Another 'far out' cosmology

[owl]

If you find my first post in this thread you'll see I wasn't responding to you or talking to you.

 

What you don't understand is that the scale is irrelevant.

 

At no scale or size does a 3D sphere drawn inside the skin of a balloon expand in an isotropic way when the balloon is inflated. It is either so small, like an atom, that it doesn't expand at all or it is large enough that it expands in one direction and constricts in the other. In neither case does the sphere represent the expanding visible universe which does expand in an isotropic way.

 

The analogy is flawed at the most basic level.

To first comment: True. But I initiated the thread and do have an interest in the topic, if you don't mind (or even if you do.) So then I reply to your post and you to mine, and off we go again. And your agenda to set me straight on textbook science while not comprehending what I am actually saying... continues.

 

(Incidentally, as to your instructions on how to properly use the quote boxes... Sometimes I prefer to answer point by point in context, quoting each point individually rather than responding to the whole quoted post like now. It avoids the need, for instance, to say, "To the first comment..." etc.)

 

To your second statement: Scale is totally relevant to the model I presented. Inside a "thick rubber membrane" of an expanding balloon, at the atomic level (representing our solar system as part of a rubber molecule, our galaxy) and nowhere near the inner or outer "surfaces,") the the motion of the other molecules (galaxies) adjacent in the membrane would look just like what we see, each "molecule" moving away from its neighbors. The "thinning of the membrane" in an actual balloon is not a factor in my model. At the "atomic level" deep in the membrane, the thinning effect would not be noticed anyway. Still the balloon analogy fails at extreme levels of literal interpretation. The rubber in my membrane (and it is my model) is expanding like foam even as the whole balloon is expanding. That was the meaning of the hologram analogy... as with the whole balloon (expanding), so with the membrane itself, also expanding in "thickness" as well as with the whole balloon. Think of the foam out of a can that seals gaps in house maintenance.

 

Anyway you simply didn't get it and still don't. Here, from the above is a perfect example of your totally missing the point and going off on your own mental excursion:

 

It is either so small, like an atom, that it doesn't expand at all or it is large enough that it expands in one direction and constricts in the other.

Compare with my actual model in detail above and anyone can see that you remain oblivious to what I actually presented... atomic/molecular scale deep within the "rubber."

[md65536]

To first comment: True. But I initiated the thread and do have an interest in the topic, if you don't mind (or even if you do.) So then I reply to your post and you to mine, and off we go again. And your agenda to set me straight on textbook science while not comprehending what I am actually saying... continues.

Yes! Enough of all the textbook science. What this thread needs is more of the "new and exciting" science that is replacing the "old and boring": Blog science! I think congress is close to declaring that science requires popular consensus... and all you book-quoting and reference-citing scientists are soon to lose the popular vote!

 

The rubber in my membrane (and it is my model) is expanding like foam even as the whole balloon is expanding. That was the meaning of the hologram analogy... as with the whole balloon (expanding), so with the membrane itself, also expanding in "thickness" as well as with the whole balloon. Think of the foam out of a can that seals gaps in house maintenance.

So the only point of the balloon analogy was that there is expansion both in balloons and in your model (though nothing like the way a balloon expands)?

 

I too didn't get it and still don't, and remain oblivious to what you actually presented. Did you get any of what anyone who has replied to you has said?

 

 

 

 

[Spyman]

Maybe the above gets around the gravitational zero sum situation/limitation of nesting spheres.

Nope, if the initial explosion was symmetric then the whole shell in total must remain symmetric even if individual objects inside it coalesces into more massive clumps.

 

 

My comments about gravity being a steady pull on all matter since the bang(s) was an argument against the above posts positing limitations on gravity's range and a precluding lime lag before its visible effects from "beyond" could reach and effect what we can see. Obviously there are no gaps in gravitational force between sun and earth (it is steady) even though it would take eight minutes for earth to start flying off tangent to its orbit if the sun ceased to exist.

Hope this clarifies the finer points of this (again) very speculative cosmology.

Small sidenotes:

Where is the difference between gravity and light in your argument? Obviously there are no gaps in the sunlight shining on Earth either, it is also steady even though it takes time for it to reach us.

Why would it take eight minutes before Earth takes off from orbit after the Sun disappears if gravity acts instantly? If there is no time delay then the Suns gravity should vanish instantly with the Sun.

Edited April 19, 2011 by Spyman

[md65536]

So, back to possible clumps of matter (say combined supermassive black holes) beyond our vision attracting these "patches" faster than their surroundings.

...

BTW: Who says that gravity is not a constant force ever since the bang or bangs, just diminished in force with more distance (the square of the distance, as I understand it) ad infinitum. There is no waiting while "gravity waves" reach us, as argued above. For example, the gravitational pull between earth (and other planets) and the sun is steady. No delays waiting for it to reach us just because it travels at light speed, if it does...which seems well established.

