What exists beyond the known universe?

[Tormod]

Originally posted by: BlameTheEx

Tormod: "That article says nothing about galaxies being older than the universe"

 

Never said they are. I am just suggesting that the time scale for galaxy formation is more than a little tight. Surely its worth at least considering that the universe is a tad older than expected?

 

And believe me, a lot of people do. Until very recently, the best estimates we had were "between 9 and 20 billion years". Then back in 2002 Hubble research set the time to "13-14 billion years ago".

 

http://www.hypography.com/article.cfm?id=32441

 

Then the date for 13.7 billion years was set as the best suggestion for a pinpointed age of the universe.

 

But of course - it is based on a lot of theories which also need to be correct in order for the age to be determined correctly. Like has the speed of light varied? Was there a brief period of huge expansion after the Big Bang?

 

So nobody is saying "The universe is 13.7 years old and that's that". However, that is the current estimate.

 

If you feel that you have any evidence which would show otherwise, you are of course free to provide it. But first you need to explain to us why some scientists' revision of their galaxy formation theories is problematic for the current estimate for the age of the universe.

 

You seem to really want to throw out the BB theory (or find alternatives). Great. There are endless theories out there. Take your pick!

[BlameTheEx]

Tormod

 

We seem to be in general agreement. However it is not scientists revision of galaxies formation theories that is relevant here, but the reason that they feel the need. Galaxies rather older than expected.

 

Any theory is strengthened when it results in predictions that come true, and weakened when they don't. The prediction that there would be no galaxies that far back in time was inevitably the combination of the BB theory (which allowed an age to be set) and current theories of galaxy formation. Also, as you pointed out, other assumptions. Still, there is the very real chance that it is the BB theory that is to blame, so it has indeed suffered a setback, in terms of the conviction we should give it.

 

I don't want to throw out the BB theory, except as a certainty. It is worth searching for, and debating, others.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: BlameTheEx

Freethinker.

 

Isn't it time you started living up to your name? Once again, instead of taking an interest in alternative idea's, you are resorting to ridicule. I despair of ever getting a proper debate from you.

I am nothing if not about alternatives. But that does not mean I would reject or demean well established existing theories just because I personally didn;t like them. That is the approach you use to reject theories such as the BB. You make claims and then fail to provide ANY valid support for them. When it is pointed out, you pretend that is NOT what you said.

 

In this example you start by asserting that the BB theory is not valid because "extremely distant galaxies... are rather older than expected"

 

Originally posted by: BlameTheEx

Uncle.

 

In my mind the Big Bang theory is less than totally persuading due to the observation of extremely distant galaxies. They are rather older than expected.

So I ask for some PROOF to support your assertion.

Originally posted by: Freethinker

how are the galaxies at the limits of our current observation alarmingly older than we would expect

You provide a link you claim will support your assertion that the BB is wrong because of the age of distant galaxies.

Originally posted by: BlameTheEx

Freethinker, Uncle,

 

Ok. You hardly have to go far.

 

Look at http://www.hypography.com/article.cfm?id=34251

However this site does not provide any obvious support for your claim of the BB being wrong. So I ask again.

Originally posted by: Freethinker

 

How does the site (here) that you suggest proves your point, prove your point?

Again, lacking ANY support, you make the claim that the BB is STILL wrong regardless.

Originally posted by: BlameTheEx

Freethinker.

 

By all appearances, ether the BB theory is wrong, or the current theories as to galaxy formation are wrong. That in my mind is sufficient inducement to start searching for alternative models for the universe. For that matter, I'm sure it's also a wake up call for those whose interest is galaxy formation theories.

So Tormod jumps in to try to get you to support your original claim of the old galaxies disproving the BB. This time your answer is that you never said it in the first place!

Originally posted by: BlameTheEx

Tormod

 

"That article says nothing about galaxies being older than the universe"

 

Never said they are. I am just suggesting that the time scale for galaxy formation is more than a little tight. Surely its worth at least considering that the universe is a tad older than expected?

Suddenly your stance shifts completely away from the BB being wrong to "at least considering that the universe is a tad older than expected". When your failure to support your claims turns into pretending you didn't make them, you decide that instead of admitting error, you should call ME names!

Originally posted by: BlameTheEx

Freethinker.

 

Isn't it time you started living up to your name?

Followed by misrepresentation of Science itself

Originally posted by: BlameTheEx

Science is not all about support.

