What is all the evidence for an Expanding Universe

[shmengie]

A higher density means a higher temperature

You contract matter enough due to gravity to compensate for the cosmological constant. Every planet would reach nuclear fusion

 

 

You have no idea how many times in 30 years I've heard this matter contraction idea.

 

In 30 years I've never seen the idea work with proper mathematics. Or understanding of thermodynamic principles.

 

 

Even from professional PH.D cosmologists

 

 

Your trying to tie principles of thermodynamics as you understand them to the principles of General Relativity in ways that don't compute due to lack of grasping methods they don't compute together.

 

We possess too much ignorance to tie the two together in any meaningfully reliable way.

 

GR is beautiful because its so simple. It's unfortunate that we cannot tie it with Quantum Mechanics and all branches of physics from which stem from it, ie thermodynamics.

 

Part of the problem is that they address two different solutions to address two different sets of problems.

 

Where we possess ignorance in thermodynamics is in a realm of imaginary particles and in essence a set of imaginary valence shells.

 

We have no experience with particles with atomic weights only imaginary. Not because theoretically the might exist. But that their half-lives are so short after supernova episode from which they were released they simply would not exist now, their half-lives are to short, its too late to ever find them naturally occurring.

 

Theoretically there is so much difference between where they're made the conditions are so different from anything we can know, it's hard to make up what we would need experience testing in a reality that cannot coincide. Our periodic table is evidence of sorts of these problems.

 

The heavier an atom is the higher its atomic weight. After lead which is fairly low on the periodic table, there's many unstable elements. Lead is the last of the stable. Anything heavier has a much shorter half life. It's not a direct relationship in size, because valence level increase don't quite match on a straight one to one scale, but the more levels needed the shorter the half life does have correlation to this fact.

 

I'm no expert on QM or thermo, I'm only amateur. But I get around a lot. Anyway, we can imagine much heavier but we cannot produce enough pressure and time changing properties to even pretend we have a clue what really happens in stars billions upon billions of times more massive than the sun.

 

We have no rules for matter in the field of thermodynamics to even become to guess how an atom of atomic weight might behave with a weight of 1000. Let alone if atoms of 1,000,000,000 or more are possible in such super massive stars.

 

Iron's way lower on the scale and presumed to be star destruction weight. But many others exist... and our ignorance is too abundant to make guesses at stuff we can't quite even guess how might behave in pressures difficult to comprehend.

 

No, we're kinda limited to GR and its beauty of not locking time, gravity and distance in simplicity.

 

With GR the universe can be any size and change any time it wants. But its so simple in its rules you cannot change the amount of mass and adjust size w/out creating a new rule for divorcing some aspect of GR.... except in the black hole we don't understand.

 

In order for light shift to occur, you have to change time, gravity and distance together. It's only mathematically possible to do at the point of infinity which is at the hole.

 

The way GR works the universe could expand and contract any way it wants w/out breaking GR. Its a flaw of sorts. But conceptually its hard to imagine.

 

if you add shift that's not explained by adding a new rule to GR, it doesn't work with the math at all. You need a new rule. cosmic light shift is a rule w/out a reason.

 

Its associated with an expansion that doesn't theoretically exist. It just seems that way.

 

I'm working toward understanding it all. HEHE, I'd like to be able to tie GR & QM together. But by design they exist to solve different problems. Its not really logical to tie them together.

 

Oh... By atomic weight and ignorance... If a star can be a billion (or some odd factor greater) than that of our sun how can we even imagine what the atomic weight nearing an atom made up of the number of atoms that is our sun? Is a singularity an atom of atomic weight mass of a Schwarzschild radius ?

 

The numbers get so big in cosmic scales, its hard to comprehend what the possibilities might be, or where or ignorance even begins.

 

I've tied QM & GR together in two ways. One is a common denominator in ignorance. The other is that its illogical to tie the together in the first place.

