AbnormallyHonest

Yes, it's called the "Principia Mathematica" by Sir Isaac Newton. If there were a gravitational concentration at our feet, would we feel that over the gravitational concentration of the moon? What if we moved closer to the moon? The moon's gravity would become the most influential gravitational force we experience. Now say that you move away from the Earth the Sun and even our Galaxy or the cluster of galaxies that it belongs to, how far would you have to move away from that cluster in order for the influence to move from your cluster to something further away? Perhaps the incomprehensible amount of "stuff" that exists "out there" in the Universe might make a "tug" on something once there was enough displacement from the gravity well of our super cluster. If there is one thing that people seem to agree upon, is that gravity does have a measurable effect which is transparent to an event horizon. So why would you assume that just because we are unable to see farther than the limit of light, that the gravity of everything that exists beyond that limit (horizon) wouldn't also have a measurable effect which would also be transparent to that horizon? Is it because we can't see the matter that may be causing the gravity? I believe that call that an event horizon. Yes, Newton did call it a Fluxion, the rate of change of Fluent. If you were to apply common sense, you would see that there is a limit to what we are able to see. At some displacement away from where we are, everything just goes black. There is no more light coming from those regions. Not only that, the closer that you get to those regions, the lower the energy gets of the light that we do receive. In fact the energy is stretched so far, that we suppose that the source of that light is actually "receding" at a _________ that exceeds "c". So please, tell me in that model that you are defending does the inclusion of more matter from further out become logical? Does the thunder produced from lightening have a finite displacement before it loses enough energy that it can no longer be heard? Or is the other side of the planet just not waiting long enough for the sound to arrive? And actually, that sound will make it's way all the way back again and continually amplify it's amplitude until it there is just nothing but thunder that can be heard everywhere over everything and it just continues to infinity. Why doesn't make sense? I mean sound has a finite velocity in air just like light, it also is subject to wave transformation, and the lightening's position remains static, and not receding. The sound would also be enclosed in the finite volume of the Earth's atmosphere... so why should we assume that the sound will stop at some point? That is basically what the current model suggests, that the entire observable universe is actually smaller than the estimated "age" because those distant objects are only estimated to have been displaced by the amount of recession they've experienced since the light began it's journey to us. That recession is calculated by the amount of "red shift" we see in the absorption lines of that light. There is actually no way to tell how far away they are because we do not have another perspective to measure parallax, and we have not been taking measurements for long enough to witness a change. Something that everyone seems to agree upon though is Einstein's Theory of General Relativity, which suggests that gravity has a warping effect on space-time. So if there is an infinite amount of "stuff" beyond where we can see, (or even a finite amount, but exponentially more than is observable) than isn't it logical that the warping effect towards that other "stuff" will begin to take precedence over the influence that the "stuff" contained at, around, or near us would be able to maintain?

Well, I'm glad you are beginning to join the discussion. If you can't decide why not have it be both finite and infinite? How about a finite view of an infinite Universe? Perhaps an infinite Universe with finite resolution might make you more comfortable. That would also be consistent with the quantum model which is also limited by some finite resolution.

Where does "rate of displacement" imply speed? Write out 100x "Rate of Displacement" the rate of change... I believe Newton called this a fuxion. Ok, then how did that matter come into existence, I mean if you believe in the "Big Bang"? You don't believe that there was a point during the evolution of the Universe that matter and energy were interchangeable?

Oh? How do you know that they are receding at more than the speed of light? Because they're red shift estimates that by now, they must be displacing at a rate that exceeds "c", but that says nothing of their rate of recession when the light originally began it's journey to us. Yes, we do see objects receding at more than the speed of light, it would be no different than seeing the light of an object transiting the event horizon of a black hole, from a light year away. Yes, you just saw an object that has been beyond an event horizon for a year. Take a minute to process that.