The short answer is that causality says so.

 

However, your idea of a continuum of gravity does seem intuitively correct to me. I can't think of any intuitive way that stretching space would leave gaps in gravitational effect. (Instant teleportation, or non-uniform stretching should allow it, but I can't imagine how or why that could happen.)

 

BUT, if there is a continuum of gravitational pull from a distant object, there would also be a continuum of light from that object (as Spyman pointed out). In that case the object never goes "beyond our vision". It never leaves our light cone?

 

Please distinguish what you mean by "beyond our vision". Do you mean outside of our light cone, and beyond the influence of causality and gravity? Or do you mean something that is inside our light cone but invisible (too dim perhaps, or obscured by something else).

 

If you mean the former, then causality is a problem for you, and you must then explain how special relativity is wrong or how you get around it in your model before it will be accepted.

If you mean the latter, then you are placing size restrictions on the effects of your model, and you should speak only about things that we haven't visually detected (ie. "dark matter") rather than about things that are "too far away to be within the scope of vision."

Edited April 19, 2011 by md65536

[owl]

Yes! Enough of all the textbook science. What this thread needs is more of the "new and exciting" science that is replacing the "old and boring": Blog science! I think congress is close to declaring that science requires popular consensus... and all you book-quoting and reference-citing scientists are soon to lose the popular vote!

 

So the only point of the balloon analogy was that there is expansion both in balloons and in your model (though nothing like the way a balloon expands)?

 

I too didn't get it and still don't, and remain oblivious to what you actually presented. Did you get any of what anyone who has replied to you has said?

 

This must be quick... more this eve in reply to other posts.

There is no need for nasty, insulting sarcasm. This is the section for speculation, and "brainstorming" is a legitimate part of science prior to what is well excepted enough to be taught in textbooks.

 

The inflating balloon model is well worn in cosmology. My version adds some details of scale like a way more vast "balloon" than our little local environment...visibility limit... deep within the membrane. Probably never verifiable or falsifiable... but it's speculative. The "expanding foam" was a reply to the too-literal focus on the thinning of the rubber membrane as the balloon inflates, because Iggy was not getting the atom/molecule scale deep within a thick rubber membrane.

 

I do remain open to reasonable falsification of the balloon model and the present multiple bangs and crunches model... as long as criticism is based on what I am presenting, not misconceptions, as above (Iggy's.)

I'll still be pursuing how batches of merged supermassive black holes beyond our cosmic horizon, scattered all around our visible cosmos, still acts like a big sphere around our smaller sphere (as far as we can see.)

 

Gotta go.

[Iggy]

(Incidentally, as to your instructions on how to properly use the quote boxes... Sometimes I prefer to answer point by point in context, quoting each point individually rather than responding to the whole quoted post like now. It avoids the need, for instance, to say, "To the first comment..." etc.)

Tht's not a problem. You can put

...

tags around multiple parts of someone's post.

 

The inflating balloon model is well worn in cosmology. My version adds some details of scale like a way more vast "balloon" than our little local environment...visibility limit... deep within the membrane.

 

Please, what is the main difference between your balloon "model" and the normal balloon analogy? I would just like to quickly verify that you know what the balloon analogy is.

 

PS, you call your idea a "model". It isn't. It's an analogy. A model would need to make quantifiable and falsifiable predictions.

Edited April 19, 2011 by Iggy

[owl]

Tht's not a problem. You can put [noparse][/noparse] tags around multiple parts of someone's post.

 

 

 

Please, what is the main difference between your balloon "model" and the normal balloon analogy? I would just like to quickly verify that you know what the balloon analogy is.

 

PS, you call your idea a "model". It isn't. It's an analogy. A model would need to make quantifiable and falsifiable predictions.

(I hit the reply button for this to quote the whole post and use the quote bubble above for individual quotes but still don't get the "noparse" tags you just used.)

Here is the address of the The Balloon Analogy In Cosmology I called "well worn" though I disagree with its assumptions* as evident in my presentation. I think you are quibbling about trivia to say I can't call it a model, as I use the term in a less restricted sense than you do.

I have little time for these boards these days.( My hit and run approach does not mean lack of interest... just lack of time.)

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/balloon0.html

*

...A common misconception is that the balloon is expanding into empty space that is "beyond the Universe" and that it is expanding from a single point in the center of the balloon. But the balloon analogy is a 2-dimensional model, and the center of the balloon and the space around are not part of the 2-dimensional Universe. In our 3-dimensional Universe, these points could only be reached by traveling in a 4th spatial dimension (not the time dimension of 4-D spacetime), but there is no evidence that this dimension exists.

balloon model with photons

 

I see cosmos expanding into space beyond what we can see, though not "empty" where more stuff might exist. "...beyond the universe" is a silly phrase, since the universe must be all there is, known and unknown.