 

But points of ignorance both lie with in numbers growing too big for us to be able to make sense out of either. - problem w/ignorance is its hard to know what you do not know. If the tie lies in what you don't, how do you make a missing connection or even suspect it might exist.

Edited March 31, 2016 by shmengie

[Strange]

Your trying to tie principles of thermodynamics as you understand them to the principles of General Relativity in ways that don't compute due to lack of grasping methods they don't compute together.

 

These, and their relationship, are very well understood. And Mordred understands them very well.

 

We possess too much ignorance to tie the two together in any meaningfully reliable way.

 

Didn't your mother ever tell you not to project your ignorance on to other people.

 

 

GR is beautiful because its so simple.

 

Conceptually, maybe. But I would not describe it as simple. It is incomprehensibly complex, if you ask me.

 

I couldn't see anything relevant in your long incoherent ramble on atomic weights.

[Phi for All]

problem w/ignorance is its hard to know what you do not know. If the tie lies in what you don't, how do you make a missing connection or even suspect it might exist.

 

If you really are acknowledging the difficulty in trying to second-guess complicated concepts when you don't know enough about them, then you really should also acknowledge that you need a more formal route for education than the one you've been using. I highly recommend taking a class where a more comprehensive approach will serve you better than pop-science tidbits.

[shmengie]

Conceptually, maybe. But I would not describe it as simple. It is incomprehensibly complex, if you ask me.

It's a curious note you make... I've been working toward understanding relativity for a long time.

You've told me I don't believe in GR because I don't believe in Lambda-CDM. By order of development and basis of fact that breaks all logic.

 

Lambda-CDM is based on GR, Belief in GR may continue independent of belief in Lambda-CDM.

 

GR is so simple it's tremendously complex. Einstein provided only two predictions for light shift. The only place to break his rules is at the infinity of the singularity.

In order to explain a cosmological shift, it's hard to conceive that its simply not possible to do it anywhere else based on the way the math works and the only point it breaks.

 

A new rule for shift would have to be explained in GR to change the way the math works. I'm still trying to cope with that fact, because I know I understand it.

 

I've hinted around at it, but Lambda-CDM has a basis for a start at the singularity because of infinity. But because the way the tool of math is applied to the simple rules of GR. So many other rules have been based on it because the rules of GR keep holding true, evidence by nature.

 

But because Lambda-CDM suggests another shift in light. One must modify the way GR works or add a new rule to add a 3rd shift. Any other conclusion requires breaking the exiting simplicity of GR and/or changing the tools of math. The problem is a singular one, of infinity at the singularity point.

 

-- I'm still trying to understand how Einstein came up with so few simple rules that inevitable work this way.

Its so simple its incomprehensibly complex to me. I don't think he intended for GR to break at the singular point. I see it as a problem of our inability to deal with changing -+ rules of math that cannot cope... part of the reason we call imaginary numbers imaginary in the first place. But I've not begun the task that must ensue to solve the problem of infinity and GR.

 

I'm slow, I know it. I heard GR was magical a long time ago. Been working on coming to terms of what that means slowly. I have to analyze too much, to believe I understand.

 

I couldn't see anything relevant in your long incoherent ramble on atomic weights.

I get that completely! It has to do with the sheer scale of the periodic table and what happens when the valence count reaches anything that might be considered a large number. It doesn't. Not because theoretically it couldn't... But making sense of pressures and where valence shells could increase further than the short list availed to the periodic chart is outside all physical possible experimental requirements for us to see what happens.

 

I cannot help you with your ignorance, nor my own to much extent. All I can do is call notice for reason of ignorance that exist. Explaining why the unknown exists is easy compared to resolving unknowns that exists because the unknowns exist.

 

I gave mordred something to contemplate, I suspect... I got his point about pressures and densities quickly. But I already knew there's much I don't know about that and ruled it out of my thought processes for a reason. Took a while for the reason to return.

