The Universe Theory

[GuidoHunter]

this is a topic that goes nowhere, no matter how much you argue, because you are just throwing theories at each other and not facts...Therefore, arguing about it is pointless, as is having a topic about it.

Wrong.

Understanding multiple theories and models is the first step toward finding the grand "answer". There's no reason why we shouldn't share our ideas and debate the validity of them, with or without "facts".

By your logic, we shouldn't even have the sciences of quantum mechanics, QCD, string theory, QED, or even the search for the Grand Unified Theory (the ultimate goal of all science). All of these things depend on our understanding of things we can't see or observe (with a great degree of certainty), so there are no real facts regarding them, just theories that go along with what is observed. So what's the difference here?

Don't play moderator here; this is a civil discussion.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[chickendude]

Go reach and guido

Like I said earlier, you can't really prove anything in this field of science
Pretty much everything is a theory, this is just the most accepted one

As far as we know, the FSMist theory could be true, its just that evidence points against it
But you never know, because you could just say that the FSM controls everything and every observation you make is controlled by the FSM to make you BELIEVE in the big bang when it was really the FSM
(see the WWFSMD topic in the chit chat board)

[Tokzic]

Well, maybe you're right Reach. I suppose as long as the discussion is intelligent it's all good. XD

[Reach]

Go reach and guido

Like I said earlier, you can't really prove anything in this field of science
Pretty much everything is a theory, this is just the most accepted one

As far as we know, the FSMist theory could be true, its just that evidence points against it
But you never know, because you could just say that the FSM controls everything and every observation you make is controlled by the FSM to make you BELIEVE in the big bang when it was really the FSM
(see the WWFSMD topic in the chit chat board)

But still, theories are, well read the definition I gave. They most certainly have quite a bit of credibility behind them. Ok, they could be wrong, but you can't ignore them when they're proven to be correct over and over.

http://cas.sdss.org/dr4/en/astro/universe/universe.asp is an interesting read. Basic, but informative. Most of the astrology section is easy to understand, as it strays from getting to deep into string XD

What is FSM?

[chickendude]

Its the Flying spaghetti monster ... (A religion brought up to prove a point, in a funny way)

https://www.venganza.org

its from the WWFSMD thread on chit chat

the point is, that I know that these theories have a lot of credibility. I would reword what you say, there is a lot of evidence, but there is no proof, and there never can be, unless you assume postulates, which is basically how we work stuff. Right now, our postulates seem accurate from our experimental data, but there will be no way to ever prove them. We sometimes work backwords, creating simpler postulates and using them to come to our current ones. But there will always be something that can never be proven, meaning that there will always be a chance (whatever small) that the whole thing is wrong. (FSMism is just a funny example of this)

EDIT:
Just read Reach's link, its a very good explanation of whats going on. Of all the paradoxes and stuff, Olbers paradox would have been a good explanation earlier =)
Thats where I'm getting the universe is finite, but there's no edge
It came from a point, but none of the points today are that same point, because that would constitute a center, I guess you could always say that all the points around us, are the point where it started (strange verb tenses going on here XD)
So think to yourself, I am standing in the spot where the universe started
Now isnt that cool?

[Jam930]

You guys are thinking too abstractly in the wrong direction. I think the universe is infinite because there is no reason to think otherwise except for what the hubble and other science has observed... that "everything" is moving away from a certain point. But I think that "everything" being of course, everything we can see is just parts of one little star cluster or whatever thing in the universe.



So that red circle we're in is your "finite" universe... when actually the universe is much, much larger. While you might be right about that red circle being finite... it might not actually be the universe... but something much smaller within it.

See what I'm saying?! Sorry to put that picture up again... but I felt it needed clarification. =/

[Reach]

Yes, but what you think isn't backed by anything at all! Where as, what we are saying is.

