the location has no center

[Nungali]

The bits of the watermelon accelerated, up to a point, didnt they ?

 

How do we know 'at what stage of' the explosion we are in ?  

 

Increasing beyond the original force ??? 

 

Someone is going to have to explain that to me  .... in simple terms please

 

Non of this stuff , like on the blackboard,  thanks

 

Edited February 23, 2015 by Nungali

[Marblehead]

I will give this a shot.  Michael, help me if I screw it up too badly.

The bits of the watermelon accelerated, up to a point, didnt they ?

Yes, that is the way it was thought it should have happened with the universe.

 

How do we know 'at what stage of' the explosion we are in ?

Best guess is that the universe is 13.7 billion years old.  Life span?  Unknown.  If it continues its expansion it will in in a cold death.  Not because there is a lack of energy, the amout of energy will remain the same.  It's just that it will be spread out over such a great mass that at some point energy will no longer be able to reach from one body to another for any cause and effect to happen.

 

Increasing beyond the original force ??? 

That is my best understanding at the present.  Afterall, things had to be moving slowly enough for particles to clump together enough so that they could grow in order to collect more stuff and make things.

 

Someone is going to have to explain that to me  .... in simple terms please

I did my best.

 

Non of this stuff , like on the blackboard,  thanks

No worry, I don't do the math.

[Nungali]

That is my best understanding at the present.  Afterall, things had to be moving slowly enough for particles to clump together enough so that they could grow in order to collect more stuff and make things.

 

I did my best.

 

Okay ... but ,just looking at any accelerating rate of expansion  , could gravity restrict that at some stage and then  when the energy of gravity becomes less as 'stuff'  moves apart further, (and considering that energy  had to 'go' somewhere, could not it have gone into  a { then } increasing rate of expansion and the locality of certain bits had more gravity  due to their proximity) they clumped together ( and the fact that the clumps are all expanding as well ;  moving 'outwards' )  would negate the expansion of bits in close proximity.

 

Brian!

 

Haaalp  !

Edited February 24, 2015 by Nungali

[Michael Sternbach]

Marblehead and Nungali,

 

Regarding the various questions and topics of your last few posts, I will try to summarize the contemporary cosmological view (which doesn't automatically mean that I myself take it at face value without reservation):

 

First off, the Big Bang was not exactly an explosion (as there was nothing exploding). But for our purposes, it seems fair enough to treat is as such.

 

The acceleration due to an explosion is lasting a very short time only. Along these lines, apparently there was an incredibly short phase right after the Big Bang during which the still very small infant Universe expanded at a speed exceeding the speed of light. After which the expansion continued at a more conceivable speed.

 

However, the overall gravity of the matter and, more significantly, of the "dark matter" in the Universe must have slowed down its expansion eventually. But matter and dark matter would spread out with the expansion of space whereas the "dark energy" would not (it may well always remain constant). With the two kinds of matter sufficiently spread out, the decelerating effect of their gravity was superseded by the repulsive force of dark energy. To the effect that the Universe continued to expand, and accelerates this expansion as matter is thinned out more and more. Currently, the speed of the expansion exceeds the speed of light.

 

Note that this acceleration apparently began a measly 5 billion years ago while the Big Bang happened nearly 14 billion years ago.

 

Yeah, I know this sounds weird. I was actually wondering while writing this if there was possibly a principle that would let the Universe continue to alternate between the prevalence of the contracting and the expanding force. Just a thought...

 

Now its your turn, guys. Let me know if I have omitted something.

[Nungali]

 

However, the overall gravity of the matter and, more significantly, of the "dark matter" in the Universe must have slowed down its expansion eventually.

 

Dark matter has gravity ?    

 

It looks like it from the above wording. 

 

 

 

But matter and dark matter would spread out with the expansion of space whereas the "dark energy" would not (it may well always remain constant). With the two kinds of matter sufficiently spread out, the decelerating effect of their gravity was superseded by the repulsive force of dark energy.

 

And now  (bear with me )  'dark energy ' is different from dark matter ?  

 

 If it has a repulsive force then it is 'opposite' to gravity ?

