Champagne bubble cosmology vs Big Bang (split)

[kristalris]

Well 2D or 3D and having boundaries, if we take the position that we not assume anything then the boundaries are "visible" to the extent that that is as far as we can observe. So the cake has become larger and larger the last hundred years even without the also observed expansion. We can observe further.

 

I thought the balloon analogy takes care of another problem concerning the space cake (this cake depicting thus the visible universe) namely that this rising cake is also "thrown / big banged" in a specific direction. In a way that resembles a balloon being blown up, of which only part is visible. I.e. if you take a paper hole puncher and perforate the balloon the tiny bit punched out will then depict the space cake. So I don't see how they must be two different entities. Only the skin of the balloon is also expanding (like a cake in the oven) as is the balloon itself. We only observe part of the balloon of that analogy if I understand that analogy correctly.

 

So the complete balloon and the multiverse analogies are indeed inherent speculation, one that is held BTW by most scientists, the latter is a fact.

 

Not speculative is combining the expanding balloon to the rising space cake and having the raisins move like the bubbles in a Champagne glass. Then the cake and the balloon don't have to expand any more. Same observation. Yet superior on Occams razor. More simple. Exactly the same observations and mathematics combining the two analogies at the same time. No speculation.

 

edit: the Champagne bubbles then act like every time seven trains accelerating out of a station at nearly the same time on seven different tracks. If you are in the middle track and the rails all are at a circular angle then the sensation of observation will be the combined space cake balloon analogy. We are stationary and everything seems to expand, with the outer trains lagging behind some as we observe, hence the balloon analogy, if I understand correctly.

 

BTW a paradigm shift entails seeing the same observation differently.

Edited January 17, 2014 by kristalris

[swansont]

From your explanation I would have to conclude that you thought wrong. "The skin of the balloon" and "the balloon itself" are the same thing. The balloon is the latex material, not the air inside of it. It is strictly a 2D (surface) analogy to show that the concept of having a center is not required in order for every point to observe expansion. A sphere has a center, a spherical shell representing 2D space does not.

 

Analogies are explanations of models, they are not the models themselves. You can't declare an analogy to represent a superior model until the model is tested and found to be a superior.

[Strange]

F It is strictly a 2D (surface) analogy to show that the concept of having a center is not required in order for every point to observe expansion.

 

And that something can have finite area (volume, when we translate to the universe) but no boundary.

[kristalris]

From your explanation I would have to conclude that you thought wrong. "The skin of the balloon" and "the balloon itself" are the same thing. The balloon is the latex material, not the air inside of it. It is strictly a 2D (surface) analogy to show that the concept of having a center is not required in order for every point to observe expansion. A sphere has a center, a spherical shell representing 2D space does not.

 

Analogies are explanations of models, they are not the models themselves. You can't declare an analogy to represent a superior model until the model is tested and found to be a superior.

Begging the question whether we have one model in part explained with two analogies explaining parts of that model or two models with each an analogy cake and balloon respectively?

 

I thought that both analogies concern the same model.

 

Anyway even given two models then both clearly only deal with part of combining all observations, otherwise you would only have one superior model. Combining the analogies given that the analogies fit mutatis mutandis also combines the models each in part combining all modeled observations.

 

BTW the combined analogy doesn't entail an observed center or what not outside our observed universe with us inherently in the center (exit 2D as a complete / superior model).

 

I thought (given two models) the "cake" model not explaining the observed lagging what the "balloon" model does explain. I.e. it is curved yet expanding. This curved bit isn't covered by the "cake" model. Yet the "balloon" model has then given the correctness of the OP become a larger balloon or improbable, begging the question how the OP deals with the observed lagging at the edges.

Edited January 17, 2014 by kristalris

[Strange]

Begging the question whether we have one model in part explained with two analogies explaining parts of that model or two models with each an analogy cake and balloon respectively?

 

I thought that both analogies concern the same model.

 

They do. They are both (poor) analogies to attempt to show some aspects of the model.