I see the Big Bang locus at the center of the balloon in the very large scale model and the multiple bangs and crunches as happening on the smaller scale within the "balloon membrane" as already presented in detail.

 

Finally, my question still remains as to why there can be no gravitational attraction by matter, in whatever array, (like scattered around as coalesced clumps) beyond our visible cosmic horizon which gravitationally pulls on stuff we can see, accounting for the accelerating rate of expansion in general and accounting for the kind of anomaly (even faster accelerating "patches" of our visible cosmos) cited above by Spyman.

 

Btw, my 'model' is 3-d. A fourth spacial dimension is an abstraction with no referent in the real cosmos, in my opinion.

Edited April 20, 2011 by owl

[md65536]

Finally, my question still remains as to why there can be no gravitational attraction by matter, in whatever array, (like scattered around as coalesced clumps) beyond our visible cosmic horizon which gravitationally pulls on stuff we can see, accounting for the accelerating rate of expansion in general and accounting for the kind of anomaly (even faster accelerating "patches" of our visible cosmos) cited above by Spyman.

The short answer is causality.

 

 

Causality is the answer that still remains, as to why there can be no gravitational attraction by matter that is beyond our cosmic horizon.

 

Do you accept that gravitational effects cannot propagate faster than c? If not, then your proposal is in conflict with special relativity, which is a problem because special relativity is consistent with all observed phenomena and is well accepted. Can you explain how causality doesn't apply, or how it can be circumvented?

 

If your proposal conflicts with causality, then I'm afraid you're going to have to provide a lot of pretty convincing evidence before I could consider the possible reality of your idea.

 

If you accept special relativity but don't get how it applies here, I could try to provide a clearer example.

 

If I am misunderstanding what you mean by "cosmic horizon", then some clarification would be helpful to me.

[owl]

md65536:

The short answer is causality.

 

Causality is the answer that still remains, as to why there can be no gravitational attraction by matter that is beyond our cosmic horizon.

 

Maybe there is a special usage of "causality" to which you refer. (If so please define.) I understand it in the common sense, as given in wikipedia:

 

“Causality is the relationship between an event (the cause) and a second event (the effect), where the second event is understood as a consequence of the first.[“

 

You continue:

Do you accept that gravitational effects cannot propagate faster than c? If not, then your proposal is in conflict with special relativity, which is a problem because special relativity is consistent with all observed phenomena and is well accepted. Can you explain how causality doesn't apply, or how it can be circumvented?

 

The rate of gravitational propagation is still a topic of debate. 'At the speed of light' seems to have the most evidence behind it, I think. But the speed of propagation is beside the point if it is a steady force, always, as between earth and sun... no gaps. (What would happen to earth of sun instantly disappeared is an interesting question... eight minutes before it 'flies of on its tangent' or instantly, once the gravity generated by sun quits.)

 

Again, "causality" is not a question in my mind. Masses attract other masses, and all mass 'causes' the force of gravity in mutual attraction with all other masses.

 

As I have already said in this thread, I understand gravity to be constant between all masses, since the "bang" and still steady. As I understand the "universal law of gravitation" (not disproven to my knowledge), mass attracts mass directly with massiveness and inversely with the square of the distance between masses. No limit was placed on that distance, as far as i know. If so, please explain the limit/boundary beyond which there is no gravitational attraction between masses.

If I am misunderstanding what you mean by "cosmic horizon", then some clarification would be helpful to me.

I mean it it the most simple and common sense way, which I have repeated many times: "The cosmic event horizon is as far as we can see"... with our best technology, including "background radiation from the bang" and optics from Hubble's deep space probe, focused on one relatively 'empty' spot in the sky for a relatively long time. (More of the same as far as we can see.)

 

I hope this clarifies. I really am open to any arguments which disprove any of the above, as long as you understand what I am saying... i.e., not just "invalidating" a misconception of what I am presenting as "far out cosmology" here.

[md65536]

Maybe there is a special usage of "causality" to which you refer. (If so please define.)

 

...

 

I mean it it the most simple and common sense way, which I have repeated many times: "The cosmic event horizon is as far as we can see"... with our best technology, including "background radiation from the bang" and optics from Hubble's deep space probe, focused on one relatively 'empty' spot in the sky for a relatively long time. (More of the same as far as we can see.)

The aspect of causality that I keep referring to is that no information can travel faster than light in a vacuum, which means that nothing can affect anything else over a very long distance and very short time interval (the limit is the distance light can travel in a given time), which implies that if we can observe an effect of something (including gravitation), then that something is (or was) within an observable distance (horizon).

 

A "common sense definition" is not really a good thing, because it is imprecise and can vary. For me common sense is that the horizon is the limit at which any observation is theoretically possible. Your definition seems to exclude things that may be theoretically observable but are not currently practically observable.

