Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
@BogieWell, my amateur view is that there is only one universe, but I am willing to discuss any aspect and comment on different points of view ...
If Universes are bubbles, which collectively make up the Multiverse...
What then does one call, or refer to the Space between these Bubbles?Ok, if there are, in fact, those bubbles you are talking about, obviously the space between them is soapless.
MultiSpace!Ok, I can accept that ...
: )
& all these supposed Bubbles have different timescales of blowing up & going PoP!That could make sense ...
MultiTime?
: )
Hi.I find that one good way to get the kind of discussion that the forum AUP suggests the site is intended to allow/encourage, is to actually post content, and my content is generally original, being about my thinking about our big bang arena and the greater infinite universe that birthed it. I'm not disappointed by the comments I get, and am encouraged by any and all replies, because I like reading, posting and participating here. The number or responses I get is not the goal; if I wanted wide viewership, I could expand the number of forums and sub-forums that I participate in, but when it comes to the amount of readership I get, I may be the most frequent visitor/reader of my "out of the way" posting (not to imply that thenakedscientists isn't popular, but the stats indicate that the popularity is quite minuscule relative to the wider scene), and I still come and post to my thread pretty often, not expecting much activity, but appreciative of a place to post it.
I'm sorry, @Bogie_smiles but I have to second the view expressed by @Halc.
The readership of the TNS forum is very small. Although while I'm here, let's try and be a bit more objective and propose some analysis that you could perform yourself.
If you want to get a slightly more informed opinion about how often people may find your thread, you can just use Google and see how high up a list of search results it displays your thread.
Search terms: multiple big bangs
This forum thread was found at search result #21. That is actually higher up than I thought it would be.
You could use this to estimate the number of people who may be looking for information today (and use Google with <these search terms> ) that will ultimately click through to your post.
Here's some data collected by a PR and web marketing site a few years ago (about 2017) that plots the CTR (Click through rate) vs. the search engine ranking position:
That's old data and I have not examined how they got their data. It's just some data that a PR company was using.
Basically it is suggesting that only about 1% of the people who were using those search terms would actually end up clicking onto your thread.
In this more modern age, I would think a CTR of 1% for a rank 21 position is actually way too high. Most of us are busy and search engines have improved a lot since the old days of the interent - they seem to know what you wanted to find better than you did so that their first few results are usually ideal. Finally, even if someone clicks on this thread, it is only an indication that they have glimpsed it. They may click away very quickly.
Sorry, it may not be what you want to hear. I also probably shouldn't be giving advice about how to increase readership:
(i) I'm not an expert
(ii) I shouldn't be trying to aid in anything that may violate the Acceptable Usage Policy (AUP).
The forum AUP suggests that it is used as a place for discussion rather than just as a place to reach a load of people with your idea. So, it just does not matter how many people you may think come here to read it, only that you (and the others?) may benefit from having some discussion with others.
Best Wishes.
Well, it seems to me that individual bots have to have some sort of assignment or directions, and if that brings them to a particular forum or post, wouldn't it stand to reason that their visits would indicate that their "boss" has some interest in the possible content there? Maybe that "interest" would shed some light on the opinions held by their user? Just speculating.I get a lot of "views" on this thread, which tells me there are some members with views about our universe that imply that the universe has a particular age, i.e., that imply that there was a beginning to the universe.The view count (which is almost entirely bots) tells you something about the opinions of some members? How does that work?
Hi.I always try to take caution when making my assertions/dissertations about the nature of some aspect of the universe, because most of my rants are only my opinions, and often are lonely points of view.
I've only glanced at some of the more recent posts, sorry, I hope I've got the gist of it.Bogie_smiles said: It could be a flat Universe (Euclidean; zero curvature)
Halc replied: It has been measured to not be flat.
I'd just like to remind both parties that "curvature" can mean different things. There may be some confusion between a spacetime curvature and a purely spatial curvature.
Space-time is a 4 dimensional object (3 from space + 1 from time) and we can construct a 4-indexed Riemann Curvature Tensor for spacetime. (The details aren't too important, it's a 4x4 matrix of values). The Riemann curvature tensor for Minkowski space is "0" (all entries Rρσμν = 0 for all ρ,σ, μ, ν).
