expansion of the universe is cause from a strong gravitational pull. - Page 3

tusenfem · #61 (**permalink**) 08-January-2009, 08:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tommac

Please retract your statement above:

I was mearly correcting a minor mistake of yours ... and you got nasty.

Mea culpa, I retract.
(but at least I founded the correction of my error on real science)

tommac · #62 (**permalink**) 08-January-2009, 04:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tusenfem

Mea culpa, I retract.
(but at least I founded the correction of my error on real science)

Agreed ... and I do appreciate the input. I realize that i have a lot to learn but I think I do understand some things.

tommac · #63 (**permalink**) 08-January-2009, 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gzhpcu

What BB model are you basing your statements on? The standard BB model defines the pre-bigbang state as being... nothing... no energy, no matter, no space-time. How do you come up with black holes in this context? Are you equating pre-bigbang universes with black holes? (you can't!)

I dont believe in that one ... what I meant was if all of the mass was contained in one microscopic singularity .... and there was a universe that was filled with these microscopic singularities .... basically our universe x a gazillion.

tommac · #64 (**permalink**) 08-January-2009, 04:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by north

what of though N/S ?

north + south we all seem to agree would work as I stated above.

the problem is with E / W and I agree that this is probably the nail in the coffin for my ATM ... However with my last argumentative effort ... i will argue that it has to do with the time the light was emmited and the angle / motion of emmitor in the past / motion of us today that causes the redshift ... the further away in the E/W the more this effect would come into play.

gzhpcu · #65 (**permalink**) 08-January-2009, 05:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tommac

I dont believe in that one ... what I meant was if all of the mass was contained in one microscopic singularity .... and there was a universe that was filled with these microscopic singularities .... basically our universe x a gazillion.

If you don't believe it, then, since the standard BB model stipulates this, you must provide evidence to the contrary, since this is an ATM forum.

tommac · #66 (**permalink**) 10-January-2009, 11:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gzhpcu

If you don't believe it, then, since the standard BB model stipulates this, you must provide evidence to the contrary, since this is an ATM forum.

ATM has two usages 1) for presentations of theory and 2) to discuss things that may be debated and dont belong in QA.

I dont have any evidence. These are just questions that dont fit into the QA section.

sabianq · #67 (**permalink**) 11-January-2009, 01:24 AM

wait wait
I think i know what he is trying to say

as the universe expands the actual structure of space time is stretched in every direction

would this not stress spacetime depending on its structure?

could this stress impart mass to matter?

gzhpcu · #68 (**permalink**) 11-January-2009, 03:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tommac

I dont believe in that one ... what I meant was if all of the mass was contained in one microscopic singularity .... and there was a universe that was filled with these microscopic singularities .... basically our universe x a gazillion.

Our current state of physics can not define what the pre-BB state looked like. It breaks down at the pre-Planck-time. The standard BB model entails one universe only.

However, when you start talking about multiple universes, etc. , this would be more in the realm of string theory. Here with n-branes, all this is possible. One of these cosmologies, the Ekpyrotic model, postulates the collision of two n-branes causing the BB. Here we have a pre-existing universe into which at the area of the brane collison, the BB occurs.

However, it is all mathematical theory at the moment.

Wina · #69 (**permalink**) 11-January-2009, 11:37 PM

Question: Does the concept of a big bang universe contradict the theory of a multi-verse? Seems to me like it does. If there are indeed multiple universes then wouldn't their forces acting upon each other make it impossible for there to be a void present in the space between? On the other hand, the only logic which supports such a construct dictates that all of these multiple universes would have to have been constructed at the same time which once again points AWAY from the concept of a multi-verse since the dispersal of matter in the big bang makes it hard to believe that several universes would be created from ONE big bang.

Check my logic here and smack me if being stupid.

PetersCreek · #70 (**permalink**) 12-January-2009, 01:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tommac

ATM has two usages 1) for presentations of theory and 2) to discuss things that may be debated and dont belong in QA.

I dont have any evidence. These are just questions that dont fit into the QA section.

But you're not just asking questions here, tommac. You've made assertions about how you think the Universe works. ATM rules require you to defend your theory and to answer questions about it. Calling your arguments questions won't relieve you of those requirements.

If you don't have any evidence, there doesn't seem to be much of a basis for your assertions. You should at least be able to present evidence or arguments as to how your theory better explains observations than the standard model.

gzhpcu · #71 (**permalink**) 12-January-2009, 02:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wina

Question: Does the concept of a big bang universe contradict the theory of a multi-verse? Seems to me like it does. If there are indeed multiple universes then wouldn't their forces acting upon each other make it impossible for there to be a void present in the space between? On the other hand, the only logic which supports such a construct dictates that all of these multiple universes would have to have been constructed at the same time which once again points AWAY from the concept of a multi-verse since the dispersal of matter in the big bang makes it hard to believe that several universes would be created from ONE big bang.

Check my logic here and smack me if being stupid.

There are many versions of multiversesm, from QM's Many Worlds (Everett) to the Ekyroptic Cosmology from M-theory. In M-theory our universe and others are created by collisions between membranes in an 11-dimensional space.

gzhpcu · #72 (**permalink**) 12-January-2009, 02:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tommac

ATM has two usages 1) for presentations of theory and 2) to discuss things that may be debated and dont belong in QA.

I dont have any evidence. These are just questions that dont fit into the QA section.

Many of the answers build up on the assumption of associated knowledge. It is difficult to set the right context in answering questions as people have different levels of knowledge. You can not learn simply by asking questions. The answers give you a lead, and then you must follow the lead by reading up on the subject. An easy way is to Google it.

tommac · #73 (**permalink**) 12-January-2009, 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PetersCreek

But you're not just asking questions here, tommac. You've made assertions about how you think the Universe works. ATM rules require you to defend your theory and to answer questions about it. Calling your arguments questions won't relieve you of those requirements.

If you don't have any evidence, there doesn't seem to be much of a basis for your assertions. You should at least be able to present evidence or arguments as to how your theory better explains observations than the standard model.

Can you please split/move this part of the discussion to About Baut ... It is distracting from the OP.

PetersCreek · #74 (**permalink**) 12-January-2009, 05:11 PM

I posted my comments to moderate this thread. I see no reason to move them to another forum where they won't have the desired effect.

mugaliens · #75 (**permalink**) 13-January-2009, 01:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gzhpcu

Many of the answers build up on the assumption of associated knowledge. It is difficult to set the right context in answering questions as people have different levels of knowledge. You can not learn simply by asking questions. The answers give you a lead, and then you must follow the lead by reading up on the subject. An easy way is to Google it.

I agree, gzhpcu. Q&A alone doesn't cut it for some people. They need to Google it, Wikipedia it, go sit down at Barnes and Nobles with a good cup of joe and a book on it - do something to fill the gaps!

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Universe Expansion	earthman2110	Astronomy	109	13-April-2008 03:45 AM
Is the universe accelerating or decelerating?	snowflakeuniverse	Against the Mainstream	125	27-July-2004 08:55 AM
Alternative Cosmological Model	heusdens	Against the Mainstream	90	17-January-2003 05:51 PM
magnetic rocket creates wormhole theory	uralph	Against the Mainstream	9	15-June-2002 01:37 PM