Multiple universe theory, or well...Parallel universes isn't a new idea. We're finally just beginning to understand our universe, so we arn't anywhere near trying to discover other ones. For all we know, you could be right, but it could be wrong. Apparently quantum physics allows for such a possibility.

[GuidoHunter]

Just a clarification for Reach: astrology =/= science. Astrology is bullshit, while astronomy is the scientific study of the heavens.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[meduhwhoelse]

wow, lots of stuff too say, and soo much already forgotten. i see that a couple of people have been putting down other peoples theories. no matter what, a theory is a theory, even if stated by a two-year-old, and even if it isn't scientifically backed. not all theories can come out of somebody's mouth and be backed within that half second. it just doesn't work that way. and to say something like "the fourth demension being time is so 100 years ago" is wrong, and just plain rude. just because there are new-fangled theories floating around, doesn't mean they're right, and it doesn't automatically disprove any other theories. tons of people have come up with bogus theories that were belived for a while, even scientifically backed, that were eventually thrown out the window. thats why they are called "theories." if the theory was completely and totally correct, it wouldn't be called a theory. its the short-and-scientific way of saying "this is what i believe to be true, and if i end up changing my mind later, i'll just chuck it" ... again, soo much to say, and so much forgotten. when i remember, i'll write again

[GuidoHunter]

However, theories still need to fit some observations to even be considered. I could say that all matter is made up of crackers, and from what you say it would be a theory and should be considered just as any other theory, but it doesn't fit any sort of observation, so it should be put down.

Now, I realize that what you're talking about in this thread isn't quite that ridiculous, but we'd lose all sense of debate if we just accepted everyone else's theories and moved on.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[Jam930]

I've tried to come up with a theory that supports the pattern of things we know!

1. It stays within the familiar 3rd dimension (no shape theory, weird theory; time is linear)
2. There is only 1 universe. (time is linear)
3. It explains the blue and red shift. (which largely led to the expansion theories.)
4. Does not set impossible, paradoxical boundaries or create, then try to explain them with shape/dimension theory. (why wouldn't the universe be infinite?)

[chickendude]

"the fourth demension being time is so 100 years ago" is wrong, and just plain rude.

Sorry If that sounded rude. I didn't mean in that way, my bad. It may sound like we're trying to just rip each other apart but it's just a debate. sorry if i'm being rude, just let me know =)

The most accepted idea on the universe's age, is that it is finite. This is because of the Olbers paradox. We can only see a certain distance away. If the universe is x years old (current estimate is about 14-20 billion years), we only see a radius of x lightyears. If it were infinitely old, then the whole sky would be lit up, because every line of sight would lead to a star (this is what infinity does). Because of this, the universe has a finite age.
This part makes sense, universe has a finite age,

Now the problem.. ok its more of a hole, not a problem, in Jam's theory is that it doesnt explain how the universe started. It is accepted that it is not infinitely old. Did everything just appear? If they did, then wouldnt gravity cause things to be pulled together? If everything appears to be going apart, then there must be, or have been a force pushing them apart. Since everything was going apart, we backtracked and said sometime ago they were all together.

that "everything" is moving away from a certain point

Just thought I'd clarify; There is no such point. Everything was observed to be moving away from everything else in general. This point would mean a center, and a center means edges, which doesnt make sense. If it's infinite there's no center. It was observed that every galaxy was moving away from every other galaxy at immense speeds. There is no way to pick a center.

so basically, Jam what I'm trying to say is that, if what you say is true, our "starcluster" , the things in it should be moving towards each other because of gravity. Instead they are moving apart, where is the force coming from?

Current science says the big bang, and having a big bang means that the universe is finite
hope I'm making sense =)

[Reach]

Well if it has a beginning, it should have a finite boundary.

Did I say astrology somewhere Guido? Lol. My bad then

And I'm not putting down anyones theory. What Jam said is possible. It just isn't backed by anything yet, because I've heard of it plenty of times before. And chicken dude was informing me about his string theory and such, which is an area I don't know a lot about yet, so the more information the better I guess.