 

Dark energy doesn't 'spread out'   like  both types of matter but it is ;there' in the 'spreaded out'  'space'  ? (I dont get that bit , probably because I haven't 'got' the diff between dark energy and dark matter ?  { and other problems I have  * }  )

 

To the effect that the Universe continued to expand, and accelerates this expansion as matter is thinned out more and more. Currently, the speed of the expansion exceeds the speed of light.

 

Note that this acceleration apparently began a measly 5 billion years ago while the Big Bang happened nearly 14 billion years ago.

 

Ah!  That seems it would create the opposite effect that I postulated ....   now the matter is moving away faster the effects of gravity are lessening and there would appear to be no 'hope'  of it all being drawn back together (by matter's gravity) .

 

 

 

 

Yeah, I know this sounds weird. I was actually wondering while writing this if there was possibly a principle that would let the Universe continue to alternate between the prevalence of the contracting and the expanding force. Just a thought...

 

Well, my imagination  did the same thing there .... the rate changed before (if I read the above right ), so it may not be constant for the rest of the process, or as dark matter or 'space' stretches, another force comes into play ?

 

I did have about idea before about some sort of end point, and things 'turning back' .... but I have been conditioned in my thinking about that - from other processes which may be irrelevant here.  - the breath in and out, Shiva's eye , great cycles.

 

Or even maybe just expanding that 'far out'  ...   (not sure how to word this )   ...  creates a  'potential' singularity, 'big bang'  'somewhere else' ?   ( I know, I know  - there isnt supposed to be a 'somewhere else'.

 

..... just leave me here for a bit ...  then start unpicking ( I hope someone has good fingernails  and some Boy Scout training ! )

 

 

 

 

 

Now its your turn, guys. Let me know if I have omitted something.

[Marblehead]

Okay ... but ,just looking at any accelerating rate of expansion  , could gravity restrict that at some stage and then  when the energy of gravity becomes less as 'stuff'  moves apart further, (and considering that energy  had to 'go' somewhere, could not it have gone into  a { then } increasing rate of expansion and the locality of certain bits had more gravity  due to their proximity) they clumped together ( and the fact that the clumps are all expanding as well ;  moving 'outwards' )  would negate the expansion of bits in close proximity.

 

Brian!

 

Haaalp  !

Good question but I can't answer it.  I have stated before that I think science still has a lot to learn about gravity.

[Marblehead]

Well, in the rest of the posts I didn't see anything that seriously contradicted my understandings.

 

Yes, I still hold to the concepts of reversion and cycles.  I see these processes everywhere in my material world.  Prehaps the processes for the entire universe are so slow that we have yet not identified them.

 

 

Dark Matter and Dark Energy:

 

My understanding at this time is that it is Dark Matter that is keeping the galaxies functioning the way they do.  But, what if Dark Matter is actually an aspect of gravity that we are not yet aware of?

 

And then, it is Dark Energy that is causing the expansion of space, enlargement of the universe, thereby causing the galaxies to appear to be drifting apart from each other; actually increasing the space between the galaxies.  Could Dark Energy just be another aspect of gravity that we do not yet understand?  Maybe "anti-gravity" or the opposite (dualities) effect of what we think we already know about gravity?

 

 

 

Edit to add:

 

BTW, I watched a little of one of those "Brain Games" programs last night and the theme was "The Illusion of Knowledge".  Interesting what our brain tells us we know where in truth we know practically nothing.

Edited February 24, 2015 by Marblehead

[Marblehead]

Those articles are way over my capacities.

 

I have heard of string theory.  So far, of what I have heard and thought I understood, I have no problem with.

 

I don't recall hearing of bit-string theory though.

 

However, to this point I have heard nothing from string theory that better explains the physical universe better that the traditional natural physics.

[Michael Sternbach]

Dark matter has gravity ?    

 

It looks like it from the above wording. 

 

The concept of Dark Matter was introduced because large-scale cosmological structures just don't behave as they were supposed to according to the Newtonian laws of gravity. Therefore a kind of matter is being assumed that has gravity but shows no other interactions with visible matter for all we know.

 

And now  (bear with me )  'dark energy ' is different from dark matter ?  

 

 If it has a repulsive force then it is 'opposite' to gravity ?

 

Exactly. Dark Energy acts as a force of anti-gravity.