[kristalris]

 

They do. They are both (poor) analogies to attempt to show some aspects of the model.

Okay, that then begs the question in what respects the two analogies fail, given that these two analogies can be combined to better represent the given single model? A model inherently only dealing with observed interactions. And what the OP changes in the former single model other than making it more flat.

 

So in what does a Champagne bubble analogy fail to represent this in a slightly (less curved due too the OP) stationary cake shape? You at least then have a better single analogy of your unchanged model.

 

Edit: And might I add the way in which our observations have grown in time from a sphere like observable universe to a more and more (due to the OP as well) flat curved space cake form in which un-expanding raisins (DM) accelerate like Champagne bubbles (DE) from the bottom to the top of the cake, and away to the sides due to curvature of the cake as well.

 

BTW 2 mathematically extrapolating this rise in observations from sphere to a flatter cake still (OP) makes for a very large un-obervable hollow sphere.

Edited January 17, 2014 by kristalris

[Strange]

Okay, that then begs the question in what respects the two analogies fail

 

Well, the balloon one is 2 dimensional and it seems a lot of people have an awful lot of trouble working out that the analogy only uses the surface of the balloon (not the inside or the outside). And then they have trouble extrapolating that to 3 dimensions. If the universe is flat, then that also means the curvature is unhelpful.

 

The cake one is ... well, I'm not even sure it has any useful features. It has a boundary and a center, which the model doesn't. The only thing in its favor is that it is 3 dimensional.

 

 

So in what does a Champagne bubble analogy fail to represent

 

All the bubbles are moving in the same direction at the same speed. So I'm not sure how it demonstrates anything useful.

[michel123456]

 

Well, the balloon one is 2 dimensional and it seems a lot of people have an awful lot of trouble working out that the analogy only uses the surface of the balloon (not the inside or the outside). And then they have trouble extrapolating that to 3 dimensions. If the universe is flat, then that also means the curvature is unhelpful.

 

The cake one is ... well, I'm not even sure it has any useful features. It has a boundary and a center, which the model doesn't. The only thing in its favor is that it is 3 dimensional.

 

 

All the bubbles are moving in the same direction at the same speed. So I'm not sure how it demonstrates anything useful.

You should open a champagne and observe carefully what happens.

[Alan McDougall]

This might be stupid to say, but what if the universe is really expanding more than the speed of light. If it is going faster than the speed of light, and nothing travels faster than light, then we wouldn't be able to observe the expansion, therefor calling space infinite. That's just want I thing. I can't imagine something infinite. But then, if space isn't infinite, then what is holding space, or the multiverse?

 

Very confusing subject...

 

Some cosmologist , indeed think the universe will go on expanding, forever!

[Strange]

You should open a champagne and observe carefully what happens.

 

Sounds like a good excuse...

[kristalris]

 

Well, the balloon one is 2 dimensional and it seems a lot of people have an awful lot of trouble working out that the analogy only uses the surface of the balloon (not the inside or the outside). And then they have trouble extrapolating that to 3 dimensions. If the universe is flat, then that also means the curvature is unhelpful.

 

The cake one is ... well, I'm not even sure it has any useful features. It has a boundary and a center, which the model doesn't. The only thing in its favor is that it is 3 dimensional.

 

 

All the bubbles are moving in the same direction at the same speed. So I'm not sure how it demonstrates anything useful.

Well if you have a model depicting what we observe mathematically and only that what we observe without extrapolating that, then you have a boundary, namely the observable limit. Which rises the further we can observe. If the model doesn't have a boundary then it is extrapolating further than our observations.

 

This model has as I understand it curvature and deals with a 3D space and movement i.e. time. Edit: so a 2D analogy is not up to scratch unless 3D which is possible with the balloon as shown. Because the observed curvature can be extrapolated to a sphere or balloon then.

 

All bubbles are not at the same speed yet accelerate, not exactly as Champagne bubbles but with a constant acceleration and, the bubbles don't expand but are like raisins.

