How old is the universe...? And, How big is the universe...? Discussion...?

[Justatruthseeker]

When you're in a hole, it's best to stop digging.

A surface is not one-dimensional. A line is one-dimensional. The surface of an inflated balloon is a curved surface, so three-dimensional. Geometry 101.

And yet your dots on it's surface all lie on a single plane, with none below....

It is why no model can be made to show expansion..... nor can any experiment ever be conceived of to test it......

You are the one that keeps ignoring the blue shift of the CMB because the hole is too deep.

 

[Neogaia777]

If the analogy is with the universe, there is no edge,

I was just saying "if there were" theoretically...

With the picture I'm trying to paint of nigh perpetual universe, and what would happen "theoretically" with the dark pockets or areas we see with a picture of the universe, would happen there at a theoretical edge, "theoretically" speaking...

and from every location it looks like you're at the centre.

At least we agree here...

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

Sounds a bit different from what you posted before, but OK - gravity could be the force that tries to pull the 'dots' together, and the expansion of space the inflation.

If they were exactly balanced at some point, the universe would have stopped expanding and would be momentarily static, before gravity pulled it all together again (a 'closed universe' ending in a 'big crunch').

Not if, or unless, it didn't start with a big bang and won't ever end in a big crunch... If it started in a "static state" and was "set in motion" by someone or something...

Except that there's also the dark energy force that appears to be accelerating the expansion. If gravity and dark energy were exactly balanced at some point, the universe would presumably continue expanding uniformly, until the universe was larger and the clumps of matter were far enough apart for the overall effect of their gravity to become weak enough for the acceleration of expansion to resume (an 'open universe' eternally expanding ever faster, possibly a 'big rip' where the expansion tears everything apart).

The normal matter can move around the, what we think are dark matter bubbles or areas like bubbles in water or a glass, (or in a lava lamp as it happening very slowly) except the bubbles would be all each growing slightly over time and as they moved toward a theoretical edge, but not growing and or expanding so much, or not causing such an expansion, that the normal matter tending to being pulled in on itself (the rest of the normal matter, but around the dark pockets) by gravity...? It's possible they could be in a perpetual balance or state with those two forces, with the "entire universe" never really ever getting any bigger or smaller, but all of it (always) (perhaps always was as well) moving and/or in motion, kind of like a perpetual "dance"...

There is another common definition of "perfect balance" between expansion and gravity, called the 'flat universe' where gravity matches the big bang expansion so that the expansion of the universe slows down until it stops in the infinitely far future.

That is kind of the problem, none of this works really if we assume the big bang is true or is how the universe really started... (And, no, I don't know how it all started either) (It's just looking less and less like a big bang is all)...

Observation of the curvature of space suggests that our universe is a flat as we're capable of measuring, and if it wasn't for the accelerating expansion force of dark energy, it's expansion would slow to a stop in the infinite future.

But it wouldn't, and I would say doesn't either...

As it is, its accelerating expansion will continue indefinitely.

It's not expanding so much or so fast that it ever becomes "out of balance" with the force of gravity, ever... It does not end in big crunch, and it may not have even started with a big bang either... It does not, and is really not ever getting any bigger or smaller ever...

It only appears that way to us... because, as you agreed with me that from "wherever you are in it" it appears you are the center, but your not, cause it would appear that way anywhere, so, is "any of it really moving away from anything else", or is it all "relative"...

Distant objects seem to moving away from us faster than objects closer to us, but nothing is really moving away from, or any faster or slower (rate) (away from/towards, whatever) than anything else (is).. It's all expanding, equally, everywhere, only it might not all really be expanding either, not really... Because the dark pockets are all each growing (causing the expansion) at the same rate everywhere, and it might all be happening everywhere rather "slowly" everywhere, and then, the force of gravity trying to pull everything back in direct proportion to that...?

It would make for a nigh perpetual universe that is neither really growing or expanding, nor ever really getting any bigger or smaller, maybe "ever"... And may have not begun or began with any kind of big bang at all either...

This creates a kind of "dance" that never stops and is nigh perpetual... Can you see it yet...?

God Bless!

 

[sjastro]

Such as a universe continuing to expand at an accelerating rate????? You see, you require special conditions. A Universe that first expanded faster than c, then stopped for long enough for gravity to form things, then begin acceleration again at a lesser rate but increasing. But gravity for some reason was prevented from collpasing everything by the addition of some unknown type of energy never once observed and that you can't even tell us what it is...... You got more special conditions that had to be just right and more Fairie Dust than you got actual science in your cosmology.

Then they can't even get their models correct right at the edge of our solar system, and you expect me to believe they got them right billions of light years distance and billions of years ago????? They can't even get it right "right next door" cosmologically in the here and now......


