Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: March 29, 2024, 6:29 am

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The unmoved mover
RE: The unmoved mover
(September 24, 2016 at 8:18 pm)Jehanne Wrote:
(September 24, 2016 at 7:24 pm)Arkilogue Wrote: Can you explain the eternity of the universe to me in your own words? Does it make any predictions on the CMB?

The Cosmos is all that there is, or ever was, or ever will be:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLu1cTKBspI

Thanks for Carl's words and perspectives, can you condense your's to a few sentences or paragraphs?
"Leave it to me to find a way to be,
Consider me a satellite forever orbiting,
I knew the rules but the rules did not know me, guaranteed." - Eddie Vedder
Reply
RE: The unmoved mover
(September 24, 2016 at 9:42 pm)Arkilogue Wrote:
(September 24, 2016 at 8:18 pm)Jehanne Wrote: The Cosmos is all that there is, or ever was, or ever will be:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLu1cTKBspI

Thanks for Carl's words and perspectives, can you condense your's to a few sentences or paragraphs?

Not everyone here pretends to be a scientist. Some things are best left to professionals.
God thinks it's fun to confuse primates. Larsen's God!






Reply
RE: The unmoved mover
(September 24, 2016 at 8:19 pm)Jehanne Wrote:
(September 24, 2016 at 7:27 pm)Arkilogue Wrote: It's an objective, 3d/holograhic, geometrically predictive model.

If I chose that route of expression, it may not be the most fulfilling nor effective method of publication.

I'm doing this for those that care, not those that don't, but thank you for the reflections and advice.

What testable predictions are there from your "model"?  How could it, in principle, be verified?  Falsified?

As maximum density sphere pack, each universe takes up ~74.05% of the space vs the space between spheres (see the Kepler Conjecture). This I take as an identical base line contractive constant on each universe from the outside. So I use the top measure for the dark energy inside each universe as an expansive constant at that number, ~74.05%

http://hubblesite.org/hubble_discoveries...energy.php
We do know this: Since space is everywhere, this dark energy force is everywhere, and its effects increase as space expands. In contrast, gravity's force is stronger when things are close together and weaker when they are far apart. Because gravity is weakening with the expansion of space, dark energy now makes up over 2/3 of all the energy in the universe.

It sounds rather strange that we have no firm idea about what makes up 74% of the universe. It's as though we had explored all the land on the planet Earth and never in all our travels encountered an ocean. But now that we've caught sight of the waves, we want to know what this huge, strange, powerful entity really is.

The strangeness of dark energy is thrilling.

It shows scientists that there is a gap in our knowledge that needs to be filled, beckoning the way toward an unexplored realm of physics. We have before us the evidence that the cosmos may be configured vastly differently than we imagine. Dark energy both signals that we still have a great deal to learn, and shows us that we stand poised for another great leap in our understanding of the universe.
---


I can hear your protest now, "But there's no room for the expansion of the universes once the spheres touch each other and inflation ceases!" You are correct, there are further division of space time within each universe into 6 regions and 4 of them are ring torus in shape nature. One of them is the section that patterns for the lightest type of atomic density (the others pattern for 3 heavier densities and the upper 3 regions pattern for antimatter). Our torus of space time is what is expanding, inside the fixed membrane of the spherical universe. This has speciic predictions for the destiny of the universe.

As there is pure matter at the center of the universe and the beyond the peripheral shell, our torus of space time will accelerate as it approaches it and have to reconcile with the other regions and membranes along the way. It is heading towards unitarity of space.

74.05 divided by 6 = ~12.34. 12.34 times 5 = ~61.71. I use this as the lower end expansive constant that the other regions of space are still exerting on our region. In this model the sudden pull apart of space time as an entire field at once yields white hole like space time rips that spew primal matter into the spatial universe across all regions all at once. These are the centers of galaxies. I intuit it to be a limited spew that settles out just above the mean between the upper and lower limits. Fudging on the higher side given the strength of the fabric of space time to pull back together keeping a very slight over pressure inside, like a balloon.

