Cosmology

[predictionsarchive]

.........................

[equalizer]

Sorry but your going to have to go somewhere else because no one on these here forums will understand a word of what you posted. Most of our members are either highschool dropouts or adicted to drugs and alcohol.

[DontBeAfraid]

Now equalizer, why have you wondered into the science section?

But this guys post does smell of spam.

[Cartesiantheater]

Originally Posted by equalizer

Sorry but your going to have to go somewhere else because no one on these here forums will understand a word of what you posted. Most of our members are either highschool dropouts or adicted to drugs and alcohol.

Speak for yourself amigo. I certainly understand it, because it isn't all that much. The only words you have to understand to get this are:

Simple Harmonic motion (first semester calculus, second semester physics as well, maybe even trig, since it is like motion on a sine curve. A hanging spring mass system with zero friction/air resistence is a good example.) EDIT- Simple Harmonic Motion:



Right angles (elementary math)

Non-eucledian geometry (any google search will do, also, any calculus or physics course will eventually work with it)

And then you must understand the basic concept that the surface of a sphere is two dimensional (although stretched into a three dimensional sphere) and then extrapolate that knowledge into our three dimensional space being the surface of a deeper four-D one, or a one D surface being curved over a two D surface, etc.


Original poster:

My questions are many, the least of which is, by what experimental means or even theoretical do you assert that the universe follows the pattern of simple harmonic motion? (wouldn't it be all too perfect, though? What about the 2nd law of thermodynamics? Surely it couldn't oscillate forever...) Also, what say you about all the other physicists who maintain that 4-D is not enough to unite general relativity and quantum mechanics?

[DontBeAfraid]

Surely it couldn't oscillate forever...

Surely it should have never started...

[equalizer]

Originally Posted by DontBeAfraid

Now equalizer, why have you wondered into the science section?

I was really high at the time.

[predictionsarchive]

.........................

[DontBeAfraid]

The motion is simple harmonic motion in that: the fastest "rate" at which the universe is expanding occurs right after the big bang and this "rate" slows down more and more as it approaches the mid point where it reaches its maximum size.

My understanding is that the rate of expansion is increasing so that puts a huge dent in your supposition.

It happens to be a model that has not been explored openly to my knowledge in any scientific forum. And to my knowledge nobody else has even suggested it.

Maybe Im not understanding what you are saying then because it seems to me that universe on an endless cycle of bang/crunch is not new.

Two things got me started on this idea. One, the problem with the original big bang model is that there is either too much matter in the universe and it collapses in on itself before stars get a chance to form or else there it not enough matter and you end up with run-a-way expansion.

Perhaps the forces change as some function of relativity? We know the passage of time does and perhaps even the other known dimensions.

[predictionsarchive]

.........................

[DontBeAfraid]

Old cosmological models that dealt with a cyclic universe assumed that gravity was responsible for their eventual collapse. The concept of a cyclic universe was largely abandoned because their math showed that with each cycle some of the energy needed for the rebound would be lost (due to entropy), and over many cycles the maximum size of reached would shrink.

Closed systems dont lose information.

It is a natural extension of the simple harmonic model so I understand how someone could think I was talking about many cycles. But the cosmological model I proposed known as "The Simple Harmonic Universe" makes no claims about previous or future universes. The idea of a cyclic universe belongs more to the realm of philosophy than the realm of cosmology. Such concepts, while interesting, are well beyond the scope of the model itself.

So does your "harmonic motion" relate to anything? Are you saying that the universe simply expands and contracts in harmonic motion but does not bang or crunch? If that is what you are saying are you suggesting yet another magical force that is responsible for this harmonic motion?

[predictionsarchive]

.........................

[DontBeAfraid]

The simple harmonic universe model includes but does not go beyond (earlier), than the big bang or beyond (later), than the big crunch. I believe I stated this in my original post. I will have to try to be more clear on this point in the future.