 

The curvature of the model is needed for the observed lagging behind more and more of the bubbles/ raisins to the sides. => we observe that everything is moving in one direction albeit slightly curved as I understand.

 

If indeed our universe is a large sphere with a skin like stable crust the historical rise in observations is consistent with that. The further we can observe up or down will yield no new galaxies. For the simple reason then there are none there. Only to the sides will this then continue at first like the OP seemingly more flat and then becoming a bit more down curved again. That then will probably be the maximum observational limit assuming no light can travel outside the crust.

Edited January 17, 2014 by kristalris

[michel123456]

 

Sounds like a good excuse...

Open a beer then. Leffe, Grimbergen, Stella Artois,...

 

You will observe that the bubbles are in a state of acceleration.

They do not start all at the same time, there is a delay.

The result of both delay & acceleration makes that the distance between the bubbles increases.

Edited January 17, 2014 by michel123456

[kristalris]

Open a beer then. Leffe, Grimbergen, Stella Artois,...

 

You will observe that the bubbles are in a state of acceleration.

They do not start all at the same time, there is a delay.

The result of both delay & acceleration makes that the distance between the bubbles increases.

exactly, cheers!

[Strange]

Well if you have a model depicting what we observe mathematically and only that what we observe without extrapolating that, then you have a boundary, namely the observable limit. Which rises the further we can observe. If the model doesn't have a boundary then it is extrapolating further than our observations.

 

Correct. It is a model for the whole universe, not just the observable universe.

 

 

If indeed our universe is a large sphere with a skin like stable crust

 

It isn't. Although, obviously, the observable universe is a sphere (without a "crust").

[swansont]

Open a beer then. Leffe, Grimbergen, Stella Artois,...

 

You will observe that the bubbles are in a state of acceleration.

They do not start all at the same time, there is a delay.

The result of both delay & acceleration makes that the distance between the bubbles increases.

 

How is this a good match to the universe? The bubbles are all going in one direction and there is, as you say, a delay between individual bubbles.

This model has as I understand it curvature and deals with a 3D space and movement i.e. time. Edit: so a 2D analogy is not up to scratch unless 3D which is possible with the balloon as shown. Because the observed curvature can be extrapolated to a sphere or balloon then.

A lot of people have trouble with visualizing this in 3 dimensions. They can't get past the boundaries that are present in the bread/cake analogy.

[michel123456]

How is this a good match to the universe? The bubbles are all going in one direction and there is, as you say, a delay between individual bubbles.

In the universe, the delay is caused by the constancy of the Speed Of Light.

[kristalris]

The visual universe to the naked eye is indeed a sphere, yet I guess the model corrects this putting all objects where they should be given the time that light needed to travel. And I guess using advanced instruments to look further we end up with a flattish universe that is portrayed in most depictions resembling a rugby ball spinning on the ground or squashed sphere:

 

http://www.digitaltrends.com/international/scientists-unveil-3d-map-of-the-universe-complete-with-43000-galaxies/

 

This I can reconcile with a flat universe notion. The sphere flattens out. So I guess there are mathematical models / a model that sec describes what we observe and the accelerations and vectors without extrapolating anything. Just simply describing what we observe. Only after that should you try and extrapolate.

 

Otherwise I'm at a loss why talk about a flat universe at all, unless you are extrapolating beyond what we observe.

 

The problem with a sphere expanding the way that is depicted is part of it will very quickly hit c. Now I guess the model doesn't want that to happen. Having bubbles you don't have that problem.

 

Apart from that a bubble scenario also extremely nicely fits the observed super clusters http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Superclusters_atlasoftheuniverse.gif

 

Like looking into a glass of Champagne.

[Strange]

The visual universe to the naked eye is indeed a sphere, yet I guess the model corrects this putting all objects where they should be given the time that light needed to travel.

 

The observable universe is a sphere. By definition. That has nothing to do with space being flat.

