Oscillating Infinity (Revised)

[AbnormallyHonest]

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.

Edited June 26, 2017 by AbnormallyHonest

[beecee]

We see the sphere of the Universe 27.4 billion light years in diameter.

I don't believe that is correct. You have not allowed for expansion over the period of 13.8 billion years since the BB.

The universe from memory is around 96 billion L/years in diameter.

[Mordred]

I'm sorry try as I might I'm really having trouble making sense of the rest of your post.

 

You seem to be stating beyond a certain point we see reflections of our observable universe is that correct?

 

I really can't make any sense on how your describing recessive velocity. Which is not an actual velocity but an observer dependant calculation based on Hubble law.

 

"The greater the seperation distance, the greater the recessive velocity" [latex] v=H_o d[/latex].

 

Light has no issue with recessive velocity greater than c. Thats because at the location of the light beam heading towards us there is no recessive velocity. The greater than c value is from our location. Not the light beams current location.

 

Use the formula above, what is the recessive velocity from the lead edge of the lightbeam to next distance increment the lightbeam could transverse in the next second?

 

You will find light doesn't care about our measure of recessive velocity from Earth to its location as it doesn't apply to the lightbeams leading edge location.

 

Just a little side note on the above formula [latex] H_o[/latex] is the Hubble value today not the past. Today it is roughly 70 km/s/Mpc it is actually decreasing since time of CMB. At z=1100 the rate of expansion per Mpc was roughly

 

1,555,948.1664 km/s/Mpc. based on using the 67.9km/s/Mpc value today given by the Planck 2013 dataset values.

 

Let me know if anyone is interested in how I calculated that value lol.

 

Anyways two points 1 Mpc apart would seperate faster in the past than that same distance would seperate today. The greater than c value doesn't apply till you have a separation distance of roughly 4400 Mpc to an observer. Yet once again 4400 Mpc would seperate faster in the past than today.

 

 

So why do we state expansion is accelerating. It is because your measuring size of observable universe which keeps growing so you are multiplying a greater number of [latex]H_o[/latex] by a growing seperation distance.

Edited June 26, 2017 by Mordred

[Strange]

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.

 

 

This is true. But it is also true for a finite universe. We have no way of knowing if the universe is finite or infinite.

 

 

 

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.

 

This is known to be true. (And saying it is indicative of an expanding universe is a circular argument (i.e. begging the question) because you start by assuming speed increases with distance.

 

 

 

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.

 

No. Olber's paradox applies to a universe that is infinite but static. Expansion does away with Olber's paradox.

 

 

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.

 

That doesn't seem to make much sense.

 

 

[AbnormallyHonest]

I don't believe that is correct. You have not allowed for expansion over the period of 13.8 billion years since the BB.

The universe from memory is around 96 billion L/years in diameter.

 

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.

 

 

 

This is true. But it is also true for a finite universe. We have no way of knowing if the universe is finite or infinite.

 

We have light from the near the edge of the Universe that has been bent from gravitational lensing. That light, if it had traveled linearly, would've been shorter, and been viewable from a different location, but would be seen exactly as we see it now. That would mean, that from a different perspective, the view would potentially be the same, provided there was no bending. That would mean the view of the Observable Universe is symmetrical from every point in space... which would imply an infinite Universe, but with finite resolution.

 

 

This is known to be true. (And saying it is indicative of an expanding universe is a circular argument (i.e. begging the question) because you start by assuming speed increases with distance.

 

Not speed, but rather, the rate of displacement. The farther two points are from one another, the more space between them. As that space expands, the accumulation of it increases the rate of displacement between those points.

 

No. Olber's paradox applies to a universe that is infinite but static. Expansion does away with Olber's paradox.

 

Olbers's argument was that if the Universe was infinite and static, that we should have an overwhelming amount of light when we look up at the night sky... in fact, an infinite amount of it. The Universe would only exist as infinite light... the paradox is that it does not.

 

 

That doesn't seem to make much sense.

 

If there was so much contained within the Universe at the beginning and everything was so compressed together, that light did not have an ability to move freely, how would you create space for the light to move? Possibly by expanding the space that contained everything? How fast would it have to be expanding in order to free light... light that travels at light speed?