You (Halc ) are correct in that the Riemann curvature of a spacetime manifold in which space is expanding is not "0". So that no transformation of co-ordiantes exists which would reduce the metric on that spacetime to the metric of plain old flat Minkowski space <=> "our spacetime cannot be Minkowskian".
However when "the curvature of space" is discussed it is the convention to understand that we are ONLY talking about the curvature of space (a 3 dimensional object) and not the curvature of spacetime (a 4 dimensional object).
Thus, we live in a universe where the Riemann tensor is not "0", there is definitely some difference from Minkowski space. However, if we confine our attention to just the 3-dimensions of space then we do have (almost exactly) 0 spatial curvature. So we say that our space is flat. Indeed, geometry that operates only in 3 dimensions should work exactly as it would in Minkowski space (and that is just plain old Euclidean space since we are only considering the 3 dimensions of space, so we could also say our space is Euclidean). The difference between the curvature of our space and that of Minkowski space is only exhibited when time is also included and we examine the full Riemann curvature tensor Rρσμν.
I hope that makes some sense: "Flat" does not exclude the possibility of space expanding, by convention "flat" is only a description of the spatial part of our 4-dimensional spacetime.When it comes to possible universe types, there are different shapes and structures our observable universe could be part of. It could be a flat Universe (Euclidean; zero curvature), a spherical or closed Universe (positive curvature) or open (negative curvature). I'm no expert, but I think that if it is infinite and eternal, that translates to "flat" with no curvature.The curvature terminology you have used is correct. Since we assume space is isotropic and homogenous its spatial curvature is extremely limited and we don't need a multi-indexed tensor (or matrix of values) to describe it. It can be described by just a single Real number, k. As regards a purely spatial curvature, the universe has curvature k=0 and is said to be "Flat" ; positive curvature k>0 ("Closed") ; or negative curvature k<0 ("Open").
A few years ago, this spatial curvature also determined the ultimate fate of the universe and you can still find plenty of textbooks, articles and You Tube videos that continue with this tradition. An open universe would continue expanding forever, a flat universe also exists forever but settles down asymptotically to a constant scale factor. A closed universe must collapse (the scale factor starts to reduce). One thing (spatial curvature) was synonymous with the other thing (ultimate fate of the universe). You need to watch out for this, a lot of articles still assume that the geometry of space determines the long-term expansion (or vice versa: Eternal expansion forces an open geoemtry etc).
The more modern understanding has considered dark energy or vaccum energy more carefully and it appears that you can pick certain ratios of ordinary matter to dark energy so that ALL combinations of spatial curvature and long term expansion can be exhibited. I don't seem to be able to find an online version of the diagram but fig. 8.4 in Chapt. 8 of Spacetime and Geometry, Sean Carroll has an excellent diagram.
As of the time that book went to print (2020), the astronomical data we have suggests our universe is spatially flat and under the old view that would mean expansion slows and eventually stops so that we end up with a static universe (neither expanding or contracting). Under the new understanding of cosmology, the current data suggests we have the right mixture of dark energy to matter so that it will continue expanding forever and not settle down to a constant scale factor.
Best Wishes.
@BogieI never cease to be amazed by discoveries like the Galaxy ring, and other deep space discoveries that advance our knowledge about the universe. It is thrilling to see it all unfold before our eyes, and I pinch myself to see if it is true that I am awake and that we are living through the greatest moments to date of mankind. I hope that the advancements keep on coming, though there are some stark realities that living beings have yet to show that we can survive and endure without termination. But then, there must be other intelligences out there that have a chance to be in the game, and perhaps there always will be. Hope for life springs eternal,
Since the time i heard the News, i haven't been able to Stop thinking about your I.S.U. Model thread.
Pretty sure you've Already heard et all know et all...
Still, just Wished to add a little snippet of it in here..
Where it Belongs!
Alexia Lopez/University of Central Lancashire/BBC News/YouTube
ps - Smilin away to Glory!
