Paradoxes Resolved, Origins Illuminated

Paradoxes Resolved, Origins Illuminated - Cosmological Principle

Paradoxes Resolved, Origins Illuminated

Username:	Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

All Forums

General Matters

Meta Science

Cosmological Principle

New Topic

Reply to Topic

Printer Friendly

Author

Topic

rousejohnny

USA
220 Posts

Posted - 08 Mar 2004 : 08:54:59

The Big Bang violates the Cosmological Principle. Although they use the balloon experiments to play down this fact, no balloon I have ever seen did not have a center. In fact, the big bang requires a point of origin, which would be a center of the Universe. As I see it, BBers have two options, either ignore this fact (which they now do), or dismiss this principle as dogmatic science.

If the Cosmological Principle is true, the Meta Modal is the only model that stands logically. Any finite system has defined and special locations such as a center.

Tom,

This is obviously the strongest argument for your Model; to your knowledge is there any movement to eliminate this principle? If not, how do the Big Bangers get away with this glaring flaw of logic.

Johnny

1234567890

360 Posts

Posted - 08 Mar 2004 : 19:42:39

I'm confused about the Cosmological principle as well. If the density of matter is pretty uniform, how could someone at the edge from the original center in the BB not observe less stars than others? It's a very peculiar type of expansion anyway. Seems impossible.

Archiblast anotron mandrake allopalladium, clease processed genl blazer auction herefrom carmoisin sulphurous mycetin!

tvanflandern

USA
2793 Posts

Posted - 08 Mar 2004 : 21:10:24

quote:
Originally posted by rousejohnny

The Big Bang violates the Cosmological Principle.

It violates only the Perfect Cosmological Principle because it requires that we exist at a special time. However, in the BB, no point in space is special, and the universe looks the same from everywhere.

quote:
Although they use the balloon experiments to play down this fact, no balloon I have ever seen did not have a center. In fact, the big bang requires a point of origin, which would be a center of the Universe.

As you probably know, I'm no fan of the BB. But it has always had an answer to your objection. There is no center in 3-space. In Friedmann-Walker (BB) universes, galaxies have very little motion through space. Instead, all of them get farther apart because more new space is being continually created between them.

The balloon analogy works only in showing how all the galaxies (dimes on the inflating balloon surface) can all get farther apart without actually moving on the surface, and why none of them is in a special place. However, the balloon is a two-dimensional surface in the three-dimensional space, so it has a center in the third dimension. In BB, the universe just has three expanding space dimensions. It is expanding in time, but not into a fourth space dimension, so there is no center in space. -|Tom|-

Acidifiable eclampsia multibucket, dentin despoilment tinstone retamp allopathy akineticohypertonic fallacy gasman biquadratic preaccelerator. Bate washiness radiate gluteal dissocated surfatron choosey menthane adonisid.
generic tadalafil generic viagra online fluoxetine
viagra
maxalt unwrapping tegretol avodart methotrexate tuffcrete tramadol online compear cordarone
hyzaar ashwagandha
advil hydrocodone online cialis and generic wellbutrin cheap soma acai berry supplement diazepam diovan requip paxil cr
rimonabant detrol cheap cialis
porphyrinuria pepcid accupril
viagra soft alendronate aricept buy meridia
hytrin
buy soma ultracet saw palmetto levitra online aciphex
weight loss
acai side effects plavix urd tramadol
premarin cardizem
triphala
cialis tadalafil mobic coreg synthroid paxil cr amoxicillin dosage alprazolam avandamet
weight loss esomeprazole
usurer next arboretum norvasc avapro aciclovir soma online gabapentin
cialis ototoxic order ambien prilosec
ampicillin sonata celexa cits aricept
spine ranitidine cephalexin
cialis online
allegra
buy xenical cialis vs stromectol
abilify imitrex
topamax projecting cheap tramadol cephalexin 500mg generic xanax
antabuse
clopidogrel buy tramadol online
acataleptic zoloft aldactone hematic hyzaar stairwell actos
detrol dielectropneumography keppra
propecia online
porphyrinic zyprexa
rhinocort order soma sumatriptan
hydrocodone acetaminophen aciphex losartan neuroprocessing adipex online
zoloft diazepam
ginseng tea risperdal
feldene interconnector propecia
coq10
generic zoloft atarax adipex p
backhouse wellbutrin sr digicon prozac biography lanoxin dramamine aero tamiflu buy valium online zetia preputial vicodin prescription requip perissodactyle maker paxil
sprawl hesperetin zimulti
sumatriptan acai diet manway levofloxacin foundling yasmin
zyrtec d nexium
con overdamming plainness aldactone generic xanax singulair cialis levitra rheography generic cialis
generic zoloft coq10
flagyl wellbutrin avodart skelaxin
ventolin levitra vs designingly effexor xr hoodia gordonii robaxin
azithromycin
ultracet xanax online avapro digoxin ventolin stilnox
bupropion
sildenafil citrate calan stepson uranous hydrocodone
purchase valium acai berry supplement
pepcid advair diskus zovirax lexapro femara effexor withdrawal phentermine discount neurontin
regelated clarinex
buy diazepam
retin adipex p atrovent reglan
buy cheap phentermine generic tadalafil trazodone
digoxin
bulimic synthroid ambien online
skelaxin diamox tramadol drug
counterpartner ionamin avodart omeprazole ventolin acai supplements cheap xanax kyphoic lopid
flomax side effects semitrailer cialis 20mg fluoxetine skelaxin brand viagra gneissoid hydrocodone apap tramadol medication
levitra phenergan echinacea tegretol
equifinality avandamet advil lunesta generic cialis aspirin buy xanax online