 

I'm sorry try as I might I'm really having trouble making sense of the rest of your post.

 

You seem to be stating beyond a certain point we see reflections of our observable universe is that correct?

 

No that is not what I'm saying, I don't believe I mention reflections anywhere.

 

I really can't make any sense on how your describing recessive velocity. Which is not an actual velocity but an observer dependant calculation based on Hubble law.

 

"The greater the seperation distance, the greater the recessive velocity" [latex] v=H_o d[/latex].

 

Light has no issue with recessive velocity greater than c. Thats because at the location of the light beam heading towards us there is no recessive velocity. The greater than c value is from our location. Not the light beams current location.

 

I agree, the light would in fact travel toward us, from the lights location, but that location would be being displaced from us a rate that exceeds "c". There would be no issue, only if the light originated before that rate exceeded "c" and then exceeded it. Originating from a point that is already exceeding "c" would in fact move toward us absolutely, but the amount of space between us would increase faster than the light would be able to cross it. (Think of a mouse walking on your hands as you keep crossing them over. The mouse is definitely moving from it's perspective, but it doesn't get any closer to the edge of your hands.)

 

Use the formula above, what is the recessive velocity from the lead edge of the lightbeam to next distance increment the lightbeam could transverse in the next second?

 

You will find light doesn't care about our measure of recessive velocity from Earth to its location as it doesn't apply to the lightbeams leading edge location.

 

Just a little side note on the above formula [latex] H_o[/latex] is the Hubble value today not the past. Today it is roughly 70 km/s/Mpc it is actually decreasing since time of CMB. At z=1100 the rate of expansion per Mpc was roughly

 

1,555,948.1664 km/s/Mpc. based on using the 67.9km/s/Mpc value today given by the Planck 2013 dataset values.

 

Let me know if anyone is interested in how I calculated that value lol.

 

Anyways two points 1 Mpc apart would seperate faster in the past than that same distance would seperate today. The greater than c value doesn't apply till you have a separation distance of roughly 4400 Mpc to an observer. Yet once again 4400 Mpc would seperate faster in the past than today.

 

 

So why do we state expansion is accelerating. It is because your measuring size of observable universe which keeps growing so you are multiplying a greater number of [latex]H_o[/latex] by a growing seperation distance.

 

We say the rate of expansion is increasing because there is no shift of the light back towards to blue to return the energy that is progressively bleeding from the light that causes the red shift. In order to account for the fact that our view is increasing, it is assumed that the red shift must be reduced by expanding space at closer distances, thereby increasing the rate of the expansion which is calculated as an acceleration. The problem with this idea is that is only necessary if your assuming your increasing your view of an expanding volume. A shrinking view of an expanding volume resolves this discrepancy and acceleration is not longer required.

Edited June 26, 2017 by AbnormallyHonest

[Mordred]

If the universe is shrinking. It would be getting hotter not colder over time.

 

The thermodynamic gas laws still apply. This is actually the biggest evidence of an expanding universe.

 

Everyone assumes it is the cosmological redshift. So they typically look at redefining how redshift works.

 

Under what your describing above there would also be no CMB.

Edited June 26, 2017 by Mordred

[Silvestru]

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.

 

 

So you are saying that the "edge of the universe" is 96 billion light years away? And what's more, it's shrinking? I don't know what the opposite of the word science is but you are displaying it now.

 

 

If there was so much contained within the Universe at the beginning and everything was so compressed together, that light did not have an ability to move freely, how would you create space for the light to move? Possibly by expanding the space that contained everything? How fast would it have to be expanding in order to free light... light that travels at light speed?

 

The universe did not expand from that singular point in order to set light free. By expanding the space you are suggesting a finite universe right?

 

Why can't the universe be infinite and just the distance between objects is increasing?

Please quote properly AbnormallyHonest as it's a bit difficult. I mean just by reading I can clearly tell the difference between what Mordred said and what you say but still...

[Mordred]

Thanks I missed that on my first read lol.

[Strange]

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.

 

 

No, it started much smaller and expanded. That is what "expansion" means.

 

 

 

We have light from the near the edge of the Universe that has been bent from gravitational lensing.

