[Zer0]

@Bogie

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!
: )

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

@Bogie

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!
: )

I 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, .


247821.

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

...
I hope that the advancements keep on coming, though there are some stark realities that living [human] 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, .
247821.

I feel that I was understating my confidence in the endurance and duration of the universe; I don't think there was a beginning, nor do I think it will ever end, i.e., the universe has always existed. In fact, maybe I should capitalize the word "universe", much like we do proper names, as in common usage of the word "God". It is customary to capitalize "God" as a proper noun, and one of my premises is that, for those to whom it is important that we acknowledge a God, then I would say that God and the Universe are one and the same. Everything that "is", is a consequence of a universe that is infinite and eternal, to my way of thinking.


248024,

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

I do want to get to some discussion on the subject of an infinite and eternal universe, but one stop along that path is to be sure I have been clear that, to me, there is just one universe. That said, there is no room for another universe, lol. Feel free to express your views on the "one universe" concept if you feel so inclined.



248288,248516,

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

I agree. 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.


So when we are talking about the "one and only" grand universe, flat with no curvature suits me fine. How can you attribute a shape to the infinite universe. Shapes have edges/bounds, and an infinite universe would seem to have no boundaries.

248536,

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Shapes have edges/bounds, and an infinite universe would seem to have no boundaries.

Well, the surface of Earth has no edges/bounds, but it still has a shape, so your initial statement might not be true.

Maybe I should include in my definition that a finite closed surface that separates it from the rest of the universe, by definition, has an edge, referring to the surface of the space in question, while an infinite universe has no surface or edge.


,248732,

[Eternal Student]

Hi.

    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 R^ρ_σμν = 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 R^ρ_σμν.

     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.

[Zer0]

@Bogie

Here is the Original Source link for that short BBC snippet i posted before.

https://www.uclan.ac.uk/news/big-ring-in-the-sky

ps - Welcome@Eternal@l.S.U.
: )

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Hi.

    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 R^ρ_σμν = 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 R^ρ_σμν.

     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.

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.

Referring to the universe, neither flat nor curved are words that come to me naturally when I consider and discuss my own ideas; infinite and eternal are words I use, and I mean them in their common context. I struggle to reconcile my views with the consensus from the scientific community, and I'm short on proofs or justification for my views on cosmology of the universe. I often post in hopes of getting learned responses that point me in the right direction on one subject or another. Thenakedscientists forum is a good place for my kind of activity because of the "on the lighter side/New Theories" sub-forum, where I can air some of my fanciful views without upsetting the mods or the community, and in return receive helpful and cordial responses from which I learn, and my thanks to the community for all of the helpful responses.


248792,249319,

[Eternal Student]

Hi.

Very kind and very polite words @Bogie_smiles ,  thank you and I'm sure everyone will appreciate it.

Best Wishes.

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

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. I suppose that there are people among them that propose estimates of the age of the universe based on our observations. Those observations imply that distant galaxies appear to be moving away from us, and that is interpreted as evidence that the universe is expanding. An expanding universe sounds like a finite universe existing/expanding into a surrounding infinite "nothingness", doesn't it? 

But if my premise that the universe is infinite and eternal is correct, then that would seem to mean there has been enough time for it to do whatever an infinite eternal universe can or will do, and probably do it over and over again, lol.

Expansion in the observable universe around us is apparent, but I maintain that the greater universe doesn't expand, but instead, may contain patches or arenas that expand while adjacent patches contract.

If expansion and contraction of finite patches of space, across all time (eternity) are the real universal circumstances, wouldn't that imply that two "forces" would be coming into play ... expansion and contraction. I translate that to mean that there might be multiple big bangs causing local expansion, and multiple big crunches causing local contraction, occurring in separate but intermingling patches across the infinity of time and space.


249338,249457,

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

...

Expansion in the observable universe around us is apparent, but I maintain that the greater universe doesn't expand, but instead, may contain patches or arenas that expand while adjacent patches contract.
...