It wouldn't matter what type of universe. Gravity doesn't form anything to begin with. Those stars form in filaments which gravity does not form.....

Your puny gravitational model neglects the electromagnetic force which is 10^39 powers stronger than gravity......


Has nothing to do with geometry, it has everything to do with the electromagnetic force.....


Come on, go ahead and say it.... PLASMA..... That word stick in your throat for some reason.


I know why it occurs. For the same reason atoms form, and it certainly has nothing to do with gravity....... And that's why you have to add 95% Fairie Dust, because you keep trying to sledgehammer gravity to a state of matter it is not the dominant force in.


Got part of it correct..... The electromagnetic part.....


That's why it is called "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" because after the Big Bang when all matter was moving, gravity didn't matter at all and the matter was pulled together by the electromagnetic forces working in that plasma. It's called Marklund Convection, a plasma terminology you probably are unaware of, despite plasma being 99.9% of the universe.....

Marklund convection - The Plasma Universe theory (Wikipedia-like Encyclopedia)

"Alfvén writes that:
".. elements with the lowest ionization potential are brought closest to the axis, and form concentric hollow cylinders whose radii increase with ionization potential [..] The drift of ionized matter from the surroundings into the rope means that the rope acts as an ion pump, which evacuates the surroundings . Regions with extremely low densities can be produced in this way ."[3]"

You know, stars form in filaments..... which lack the mass in the gravitational collapse model to explain.....

"Marklund clarifies:

In my paper in Nature the plasma convects radially inwards, with the normal E x B/B2 velocity, towards the center of a cylindrical flux tube. During this convection inwards, the different chemical constituents of the plasma, each having its specific ionization potential, enter into a progressively cooler region. The plasma constituents will recombine and become neutral, and thus no longer under the influence of the electromagnetic forcing."

And then, and only then, does gravity become the dominant force, like right here in this planetary system where the plasma has cooled and become neutral.....



Please, a balloon surface is one dimensional. You need galaxies below that surface all the way to the center of the balloon. Then you need everything expanding away from everything, which means some must expand towards others, else there would be a void in the center, which is not observable.

Between us and a galaxy to our right, space must be expanding in between us, which means we move left and it moves right. Now to a galaxy to our left space also must be expanding between us, which means we move right and it moves left. So in reality we move nowhere, since each is counteracted by the other, and so on for every galaxy..... This is where your Fairie Dust leads you. you just can't see it because you refuse to see it.....

And why did you feel it necessary to ignore your CMB which contains blue shift which proves to you space is NOT expanding in every direction.....?????

Fairie Dust, that's all you got.....

If I didn't know better I thought I was being responded to by a random sentence generator given that none of your responses bear any resemblance to the quotes given.
I understand you are desperately trying to convey the impression of intelligence but even a random sentence generator wouldn't construct sentences such as "Please, a balloon surface is one dimensional".

What is even more pitiful is your defence of this statement blissfully unaware you are a making a "spectacle" of yourself in the process.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

If you say so...

ESA Science & Technology: Hemispheric asymmetry and cold spot in the Cosmic Microwave Background

"An asymmetry in the average temperatures on opposite hemispheres of the sky [...] with slightly higher average temperatures in the southern ecliptic hemisphere and slightly lower average temperatures in the northern ecliptic hemisphere. This runs counter to the prediction made by the standard model that the Universe should be broadly similar in any direction we look. There is also a cold spot that extends over a patch of sky that is much larger than expected."

The data says your claims are fruitless..... and ignore the data..... which is counter to what you claim..... and not expected from the models....

It's well accepted that the Standard Model is incomplete - quite a few observations don't seem to fit; but it remains the standard model because it explains so much more than the few exceptions, and does it so much better than rival models.

All that has nothing to do with an observer always appearing to be at the centre of expansion.

With Fairie Dust....

Nope; that's your manic trope.

Sure you do, you bring it up every time you try to defend failed cosmological models. Can't explain why Gravity fails to describe what we see beyond the solar system, why just add 95% Fairie Dust and keep repeating it as if it's true.....

You can't talk about cosmology without mentioning Fairie Dust, it makes up 95% of it.....

You're confusing me with someone else. The dark matter phenomenon is a fascinating puzzle, and I'm curious to know the cause, but it's just one of many mysteries in life; if I obsessed over any of them the way you seem to obsess over your 'Fairie Dust', I'd be concerned about my mental balance.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

And yet your dots on it's surface all lie on a single plane, with none below....

Red herring. What's below the surface or above it, is irrelevant to the balloon analogy.

Btw, a plane is a flat surface, not a curved surface; geometry 101.

It is why no model can be made to show expansion...