The exact mean between 74.05 and 61.71 is 67.88

http://www.outerspacecentral.com/energy_page.html
Dark energy has not yet been detected directly and has properties unlike anything we know. Dark energy is like an anti-gravity force, but since energy and mass are equivalent, there has to be a lot of it in the universe. While gravity pulls things together at the local level, dark energy pushes them apart on a grand scale. Its existence isn't proven, but dark energy is the best guess of most scientists to explain the acceleration of the universe.

We know that Planck satellite data indicates that ordinary matter (made up of atoms) makes up only 4.9% of the universe . That "dark matter" (not made up of atoms) makes up 26.8%. And, that "dark energy" makes up 68.3% of the universe.



Less than .5% on the higher side of my exact mean calculation.
"Leave it to me to find a way to be,
Consider me a satellite forever orbiting,
I knew the rules but the rules did not know me, guaranteed." - Eddie Vedder
Reply
RE: The unmoved mover
(September 24, 2016 at 9:51 pm)chimp3 Wrote:
(September 24, 2016 at 9:42 pm)Arkilogue Wrote: Thanks for Carl's words and perspectives, can you condense your's to a few sentences or paragraphs?

Not everyone here pretends to be a scientist. Some things are best left to professionals.

That's fine, I don't require him to be. I just figure if you think you understand it, you should be able to explain it, yes?
"Leave it to me to find a way to be,
Consider me a satellite forever orbiting,
I knew the rules but the rules did not know me, guaranteed." - Eddie Vedder
Reply
RE: The unmoved mover
(September 24, 2016 at 10:18 pm)Arkilogue Wrote:
(September 24, 2016 at 9:51 pm)chimp3 Wrote: Not everyone here pretends to be a scientist. Some things are best left to professionals.

That's fine, I don't require him to be. I just figure if you think you understand it, you should be able to explain it, yes?

I am a fan of science.I do not fantasize that I am a scientist. When I want scientific explanations I seek out experts in their field. Their claims are theirs to defend. My only claim is that science is awesome and arkilogues claims are gibberish !
God thinks it's fun to confuse primates. Larsen's God!






Reply
RE: The unmoved mover
(September 24, 2016 at 10:17 pm)Arkilogue Wrote:
(September 24, 2016 at 8:19 pm)Jehanne Wrote: What testable predictions are there from your "model"?  How could it, in principle, be verified?  Falsified?




74.05 divided by 6 = ~12.34. 12.34 times 5 = ~61.71. I use this as the lower end expansive constant that the other regions of space are still exerting on our region. In this model the sudden pull apart of space time as an entire field at once yields white hole like space time rips that spew primal matter into the spatial universe across all regions all at once. These are the centers of galaxies. I intuit it to be a limited spew that settles out just above the mean between the upper and lower limits. Fudging on the higher side given the strength of the fabric of space time to pull back together keeping a very slight over pressure inside, like a balloon.

The exact mean between 74.05 and 61.71 is 67.88

http://www.outerspacecentral.com/energy_page.html
Dark energy has not yet been detected directly and has properties unlike anything we know. Dark energy is like an anti-gravity force, but since energy and mass are equivalent, there has to be a lot of it in the universe. While gravity pulls things together at the local level, dark energy pushes them apart on a grand scale. Its existence isn't proven, but dark energy is the best guess of most scientists to explain the acceleration of the universe.

We know that Planck satellite data indicates that ordinary matter (made up of atoms) makes up only 4.9% of the universe . That "dark matter" (not made up of atoms) makes up 26.8%. And, that "dark energy" makes up 68.3% of the universe.



Less than .5% on the higher side of my exact mean calculation.





This is nothing but numerology based in scientific and geometrical constants. It's rubbish. It isn't prediction at all.
[Image: extraordinarywoo-sig.jpg]
Reply
RE: The unmoved mover
Yeah. Nothing like shoehorning a "prediction" into data we already know.

