Mordred Posted January 15, 2015 Posted January 15, 2015 Your right I posted the related math of just that statement. Your model you considered just redshift. I'm pointing out you also have to think thermodynamics But instead of trying to understand why you choose to hand wave it away You present a model we present what we see wrong with it. You show us why we're wrong. Then we move to the next argument or hole in your model. That's the process
andreasjva Posted January 15, 2015 Author Posted January 15, 2015 Also, you've thus far ignored my question about contraction. To what point is everything contracting? And doesn't that mean we are moving toward things that are on the other side of that point? So why do we see redshifts, rather than blueshifts? I did answer it. No, there is nothing on the other side of that point. Clearly you are not fully grasping the concept yet. You are thinking of it entirely wrong, which is why you're having difficulty understanding it. Think of each piece of matter like a bouncing ball maybe. Contraction is the bouncing up and down. You don't go anywhere. The increments get faster and faster until it comes to rest. When all motion stops, you cease to exist. That's contraction. When we move towards expansion, we move the whole bouncing ball from A to B. The faster we go, the slower the bounce. We can do this because the forces are omnidirectional, and expansion encompasses all points within the universe. Technically, we only ever move in two directions though, in or out. Time is the separation between expansion and contraction. The closer you move towards contraction, the faster the time. Just to give you an idea of what that means exactly. The distance to the nucleus of an atom to its shell, is about the equivalence of the distance from the sun to beyond Pluto somewhere. Proportionately speaking. That's just one layer. We are still a long way from contracting to nothing. All of these perspectives are completely relative, you would have no idea any of this happening.
Mordred Posted January 15, 2015 Posted January 15, 2015 In 2d 3d or 4d contraction implies an increase in density. How is your contraction different? Doesn't matter the distance scales or how many dimensions you use. Or even what is contracting. It still an increase in density of a particular property influence or particle species.
andreasjva Posted January 15, 2015 Author Posted January 15, 2015 (edited) You present a model we present what we see wrong with it. You show us why we're wrong. Then we move to the next argument or hole in your model. In the ideal world, that would be great. However, please do consider reality. No one person can possibly know everything there is to know about every aspect of science. We could quite literally, be talking about 100 years or so. Science has evolved with millions of contributions both big and small over a very long period of time. Most are never heard of. Even Einstein was built on others work. I can only take this to a very limited point, and everything I've considered relies on everyone else. A scientist can literally spend a lifetime on one single problem. I'm not even a scientist. I'm tackling the whole thing at once in general terms. There would literally not be one single area this theory would not impact. I do appreciate your rational and extremely valid input more than you know. Unfortunately, I am only one man with one simple idea based purely on reasoning and observations at hand. I couldn't possibly know all there is to know, or all that needs to be understood in fully developing this theory. I'm a realist. Give me your concerns in plain english, and I'll do my best to sort it out. In 2d 3d or 4d contraction implies an increase in density. How is your contraction different? Doesn't matter the distance scales or how many dimensions you use. Or even what is contracting. It still an increase in density of a particular property influence or particle species. If we're talking relativity though, would it really matter? Our relationship to density would remain static, even if the density were rising. How would you know? Edited January 15, 2015 by andreasjva
Mordred Posted January 15, 2015 Posted January 15, 2015 The main concern is the contracting of one set of species and the expansion of another set coupled with two directions of flow. No matter how I view this set of interactions. I see no way to maintain uniformity. This would mean any equation of the ideal gas laws, cosmology and the Einstein field field equations in Cosmology applications would be wrong. An ideal gas is a uniform gas approximation. LCDM and the Einstein field equations both employ the ideal gas laws. You have not yet shown a solution as to how to maintain sn isotropic and homogeneous universe with your descriptives. If anything your descriptives are the exact opposite. We would know if the density is rising by an increase in temperature. Which is by the way another critical piece of evidence that the universe is expanding. We didn't just rely on redshift. There is 10^90 particles roughly in the universe. Energy is a property of particles. Our universe is cooling down. Therefore the universe must expanding. It cannot drop in temperature without a lower density. Here is the cosmic energy inventory http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0406095v2.pdf"The Cosmic energy inventory"
andreasjva Posted January 15, 2015 Author Posted January 15, 2015 I'm not sure if this helps your understanding or not or fits the problem, but the flows are somewhat isolated. All inward flow starts at the mass wall and points in, and all outward flow starts at the mass wall and goes out. The shell wall is like the great divide between the two forces. Our perspective is from the shell wall, or between the forces. I'll have to ponder it some. I have never examined it thermodynamically. I am not grasping the issue fully. When I get it, i get it.
