pulsating universe

This is one of the most interesting theories i have read for the creation of the universe.

http://www.mail-archive.com/eristocr.../msg00037.html

Basically says that the universe pulsates kinda like a heart. After the Big Bang it expands as far as it can (what its doing now), and then gravity begins to pull it in until all the matter is once again on top of each other...then, BOOM! ...another Big bang.

so if the sheer size of the universe didnt make you feel lonely enough. It is possible that we are just one spec of life in one pulse that has happend millions of times before.

Still an infant theory that doesnt have a lot of science to support it yet, buts its very interesting i thought.

I thought of that a while ago. Lemaitre was a priest before a scientist. Expansion of the universe implies it was once smaller. Big Bang implies a creation. The public is comfortable with that thought. It is familiar, enabling them to swallow the idea of the expansion of the universe more readily.

Of course, I also think that each "pulse" of the universe is "simultaneous" (the universe is outide of time). I've toyed with the idea that the only reason the pulses restart is because the system is imbalanced--it requires sufficient "awareness" to continue.

Well, what the website described, as far as I can see, is nonsense. Even if there was some reason for the universe to repeatedly stop growing for a while, it would not be infinitely old. The whole reason we believe there was a Big Bang is that we observe that all galaxies are flying away from us; then we just extrapolate backwards in time.

What you described is actually an extremely well known cosmological theory. If there is a high amount of mass in the universe, this would be true. However, by current estimates, there is not enough, by a factor of around 100; the universe will continue expanding forever, and fizzle out.

Personally I believe that there are many universes though.

I've never understood how the cyclical universe hypothesis dealt with entropy. Either the laws of thermodynamics break down at the big bang, or there's an external area outside our universe, giving us more energy. Neither option is very satisfying.

That's an interesting point... a singularity is a singularity, I don't see how the singularity at the end of time could have any less entropy than that at the start, violating the second law of thermodynamics...

Then again I haven't studied entropy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drewmandan

I've never understood how the cyclical universe hypothesis dealt with entropy. Either the laws of thermodynamics break down at the big bang, or there's an external area outside our universe, giving us more energy. Neither option is very satisfying.

---

Energy is never lost. It is lost as thermal energy, and dissipates through the universe. It doesn't leave the universe--the universe is a closed system (for this argument. Just as you said, it doesn't make sense for energy to come in from an outside source, it also doesn't make sense for it to leave to an outside place.). The universe has the same amount of stuff (energy and matter) as it had in the first place.

Everything in the universe is cyclic, so why not the universe itself too? As above, so below..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Abra

Energy is never lost. It is lost as thermal energy, and dissipates through the universe. It doesn't leave the universe--the universe is a closed system (for this argument. Just as you said, it doesn't make sense for energy to come in from an outside source, it also doesn't make sense for it to leave to an outside place.). The universe has the same amount of stuff (energy and matter) as it had in the first place.

---

That's a violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Here are two versions, both of which don't allow what you just described:

"Heat generally cannot spontaneously flow from a material at lower temperature to a material at higher temperature."

"It is impossible to convert heat completely into work in a cyclic process."

The background radiation is almost completely unusable, at least according to thermodynamics.

Hmmm... I remember that at the Big Bang though spacetime was infinitely wrapped up, before expanding. If a very large quantity of the mass in the universe had formed a singularity, spacetime would be very warped to the extent that it could suck in radiation... I don't know if this solves the thermodynamics problem though.

Quote:

---

Everything in the universe is cyclic, so why not the universe itself too? As above, so below..

---

Really? Okay, explain how the following things are cyclic:

- A ruler.
- Radioactive decay.
- Computational linguistics.
- y = ax + b
- Ringo Starr.
- Adjectives.
- Ham.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

Hmmm... I remember that at the Big Bang though spacetime was infinitely wrapped up, before expanding. If a very large quantity of the mass in the universe had formed a singularity, spacetime would be very warped to the extent that it could suck in radiation... I don't know if this solves the thermodynamics problem though.

---

Indeed, one can imagine that if the spacetime metric itself shrinks to a Planck length, thermodynamics might not work the same way. But then again, the radiation is radiating out at the speed of light. It's like an unstoppable force meeting an immovable object. What wins? We may never know. But we do know for sure that our current understanding of thermodynamics would have to be wrong for the radiation to be 're-integrated' into the singularity.

well, id think that the idea that the universe is "pulsating" would explain where all the matter came from (Kinda)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

What you described is actually an extremely well known cosmological theory. If there is a high amount of mass in the universe, this would be true. However, by current estimates, there is not enough, by a factor of around 100;

---

but all the matter in the universe had to have been on top of each other at some point (as described by the big bang). So how did it all get there? Because it was all pulled in by gravity.

where else could it have come from?

i dont know, im a man of ignorance with a willingness to learn :P

Quote:

---

well, id think that the idea that the universe is "pulsating" would explain where all the matter came from (Kinda)

---

Not really.

Quote:

---

but all the matter in the universe had to have been on top of each other at some point (as described by the big bang).