 

So I may be wrong and causality is not an issue with your conjecture.

 

The problem with imprecision is that you could be talking about something that disobeys causality, or you could be talking about dark matter, or any number of things that can't be precisely distinguished.

 

Edited April 21, 2011 by md65536

[Spyman]

... my question still remains as to why there can be no gravitational attraction by matter, in whatever array, (like scattered around as coalesced clumps) beyond our visible cosmic horizon which gravitationally pulls on stuff we can see, accounting for the accelerating rate of expansion in general ...

Your question has been answered already back in post #2 and post #4.

 

 

I do remain open to reasonable falsification of the balloon model and the present multiple bangs and crunches model...

You have not confirmed the evidence presented in post #2 and post #4.

 

 

----------

 

I have three obvious basic major problems with your model and have so far only touched upon one, Iggy brought up the second and the third is about the CMBR.

 

The speed for gravitational propagation that md65536 is presenting might be a further problem, but your model needs to survive all basic problems with standard Newton mechanics before there is any point in continuing into more advanced problems.

 

 

----------

 

Problem I: The observed acceleration of expansion.

 

I will presume that your model is unable to explain the observed acceleration of expansion, since you have not presented any valid method for the phenomena.

 

----------

 

Problem II: The observed expansion is isotropic.

 

I am not yet able to understand how you model is able to explain for the observed isotropic expansion, can you please provide an detailed explanation of this?

Edited April 21, 2011 by Spyman

[owl]

Not much spare time recently.

Spyman,

I understood your presentation of the shell theorem in posts #2 about spherically symmetrical shells and then (post 4) replying to my post #3:

“No it still won't work because even though individual parts might seem randomly dispersed, momentum is still conserved for the whole explosion making it symmetric in each dimension.

 

I was and still am having trouble seeing the interaction of my multiple bangs (outgoing) and multiple crunches (incoming matter) as remaining always in symmetrically spherical shell configuration. I speculate that clumps beyond visibility could have coalesced and redistributed the "outer shell" masses out of shell (or symmetrical sphere) configuration, especially if "previous launches" of material have already reversed from expansion phase and begun the implosion half of the bang/crunch cycle. No one knows what kind of mass distribution there could be by the time a "gravitational net"* is reached and reversal to implosion begins, or how this would effect our visible cosmos as it approaches closer, no longer as "shells" beyond what we see.

I know this is unconventional, hence the thread title.

Also, how do you explain the anomaly you cited about "patches" accelerating outward faster than surroundings? I don't think simply acknowledging mysterious, unknown forces is any better than my positing regular gravity from ordinary matter, way out there, not arranged in spherical symmetry as the cause.

 

*And no one has yet replied to my presentation of gravity as a steady force ever since the bang or throughout multiple bang/crunch cycles, i.e., without a range limit depending on speed of propagation.

 

I will try to reply to your other points and other posts this evening.

Edited April 21, 2011 by owl

[Spyman]

I was and still am having trouble seeing the interaction of my multiple bangs (outgoing) and multiple crunches (incoming matter) as remaining always in symmetrically spherical shell configuration. I speculate that clumps beyond visibility could have coalesced and redistributed the "outer shell" masses out of shell (or symmetrical sphere) configuration, especially if "previous launches" of material have already reversed from expansion phase and begun the implosion half of the bang/crunch cycle. No one knows what kind of mass distribution there could be by the time a "gravitational net"* is reached and reversal to implosion begins, or how this would effect our visible cosmos as it approaches closer, no longer as "shells" beyond what we see.

The mass distribiution out there must be symmetric unless an outside force has acted upon the system. If you have a center of the Universe then you will also have the center of mass located there and if something there is exploding sending out matter in a huge spherical shell, all this matter together would have to continue to have the center of mass located there.

 

When this expanding shell is so huge that our bubble of observable universe is much smaller than its thickness, which makes this shell very very huge, any individual pieces of matter coalescing and redistributing would be extremly tiny changes relative the size of the shell, even the largest structures we have so far observed, like the Sloan Great Wall, would only be a tiny spec of dust amongst the vast quantity of other specs inside the membrane of such a shell, as such the foam containing all those objects would still be spread out all around and surrounding the center. Since the center of mass is unable to move in a closed system, the whole shell in total must still be a symmetric shell surrounding the gravitationally center. If the explosion sends out a symmetrical shell, then only a symmetrical shell can eventually fall back, unless it was sent out faster than the escape velocity in which case it would never fall back.

 

I said back in post #20 that if one shell is falling back in and colliding with another shell moving outward, then they can interact gravitationally when they get merged but there would not be any general acceleration outward caused by the outer shell. Some individual parts might get pulled outward but most would get pulled sideways.