The problem is that our language is only an analogy of reality. Reality has more statistical existence as potential than what we perceive as real. An example of this would be that light exists as wave of potential that could render a photon in farm more locations than the one that we measure it at. Basically, the reality of the light we experience is only one small slice of the actual reality that exists. Once it is realized, it cannot be realized somewhere else. In fact it forces the entire path to reach that point to also be singular. No one else can see the same photon as you, so we must assume, the only things that are "real" cannot be perceived by anyone else. If we measure that light and create a representation of it's existence as data, then multiple people can be aware of it, but that data is only an analogy of that light, not the light itself. The reality we experience is only experienced by each person individually and language is the analogy that we use to share that perspective, to have it transcend what is "real" because "real" is only something that can happen singularly. Otherwise, two people could perceive the same object, with the same sentimental value, at two different locations. (If I lost my phone, it cannot be found by me and someone else simultaneously, because there is only one phone that is "real" to me in terms of sentimental value.) If two people perceive the same object simultaneously at different positions in space, than one of them would be delusional, yet if one person perceives something that no one else can see, why is that not considered more real than anything else? Language is the analogy to express experiences that cannot exist to anyone else. Our sensory input is an analogy to reality because if there were a sixth sense, or if we never developed a sense of smell, there would be no language to describe that. A common reality, or one that is shared among many conscious beings is really only a projection of similar experiences based on our ability to form analogous descriptions of them through communication. It is an analogy of the whole reality based on the input channels that we possess which are limited by an inability to experience anything else. Our brains form cohesion between senses, and our similar senses allow us to project experiences from one another as a simulation based on our own reality. Language is just one form of communication, but a common reality is just a simulation that maintains cohesion between intersecting perspectives.

It is no more speculative than the current accepted model. In that video you just had me watch, what were the facts, as far as science is concerned? That light has a constant speed, and would require that amount of time in order for it to travel from one location to another. What else? That objects viewed from the furthest distance from where we are, are "red shifted". Other than that, the entire video, including the explanation of how our view is increasing is nothing more than speculation, not even a very strong one. What scientific data exists that validates those claims other than the two that I've pointed out. If I can formulate an argument that proves the Universe is infinite based on nothing more than common sense, then why would I defer to irrational conjecture to disprove it. The only facts are the observations, not the explanations as to what caused the information to exist that way. If that were the case, the the scientific method would've never become secular, because we already had an explanation for everything we see. If you can prove to me that seeing light bent does not take a longer route to reach us than light that travels direct, and would've looked much different to another perspective had it traveled that direct route, I would believe that every point in space does not have a symmetrical view of the cosmos, and logic somehow escapes me. (The farthest object seen has also been bent in order to reach us. Which means that it is seen as the farthest because it is the most red shifted., but if shorten the length of that light to only be as long as all the direct beams of light we see at that limit, the point that it would've been perceived would've been slightly closer than we are. Therefore the whole limit of the Universe would have to be shifted slightly away from us to maintain symmetry of the distance to the limit of observation, e.g. that object should look farther away than anything else.) I wonder why the light would've had to been bent in order for us to see it so far away? Perhaps because our view is shrinking, but that light made it to point that is currently viewable and then altered to head toward us, because without the manipulation, it would be just as dark as everything else at that distance. Do you believe that our view will someday add viewable matter at the same distance of that farthest galaxy, but will be less "red shifted" than that galaxy? Or would it be more logical to assume that we were once able to see objects that distant, but they recessed into darkness, and that one object retained it's viewability because of a gravitational catalyst that granted us a "closer" view? I do not believe this thread belongs in speculations.

No, space is being stretch away from us at a rate that exceeds "c". Where else does that theoretically happen? It seems like a horizon of sorts, since we cannot see past it... Yes that would make sense, because I read somewhere that gravity is inversely proportionate to the square of the distance. Things that are local are much further away from the limit of viewability and much closer to the objects that they are bound. I mean that is why the earth doesn't revolve around the galactic center, but rather the sun instead. That doesn't necessarily mean that the sun has more gravity than the whole of the galaxy, does it? The disparity of baryon matter to anti-matter. If it 1 there is one extra particle of baryon matter for every 40,000,000,000 particles created, I would say that this Universe that we see is about 1/40,000,000,000th of all the matter that existed at one time. There may not be an "edge" but there is a limit. Space is stretching away from us which is inversely proportionate to the square of the distance. (Law of squares applies as the area represented by the "limit" of what is observable.) Basically, if the Universe is infinite and always was, distance isn't how far two points are away from one another, but how large your view is. The surface area of the "edge" of the Universe represents it's distance away from us, but to what scale, I'm not sure.

Well, it would be pulling in every direction uniformly because the distribution of matter is pretty consistent, at least within our view of the Universe. There is uneven distribution at smaller resolutions which forms clustering, but consistently filled with matter from every direction. So from beyond of what is observable, there would be consistently the same distribution of matter in all directions and would harbor much more gravity as pulling towards the outside of the Universe than pulling in. This would explain why we see a relative expansion of space, because it is stretching towards the stronger gravity, which just happens to be all around us. Also, it would explain the clustering without the inclusion of DM because the gravity that pulls outward is inversely proportionate to the square of the distance from the mean gravitational center. So the gravity from objects near to one another would have more influence to resist that outward pull, but that outward pull would become more prevalent the farther you view from your perspective and less prevalent the further you removed yourself from it. Ironic that the farthest away that you could be from that gravitational infinity that exists beyond observation is...? Somewhere nearby I'm sure.

