Posted on 03/16/2005 11:59:50 AM PST by PatrickHenry
"Whether Einstein was right when he first introduced the cosmological constant, or whether he was right when he later refuted the idea..."
Einstein was right either way, then.
> that expansion either occurred in the past or continues to occur is not too much of a surprise...
Not to someone who can say that, no matter what happens either way, that his book of vague sayings covers it all.
In my mind, one of the unobservables amid the reality of the universe is "what existed before."
Assuming one subscribes to the theory of the big bang, the logical assumption is that matter would continue to expand outward from the initial singularity until inertia was bled off by gravitational attraction, and the whole of the universe would begin to rush in upon itself in a "big crunch." Indeed, this was the prevailing theory for many years.
My thought, however, is that we cannot observe what lies "beyond" spacetime, or the event horizon of our expanding universe.
In a small modification of Einstein's greatest blunder, the cosmologic constant, what if what "lies beyond" is devoid of a structural component that our material universe does not lack. Even an unobservable (to us) something in a dimension we cannot study. Is it beyond possibility that this creates a vacuum of sorts that pulls our universe into it? While vastly simplified, if one were to detonate a CO2 cartridge in a vacuum chamber, each molecule of CO2 would spread out from the point of release until every molecule had uniformly positioned itself within the chamber.
Maybe that is why the universe is expanding and at an ever faster rate. What lies beyond the border of our universe is aborbing our universe into it and a grand cosmic law of thermodynamics (used in allegory) is attempting to distribue time, space, and matter uniformly and thus exerts a pull.
But if that's true and what lies beyond our universe is infinite, then it will be a sad and lonly end for our universe as the distances beyond every object steadily increse until they are no longer observable to one another by any means at all.
Of course, I'm no physicist. Just the musings of a simple country boy.
No. Einstein added his cosmological constant to General Relativity in order to "prove" that our universe was static; neither expanding nor contracting.
Then Hubble's observations disproved Einstein's GR, prompting Einstein to label his "cosmological constant" as his greatest blunder.
Well, country boy, that "sad and lonely end" seems to be one of the likely scenarios, whether we're being sucked into a surrounding void or driven to expansion by the big bang. Either way, we're expanding into nothing. Oooops, there goes the Andromeda galaxy. Say goodbye ...
Actually there is a verse that says at the end of time, He will roll up the heavens like a scroll, so yes, I would probably say, "it's started". But that's only in there twice and there's something like 16 verses that say He "stretched" or "stretches" the heavens,
So your point is valid. Neither a current expansion, stasis, or contratraction would necessary contradict the scriptures. However, it is notable that the scriptures don't claim a "universe forever in stasis". It did have a beginning and will have an end.
Are they ridges, or waves, or particles??
If you wave it, it appears to have ridges. If you throw it, it is a particle. Which is why I am not rigid about theories - has bad ripple effect.
I remember getting ripples from pagan pink.
mc:>)
I like it! < :D
I read Simon Singh's interesting book "Big Bang", and while it was somewhat enlightening, it did not answer my simple question: If the big bang was not an explosion of matter in space, but rather an expansion of space and the matter within it from a single point, then how come they still talk about the universe as being infinite in extent. How come it is limited in terms of space at the time of the big bang and infinite now? I've read other articles which seem to say differing things -- either the universe is not infinite in space or that it was born in the big bang infinite in space. Why don't they get their story straight and think up an easy way to describe it for the layman?
We are a virus the universe is trying to stamp out.
Hence, Solar Coronas,Mass Coronal Ejections, Massive emanations from MAGNETARS, comets,earthquakes.
Obesity?
The real problem is physics.
Girth is determined by an individuals resistance to atmospheric pressure (ap). My resistance to ap is low therefore the pressure pushes on my surfaces making me appear slim. Fat people have a high resistance to ap so they spread out. Light people have a high resistance to gravity. Heavy people have little resistance to gravity.
Food has nothing to do with it. We can balance the scales by banning atmospheric pressure and gravity.
"Stop the atmospheric pressure and gravity now! It's for the children!"
CG
Math is the great divide. Or brick wall for most. It is nearly impossible to describe 11-dimensional space to anyone who lacks the math skills. Even with the math skills it is nearly impossible to visualize beyond four dimensions. They say that engineers have an ability to visualize three dimensions and that is not at all a common ability.
No, if you're saying that all matter was concentrated in one point from a three or four dimensional perspective, but that space was infinite in other dimensions, I can understand that. If that is the case, why don't they just say that? I fully understand that we can't really visualize more than three or four dimensions, but they can at least use understandable words to describe it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.