 

We don't know if there's any theoretical limit to valence levels. These change pressure and density equations dramatically with only the few changes we think we understand, with a small number (relatively speaking) of valence levels. It's what makes chemistry and electronics so complex and QM such a different field from GR. But we only know a little about it because our experience with pressure and densities of theoretical capacity are limited to what we might experience at our limits.

 

In other words singularities probably don't have these same limitations, doesn't help we that can't observe them in more detail. GR, in a way, eludes to it with the infinity problem. Einstein was right when he said he was wrong. That's all I really need to know, for myself. Pop-sci called it into question. I had to figure out why. Took me only ~ 3 years. LOL

 

If you really are acknowledging the difficulty in trying to second-guess complicated concepts when you don't know enough about them, then you really should also acknowledge that you need a more formal route for education than the one you've been using. I highly recommend taking a class where a more comprehensive approach will serve you better than pop-science tidbits.

 

Sounds philosophical to me. Subject I really would like to avoid, but seems it cannot be, given the nature of the topics that inevitably arise.

[Juno]

In other words singularities probably don't have these same limitations, doesn't help we that can't observe them in more detail. GR, in a way, eludes to it with the infinity problem. Einstein was right when he said he was wrong. That's all I really need to know, for myself. Pop-sci called it into question. I had to figure out why. Took me only ~ 3 years. LOL

 

I hate to be a spelling fanatic, but you've done this so many times now I know it's not just a typo... it's "allude", not "elude":

 

http://writingexplained.org/allude-vs-elude-difference

[Strange]

You've told me I don't believe in GR because I don't believe in Lambda-CDM.

 

I didn't say that.

 

The only place to break his rules is at the infinity of the singularity.

 

I doubt that there are any singularities in reality. They are irrelevant to the matter under discussion, anyway. We are dealing with things a long time after that. The CMB (which your model cannot explain) arose 380,000 years after any notional singularity. So all the data we have is from then and later.

[shmengie]

I hate to be a spelling fanatic, but you've done this so many times now I know it's not just a typo... it's "allude", not "elude":

 

http://writingexplained.org/allude-vs-elude-difference

 

Thanks!!! I might never have realized if you hadn't pointed it out.

 

I didn't say that.

I may have perceived that you did in error. I don't recall but I perceived it that way for some reason. It's way back many pages ago in this tread. I tried to point it out that when then (I think).

 

 

I doubt that there are any singularities in reality. They are irrelevant to the matter under discussion, anyway. We are dealing with things a long time after that. The CMB (which your model cannot explain) arose 380,000 years after any notional singularity. So all the data we have is from then and later.

 

GR makes 2 allowances for light shift in the math and explains them via prediction. That's all. Only way to add a third and conclude expansion is to change GR. That's not what I set out to prove to myself. It's the only conclusion I can make from its simplicity.

 

DE is an extension to GR w/out proving it. That's the problem that's not a problem IMO, because I've shown to myself, if not anyone else it all leads back to the singularity infinity issue.

 

Mordred explains pressure and density don't compute w/size of it all. The only answer I can provide is ignorance due to limits of practical application of pressure and densities on the atomic scale.

 

We can't come close to conceptualizing the pressure and density of an atomic weight @ 1000 no where near infinity. But there could be a pressure and density we can't whiteness that it could compute, but it's well beyond pressure and density our practices are limited to.

 

Hydrogen starts around an atomic weight of 1. no matter is 0.

 

Periodic chart is limited to about 135 (too many small numbers for me to remember 'em all I have a few key numbers memorized). I think the atomic limit of practical practice is ~ 500... Because the neutron proton aren't directly proportionate in increase on a log scale, I don't have it memorized either. QM and chemistry is electron proton balances, make a difference. Neutron's are more or less ignored. But weight and size MATTERs and go together to some w3ird valiance shell algorithm.

 

GR doesn't take any of that into account, so the singularity solution problem is/isn't a problem and pressure mass is completely ignored by GR. (it's too simple for any of that), partly why it's beautiful and kinda a consequence of it.