Have you never seen a balloon being inflated? That's a model of expansion.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I was just saying "if there were" theoretically...

With the picture I'm trying to paint of nigh perpetual universe, and what would happen "theoretically" with the dark pockets or areas we see with a picture of the universe, would happen there at a theoretical edge, "theoretically" speaking...

I have no idea; how could there be an edge? an edge with what?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Not if, or unless, it didn't start with a big bang and won't ever end in a big crunch... If it started in a "static state" and was "set in motion" by someone or something...

Sure; you can make up any hypothetical universe you like - but I can't read your mind, so I can't help you with that.

The normal matter can move around the, what we think are dark matter bubbles or areas like bubbles in water or a glass, (or in a lava lamp as it happening very slowly) except the bubbles would be all each growing slightly over time and as they moved toward a theoretical edge, but not growing and or expanding so much, or not causing such an expansion, that the normal matter tending to being pulled in on itself (the rest of the normal matter, but around the dark pockets) by gravity...? It's possible they could be in a perpetual balance or state with those two forces, with the "entire universe" never really ever getting any bigger or smaller, but all of it (always) (perhaps always was as well) moving and/or in motion, kind of like a perpetual "dance"...

Fine - but what is the point of this imaginative exercise?

... This creates a kind of "dance" that never stops and is nigh perpetual... Can you see it yet...?

I can see that you've described an imaginary - and rather confused - universe quite unlike our own, but why?

 

[Neogaia777]

Sure; you can make up any hypothetical universe you like - but I can't read your mind, so I can't help you with that.

Fine - but what is the point of this imaginative exercise?

I can see that you've described an imaginary - and rather confused - universe quite unlike our own, but why?

It's not but "whatever"...

If you'd get outside the box of what you've been taught and indoctrinated in, you'd see it too...

We must question everything to arrive at truth...

And this is rather simple...

In time what I am saying will be proven (real, true, actual, ect, fact)...

But I guess I will have to wait, I guess...

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

The Great Attractor is local in the bigger scheme of things - given our observations of the curvature of space, the whole universe must be at least 15 million times larger than the observable universe.

And if that is the case, how far away would the supposed origin of the supposed big bang, or single center or origin point of it (the universe) have to be...?

And how could it be that far away, and the universe only be 13.8 billion years old...?

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

@FrumiousBandersnatch, If we appear to always be the center no matter where we are in the universe, then that has to be wrong, right...? Cause that is not how the expanding of it, or expansion of it is actually happening and/or really looks like either...

So, what would be the "real picture" not taken from that or those points of view or perspectives in it...? If you could look from outside of it, (or above it, or whatever) instead of inside of it, what would it look like...?

God Bless!

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Red herring. What's below the surface or above it, is irrelevant to the balloon analogy.

Have you never seen a balloon being inflated? That's a model of expansion.

It isn't irrelevant. Since in reality galaxies must exist all the way to the center of the balloon..... Else there would be a void in two directions, which is not observable, and so your dots on a surface of a balloon fail miserably to reflect reality.....

Sure I've seen one blown up, and the air molecules inside do not all expand away from one another......

 

[Justatruthseeker]

@FrumiousBandersnatch, If we appear to always be the center no matter where we are in the universe, then that has to be wrong, right...? Cause that is not how the expanding of it, or expansion of it is actually happening and/or really looks like either...

So, what would be the "real picture" not taken from that or those points of view or perspectives in it...? If you could look from outside of it, (or above it, or whatever) instead of inside of it, what would it look like...?

God Bless!

Their own science has already falsified their belief of a universe that looks the same everywhere. They just can't or won't admit to it...

ESA Science & Technology: Hemispheric asymmetry and cold spot in the Cosmic Microwave Background

"An asymmetry in the average temperatures on opposite hemispheres of the sky [...] with slightly higher average temperatures in the southern ecliptic hemisphere and slightly lower average temperatures in the northern ecliptic hemisphere. This runs counter to the prediction made by the standard model that the Universe should be broadly similar in any direction we look. There is also a cold spot that extends over a patch of sky that is much larger than expected."

Observations actually run counter to the prediction made by their model. Backed up by the Sloan Digital Survey as well.

All they can do is repeatedly try to hand wave the data away, because it fails to fit their model that they have invested so much time in. A failed model that they refuse to give up and look for the correct model.....

Not a single shred of data supports their belief that the universe looks the same from any place. NOT A SINGLE PIECE OF DATA. It is pure belief against the data and in spite of it.....

 

[Neogaia777]

Their own science has already falsified their belief of a universe that looks the same everywhere. They just can't or won't admit to it...