 

There is no edge.

 

And if there were an edge, the universe would be finite, not infinite, contradicting your initial claim.

 

 

 

Olbers's argument was that if the Universe was infinite and static, that we should have an overwhelming amount of light when we look up at the night sky... in fact, an infinite amount of it. The Universe would only exist as infinite light... the paradox is that it does not.

 

Exactly. That is why it is irrelevant. I'm not sure why you mentioned it.

 

 

 

If there was so much contained within the Universe at the beginning and everything was so compressed together, that light did not have an ability to move freely, how would you create space for the light to move? Possibly by expanding the space that contained everything? How fast would it have to be expanding in order to free light... light that travels at light speed?

 

Expansion is not a speed, it is a scaling effect. The speed of separation of any two points is, as you stated earlier, proportional to their distance.

 

It took about 380,000 years for the universe to expand and cool enough to become transparent to light.

 

You seem to have some very confused ideas about cosmology...

[AbnormallyHonest]

If the universe is shrinking. It would be getting hotter not colder over time.

 

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.

Under what your describing above there would also be no CMB.

 

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.

 

So you are saying that the "edge of the universe" is 96 billion light years away? And what's more, it's shrinking? I don't know what the opposite of the word science is but you are displaying it now.

 

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.

 

The universe did not expand from that singular point in order to set light free. By expanding the space you are suggesting a finite universe right?

 

Why can't the universe be infinite and just the distance between objects is increasing?

 

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.

 

 

No, it started much smaller and expanded. That is what "expansion" means.

 

 

There is no edge.

 

And if there were an edge, the universe would be finite, not infinite, contradicting your initial claim.

 

 

Exactly. That is why it is irrelevant. I'm not sure why you mentioned it.

 

 

Expansion is not a speed, it is a scaling effect. The speed of separation of any two points is, as you stated earlier, proportional to their distance.

 

It took about 380,000 years for the universe to expand and cool enough to become transparent to light.

 

You seem to have some very confused ideas about cosmology...

 

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.

Edited June 28, 2017 by AbnormallyHonest

[beecee]

 

 

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.

 

 

 

Do you write fairy tales for a living?

I mean really, that is a load of codswallop...we have zero evidence to support anything like that, and no reason at all to believe in such fairy tales.

Again the observable universe is around 96 billion L/years in diameter.

Edited June 28, 2017 by beecee

[AbnormallyHonest]

Do you write fairy tales for a living?

I mean really, that is a load of codswallop...we have zero evidence to support anything like that, and no reason at all to believe in such fairy tales.

Again the observable universe is around 96 billion L/years in diameter.

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?

[Silvestru]

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.

 

Can you please present this (non-existent) data? Can you apply this data to your idea and explain please. Also It has been mentioned by Strange in another thread:

 

 

Again... space is expanding faster than the speed of light.

I urge you to watch this video before replying.

 

Don't concentrate on the actual numbers given just the general idea.

[AbnormallyHonest]

 

Can you please present this (non-existent) data? Can you apply this data to your idea and explain please. Also It has been mentioned by Strange in another thread:

 

 

Again... space is expanding faster than the speed of light.

I urge you to watch this video before replying.

 

Don't concentrate on the actual numbers given just the general idea.

 

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.

Edited June 28, 2017 by AbnormallyHonest

[Silvestru]

 

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.

 

Can you please supply any base for your ideas?

Any real data? How can I accept your "new groundbreaking" idea without any arguments/proof/study. It's like me saying that Magical Unicorns were having tea and one dropped a biscuit from such a big distance that it Caused the Big Bang. I bet you cannot disprove that, it's just highly unlikely.

 

No one is trying to make anything fit to an old idea. I am just more tempted to believe countless validated data more than your baseless speculation.(Section in Which this should be move to).

[AbnormallyHonest]

 

Can you please supply any base for your ideas?

Any real data? How can I accept your "new groundbreaking" idea without any arguments/proof/study. It's like me saying that Magical Unicorns were having tea and one dropped a biscuit from such a big distance that it Caused the Big Bang. I bet you cannot disprove that, it's just highly unlikely.