: )
.It may be yours, but only ever-so-briefly. What can represent a lifetime to the aged human is but an instant in the grander scheme of things. So yes, during that lifetime, your gravitational influence is marked by your Human presence, but in the bigger picture, that instant we call a lifetime isn't much to get excited about when looked at as its share of the passing of infinite time.
I am Neither mass,
Nor a Lump of rock.
I am a Human who moves around...
right
left
up
down
Roundabouts!
My Gravitational influence is Mine!
...
... intelligent life that can focus on a tiny moment and place, separate from the grand whole.It is the ability to focus on the here and now, the present, a single clip in the reel of time. And humanity not only leaves its mark on our planet, but now we have sent our markers out into space.
To Create Space, requires Space,Einstein,
To Begin Time, requires Time.
Without space & Without time...
There is No Space-Time!
ps - : )
That is one of the departure points between my hobby ideas and generally accepted scientific theory
Accumulated mass cannot bang. A little bit (a bomb say) can, but not a big bit. A big crunch is different since it doesn't happen at a specific location, but rather everywhere, and thus isn't particularly an accumulation of mass in one place.
. My hobby idea posits that huge masses can accumulate under the influence of gravity, to the point that they reach a critical capacity, and when that capacity is reached, it is in fact a natural limit beyond which any further accumulation of mass will result in a collapse/bang; an imploding of the crunch followed by a "bounce" as the concentration of the imploding mass reaches natures natural limit of compression.That would be a tremendous determination if it were true, but with billions of years (actually an infinity ahead) and infinite possible outcomes to play out, the real answers to such imponderables are indeterminate.It seems to me that space must be infinite and time must be eternal, don't you agree?
I'm not in Disagreement,
I simply have a Different perspective.
If the BB model is Flawless...
Then Space itself had a Beginning,
And what Begins, has a Boundary.
If the Law of Entropy is Absolute...Why does it seem to me that infinity had "no beginning and will have no end"?
Then Time itself has a limited time to Tick.
The genetic code of the universe encodes life and intelligence (compare the anthropic principle). The explanation for the emergence of intelligence can be achieved by going back to the origins of the cosmos. Our cosmos was probably initiated by a very highly developed planetary culture from another cosmos. This would explain the genetic code of the universe.That scenario about our cosmos being initiated by a source from a different and highly developed cosmos raises a question related to infinite regression, i.e. how did the first cosmos begin and how did it get any genetic codes?
Gregory Podgorniak, Poland, year 2023
.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_energyFrom Zero's link: Alan Guth. Theory of known American theoretical physicist Alan Harvey Guth of the inflationary universe modifies the scientific Big Bang theory, describing the origin of all space, time, matter, and energy, 13.7 billion years ago, from the violent expansion of a singular point of extremely high density and temperature.
ps - Hope Eternal is Okay n doin Well!
I can certainly understand that a sound relational position can be more restrictive. Mine "evolved" over the years from trying to deal with finite and infinite. What we can observe and/or detect could certainly be a finite expanding universe from a singular event, or it could be the observable portion of an expanding big bang event within an infinite greater universe where big bangs are not necessarily the result of a singular universe-wide event.I have no problem with the universe being confined only to things with a location in that space, since in my view there is only that one infinite and eternal space, and all existing stuff is in that one contiguous space.OK, so your definition of 'all that is' is everything in our particular 3D space and not all the other stuff. The other stuff isn't part of 'all that is'.
I'm actually pretty OK with that, and my own relational definition is far more restricted than even that.
Closing the thread would suit me. It wasn't a good idea to restart it, shrug.I just wanted to stick my toe back in the water here and refresh my memory of posts on this thread and see if it seems right to restart postingOrigin seems right. All evidence suggests that your sole purpose in posting is to watch the count of the number of google bots that note each post. You seem to live for the number and nothing else. It is an obsession to the point of being compelled to put the number at the bottom of each post to track its progress.
As for the title of this topic, I didn't read it all, but I didn't actually find anywhere that attempted to convey what 'they' are saying about quantum gravity.
...Yes, thank you
@MrSmiles...
Why so Silent?
(hopefully ur still smilin)
, as good as ever ...