 

GR doesn't tie mass weight size ratio together.. QM does. two different problems two different solutions.

 

All mass in GR is defined by COM as more or less point in this fashion to afford simplicity and causes a singularity issue that does not compute when QM and GR come together because they don't address the same issues at all.

 

Like I said, I've changed everything and nothing all at once.... Mostly for myself. If any of it makes sense to you, GREAT!!! You helped me do it.

Edited March 31, 2016 by shmengie

[Mordred]

Oh I see your still ignoring the acceleration equations.

 

This correlates the rate of expansion with energy density and pressure.

 

So again your lack of understanding is getting in the way

[shmengie]

Well... I'm trying to simplify the need for an acceleration equation so I can understand it in the first place.

 

We don't know what rate black holes and/or mass started forming, have formed or continue to form. This could be what it describes...

 

We may never know...

 

We need some kind of reason to either think it's a problem we understand or make it a problem we can't. Thats the best I can do.

Edited March 31, 2016 by shmengie

[Mordred]

You don't simplify a math formula with no math.

That's just a handwave

The evolution of matter and radiation over time is detailed in this equation.

 

[latex]H_z=H_o\sqrt{\Omega_m(1+z)^3+\Omega_{rad}(1+z)^4+\Omega_{\Lambda}}[/latex]

 

One can calculate the rate of expansion per Mpc via this equation at any function of redshift.

 

[latex]\Omega[/latex] is a dimensionless density parameter

This isn't the acceleration equations itself but you can calculate the rate of expansion in any point in the past compared to the rate of expansion today with this formula.

 

 

 

The acceleration equation is given as

[latex]\frac{\ddot{a}}{a}=-\frac{4\pi G\rho}{3c^2}(\rho c^2+3p)[/latex]

This leads to

[latex]H^2=\frac{\dot{a}}{a}=\frac{8\pi G\rho}{3c^2}-\frac{kc^2p}{R_c^2a^2}[/latex]

 

a is the scale factor, p is pressure, G is the gravitational constant.

[latex]\rho[/latex] is the energy or mass density. K is the curvature constant. c is the speed of light.

 

This equation is 100% GR compatible

Edited March 31, 2016 by Mordred

[Strange]

Thanks!!! I might never have realized if you hadn't pointed it out.

 

You also used synapses instead of synopsis.

 

 

DE is an extension to GR w/out proving it. That's the problem that's not a problem IMO, because I've shown to myself, if not anyone else it all leads back to the singularity infinity issue.

 

Expansion/red-shift/Hubble's law has nothing to do with infinities or singularities. They are observations about the universe we see now.

 

Dark energy also has nothing to do with infinities or singularities. It is an observation about how the rate of expansion changed a few billion years ago.

 

By getting hung up on irrelevant (and probably non-existent) infinities, you are just confusing things and wasting more of your time.

 

In the same way the the theory of biological evolution is independent of how life arose, so the big bang model of cosmological evolution is independent of how the universe started (if it did).

 

 

We can't come close to conceptualizing the pressure and density of an atomic weight @ 1000 no where near infinity. But there could be a pressure and density we can't whiteness that it could compute, but it's well beyond pressure and density our practices are limited to.

 

Our current physics seems to work pretty well for the pressures and temperatures going back to a few picoseconds after the (notional) zero time. The fact that you either don't understand or can't believe this is not really very interesting.

 

 

GR doesn't take any of that into account, so the singularity solution problem is/isn't a problem and pressure mass is completely ignored by GR. (it's too simple for any of that), partly why it's beautiful and kinda a consequence of it.

 

GR doesn't tie mass weight size ratio together.. QM does. two different problems two different solutions.

 

All mass in GR is defined by COM as more or less point in this fashion to afford simplicity and causes a singularity issue that does not compute when QM and GR come together because they don't address the same issues at all.