Science is NOTHING if not "all about support". If a claim can't be supported, it is NOT ACCEPTED by Science. And just how absurdly convo

[BlameTheEx]

Freethinker.

 

I,thought about replying to that essay, but frankly, lifes too short.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: BlameTheEx

Freethinker.

 

I,thought about replying to that essay, but frankly, lifes too short.

OK. Let's see if we can fit it into your attention span.

 

You have claimed a number of times that the Big Bang is wrong. Here is one:

 

Originally posted by: BlameTheEx

Uncle.

 

In my mind the Big Bang theory is less than totally persuading due to the observation of extremely distant galaxies. They are rather older than expected.

You were asked multiple times to provide PROOF for rejecting the BB. You have failed every time you have tried. You then would attempt to pretend you didn't say what you had in order to cover your error rather than just being honest and admitting the error. You were called on that also and failed to cover your failed spin. Anyone that wants to see the process can review my previous post. I have it laid out step by step to stop you from trying to twist things again. But a post detailed enough to stop you from trying to hide what you actually said, is too long for you to be able to read. So here is the shortened one for your benefit. And here is a question, hopefully not too long and complicated for you this time. I won't put any additional comments after the question lest that also confuse you.

 

You claim the Big Bang Theory is wrong. Provide VALID VERIFYABLE proof to support your claim. Also provide the Theory that is MORE ACCURATE and provides GREATER PREDICTABLITY that can replace it.

[Freethinker]

OK, here is part two. More of my effort to break things into sound byte size so as not to exceed your attention span. This one concerns your attack on Science Methodology. We all KNOW that Science is based on facts and proofs as SUPPORT for it's theories. Er ... all except YOU it seems. I have cut your claim and my reply out of the earlier post to help you stay on task long enough:

Originally posted by: BlameTheEx

Science is not all about support.

Science is NOTHING if not "all about support". If a claim can't be supported, it is NOT ACCEPTED by Science. And just how absurdly convoluted is this statement?

Originally posted by: BlameTheEx

The reason there IS progress is because occasionally people listen and consider ideas on their merit, rather than their support.

And exactly what "merit" is there "rather than their support"?

So the question is

 

Show us what science uses IN PLACE OF SUPPORT for it's Theories. What is it of MERIT that Science uses INSTEAD of factual SUPPORT.

[skywalcore]

Imagine a force that acts in a perfect way. A way that can allow a concept as enormous as infinite existance for matter and anti-matter. This theory is based on accepting that our universe expands in all directions and resembles a spherical shape. [While there is still much debate over the shape and expansion of our universe, it has not and will not be dis-proved because I believe it to be undeniably true. According to the Triple Point Theory there are similar spherical shaped universes around our universe. All simulatenously expanding at the same rate. The reason is that it creates a chain effect which can cause an infinite expansion and deflation process, which is this:

 

The simplest analogy for you to understand how this process works is what follows.

 

Picture a bowl of marbles. The spheres arrange themselves in such a way that there is one point which holds SIGNIFICANT importance. I call it, the TRIPLE POINT. Each of the spheres in your marble bowl represents a single universe. Now in reality these marble spheres exist infinitly in numbers and are not limited to some sort of cosmic bowl. In the center of each marble is a black spot. At some point in time this black spot represents all the matter compressed within that universe. This compressed matter is so unstable it explodes [The Big Bang]. Now the black spot in the center of the clear marble grows. [it grows equally at the same rate as in each other marble and at the exact same time. This is the cycle of the universes' existance. Once the black spot grows to the boundary of the marble you now have a bowl filled with black marbles. Now the gravity is strongest at the TRIPLE POINT. Place three marbles together on your hand and see the small hole between them. The expanding force of those three marbles [caused by the expanding Big Bang] will collect all force and gravity within the small hole between those three marbles. It acts as a gravity powered vacuum. In effect, a new black dot is created. It is the product of the force caused by the maximumly expanded three marbles, which all happens at the Triple Point. When you take into account the 3-Dimensions of this "bowl of marbles", the mass of an entire universe is equally distributed among the triple points surrounding it. Once again, each triple point [the relative location of the super-massive ball of condensed unstable particles] explodes into another Big Bang.

 

This is what I propose as a solution to how our immediate universe will stop expanding and be able to exist once more. It is recycled with the universes, for lack of a better term, surrounding it. Therefore, another big bang scenario is created on a constant basis in an infinite scale.