Aren't those objects, that are furthest away from us, moving away from us at an ever increasing rate? I agree, I believe the matter we see is finite, I would estimate about 1/40,000,000,000th of all the matter that once existed. Unless space is infinite and matter is not, then matter would be indistinguishable from space. It might exist as one block of infinity that was so compact that nothing would've been able to move until space became "more infinite" than the matter. Just speculating of course.

LOL, have you watched this video? Yes, much of it makes sense, but it is hinging on the premise that our view of the Universe is actually increasing... I think you're missing the point of this thread. Of course that video would contradict this thread, because my thread contradicts the conventional wisdom. That's like implying that there can never be new ideas, because old ideas are better, and prove it because they different than other ideas. Trust me, I get your argument. My argument is, listen to that incoherent explanation of how we see the Universe from this distance, but at that speed, because of that age. Do you realize that the whole idea of that video is just a way to explain an increasing view of the Universe based on the information that we already have. That seems like a lot of back tracking just to try to conform to one idea. To take new information and continuously try to "make it fit" to an old idea, why not come up with a new idea, that is more logical, and doesn't need to invent new ideas just to explain the old ones. At what point do the theories that are required to maintain "accepted" theories become speculative, based on nothing more than our acceptance of the theory they're trying to validate. I apologize, I suppose I'm getting into a bit of a philosophical debate now, but I appreciate your point. Thank you.

So you're suggesting that the furthest objects out that are seen, produced their light around 13.8 billion years ago, but now appear to us from 48 billion light years away? Or are you just projecting where those objects should be now, according to the "red shift". If the Universe is 13.8 billion years old, than the light of the furthest objects out there originated 13.8 billion years ago. To imply that it is much larger due to the red shift is speculative. The diameter of the Observable Universe is 27.4 billion light years in diameter, and the red shift of the light from that far out suggests that the objects that produced the light have since translated the light of the known spectrum to a different wavelength. That would now place those objects at around 48 billion light years from Earth, but that are not observed at those distances, just estimated as a way to explain the difference in the spectral absorption versus the absorption of matter to light that originated more locally. From the conventional model of an expanding Universe, we can only see light that has been given enough to time to reach us, limiting the viewability of the Universe as directly proportionate to it's age. The only way you'd be able to observe a Universe that was 96 Billion light years in diameter is if that view and our current view were somehow included within viewability that is directly proportionate to it's age. To include the 96 billion light year diameter, you'd have to exclude the fact that our view of the Universe is increasing.

No, not for a living. I don't believe in profiting from the sharing of ideas. That would be like charging a fee because you can see the sky. Actually this model of the Universe as described here is completely consistent with every scientific fact and/or data used to compose the standard model of the Universe, only this model reduces the amount of paradox and is less incoherent. The Observable Universe is around 96 billion light years in diameter? So from the conventional model that would mean the Universe is 48 billion years old, considering that light had to traverse space to reach us. Is that what you mean?

A better question might be if there is this DE that pushes, and DM that pulls, then why aren't they just cumulative and cancel each other out until there is only one left. It would be like saying that 2+2=4 is actually 2+(9x9)-79=4 kind of...

If it is theorized that the Universe is infinite and matter exists throughout all of it. Doesn't that mean that there is more matter that we cannot see than matter that we can? If this is true, than there should be more gravity pulling outward from every direction, and therefore fueling the expansion.

So are you suggesting that light we see of the Universe from 13 billion light years away only represents 1/8 of it's present size? So the size of the actual Universe today is about 8x the size of it at 26 billion light years in diameter? At 13 billion light years away, isn't that the state of the Universe 13 billion years ago? This was something that I suggested on this forum once. I suggested that according to Newton, all mass has a mean gravitational center that is the average of all the constituents that make it up. That being said, the entire Universe must have a mean gravitational center, and from our symmetrical view of it, we would be at or very near to that gravitational center. If this is true, than any light from us moving outward would also be subject to that gravitational well, possibly producing a red shift of the sun's light the farther out it is seen from us. The same would be true of light that originated 13 billion light years away because it would be emanating from the mean gravitational center of it's perspective of the Universe.

