Crisi In Cosmology Two Resultants

Author: ebuc

Posts

Total: 13
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,241
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
o there are two, three and maybe four and soon more methods to measure the rate of expansion of our finite, occupied space Universe.
To get to main points, go to 9:00 to begin if your short on time. 

This video from the  PBS Spacetime LINK is my newest favorite and shows the crisis between the 1} standard candle parrallax method on cosmic ladder of step by step rungs to further away objects, and 2} cosmic background radiation { CMB } that, measurement at quantum planck scales { ESA }.

1} Woman Swan Levitt discovered way to have standard candles stepping stone ladder to knowing distance ergo rate of expansion, found by Hubble, and involved paralax, that, has been refined by newer satillites, and shows rate of expansion at around 73 whatever labels,

2} European Space Agency Horizon satelite { see 9:00 in vidieo LINK  }quantum scale measurements CMB that come in around 63 whatever, and,

that is the crisis concerning determining  density of  and/or whether Dark Energy is a constant { natural presumption } or has a changing value over time.

So, if you have time to put aside Green House Effect { see Fullers "Critical Path" mention of it }, and Delta variant [ CoVid2 } misinformation conspiracies, the check out this video.


zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,217
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@ebuc
Interestingly.

Perhaps you could answer my ignorance based question.

One would assume that cause makes expansion directional.

So why, if the universe is expanding at a constant rate (63 0r 73 or whatever), do distant objects moving at the same rate, move apart.

One would assume that to move apart, things must move at different rates.


I can only think that for expansion theory to be correct all distant objects must move away from each other in different directions. 

Is this correct.




ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,241
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@zedvictor4
One would assume that to move apart, things must move at different rates.

Hi Zed. Your query is similar to one Bucky Fuller addresses in two places in his book Synergetics 1 and 2, of which I dont have those paragraphis in front of me, to present.

However, long before Dark Energy phenomena ---accelerating expansion speed---  was discovered { 90's }, the classical way to visualize expanding Universe, every where, was to visualize a 2D surface of an expanding balloon with little dots on its surface as galaxies.

Then along came the visualization of a loaf of raisin bread expanding in 3D directions, wherein, the raisins represent the galaxies.

So, with Dark Energy { cosmic constant acceleration }, the loaf of raisin bread is expanding rates of acceleration.

Ahh, I found one of the two or more expanding Universe scenarios Fuller considers in  his 1973 book Synergetics 1 adn 2: http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergetics/s07/p6400.html#780.22

..." 780.23 This expanding-Universe concept is easy to phrase in words as reported, but lucid comprehension of its import involves experientially "impossible," three-dimensional, space-motion conceptionalizing, for in order to travel away cosmically from each of all the spherically surrounding galaxies of our Milky Way, any one of the billions of galaxies seemingly would have to go outwardly in all directions in order to go away from each of them simultaneously. Obviously, however, this could not be accomplished by any one of them moving in only one direction__which is humanity's way of thinking of motion-unless there were a center of galaxy of Universe outwardly from which all others move exactly and only radially, or unless all of Universe and all of the galaxies and each and all phenomena within them, including the smallest nuclear particle, are either expanding systematically and simultaneously or are shrinking systematically and simultaneously, all changing in size at a rate that is just a bit faster than the speed of light, with either the universal contraction or universal expansion of all points in Universe producing the same effect of uniform withdrawal from one another.

780.24 This may be the universal effect of the speed of gravity, whose force (possibly in order to eternally cohere Universe) is, as is often found experimentally, always just a fraction greater than the cosmic speed of inherently disintegrative radiation. (See Sec. 231.) This conceptioning becomes lucid if one is familiar with the vector equilibria and their identity with isotropism, which spontaneously accommodates coexpansion or contraction independent of any Universe center, every nuclear point within the system being a Universe center, with all its 12 most immediate neighbors always being equidistant and bearing at the same total of central-angle magnitudes from one another,1 with the circumferentially closed, embracing vector forces always more effective than their equal and opposite radial vectors' noncooperative, open-ended, disintegrative forces. ".....


Hope that helps Zed.  The PBS Spacetime program has many great explanations and questions.  This one really caught my attention becuase of my  numerical  patterning explorations  of four levlels/lines, that, I inside-outed, and then inferred those lines are great circles, involved with a dynamic spiral helix trajectory, that, has two invaginations, at each maximum peak of curvature.

outer positve peak invagination (> <) inner negative peak invagination

Horizontal bisectional { cross-sectional } view of a the torus under consideration........space(> <)(> <)space............

inside the tube is two of the four lines/great circles that define two peaks of a sine-wave /\/\/\/\/ pattern....space( /\/\/ )( /\/\/ )space...........

The two inside lines ...as the two peaks of the sine-wave....., are associated with self-stabilizing { triangulated } set of numbers. 0, 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18 { 18 kinds of quark and 18 kinds of anti-quark }.


