Exploring the Mysteries of the Center of the Universe

  • Thread starter The Grimmus
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Center
In summary: Originally posted by Rudi The big bang created space - space did not exist before it.I thought that the universe's center is unacessible because it does not have a dimension, like Earth with an unbreakable crust. We only live on the surface of it.Good subject>Is the Universe finite? Probably.Does it have a center. Well, probably not quite: The curvature of space-time prevents us from defining a center.A center is based upon 'anthropic' views. It probably does not have an independant physical location.We have discovered "laws" of Physics which are probably a reflection of the true state of matter-energy. But
  • #71
2. The Big Bang flows naturally out of GR. It calls for an expanding universe. Hence I think that is why Hurkyl went that avenue.

That was half of my reasoning. The other half is that the experimental evidence for the BB presumes GR in its interpretation, so there's no point in discussing BB unless we can agree on GR.





Anyways, back to your explanation of Mercury's orbit. Your link keeps harping on properly mass-energy conservation... but mass-energy conservation is always applied in Newtonian mechanics; mass is conserved and energy is conserved. Orbits work by trading gravitational potential energy for kinetic energy... no change in mass is required.

And there is a fundamental problem in doing things in "mercury units". The article states that mercury meters and mercury seconds are different because of the gravitational potential well at mercury is different than that of earth...

But the primary source of gravitational potential energy at mercury's surface is... *drumroll* Mercury! Mercury units would be different for an observer on the top of a mountain or in the bottom of a valley. The rationale in the article would then imply that these two observers would compute different answers, which would be a contradiction.
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
  • #72
Forget about that article. Consider this instead.

"Now Einstein by the use of the equations of relativity has calculated that the perihelion of Mercury should rotate 43 seconds per century due to the supposed change in space and time in the neighborhood of the mass of the sun. It has been pointed out by Professor Poor that, in making these calculations, Einstein failed to use his relativity unit of time, but used instead our constant Newtonian unit of time. The agreement between the calculated values of Leverrier and Newcomb on the one hand, and of Einstein on the other has been considered definite proof of relativity. But it must be remembered that Newcomb was forced to guess the density of Mercury and the other planets. Hence, Figure 9-7 may be far in error. Since the so-called verification by the calculations of Einstein, the rotation of the perihelion of Mercury has been recalculated and values 33 and 29 have been announced. We have here a variation of 27 percent.
"

Can you deal with it?
 
  • #73
Of course. Silly me. How could I forget all the scientists are concerned with is their status quo.


I remember I went through a phase where I thought every new idea was a good explination against the scientific community. You are going through that as well.

And my point about observations being off which are based off of gravity is very important.

At any rate, I have yet to find any explination anywhere about how the SS model explains the CBR. Perhaps you can do so for us quickly, and then we can turn more strictly to an analysis of Plasma Cosmology.
 
  • #74
Hurkyl et al - Just forget this sub-troll guy. He's spouting off with random crap and trying to disprove the proven.

Like I said there is 100+ reasonings behind the BB. Just drop it and move on to some much more promising threads!
 
  • #75
BBT is entirely dependent on the doppler interpretation of the Hubble red-shift.

Can you back up this claim?



Anyways, Einstein probably did use what could be called the "Newtonian unit of time". Why? He was trying to make predictions about what we measure, so amongst all the reference frames he could have chosen to perform the calculation, he opted to perform the calculations in a reference frame where the general relativistic meaning of position and time coincided as best as possible with the classical meaning.
 
  • #76
Originally posted by Hurkyl
Can you back up this claim?


In the absense of the 'evidence' of an expanding Universe there is no Big Bang Theory. Isn't that obvious?



Anyways, Einstein probably did use what could be called the "Newtonian unit of time". Why? He was trying to make predictions about what we measure, so amongst all the reference frames he could have chosen to perform the calculation, he opted to perform the calculations in a reference frame where the general relativistic meaning of position and time coincided as best as possible with the classical meaning.

And so classical mechanics can deal just fine with the perihelion of Mercury, but so what? What does that have to do with BBT?
 
  • #77
I remember I went through a phase where I thought every new idea was a good explination against the scientific community. You are going through that as well.

What are you my shrink?

I thought we were actually trying to debate cosmology?


Basically we have evidence and we have interpretation.
BBT is one interpretation of the evidence and Plasma Cosmology is another. I happen to know both of them quite well and it seems that none of you BBT proponents have any clue about Plasma Cosmology. Let us debate both of them in the open, and on fair ground.

Can you debunk Plasma Cosmology?