 

Read the OP or, better, the article:

 

In short, the universe appears to be quite "flat," meaning that its shape can be described well by Euclidean geometry, in which straight lines are parallel and the angles in a triangle add up to 180 degrees.

 

And nothing to do with extrapolating beyond what we observe. The flatness is directly measured.

 

 

The problem with a sphere expanding the way that is depicted is part of it will very quickly hit c.

 

There are (and possibly always have been) parts of the universe which are sufficiently far away that they are receding faster than c. There is no problem with that.

Edited January 17, 2014 by Strange

[swansont]

In the universe, the delay is caused by the constancy of the Speed Of Light.

 

But for the analogy to be a good one you need for parts of the universe to have been created at different times.

[kristalris]

 

But for the analogy to be a good one you need for parts of the universe to have been created at different times.

Yes and no. New galaxies as the bubbles could be born all the time. This doesn't mean that all of the universe / cosmos wasn't there all the time. It only means it is probably cyclic.

 

Owing to the way you measure it the Big Bang is seemingly at the same moment in time. Yet you don't need a big bang at all to describe all we observe. Only our Milky Way was banged into existence at that moment.

 

If you look at the depiction I gave the black bit is our Milky Way and it is traveling / accelerating - we observe - towards the flat bit above or below in that same picture. It is broader to the sides because there you have more galaxies and large clusters of them perceived as only galaxies because of the distance. That these are persieved moving away and falling behind a bit at the same acceleration away from us in all directions can only be explained in a flat crust of a sphere. Also explaining the measured flat geometry. Like the flat earth it only seems so.

[swansont]

Yes and no. New galaxies as the bubbles could be born all the time. This doesn't mean that all of the universe / cosmos wasn't there all the time. It only means it is probably cyclic.

The big bang theory goes further than this, though. It predicts that all of the matter/energy was created at once, which is consistent with observation. Not that new galaxies pop into existence later.

 

If your contention is that the material was there but the galaxies merely formed later, I suspect you have a lot of work ahead of you coming up with a model showing why it should happen in such a progression.

 

Owing to the way you measure it the Big Bang is seemingly at the same moment in time. Yet you don't need a big bang at all to describe all we observe. Only our Milky Way was banged into existence at that moment.

Now all you need is evidence that this is so.

[kristalris]

 

The big bang theory goes further than this, though. It predicts that all of the matter/energy was created at once, which is consistent with observation. Not that new galaxies pop into existence later.

 

If your contention is that the material was there but the galaxies merely formed later, I suspect you have a lot of work ahead of you coming up with a model showing why it should happen in such a progression.

 

 

Now all you need is evidence that this is so.

Ah, no, the Bubbles have reached paradigm par with the Big Bang. Not having to predict anything as yet. No speculation an exact scientific fact thus.

 

This would only be different if the big bang theory is based on measurements done - in - other galaxies. We know that isn't the case. That is a yet to be proven prediction indeed that all came about in just one bang.

 

Now the OP with its measured flat (= 2D) space (=3D) can only thus be seen as a thick flat crust. Depicted in the squashed sphere with the black bit in the middle because our Milky Way bars the view.

 

(Edit: for otherwise if you see it as flat in all directions then it is an Euclidean cube space containing an also observed non Euclidean curved space as I indeed believe it both at the same time to be, yet I doubt to be already measurable because at a vastly different scale both larger and smaller. So I guess the measured flatness of the OP is only in one axes? (= a much smaller scale namely to our furthest observable galaxies) And the lot of work to be done is for a great part already done of which part was given in a closed thread. The evidence is BTW the same evidence you are using. So then I can claim parity.)

 

Well that can be infinite indeed yet then at odds with the also measured observation of our galaxy moving in relation to the rest frames. Galaxies far away to the sides are dropping away slowly contrary to the ones in front and behind. We are - observed - to be moving to one of the flat sides. => slightly curved space BTW also consistent with the claimed 1% accuracy of the OP.