 

No one is trying to make anything fit to an old idea. I am just more tempted to believe countless validated data more than your baseless speculation.(Section in Which this should be move to).

 

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.

Edited June 28, 2017 by AbnormallyHonest

[Silvestru]

If the universe is shrinking. It would be getting hotter not colder over time.

 

The thermodynamic gas laws still apply. This is actually the biggest evidence of an expanding universe.

 

Everyone assumes it is the cosmological redshift. So they typically look at redefining how redshift works.

 

Under what your describing above there would also be no CMB.

 

Ok let's go back to basics. Mordred disproved your gibberish a few posts ago. AH, please explain to me what do you mean the view is shrinking?

[Strange]

 

It is no more speculative than the current accepted model.

 

 

The current model is just that: a mathematical model based on well-tested physics.

 

You seem to have some vague fairy tales based on a confused understanding of physics.

 

I'll stick with the science, thanks.

 

 

 

I do not believe this thread belongs in speculations.

 

You could ask the mods to move it to Trash, if you think that is a better fit. There certainly isn't any science here.

 

I am not implying that the Universe is shrinking, only that our view of it is.

 

The observable universe is increasing in size: the cosmological horizon is receding and, in future, more galaxies will be visible.

 

https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310808

[beecee]

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.

 

My apologies....I was being facetious.

 

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.

 

 

 

If that were/was the case, You would be in line for a Nobel.

In reality, while you may have a "model" it is not a scientific model. and appears to be a muddle of ad hoc ideas you have dreamed up, [under some paranoid pretext of being able to think for yourself] without one iota of observational or experimental data.

 

 

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?

No, no no! I have mentioned it now in various posts and threads, that the 96 L/years diameter is because and a result of spacetime expansion.

It has nothing to do with how old the universe is, which is still 13.83 billion years.

 

Really, do your self a favour......get hold of some reputable book on cosmology, by a reputable author, or check out some reputable scientific papers from "arXiv" and you may become aware of the models that physicists have adopted, why they have adopted those models, the observational and experimental data that lead to those models, and the myriad of space probes and 'scopes, both Earth based and space based, that discovered such data...state of the art equipement like COBE, WMAP, Planck, HST, Chandra, Spitzer, and many more.

Then you may see that cosmologists/astrophysicists and scientists in general, do not just drag our present incumbent models out of their butt.

Edited June 28, 2017 by beecee

[AbnormallyHonest]

 

Ok let's go back to basics. Mordred disproved your gibberish a few posts ago. AH, please explain to me what do you mean the view is shrinking?

 

What I mean is that if the Universe began with an infinite view, like there was no disparity in the distribution of matter and energy within space, that space itself was indiscernible from anything else. Once space began it's expansion, and there were points in space that began receding from one another at a rate that exceeded "c", it began to separate space from everything else. This is what allowed light to move freely. I would argue that objects with a recession greater than "c" are viewable, but only as red shifted light, because the light actually began its journey toward us when its recession was less than "c". We see those objects "stretched" to farther distances, but we do not see anything past that. I would reason that is because the points farther than those farthest objects were receding at rates greater than "c" and as time goes on, since we all agree that there is this expansion of space, that more and more points will have recessions greater than "c". This would mean that only light that began its way toward us before that inflection in recession will be viewable, so as there are less points that are able to emit light in our direction as time moves forward, so will our ability to see certain objects.

 

The light we see from the objects receding at a rate that exceeds "c" that is leaving right now, at this moment will never reach us. As we can see the light that it emitted in the past and in the future we will not be able to see them, I would say that our view must be shrinking.

 

 

The current model is just that: a mathematical model based on well-tested physics.

 

You seem to have some vague fairy tales based on a confused understanding of physics.

 

How did that mathematical model formulate? Well, they had a theory that seemed to make sense to everybody, that light requires a certain amount of time to travel to us, so that must mean the more time the Universe exists the more we should be able to see=(Was Logical). Great, makes a lot of sense, only we started actually collecting data at it seemed things were a lot weirder than we had anticipated. There was this expansion going on, and red shifting and recession and all this stuff... so now we need to create a mathematical model:

 

This data + That Data = (Was Logical) only wait, that doesn't work out?

