It seems far more up the alley of 3rd rate philosophers than real physics.

Show me ONE person other than you (preferably a PhD) who suggests Dark Energy has ever, or will ever, convert to matter (Dark or otherwise). You can't. And don't just say "some random bullshit (Hawking)". I want a quote... or at least a real citation (Hawking 09 pp 111-113).

[Inquisitive Lurker]

Show me ONE person other than you (preferably a PhD) who suggests Dark Energy has ever, or will ever, convert to matter (Dark or otherwise). You can't. And don't just say "some random bullshit (Hawking)". I want a quote... or at least a real citation (Hawking 09 pp 111-113).

I will have to inter-library loan the books (assuming my card is still valid), reread the text, then cite the citation. A. I'm too busy and B. It would take weeks. I'll rely on reason and logic until then.

You still haven't come up with a good explanation as to where the 27% of the Dark Energy went. And also you'll notice that no model of the Big Bang takes into account the 23% of Dark Matter interacting with the 4% of ordinary matter. So obviously these PhD physicists did not believe that the Dark Matter existed during the Big Bang. And even if it was created, let's say minutes after the Big Bang (which in that time scale is a LONG time) it would have been sufficient to collapse the center of the universe, if not the universe as a whole. Imagine a Black Hole containing 85.7% of the matter in the universe. Do you think we would have discovered such a radio source by now?

And yet from what we do know about Dark Matter, it is distributed evenly throughout the Universe. If that much matter was created at the Big Bang, it wouldn't be evenly distributed. Remember, 6 parts Dark Matter, 1 part ordinary matter. You suggest it was all there at the beginning. Whereas if it were being continually created, it would be evenly distributed.

[Revolution starts with U]

I will have to inter-library loan the books (assuming my card is still valid), reread the text, then cite the citation. A. I'm too busy and B. It would take weeks. I'll rely on reason and logic until then.
Be honest. You're A) making shit up


You still haven't come up with a good explanation as to where the 27% of the Dark Energy went
A) Im not a physicist. So I wouldn't even attempt an explanation.
B) I'm not convinced what you say happened actually happened. We have already seen your propensity for making up facts.

And also you'll notice that no model of the Big Bang takes into account the 23% of Dark Matter interacting with the 4% of ordinary matter. So obviously these PhD physicists did not believe that the Dark Matter existed during the Big Bang.
I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say here. But I will provide citations if I can, for what I think you're trying to refute.

And even if it was created, let's say minutes after the Big Bang (which in that time scale is a LONG time) it would have been sufficient to collapse the center of the universe, if not the universe as a whole.
No, it wouldn't have.

Imagine a Black Hole containing 85.7% of the matter in the universe. Do you think we would have discovered such a radio source by now?
Still making shit up, I see?


And yet from what we do know about Dark Matter, it is distributed evenly throughout the Universe. If that much matter was created at the Big Bang, it wouldn't be evenly distributed.
Even were what you say true... it still does nothing to prove your hypothesis that it was converted from Dark Energy.
Still waiting on someone other than you (preferably a PhD) to suggest what you're suggestinng.

[Revolution starts with U]

http://www.exploratorium.edu/origins/cern/ideas/bang.html
http://ssscott.tripod.com/BigBang.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter_creation

I can get more if you would like.

[Inquisitive Lurker]

Still waiting on someone other than you (preferably a PhD) to suggest what you're suggestinng.

I already give you a citation, of sorts. Every model of the Big Bang does not account for the existence of Dark Matter at that time. Yet these models work. Therefore, Dark Matter did not exist at the time of the Big Bang. Since then, 27% of the Dark Energy has vanished, and 23% of the Dark Matter has appeared. A+B+C=D

P.S. I can cite an astrophysicist with a PhD who will swear blind that the sun has an iron core.

[Revolution starts with U]

In my research of matter and dark energy for this topic, I neglected to look at dark matter....
But I am happy to report that the idea that quackery can be destroyed, not by expertise, but merely by a healthy amount of skepticism, has been confirmed:

In 2005, astronomers from Cardiff University (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardiff_University) claimed to discover a galaxy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy) made almost entirely of dark matter, 50 million light years away in the Virgo Cluster (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgo_Cluster), which was named VIRGOHI21 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VIRGOHI21).[24] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter#cite_note-Minchin2005-23) Unusually, VIRGOHI21 does not appear to contain any visible stars: it was seen with radio frequency observations of hydrogen. Based on rotation profiles, the scientists estimate that this object contains approximately 1000 times more dark matter than hydrogen and has a total mass of about 1/10 that of the Milky Way Galaxy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milky_Way_Galaxy) we live in. For comparison, the Milky Way is believed to have roughly 10 times as much dark matter as ordinary matter. Models of the Big Bang (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang) and structure formation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large-scale_structure_of_the_cosmos) have suggested that such dark galaxies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_galaxy) should be very common in the univers
and

There are some galaxies whose velocity profile indicates an absence of dark matter, such as NGC 3379 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NGC_3379).[/URL]
Both seem to suggest that dark matter is not distributed evenly throughout the universe, as you suggested.
And
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:080998_Universe_Content_240.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter#cite_note-Ciardullo1993-24)
Seems to suggest (more than suggests) that the amount of dark matter has in fact decreased over the universe's existence., not increased, as you suggested.

So I must ask... where do you get your information?