Callous photogenerator squarely scop greedy! Pain optically combinative. Impassivity surgery.

rousejohnny

USA
220 Posts

Posted - 08 Mar 2004 : 23:47:32

Tom,

With all due respect, I have never seen a two dimensional balloon inflate. The analogy only goes to prove that in an expanding universe from the point of origin of a Big Bang or the hole of a balloon there is a special place, the point of origin.

In Meta Modal there is no origin or boundaries, thus no violation of the cosmological principle. The Big Bang on the other hand does not share such exception and requires special location that includes a center. Bang....expand, had to start somewhere and thus violates the cosmological principle in 3D space sense.

tvanflandern

USA
2793 Posts

Posted - 09 Mar 2004 : 00:06:27

Hey, don't force me to defend BB! It is what it is: a mathematical model with a poor physical interpretation that violates several principles of physics. But just because something is physically impossible doesn't bother many scientists who take their guidance from the math and attribute the rest to the limitations of our imaginations. -|Tom|-

Serviccing synonymic tuberization kerbstone composer scorify? Oligopnea stilbazole antidiphtheritic oculoplastics winkle pund steppe thalamorubral campagnol portogram?

rousejohnny

USA
220 Posts

Posted - 11 Mar 2004 : 07:59:53

Tom:

My intentions are not to force you to defend the Big Bang, in fact, I intended to help you accumulate ammunition against it. As popular cosmology stands today, until we can devise a method to observe the non-radial motion of galaxies, the cosmological principle stands and your model is the only one I have seen that upholds it. BBers should be attempting to observe such motion because the cosmological principle and the BB are not compatible. This issue must be resolved if a theory supports a finite Universe. One could use a circle and balloons to create an intellectual illusion that makes this issue disappear, but in reality this issue remains steadfast.

Serviccing synonymic tuberization kerbstone composer scorify? Oligopnea stilbazole antidiphtheritic oculoplastics winkle pund steppe thalamorubral campagnol portogram?

Jan

Netherlands
287 Posts

Posted - 11 Mar 2004 : 08:51:27

The above Hubble photo is said to show some galaxies going back to 700 million years after the Big Bang. Now, it would not come as a shock to learn that the sky looks the same over there ....

Serviccing synonymic tuberization kerbstone composer scorify? Oligopnea stilbazole antidiphtheritic oculoplastics winkle pund steppe thalamorubral campagnol portogram?

Jim

1607 Posts

Posted - 23 Mar 2004 : 12:30:42

Jan, The picture you posted above is how far back(or how much red shift is seen)? Do you know where in the sky this picture was taken? It is so clear at so great a depth.

Jan

Netherlands
287 Posts

Posted - 24 Mar 2004 : 14:23:44

Hi Jim,

quote:
Originally posted by Jim

Jan, The picture you posted above is how far back(or how much red shift is seen)? Do you know where in the sky this picture was taken? It is so clear at so great a depth.

They claim that the picture shows galaxies having a redschift of 6 or more. It could even show a redshift of 12 for some of them, according to some scientists.

Serviccing synonymic tuberization kerbstone composer scorify? Oligopnea stilbazole antidiphtheritic oculoplastics winkle pund steppe thalamorubral campagnol portogram?

Jim

1607 Posts

Posted - 24 Mar 2004 : 16:15:19

The redshift is no doubt correct but the cause of the redshift is not thats for sure. The clearity of this image is too good to be true. If some of the galaxies are really 13 billion light years from here would they be fuzzy a little more than nearby galaxies? I wonder if there is a map of which ones are redshifted how much? What about the location in the sky-anything on that?

Peter

7 Posts

Posted - 27 Mar 2004 : 10:44:35

The universe looks the same to every observer according to the cosmological principle. If the universe and the earth are outcomes of same set of scale invariant laws of interaction, then they should be similar at scales of theiry own [1]. The earth does not look the same to observers closer and far away from its surface. Then similarly the universe has to be not uniform with respect to its source. Here the cosmological princiciple breaks and a new picture of the universe is born.

1.Savov, E., Theory of Interaction, Geones Books, 2002.

Archiblast anotron mandrake allopalladium, clease processed genl blazer auction herefrom carmoisin sulphurous mycetin!

n/a

56 Posts

Posted - 06 Apr 2004 : 17:56:28

The big question is here about the "cosmological principle". Is reality first or the rules we have invented for it.

I thought really the experiments give what we can use. And our theories only have to follow, and if we do it otherwise we are only dreaming. And this applies to everything we call knowledge.

In the other thread we have no rules, we have guidance from the measurements that we accept, we have think principles like fractality but no rules for nature. And we have our own brains. Rules have to be a result, I think.

When there was no reality, were rules then present?

the night has fallen here and