Maybe you misunderstand the meaning of simple harmonic motion. Or maybe I do, but from my understanding simple harmonic motion includes cycles of motion that repeat themselves perfectly and that is why they are simple harmonic and not decaying harmonic. To me this implies that the motion mmust have more than one cycle.... otherwise its just motion.

Closed system do not lose information? I think this very idea is being debated about black holes. Do black holes eat information or does it remain trapped somehow frozen in time at the event horizon?

If they lose information then they arent really closed systems. They are just one way systems.... For all we know the black holes could be perfectly transforming the matter into hte gamma rays that they secrete. And if uncertainty has anything to say about black holes evaporating then its fair to say that the information in the black hole is perfectly preserved. Of course I cannot claim to be an expert on black holes.

The rate of this influx of more space follows simple harmonic motion.

You say this like it should mean something other than the space between expands and contracts and expands and contracts in a perfect simple harmonic motion..... It seems to me like you are misusing the term "simple harmonic motion". Please clarify.

. As time follows the outside surface of this sphere, the universe appears to be expanding to anyone trapped inside it.

I dont follow here. Supposing for a minute that anything could be observed in a single dimension, the line would always look the same, no matter what it was doing to the single dimension observer. No matter what it was doing the line would look just like it did when it started. Only an observer with the ability to se the line in relation to something else could tell if it were doing anything.

Just like with us, if the space between all the matter and everything that makes up the non space portion of our universe was expanding equally we, would never be able to tell, it would take an observer with some extra non expanding thing reference point to see this expansion.... But with only those two distinct viewpoints you couldnt say with certainty if one is expanding or the other contracting.

Time and space literally exist at right angles to one another.

I understand this part.

The expansion of our universe is simply a side effect of us being stuck flowing along with the arrow of time.

This is the part I dont follow, It seems to me we would not be capable of knowing its expanding.

Again, there will be lots of time to argue over whether or not this model is the true model. Right now, I am simply trying to explain the tenets of this theory well enough that people can understand. This does not mean that the theory is either simple or complex. It reflexts more upon my inability to express myself. I am trying.

It is appreciated. Though I think I will go on record and say that calling it a simple harmonic motion is a misnomer.

[predictionsarchive]

...........................

[DontBeAfraid]

Simple Harmonic motion is motion. It refers to a very specific velocity curve. The motion begins and end withing one "cycle" of a simple harmonic oscillation. I did not call this model "The simple harmonic oscillating universe". Simple harmonic motion can be used to refer to the nature of the motion of an object or point, and it is in this context that I use the term.

Then I dont follow.

I realize that it is difficult to describe these concepts in a message board. I have one image uploaded to a geocities site. I will upload a few more in the next few days.

This might help me.

There are lots of web pages out there that explain simple harmonic motion.

I understand the math part of the simple harmonic motion perfectly which is why I dont think you can describe something as simple harmonic unless you have more than one oscillation and they are all identical... Or a sequence that eventual repeats itself indefinitely.... If you have only one then its just an oscillation. If you have oscillations that arent identical or dont eventually repeat then its not simple harmonic.

edit: CT or perf can corect me here: a function that describes simple harmonic motion can be integrated/derived indefinitely yes?

Generally, Simple harmonic motion is described as starting from a stand still (aka- zero initial velocity) and the X or Y axial component of the motion slowly increases until it reaches its maximum speed at the midpoint.

Thats just accelleration. For it to be simple harmonic it has to go from its midpoint back to zero and then repeat that entire sequence again at least once exactly as it did before.

In this model, we see that the motion is fastest the instant after the big bang and is slowing over time. The rate of this deceleration is very small at first, but it slows down faster as it gets bigger.

So you are starting this instance from the midpoint? I was under the impression that observation has shown that the expansion is actually accellerating now.

My understanding of the general understanding is something like this:
1. unkown
2. big bang has happened very recently, expansion is happening very very very fast
3. expansion slows a bit and the universe takes early form
4. universe ages expands
5. present, expansion of universe is observed to have been accellerating based on the redshift of the furthest visible stars.

