Hubble ultra deep field - beyond the big bang

[russ_watters]

nonsense can be fun sometimes

It can, but we strive to be a serious forum.

 

[russ_watters]

Thanks for the guidance russ_watters .. :) I appreciate it...And for sure I will try to improve myself..If The degree is required...so be it.. :)

That said, you may want to start out by reading some of the good lay-person oriented books on the subject, such as the ones by Stephen Hawking.

 

[navneet023]

That said, you may want to start out by reading some of the good lay-person oriented books on the subject, such as the ones by Stephen Hawking.

I have read that one a long time ago...i know i am a layman...but not that one...i am having less knowledge...but that doesn't imply that i am ignorant..

 

[russ_watters]

I meant no offense - the only thing I had to gage your level of knowledge was what I saw in this thread.

 

[azzkika]

There is nothing to be "put up" here. You were right when you said the inside of the balloon is not part of the analogy. So this idea is just nonsense.

Navneet023, the first time you will be qualified to put forth a new theory on the subject is in your phd thesis. A layperson cannot hope to expand a frontier of knowledge he/she has no understanding of.

not necessarily. assuming that the majority and models of theories that are assumed almost correct and very accurate, are in fact not very accurate, and that by doing a phd in physics, although well versed in many of these theories be, be possibly misguided and blinkered to alternatives that disagree with the commonly held views of the experts.

although one would probably need to know the math with which to explain a model, they would not need it to suggest possible models. and as nearly everything is supposition and theory, until there is a disproveable model every model is worthy of equal consideration.

according to many articles on here things are moving at faster than the speed of light relative to each other. this was believed impossible not so long ago, now it seems a fact if recessional velocity calculations are correct. so although lay person may be open to greater error in their judgement, it does not imply instant error just a greater probability.

 

[russ_watters]

according to many articles on here things are moving at faster than the speed of light relative to each other. this was believed impossible not so long ago, now it seems a fact if recessional velocity calculations are correct. so although lay person may be open to greater error in their judgement, it does not imply instant error just a greater probability.

That's actually a good example of the danger for a layperson in trying to overreach their knowledge. Many believe that to be a violation of Relativity, but it isn't.

 

[azzkika]

That's actually a good example of the danger for a layperson in trying to overreach their knowledge. Many believe that to be a violation of Relativity, but it isn't.

i didn't say it was a violation, only that it was a commonly held view, among experts and lay people alike, until evidence suggested otherwise. my point being it matters not how much or how little one knows as to their opinion being correct or not, if the very best knowledge is still only theory and unproven models of what our universe is then every opinion holds as much weight as the next until disproven.

granted the layperson has a greater probability of error, but if probability always came out on top then the favourites would always win football matches as they have the higher probability due to more skillful players yet it is not the case. in this way, the experts may not always be more correct in their models / explanation of the universe.

i say this and i wish for nothing more than an exponential genius to come along and exlain everything with proof. it is on the experts we rely, but don't dismiss the simpler minded, as until unproven, may be correct.

 

[azzkika]

So you believe that if you keep traveling in one direction, you'll eventually arrive at the point where you began? If this were the case, then I can understand the analogy-- but I'm not convinced that this is the case, so I have difficulty with the balloon analogy.

the following post to this was 'the answer is yes'.

if this is so, if i travel to the egde of the universe in a straight line that avoids the orbit of the Earth around our sun and our solar system around our galaxy, how could i come back to the place i began?? surely i would keep on going. and if i reach the edge and keep going assuming there is no space time beyong the edge, i would expand spacetime by traveling where previously there was none. as if there was no spacetime until the universe expanded for space time to exists, and increases as matter travels to where there previously was none, then i would replicate this effect would i not?? and continually expand spacetime if i carried on travelling, not come back on myself but forever get further away.

 

[russ_watters]

i didn't say it was a violation, only that it was a commonly held view, among experts and lay people alike, until evidence suggested otherwise. my point being it matters not how much or how little one knows as to their opinion being correct or not, if the very best knowledge is still only theory and unproven models of what our universe is then every opinion holds as much weight as the next until disproven.