At any rate, I have yet to find any explination anywhere about how the SS model explains the CBR. Perhaps you can do so for us quickly, and then we can turn more strictly to an analysis of Plasma Cosmology. [/B]

from: http://nowscape.com/big-ban2.htm

"In addition to the previous comment that one would expect the observed gigantic galactic formations to cause irregularities in the isotropy of MBR reception, the observed spectrum of the MBR, corresponding to a near perfect black body temperature of 2.7 K, doesn't agree very well with temperatures predicted by various BB theorists. Those predictions had varied over a range of 5 to 50 K.(26) History also shows that some BB cosmologists' "predictions" of MBR temperature have been "adjusted" after-the-fact to agree with observed temperatures.
The prediction of 5 K (by Ralph Alpher and Robert Herman in 1948),(27) which has been selected as a basis for agreement with the observed temperature, was made by those who had accepted a BB scenario that included concepts that were incorrect. Those included the idea that all of the elements of the universe were produced in the BB, which was later determined to be erroneous.
If the temperature of the universe was at absolute zero, all matter would collapse. The temperature of radiation from space might reasonably be expected to be some small number of degrees above that temperature. In fact, some physicists (including Sir Arthur Eddington in 1926 and Andrew McKeller in 1942)(28) had estimated temperatures in the range of 2 to 3 K; closer to that of the MBR than has been estimated by BB cosmologists."

Your knowledge is limited. And who is arguing for the SST? Not me.

Do you know Plasma Cosmology? Can you debunk it as well as I can debunk BBT?

We'll see...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #78
Originally posted by subtillioN
In the absense of the 'evidence' of an expanding Universe there is no Big Bang Theory. Isn't that obvious?


You're a troll and so I'm going to treat you as one:

1. First off the BBT does NOT, I repeat does NOT need the doppler evidence to support it. This is but one of the many ways the BBT has been proven.

2. Secondly. the BBT can be proven with or without the universe expanding. It's that simple.

3. BBT can give rise to:

A. An expand-contract universe in which we are currently expanding.

B. An expand-contract universe in which we are currently contracting

C. An expand contract universe in which we are currently at bay - and the detection of the slight expansion or contraction is currently undetectable to us.

D. Any number of other possibilities which still do not rule out the BBT.

To conclude troll - an expanding universe is NOT required for the BBT to be (as it is) the truth.

Isn't that obvious?
 
  • #79
Subtrolls arrogance has failed him.

He says that plasma cosmology needs to be debunked.

Wrong again.

Evidence proves BBT. Unless a challenging theory can completely and totally encompass or surpass all the knowledge of the BBT it is 100% false.

BBT has, among other things, proven the universe came from, well, a BB! Thus unless plasma cosmology is nearly identical to the BB - in which case it is not unique, it is completely false.

I don't even have to know a dammed thing about plasma cosmology to debunk it, you see? It's pure logic - the terms are useless!
 
  • #80
Originally posted by CrystalStudios
You're a troll and so I'm going to treat you as one:


Ad hominem is the weakest form of argument.

1. First off the BBT does NOT, I repeat does NOT need the doppler evidence to support it. This is but one of the many ways the BBT has been proven.

2. Secondly. the BBT can be proven with or without the universe expanding. It's that simple.

3. BBT can give rise to:

A. An expand-contract universe in which we are currently expanding.

B. An expand-contract universe in which we are currently contracting

C. An expand contract universe in which we are currently at bay - and the detection of the slight expansion or contraction is currently undetectable to us.

D. Any number of other possibilities which still do not rule out the BBT.

To conclude troll - an expanding universe is NOT required for the BBT to be (as it is) the truth.

Isn't that obvious?

In the absense of evidence it is PURE speculation. Go ahead speculate all you want. You have ZERO evidence to back up your outlandish claims.
 
  • #81
Originally posted by CrystalStudios
I don't even have to know a dammed thing about plasma cosmology to debunk it, you see? It's pure logic - the terms are useless! [/B]

So you have admitted your Dogmatism...

You don't know a damned thing about the alternative that you are dismissing on logic that you have never shown.

If you have any logic against a theory which you know nothing about please bless us with with your wisdom.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #82
Ad Hominem? Ha! You're a troll plain and simple - I could care less if I committ an Ad Hominem towards you!

I have no evidence to back up my BBT claims?

What a cracker!

The Plasma Cosmology Hypothesis is a very weak one. First off, it doesn't even coincide with String Theory, and it states that Black Holes don't exist (and yet we know them too) and also states that dark matter doesn't exist!

Now that's outlandish!
 
  • #83
Originally posted by subtillioN
So you have admitted your Dogmatism...

You don't know a damned thing about the alternative that you are dismissing on logic that you have never shown.

