Spyman

As I ME says, all you have to do is multipying with one hundred to get the values in overall precentage like this: Ordinary matter 100 × (0.0456 ± 0.0016) = 4.56% ± 0.16% and Dark matter 100 × (0.227 ± 0.014) = 22.7% ± 1.4% And their relation to each other is: Maximum = (22.7+1.4) / (4.56-0.16) = 5.48 times and Minimum = (22.7-1.4) / (4.56+0.16) = 4.51 times. So as I interpret those numbers there is ~5 times more Dark matter than ordinary matter. I don't know how the values are extracted or combined from different observations but WMAP measures the CMBR. The Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) - also known as the Microwave Anisotropy Probe (MAP), and Explorer 80 - is a spacecraft which measures differences in the temperature of the Big Bang's remnant radiant heat - the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation - across the full sky. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilkinson_Microwave_Anisotropy_Probe In cosmology, cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation (also CMBR, CBR, MBR, and relic radiation) is thermal radiation filling the universe almost uniformly. ... When the universe was young, before the formation of stars and planets, it was smaller, much hotter, and filled with a uniform glow from its white-hot fog of hydrogen plasma. As the universe expanded, both the plasma and the radiation filling it grew cooler. When the universe cooled enough, stable atoms could form. These atoms could no longer absorb the thermal radiation, and the universe became transparent instead of being an opaque fog. The photons that existed at that time have been propagating ever since, though growing fainter and less energetic, since exactly the same photons fill a larger and larger universe. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background_radiation

Losses in the motor is transformed to heat but the mechanical energy of the wings creates a wind that brings this kinetic energy away with it. If the fan was blowing air through a wind tunnel and there was a wind generator on the other side, some of the energy could be converted back to electrical energy, but there would be losses in the motor, generator and by friction in the tunnel that turns to heat.

Baryon density 0.0456 ± 0.0016, Dark matter density 0.227 ± 0.014, Dark energy density 0.728 +0.015 −0.016 Page 39 has values with toleranses: http://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/product/map/dr4/pub_papers/sevenyear/basic_results/wmap_7yr_basic_results.pdf

IOW you don't care about other people, you don't bother to consider if someone else might get offended and won't respect different opinions. You declare that you have the right to shout whatever curse word you like and others don't have any right at all to get insulted. If people don't want to hear your curse words they are themselves responsible to cover their ears or endure your unpleasant discourtesy. Did I understand you correctly, is this really your opinion?

We currently don't know... Baryon asymmetry The baryon asymmetry problem in physics refers to the apparent fact that there is an imbalance in baryonic matter and antibaryonic matter in the universe. Neither the standard model of particle physics, nor the theory of general relativity provide an obvious explanation for why this should be so; and it is a natural assumption that the universe be neutral with all conserved charges. The Big Bang should have produced equal amounts of matter and antimatter; as such, there should have been total cancellation of both. In other words, protons should have cancelled with antiprotons, electrons with antielectrons (positrons), neutrons with antineutrons, and so on for all elementary particles. This would have resulted in a sea of photons in the universe with no matter. Since this is evidently not the case, after the Big Bang, some physical laws must have acted differently for matter and antimatter. There are competing theories to explain the matter-antimatter imbalance that resulted in baryogenesis, but there is as yet no one consensus theory to explain the phenomenon. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baryon_asymmetry Baryogenesis In physical cosmology, baryogenesis is the generic term for hypothetical physical processes that produced an asymmetry between baryons and antibaryons in the very early universe, resulting in the substantial amounts of residual matter that make up the universe today. The Dirac equation, formulated by Paul Dirac around 1928 as part of the development of relativistic quantum mechanics, predicts the existence of antiparticles along with the expected solutions for the corresponding particles. Since that time, it has been verified experimentally that every known kind of particle has a corresponding antiparticle. The CPT Theorem guarantees that a particle and its antiparticle have exactly the same mass and lifetime, and exactly opposite charge. Given this symmetry, it is puzzling that the universe does not have equal amounts of matter and antimatter. Indeed, there is no experimental evidence that there are any significant concentrations of antimatter in the observable universe. There are two main interpretations for this disparity: either the universe began with a small preference for matter (total baryonic number of the universe different from zero), or the universe was originally perfectly symmetric, but somehow a set of phenomena contributed to a small imbalance in favour of matter over time. The second point of view is preferred, although there is no clear experimental evidence indicating either of them to be the correct one. The preference is based on the following point of view: if the universe encompasses everything (time, space, and matter), nothing exists outside of it and therefore nothing existed before it, leading to a total baryonic number of 0. From a more scientific point of view, there are reasons to expect that any initial asymmetry would be wiped out to zero during the early history of the universe. One challenge then is to explain how the total baryonic number is not conserved. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baryogenesis

Well to be fair, the thread is named: "If you were" but in the OP it's asked: "If all human beings were" so it's quite easy to be to hasty.