I'm still not seeing why this matters. Scientists were not being dogmatic about it and the discovery was not made by a layperson, so how does that support the idea that a layperson could make a meaningful discovery that an experienced scientist wouldn't?

granted the layperson has a greater probability of error, but if probability always came out on top then the favourites would always win football matches as they have the higher probability due to more skillful players yet it is not the case. in this way, the experts may not always be more correct in their models / explanation of the universe.

Ok, it is said that a blind squirrel sometimes still finds the nut. But does he really? Has a layperson ever come up with a major new theory before?

 

[azzkika]

You are under the very common misconception that the universe has a center. It does not. So there isn't a "this side" or "other side" or a "direction we are going".

until we know the entire universe we cannot say if it does or does not have a centre. if the universe is finite, there mathematically has to be a centre even if it is constantly variable due to motion. if it is infinite then maybe not. there is a blind squirrel finding a nut. you may not think it a legitimate nut, but to my simple mind it makes more sense than some other theories.

i didn't mean anything personal or insulting, i was just pointing out that a lot of the experts have so far been found to be incorrect at some point in the future by better science and information. of course they are more likely to discover more truths than an ignorant person, but that doesn't mean you need a phd to think about the universe in way that makes sense to oneself, even if it disagrees with experts opinions. i am happy to try and learn, but anything that does not fit into my simple logic, i will argue, not to be proven right but to try and learn and comprehend the correct answer.

challenging a theory is a good thing i think as to be correct must hold up to any scrutiny.

 

[russ_watters]

until we know the entire universe we cannot say if it does or does not have a centre. if the universe is finite, there mathematically has to be a centre even if it is constantly variable due to motion.

Neither of those statements is true. Mathematically, there does not have to be a center. That is a simple matter of geometry that you can see in the analogies people use.

People assert that all the time (that there must be a center) - it happens here almost every day. It doesn't matter how many times people say it. It just plain isn't true.

 

[Chronos]

The observational limits of the universe are exactly the same in every direction for all observers - no matter where [or when] they are. In other words, every observer is invariably at the apparent center of the universe. The concept of an 'absolute' center is 'not even wrong'.

 

[AhmedEzz]

By following this thread, I think that we simply lack the proper instrumentation, techonology and science to be certain whether the universe has an absolute center or not. The analogy remains an analogy, you want to say its a balloon like but it doesn't have a center...why? can you present undeniable evidence, or is ti just the way you were taught to think?

Moreover, if the universe is expanding when do you think it will ever end? what is the consequences and reason for this expansion?

 

[azzkika]

The observational limits of the universe are exactly the same in every direction for all observers - no matter where [or when] they are. In other words, every observer is invariably at the apparent center of the universe. The concept of an 'absolute' center is 'not even wrong'.

that is due to the limits of technology. someone elsewhere in the universe with better technology may be able to see further. why is it not true that a finite thing can have a centre? just because we cannot observe everything, and therefore the edges of our universe, if it has any, does not mean a centre does not exist.

and if you lived on a planet at the edge of the universe it would not look the same in all directions as space time most probably does not exist past the edges yet, and it would be dark beyond that horizon as no light exists there. we are so far from any edge, if one exists, to detect it. to say it has no edge means it is infinite. if it has an edge it has a centre and does not look the same in all directions irrespective of where you are.

 

[Louis B]

This reminds me of a topic on the fourth spatial dimension, and I think just as the second dimension operates on a third dimensional sphere, our third dimension might operate on a fourth dimensional hypersphere (the balloon). So, if we were in the second dimension, and we went all the way around our second dimensional universe, we would find ourselves back where we started. I believe it could be the same for our realmspace in that if we continue in one particular direction, we'll see familiar space.

This seems to tie together everything: The balloon analogy, the alignment with multi-dimensional properties, the theory that black holes could be wormholes, etc.

-Louis

 

[russ_watters]

No, no, no, no, NO! Azzkika and Ahmedezz: If you guys aren't going to listen to what is being said, then there is no point to continuing the thread. These questions have been answered repeatedly and it doesn't matter how many times you make the assertion: it is still wrong. This is the reality:

-A finite object does not have to have a center.
-This is not a matter of technology, it is a matter of geometry.

Thread closed.