This is true, but would it matter if the atmosphere formed around another star, or just the same star. If it were not a binary star system, but perhaps just another source of hydrogen that fueled the atmosphere of the Sun after it burned out once. I'm only suggesting that there must've been some gravitational convergence that would've caused the atypical structure of our solar system as opposed to those we observe elsewhere. Even if it were a gas giant, or a failed star that would've merged with the Sun after it was a red giant, it would account for why it returned to it's main sequence. Even if that larger gas giant was absorbed by the Red Giant, it would've cause the collapse by providing more fuel for the hydrogen fusion process, and restarting the main sequence life cycle again and leaving the heavier elements of the inner planets and average the elliptical orbits of those bodies. I would argue that a white dwarf is the core of a red giant once all the fuel of its atmosphere was burned out, but the fusion that makes it inflated and "red" is a helium process, not a hydrogen one. Reintroducing hydrogen into the system would revert the red giant back to a hydrogen fusing star, or would hide the core in a shroud of hydrogen fusion. It would only blow out into a nova if the gravity prevented the release of energy. This would prevent a stasis between kinetic energy an density. If it collapses to a point that gravity does not allow this stasis, the potential energy will build until there is a runaway release of kinetic energy, which we call supernovae. That is the current rate of luminosity increase. The increase is due to the fact that the fusion process produces heavier elements than the lighter elements that fueled them. These elements are denser and heavier and fall to the core. As the core become composed more of the heavier waste, it becomes denser. As it shrinks, it allows the fusing portion of the atmosphere to become closer to the center mass, which would cause it to be within a stronger gravitational field. This process shrinks the volume of the a star over time, and that compression is what causes the increase in luminosity. This is a progressive process, and as it continues to change its makeup, the greater the rate of change. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Solar_evolution_(English).svg#/media/File:Solar_evolution_(English).svg

I am not implying that the Universe is shrinking, only that our view of it is. The reason for our narrowing view is due to the expansion, which is why it does not get hotter. There would be a CMB, because it should in fact be out of our view as well, but since radio waves could travel through space before light could, that radiation was able to move to a region of space that is still viewable to us. Originally, I believe that the distance we see the CMB and the distance we see the furthest objects were the same, but due to the expansion, we lost viewablity of some of the objects whose light left toward our direction after their rate of displacement exceeded the speed of light. I believe the displacement of the CMB would remain static, but we will continue to see a reduction in energy over time as the regions of space that are still viewable are reduced. I believe our view of the cosmos would've began with a diameter of 96 billion light years and is narrowing. Not the Universe itself, just our view of it. Well actually, I'm only suggesting a finite view of the Universe that may have once been an infinite view. It would've expanded from a singular point... and that point would be every point simultaneously. It didn't start "smaller" it actually began as infinite, and that view would've been infinite, and that's why I mentioned "Oblers's Paradox. You are suggesting "expansion" of an infinite Universe... how do you make something infinite, "more" infinite? You wouldn't, just decrease the finite view of it.

Yes, the radius of the Observable Universe is about 13.8 billion years giving it a diameter of about 27.4 billion years. The diameter of the CMB is around 96 billion years. I am not implying any type of reflection, only that the Observable Universe began around 96 billion light years in diameter and has been shrinking to the volume that we currently see today.

We see the sphere of the Universe 27.4 billion light years in diameter. If we were to perceive the Universe from the edge of that sphere, we would likely see almost the same exact picture of the cosmos, and the location of the first perception would be at the edge of that sphere. This could continue over and over again, creating an awareness of an infinite Universe. If this is true, then logic also implies that there is more of the Universe that is beyond our ability to observe than is contained within that sphere of observation. There are more points in space that are moving away from us at a speed that exceeds the speed of light than points that do not. This would also be indicative of an expanding Universe. If we believe that the Universe is expanding, then no matter how slow that expansion, with enough displacement, two points in space will logically be separating at a rate that exceeds the speed of light. The start of that expansion was also the transition from infinity to finite. At the moment of the “Big Bang” matter and energy were so compact that light did not have the freedom to move. This would be Olbers’s Universe. The period of “inflation” was actually that transition of infinite to finite. This was the moment measurement became possible, because space inflated so fast, it reduced that infinity to finite by displacing points away from one another at a rate that exceeded “c” until light had room to breathe. As space continuously expands, it will continuously reduce our perception of the Observable Universe as the light shifts to the red and into darkness. If the passage of time were to allow for the inclusion of more light from further out, shouldn’t we expect a shift back towards the blue that would negate that progressive loss of energy? The darkness represents the precibus between observability and space that is moving away from us at a rate that exceeds the speed of light. The edge of the Universe will move towards us as our view progressively narrows. I would hypothesize that our view of the cosmos has been reduced by the difference between the volume contained within the sphere of the Cosmic Microwave Background, and the volume of the observable Universe we see today. The difference represents the age of the Universe from the inception of measurement to where our narrowing view has progressed to now. Our ability to view the thermodynamic state of the Universe from that early on is the result of the transparency of matter to radio waves. They were able to progress to a region of space that is currently viewable prior to the inflation that released the movement light. If this continues, eventually observation will be reduced to only one point in space. The edge of the Universe will intersect the boundary of the Planck Length and the Universe will be infinite potential… Olbers’s Universe once again.