 

This data(incoherence) + That Data(illogical) = (Was Logical)... Ok, everyone agrees.

 

I'm only suggesting that:

 

This Data + That Data = (Is Logical) I feel it might reduce some of the "Huh?"

 

Here, this might help.

 

The observable universe is increasing in size: the cosmological horizon is receding and, in future, more galaxies will be visible.

 

https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310808

 

Yes, I understand the generally accepted model, but that link you provided of course will validate the conventional model, because it used the conventional model as the premise to apply the data.

 

There is no data that what you're saying has any real hard data to back it up. Have we been seeing actual galaxies, from farther away start to appear? Unless you can show me that data, I would say your argument is no less speculative that mine, only my argument utilizes the same data and builds an model from the ground up that reduces a huge amount of paradox. The only argument that I can seem to generate is that I'm wrong because people have already designed an elaborate mathematical symphony in order to validate an idea that was accepted prior to the availability of the data we have now.

My apologies....I was being facetious.

 

If that were/was the case, You would be in line for a Nobel.

In reality, while you may have a "model" it is not a scientific model. and appears to be a muddle of ad hoc ideas you have dreamed up, [under some paranoid pretext of being able to think for yourself] without one iota of observational or experimental data.

 

Well at least its not sarcasm... No I don't believe I would be, because they've already given out those prizes for applying the same data to other speculative models. If you can give one piece of scientific, mathematical, or observational data, that is purely fact and not created from the assumption that "someday we might be able to see more stuff, but for now we're just going to assume that it's true" then I will cede the point.

 

Remember we haven't actually seen anything move, we've only inferred from data that it looks like it has been in a state of movement, but none of that data has actually observed a change in view or things moving away from us. There is nothing that you could say to me that would make the accepted model less speculative than the one I present. In fact, I would say that my model is actually stronger because it doesn't require as many subordinate theories in order to backtrack the validation of the accepted model.

 

The earth was the center of the solar system... how many convoluted models were constructed in order to explain retrograde motion of planets?

No, no no! I have mentioned it now in various posts and threads, that the 96 L/years diameter is because and a result of spacetime expansion.

It has nothing to do with how old the universe is, which is still 13.83 billion years.

 

Really, do your self a favour......get hold of some reputable book on cosmology, by a reputable author, or check out some reputable scientific papers from "arXiv" and you may become aware of the models that physicists have adopted, why they have adopted those models, the observational and experimental data that lead to those models, and the myriad of space probes and 'scopes, both Earth based and space based, that discovered such data...state of the art equipement like COBE, WMAP, Planck, HST, Chandra, Spitzer, and many more.

Then you may see that cosmologists/astrophysicists and scientists in general, do not just drag our present incumbent models out of their butt.

 

One question, if the Universe is 13.8 billion years old, and the current model explains that our view of the Universe is expanding with respect to time, then why do we not see any light that originated 13.8 billion years ago? The light we see at the furthest out began it's journey to us around 5 billion years ago but took another 8.8 billion years to recede to 48 billion light years away. So from 5 billion years ago to 13.8 billion years ago, why have we not see anything else pop into view

 

Because you are going to tell me that it took 13.8 billion years to reach us, even though it left from only 5 billion light years away, yet in your same argument you would say that recession would never stop the progression of light toward us. So you've slowed the progress of light by 8.8 billion years, from 5 billion light years away. The cumulative expansion of space actually reduced the speed of light, and you would still defend the idea that light from farther away will still eventually reach us... indefinitely?

 

The problem here is everyone thinks that I do not understand the current model... and you are absolutely correct, and I believe it is the fact that you do which prevents you from understanding (see signature quote).

 

 

*One more question to anyone that would answer, if the light from 5 billion light years away takes 13.8 billion years to reach us, that would mean that light from 6 billion light years away would take much longer to reach us and so on. Do you no see that at some point, since the amount of time to reach us increases exponentially in relation to the distance rather than directly proportionate that it would not always be progressive?

 

At some point the amount of added time to reach us would be infinitely compounding. The amount of space being created would exceed the amount it could be reduced by the movement toward us? Have any of you ever calculated infinitely compounding interest?