I don't see the funny part... - Earth don't have time to cool down much and will likely get vaporized when the Sun becomes a Red Giant. The Sun, as part of its evolution, will become a red giant in about 5 Gyr. Models predict that the Sun will expand out to about 250 times its present radius, roughly 1 AU (150,000,000 km). Earth's fate is less clear. As a red giant, the Sun will lose roughly 30% of its mass, so, without tidal effects, the Earth will move to an orbit 1.7 AU (250,000,000 km) from the Sun when the star reaches it maximum radius. The planet was therefore initially expected to escape envelopment by the expanded Sun's sparse outer atmosphere, though most, if not all, remaining life would have been destroyed by the Sun's increased luminosity (peaking at about 5000 times its present level). However, a 2008 simulation indicates that Earth's orbit will decay due to tidal effects and drag, causing it to enter the red giant Sun's atmosphere and be vaporized. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth#Future Conjectured illustration of the scorched Earth after the Sun has entered the red giant phase, seven billion years from now. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_of_the_Earth

Even if you don't shoot people, I don't think you are allowed to run around firing off weapons randomly because that would force people to take cover or otherwise make sure they don't get hit by a bullet. Likewise if you are randomly shouting curse words, even if there is no hate or direction, people who don't want to hear them would need to take extra care distancing or shielding themselves to avoid them. Do we want everyone visiting scienceforums.net to feel comfortable here or only those who don't mind bad language?

If all human beings were immortal then family growth would probably not be a good idea.

When reading through this thread I notice there seems to be some confusion of what different phenomenas are called and what they signify. Dark Matter Dark matter is not considered a threat to the Universe, it have ordinary gravity and is not thought to consist of antimatter. Dark matter is some yet unknown kind of matter that exists in large amounts inside our galaxy and other galaxies, it helps to keep them together against its rotation. It is called dark because we don't know what it is, it doesn't interact with light so we can't see it directly but we can observe its gravitational effect on stars in our surroundings. Like normal matter it has been around as long as the Universe There is no scientific consensus on Dark matter occupying any higher dimensions or even that there exists any such dimensions, it is most likely thought to be some kind of exotic matter that exists just like normal matter in the ordinary dimensions with normal gravity. We observe Dark matter by measuring how fast stars are orbiting at different distances from the galactic center. Since they seem to be rotating at higher velocities than what the visible matter we can see should be able to hold gravitationally, there must be something else pulling on them. More reading here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter Antimatter Antimatter is exactly like normal matter except that it consists of particles with opposite electrical charge and as such can we see it and it has normal gravity. As have been said it has been created artificially in small quantities. The danger with antimatter is that it reacts strongly if it comes in contact with normal matter and annihilates both itself and the matter it comes in contact with, so it has to be kept in electromagnetic containers. Theoretically there is a large problem with antimatter since the Universe should contain an equal amount of anti as normal matter but we can't observe any large quantities of antimatter. If large quantities would be found they could pose a threat if moving in our direction since gravity could pull us together to a hypothetical super annihilation. More reading here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimatter Dark Energy Dark energy is the name for the strange force pushing the Universe apart at an ever increasing rate. Like Dark matter it is called Dark because we don't yet know what it is, we can only observe its affect on very distant objects in the Universe. When we observe the redshift of distant stars we can measure how fast they are moving away from us, like a cosmological doppler meter and when we look a objects very far away we are also looking back in time since it takes time for the light from them to reach us. By measuring how fast objects at different distances are moving away from us and comparing to how fast they should be receding according to the Hubble constant we have discovered that for the first ~5 billion years after the Big Bang, gravity had the upper hand and was slowly slowing down the rate of expansion, but by then the forces of gravity had been reduced due to the huge distances involved and when it got to weak compared to Dark energy the rate of expansion started to speed up again. Dark energy could be considered a threat to the Universe since it seems to be strong enough to cause an definite end, where the Universe slowly dies dark and cold without any reasonable possibility to recycle into a new Big Bang and it might turn out to be exponential which would cause everything down to atoms in the Universe to be ripped apart. More reading here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy

An electromagnetic wave travels in a straight line at the velocity of c but it is a WAVE and the tiny packets called photons have both the properties of waves and particles. Something is going through the chocolate bar and causing the melting spots, if it is not photons then what is it?

