Fairy Tale Physics

[jtb]

The notion that vacuum implies a border or container to the universe is a rather peculiar conclusion.

Hi Michael.
To explain further, the atmosphere of Venus is 93 times denser than Earth's. That means the container of Venus's atmosphere has to be 93 times stronger than Earth's. Lets move the Venus container into the Earth container. The Earth container would then be similar to space (a partial vacuum compared to Venus) and the Venus container would be similar to Earth. Each have to be in some sort of container for both to maintain constant pressure.

EU's position is that space is not expanding. If not expanding it must have a boarder.

[nick c]

EU's position is that space is not expanding. If not expanding it must have a boarder.

The EU position is that we do not know enough/have enough observational evidence to come to a scientific conclusion on the origin of or the extent of the universe.
That being said, a border has to by definition separate two areas. So what is on the other side of the border? and why would it not be a part of the Universe?

[Michael V]

nick c, jtb,

My position is that the universe is infinitely large; or at least so large that to all intents and practical purposes, we can consider it infinite. jtb appears to be visualising the entire universe of galaxies (what we picture as being "the universe") such that if it were not "contained" it would be expanding into empty space (a space previously devoid of galaxies). The notion that humans are anywhere near any sort of cosmological boundary or edge of the universe usually proceeds from the anthropocentric view that humans command a special place in the cosmos. This mirrors the expanding universe of a big bang theory - that expanded faster than light in direct contradiction to the theory and laws of physics used to derive the expanding universe theory in the first place. Compared to any objective perspective of cosmological time, you might as well say that "the universe began and then there were humans". Presumably in the 1930-40s, "billions" sounded like a big number, whereas in cosmological terms, a 14 billion year old universe is the cosmological equivalent of a 5000 year old Earth.

Anyhow, the point is, that unless you first posit that the universe is finite on a humanly intelligible scale, the idea of an edge or boundary and then some sort of containment method, is entirely redundant. Of course, providing physical proof of an infinite universe is equally impossible, but it is logically less presuppositional - it is the stance most in accordance with Occam. Like nick, you could say "I don't know", which might be a reasonably position to take. But given the relative proportions of infinite compared to finite, then from a statistical point of view, the chances of a finite universe, with a age or size that could be computed by even the fastest supercomputer in anywhere near the scale of a human lifetime, is so vanishingly small as to be effectively insignificant (and I would say, impossible).

In short, there is no objective logical position to support a (practically) finite universe; neither in age nor size. So there is no edge or boundary and no containment mechanism. History has repeatedly laughed at those that have claimed to know the boundaries of their universe.


Michael

[Drakekay]

There is a lesson to be learned, one I am sure is exaggerated over and over in the name of defense of EU. And that is that we as a global society need to learn to listen without judgement, and the intent to disprove, discredit, or out right murder those with different opinions. We should also not discourage others from communicating their views by using insults and bullying tactics. I find even the simplest example of this happening, even here in EU forums. I realize its not such a huge trauma to inflict on someone, the act of winning a debate. But it does present another method for which a potential truth is blocked from being discovered. Let us realize the "Resonance" simply insulting someones view has with the "Known Science" and its propagation methods. The only methods we should be using to disprove any science should be implemented using appropriate scientific methods, not social domination! We should document everything, even when that documentation records our own change in views. We can learn a lot by examining that which we once believed. We need this contrast, these falsehoods or failures in understanding what we observe. How could we know that we have found a truth if we did not examine what we believe that truth is? One thing to be sure of, there are many social tactics available to make something we believe to be seen as true. It seems that one day we hold a view, change it the next, and change it back again, how can anything we say to define what we observe be exact just yet? We need so much more information before we finalize anything! The most important view I hold is not to write truths in stone.

[jtb]

EU's position is that space is not expanding. If not expanding it must have a boarder.

The EU position is that we do not know enough/have enough observational evidence to come to a scientific conclusion on the origin of or the extent of the universe.
That being said, a border has to by definition separate two areas. So what is on the other side of the border? and why would it not be a part of the Universe?

