How big is the Universe ?

[Ghideon]

1 hour ago, Ned said:

I have broke the diagram into sections for you to understand .

What is the vertical grey curve that goes through "X"? 

[exchemist]

1 hour ago, Ned said:

 

I personally cannot see how something that is receding away from an observer can have a red-shift of light when light passing through space is transparent . It makes no sense to me that we are detecting 750nm?  from distant bodies . Perhaps the red-shift is just simply a congestion of photons , the ''telescope end'' . 

Now you're just talking crap. I'm out. 

[Ned]

1 hour ago, Ghideon said:

What is the vertical grey curve that goes through "X"? 

The curve is the edge of the space-time reference frame , I couldn't draw a sphere . x is the radius from the observer (ourselves) to the edge of space-time . You can consider the diagram in being 3d . I have quickly drew it for you from a different viewpoint . 

[Ghideon]

24 minutes ago, Ned said:

The curve is the edge of the space-time reference frame , I couldn't draw a sphere . x is the radius from the observer (ourselves) to the edge of space-time . You can consider the diagram in being 3d . I have quickly drew it for you from a different viewpoint . 

 

That is confusing. What would an observer located at the "X" draw? An edge that goes right through our position? 

[joigus]

  

On 9/12/2022 at 8:43 PM, Ned said:

Also , which clown gave me a neg rating , for what ? 

I did. And this is the reason:

On 9/12/2022 at 12:53 PM, Ned said:

Can anyone explain why somebody has fabricated a  variation version of expansion without proof that doesn't conform to conventional expansion physics ? 

 

Fabricate: to invent false information in order to trick people

Then, you didn't address any of my concerns.

I do yours though:

3 hours ago, Ned said:

What do you mean by fixed ? I mean stationary 

 

What do I mean by "fixed"?

The same as "number 3 is fixed." Or do you think number 3 expands too? Eigenstates do not expand.

So far, you haven't made a smidgen of sense.

3 hours ago, Ned said:

Can we start here ? ''A Hilbert space is a vector space equipped with an inner product which defines a distance function for which it is a complete metric space.''

No, we can't start there, because you don't understand even the first thing about quantum mechanics. All the elements of a Hilbert space that have physical meaning have a measure of 1, because they are interpreted as probability amplitudes, not points in a topological space.

You don't understand anything, can't be bothered to ask, and don't answer to any objection.

I'm out too.

 

 

[iNow]

On 9/12/2022 at 12:30 AM, Ned said:

You say the spacial size of the entire Universe is unknown , which I think I will have to agree with

Why?

[Ned]

3 hours ago, iNow said:

Why?

Because of this ! 

8 hours ago, joigus said:

  

I did. And this is the reason:

Fabricate: to invent false information in order to trick people

Then, you didn't address any of my concerns.

I do yours though:

What do I mean by "fixed"?

The same as "number 3 is fixed." Or do you think number 3 expands too? Eigenstates do not expand.

So far, you haven't made a smidgen of sense.

No, we can't start there, because you don't understand even the first thing about quantum mechanics. All the elements of a Hilbert space that have physical meaning have a measure of 1, because they are interpreted as probability amplitudes, not points in a topological space.

You don't understand anything, can't be bothered to ask, and don't answer to any objection.

I'm out too.

 

 

I am sad you are out because I also give a value of 1 

, a conserved constant,  for each point of topological space ! 

[iNow]

6 hours ago, Ned said:

Because of this ! 

Please elaborate

[Ned]

11 hours ago, iNow said:

Please elaborate

Before space-time any direction from a point can be viewed as x^n . During space-time any direction between distant galaxies can be viewed as x^n . 

That is why I agreed we don't know the size of space . 

[MigL]

On 9/13/2022 at 1:15 PM, Ned said:

If you can't draw it then you don't understand it ! 

Then why do you keep drawing these useless pictures which mean absolutely nothing ?
And why do you keep using non-standard terminology which supposedly means something, only to you ?
None of your posts make any sense.

Might I suggest that if you can't make sense, you don't know what you're talking about ?

[iNow]

2 hours ago, Ned said:

Before space-time any direction

Before… time? A direction… before space?