No, I think we already have exhausted the opportunities of your model, I am satisfied to leave it here.

emphasis mine. Do you mean there is a well-known mechanism that could make the Earth shrink? As an architect you should know about thermal expansion. Thermal expansion is the tendency of matter to change in volume in response to a change in temperature. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_expansion

Sorry but I don't have time to read through all that has been posted lately, but this part seems wrong. There is an simple experiment that most peoples can do to measure the speed of light, which relies on the fact that light actually does move back and fourth physically at its frequency like this: The picture is taken from an article here: http://www.null-hypothesis.co.uk/science//item/measure_speed_light_microwave_chocolate The article explains how to measure the speed of light by melting a chocolate bar in a microwave owen with a known frequency and measuring the distance between the melting spots. Mid Morning Experiment: Speed of Light By Mark Steer Einstein realised that the speed of light was one of the defining measures of the Universe. Remember E=mc2, the beautiful little formula that wrapped up the theory of relativity? Well ‘c’ is the speed of light. And you can measure it. All you need is a microwave, a ruler and a bar of chocolate (and maybe a calculator).

Would the immortality come with a full security packet providing immunity to all diseases and accidents? The possibility of an eternal life in pain and misery does not sound like heaven to me...

I don't think accelerating will ease tidal forces, since gravity would still be stronger at the closer part of the probe than the farther side, but if you can find a very large supermassive black hole then tidal forces out at the event horizon could be smaller than what it is on the surface of Earth. So there wouldn't be any problems with tidal forces and spaghettification close to the inside of the event horizon if the black hole is massive enough. I would exclude problem 1 and 4, if we can't make a wormhole then there is no point in asking if they can be opened from the inside of a black hole. I would think that number 3 is your biggest problem, if it even is possible to create a wormhole then as I understand relativity, the wormhole is made by curving the fabric of space and in the vicinity of a Black Hole there will already be lots of curving interfering with your probes attempt. If we manage to shield gravity enough to open a wormhole then we don't have to worry about problem 2 either. I don't think distances to black holes counts as a valid problem, sure it would be a problem to get there but it is theoretically possible and it doesn't affect the possibility to open a wormhole there or not. Same with the radiation, we don't know what cind of radiation there will be inside an event horizon, but if the black hole don't have a accretion disc then there won't be much radiation on the outside to fall in. A secondary problem would be what kind of information we would like to extract from the probe through the wormhole, the probe and the mouth of the wormhole would be located in heavily distorted spacetime and from the view of the probe the event horizon would seem to be located further down towards the core, so even if we would accomplish the implausible task to open a fully functioning wormhole on the inside of an event horizon all we would see is the event horizon located further down.