If you have any logic against a theory which you know nothing about please bless us with with your wisdom.


Like I said - BBT has been proven. Unless another theory encompasses all the proof of the BBT, then it is obviously contradictory to the BBT (which is contradictory to the truth) and is thus false.
 
  • #84
Originally posted by CrystalStudios
Ad Hominem? Ha! You're a troll plain and simple - I could care less if I committ an Ad Hominem towards you!

I have no evidence to back up my BBT claims?

What a cracker!

The Plasma Cosmology Hypothesis is a very weak one. First off, it doesn't even coincide with String Theory, and it states that Black Holes don't exist (and yet we know them too) and also states that dark matter doesn't exist!

Now that's outlandish!

You don't know the difference between data and theory. And you still cannot debate my points.

Why are you so emotional about a theory anyway... That to me is a warning sign of a non-scientific (in the true sense of the term) religious dogmatism.
 
  • #85
We have a rule here at PF. We don't debate trolls.
 
  • #86
Originally posted by CrystalStudios
We have a rule here at PF. We don't debate trolls.


Let me translate that for you:
"We have a rule not to accept any challenge to our favorite theories."

All I have done is show an alternative. You have a rule not to look at alternatives? How scientific is that?

Give me a break.


Is that supposed to compensate for your inability to debate my points?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #87
Originally posted by CrystalStudios
Like I said - BBT has been proven. Unless another theory encompasses all the proof of the BBT, then it is obviously contradictory to the BBT (which is contradictory to the truth) and is thus false.

That is the most dogmatic statement I think I have ever read.

Basically you are saying that your precious BBT is beyond reproach. Are you that attached to it? That is a serious warning sign that you are being unscientific.
 
  • #88
You love to call things dogmatic. I bet you don't know what that really means.

Look troll - plasma cosmology is a strange idea that is less than one year old. It has 100% no experimental evidence while BBT has tons.

Theoretical evidence isn't much of any evidence at all. Your theory doesn't take into account dark matter, black holes, superstrings, Higgs fields, and many other things.

It also disregards the fact that everything in the universe is moving away from the same point...

...it's a weak theory.

Shoot man - string theory has now taken over physics, and plasma cosmology doesn't even agree with string theory!


What the hell do you expect?
 
  • #89
Originally posted by CrystalStudios
You love to call things dogmatic. I bet you don't know what that really means.


Is it some complex idea? No it is obvious when someone refuses to admit that his favored interpretation is not a proven fact.

Look troll - plasma cosmology is a strange idea that is less than one year old. It has 100% no experimental evidence while BBT has tons.

Do you realize how childish your name-calling is? What is this... Kinder-garten?

Either way the very same evidence that the BBT has claimed for its own 'proof' actually is more coherent when interpreted via Plasma Cosmology. If you don't know a damn thing about it how can you sit there and claim that it is wrong?

Theoretical evidence isn't much of any evidence at all. Your theory doesn't take into account dark matter, black holes, superstrings, Higgs fields, and many other things.

The BBT is FAR more theoretical than Plasma Cosmology. If only you knew the difference.

It also disregards the fact that everything in the universe is moving away from the same point...

...it's a weak theory.

You don't even know what you are talking about. Try debating the actual theory... oh yeah... that means actually LEARNING it.


Shoot man - string theory has now taken over physics, and plasma cosmology doesn't even agree with string theory!


What the hell do you expect?

I expect serious debate which you are incapable of.. Instead all I get is a barage of name calling for even challenging your pet theory.

String Theory is a joke and so is the state of physics... So what if Physics is taken over by a faulty theory, it certainly isn't the first time.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #90
Originally posted by subtillioN
String Theory is a joke and so is the state of physics.

I hate to take this thread (judging by the main heading - I didn't read it all) in the wrong direction, but string theory a joke? String theory has united all of physics, solved all the problems of the differences in the forces - and you think it is a joke? So you're arguing an irrational theory which goes against all the structures of physics, and indeed you also deny the exist of string theory as the proven structure behind physics - and expect someone to listen to that? You're basically saying that everything in physics down to it's very existence is completely incorrect.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #91
You people are incredibly dogmatic. String Theory is FAR from proven and it only "unites" physics by way of a kludge connection between Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. It is way too abstract to be realistic and there ARE better models.
 
  • #92
Originally posted by Rogue
You're basically saying that everything in physics down to it's very existence is completely incorrect. [/B]

The equations are quite correct, but the interpretations are incorrect at the core and all across the board!

That is why they continually fail to understand the core causality which they claim does not exist.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #93
Well, you propose some bizarre ideas. I surely hope that you have at least one PhD in physics. There is no level of non-graduate level education that could prepare you for properly proposing any such claims other than that, and I should know.

