Alpha and Omega

[Pluto]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzz

 

Time is used to measure motion.

 

Time cannot be changed and therfore cannot have a Zero or an End.

 

According to the BBT there was not one point but many points throughout the endless universe.

 

 

Redshift data in my opinion is affected by the intrinsic properties of the supernova candles that they take some of the data from.

 

Its funny that everything is exapnding away from planet Earth, not only that objects travel faster the further away they are. Logic would step and say. What is going on?

If the BBT popped up everywhere from many points than you could not have a uniform expansion from little Earth.

 

Think about it.

==============================================

 

Either way, I feel a cyclic process can explain all the features that we observe out there without dark matter, dark energy, expansion of the universe and so on. Can this be supported. Yep 100 % Cyclic process is becoming general information and is able to be googled.

[lawcat]

I'm sorry you cannot understand the metaphors and examples we have given you. But if you assume that anything you do NOT understand must be wrong -- you will find that you cease to learn. And your ability to appreciate the grandeur and beauty of the universe will shrivel.

 

And by the way, ponder this: The Universe is NOT an "object". I mean that. Seriously. ...

 

I started to put down the reasoning behind this, but ... Never mind.

Sorry.

 

1) if to wit the universe is multi-dimensional, and we live in its surface, whereby the rest of it we can not detect, then there are serious problems. First we must confine our discovery to the known and we must model the universe as an "OBJECT"; the surface that we can perceive. Otherwise we are wasting our time. Second, if the red shift is the movement, as it is detectable and observable, in the "surface" of the multi dimensional universe, it is a movement in a loop, or a movement to an end; it will either catch up to us and collide, or we will eventually slip out of the surface. Both instances could be explained. Either the looping "surface" is irregular and some areas have angular speed higher than others. Or, the end of the "surface" has a nozzle that draws the universe at higher speed near the discharge.

But, the observation that red-shift is observable in all directions seriously undermines this. It is inconsistent with known looping surfaces that acceleration can occur in all directions without noticable reverberations. It is also inconsistent with known principles that a discharge can occur in all directions; because, then, it is not a discharge but simply infinity.

 

2) Thank you for reminding me.

 

3) It is not that the multi-dimensional pondering is not fun, sometimes; to shed light on current problems. But it is generally useless as it has no practical application. "Object" modeling does.

[modest]

1) if to wit the universe is multi-dimensional, and we live in its surface, whereby the rest of it we can not detect, then there are serious problems...

 

3) It is not that the multi-dimensional pondering is not fun, sometimes; to shed light on current problems. But it is generally useless as it has no practical application. "Object" modeling does.

 

The balloon analogy is not for the purpose of fun and it is not useless. It is meant to convey an aspect of cosmological theory in layman's terms.

 

Modern cosmology models the expansion of the universe with a metric. The simplest assumptions to make about the universe are isotropy (the universe looks the same in every direction) and homogeneity (on large scales, the mass in one volume of space is equal to the mass in another equal volume).

 

The simplest universe a person can model given these constraints would be using the Robertson Walker metric. From the link:

 

In such a universe, the interval (space-time separation) between events ("points" in space-time) can be described by the Robertson-Walker metric. By fixing the distances between all points, the metric also defines the geometry of space-time, and, because there is a meaningful cosmic time, the geometry of space at a given time. In fact, there are only three possibilities for the local geometry of space, because the curvature of space must be the same at all points (homogeneity) and not pick out any particular direction (isotropy):

 

Positive Curvature

.....The sum of the three angles of a triangle is more than 180°, (although this is only noticable for triangles with sides comperable to the radius of curvature, R). This case is denoted by setting the curvature constant k to +1. A 3-D space with positive curvature has a structure analogous to the 2-D surface of a sphere: if you travel far enough in any direction, you come back to where you started. Thus space is finite and the universe is said to be closed.

 

Flat space

.....The conventional geometry of Euclid. k = 0. This can be considered as the limit of the other two cases for infinite radius of curvature. Because it is balanced between the other two, this is sometimes called a critical universe. For true Euclidean geometry, the topology is also open, meaning that space is infinite in all directions. It is also possible to have compact topologies (e.g. the 3-torus) in a flat space, which have finite volume (and so are closed).

 

Negative Curvature

.....The sum of angles of a triangle is < 180°, (again, noticable only for very large triangles). k = -1. This is the hardest case to imagine as it is not even possible to have a 2-D surface of constant negative curvature (a pseudosphere) in Euclidean 3-D space. 2-D surfaces can have local regions of negative curvature, e.g. saddles and trumpet cones. The simplest topological case is when the universe is infinite in all directions, and so said to be open. In fact it is "more infinite" than the Euclidean case, in the sense that at a given distance from us there is more space than we would expect from Euclidean geometry. As for flat space, there are compact topologies with negative curvature, which are closed.

 

Questions like "what is this curvature", "where is the center"... etc are answered with analogies to shapes and objects (a saddle or a balloon). This does not mean we are saying the universe is a saddle or a balloon nor that it obeys the rules that a saddle or balloon would obey. The map is not the territory. The universe is not the metaphor - as Pyrotex says, the universe is not an object. It is only an analogy that describes a very meaningful metric. In this case:

 

[math]ds^2 = (cdt)^2 - R^2(t) \left[ dx^2 + S_k^2(x)(d \theta ^2 + sin^2 \theta d \phi ^2) \right][/math]

 

The metric describes the evolution and properties of the universe both now and in the past.

 

WMAP Big Bang Concepts

 

~modest

[lawcat]

I see. So, if one was sitting inside of the surface of the balloon, one would feel "negative curvature" towards the inside of the ballon, "positive curvature" towards the outside of the ballon, and "flat space" in a local area.

 

Modest,

 

I did not understand your geodesic graph and this sim http://www.adamtoons.de/physics/relativity.swf

 

If an object falls, and fallows the curvature, it traverses space at a constant rate, to meet the surface. Both the object and the surface travel through time, but only the ibject travels through space. Therefore, it appears to follow a "longer" path, based on the graph. Yet, the sim explains that the object clocks shorter time than an observer on the earth? Can you shed light on this?

[modest]

Lawcat, I feel like we're moving toward hijacking Little Bang's thread, so if it's ok, I've answered you here:

 

Re: The Curvature of spacetime?? how?

 

Thanks,

 

~modest