 

If your model have shells that changes shape then you need to explain how that is possible and describe the transfer to their new shape.

 

Right now it seems that you are not able to describe how your model can explain the accelerated expansion.

 

 

Also, how do you explain the anomaly you cited about "patches" accelerating outward faster than surroundings? I don't think simply acknowledging mysterious, unknown forces is any better than my positing regular gravity from ordinary matter, way out there, not arranged in spherical symmetry as the cause.

The Dark flow anomaly I posted does NOT have "patches" accelerating outward, it concerns a small and unexplained velocity in ONE direction.

 

The explanation presented in the articles I linked to doesn't contain any mysterious unknown forces, they claim ordinary gravity from ancient times, you on the other hand has not yet presented a method for how regular gravity is causing this movement in an outward direction.

 

 

*And no one has yet replied to my presentation of gravity as a steady force ever since the bang or throughout multiple bang/crunch cycles, i.e., without a range limit depending on speed of propagation.

Well, maybe if you read my post more carefully you will see that I did mention that your model has more important problems to deal with first, but obviously a limiting speed of gravity will also put some restrictions on your model. Gravity is of course continuous, without any strange gaps and reaches infinite far, however gravity is NOT steady, objects can loose or gain mass and move around in space. Furthermore in modern cosmology very distant objects can recede much faster than light causing a horizon both for light and gravity, beyond which we can not observe or measure anything, but I have already mentioned that I am not interested in venturing into relativity in this thread.

 

¤ The Sun is burning fuel to shine so the energy released decreases its mass and therefore also lowers the strength of gravity. If we would be able to visually measure the size of the Sun with such precision that we could measure its mass, would we then see it as massive as it is pulling on us or would we see a more massive Sun than what its gravity affects us?

If light reaches us with the same speed as gravity then we will see the image of the Sun matching its strength of gravity and if gravity is instant then we will see the image of a more massive Sun than the measured strenght of gravity.

 

¤ The Sun is not fixed in an absolute location in space, the Sun is moving and if the source of gravity is changing location the question arises whether we are observing the Sun in the direction where its gravity are pulling us or if we are viewing it where it was eight minutes ago and being pulled towards where the Sun actually is right now?

If light reaches us with the same speed as gravity then we will see an image of the Sun where its gravity is currently pulling us but if gravity is instant then we will see the image of the Sun lag behind its direction of gravitational pull.

 

According to Relativity gravity propagates with the speed of light which means that distant images that reaches us have the same age as how those objects gravity affects us. As such we see objects as they where when their gravity was emanated and in the same direction that their gravity is pulling us.

 

Conclusion is that if distant objects are able to affect us with their gravity then we are also receiving light from those objects and since both light and gravity weakens with the inverse-square law, objects to dim to observe can't really be affecting us much gravitationally, unless you want to add something obscuring the shells from each other.

 

This also reminds me that you might have to many and to large shells giving you a fourth problem with Olbers paradox.

 

 

I will try to reply to your other points and other posts this evening.

There is no need to rush a reply if you are short of time, the thread will be here waiting for you.

Edited April 22, 2011 by Spyman

[owl]

Spyman,

Thanks for your in-depth analysis of my model.

First, I agree with your clarification that gravity is continuous but not steady in the sense that individual masses do lose mass and g-force, like sun burning up fuel (mass to radiant energy) and gain mass as black holes attract more matter. I also agree that there is no distance limit gravity's range, but that it diminishes with the square of that distance.

 

Seems my model must live or die on whether or not the 'farthest out stuff' (beyond our sphere of visibility) maintains spherical symmetry.

You wrote:

The mass distribution out there must be symmetric unless an outside force has acted upon the system. If you have a center of the Universe then you will also have the center of mass located there and if something there is exploding sending out matter in a huge spherical shell, all this matter together would have to continue to have the center of mass located there.

 

I will call the model falsified if I can be sure that it all stays as spheres (shells) inside of spheres and that the expansion can never be reversed. But please consider for a moment the possibility that there is enough mass in the cosmos to eventually reverse the expansion and and begin an implosion half of a bang/crunch cycle. In that case, what happens to the farthest out stuff as it reaches the 'gravitation net' which would effect such a reversal? Is there just dispersed dust and gasses heading for entropy (almost) or would masses have coalesced into larger and larger supermassive black holes (SMBH's?) Seems the latter could make for a radical redistribution of mass, falling out of symmetrical sphere configuration. No? (I think that you think you already answered this, but have you considered the possible disintegration of symmetry in this case?)

 

Are you saying that reversal of expansion is impossible (invalidating the whole bang/crunch model) because of the shell theorem of gravity?

Apparently not, given the following:

Since the center of mass is unable to move in a closed system, the whole shell in total must still be a symmetric shell surrounding the gravitationally center. If the explosion sends out a symmetrical shell, then only a symmetrical shell can eventually fall back, unless it was sent out faster than the escape velocity in which case it would never fall back.