So, why not enlighten us with your level of education in physics?
 
  • #94
Originally posted by Rogue
So, why not enlighten us with your level of education in physics?

Is "status" what you consider enlightening? If so then an attempt to truly enlighten you is hopeless.

If you want a small clue then read the intro at this site. www.anpheon.org
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #95
Originally posted by subtillioN
Is "status" what you consider enlightening? If so then an attempt to truly enlighten you is hopeless.

If you want a small clue then read the intro at this site. www.anpheon.org

Apparently you are dodging the fact that you perhaps have no physics education?

It's OK to admit - but understand, from someone who does, that no amount of independant reading will make up for not having a structural education. And the propositions you make of string theory being absurd and the Big Bang being wrong are well, wrong and absurd!

What do you have an education in? Perhaps you can tell us so we can ask questions you might be able to answer.

And to the website you linked - no amount of fancy flash and animated diagrams can combat a theory (that is string theory) which serves to unite every single fragment that has ever been discovered in physics.
 
  • #96
Originally posted by Rogue
Apparently you are dodging the fact that you perhaps have no physics education?


I am an eternal student and how could I discuss physics with no physics education? My educational status has nothing to do with the theories that I am discussing because I am not the author. That ad hominem route will get you nowhere.

It's OK to admit - but understand, from someone who does, that no amount of independant reading will make up for not having a structural education. And the propositions you make of string theory being absurd and the Big Bang being wrong are well, wrong and absurd!

There is your dogmatism speaking. I am making serious criticisms of your pet theories and you people cannot debate the alternatives I am talking about because you don't know the theories. Science evolves through diversity in spite of dogmatism.

And to the website you linked - no amount of fancy flash and animated diagrams can combat a theory (that is string theory) which serves to unite every single fragment that has ever been discovered in physics.

The theory is entirely visualizable at the root causal level unlike string theory or quantum mechanics. The theory stands alone independent of any marketing or artwork.
 
  • #97
This is an excellent thread and this is a "Forum": I believe that just about anyone can properly participate.

I agree with very little of what -tillion has put forth, but there's absolutely no harm in reading what he has to say. Further, his assertion that he is propounding a theory I believe is perhaps a bit over-stated. But why don't we listen with courtesy and decorum (Robert's Rules)?

Back to an earlier post in this thread: Mercury"s precession in perihelion: It is explained by the math of both Newtonian and GR physics. GR is the more precise:
This is because GR utilizes Riemannian Geometry (and Lorentzian transformations); but Riemannian Geometry is, in effect, only a distortion of Euclidian geometry, albeit with the same rigid discipline/proofs as Euclidian.

I would not, but some would question the validity of Lorentzian tranformations in general.

Let's remember that Einstein was in the main self-tutored. Newton, Maxwell and Faraday were all in a similar vein, and Einstein admired them.

Back to the main topic: BB is a given, period. An inflationary Universe was very, very probable. Is there a 'center' to the universe? Nope.

Thanks, Rudi
 
  • #98
Originally posted by Hurkyl
Can you back up this claim?

Originally posted by subtillion
In the absense of the 'evidence' of an expanding Universe there is no Big Bang Theory. Isn't that obvious?

But what does the doppler effect have to do with anything? In fact, it's the observation that the doppler effect cannot adequately describe redshifting that is used as evidence for the expansion of space.


Do you know Plasma Cosmology? Can you debunk it as well as I can debunk BBT?

Seeing how I don't know what Plasma Cosmology is, and I haven't made any arguments against what Plasma Cosmology really is... I already have.


Seriously, if you're still talking about the center of the big bang, and think the doppler effect has anything to do with the expansion of the universe as predicted than BBT, then you have no clue about what you're talking.


Anywyas, I shall take a step and debunk PC better than you have BBT. May I presume that this website:

http://www.matter-antimatter.com/plasma_cosmology.htm

is a valid descrption of the predictions of plasma cosmology?


Well, the first and most problem is that black holes can't eject matter. Secondly, it predicts arms of a spiral galaxy to be made of antimatter but we don't see any variation in the properties of the arms, and we don't see any matter/antimatter annihilations around the core. Finally, it predicts that comets are actually antimatter, but that is patently absurd because we have watched comets come in contact with ordinary matter, and annihilation doesn't occur! For example, Jupiter still exists. :smile:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #99
"While I'm at it" Dept.

Out of curiosity, I visited the Plasma Cosmology website:

I have a question: What?

In fairness, I don't think the world of M-Theory, either; It very likely does have validity, but it needs Occam's Razor, judiciously applied. It is so loaded with jargon that it defies rational analysis.