Hi Nick,
I'm glad you asked. My personal belief is that the universe is spherical and composed of three moving parts. The central part is where we live; the outer part is extremely cold and dark (outer darkness) and contains some form of water. The two are separated by something very firm (firmament) that withstands the difference in pressure separating the two. The whole thing is rotating generating the electricity and electromagnetism to sustain itself.

Beyond that I haven't a clue.

[jtb]

The most overwhelmingly certain fact about the universe, of which we can have the most supreme confidence, is that vacuum space is not empty. All and any experiment that demonstrates action-at-a-distance is proof perfect of this fact. This undeniable truth should be the starting point of any fundamental physical theory.

Michael,
I agree. Also, if space is expanding, whatever makes action-at-a-distance (AAAD) possible must also be expanding at the same rate, otherwise there would be a delay in action.

In order for space to expand, there must be an external influx of new space into the universe, similar to expanding a balloon by introducing more air from an external source (your lungs).

Another possibility is externally adding energy to cause expansion, which increases pressure and temperature, but, there are limits as to how much energy can be added before destruction occurs.

The only other alternative I can think of is creation of new space, which requires a creator.

[jtb]

We can learn a lot by examining that which we once believed.

Hi Drakekay,
I welcome criticism. I learn much more from those that disagree with me than from those that agree. It identifies flaws in my reasoning and forces me to reexamine my beliefs and expand on what I already know. No one knows everything but we all know something others don't. The more I'm challenged, the more I learn.

[Drakekay]

The notion that vacuum implies a border or container to the universe is a rather peculiar conclusion.

Hi Michael.
To explain further, the atmosphere of Venus is 93 times denser than Earth's. That means the container of Venus's atmosphere has to be 93 times stronger than Earth's. Lets move the Venus container into the Earth container. The Earth container would then be similar to space (a partial vacuum compared to Venus) and the Venus container would be similar to Earth. Each have to be in some sort of container for both to maintain constant pressure.

EU's position is that space is not expanding. If not expanding it must have a boarder.

And if space is a consequence not a container? Meaning the boundary of the planet is completely dependent on the relationships that exert force at that boundary. what we observe as a vacuum(space), the planets own internal point(s) of force, and any additional sources relative to this boundary(ie the sun, other planets... which makes me wonder if all bodies count if they are part of a chain of independent forces affecting each in a linear fashion) and to some extent perhaps even the galaxy as a whole(since we observe no change in velocity the further outward you examine). Its these forces that pull matter away from itself, causing the emptiness we perceive. Empty space may not be a thing at all, but the absence of matter and (like a Lagrangian point) is a region of canceled, balanced or concentrated electromagnet or gravity fields which are the result of electricity and matter interacting. This would also explain why it seems space-time is linked that space is a cavernous opening inside of an area of matter that has been pulled out of its location with nothing to fill the area except a vacuum(those opposing forces pulling in all directions away from a local area). We may be seeing gaseous regions being hit by electricity which causes spheres to form(first matter collapses into a flat plane as a massive electric charge comes into contact with it. As the matter collapses into its new state of semi accumulation, relative melting and transmutation(for lack of better word) from one substance to the next, causes its reservoir for electric charge to increase allowing more electricity from the current arc to rebound into locality and be absorbed by the matter further cascading inward. The relative quantities of resulting material determine what type of body we see. The more massive the originating charge, the more varied the resulting matter becomes. You could even go a step further and view all matter between galaxies as having been pulled toward the galaxy from a superfluous or spread out and less dense originating state. Does all matter start at hydrogen(or earlier) and through this process evolve into more dense states? I wonder if the big bang is simply the first instance of matter moving into our 3rd dimensional, physical seeming perspective from its previous state? Or perhaps it is a single point of infinite density birthing a second point of infinite density the two exert forces upon each other and birth more points each.

lol why do I feel like I'm quoting Wal Thornhill!!

[jtb]

In the Space News video "Tremors of the Big Bang?" Wal Thornhill said: "Space is merely the relationship between objects in 3 dimensions. It has no substance. It cannot be bent twisted or rippled". And, speaking of redshift he said: "All the talk about inflation and expansion and accelerated expansion is based on incorrect interruption of the data".

I took this to mean that space cannot be manipulated.