 

So, at the outer reaches, approaching the 'gravitational net' with all kinds of different mass densities and SMBH's glomming together in very irregular non-patterns of distrubution, does the theorem still hold? Is this still a "closed system?"

Even if the outer stuff can not be the force pulling our visible cosmos ever faster outward... (and we are stuck with an unknown mystery force) seems that all hell would break loose if returning matter from a previous bang interacted with the outgoing stuff we presently observe. Would it all then turn around, and follow the incoming back to the crunch, assuming that most mass is beyond our 'horizon' and becomes the above 'incoming.'

More later, but don't wait if you would answer the above before i complicate it even more with the large scale balloon. (Maybe best to leave that scale alone for now, as it compounds the unknowns in the speculation already in progress as above.)

[Spyman]

Seems my model must live or die on whether or not the 'farthest out stuff' (beyond our sphere of visibility) maintains spherical symmetry.

How do you suppose any outer unsymmetrical shell is able to account for the observed symmetrical acceleration of expansion?

 

And what cind of geometries do you imagine are possible outcomes when shells transformes from symmetrical spherical shapes?

 

 

Are you saying that reversal of expansion is impossible (invalidating the whole bang/crunch model) because of the shell theorem of gravity?

Not at all, any cind of shape, even a spherical shell with a totally empty inside will reverse and crunch if the escape velocity is not exceeded.

(However current observation of an accelerated expansion makes a future reversal for our Universe very unlikely.)

 

 

...would masses have coalesced into larger and larger supermassive black holes (SMBH's?) Seems the latter could make for a radical redistribution of mass, falling out of symmetrical sphere configuration. No?

As already said, the size and composition of the stuff inside the shells is irrelevant, these objects are only tiny grains in the soup and as such not able to determine the overall shape of the membrane. Unless you are introducing objects larger than the End of Greatness and up to the size of the observable universe.

 

 

So, at the outer reaches, approaching the 'gravitational net' with all kinds of different mass densities and SMBH's glomming together in very irregular non-patterns of distrubution, does the theorem still hold? Is this still a "closed system?"

The Universe is by definition a closed system and all parts inside it must comply to the laws of nature, in the realm of Newton mechanics.

 

Momentum is conserved and the center of mass is located at the locus therefore it's impossible to disintegrate inherent gravitational symmetry.

 

 

You need to present an explanation of how the whole foam of such shells can have huge flows, causing the shells to change into different shapes.

(Objects coalescing into SMBHs only changes the lumpiness inside the foam but not its overall shape.)

 

And then you have to explain how this new shape is able to cause the observed acceleration of expansion.

 

 

...seems that all hell would break loose if returning matter from a previous bang interacted with the outgoing stuff we presently observe.

Any collision between shells in your model would be very chaotic indeed and not like anything we observe right now.

[owl]

name='Spyman' timestamp='1303654759' post='603216']

How do you suppose any outer unsymmetrical shell is able to account for the observed symmetrical acceleration of expansion?

I don't know. Looks like my model is in trouble.

 

And what Kind of geometries do you imagine are possible outcomes when shells transform from symmetrical spherical shapes?

 

I was thinking that eventually* we would see uneven rates of expansion as previous bang material in super- SMBH clumps reverses, implodes and approaches our visible cosmos. (*Possibly way beyond the life of our sun.)

 

Not at all, any kind of shape, even a spherical shell with a totally empty inside will reverse and crunch if the escape velocity is not exceeded.

(However current observation of an accelerated expansion makes a future reversal for our Universe very unlikely.)

Understood. But astronomers keep finding more matter (not even counting "dark matter") with improved instruments and techniques, which makes reversal and oscillation more likely. The jury is still out on that, and we still don't know what is causing the accelerated expansion.

 

As already said, the size and composition of the stuff inside the shells is irrelevant, these objects are only tiny grains in the soup and as such not able to determine the overall shape of the membrane. Unless you are introducing objects larger than the End of Greatness and up to the size of the observable universe.

 

We don't know what kind of "supermassive" objects might lie beyond our cosmic horizon or how they may be distributed after eons of gravitational interaction, so I don't think universal cosmology is all that well understood, and maybe never will be.

Interesting links. Still looking for time for a deeper study.

 

The Universe is by definition a closed system and all parts inside it must comply to the laws of nature, in the realm of Newton mechanics.

 

How does the definition of a "closed system" apply to my 'universal cosmology' comments above, given the unknown nature of what is "out of sight."

Momentum is conserved and the center of mass is located at the locus therefore it's impossible to disintegrate inherent gravitational symmetry.

 

This may kill my model, but I'm not yet totally convinced. I'll need to study in more depth.