No apology needed, I was only pointing out a fault in your argument and not claiming inappropriate behavior. Since there seems to be some cind of misunderstanding, I will try to explain it again for you: jamiestem asked: "If the universe is expanding, then it can't be infinite, can it?" I described an analogy of how a container can expand from an inside view, even with infinite distant walls. Can you explain how your argument affects the possibility in my analogy for the Universe to be infinite or not? The scientific consensus is that the Universe is expanding with a scale factor changing the metric, making both observations equal. "Taken together, the only theory which coherently explains these phenomena relies on space expanding through a change in metric." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space#Observational_evidence In cosmology the scale factor tells us how much larger the Universe grows with our meterstick as reference, if the observer and his meterstick shrinks, then the Universe also gets enlarged from his view, space is expanding in comparison to how long we are defining one meter to be. We don't have any absolute reference of how long one meter is from outside of the Universe and are not able to stick map pins in space and observe how the "fabric" is growing either. What we do have is pieces of matter we can use as reference, both the old one meter alloy bar in France and the new definition from lightspeed are depending on things inside Universe that we have no ability to check against anything outside. We also have observations of redshift from distant objects that currently only can be explained if space is expanding by a scale factor of the metric and a well working theory of Relativity that matches observation. Taken together we can only conclude that space is expanding compared to our reference of the length of one meter. So in both our examples the Universe gets larger and in none of them do we shrink compared to our meterstick. Because if we really would shrink so would our meterstick, there is no inside view of the Universe differenting between the examples. Even in my analogy the person shrinks equally much as his meterstick and is not able to anyway determine that he himself is shrinking. No, I wanted to know what you ment with "What the expanding space states is that WE ARE FIXED through gravitational bounds. (I think I got it right now anyhow.) Your link is explaining how a small cosmological constant only would change our size slightly and then reach equilibrium with the other forces acting on particles, however if we find out that Dark energy is phantom like then the acceleration of expansion will eventually accelerate exponentially and finally growing strong enough to literally rip atoms apart. It does not claim that the Universe is growing or that we are not shrinking in the way you seem to be insinuating.

I still don't think you are answering my question: Making the clumps bigger in a spherical shaped membrane which a lot of radomly distribiuted small clumps in it only describes the lumpiness of the context in the membrane and not its shape. If we look at the larges scale structure of cosmos that we can observe, then we can see a huge pattern of filaments, consisting of coalescening galaxies, through huge empty voids, the membrane of your shell should consists of this random cosmic web in a large woven around the sphere. So if these filaments would clump into something more massive and larger than we have ever seen, there would still have be several clumps spread around the center of the Universe. So how many "randomly distributed clumps" do you think the outer shell would coalesce into? If only two then they would make a bar shape, three would be make an Y-shape, four would make an tetrahedron, five would make an double tetrahedron, six would make an octahedron, eight could make an cube, twelve would look like an icosahedron and from there on they would be plenty enough to make a rough sphere. If there is some effect causing them to be located unsymmetrically, then this effect would also force them into a special pattern. Do you understand my question now? What geometrical shape does these clumps form together? I would guess your inner shell need to have an inner diameter at least the same size of the observable universe, 93 billion lightyears and a thickness also at least the diameter of the observable universe with an estimated 80 billion galaxies. That would give the inner shell an volume 26 times larger than the observable universe containing more than 2 000 billions galaxies. If you don't claim the outer shell to start out different, then it would contain an equal amount of mass and number of objects before coalescing. From the above estimate of the inner shell we know that the inside diameter of an outer shell must be at least 3 times 93 billion lightyears large, thus we can calculate a minimum surface area and if we consider matter to have been evently distributed at this distance and only coalesced with a speed below the speed of light since our observed bang, 14 billion years ago, then the minimum number of super massive objects would be 100 clumps. I would consider a swarm of 100 super massive clumps at approximately the same distance from their center of mass but otherwise randomly distribiuted around it, to be of roughly spherical shape.

"Although the bending of light can also be derived by extending the universality of free fall to light, the angle of deflection resulting from such calculations is only half the value given by general relativity." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity#Light_deflection_and_gravitational_time_delay

Well, I don't know if it's relevant or not but I want to return to my point here and try to explain it further. I do see your point, if we continue to use your cylinder then an observer in freefall straight down through its center will measure the diameter in front of him to be wider than the local diameter and the diameter behind to be narrower. As he falls down he will notice that when he reach a new location that he previously measured to be wider, that it now has shrinked to the value his last location had and when he looks back up he can see that the previously location now looks narrower than what it was when he was there. Yes, space and distances actually change for the moving observer. However and this is what I tried to say, for an distant observer looking at the freefaller in the cylinder, he views that space is not changing, instead it is the freefaller that changes. For the distant observer the curvature of space is already mapped out around the source of gravity and it is the freefaller that "morph" to fit in his current local space. Maybe I am nitpicking and arguing semantics, both observers are entitled to claim equal value of their views and for both of them the world follows the laws of nature as normal. But if you want to explain gravity from a distant perspective then you need to consider that from the distant view, space is more warped towards the source of gravity and the freefaller is subjected to the local warping when he gets submerged into it. A moving object actually change from the view of the distant observer. When you make distant space into local space by moving into it, would it make any difference if it's space that is changing or the objects?