Mordred Posted January 15, 2015 Posted January 15, 2015 The references I posted will help. I'll dig up some easier to relate to material on individual particle species influences. Bose-Einstein and fermi-Dirac distributions are not for beginning understanding
xyzt Posted January 15, 2015 Posted January 15, 2015 Clearly you have not read any of the thread. That couldn't be further from the truth. I cannot fix delusions.
andreasjva Posted January 15, 2015 Author Posted January 15, 2015 I read a bunch of stuff on the Bose-Einstein condensate a while back. Really cool stuff with single atom laser type beam. I've pondered that globular state of the condensate on several occasions. In thinking about the issue, how much would time play into the model? For example, 1 second 10 years ago might be the equivalent of 10 years now. We're also accelerating, which i suspect is more from a standpoint of time than contraction. Could that be a factor in the problem?
Strange Posted January 15, 2015 Posted January 15, 2015 Let me rephrase it. The is only one correct answer based on logic. Your answer is no more logical than any of the others. Unless, of course, you are using the usual "personal theory" meaning of logic, which appears to be "it makes sense to me because I thought of it". 1
xyzt Posted January 15, 2015 Posted January 15, 2015 Your answer is no more logical than any of the others. Unless, of course, you are using the usual "personal theory" meaning of logic, which appears to be "it makes sense to me because I thought of it".
Strange Posted January 15, 2015 Posted January 15, 2015 Think of each piece of matter like a bouncing ball maybe. Contraction is the bouncing up and down. You don't go anywhere. The increments get faster and faster until it comes to rest. When all motion stops, you cease to exist. That's contraction. You do realise that this make zero sense? How can bouncing up and down be the same as things getting smaller (and/or getting closer together, depending what you mean by "contraction").
andreasjva Posted January 15, 2015 Author Posted January 15, 2015 You do realise that this make zero sense? Seriously? You don't understand the analogy? Would you prefer a deflating balloon?
Strange Posted January 15, 2015 Posted January 15, 2015 Seriously? You don't understand the analogy? Perhaps you could explain the relationship between simple harmonic motion and contraction. I don't see it. When we move towards expansion, we move the whole bouncing ball from A to B. And why would moving it from one place to another change contraction to expansion? A ball bouncing in my back yard behaves identically to a ball bouncing in my kitchen. In fact, that is one of fundamental symmetries in the universe and one of the axioms that relativity is basd on.
swansont Posted January 15, 2015 Posted January 15, 2015 I did answer it. No, there is nothing on the other side of that point. Clearly you are not fully grasping the concept yet. You are thinking of it entirely wrong, which is why you're having difficulty understanding it. Think of each piece of matter like a bouncing ball maybe. Contraction is the bouncing up and down. You don't go anywhere. The increments get faster and faster until it comes to rest. When all motion stops, you cease to exist. That's contraction. How is that contraction? "Contraction" has a meaning, and it's hard to reconcile that with your discussion. Matter is not a bouncing ball. If you're going to use that as an analogy, explain how it's relevant. When we move towards expansion, we move the whole bouncing ball from A to B. The faster we go, the slower the bounce. We can do this because the forces are omnidirectional, and expansion encompasses all points within the universe. Technically, we only ever move in two directions though, in or out. In or out of what? "the faster we go" implies motion. What's moving? Time is the separation between expansion and contraction. The closer you move towards contraction, the faster the time. Just to give you an idea of what that means exactly. The distance to the nucleus of an atom to its shell, is about the equivalence of the distance from the sun to beyond Pluto somewhere. Proportionately speaking. That's just one layer. We are still a long way from contracting to nothing. All of these perspectives are completely relative, you would have no idea any of this happening. How can you "move toward contraction"? You don't have a math model, and your attempts to explain qualitatively fall way short of the mark.
swansont Posted January 15, 2015 Posted January 15, 2015 Seriously? You don't understand the analogy? Would you prefer a deflating balloon? A deflating balloon is moving in toward the center, and there ballon on the other side of the center of the collapse, in all directions. You've already rejected that, so how does that work as an analogy?