Edited June 29, 2017 by AbnormallyHonest

[beecee]

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.

Rubbish..... The expansion of the universe/spacetime, applies to our observable universe that evolved from the BB.

 

 

What I mean is ....

 

 

Actually evidence so far points to you not knowing what you mean or what others are trying to tell you, along with completely ignoring the evidence supporting the incumbent model, in favour of your own unsupported speculative imagination.

 

 

 

Well at least its not sarcasm... No I don't believe I would be, because they've already given out those prizes for applying the same data to other speculative models. If you can give one piece of scientific, mathematical, or observational data, that is purely fact and not created from the assumption that "someday we might be able to see more stuff, but for now we're just going to assume that it's true" then I will cede the point.

 

Being a newbie, I was trying to be kind...actually due to the nonsensical nature of much of what you are saying, I'm actually reading very little of it. But yeah, as I said before, forums such as this are open to all and any rubbish and agenda they wish to push. It makes no difference to the real scientists and what they have and will achieve.

 

 

 

There is no data that what you're saying has any real hard data to back it up. Have we been seeing actual galaxies, from farther away start to appear? Unless you can show me that data, I would say your argument is no less speculative that mine, only my argument utilizes the same data and builds an model from the ground up that reduces a huge amount of paradox. The only argument that I can seem to generate is that I'm wrong because people have already designed an elaborate mathematical symphony in order to validate an idea that was accepted prior to the availability of the data we have now.

That's just more codswallop. When I was a young bloke and the space age had just begun, there were three competitive theories as to how the universe came to be...[1] Steady State of Hoyle fame....[2[ Oscillating theory, [3] and the BB.

After the COBE discovery and other observations, the BB gained ascendancy and the others became "also rans" because the BB simply matched the observational data better then the other two......

You do not have an argument...you have speculative thoughts that you like discussing for self grandeur purposes, that have no evidence supporting them at all, and to be truthful, ranging from simply unsupported to down right poppycock.

 

 

 

The earth was the center of the solar system... how many convoluted models were constructed in order to explain retrograde motion of planets?

 

Science/astronomy did not have much say in those days.....What you or I thought was controlled by the church and its hierarchy.

The Earth stood as the center of the solar system for obvious reasons that had nothing to do with science.

 

 

 

One question, if the Universe is 13.8 billion years old, and the current model explains that our view of the Universe is expanding with respect to time, then why do we not see any light that originated 13.8 billion years ago? The light we see at the furthest out began it's journey to us around 5 billion years ago but took another 8.8 billion years to recede to 48 billion light years away. So from 5 billion years ago to 13.8 billion years ago, why have we not see anything else pop into view

 

If I'm not mistaken, this has also been explained to you.....

In actual fact because the early universe/spacetime was just a seething plasma, [atoms had not as yet formed and electrons roamed free] photons could not traverse spacetime as they do today...The early universe was opaque, until temperatures had fallen to around 5000K...from then electrons were able to couple with atomic nuclei, forming the first atoms of H2 and some He.

That occurred at around 380,000 years post BB and we do see that light from that period at a temperature of 2.73K and we call it the CMBR.

 

 

The problem here is everyone thinks that I do not understand the current model...

Yes, that is common knowledge.

Edited June 29, 2017 by beecee

[Strange]

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.

 

 

I am not suggesting that, merely pointing out that it is one of the possibilities.

 

And, of course, something infinite can expand. Consider the infinite natural numbers (0, 1, 2, 3, ...) with a "distance" of 1 between them. Now double the numbers so the gap between them is twice as large (0, 2, 4, 6, ...).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert%27s_paradox_of_the_Grand_Hotel

 

This would only be a problem if you thought the universe was expanding into otherwise empty space. But that would be silly.

How did that mathematical model formulate?

 

 

It was based on the Einstein Field Equations. It was initially developed by Lemaitre in 1927.

 

 

 

The problem here is everyone thinks that I do not understand the current model... and you are absolutely correct

 

It is painfully obvious that you don't have a clue from the drivel you keep posting.

 

The problem here is that you think your ignorance gives you some special insight. It doesn't it just makes you look a fool.

 

Being proud of your ignorance and refusing to learn about science because you don't like the conclusions it leads to is just pathetic.