 

So if the OP fits the big bang theory it then is at odds with this other measurement. Bubbles isn't, it is married to - all - observations. But then it is a slightly curved crust with two flat convex and concave sides.

 

Well to shift this paradigm into gear extrapolate that. You can dispense with the formalities I guess, to see what you get. Then you get to the question which to choose from the infinite flat space of the OP or what you get when you extrapolate a - scientifically observed - flat slightly curved thick disk.

Edited January 18, 2014 by kristalris

[Alan McDougall]

 

The big bang theory goes further than this, though. It predicts that all of the matter/energy was created at once, which is consistent with observation. Not that new galaxies pop into existence later.

 

If your contention is that the material was there but the galaxies merely formed later, I suspect you have a lot of work ahead of you coming up with a model showing why it should happen in such a progression.

 

 

Now all you need is evidence that this is so.

 

We know our universe exists and most believe it had a beginning , namely the Big Bang and its expansion is accelerating, if this acceleration in the rate of expansion of the universe continues,it must reach a point beyond exponential and accelerate/expand at an infinite rate? This would mean our universe would become infinitely large and the debate whether it is flat or spherical, becomes a moot point that no longer matters.

 

Does our universe float in some other medium and expand into it?

Is it expanding into said medium?

Could that medium be an infinitely large totally empty void?

Or could our universe be "everything" expanding? (Nothing else existing only our universe)

[swansont]

We know our universe exists and most believe it had a beginning , namely the Big Bang and its expansion is accelerating, if this acceleration in the rate of expansion of the universe continues,it must reach a point beyond exponential and accelerate/expand at an infinite rate? This would mean our universe would become infinitely large and the debate whether it is flat or spherical, becomes a moot point that no longer matters.

"Flat" vs "spherical" is not a comparison being made. This is not a discussion of whether the universe is spherical or pancake-shaped. As I said earlier, "flat" refers to the underlying geometry, i.e it can be described with Euclidean geometry. A sphere can be described with Euclidean geometry. So our universe can be both spherical and flat.

 

The problem with the bubble model, again, is that you have different parts of the universe being created at different times. This needs to match up with experimental observation, so you need some sort of specific prediction, something you can measure, that would confirm this. What is it?

 

Does our universe float in some other medium and expand into it?

Is it expanding into said medium?

Could that medium be an infinitely large totally empty void?

Or could our universe be "everything" expanding? (Nothing else existing only our universe)

If this is a question about the big bang model and the current state of cosmology, I would suggest you learn the answers to these and other questions before critiquing the theory, and suggesting new models. No, we are not expanding into some other medium. There is no "outside" to the universe.

 

Ah, no, the Bubbles have reached paradigm par with the Big Bang. Not having to predict anything as yet. No speculation an exact scientific fact thus.

Seriously?

 

The paradigms are on par? Why, exactly? because you say so? Can I go out and read about the champagne bubble model of the universe in science articles and textbooks, because it is on par with the big bang?

 

You don't need any predictions? Why, exactly? Because you say so? You have some secret authority to skirt the protocols of science?

 

It's a fact (and an exact one at that)? Why, exactly? Because you say so?

 

 

 

This would only be different if the big bang theory is based on measurements done - in - other galaxies. We know that isn't the case. That is a yet to be proven prediction indeed that all came about in just one bang.

Again: seriously?

[kristalris]

Ah I get it, the depiction I gave of the universe is some sort of Aitof projection. So the if indeed all furthest galaxies are roughly at the same distance from us then indeed our observable universe is a sphere.

 

The geometry is then dependent on the question whether this observed universe is flat in all three axes. I'm trying to find the Wikipedia page where it was stated that observations show that we are moving in a direction via a vector straight through the black hole in the center of the Milky Way. This due to the observation that the galaxies to the sides are slowly falling back. This would entail a dome shape geometry with our Milky Way at the top of the dome moving up. The geometry on the both other axes should then be flat when cut at a right angle to the dome. You then inherently observe thus a slightly curved thick crust.