 

Dark energy doesn't 'spread out'   like  both types of matter but it is ;there' in the 'spreaded out'  'space'  ? (I dont get that bit , probably because I haven't 'got' the diff between dark energy and dark matter ?  { and other problems I have  * }  )

 

Oh well, we all have our problems (with the possible exception of Marblehead who doesn't seem to have any problems, at least as long as he doesn't talk with us). But I think you have got that well. Einstein referred to such a force of expansion as "the cosmological constant". Later on, he called it "the greatest blunder of my life" instead. It looks like he renounced the concept prematurely, though, in the light of the new cosmological discoveries.

 

Ah!  That seems it would create the opposite effect that I postulated ....   now the matter is moving away faster the effects of gravity are lessening and there would appear to be no 'hope'  of it all being drawn back together (by matter's gravity) .

 

Exactly. It seems that right before the Universe could have started collapsing again due to the gravity of its matter (dark or otherwise), that matter was thinned out enough in order for the anti-gravitational force to prevail and keep the expansion going! Well calculated...

 

Well, my imagination  did the same thing there .... the rate changed before (if I read the above right ), so it may not be constant for the rest of the process, or as dark matter or 'space' stretches, another force comes into play ?

 

Nobody knows that for sure. There is an idea that Dark Energy could one day reverse its effect and turn into a gravitational (contracting) force at least out-there in cyber space. So there might still be a chance for the so called "Big Crunch" theory.

 

I did have about idea before about some sort of end point, and things 'turning back' .... but I have been conditioned in my thinking about that - from other processes which may be irrelevant here.  - the breath in and out, Shiva's eye , great cycles.

 

An alternative to the Big Crunch is a theory that I have already talked about a couple of times on TDB, called CCC (.)). It is the latest brain child of the cosmologist Roger Penrose the guy who founded the original Big Bang theory together with Stephen Hawking. In simple terms, it simply states that once all the matter in the Universe has been converted into light (electromagnetic energy), space and time will no longer definable, therefore become at once infinitely large and infinitely small. (Obviously, we have a Nuit/Hadit thing going here again, in the terminology of Thelema.) There you have a new Singularity!

 

(All puns intended.)

 

Or even maybe just expanding that 'far out'  ...   (not sure how to word this )   ...  creates a  'potential' singularity, 'big bang'  'somewhere else' ?   ( I know, I know  - there isnt supposed to be a 'somewhere else'.

 

As I just said!!!

 

..... just leave me here for a bit ...  then start unpicking ( I hope someone has good fingernails  and some Boy Scout training ! )

 

 

 

I hope that my "fingernails" and whatever training I have did the job.

[Marblehead]

Ah, well.

 

"bit-string"

Okay.  At least i"m not totally lost now.

 

But Hey, I haven't even accepted Quantum Theory yet and it is actually being used to do things.  That's how far behind I am.

[Michael Sternbach]

However, to this point I have heard nothing from string theory that better explains the physical universe better that the traditional natural physics.

What do you mean by "traditional natural physics"? Newtonian physics? That is generally close enough an approximation for the macroscopic world which you are aware of.

 

But if you look into the world of molecules, atoms, subatomic particles... That's where Newton runs more and more into trouble. That's where things really go haywire. Or maybe we just aren't able yet to figure out the order that is underlying that microscopic world.

 

Strange things happen there... like a particle being in several places at once. No, it's not several particles! It's the same particle which just happens to be in more than one place at the same time. Why not? This phenomenon can even be shown under a sufficiently strong microscope.

 

Normally, the apparent craziness of the quantum world politely stays out of our world. Except when it doesn't. Like when a person is in two places at once. This phenomenon even has a name: It's called bilocation. But don't worry about if you don't believe in it. It's so rare that my auto correct function doesn't even know its name.

[Michael Sternbach]

Yet another set of reasons for liking the Leibnizean principles.

 

Yet another set of reasons for elaborating on them, Apeiron.

[Marblehead]

What do you mean by "traditional natural physics"? Newtonian physics? That is generally close enough an approximation for the macroscopic world which you are aware of.

Yes, Newtonian, tweeked by Einstein, and then further by Hubble and the results from his input.

 

But if you look into the world of molecules, atoms, subatomic particles... That's where Newton runs more and more into trouble. That's where things really go haywire. Or maybe we just aren't able yet to figure out the order that is underlying that microscopic world.