 

This is all just plain wrong. You clearly still know almost nothing about the subject.

Edited March 31, 2016 by Strange

[shmengie]

I'm trying to simply my formula with concept. You're right, it's not all just math. Reality comes into the equation from a different angle. Matching math is a monumental problem. I don't seek to address in its entirety.

 

Pop-sci said inflation is a problem GR doesn't address because there's a light shift that it doesn't explain.

 

I've simplified it in my head to this. GR doesn't explain it, nor does it try to. Big mistakes happen when you try to prove otherwise. Einstein admitted he tried and realized. Explaining is another story... Its not a mistake to try... Seems like we all want to. But its hard to realize why (or so it seems). Ive been trying to figure it out for a while, conceptually, I thing I got it (finally).

 

To make it relatively simple. GR doesn't calculate starting mass nor ending mass amount, that's part of the problem with relating GR to universal size. It avoids it by means of an independence to coordinate systems. GR only relates gravity to points in space and time. mass size/density don't enter the equation either. It's avoided by the concept of the point association with them.

 

So many concepts are so easily mixed together because they share similar properties it's hard to avoid conclusion they mean the same concept. Took me a long time to realize what it all means to me, and why GR is so simple and its reasons, what it avoids and what it doesn't and how it all relates.

 

I'm slow, but I think I've finally cracked.

[Mordred]

 

Have you ever looked at the Einstein field equations?

 

Your basing your arguments on pop media articles. You will always get the wrong impressions from these sources.

For example we can never see inflation. No matter how far back we look. The mean free path of light prior to the CMB is too short.

 

So we will never need to worry about redshift for this period.

 

Not until we can measure the Cosmic neutrino background.

[shmengie]

You guys ridiculed me for using pop-sci as a source of information.

 

I've concluded you are right. Because they stated GR doesn't address the problem of expansion.

 

I boiled it down to DE is simply a problem GR doesn't address as a problem, for sake of simplicity it avoids it from the start.

 

When one confuses concepts that aren't intended to be mixed in the first place, its easy to draw a confusing conclusion. Pop-sci taught me that. All I can say.

 

pressure mass, mass combination, rate of change totally avoided by GR. It seems that simple to me. GR doesn't address these and other issues of Lambda-CDM by design, and for simplicity sake. Confusing it to mean otherwise... Easy to do, hard to get. I'm still trying to grasp which concepts need to be segregated and why. Not because it's easy, because its hard. There's so many concepts involved, the fact that many overlap is the consequence of nature, makes it really hard to simplify.

 

I like Lambda-CDM for what it does. Tries to make sense of it all.

In all sense of other words. I would pose a seemingly related question.

 

What would the consequences of one atom having an atomic weight of 136 million solar masses (1.36 × 10⁸)

 

GR says nothing about number of atomic items per point mass weight. Only weight of gravity and point has relevance, according to GR.

 

 

In postulation, I believe a pre - supernova star isn't limited to such concept, but I don't know how to tie all the concepts together to base a theory.

 

 

I don't know if such concept has basis for any plausibility. A guestion of plausibility I have no idea how to resolve. Seems either way you look at it infinity is a solution according to GR, that I believe is wrong. That's something I'd like to explore, not that I have much clue how to do w/out enough clues for maths problems with problems.

[Mordred]

No we're telling you that you can't draw accurate conclusions from pop media articles

[Strange]

Pop-sci said inflation is a problem GR doesn't address because there's a light shift that it doesn't explain.

 

It sounds like you have totally misunderstood something. If you could provide references to where you read these things, we might be able to set your straight.

 

I've simplified it in my head to this.

 

I think you have simplified it to the point that it is incorrect.

 

Einstein admitted he tried and realized.

 

No, no no. You are just jumbling all sorts of random concepts together.

 

mass size/density don't enter the equation either.

 

Of course it does. Mass, energy and density (in the form of pressure and momentum flow) are all part of the equations.