Thanks, Rudi
 
  • #100
There is a good discussion here to be salvaged among the cracker crumbs, trolling, and flame-war-lite. Consider this the 2-minute warning.
 
  • #101
Anywyas, I shall take a step and debunk PC better than you have BBT. May I presume that this website:

http://www.matter-antimatter.com/plasma_cosmology.htm

is a valid descrption of the predictions of plasma cosmology?

No this one is the one I am discussing and ONLY the science stuff..

www.electric-cosmos.org
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #102
I find the hypothesis of Arp rather absurd. He is suggesting that quasars are been expulsed from galaxies!
What are then quasars for him? The dynamics of galaxies is reasonably understood, and I can find a mechanism for permit that a quasar can be expulsed
He says that the quasars show such high redshift because that is a "inherent" redshift of the quasar. Wait. Why has to have a quasar inherent redshift and not, for example, my book or my wardrobe? If objects would have inherent redshifts then it would have been discovered in laboratories here in Earth
His theory is full of nonsenses: How he explain that tre vast majority of the observed quasars are NOT near any galaxies?
 
Last edited:
  • #103
Originally posted by subtillioN
No the point is not to confuse our metrical tools with reality. There is no causal explanation of how space could be finite but unbounded and there is no evidence to support the notion. [/B]

No confusion needed. If the universe has a volume, the volume will follow the rules of Euclidean geometry or it won't. In other words, if I travel in a straight line, what will happen? Euclidean geometry says I will keep traveling forever without returning to my starting point. If the universe is flat and infinite, then Euclidean geometry can be said to be an accurate description of space.

Now while there is no evidence for a finite and unbounded universe, there is an explanation for it. Once you accept curved spacetime as the cause of gravity, it doesn't take much to get to a hyper spherical universe. Taking a measurement of the overall geometry in a given region of space and applying the cosmological principle to the universe as a whole gives you a shape. With enough curvature on average, the universe would be unbounded and finite. Of course, the whole idea fails if the cosmological principle is inaccurate on large scales.
 
  • #104
Originally posted by Eh
No confusion needed. If the universe has a volume, the volume will follow the rules of Euclidean geometry or it won't.


Ok explain to me how a volume can follow mathematical rules?

In other words, if I travel in a straight line, what will happen? Euclidean geometry says I will keep traveling forever without returning to my starting point. If the universe is flat and infinite, then Euclidean geometry can be said to be an accurate description of space.

Ok a description I will grant, but geometry is no causative agent.

Now while there is no evidence for a finite and unbounded universe, there is an explanation for it. Once you accept curved spacetime as the cause of gravity, it doesn't take much to get to a hyper spherical universe.

That is the clincher isn't it? The rubber-sheet tautology of "curved space" which uses gravity as its own mechanism, simply does not explain ANY mechanism for gravity whatsoever, nor does it explain the mechanism of the formation of a gravitational field.

Tell me HOW "space" (nothingness) can get curved by matter. How can nothingness be curved?

Taking a measurement of the overall geometry in a given region of space and applying the cosmological principle to the universe as a whole gives you a shape. With enough curvature on average, the universe would be unbounded and finite. Of course, the whole idea fails if the cosmological principle is inaccurate on large scales.

The fact is that the observed value of omega is far from being a positive value. So even according to your pure mathematical abstraction space simply cannot be positively curved.
 
  • #105
I thought Omega couldn't be negative? Less than 1 was an open universe, 1 was flat and greater than 1 was closed.


As for how a volume can follow mathematical laws, you need to be more specific.

Otherwise, V = 4πr3/3 or s3 etc.
 

Similar threads

I Why Do Galaxies Spin? Exploring the Science Behind It
    • Astronomy and Astrophysics
2
Replies
53
Views
5K
B Nuclear Fusion in the Singularity
    • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
7
Views
699
B Observational bias? Lack of massive black hole observations....
    • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
4
Views
1K
A Gravity as space-time curvature?
    • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
1
Views
2K
I Exploring the Galactic Center: Adaptive Optics & GR
    • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
1
Views
710
I Is there a radial gradient of redshifts within individual galaxies?
    • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
10
Views
2K
I Upper limit of relativistic spin?
    • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
7
Views
1K
I Velocity of a given planet relative to the Galactic Center
    • Other Physics Topics
Replies
22
Views
3K
B Ultramassive Black Hole (UMB), 30 billion solar masses?
    • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
4
Views
1K
B What Could Explain the Mysterious Beam of Plasma Seen in the Sky in 2017?
    • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
8
Views
1K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top