Yes, exactly. Although, I was not aware that the idea that matter and energy has been changed to be more evenly distributed... I mean if they should all be exactly the same distance from us.

I think of the CMB as just the background echo from the expansion "inflation" of the Big Bang. That's why I don't see it as having a source or distance away from us, it's just everywhere and has varying "degrees" of energy. And what does that energy tell us about the distribution of energy and matter at the beginning of measurement? That things were unevenly distributed. So, if the current theories are accepted, that there may be black holes aat the root of of quasars... so an unevenly distributed Universe with packets of gravity stronger than the inflation, couldn't preserve portions of the Big Bang in little pockets that might look something like quasars?

I just always assumed that's what they were. As you look out at the Universe at large, eventually you come to a place that we are unable to see beyond. A resonant block. This is not only the farthest out we can see, not only the furthest back we can peer, but also the "smallest" form of the expanding Universe... but at that far out, the sphere of view has the largest area? So if you were the "Big Bang" what do you think your little singularity of creation would look as the view of it became the most inflated perception of the entire Universe we are capable of perceiving.... I always thought it was understood it might look something like a quasar... and they'd probably be all over the outer reaches of the Observable Universe. I mean even if they once were all connected and represented the whole of existence, I suppose the fractal expansion of space would break up the view and eventually diminish their apparent capacity, not because they shrunk, but because they just became less proportionate to a larger expanding Universe. Well, at least that's what I always thought.

Yes... so how does electron degenerate matter fuse? I always hate it when I order white wine and they bring red.

I would argue that their rotation and revolution are not at random. As you said they are a direct result of the rotation of the accretion disk prior to their formation. The rotation would be a direct conversion of the rotation of the disk into angular momentum with respect to the density of the object during the accretion process. Think of a figure skater tucking in her arms while doing a spin. Ironically enough, almost every moon in the solar system is effected by some tidal mechanism, it's just their way. Therefore, I would hypothesize a tidal lock is associated for a body revolving around a revolving body. e.g. the most dependent gravitational body, and hence the most vulnerable to a resonant oscillation. The tidal lock is probably due to the differing forces acting on the smaller body and effecting it's mean gravitational center. I'm not sure that the disparity in the gravitational force alone would be enough to transfer momentum so rapidly... at least not at an appreciable distance. Otherwise, we should assume all the planets should be tidally locked to the sun, which isn't true, even for the closest planets.

Really? It has to do with freeing the nuclei of the electrons which increases the density and actually reduces the actual kinetic energy and harbors it as potential instead. Basically, the energy that would have been expressed as heat, it is the pressure that prevent the nuclei from collapsing into a denser form of matter (neutrons). I believe this can also halt the fusion process under certain conditions. Oh, or it because it runs out of fuel. This is also the base limit, which is not considerate of rotation. That would be like measuring the excitement of a merry-go-round while only at rest. Another thing to consider is that both the stars combined only have a grand total of exactly 1 solar mass. Also, another thought is that we've only really been able to look at one star up close, and if we have gotten it wrong about it's makeup or density, than that could change our entire understanding of star formation and life cycles as a whole. If you look at a list of stars in our local group, and only look at the stars between 1-2 solar masses, you'll find that except for the ones that are dwarf stars or non-hydrogen fusing stars, almost all are less dense than our star, but all of them more massive. Also, it is theorized that the core of the Sun extends to about 20-25% of its entire diameter at an average of 5x the density of water... and the plasma layer that follows is 1/6000 the density of air at sea level? A smaller denser core made of something else would do a lot to soften that ratio between the density of matter of the same type. Also, the core of the Sun progressively exerts an increasing gravitational force on the surface due to the fact that the lighter elements are less dense than the heavier elements they become. As the core shrinks, its density increases, displacing the distribution of mass as being closer to the mean gravitational center. This actually causes the sun to have an increase in it's luminosity of about ~1% per year. Sorry, don't mean to bore you with trivial facts, but it just seems logical to assume that there might a smaller denser core at the foundation of all these processes? ...or maybe I should just try to get a photo of Bigfoot?