 

Even when the radiation measured from the big bang comes from all sides so that we can't ascertain where the bang took place isn't inconsistent with such a center existing. If these field lines arc like a huge magnetic field and cover a great deal of the "floor" then we would be emerged from all sides by this field. This then doesn't imply only one big bang but is also consistent with a continuous banging of bubbles with adjunct debris that didn't form into strings / SM particles, after the bang.

 

How far we can observe light (etc) also depends on the question whether light even outside any gravitational field travels in a straight line. I guess not so that would inherently mean that there is a maximum observable limit. Seeing a top or a bottom then depends on the thickness of the crust in relation to the curve of a photon that travels then only in a seeming straight line.

 

So this begs the question do we indeed observe galaxies to the sides of our Milky Way slowly drop back as I understood we did? Being thus at odds with the OP unless it falls within the 1% measurement error.

 

 

 

Edit found it, this means IMO that the geometry with the disk of our galaxy flat on top must be dome shaped: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milky_Way#Velocity

 

Velocity[edit]

Although special relativity states that there is no "preferred" inertial frame of reference in space with which to compare the Milky Way, the Galaxy does have a velocity with respect to cosmological frames of reference.

One such frame of reference is the Hubble flow, the apparent motions of galaxy clusters due to the expansion of space. Individual galaxies, including the Milky Way, have peculiar velocities relative to the average flow. Thus, to compare the Milky Way to the Hubble flow, one must consider a volume large enough so that the expansion of the Universe dominates over local, random motions. A large enough volume means that the mean motion of galaxies within this volume is equal to the Hubble flow. Astronomers believe the Milky Way is moving at approximately 630 km per second with respect to this local co-moving frame of reference.^[131] The Milky Way is moving in the general direction of the Great Attractor and other galaxy clusters, including the Shapley supercluster, behind it.^[132] The Local Group (a cluster of gravitationally bound galaxies containing, among others, the Milky Way and the Andromeda Galaxy) is part of a supercluster called the Local Supercluster, centered near the Virgo Cluster: although they are moving away from each other at 967 km/s as part of the Hubble flow, this velocity is less than would be expected given the 16.8 million pc distance due to the gravitational attraction between the Local Group and the Virgo Cluster.^[133]

Another reference frame is provided by the cosmic microwave background (CMB). The Milky Way is moving at 552 ± 6 km/s^[11] with respect to the photons of the CMB, toward 10.5 right ascension, −24° declination (J2000 epoch, near the center of Hydra). This motion is observed by satellites such as the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) and the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) as a dipole contribution to the CMB, as photons in equilibrium in the CMB frame get blue-shifted in the direction of the motion and red-shifted in the opposite direction.^[11]

^{end quote:}

Seriously?

The paradigms are on par? Why, exactly? because you say so? Can I go out and read about the champagne bubble model of the universe in science articles and textbooks, because it is on par with the big bang?

You don't need any predictions? Why, exactly? Because you say so? You have some secret authority to skirt the protocols of science?

It's a fact (and an exact one at that)? Why, exactly? Because you say so?




Again: seriously?

Seriously? Yes. You can read it in your own books on the subject. In effect I've nicked all your observations and mathematics, and provide an other way of looking at it without infringing on them. (= a true paradigm on par) Although I then don't and the other does have mathematical testable predictions really doesn't come into play. I don't extrapolate just compare to what is observed. (Although I can of course provide testable predictions without the mathematics as yet. As said not my job to do that.)

 

The protocols of science must adhere to the fundamental rule of Occams razor i.e. the Lex Parsimony. In that comparison my bubbles are on par with your big bang yet more simple. Occam then rules what is the only valid view in science, which you can read in this thread. And that goes before you start off doing any sort of extrapolation or prediction. The protocol of science depicted in the Lex parsimony dictates this as the ground work to be done before doing that.

Edited January 18, 2014 by kristalris