There is no north of the North Pole. There is direction before space itself. There is no “before” time itself. 

You basically just told us that you agreed because a unicorn told you to. 
 

2 hours ago, Ned said:

That is why I agreed we don't know the size of space .

In other words, you just preferred that answer. It aligned with your preconceptions and felt more psychologically comfortable. 

That’s fine. No judgment, but answer this:

What… for you personally… would it mean to “know” anything at all?

You sound solipsistic, even nihilistic… and nihilism isn’t love of Cleopatras Nile, more an annoyance that subtracts the smile. 

34 minutes ago, MigL said:

None of your posts make any sense.

They actually sorta do when viewed through the prism of a weak minded adolescent whose mommy doesn’t love him and who’s bored of masturbating so is trying get a rise out of others online to feel a false sense of power and superiority, much like a pathetic booger eating troll

Edited September 15, 2022 by iNow

[Sensei]

On 9/12/2022 at 3:39 AM, Ned said:

how big is the Universe ? 

Not big enough to accommodate all the egos of V.P. and Donald T. ....

 

Edited September 15, 2022 by Sensei

[Ned]

1 hour ago, MigL said:

Then why do you keep drawing these useless pictures which mean absolutely nothing ?
And why do you keep using non-standard terminology which supposedly means something, only to you ?

If you can't understand some very simple , well explained diagrams , then obviously you don't understand it ! 

They are not non-standard terms , you are attempting to troll me and get a reaction but have failed . 

Good day 

1 hour ago, iNow said:

 

In other words, you just preferred that answer. It aligned with your preconceptions and felt more psychologically comfortable. 

 

Not at all, the evidence agrees with the answer that we don't know the spatial size of the universe ! 

As for the rest of your post , it's just nonesense . 

[iNow]

20 minutes ago, Ned said:

the evidence agrees with the answer that we don't know the spatial size of the universe ! 

Which evidence?

[Ned]

15 minutes ago, iNow said:

Which evidence?

The  fact that our present measure of the observable universe is based on visible bodies , not the space ! 

My diagram and provided model of x^n is presently correct in regards to spatial size. 

 

Edited September 15, 2022 by Ned

[iNow]

8 minutes ago, Ned said:

The  fact that our present measure of the observable universe is based on visible bodies , not the space ! 

How is that relevant?

[Ned]

24 minutes ago, iNow said:

How is that relevant?

The relevance is that there is space beyond the last observed visible body and that means the big bang is incorrect ! Space is not inflating like some balloon . 

48 minutes ago, iNow said:

Which evidence?

Quote

The expansion of space is conceptually different from other kinds of expansions and explosions that are seen in nature. Our understanding of the "fabric of the universe" ( spacetime) requires that what we see normally as "space", "time", and " distance" are not absolutes, but are determined by a metric that can change. In the metric expansion of space, rather than objects in a fixed "space" moving apart into "emptiness", it is the space that contains the objects which is itself changing. It is as if without objects themselves moving, space is somehow "growing" in between them. https://www.cs.mcgill.ca/~rwest/wikispeedia/wpcd/wp/m/Metric_expansion_of_space.htm#:~:text=The metric expansion of space,as the universe gets older.

 

The above is at error , the objects themselves are moving into ''free space'' that is unnocupied of matter! 

Additionally there isn't any evidence that suggests the objects themselves were ever located in our ''central'' position . 

Quote

In mathematics, Hilbert spaces (named after David Hilbert) allow generalizing the methods of linear algebra and calculus from (finite-dimensional) Euclidean vector spaces to spaces that may be infinite-dimensional. A Hilbert space is a vector space equipped with an inner product which defines a distance function for which it is a complete metric space. Hilbert spaces arise naturally and frequently in mathematics and physics, typically as function spaces. 

One of the most familiar examples of a Hilbert space is the Euclidean vector space consisting of three-dimensional vectors, denoted by R³, and equipped with the dot product. The dot product takes two vectors x and y, and produces a real number x ⋅ y https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert_space [/quote]

(x1,x2,.....xn)   (y1,y2,.....yn,)  (z1,z2,......zn,) 

 

Looks correct to me .