They didn't just make shape/dimension theory, or string out of nowhere. It isn't just to confuse things. It's to bend together the gaps and holes between quantum and general physics. They havn't worked well together untill now.

There are theories of the flat universe, but most evidence has been leaning towards 4 dimensional bent space. After reading up on it, a lot of people tend to be leaning towards the saddle shaped universe, but it's not known yet.

[chickendude]

Yeah, string theory was started in an attempt to combine general relativity and quantum

Many people are really liking this theory, however complicated because its also unifying other things:

Force of Gravity = g (m1 * m2) / (d^2)
Force of Electricity = k (q1 * q2) / (d^2)
m = mass
q = charge
d = distance
g= gravitational constant
k = Coulomb's constant
Those are newton's law and Coulomb's law

They are very similar looking, just the constants are different and instead of mass it is charge
Until now we have never found any connections between them, just similarities like that
String theory is actually giving reasons for this with stuff about at the beginning of the universe, they were the same force and then they split off

It is all tying together and explaining things that have puzzled for centuries, that's why people like it.
But it is very confusing with its 12 whatever dimensions (9 curled up 3 unfurled) weird stuff. It fits well with big bang theory, quantum, and general relativity, and unifys the 4 fundamental forces (two above, and strong and weak nuclear forces)
that's why its called the great unifying theory

just thought I'd throw that out

[Jam930]

The most accepted idea on the universe's age, is that it is finite. This is because of the Olbers paradox. We can only see a certain distance away. If the universe is x years old (current estimate is about 14-20 billion years), we only see a radius of x lightyears. If it were infinitely old, then the whole sky would be lit up, because every line of sight would lead to a star (this is what infinity does). Because of this, the universe has a finite age.
This part makes sense, universe has a finite age,

Gravity can bend light... like star light. There are clouds of gas that absorb light... and if we analyze that gas we can know what it's made of... certain elements absorb/emit certain frequencies(right word?) of light.

Now the problem.. ok its more of a hole, not a problem, in Jam's theory is that it doesnt explain how the universe started. It is accepted that it is not infinitely old. Did everything just appear? If they did, then wouldnt gravity cause things to be pulled together? If everything appears to be going apart, then there must be, or have been a force pushing them apart. Since everything was going apart, we backtracked and said sometime ago they were all together.

I'm not trying to explain how it started... just how it is. I could say God or a number of things... but it's hard to read the past.

that "everything" is moving away from a certain point

Just thought I'd clarify; There is no such point. Everything was observed to be moving away from everything else in general. This point would mean a center, and a center means edges, which doesnt make sense. If it's infinite there's no center. It was observed that every galaxy was moving away from every other galaxy at immense speeds. There is no way to pick a center.

How does that make sense... everything can't move away from "eachother" in general... without half of it moving towards itself. I think you're crazy.

My point was that this "center" from redshift readings is just the center of a small "cluster" type thing that our galaxy and everything we see is inside.

How does a point of origin mean edges? That makes no sense. I'm saying there is no center of the universe... and that the supposed center is the center of something within it.

http://cas.sdss.org/dr4/en/proj/basic/universe/conclusion.asp

That site has the expanding galaxy theory that I am criticizing.

so basically, Jam what I'm trying to say is that, if what you say is true, our "starcluster" , the things in it should be moving towards each other because of gravity. Instead they are moving apart, where is the force coming from?

Maybe an explosion... a "big bang"... but I think this "big bang" would be the start of our "cluster" or just the area we're in that contains everything we have seen so far... and not the start of the universe.

Current science says the big bang, and having a big bang means that the universe is finite
hope I'm making sense =)

Yeah.. I guess I think the "Big Bang" is a fine theory to explain our big "star cluster" thing... or the "red circle" on my picture... however, you could easily ask questions of the bang itself.

I'm getting tired. =/