Sine-wave patterning inside the torus tube is associated with sine-wave patterns found with fermions { ex electrons /\/\/  } and bosons { ex photons /\/\/  } and again, they are the resultants of outer and inner invaginations { inversion-outversion } events.







zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,217
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@ebuc
Yep. The expanding balloon analogy is easy for me to visualise.


So another question based upon that analogy:

If the Universe is expanding in that way, do we at some point have a universal horizon.
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,241
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@zedvictor4
If the Universe is expanding in that way, do we at some point have a universal horizon.

The rising/expanding raisin bread dough analogy is more accurate. Universe is not 2D, --lie balloon  surface, even tho Kip Thorn, Jacb Bekenstien etc have all their math showing that it appears we are...."2D creatures having an illusion of 3D" { J. Bekenstien }.


Ive been very clear about this over the years Zed....One more time, we live in an eternally existent,  f inite, occupied space Universe ergo finite ihberently means  event horizon boundary or surface... This is not difficult to grasp, unless you have ego based mental blockage and/or, some preconditioning that has led you to believe the Universe is some other way. 

Simple not complex to grasp.......here is finite circle O........and to clarify that is macro-finite.  Micro-infinite is another consideration, but I dont think such exists except with Meta-Space/Metaphyiscal-1 mind/intellect/concepts of infinite this or that, and the macro-micro infinite, non-occupied space that, embraces/surrounds our finite, occupied space Universe.

Simple stuff.

zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,217
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@ebuc
I would suggest that SPACE is infinitely possible, but not infinitely necessary.


Nonetheless.

I was pondering our discussion yesterday, whilst walking my dog.

And I quickly came to the conclusion that the balloon analogy was flawed.



And raisin bread is good....... But of course, we add the raisins at the beginning.
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,241
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@zedvictor4
I would suggest that SPACE is infinitely possible, but not infinitely necessary.
Space { occupied and non-occupied } eternally exist.   Necceaary requires a rationale, of which you do not offer.


And raisin bread is good....... But of course, we add the raisins at the beginning.

Glad you came to that conclusion Zed.  Galaxies { cosmic } come and go, rasins { local biologics } come and go.


Macro-micro, truly non-occupied space is eternal. ---Metaphysical-2----

Finite, occupied space Universe { Spirit-2, 3 and 4 }, is eternal. ---Meta-Space/Metaphysical-1 { spirit-1 }, Metaphysical-3 { spirit-3 } and Metaphysical-4{ Spirit-4 }.

This is all repeat of my several years presented, Cosmic Trinary/Trinity Outline. 

...................space(> * <)  (> * <)space..........is a generalization of cosmic quantised tori, that, I believe collectively, overlapping, interrelating, define our  finite, occupied space Universe., that, outer boundary { Gravity (  ) } is dynamically lumpy shape, that most likely approximates a spherical, or perhhaps just dynamicall changing, less than spherical, blob.

Visualize a male scrotum sac,  ---as Gravitational membrane---,  with uncountable number of balls/testes  ---collection of overlapping tori---   inside, in constant dynamically changing positoning.











zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,217
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@ebuc
The rationale is that Universe has limited potential.....Cannot expand indefinitely.....Is finite.

Therefore the finite universal requirement of space does not necessitate the infinite possibility of space.
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,241
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@zedvictor4
The rationale is that Universe has limited potential.....Cannot expand indefinitely.....Is finite.
Occupied space


Therefore the finite universal requirement of space does not necessitate the infinite possibility of space.

True of occupied space, not the ternally existent, truly non-occupied space, that, finite Universe is allededged to be expanding into.

FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,086
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@ebuc
While an explosion of a man-made bomb expands through air, the Big Bang did not expand through anything. That's because there was no space to expand through at the beginning of time. Rather, physicists believe the Big Bang created and stretched space itself, expanding the universe.
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,217
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@ebuc
Agree.

zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,217
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@FLRW
Physicists believe.

Physicists propose all sorts.


Though something can only expand if there is the potential for it to do so.

And that potential might be unlimited

Even though, that which is expanding might be limited.


So said physicists are saying the same but slightly differently.

Stretch will suffice.


The same principle can also be applied to time.
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,241
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@zedvictor4
Agree.
That's good, because there exists no other rational, logical common sense conclusion, irrespective of classical BB idea/scenarios since 1920's.

Finite, occupied space Universe is eternally existent and that corresponds to 1st law of thermodynamics, ----1800's comprehension---   naught is created nor destroyed on transform one state/phase of occupied space existence, to another.

Expanding/stretching, or not, is irrelevant to what exists outside of { beyond } the finite, occupied space Universe.

Macro-micro-infinite, truly non-occupied ---nothingness space--- is the only rational, logical common sense conclusion.


'Space' is the generalization of occupied and non-occupied space and these are the first two, primary subcatagories of the term 'Space'.

Observed time only associated with sine-wave patterns /\/\/ that, to date are only associated with quantised and quantified fermions and bosons, ergo Gravity, (  ) and Dark Energy )(,  have not been associated with any sine-wave patterns.

Gravity (  ) and Dark Energy  )( are also occupied space, and not yet quantised nor quantified so no association with a sine-wave patterning is known.