 

-Luke Stanton Smith

[email protected]

I came up with this theory on 1/10/04.

[Tormod]

Welcome Luke -

 

Originally posted by: skywalcore

Imagine a force that acts in a perfect way.

 

How do you define "perfect" in this setting?

 

A way that can allow a concept as enormous as infinite existance for matter and anti-matter.

 

Is this your definition? Then you assume that the universe is infinite, which is hardly proven. If you base your theory on that, I'd say just about anything else you assume will be only, well, assumptions.

 

It would be more interesting to turn your theory upside down and see if it in any way predicts an infinite universe.

 

I fail to see how your theory offers any insight at all. What exactly is is that your theory tries to explain? What does it predict?

 

Tormod

[skywalcore]

I re-worded my theory to a more accurate description under the other thread, but i will reply to you question. I would define a perfect setting as ANY setting that can allow infinity to exist. There is without discussion some sort of perfection involved in a system that has no beginning and has no end. In my theory it states that what we currently define as our "expanding universe" is not the system with no beginning and no end. What we currently see expanding [as our galaxies move further apart] is our universe approaching it's end. Similarly, many people see the Big Bang as our universe beginning.

 

I am defining "the system" which holds a property of infinite existance, is the overall "marble matrix" of synchronized and symmetrically aligned universes that work together to preserve eachother.

 

***

Is this your definition? Then you assume that the universe is infinite, which is hardly proven. If you base your theory on that, I'd say just about anything else you assume will be only, well, assumptions.

 

It would be more interesting to turn your theory upside down and see if it in any way predicts an infinite universe.

 

I fail to see how your theory offers any insight at all. What exactly is is that your theory tries to explain? What does it predict?

***

 

I don't think what scientists currently define as our universe is infinite at all. I believe the Multi-Universe System itself is infinite and universe only exists because of that infinite system which created us.

 

Without a doubt, we either have an infinite universe or an infinite system that allows our universe to exist. The reason is, for everything to exist, it must have always existed IN SOME FORM. Whether that form be energy, particles, dark energy, dark matter, etc... There must have been some type of existance that brought fourth our own existance.

 

Now if this "system" which is suggest exists outside of our universe is REAL, then science would have to re-define what we currently call our universe. Are universe would no longer simply be some expanding universe that willl eventually tear apart into nothingness [which is a commonly believed theory, but i don't think it holds ANY ground since it doesn't explain how our universe came into being in the first place]. Are universe would now be defined with a better understanding.

 

What my theory is trying to explain is simply:

 

What really exists beyond the known universe

My theory explains it in simple terms, and these terms can be translated to very confusing terms that might lose all the readers. I offer an explanation of how we started, where we end, and how we are "recycled".

[Tormod]

Originally posted by: skywalcore

I would define a perfect setting as ANY setting that can allow infinity to exist.  There is without discussion some sort of perfection involved in a system that has no beginning and has no end.

 

Lost me there. The first sentence is meaningless. What on earth does "allow infinity to exist" mean?

 

And please refrain from using "there is without discussion..." statements. This is a discussion forum. Of course it is debatable. First, we would need to discuss what you mean by "perfection". Then we need to know what the term "some sort of perfection" implies. Then we would need to discuss what kind of system you are talking about. Then we need to discuss whether there exist such things as systems with no beginning and no end.

 

That's why I still think your theory is upside down. You have an opinion which you try to turn into a theory.

 

So, in order to accept that your theory is a theory at all, I need to confirm some things:

 

1) Is it testable?

2) How can we test it?

3) What does it predict?

4) When can this prediction be expected to happen, and what sort of study would be required to reach it?

 

Your argument that you offer an explanation about things is okay. However, it is not a theory. Is is an assumption, which is written in convoluted language and is hard to grasp.

 

The terms "I believe" and "without a doubt", which you use in your previous response, are both terms which in this setting are problematic because they imply that you do NOT want your "theory" to be discussed.

 

You offer a very limited version of the current Big Bang model. There are many theories about how the universe is expanding, and why. There are also many different theories about how it will end. That it will "tear apart in to nothingness" is not a known theory to me.

 

Tormod

[skywalcore]

Can you test the evolution of mankind in a lab?

Can you test the Big Bang in a lab?