If my understanding is incorrect please inform me and please tell me how your model differs from this one and in what way you account for the accelleration.

Originally Posted by DontBeAfraid

Then I dont follow.

This might help me.

I understand the math part of the simple harmonic motion perfectly which is why I dont think you can describe something as simple harmonic unless you have more than one oscillation and they are all identical... Or a sequence that eventual repeats itself indefinitely.... If you have only one then its just an oscillation. If you have oscillations that arent identical or dont eventually repeat then its not simple harmonic.

edit: CT or perf can corect me here: a function that describes simple harmonic motion can be integrated/derived indefinitely yes?

Thats just accelleration. For it to be simple harmonic it has to go from its midpoint back to zero and then repeat that entire sequence again at least once exactly as it did before.

So you are starting this instance from the midpoint? I was under the impression that observation has shown that the expansion is actually accellerating now.

My understanding of the general understanding is something like this:
1. unkown
2. big bang has happened very recently, expansion is happening very very very fast
3. expansion slows a bit and the universe takes early form
4. universe ages expands
5. present, expansion of universe is observed to have been accellerating based on the redshift of the furthest visible stars.

If my understanding is incorrect please inform me and please tell me how your model differs from this one and in what way you account for the accelleration.

Your understanding is halfway correct but if you to add more for more deep understanding just add this up to your additional knowledge please don't hesitate
ask the hardest question is lurking to your mind TRY my leader HE can add up a good more reliable facts
in your belief SOMETHING BOTHERING YOU http://esoriano.wordpress.com

[DontBeAfraid]

Hey dickwad, your other post in this thread was deleted because it was spam and not at all related to the topic.... Just like the one you just made! You dont have ANY understanding at all of this discussion and until you do the STAY THE FUCK OUT!

CT, he is not a contributer and therefore cannot see why you deleted his other post. Unless you sent him a PM he wont be able to distinguish threads in which his spam is deleted from threads he has yet to spam.

Originally Posted by DontBeAfraid

Hey dickwad, your other post in this thread was deleted because it was spam and not at all related to the topic.... Just like the one you just made! You dont have ANY understanding at all of this discussion and until you do the STAY THE FUCK OUT!

CT, he is not a contributer and therefore cannot see why you deleted his other post. Unless you sent him a PM he wont be able to distinguish threads in which his spam is deleted from threads he has yet to spam.

I accept what you have said and respect I'm very Sorry My deepest apologies that i made you angry. I thought that I maybe add some more and support your info that you have. I'm a friend don't worry i made a mistake. Peace BRO!

[predictionsarchive]

...........................

[DontBeAfraid]

I believe I have said all I can. I cannot explain it any better than that.

Then you have done a very poor job.

To continue would be to just be repeating myself.

Then Ill assume you never knew what simple harmonic motion meant and that you werent ever doing anything but introducing some new unneeded mystical element into the expansion rate of the universe.

If nothing else I hope I made people think.

nope

[DontBeAfraid]

HEY FUCKHEAD! If yo ucontinue to spam after apologizing for spamming then you are a two faced liar and an idiot.

[DontBeAfraid]

John;
Astronomy vs astrology

which one belongs in the science section?

Originally Posted by DontBeAfraid

John;
Astronomy vs astrology

which one belongs in the science section?

Astronomy but It has Big and VAST information all about many Contributing Factors will be DIG-up and by proof and debate by Many people.

I cannot say for now anymore I answer as Precise and true to my education and what i learn in many Persons I meet and DATA gathered. but it is not complete what i've said.

[Cartesiantheater]

Thanks for the headsup DBA about what he can and cannot see.

Johnb1: If you knowingly post non-science in the science section any more, you will be infracted. We try to keep things topically appropriate on this forum, so make sure what you post here is on topic and is science related. I will look through your little spat with DBA and see what needs to go.

I understand sorry the messed-up that i created to all of you I'm sorry that overlooked many things that i did not notice to answer more Precise because I'm to excited to POST eventually Time will past I'm not a newbie anymore.

Thank you again for discipline you to add in me