New Theories / Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?« on: 22/03/2023 13:33:37 »
once you find yourself aliveHow can you find yourself anything but alive?
The following users thanked this post: Bogie_smiles
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.
once you find yourself aliveHow can you find yourself anything but alive?
I don't believe there is any irrefutable evidence though that says there was a beginningThere indeed is no irrefutable evidence of it. The big bang theory itself does not preclude it, but neither does it give any meaning to the phrase 'before the big bang'.
I do recall that just few years ago, Halc claimed that Just after the Big Bang the entire Universe was in the size of a grapefruit. (I specifically remember the word - "grapefruit")Too bad you didn't remember the other important words. It was the visible universe, and it was approximately that size (give or take an order of magnitude or two) after the inflation epoch, which came after the Planck epoch and Grand Unified epoch.
When I have asked about the energy source for the Big Bang, the answer was: As there was no space and no time, there is no need to explain the BBT energy source.I would not have said that. For one, it is unclear if there is any energy since the total energy density of the universe may be zero if you add in the negatives with the positives. But I think if you ask the experts, the concept of total energy density is meaningless. It's all relative, not absolute, so there's only comparisons with other states.
Therefore, the time was ticking long before the Big Bang moment.I would ask you to confine your assertions to your own topics. You're hijacking this topic, and continued wild assertions will get the posts moved or simply deleted.
current Standard Cosmology, which I understand depicts finite space to be expandingCurrent models do not posit finite space, but neither do they require infinite space. Most models presume space to be infinite.
My question is, does the BB model refer to the action going on at the expanding boundary of the universe as creating space and matter out of nothingness?No viable model posits a boundary to space, not even the ones with finite space.
is it consistent to predict that anti-space or negative space, and anti-matter are building up and exist beyond that expanding universe, in a sort of anti or negative universe?There is no meaningful 'beyond space'. There might be other universes, but there wouldn't be a meaningful say direction in which they might be. If there was, it would just be a different but distant part of the same space. A type-1 multiverse is exactly that: Just locations in our space too distant to measure from Earth.
How can we know it is 13.8 billion years old if all we can see is the observable Universe ?The age was not computed by looking as far as we can see. Hubble's constant of about 70 km/sec/Mpc was measured nearly a century ago, long before they were looking at things a significant percentage of the distance to the edge of the observable universe. The age can be computed directly from just that one constant.
hrow a ball from the ISS in a way that it will return from the other side ?Yes, it can be done.
My simplistic understanding of what they said is:It's actually about 1/10000th of that. In cosmic coordinates (the only coordinate system I know that describes the universe), the oldest light we see (that of the CMB) was emitted at a proper distance of about 1.5 million LY away. The reason it took 13.8 billion years to get here is due to the very high expansion rate of the universe back at the time of the recombination event, perhaps 3M km/sec/mpc compared to 70 km/sec/mpc today.
- Roughly 15 (or 14) billion light years is the distance from "where the source was when the light was emitted" to "where we are now"
Roughly 100 billion light years is the distance from "where the source is now" to "where we are now"That would put it beyond the size of the visible universe which means we could not see it. So around 45 billion light years is the proper distance from "where the source is now" to "where we are now".
- There is an even smaller number which represents the distance from "where the source was when the light was emitted" to "where we were back then"Well since we have not moved significantly in that time, that distance is also that 1.5 MLY figure. Cosmic coordinates has the Earth at the center, unmoving. You have to assign the origin somewhere.
As relativity illustrated, all times and distances are relative to which frame of reference you are talking aboutYes, which is why I carefully specified the cosmic frame and not say some inertial frame, which isn't valid at all at large distances since spacetime isn't Minkowskian.
And anything outside your light cone is irrelevant to you (eg if some object is now 100 billion light-years away, light from that object will probably never reach us, due to the expansion of the universe).Correct. Any recombination light emitted from what is currently over about 58 BLY away will never reach us. Any light emitted today from over 16 BLY away will also never reach us. That latter figure is the current distance to the event horizon.
Because we are not moving towards each other at the speed of light will it not appear younger as it gets closer because the light from it is travelling a lot faster than it is travelling towards us ?Actually, I fixed my first post. The faster something comes at you, the faster it appears to age. Andromeda appears to age an extra hour every 3 months of us watching it. If something approaches us near speed of light, it can appear to age twice as fast, or a thousand or more times. This is mostly due to Doppler effect. Things moving away appear to age more slowly, so those really distant galaxies are very young looking because their appearance has had no time to age them beyond their lambdom.