 

By your own definition, you have eliminated two of the most common beliefs among us scientists.

What the theory predicts is how the universe ends and how it starts up again. To know when this is expected to happen would require us to measure past the furthest edge of expanding matter. Then we would have to measure past the empty space that is ahead of that matter. Then once we are able to detect more matter we take the rate of expansion and deduce an equation that tells us how much time we have left until our universe collides with the neighboring universe.

 

I don't see how you are lost on the first sentence. What is perfection to you? To me perfection is the ultimate state of being. It is prime example of something. In order for something to be infinite [doesn't have an end or a beginning], that is a powerful and bold statement. That is an ultimate state of being. If something is flawed, it will eventually end. Something that is infinite is not flawed, but perfect. Life, matter,and elements decay, because they are not perfect.This is the logic I use to define something as perfect.

[Uncle Martin]

Originally posted by: skywalcore

TRIPLE POINT. Place three marbles together on your hand and see the small hole between them.

Using three spatial dimensions,....it takes five marbles to create a defined empty space between "marbles", or any spheres for that matter. I think we may have found the first hole in your theory.

[skywalcore]

I've already taken the "quintiple point" possibility into consideration, but you will notice that the marble on the top and bottom of the triple point are of greater distance apart. The universes matter that would be distributed from those two universes would be greatly insignificant compared to the triple point. That is the smallest point available so it would be the first to fill with matter and particles, therefore it would hold the strongest gravity powered pull.

 

The marbles on the top and bottom of a triple point, would be more likely to distribute that universe's mass to one of there own triple points, instead of creating a quintiple point.

[BlameTheEx]

Freethinker

 

OK you shortened it..... then could not resist adding a part 2...... one day i will get round to reading part 2.

 

But as to part one.

 

I have NOT ONCE claimed the BB theory is wrong. I have just claimed that the evidence is not perfect, and thus there is room for other theories. THERE IS A DIFFERENCE. There are things so clear and certain that they are beyond debate, there are things that are patently false, and there are things somewhere in the middle. Words like possibly, probably, maybe, could be used for this later case.

 

To ascribe the BB theory to this category I do not need proof, but only need assert that totally convincing proof does not exist.

 

I am sorry that I can find no pattern of words that you can read as I mean them to be written, but there you go. You are asking me to provide proof for something I never said.

[BlameTheEx]

Regarding the balloon analogy.

 

To recap the theory being that the universe is like the surface of a 4th (or 5th?) dimensional balloon that is being pumped up. The pumping being the cause of the red shift.

 

If this is the case, all points in the universe are much alike, and the Hubbell constant would be even over the entire universe.

 

Take a series of galaxies A,B,C...... A and B are of a distance that the red shift is a factor of 10, so is B and C, and so on. Light sent to B from A with a wavelength of 1um arrives with a wavelength of 10um. Light sent to C from B with a wavelength of 10 um will arrive with a wavelength of 100um. Something strange will be happening (although I am not saying that nothing strange will happen) if the light from A doesn't arrive at C with a wavelength of 100 um, as it should be identical to the light sent from B as it passed.

 

From the point of view of A, B is red shifted by 10, C by 100, D by 1000... Z by 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

 

We get an obvious formula here: (log (Red Shift)) X (Very large Constant) = Distance.

 

There is no end. The universe would be of indeterminate size, and could even be of infinite size.

 

Before we get into another row, I am not claiming this is the case, nor using this argument as proof, or disproof of any theory. I am just bringing up the concept for debate.

[IrishEyes]

BTE - I love reading things that you post!

 

Like FrankM in another thread, you have turned something that I would normally find very boring into something that is now *almost* understandable to me.

 

I also appreciate that you are willing to think outside of the standard and accepted 'norms' , and that you are not afraid to share your thoughts and musings. It takes guts to present your original ideas in an open forum, where the possibility of having your ideas so thoroughly disected is almost a certainty. :>) I give you high marks in form, unerstandability and guts.

 

As to the content, I'm not in any position to say, so I'll leave that for more learned minds than mine. I do appreciate that you try to make things easily understandable, without seeming either condescending or stuffy. I also like that you are willing to look at different theories, but do not feel the need to cling to any one religiously (with ardor or faith). Coming from me, that may seem funny, but I totally respect that you are not stuck in a scientifically-minded rut!

[BlameTheEx]

Irish Eyes,

Thank you.