 

It's avoided by the concept of the point association with them.

 

Nonsense. GR doesn't reduce everything to points.

[shmengie]

GR suggests time slows as mass increases Periodic table suggests as weight increases atoms fall apart faster integrated across time w/relation to increase in atomic weight.

 

Takes a lot of time for atoms to increase a little weight at a time.... 1 atom having weight of a black hole makes some and no sense at all. Especially at our point mass pressure time ratio limits.

 

It's off topic from the start of this thread by a few light years in distance. I've been wondering if 1 light year is the a conceptual time of such an atoms circumference for a while... But have no idea how to postulate the right questions to ask, or if there is even one in the first place.

[Strange]

I've concluded you are right. Because they stated GR doesn't address the problem of expansion.

 

Again, I have never seen an article that says that. GR clearly explains expansion.

 

I boiled it down to DE is simply a problem GR doesn't address as a problem, for sake of simplicity it avoids it from the start.

 

Dark energy can be included in GR in several ways. The fact that dark energy is a new discovery and we don't know the right way, does not make GR wrong.

 

pressure mass, mass combination, rate of change totally avoided by GR.

 

Nonsense. You just like to think that is the case because it make it seem like you have an original idea.

 

GR doesn't address these and other issues of Lambda-CDM by design, and for simplicity sake.

 

Of course it does. Stop being an idiot and making up stuff that just isn't true.

[shmengie]

Could a black hole resolve into an atom at its current atomic weight? Seems like the wrong and right question to ask but never between shall reason might be sense.

[Strange]

Could a black hole resolve into an atom at its current atomic weight?

 

Of course not.

[shmengie]

Actually, the gist of it is my education isn't based on pop.

 

I've watched the Mechanical Universe series broadcast on PBS, don't know when, Dr. David Goldstein did well IMO compiling all the facts, good presentation, boring if you're not really interested in learning. Its old, but most content hasn't changed since then.

 

Pop only provides clues, you gotta weed 'em out from the dramatic spin they like to use. I only look for what I don't know or think I don't. Don't know if that makes any sense.

 

I don't know how many times I've watched the Mechanical Universe in full, over the course of past decade, alot more than family and friends could bare. Trying to grasp all concepts contained therein w/out doing math.

 

I get the the concept of tying them together, with math. I know how, but I'm slow, lacking practice.

 

I know I've run off on a tangent of discussing the original thread. But studying too many subjects that are only tied together by reality, urges one to draw conclusions that others haven't made. Sensible or not.

 

Blackhole is an atom, stretches my imagination to its limits. But its beyond known science AFAIK. But thought I'd toss it out, because I can't stop wondering about it.

I believe the periodic table is limited in size by our pressure stable environment. Stars simply do not have such limitations as us.... Made me wonder of possibilities we cannot know.

Pop-sci said Einstein was wrong when he said he was wrong. He's can't refute, because it's happened after his time.

 

I had to find out for myself, what he'd have thought, because he cannot tell me or the world otherwise.

 

I believe Einstein was right in the end, and others are wrong to state otherwise. But its hard to explain why. --- which is almost the only thing I believe I truly understand.

But then... Pop sci doesn't state as a statement. They leave it hanging as suggestion, which is all it is.

I forget the exact rule of Imaginary numbers. I've not practiced with them. But it comes from functions of math together with extra dimensions and one to many negatives == infinity (I think, can't remember). There's no clear rule which dimension gets the right - quality, so infinity is the solution. IMO its incorrect, but only reality decides a black hole can figure it out. How it works... I want to know.

 

Pop-sci says maybe time reverses or worm hole is right. But what the math does that GR matches is provide a loop between two opposing infinities. Depending on which var go to which extreme. GR shows proportions and relates it to reality. More that one way to reach infinity. if BB realized that, it would have said it was both the start and the finish. We get to play only in the middle. GR doesn't say the universe can or can't expand and contract. Its coordinates are independent of that.