Edited June 29, 2017 by Strange

[AbnormallyHonest]

*One more question to anyone that would answer, if the light from 5 billion light years away takes 13.8 billion years to reach us, that would mean that light from 6 billion light years away would take much longer to reach us and so on. Do you no see that at some point, since the amount of time to reach us increases exponentially in relation to the distance rather than directly proportionate that it would not always be progressive?

 

At some point the amount of added time to reach us would be infinitely compounding. The amount of space being created would exceed the amount it could be reduced by the movement toward us? Have any of you ever calculated infinitely compounding interest?

A = 5 (billion light years) the original distance of the farthest objects.

 

P= 48 (billion light years) the apparent distance of those objects today.

 

t = 13.8 (billion years) the actual time it took for that light to reach us.

 

r = the expansion rate of space, along an infinitely compounding schedule. (Time and diststances are synonymous because 1 l/y= 1 year

 

Input data into an online investment calculator...

 

Strange, if you increase the original distance and the apparent distance along the same schedule, it would take less time for it to be realized... so assuming that all the data we currently have is correct...

Of course that is only a linear expansion, which is currently the only view we have.

What would've originated at 6 billion light years away (approx. add ~7 billion years for the added 1 billion year distance derived from current distances we have measurements for) to an apparent distance of 55 billion light years, would've been viewable ~300,000,000 years ago.

 

The problem is of course, that the rate cannot be constant since we cannot see the Universe as it is simultaneously from all distances. When we look further out we are seeing a time when the expansion rate was less, so the difference is actually a rate of change of the rate of change, a curve that would increase exponentially with respect to time as a cubic function. I would assume that is why we perceive this apparent acceleration, because we are viewing the expansion rate across its differing rates of change.

 

I am not suggesting that, merely pointing out that it is one of the possibilities.

 

And, of course, something infinite can expand. Consider the infinite natural numbers (0, 1, 2, 3, ...) with a "distance" of 1 between them. Now double the numbers so the gap between them is twice as large (0, 2, 4, 6, ...).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert's_paradox_of_the_Grand_Hotel

The problem with the hotel anology is the same thing as saying in 2 dimensional space area is infinite, but adding a 3rd dimension creates infinite volume. Neither is less infinite but volume represents exponentially more points in space. The hotel paradox is like reducing infinite volume to only infinite area and then adding a finite z value to increase that infinity incrementally, but that is not observant of the potentially infinite volume you must dismiss in order to accommodate a reduced dimensional reasoning (or reduced potential by assuming infinite is contained on one end in a linear expression of it... to say it has a finite begininning, or can only have differing values in one direction).

 

How reduced are your reasoning abilities?

In a hotel with an infinite number of rooms, there is no "first" room, because the first room is exactly as far away from infinity as the very last room is, meaning there is no start and no end... it is infinite.

Edited July 2, 2017 by AbnormallyHonest

[AbnormallyHonest]

On 6/25/2017 at 10:22 PM, Mordred said:

"The greater the seperation distance, the greater the recessive velocity" v=Hod .

Light has no issue with recessive velocity greater than c. Thats because at the location of the light beam heading towards us there is no recessive velocity. The greater than c value is from our location. Not the light beams current location.

Use the formula above, what is the recessive velocity from the lead edge of the lightbeam to next distance increment the lightbeam could transverse in the next second?

You will find light doesn't care about our measure of recessive velocity from Earth to its location as it doesn't apply to the lightbeams leading edge location.

Sorry, I know this is an old thread, but this just came to mind... if "light has no issue with recessive velocity greater than c" then why can't light escape and event horizon? I mean, if the value is from an outside viewer's location and not the light beams current location and all?

[Mordred]

The light escaping a BH isn't a recessive velocity. A recessive velocity maps a commoving volume ie changes in radius (expansion) The FLRW is a commoving coordinate metric. 

A BH the radius is static and the coordinate Scwartzchild metric is also static. In this case we are dealing with gravitational redshift as per the event horizon escape velocity. Where as commoving coordinates involve cosmological redshift.

Observers do affect both but in a different manner one is a change in volume while the a variation in density distribution.