 

 

You need to present an explanation of how the whole foam of such shells can have huge flows, causing the shells to change into different shapes.

(Objects coalescing into SMBHs only changes the lumpiness inside the foam but not its overall shape.)

 

And then you have to explain how this new shape is able to cause the observed acceleration of expansion.

No can do. Back to the drawing board, and more study of extrapolations beyond our present limits.

 

Any collision between shells in your model would be very chaotic indeed and not like anything we observe right now.

Maybe for far future civilizations to see, if the "far out stuff" ever turns around.

 

Thanks again.

[Spyman]

I was thinking that eventually* we would see uneven rates of expansion as previous bang material in super- SMBH clumps reverses, implodes and approaches our visible cosmos. (*Possibly way beyond the life of our sun.)

I wanted to know in what shape this uneven rates of expansion would form, like if the spherical shell flattens out to a disk, gets uniform like an egg, grows corner like an box or streaches out in a bar shape.

 

What shape does you think the spherical shell would transform into?

 

 

How does the definition of a "closed system" apply to my 'universal cosmology' comments above, given the unknown nature of what is "out of sight."

As I understod your model you have one center from where everything orginates, which then means that everything "out of sight" also has orginated from there sometime in the past or at least share the same center of mass.

 

If you dislocate the center of mass then your Bang is no longer in the center of the Universe, which would mean that everything from the Bang would accelerate asymmetric towards the center of mass.

 

If you introduce multiple Bangs at different locations leading to adjacent shells from different Bangs interacting gravitionally with us, then the acceleration would be asymmetric in that direction.

[owl]

name='Spyman' timestamp='1303983977' post='603943']

I wanted to know in what shape this uneven rates of expansion would form, like if the spherical shell flattens out to a disk, gets uniform like an egg, grows corner like an box or streaches out in a bar shape.

 

What shape does you think the spherical shell would transform into?

 

As I understood your model you have one center from where everything orginates, which then means that everything "out of sight" also has orginated from there sometime in the past or at least share the same center of mass.

 

Yes, but I thought that after cosmic eons a previous bang or bangs, originally in spherical distribution as from any symmetrical explosion, would have had time to gravitationally interact and coalesce into super-SMBH's in non-uniform clumps distributed more randomly than the symmetrical sphere configuration.

 

I've wondered for a long time what shape cosmic "stuff" would take by the time (if ever) it reached the "gravitational net" required for reversal in the oscillating model. If coalesced into mega-masses all around our cosmic horizon (but no longer uniformly distributed), they would eventually pull parts of what we see at different rates of outward acceleration and begin a chaotic phase of gravitational interaction between returning matter and outgoing matter. Everything would eventually come back to the common Bang center/locus but not all at the same time... hence the "cosmic juggling act" of multiple bangs and crunches.

But you have given me much to think about, re-considering this model, and none of us yet understand the mystery of the present acceleration of expansion.

 

If you dislocate the center of mass then your Bang is no longer in the center of the Universe, which would mean that everything from the Bang would accelerate asymmetric towards the center of mass.

 

If you introduce multiple Bangs at different locations leading to adjacent shells from different Bangs interacting gravitationally with us, then the acceleration would be asymmetric in that direction.

 

Maybe after the complex gravitational interactions above, a new overall center of mass would be established... a new locus for the next round of crunches and bangs... a new center for each bang/crunch cycle. But if we must assume that symmetry is maintained throughout the bang/crunch cycle(s), then the latter cosmology would be invalidated.

[Spyman]

Yes, but I thought that after cosmic eons a previous bang or bangs, originally in spherical distribution as from any symmetrical explosion, would have had time to gravitationally interact and coalesce into super-SMBH's in non-uniform clumps distributed more randomly than the symmetrical sphere configuration.

You seem to be avoiding my question, I ask again, in what shape is the membrane of the shell containing these "super-SMBH's in non-uniform clumps distributed more randomly"?

 

 

Maybe after the complex gravitational interactions above, a new overall center of mass would be established... a new locus for the next round of crunches and bangs... a new center for each bang/crunch cycle. But if we must assume that symmetry is maintained throughout the bang/crunch cycle(s), then the latter cosmology would be invalidated.

In Newton mechanics it is impossible to move the center of mass for a closed system, you need interactions from the outside of each Bang to accomplish that.

[owl]

You seem to be avoiding my question, I ask again, in what shape is the membrane of the shell containing these "super-SMBH's in non-uniform clumps distributed more randomly"?

 

In Newton mechanics it is impossible to move the center of mass for a closed system, you need interactions from the outside of each Bang to accomplish that.

I thought the my quoted phrase above was my answer... earlier bang(s) morphed from spherical shell/membrane shape, after eons of gravitational coalescence into non-uniform clumps beyond our visible horizon. No shell beyond our visible horizon but randomly distributed clumps.