Strange Posted January 15, 2015 Posted January 15, 2015 It's an analogy. It is an incomprehensible one. That is why we are asking you to clarify it. This post is similar to a green turnip balanced on a pyramid.
Mordred Posted January 15, 2015 Posted January 15, 2015 It is an incomprehensible one. That is why we are asking you to clarify it. This post is similar to a green turnip balanced on a pyramid. Lol
andrewcellini Posted January 15, 2015 Posted January 15, 2015 It is an incomprehensible one. That is why we are asking you to clarify it. This post is similar to a green turnip balanced on a pyramid. but that makes almost too much sense.
Strange Posted January 15, 2015 Posted January 15, 2015 but that makes almost too much sense. Yeah, I'm no good at this "out of the box" nonsense.
andreasjva Posted January 15, 2015 Author Posted January 15, 2015 A bouncing ball is easier to incorporate an element of time. Each bounce becomes shorter and shorter, while the frequency rises. A balloon simply deflates. Surely you have the imaginative skills to consider shorter distances as a contraction process. A rising frequency value against a falling energy value. The rising frequency is time, and the falling energy is contraction.
swansont Posted January 15, 2015 Posted January 15, 2015 A bouncing ball is easier to incorporate an element of time. Each bounce becomes shorter and shorter, while the frequency rises. A balloon simply deflates. Surely you have the imaginative skills to consider shorter distances as a contraction process. A rising frequency value against a falling energy value. The rising frequency is time, and the falling energy is contraction. Still not making any sense to me. It sounds like you're describing an oscillation, but if that's the case, what would be oscillating?
andreasjva Posted January 15, 2015 Author Posted January 15, 2015 Still not making any sense to me. It sounds like you're describing an oscillation, but if that's the case, what would be oscillating? okay, let me try a little better analogy. imagine a ball inside an inflated balloon, bouncing back and forth. As the balloon deflates, the frequency of the ball rises. The more it deflates, the higher the frequency, the faster the time. Eventually the balloon and the ball will stop, and time ends. No motion, no energy. That is where we are contracting to. But a piece of matter has many many layers, and they are extremely far apart proportionately. Our perception of the universe is along the outside of the balloon wall. That defines our time, and distance in our universal perspective. it's just an analogy.
JohnSSM Posted January 16, 2015 Posted January 16, 2015 (edited) After giving the topic a re-read, my doubts lay in the very first line and following lines...Because I have been taking a stance that an empty universe possesses no value, you cant just give it a value of 496 or 1, in my opinion...and zero wont work for the rest of these equations you branch from e=mc2 using the logic that there is a value at all to plug into the equation when considering an empty universe...If the mass value were 1, the universe would no longer be empty, so how could its empty value be the same as its value with mass? IF mass is 1, space is no longer empty and has a value of 1...when mass is zero, accordingly, due to the equivalence law, the value of an empty universe would be zero...GR gets it's terms from mass and equates them into a resulting curvature of space...Maybe we should be looking to solve GR with no mass values and see what we come up with...I think someone allready did but i dont have a reference...Ill go looking for it...Alas...in layman's terms, I think it is "poopy" to give values of 1 at "empty"...empty means zero in layman's terms...space-time could have any potential without mass and it doesnt need mass to have potential, in layman's terms...In layman's terms, it seems like youre saying these equations make sense if you redefine zero to have a value...well..im a layman and you cant do that!"An empty universe possesses a potential value of 1. Because there would be nothing but itself to compare to, its mass value could also be defined as 1.Mass is another way in which we define potential energy.The potential energy of that mass could also be considered 1, because once again, it would only be comparable to itself in that singular state, and mass is the equivalence of energy as Einstein proved in e=mc^2." Potential energy exists for mass...its a property of mass...and you ask, what is the potential energy of energy at value zero and call it 1..."In physics, potential energy is the energy that an object has due to its position in a force field or that a system has due to the configuration of its parts" Potential energy is the energy that an object has...youre saying that the empty universe is an object...""An empty universe possesses a potential value of 1."Did you mean potential energy value of 1? or "undefined" potential value? Edited January 16, 2015 by JohnSSM
Recommended Posts