Yes, that is why his work had to be tweeked.

 

Strange things happen there... like a particle being in several places at once.

I'm not buying that.  Our observations are flawed.

 

No, it's not several particles! It's the same particle which just happens to be in more than one place at the same time. Why not? This phenomenon can even be shown under a sufficiently strong microscope.

Nothing I have seen or heard of this has convinced me yet.

 

Normally, the apparent craziness of the quantum world politely stays out of our world. Except when it doesn't. Like when a person is in two places at once. This phenomenon even has a name: It's called bilocation. But don't worry about if you don't believe in it. It's so rare that my auto correct function doesn't even know its name.

Hehehe.  Yeah, it is my understanding that quantum mechanics works well at the micro level but when they are applied to the macro level the theories fail.  And this is why, in my understanding, string theory got so much attention; it is an attempt to merge the theories of the micro and macro.  I wish them luck.

[Marblehead]

And then there is the thought that if something does not apply to my world then it not worth much to me.

 

Afterall, I am still the center of my universe.

[Michael Sternbach]

Yet another set of reasons for liking the Leibnizean principles.

 

Edit:

--Sorry, I guess that the above comment had a kind of snide edge to it. The thing I see, though, is that a lot of the enthusiasm for modern physics seems to stem from the imputed belief that findings in it will render fantastical things in imagination as viable in reality. I am fairly certain that bilocation and other "anomalous" phenomena exist---I think that their explanation, though, is more tightly bound than a lot of modern metatheories (like the many-worlds interpretation of Quantum Mechanics) would suggest. So, I tend to have enthusiasm for Leibniz's model because, unlike the synthetically produced modern scientific theories, it gains power from having extremely precise concept definitions. Extreme precision of logic, term definitions, and structure rules seems like something that modern physics could benefit from. ---But, it would also require greater respect for a-priori reasoning and a shift of perspectives on how scientific theories are made and what their unavoidable contingencies are.

 

Most of all, it would require an admission of metaphysics into physics.

[Michael Sternbach]

Well, there's the identity of indiscernibles. So, if an object is exactly the same, then you cannot discern any difference. So, if we talk about the "same particle" or same person in more than one place at a time, then (in fact) the phenomena are distinct and therefore not identitative (viz. their locations constitute an aspect of their identity). So, if there is a distinct thing that connects the very similar (near to identical) phenomena, then we have a non-physical (or, at least, more-subtley physical) thing upon which the physical things depend. And at that level, we can begin to make meaningful sense of things. When we talk about the same thing in more than one place, it is fun and interesting--but, it ends up making language use and terms somewhat ambiguous; with the principles for a consistent metaphysics, we can infer and construct a more expansive framework that is no longer ambiguous.

 

I am afraid that your explanation is still a little ambiguous to me. All I can do is employ free association, but I might end up talking about something quite different from what you are intending to get at. Well, if so, it might at least make you further clarify your perspective.

 

What the above brought to mind, anyway, is a lecture I once attended in the Zen temple Sosenji in Kyoto, Japan. Where the hapless priest was doing his best to explain to me that I didn't really exist. Maybe not literally, but in the sense that my identity was an impermanent and essentially void bunch of relations. What was my problem with that? To phrase it somewhat more elegantly than I could have at that time, I understood that, even though my mind and body are in fact in a constant state of flux, I was the manifestation of a metaphysical entity that was quite beyond this world of change. More of a Hindu perspective than a Buddhist one, I would say...

 

edit/expansion:

 

It is after this point that I end up being slightly mixed, though. A lot of things in modern physics reconcile these apparent differences in the physical reality by defering to hypothetical physical things; the more immediate type of reconciliation indicated by the principles would be to extend this ontological chain of stuff so that it has greater continuity between what we see now and what we infer was the absolute absence-of-stuff that existed prior. ---So, if the principles hold, then our notion of a multiverse may be slightly premature (as the answers might be non-physical and lay between awareness as such and the continua between the quantum and the void ). That doesn't rule the multiverse out entirely, but it would seem (by Ockham's razor) that a metaphysics would be a better place to go.

 

You mean, either the Universe is one creation of many in a Multiverse, the way my body is creating new cells all the time? Or it was created out of the (metaphysical) blue? I think, it could be both at once.