0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Well John I would like to know the path you took in deriving your equations. What steps did you go through?
What in the name of God do you mean by this? What justification do you have that the pressure is always balanced and that because of this the universe can't expand? The equations of motion for an expanding universe certainly does hold true for our universe, that's for sure.
Quote from: jeffreyhWell John I would like to know the path you took in deriving your equations. What steps did you go through?I didn't. It's a well-known Schwarzschild-metric equation.
Ooh-er, I don't think I can visualise a flat cone...
A curvature such as Gaussian curvature which is detectable to the "inhabitants" of a surface and not just outside observers. An extrinsic curvature, on the other hand, is not detectable to someone who can't study the three-dimensional space surrounding the surface on which he resides.
There's no evidence of any unbounded topology or any higher dimensions.
Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and in accordance with scientific method. Standards for scientific evidence vary according to the field of inquiry, but the strength of scientific evidence is generally based on the results of statistical analysis and the strength of scientific controls.
As such there is plenty of evidence that the universe might be infinite.
But we're talking about the various models of the universe and the ramifications of what is implied when one of the models is true. My comments applied to the situation where we assumed that the universe is spatially infinite. It didn't apply to what it "really" is since that can't be known.
You do realize of course that the equation is for a special situation involving a non-rotation body. This is one of the solutions for a black hole and not very realistic. The other is the Kerr solution for a rotating mass.
Now this shows you how difficult your position is in this argument.https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/equation-for-time-dilation-of-body-in-orbit-around-kerr-black-hole.781691/Note that the ergosphere is the real danger point. What this shows is you can't make glib statements without reviewing all the maths. You may think physicists get 'lost in the maths' but without the maths there is no physics.
See where Jesse says the time dilation goes to infinity as you approach the Schwarzschild radius. Think of a light clock. When it goes slower, it isn't because "time goes slower". It's because "light goes slower". And when time dilation goes to infinity, it's because light stops.
More of a sphere - top and bottom were also contiguous; perhaps I should have said 'edge' rather than 'side'...
Your reference to light is a total red herring.
Everything slows down, not just light.
Rates of change slow down and what do we use to measure rates of change? Come on John you know the answer to this one. You can see this in the shifting wavelengths. How do you measure a frequency? You'll have to remind me it has slipped my memory.... Begins with a T I think.
Quote from: jeffreyH on 25/01/2015 02:29:22Your reference to light is a total red herring.It isn't. It gets to the heart of the matter. Quote from: jeffreyH on 25/01/2015 02:29:22Everything slows down, not just light.Because everything has an electromagnetic nature. We make electrons (and positrons) out of light in pair production. Quote from: jeffreyH on 25/01/2015 02:29:22Rates of change slow down and what do we use to measure rates of change? Come on John you know the answer to this one. You can see this in the shifting wavelengths. How do you measure a frequency? You'll have to remind me it has slipped my memory.... Begins with a T I think.You measure it with a clock. The most precise clocks are optical clocks.
You are dancing around here. You mention a clock. What do clocks measure?
John you said, "Because everything has an electromagnetic nature. We make electrons (and positrons) out of light in pair production." There is an electromagnetic field which arises because of mass. The problem you have is that you first need to determine what is slowing down and exactly why. This may sound like a bizarre statement at first read but it cuts to the heart of the matter. Does the intrinsic spin slow down.
I don't know what distortion of the usual meaning of 'centre' would allow an unbounded topology to have one; does a loop or circle have a centre? or the surface of a sphere? or an unbounded volume? if so, how does one calculate it?
We are considering three dimensions of space so yes, they all have a centre.
If we reverse the expansion of the universe and space-time; play it backwards, this leads us to the singularity of the BB. If we could see energy burst, from that original event, shouldn't that event appear as a single point in space; center of the universe?
Quote from: Ron Maxwell on 24/12/2015 12:26:13We are considering three dimensions of space so yes, they all have a centre.So how does one identify the centre of an unbounded 3D space?
Quote from: dlorde on 25/12/2015 22:35:06So how does one identify the centre of an unbounded 3D space?I can't see why one would want to as there is,as far as I'm aware, no such thing. The idea that the universe is infinite makes no sense to me.
So how does one identify the centre of an unbounded 3D space?
I can't see why one would want to as there is,as far as I'm aware, no such thing. The idea that the universe is infinite makes no sense to me.