If so, our universe would have a lot going on, and there would have to be drivers of those actions that apply everywhere, resulting in those patches of expansion and contraction that I suggest exist out there. And I have said that those drivers are big bangs that fuel patches of expansion and big crunches that fuel patches of contraction, both playing out across the infinite universe.


I also posit that the universe is infinite and that an infinite universe doesn't expand or contract, but instead, the matter that fills any given space is influenced by the force of gravity that causes matter to converge, and the force of big bangs that cause matter to move outward from the location of the big bang.


249492,

[Halc]

resulting in those patches of expansion and contraction that I suggest exist out there

Here's a map they made from the observations taken. It very much shows patches of expansion and contraction, except that the contraction happens where the mass is most dense, and the expansion (repulsion) happens at low density regions.


The arrows show the movement. The Shapley attractor is doing a big crunch of sorts, and the dipole repeller is pushing everything away from it. There is another one (not pictured) called the cold-spot repeller.  We are at the very center of that map.

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?

An expanding universe sounds like a finite universe existing/expanding into a surrounding infinite "nothingness", doesn't it?

No actually, it doesn't sound like that. If the universe was spatially flat, had a size, and that size was changing, those words would have the implication you indicate.

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

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?

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.


249667,

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Hi.

    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.

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.


249939,

[Zer0]

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?

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.

249667,

Or maybe the B0T5 have gained Consciousness in a Hive Mind Structure.

& They realize the Importance or Abstractions.

They can see how Dogma stomps upon the Pursuit of Knowledge.

Maybe They also can Feel...
Organised Religion & Institutionalized Education..
Thou apparently Different from each other in Fundamentals, still pretty much at times, the same.
Suffocating!
(Equivalence Principle)

ps - 249982
(have funn)

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Or maybe the B0T5 have gained Consciousness in a Hive Mind Structure.

& They realize the Importance or Abstractions.

They can see how Dogma stomps upon the Pursuit of Knowledge.

The bots in this case, (the ones that scan all of the internet for new content) are utterly simplistic programs with no AI at all. I think you need to redirect your speculations to something more complex, like say an automatic pizza delivery drone.

Still, my book of 1001 Facts says that the term goes back to inventor Leonardo da Vinci who sketched a humanoid robot in1495. The idea has had a long time to mature, and I would say inventors have taken advantage of those years to bring us to the point where robots reproduce many of the human physical and mental functions. Programmable industrial robots seem to be able to exceed human capabilities these days, even being sent to environments in the solar system (and beyond) where humans couldn't function at all; it seems there isn't anything they can't be built and programmed to do.


250016,250220,

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

But bots are bots, and not big bangs

So I have been considering the combination of an infinite universe and multiple big bangs and big crunches ... and gravity, ... and bangs producing cosmic dust and debris, and gravity consolidating it into new big crunches, which eventually gather enough debris to reach critical capacity, causing them to collapse/bang into cosmic dust and debris.


I'm considering the potential for an endless cycle on a grand scale ...


250317,

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

This term, "critical capacity" stems from the idea that the compression of atoms can produce a nuclear explosion, and I am pondering the idea that big bangs equate to those kind of nuclear explosions on a large scale. In that scenario, gravitational compression of a certain finite amount of mass causes a big bang when the compression "factor" exceeds the ability of the compressed atoms to maintain their individual space ...


250488,

[Zer0]

Sorry i almost led the Thread astray with that Botty potty post.

Anyways, i have a very Simple question to ask but it will take Aloads of Imagination.


A S S U M E !

We from Earth see a Galaxy at the near End of the Observable Universe.

We are looking back in Time, so it looks Young.
(1 billion age)

If someone in that Galaxy was to look at Us, would Milky Way look alot Younger to Them as well?


!ClimaX!

They seem to be near about at the Edge of our Observable Universe.
We might be at their Edge of O.U.
What if They stopped looking at Us and pointed their Hubble Bubble in the Opposite Direction?

What would They see?
: )
(lol)