 

That's my opinion... for now. I want to see what happens when infinity is not the solution but what the other side of the loop looks like.

 

Of course not.

How could you ever prove that right or wrong. I want to know where you get your FACT.

I know it can't happen on earth's pressure/density.

 

But when a dark hole forms... I suspect.... a lot mass becomes one atom. Pure speculation tho. No method to prove conclusive one way or the other.

Not yet anyway... GR won't help. Might hint, not help.

This thread has for some reason given me courage to put in words, concepts I never though I'd voice.

 

I've been thinking about this stuff for a long time. Took a long time before I could put GR into a thought experiment I could follow. I know Einstein did it, by reading / learning about him. But no one can show you the way, unless u can communicate in concept and math in words, numbers and symbols.

 

I got the words and numbers down, some symbol and concepts to work on yet. I have most concepts. But matching them to other symbols is though for me.

 

I have a hard time remembering ppls names. But I relate that to the symbol concept match. I can do it. But if I get 'em confused.... ARGH.

 

I store concepts in my head differently than most, I only use word pictures concepts and no room for specific symbols??? I can draw in my imaginary math space, but I have to think of a way to make sense of the concept that doesn't match the symbols everyone else uses. Never though about it like that.

 

Like I said, I can do the math, just takes me a while to cross reference symbols to words, to get it right. Need a practical application to force my self to do it... Imagining spac-time doesn't afford much practicality to the reality of it for me.

Edited March 31, 2016 by shmengie

[Phi for All]

It's very bizarre, the amount of effort you've put into avoiding learning mainstream science in favor of this approach you can't make anyone else understand. It's bizarre also that you defend it so much when it fails so spectacularly.

 

It's like watching someone try to build a steam locomotive out of pasta, styrofoam, and duct tape so he can get across town, when there are bicycles available to everyone for just that purpose.

[shmengie]

It's very bizarre, the amount of effort you've put into avoiding learning mainstream science in favor of this approach you can't make anyone else understand. It's bizarre also that you defend it so much when it fails so spectacularly.

 

I've switched off topic to a degree from what I was arguing.

 

Had an internal conflict I started this thread to resolve. Once I came to grips with my conflict, I gave up arguing it. Tried to explain how I concluded (for myself) it was okay to accept beliefs different that the "mainstream".

 

I like Lambda-CDM because all the science in it is accurate all the way up to CMBR, in my opinion.

 

I've argued steady state vs. big bang, over and over again in my head, trying to see how they differed and how they're they same, why one choice was better than the other.

 

Partly because steady state. When one modifies its definition to revolve around a problem Lambda-CDM kinda avoids.

 

I refer to Steady State (my personal interpretation of SS) as one idea:

 

Universe has no outside bounding edge.

 

Seems to me Lambda-CDM requires an edge, or expects one and a lot of its principles require one. But it if it doesn't, it kinda leaves it out in the open, because there's no observable evidence except for CDM of CBMR. Which is a point in time that does equate to a visible edge of sorts. But doesn't qualify as a specific containing edge, other than to that of light.

 

SS in general terms I think is referred to things have always been as they appear. But that rule is broken out of the gate because mass makes things move, every scale possible it seems. So what does steady mean??? I equate it to infinite in size for the universe no boundaries.

 

But that has a purpose outside of the easier assumptions. For BB/LCDM to work, there must be multiverse properties of the universe, in my minds eye.

 

Start at near or at 0 point size and expand. .... Expand into what??? A different verse of the multi verse? Stop at some point because the other verse applies pressure? I can't make sense of the start, stop (or continue at a different pace) w/out two verses struggling against one another, for reasons unknown.

 

The infinite non-multiverse has a steady property, but its not mass. Doesn't lead to a multiverse question (or set of questions) I have no clue how to resolve. Seems Lambda-CDM kinda ignores that. But I don't know how other ppl contend with the multiple verse requirement for different aspects of what theory states we'll never be able to see. We just have to agree it worked that way, and never anticipate ever being able to view it.... It simply requires too many precepts for me to establish and hold true with out ever being able to confirm nor deny.