(I set aside the large scale balloon membrane containing our micro-scale visible cosmos deep in its membrane quite awhile back because the super-large scale cosmology will forever probably remain unknown.)

But if we acknowledge the possibility that similar "bangs" occur throughout the universe, from different loci/centers, that cosmology would supply the "interactions from the outside."

 

I keep an open mind to all the possibilities and remain open to falsification of each... like the shell theorem invalidating my previous model with multiple concentric shells.

 

Here is a relevant piece from a Kelley Ross paper I've been studying in depth for the dialogue in the "Is Space Infinite" thread:

Ross quotes Scientific American, "Is Space Finite?" [Jean-Pierre Luminet, Glenn D. Starkman, & Jeffrey R. Weeks, April 1999, pp. 90-97]:

One problem with the conclusion is that the universe could be spherical yet so large that the observable part seems Euclidean, just as a small patch of the earth's surface looks flat [a common idea in "inflationary" theories]. A broader issue, however, is that relativity is a purely local theory [!]. It predicts the curvature of each small volume of space -- its geometry -- based on the matter and energy it contains. Neither relativity nor standard cosmological observations say anything about how those volumes fit together to give the universe its overall shape -- its topology. [p. 92].

[Spyman]

I thought the my quoted phrase above was my answer... earlier bang(s) morphed from spherical shell/membrane shape, after eons of gravitational coalescence into non-uniform clumps beyond our visible horizon. No shell beyond our visible horizon but randomly distributed clumps.

I still don't think you are answering my question:

 

Making the clumps bigger in a spherical shaped membrane which a lot of radomly distribiuted small clumps in it only describes the lumpiness of the context in the membrane and not its shape.

 

If we look at the larges scale structure of cosmos that we can observe, then we can see a huge pattern of filaments, consisting of coalescening galaxies, through huge empty voids, the membrane of your shell should consists of this random cosmic web in a large woven around the sphere. So if these filaments would clump into something more massive and larger than we have ever seen, there would still have be several clumps spread around the center of the Universe.

 

So how many "randomly distributed clumps" do you think the outer shell would coalesce into?

 

If only two then they would make a bar shape, three would be make an Y-shape, four would make an tetrahedron, five would make an double tetrahedron, six would make an octahedron, eight could make an cube, twelve would look like an icosahedron and from there on they would be plenty enough to make a rough sphere.

 

If there is some effect causing them to be located unsymmetrically, then this effect would also force them into a special pattern.

 

Do you understand my question now? What geometrical shape does these clumps form together?

 

 

I would guess your inner shell need to have an inner diameter at least the same size of the observable universe, 93 billion lightyears and a thickness also at least the diameter of the observable universe with an estimated 80 billion galaxies. That would give the inner shell an volume 26 times larger than the observable universe containing more than 2 000 billions galaxies. If you don't claim the outer shell to start out different, then it would contain an equal amount of mass and number of objects before coalescing.

 

From the above estimate of the inner shell we know that the inside diameter of an outer shell must be at least 3 times 93 billion lightyears large, thus we can calculate a minimum surface area and if we consider matter to have been evently distributed at this distance and only coalesced with a speed below the speed of light since our observed bang, 14 billion years ago, then the minimum number of super massive objects would be 100 clumps.

 

I would consider a swarm of 100 super massive clumps at approximately the same distance from their center of mass but otherwise randomly distribiuted around it, to be of roughly spherical shape.

Edited May 2, 2011 by Spyman

[owl]

Spyman:

So how many "randomly distributed clumps" do you think the outer shell would coalesce into?

 

If only two then they would make a bar shape, three would be make an Y-shape, four would make an tetrahedron, five would make an double tetrahedron, six would make an octahedron, eight could make an cube, twelve would look like an icosahedron and from there on they would be plenty enough to make a rough sphere.

Do you understand my question now? What geometrical shape does these clumps form together?

 

I have no idea. What has happened to material from a long, long ago Bang way beyond our sphere of visibility is clearly speculative, with no information upon which to base such numerical/geometric guesswork. Dust and gas could be "blown around" by local solar winds, for instance or not travel as far out as more dense supermassive cumps. I just don't think we can assume spherical symmetry for stuff that has interacted gravitationally (and drifted around) for ages, or having been already turned around and on the way back. I could be wrong.

 

If there is some effect causing them to be located unsymmetrically, then this effect would also force them into a special pattern.

Yes. And of course if many Bangs happen all over the universe, not from the same epicenter, all bets are off as to overall shape of "all there is."

 

I think your last three paragraphs are imposing math upon a model without sufficient information.

I'm willing to leave it there, unless you want to pursue it further. This is, of course, all "off the deep end."

Edited May 3, 2011 by owl

[Spyman]

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

[owl]

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

Me too. Thanks for the links you shared. I found the spherical shell theorem most interesting.