So, as Andromeda gets closer will we be bale to see it get younger as the light won't need to travel so far is not it ?No. It will always appear to be aging forward (faster than us even), so in a year it might appear a year plus 4 hours older..
The Observable Edge of the Universe is drifting away FTL, Correct?The size (radius say) of the observable universe is growing at a proper rate of a bit over 3c, and accelerating.
So if there ever was to be a new BB at the Farthest Edge of the Universe, how would/could We Observe it?It just plain doesn't make sense for a big bang to occur at a location. Also, there is no meaningful edge of the universe. I cannot think of a viable model that has one.
If WE cannot Observe/Measure it & there ain't no Data/Evidence for it, does it then mean it's Not Real?By many definitions of 'is real', correct. Careful, since there is a distinction between measuring something and knowing about it. The latter implies nothing can be real without something that can 'know' about it. The measurement definition is simply any interaction between two systems.
I'd say no, though you do need some evidence to support a theory.That you do, but a definition of 'real' isn't a theory, it's just a definition. The whole concept of 'real' is a metaphyscial one, so I don't think it is possible to produce conclusive evidence for a metaphysical conjecture. If one could, it would be a theory and cease to be metaphysics.
I've forgotten how to post images (I'm getting old )It looks like the death star:
I would say that it looks like it covers about 25% of the diameter of the MimasClose enough. I get 30% of the diameter, or about 10% of the circumference, which makes it cover maybe 3% of the surface, a slight reduction of my prior estimate.
... as seen from Saturn.Although most images including the one I posted are not from Saturn. Most are as seen from Earth, as evidenced by the fact that we see most of the daylight side.
Probably much smaller than the diameter of the impact crater of our dinosaur killing asteroid ...?The Mimas crater is about 130 km across, whereas the Chicxulub crater (Yucatan) is about 150 km across, larger, but not much larger. It's the second largest crater on Earth, with Vredefort being a bit bigger, in South Africa.
But how come the Search Information says Confirmed vs Provisional?The provisional ones have not had their sightings or orbits yet confirmed. They might just be a passing object and not in orbit at all.
So WE still aren't Sure how many exact Moons they have?No, they're really far away and it's awful dark out there, and some of these things are pretty tiny. There must be a threshold of what constitutes a moon vs just a small pebble that happens to be in orbit about something.
Juno & Voyager did take a closer look, Right?Yes, and they found/confirmed a bunch, but the didn't linger long enough to do a thorough scan of the area. Juno didn't make it to Saturn either.
Thanx Hal for setting me straight...Again!OK, so setting you even more straight, I'm Halc (rhymes with 'false'). There is another user (occasional poster) on this site whose ID is Hal. I'm not him.
Roger Penrose imagined a Cyclical Universe, isn't it? So why'd he do dat?Try something different? Hard to say what he suggests, but it seems like it is playing with conformal time. The view requires infinite time to pass as measured by one bang before the next one happens, and it is unclear if it allows the bang to have any energy associated with it. The bangs still happen everywhere, which is the same as nowhere given infinite time and spacetime becomes singular in a way.
I don't have the knowledge or background to qualify me to solve the kinds of problems that the scientific community is dealing with.I'm not talking about the problems of the scientific community. I'm talking about the problems with bangs happening here and there. You seem to evade them, as does say a theist when confronted with contradictory evidence. Their goals are not scientific ones so they don't mind contradictions.
"the Herschel crater" covers nearly a quarter of Mimas' surface5% at best, about a 20th. Still dang impressive.
I wonder if that kind of impact, from a different angle, could throw the small moon out of orbit and into a collision path with Earth?It would need to be accelerated anywhere from 6 to 35 km/sec (depending on direction of acceleration) to leave orbit. Anything that hit hard enough to accelerate it that much would shatter it into gravel. Much would fall into Saturn, but some of the fragments would find their way to the orbits of the other planets.
Can the Above Image, thru Wild Speculative Imagination, depict a Cyclical or Splitting Universe/s?It's a bifurcation diagram, which comes from chaos theory, showing modes of stability, chaos, and strange attractors. Among other things, it's a nice fractal. And yea, it's not what Zero might wildly speculate it to be.