Oh yeah, and RIP Harvey Korman.
Reply
RE: The unmoved mover
(September 24, 2016 at 2:40 pm)Arkilogue Wrote:
(September 24, 2016 at 11:21 am)Whateverist Wrote: Okay, but which one of us is the one that did all that stuff in Genesis?  Who thought up the serpent and the naughty apples?  I want the name of the god who decided to create an eternal torture chamber and may as well tell who was responsible for the whole afterlife debacle.  

Or did you just redefine "god" to mean any member of the species homo sapiens?

I blame those asshole Sumerian and Babylonian gods.

Not limited to homo sapiens, to self aware souls of any sentient species anywhere in the universe. Gods in embryo and development over many many lifetimes.


*steps away quietly.  Psst, get the nets*
Reply
RE: The unmoved mover
(September 24, 2016 at 9:42 pm)Arkilogue Wrote:
(September 24, 2016 at 8:18 pm)Jehanne Wrote: The Cosmos is all that there is, or ever was, or ever will be:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLu1cTKBspI

Thanks for Carl's words and perspectives, can you condense your's to a few sentences or paragraphs?

The Universe just IS.
Reply
RE: The unmoved mover
(September 24, 2016 at 10:18 pm)Arkilogue Wrote:
(September 24, 2016 at 9:51 pm)chimp3 Wrote: Not everyone here pretends to be a scientist. Some things are best left to professionals.

That's fine, I don't require him to be. I just figure if you think you understand it, you should be able to explain it, yes?

Not many folks can understand General Relativity; in fact, Einstein himself, at the beginning of his research, did not completely understand the mathematics (differential geometry) behind it:


Quote:In 1912, Einstein returned to Switzerland to accept a professorship at his alma mater, the ETH. Once back in Zurich, he immediately visited his old ETH classmate Marcel Grossmann, now a professor of mathematics, who introduced him to Riemannian geometry and, more generally, to differential geometry. On the recommendation of Italian mathematician Tullio Levi-Civita, Einstein began exploring the usefulness of general covariance (essentially the use of tensors) for his gravitational theory. For a while Einstein thought that there were problems with the approach, but he later returned to it and, by late 1915, had published his general theory of relativity in the form in which it is used today.[5] This theory explains gravitation as distortion of the structure of spacetime by matter, affecting the inertial motion of other matter.

Quote:When Einstein realized that general covariance was actually tenable, he quickly completed the development of the field equations that are named after him. However, he made a now-famous mistake. The field equations he published in October 1915 were
R μ ν = T μ ν  {\displaystyle R_{\mu \nu }=T_{\mu \nu }\,} [Image: e00c9e0b3079974837fb535e93f97f3e1fb5b043],
where R μ ν {\displaystyle R_{\mu \nu }} [Image: a5ee22d1a052bee0115efb8b5ffdaf10b04e42aa] is the Ricci tensor, and T μ ν {\displaystyle T_{\mu \nu }} [Image: 463ab8cef859ece28e33b8460ebd4a6699834dd0] the energy–momentum tensor. This predicted the non-Newtonian perihelion precession of Mercury, and so had Einstein very excited. However, it was soon realized that they were inconsistent with the local conservation of energy–momentum unless the universe had a constant density of mass–energy–momentum. In other words, air, rock and even a vacuum should all have the same density. This inconsistency with observation sent Einstein back to the drawing board. However, the solution was all but obvious, and on November 25, 1915 Einstein presented the actual Einstein field equations to the Prussian Academy of Sciences:[16]
R μ ν − 1 2 R g μ ν = T μ ν {\displaystyle R_{\mu \nu }-{1 \over 2}Rg_{\mu \nu }=T_{\mu \nu }} [Image: cc9dfd9a6eaf88d2afa1832ab48a1b8400bc9f8e],
where R {\displaystyle R} [Image: 4b0bfb3769bf24d80e15374dc37b0441e2616e33] is the Ricci scalar and g μ ν {\displaystyle g_{\mu \nu }} [Image: e5bf4140993a891f5782167dc8a0c236dc7667b8] the metric tensor. With the publication of the field equations, the issue became one of solving them for various cases and interpreting the solutions. This and experimental verification have dominated general relativity research ever since.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of...relativity
Reply





Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)