ESA Science & Technology: Hemispheric asymmetry and cold spot in the Cosmic Microwave Background

"An asymmetry in the average temperatures on opposite hemispheres of the sky [...] with slightly higher average temperatures in the southern ecliptic hemisphere and slightly lower average temperatures in the northern ecliptic hemisphere. This runs counter to the prediction made by the standard model that the Universe should be broadly similar in any direction we look. There is also a cold spot that extends over a patch of sky that is much larger than expected."

Observations actually run counter to the prediction made by their model. Backed up by the Sloan Digital Survey as well.

View attachment 246181
All they can do is repeatedly try to hand wave the data away, because it fails to fit their model that they have invested so much time in. A failed model that they refuse to give up and look for the correct model.....

Not a single shred of data supports their belief that the universe looks the same from any place. NOT A SINGLE PIECE OF DATA. It is pure belief against the data and in spite of it.....

Which picture is accurate, the one you show, or this one (below)...?

Which one accounts for everything that needs to accounted for to show an accurate image or picture of the known universe...?

 

[Neogaia777]

Or what about these:

Which is accurate...?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

And if that is the case, how far away would the supposed origin of the supposed big bang, or single center or origin point of it (the universe) have to be...?

And how could it be that far away, and the universe only be 13.8 billion years old...?

There was no centre or origin point, it wasn't like an explosion. The whole universe (whether finite or infinite) expanded; all of it, everywhere, expanded.

The observable universe was a very small part of the whole expanding universe, but it was no more the centre than anywhere else.

 

[Neogaia777]

There was no centre or origin point, it wasn't like an explosion. The whole universe (whether finite or infinite) expanded; all of it, everywhere, expanded.

But the Big Bang theory states and assumes it all does, and is, and has been happening and all happening, all started with something that was very much like an explosion causing the expansion, theoretically, or according to that theory, but what is really happening and what we really (now see) is the dark area pockets having been all each growing at a steady and constant, but very slow rate, (relatively speaking), and all are "pushing out on each other an everything else", (normal matter and material/us) "equally" from everywhere, and (that) is the cause of the "apparent acceleration of apparent expansion" that might not even be happening, since, for or from our points of view/perspectives, our picture (of it/the universe) is all "relative" (to where we are in it, looking at from within it, ect)...

Then you have to account for gravity/magnetism in it as well, for the normal matter and material, again, perhaps making it all perpetual..

The observable universe was a very small part of the whole expanding universe, but it was no more the centre than anywhere else.

So what does the real picture of it all in motion "look like"...?

God Bless![/QUOTE]

 

[Neogaia777]

.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

@FrumiousBandersnatch, If we appear to always be the center no matter where we are in the universe, then that has to be wrong, right...? Cause that is not how the expanding of it, or expansion of it is actually happening and/or really looks like either...

Yes; we're not really at the centre, there is no centre; it just looks that way because (in general) everything is moving away from us in all directions, but that's true for any location.

So, what would be the "real picture" not taken from that or those points of view or perspectives in it...? If you could look from outside of it, (or above it, or whatever) instead of inside of it, what would it look like...?

For an observer in the universe, there are no other perspectives, there's no 'outside', the universe is all there is. If you consider an origin theory like Inflation Theory, our universe is one of many 'pocket' universes generated by the local decay of a 'false vacuum' in a greater eternally inflating metastable universe. What it might look like from that perspective is something you'd have to ask Alan Guth, who formulated the idea, but I suppose it might look like a black hole, or it might become 'pinched off' and not appear there at all.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

But the Big Bang theory states and assumes it all does, and is, and has been happening and all happening, all started with something that was very much like an explosion causing the expansion, theoretically, or according to that theory, but what is really happening and what we really (now see) is the dark area pockets having been all each growing at a steady and constant, but very slow rate, (relatively speaking), and all are "pushing out on each other an everything else", (normal matter and material/us) "equally" from everywhere, and (that) is the cause of the "apparent acceleration of apparent expansion" that might not even be happening, since, for or from our points of view/perspectives, our picture (of it/the universe) is all "relative" (to where we are in it, looking at from within it, ect)...

That's a gross distortion of the current model. The big bang wasn't an explosion, it was a universal exponential scalar expansion of space. I don't know what you mean by 'dark area pockets' but space is expanding everywhere and gravity is holding things like galaxies, galaxy clusters, and superclusters of galaxies together for now.

Then you have to account for gravity/magnetism in it as well, for the normal matter and material, again, perhaps making it all perpetual..

Gravity tends to pull matter together, magnetism isn't relevant at cosmological scales. I don't know what you mean by 'perhaps making it all perpetual...' It's a non-sequitur.

So what does the real picture of it all in motion "look like"...?

Clumps of matter are moving further apart in all directions at ever increasing speed.