 

The precept is handy when you can determine there is only one problem you cant observe evidence for.... When you start with a lot of precepts, you add to problems that can't quite ever be resolved by any chance of concrete visible evidence.... Especially when you agree to conclude.... Thats the way it is.

 

But the general consensus is. No problem we'll do it. Done.

 

There's a lot I don't like about Lambda. It starts with more precepts that don't need evidence, won't ever have evidence, don't care.....

 

 

Based on visible evidence, Lambda matches theory with evidence well. But there's a finite line drawn between imagination that's proveable and one not. The provable part has to agree with visible. I get that, I rely on it. But when stuff in the visible end is effected by the non-visible end, NO DEAL, I can't agree.

 

Everyone agrees the universe expanded. From what.... we just simply believe, no evidence.

 

Any shred of evidence that suggests a change in size, means it's changing.... Therefore all non evident precepts are probably (or might some day be possibly) right.

 

No not really but it causes the mentality of Dark Energy to need to exist and be something other that what it might actually be evidence for... Because all the other stuff needs to be right, based on a faith. Makes me feel like I'm arguing with god's own existence but god simply won't talk. Might as well carry the same discussion with a wall.

 

 

Most ppl that bother to contemplate that stuff and rely on science know the precept use. But they also know science does every thing it can to avoid requiring FAITH in what cannot be proven. Lambda-CDM requires too much faith. People know it, but say its all science and choose to apply faith, often w/out realizing how many precepts require faith for the very beginning to be correct. Can't question it and ever expect to find evidence.... That's the definition of faith. precept aside... its' not science. its faith.

 

Faith based on scientific principles... YES. But Faith nonetheless. So for me to use anything in Lambda. I had to make a distinction between what I could rely on and what I couldn't... What an apoplexy... After I made my prediction that the gravity wave from a nova collapse to a hole. I finally found evidence that would solidify my beliefs.

 

Now it's just a matter of time before it comes true. Need to measure cosmological shift on either side of the wave.... Only problem is I don't have exact amounts of change to expect. Mostly because I don't know how much change in energy it takes to go from star to hole and how much gravity disappears or actually just changes shape into negative space and time. I think it changes center of mass from our side of infinity to negative space side of infinity. Its an artificial distance of sorts... I don't know how to compute because of imaginary number issues, and how to compute distance, if no coordinate system can make it relative to anything....

 

Still trying to figure out what I'm missing.... Besides a bridge between -+ on an imaginary boundary.

 

But why bother.... LOL I don't know how to do math.

Or should I say. I haven't figured out the math I need to invent. But now I have a reason. Quaternion math wouldn't work it's got more dimensions to cause issues. I listened to Doug argue he could combine QM and GR simply by using quaterions. LOL I didn't know he was wrong then. Now I do. I think he does too tho, now. He wouldn't come out and say it... Just ignored me when I asked.

[Mordred]

There is so many mistakes in this last post I don't Even know where to start.

 

Quite frankly in your case any reply I can give you would fall on deaf ears.

 

Your blinded by your imagination, and lack of willingness to learn.

 

Any ways should you choose to learn correctly the links I provided this thread is a good start

[shmengie]

Hawking may be smarter than me... I believe the information can get in, but I question making sense of it when it evaporates out. (not that I buy his argument in the first place.

 

He bases his argument on QM which describes electromagnetic interactions between proton and electron balances where chemistry is useful at our mass pressure densities. Here light can affect an atomic particle.

 

pauli exclusion principle counts when a photon quanta of light can change a mass location and exclude knowing both coordinate and integration factors at the same time.

 

Not whatever atomic pressure mass density a black hole is.

There we kinda doubt that exclusion works when mass wave densities differed so much the wave can't escape the mass... But that's just a guess.