Edited September 15, 2022 by Ned

[iNow]

22 minutes ago, Ned said:

there is space beyond the last observed visible body

How do you know?

22 minutes ago, Ned said:

that means the big bang is incorrect

Do you know what a nonsequitur is?

23 minutes ago, Ned said:

isn't any evidence that suggests the objects themselves were ever located in our ''central'' position . 

What makes our position “central,” and what do you mean by “our position?”

[Ned]

3 minutes ago, iNow said:

How do you know?

Do you know what a nonsequitur is?

What makes our position “central,” and what do you mean by “our position?”

There is only two options of what is beyond the furthest away visible body 

Option 1 : free space 

Option 2: a solid 

We can disclude option 2 because if there was a boundary there couldn't be any sort of expansion. The system would be a contained system and by now the pressure would be immense . 

By our position , I mean the planet Earth of course , what makes our position could be one of several things . For all we know our position could of been far away and we ''drifted'' to this position . 

 

 

42 minutes ago, iNow said:

How is that relevant?

Additionally the distant stars are not single sided , if there was no free space beyond the distant stars then that is comparing distant stars to spot lights . 

[iNow]

42 minutes ago, Ned said:

There is only two options of what is beyond the furthest away visible body

Do you know what a false dichotomy is?

 

44 minutes ago, Ned said:

I mean the planet Earth of course , what makes our position could be one of several things .

What makes our position what?

44 minutes ago, Ned said:

if there was no free space beyond the distant stars then that is comparing distant stars to spot lights . 

In what way?

[Ned]

22 minutes ago, iNow said:

Do you know what a false dichotomy is?

 

What makes our position what?

In what way?

The two options provided are not false dichotomy , they are logically accurate based on what we presently observe , solids and space . We can't suggest there is nothing beyond the last visible body because that isn't logical . However , we can describe free space beyond the last visible body and space-time that has a uniform value of 0 . 

Our position in space is relative to other visible objects , not relative to the space . 

The present model tries to desribe our observable universe like some dome or firmament that is expanding . Describing it this way is sort of stating a ceiling or roof over our heads . This implies the distant stars have a ''dark side'' and send no light the opposite direction to Earth into free space . 

Logic tells us there is free space beyond the distant stars for reasons given . 

 

Edited September 15, 2022 by Ned

[exchemist]

This poster is Theorist, or Pbob or countless sock puppets, back again to waste everybody’s time. He’s using the usual method: make a garbled sciency-sounding assertion to start the ball rolling, and then lob in further chunks on other topics at intervals, to keep respondents dancing and struggling to keep up with the deluge of errors and misconceptions. He has no interest in learning, so you are wasting your time. The sole object is to make the scientists dance and exploit their goodwill for his amusement.

[Ghideon]

 

@Ned Please answer my question about your diagram above. 

20 minutes ago, Ned said:

The present model tries to desribe our observable universe like some dome or firmament that is expanding .

That is what your diagram looks like, with earth in the centrum. The present established cosmological models does not match your description.

 

1 minute ago, exchemist said:

you are wasting your time.

In my case not completely wasted, I'm learning new things by arguing from the mainstream perspective and checking my views against established theories. But thanks for the heads up! 

[Ned]

3 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

 

@Ned Please answer my question about your diagram above. 

That is what your diagram looks like, with earth in the centrum. The present established cosmological models does not match your description.

 

In my case not completely wasted, I'm learning new things by arguing from the mainstream perspective and checking my views against established theories. But thanks for the heads up! 

Indeed the present model does not match my description because I interpret that the present model has errors , which I have pointed out . 

My diagram isn't a dome , you have misinterpreted the information . The ''roof'' of my model is absolute space that is empty and unoccupied of matter and energy . The space-time boundary is impassable only because it takes time to build a quantum bridge . 

[Ghideon]

You are not answering the question. What does the observer at "X" observe when looking at earth?

 

32 minutes ago, Ned said:

Indeed the present model does not match my description because I interpret that the present model has errors , which I have pointed out . 

Your personal interpretation is obviously incorrect.

 

On 9/13/2022 at 7:15 PM, Ned said:

If you can't draw it then you don't understand it ! 

I can't draw "the feeling of amusement when reading word sallad". But I can understand it pretty well.