You seem to be avoiding my question, I ask again, in what shape is the membrane of the shell containing these "super-SMBH's in non-uniform clumps distributed more randomly"? In Newton mechanics it is impossible to move the center of mass for a closed system, you need interactions from the outside of each Bang to accomplish that.

First I would like to know what part of my analogy is NOT correct according to what the expanding space states? In my analogy the person is fixed to the floor by gravity and friction and it is the "fabric" of the floor that is expanding. The analogy was only ment to show that the distance to any walls don't have to influence whether marks on the floor can recede from each other or not from the viewpoint of the observer. Secondly, since you seem to be arguing something entirely different than what I was trying to explain to jamiestem, I think you should mention that more clearly and not express yourself as you are presenting a valid argument against what I said. Your argument is totally irrelevant to whether the expansion of space is preventing any hypothetical infiniteness of the Universe or not. Lastly I think your interpretation that we are nailed to an expanding "fabric of space" is wrong. Can you provide a quote in context with a link to the full article where it's stated that "WE ARE FIXED" to the "fabric of space"?

Try to visualize than you and your meterstick are slowly shrinking inside a huge container, thus the distances you try to measure between marks on the floor is increasing, does it make any difference whether the container is finite or infinite since the walls of the container is not moving? "The metric expansion of space is the increase of distance between distant objects in the universe with time. It is an intrinsic expansion—that is, it is defined by the relative separation of parts of the universe and not by motion "outward" into preexisting space. In other words, the universe is not expanding "into" anything outside of itself." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space

Short of time, but I found the thread I was looking for: time dilation in gravitational potential what about distance?

Hmmm, ok lets see now, I said: "local time ticks slower deep down in the gravity well, for the local observer than for a distant observer". You said: "Local time ticks at a "normal" rate for all observers. Time ticks slower in a gravity well according to distant observers." Wikipedia says: "the lower the gravitational potential, the more slowly time passes." I don't understand, we all seem to be in agreement with each other, or??? Well I might be, maybe imatfaal or someone else have this knowledge and can confirm which way it is. Until then lets review my logic in a thought experiment: If you have a bar that is 299 792 458 meters long and place a blinking lightsource in one end and a mirror in the other, such that any observer will be able to see the lightsource flash and then the reflection in the mirror. Then they can measure the time it takes for the lightsignal to propagate across the bar. The bar is attached with wire to a winch under a spacecraft at very high altitude. One astronaut is placed locally on the bar with one clock and one ruler and a second astronaut with a clock and a telescope that stays on the spacecraft is given the task to observe the bar from distance. At a given signal the bar is lowered down into Earth's gravity field, as the bar gets closer to Earth it gets deeper down into the gravity well and therefore time ticks slower for the local bar riding observer according to the observer at the spacecraft. For the local observer on the bar 1 second takes 1 second and since the bar is 299 792 458 meters long according to his ruler he will always measure a 1 second long duration with his clock between the lightpulses from the lightsource and the mirror. The observer at the spacecraft looks through the telescope and confirms that according to the local clock, down on the bar, it takes 1 second between the lightpulses from the lightsource and the mirror, however according to his own clock it takes slightly more time, since the clock on the bar ticks slower. Since lightspeed is constant for all observers, the observer at the spacecraft concludes that the bar is expanding during the descent. I don't see any difference whether the bar and the observer originates at Earth and then the observer travels up to a distant location, or of they originates at the distant location and the bar travels down to Earth. In both cases the observer would measure a difference in the length of the bar. Yes, the notion of local is approximate and with precise enough equipment you would be able to notice the warping very close, so technically one side of a local thin line is warped towards a gravity source and the other side away from the source. As I understand your description I am unable to view it as an explanation of normal gravity interpreted from GR. Testparticles slightly favoring one direction due to random or oscillatory motion in curved space seems to me to be something else. I don't think you are predicting an difference from GR though and if there is an effect like this then it would be a different sideeffect of GR which I think should be much smaller than normal gravity, maybe to small to measure with current technological level of equipment. If the frequency of oscillations have influence would laserlights of different colors get separated by gravity? Maybe I am only nitpicking here but space is distorted by gravity and that doesn't change when observers move through those parts, it is the observer and his equipment that gets distorted equally so space appears flat.