[Inquisitive Lurker]

So I must ask... where do you get your information?

I get my information from books of physics and astrophysics, from Russell, Einstein, Sagan, and Hawking. I get my information from white papers, especially on (hot) fusion. I get my information from magazines (Nature, New Scientist, Physics World Magazine, Physics Today, Science, Scientific American). I get my information from scientific journals (American Journal of Physics, The Journal of Astrophysics).

And obviously I don't subscribe to all of these periodicals, I read them and return them to the shelves. So I don't have them to source, only what I learned from them. I have an excellent memory for facts, just not names (this applies to people too).

Oh, and interestingly, though I go to the my local library once a month, it seems I don't have a card. Which is odd because at one point I had two of them. For most of the magazines and journals, I go to the local university library, The Golda Meir Library, where I don't have borrowing privileges any more, though I once was an alumni.

[Niall]

I doubt that dark matter even has thermodynamic properties which any case could make it "cool down"...

or are measureable, it being dark and all

[Inquisitive Lurker]

Hence why I've been avoiding the term "cool" and encouraging others to do so from the beginning. "Convert" is the word.

[Niall]

I refrained from comment on this post for a while, but now I'm in the mood.

What are the odds of you have four physicist friends?

What are the odds of you bringing a laptop and having them read over the thread in it's entirety?

What are the odds of them making the comments they made?

I hate to make observations like this. But alas, I have to. It's in my nature. Especially when even in the worst case scenario a good majority of my facts are established scientific facts, which a physics student would know (I'm assuming these were students, if they existed at all), especially in my two proofs.
Im afraid to say but a colleague of mine thinks you are full of it also. He exists, and he isnt a student.

[Inquisitive Lurker]

OK, I have sad news.

I am giving up on Proof 3.

Proof 3, in broad terms, calculated the increase in dark matter at various rates, related those increases to a change in density of the universe, and then tried to see at what point (measured in time or distance (radius)) the density would peak, causing the greatest amount of gravitational attraction.

75% of the proof could be done. It was the last 25% that got me.

You see, we can only calculate the effects of gravity on 2 bodies. Right now there is a search for a 3 body equation, which will eventually lead to a N-body equation.

No matter which way I tried to maneuver, I could not get around a situation that would require an N-body equation.

So I started cutting corners, and turned the universe into a spherical accordion, each fold's gravity effecting the next fold's, and so on. Thus limiting myself myself to a 2 body gravitational equation.

The problem is half way through the results I had the universe collapsing at faster than the speed of light. Several times faster. So I made adjustments and tried again. And again. Each time I got enough matter to cause a Big Crunch, but the situations necessary for it also caused the collapse to move several times faster than the speed of light. If a consequence is wrong, then an antecedent must be wrong. Or a calculation.

Without an N-Body Gravitational Equation, I can not complete Proof 3. 2 out of the 3 scenarios of Proof 3 looked very promising in as far as the amounts of Dark Matter, but I can not prove what will happen with our current understanding of physics and specifically gravitation.

Years (maybe months) from now, when someone does solve the 3-Body Gravitational Equation, and then (in a few years) the N-Body Equation follows soon after, if I remember, I will reattempt Proof 3 for my own curiosity if nothing else.

[Inquisitive Lurker]

There is one other possibility. And that is I got the equations right and the Big Crunch will move faster than the speed of light by destroying or collapsing the space in front of it. Much in the same way the Big Bang stretches out space behind it.

But I can't say with certainty that that is the case. It has a pleasing symmetry though.

There is however much we do not know about gravitation, such as how fast its effects move. In some models, the effects of gravity are instantaneous, regardless of distance. So who is to say what is possible when you have something as massive as the universe collapsing on itself?

[Revolution starts with U]

You still haven't given up on the whole "dark energy will convert to dark matter" spiel? :ohmy:

[Inquisitive Lurker]

You still haven't given up on the whole "dark energy will convert to dark matter" spiel? :ohmy:

Oh hell no, the evidence supports it. Dark Matter didn't create itself, and Dark Energy didn't destroy itself. The numbers actually work splendidly. It just leaves the question of "Will there be enough, soon enough?"

[Revolution starts with U]

Well, seeing as how Dark Matter has decreased over time... I have to just mark you off as a fundamentalist (of crankery, no less). Wrong in every aspect, but to arrogant to admit it, and you are on a crusade to exterminate the religious. I would fine the irony funny, were it not so dangerous.
But it's okay... because you "read it in a magazine while in line buying toilet paper."
You have never read anywhere that dark energy converts to matter. You're just making that up and foolishly hanging on to it.

But ya, piss poor citations (Plato) and "i read it in a magazine" are far better evidence than something you can go read for yourself :rolleyes:

[Inquisitive Lurker]

You have never read anywhere that dark energy converts to matter. You're just making that up and foolishly hanging on to it.


I have read it in at least two scientific journals (once twice) and one book, published within the last 10 years, which I believe was Hawking.

Also when did I mention Plato?

[Revolution starts with U]

Cite those articles and journals, or it didn't happen. And I want a real citation, not some offhand (this guy) appeal to authority. A real citation means I can go look for it myself. So instead of your (Hawking) give me something like (Hawking; A Brief History of Time, pp. 101-112). Your piss poor physics and piss poor citations make me question whether or not you've actually even READ a scholarly journal, let alone subscribed to one.