Yes, you've repeated that a great many times, but you edited out the important part of my post: "Have you given thought as to resolving the problems instead of ignoring them?"The 'here and there' part is particularly problematic.I consider the "here and there" idea as a hypothetical assertion associated with the multiple Big Bang premise. That premise, as I imagine it, has only one infinite space, so multiple big bangs all occur in that one space, in different places in that space, from time to time.
I'm looking at an old copy of Astronomy magazine and the lead story is "Our trillion-galaxy universe".Another loose usage of the term 'universe', typical of a pop publication. Doubtless they mean the visible universe. There are an estimated 2 trillion galaxies in this volume, depending heavily on which ones get counted and when.
I am actually going to go so far as to say exactly that. I caution against taking a simple comment out of context, and I'm not much on clicking videos and actually watching them (21 minutes to wade through), and it's Sabine, so I presumed the content is accurate. Well it isn't, which is a shame.It's not a function of acceleration, so I cannot say from just that.Then would you say that Sabine in the video is wrong?
The computation above is completely scalar. Note the complete lack of acceleration reference in the formula. I see time and speed (v) and that's it. It isn't a function of acceleration, as I said above. The formula above is from special relativity, so it only applies to the special case where gravity is not involved. Hossenfelder's video is entitled "Special Relativity: This Is Why You Misunderstand It", which means the content should stay away from gravity, or the video is mistitled.Do you know any math formulas to see how acceleration and time dilation are related?
the elapsed time for the travelling twin (who goes to Andromeda) is given by:
Δτ =[Eqn 2]
I have heard that animals like dogs and cats see light in shades of blue and yellow.Many mammals have cones in their eyes sensitive to these colors, yes. Two is common. I've heard of as many as 16 colors (giving 256 primary colors), but not in a mammal species.
I have heard snakes see infra red light, but in shades of blue and yellow or yellow and red...?Most snakes are sensitive to green and blue, but some use IR (yes, through the pits) to detect prey. Mosquitoes and vampire bats have decent IR vision. It's a good thing for a blood sucking species to have. Mosquito's best sense is probably that of CO2.
What goes on in their retinas and brains?The retinas are just like any other, but with cones sensitive to different wavelengths than others. As for the brain, one can't say how any of these colors are perceived. Some creature (maybe even another person) might be sensitive to the same colors as you, but perceive them completely differently.
On the other hand, fitness of the higher orders, like modern humans, is at a level where survival of the fittest includes competition for scarce resources in the wildHumans don't do particularly well 'in the wild'. Our forte, as well as our downfall, is the cooperation among large groups (civilization). Take that away and it will be surprising if we can keep our population as high as a thousandth of what it is now. The holocene extinction event is in full swing right now, expecting to eliminate something like 75% of all species. Will humans be part of the 25% that survives? It's questionable, and that makes us not so 'high order'.
one of a potentially infinite number of similar Big Bang events, occurring now and then, here and there, across time and space.That's just a premise, and one that leads to contradictions that have been identified. Have you given thought as to resolving the problems instead of ignoring them? The 'here and there' part is particularly problematic.
I wanted to ask the same question but couldn't find the requisite motivation.And you shall not be receiving an answer. This poster was just advertising his site and posting the same stuff on several other forums and social media sites.
When the survival of the fittest is achieved,Survival of the fittest is a means to a process, not a goal that is 'achieved'.
even a planet killer asteroid would be unlikely to destroy all life.The biggest hit Earth has ever taken (the Theia event) may or may not have happened before there was life, but it if was already there, it was not wiped out by it. I agree, an asteroid is probably not up to the job, but the coming warming (in a billion years or so) will boil away all water and make the planet uninhabitable for multicellular life. Life will survive this in simple form for several more billion years until the sun grows enough to possibly swallow Earth if it doesn't move far enough away in that time.
I could see a huge chunk of Earth having enough gravity to be planet like, and to host some form of life to start the process over again as it finds a new star or planet out there to orbit around.It doesn't take a large chunk or gravity at all. Any rock big enough to not be completely destroyed by falling on another host planet can transport dormant life to it. There's a reasonable probability that life originated on some other planet and only got here via such a calamity to the original world. Something lived inside a rock for aeons in space and was deep enough to not be burnt to a crisp on entry into our atmosphere. Then only a few centuries of erosion lets the life out of the rock and bingo, we have life here that originated elsewhere. How it subsequently evolved into the life we know is definitely still a product of Earth's environment which is very likely completely different than the world from which that rock was ejected.