A Reciprocal to the Physical Universe

[rigney]

Are dark matter and dark energy physical properties of an ever expanding universal system that will eventual die or vanish through entropy or some other catastrophe, or are they the antithesis of a system gradually morphing into a new beginning? Since I have a hard time believing this graph, I was wondering what other ideas might be out there?

Image credit: NASA / WMAP science team.

Would the Universe recollapse, like the yellow line shows? Would it expand off into infinity, watching its size increase ever-so-slowly as the expansion rate drops to zero, begging for just one more proton, as that would be enough to cause a recollapse, like the green line? Or would it expand off into the abyss of emptiness, like the blue line? In any case, it would never follow that ridiculous curve shown by the red line; nobody even considered that. Yet in 1998, the data came in, and of those four cases, what did the data indicate?

Edited February 6, 2013 by rigney

[rigney]

Wish I had gone into this (thought process) just a bit deeper before throwing it out there to you. But since everything I have read and looked at leads me to believe the universe is cyclic, it's only a matter of trying to align anothers thoughts with my own. Being no artist I can only visualize what I'm trying to explain. So, to get my point across, I'm asking you to draw a 1'' circular black dot on a sheet of paper. Next, draw a 2'' empty circle around the dot depicting a void containing nothing but expansion. Then draw a 3'' circle equally enveloping the other two. This third and outer area is our active and physical universe which is being depleated as I write this due to the exchange of known energy being transformed into anti energy and going back to the core. Now, think of all three areas expanding. The core, in volume and weight due to the transfer of energy from our active universe, the void and active universe because of the explosive expansion of the "Big Bang". Then think of the universe as being "spherical" instead of flat, convex, or a saddle shaped manifold, or being a part of something larger. To say that the universe has no center or outer limit troubles me. To look across a thing so vast as our universe and state that everything seems to be moving away from us, makes sense, regardless of which direction a telescope is pointed, we are looking at the outer reaches of our imaginary envelope. Other than math, ask me as you will and I will try explaing as i think. Since I am skeptical of any unproven theory, here is one Mr. Penrose supposedly deduced by using math.

Edited February 7, 2013 by rigney

[rigney]

I was hoping someone would come aboard and help out with this puzzle. If not, I hope the reading is not so far removed that it is only gibberish. Below is a link begging the question, where does the energy go that is beind dissipated from a slowing pulsar?

http://www3.mpifr-bonn.mpg.de/public/pr/pr-pulsar-ttauris-feb2012-en.html

 

Written many years ago and for good or bad, here is another.

http://zapatopi.net/kelvin/papers/kinetic_theory.html

Edited February 8, 2013 by rigney

[rigney]

If our universe started as a Big Bang originating from a central point, regardless of size, why now has science determined ithat it may be flat or saddle shaped along with spherical? The fact we can see 40 billion light years in any direction make me wonder how the univewrs could be flat or saddle shaped? And do we know for sure that everything is moving equidistantly apart as suggested by infrared shift?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shape_of_the_Universe

Edited February 16, 2013 by rigney

[ACG52]

The BB did not originate at a central point. There is no central point of the universe. The BB happened (and is still happening) at every point in space.

[rigney]

The BB did not originate at a central point. There is no central point of the universe. The BB happened (and is still happening) at every point in space.

Mathematically I can't argue the point. But even if the universe originated from a singularity, which instantly rushed out into full bloom and is still expanding at some rate of speed, why is it still doing so and into what is it expanding, other than an immeasurable continuum.? And even a piece of lumber, say a 2x4, or an irregularly shaped pond has a center if you geometrically extrapolate them.

Edited February 17, 2013 by rigney

[rigney]

ACG52

ACG52

Molecule

• 
• Senior Members
• 676 posts

Your quote: Posted Yesterday, 03:54 PM

The BB did not originate at a central point. There is no central point of the universe. The BB happened (and is still happening) at every point in space.

 

To make such a statement as an absolute fact amazes me. Not saying you are wrong, but do you have proof of such a conviction? Here are a plethora of different views, but not one that I have the knowledge to substantiate. Does my lack of understanding make all of them wrong?

 

http://video.search.yahoo.com/video/play;_ylt=A2KLqICsyiBRZAUAxUj7w8QF;_ylu=X3oDMTBvcXNvNnBqBHNlYwNzcgRzbGsDdmlkBHZ0aWQDVjEzMw--?p=How+far+can+we+see+into+the+universe%3F&vid=0e1d58e58a1b235cf48a21519bf84014&l=1%3A02&turl=http%3A%2F%2Fts1.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DV.5043164336554116%26pid%3D15.1&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D6_1LNs29CFU&tit=The+Farthest+We+Can+Ever+See+into+the+Universe&c=2&sigr=11a52j9en&&tt=b

[ACG52]

 

To make such a statement as an absolute fact amazes me. Not saying you are wrong, but do you have proof of such a conviction?

 

Look in any direction, and you can see 13.7 billion lys. In every direction. Now, unless the earth is at the center of the universe, the only way to explain our observations is that there is no center, and from ANY point in space, the universe looks basically the same.