---

No

Quote:

---

i dont know, im a man of ignorance with a willingness to learn

---

Well, you're dealing with advance ideas that needs advance understanding of mathematics.

Saying that I think the most popular view is something called inflationary cosmology, which is kind of like the universe was kind of like alot of bubbles, were one of the bubbles that was inflated and grew into our universe.

I would say no.
About 5 billion years ago, the universe sort of had a 'break' in expansion. Since then it's been expanding ever more rapidly.
Thanks to this is the effect of Gravity and Dark Energy (the energy of the vacuum): gravity has a limited reach (go read Newton), while Dark Energy has an infinite reach. Dark energy is gravity's counter force: it makes object get away from eachother.
First, the DE pulls the objects away, but struggles against gravity. As the objects get further and further apart, the gravity lessens, thus accelerating the objects. That's what's been happening to the universe lately :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ThreeLetterSyndrom

I would say no.
About 5 billion years ago, the universe sort of had a 'break' in expansion. Since then it's been expanding ever more rapidly.
Thanks to this is the effect of Gravity and Dark Energy (the energy of the vacuum): gravity has a limited reach (go read Newton), while Dark Energy has an infinite reach. Dark energy is gravity's counter force: it makes object get away from eachother.
First, the DE pulls the objects away, but struggles against gravity. As the objects get further and further apart, the gravity lessens, thus accelerating the objects. That's what's been happening to the universe lately :)

---

It doesn't sound like you know what you're talking about.

Actually I have read about this information in the Scientific American many different times with different articles with new developments.

The science community has been very close to this idea for a little over a year now.

But this article has a tone of flaws and makes ridiculous questions for the big-bang theory which he himself does not own up to in his theory.

Either way, his theory is still using the idea of the big-bang theory.

Quote:

---

but all the matter in the universe had to have been on top of each other at some point (as described by the big bang). So how did it all get there? Because it was all pulled in by gravity.

where else could it have come from?

i dont know, im a man of ignorance with a willingness to learn

---

It was just there. You're saying that mass was created separated by space, then it came together under gravity to form a singularity, then it exploded to make the universe; the first step is completely unnecessary. We might as well just say the singularity exploded to form the universe.

Quote:

---

Actually I have read about this information in the Scientific American many different times with different articles with new developments.

---

Have you read any uni books on cosmology? and not just dumbed down crap they put in Scientific American.

Quote:

---

gravity has a limited reach (go read Newton),

---

I'm pretty sure there have been some recent developement in the theory of gravity.

Quote:

---

We might as well just say the singularity exploded to form the universe.

---

Entropy has to be really low at the time of the big bang, so no explosion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

It was just there. You're saying that mass was created separated by space, then it came together under gravity to form a singularity, then it exploded to make the universe; the first step is completely unnecessary. We might as well just say the singularity exploded to form the universe.

---

Reality does not exist for your perception of necessity.

Yeah that follows directly and is definitely completely related to what I said. :|

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wendylove

Entropy has to be really low at the time of the big bang, so no explosion.

---

Agree..

It amazes me however, considering the Universe itself has a well-defined thermodynamic arrow of time. But this doesn't address the question of why the initial state of the universe was that of low entropy? If cosmic expansion were to halt and reverse due to gravity, the temperature of the Universe would once again increase, but its entropy would continue to increase due to the continued growth of perturbations and eventually blackhole formation. Kind of makes you wonder.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

Yeah that follows directly and is definitely completely related to what I said. :|

---

No? I thought you were saying that any conditions that lead to a singularity expanding to create the known universe were unnecessary in a cosmological model since it could have easily have started with the singularity. My point is that Even if we came up with a model that had the universe beginning with the big bang that remained consistent with all observable phenomena, it is still a possibility that the singularity was in fact caused by something else. Reality doesn't necessarily only contain what is 'needed' and may well contain an infinite set of superfluous possibilities.

Oh yes, it's a possibility, of course; something I imagine we'll probably work out in the end through progress in physics, too.

It's just the person who asked the question was saying that the only possible source of a singularity would have been a past universe collapsing, which is not true... it's no less possible that the singularity at the Big Bang was the very beginning. We really don't know where the singularity 'came from' (as far as I know) so it's just guesswork at the moment.

the whole gravity pulling it together thing, thats called the big crunch, its the opposite of the big bang and it takes away a bit of the universe, i read about the big bang and the big crunch when i was about 7 or 8 years old.

I think the problem a lot of people encounter here is that they read about things like "big bang" and "big bounce" while knowing exactly 0% of the math and physics that went into these concepts. So then they come up with completely ridiculous mental images like the big bang being like an explosion, and then they reject these theories based on their own misunderstandings.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drewmandan

I think the problem a lot of people encounter here is that they read about things like "big bang" and "big bounce" while knowing exactly 0% of the math and physics that went into these concepts. So then they come up with completely ridiculous mental images like the big bang being like an explosion, and then they reject these theories based on their own misunderstandings.

---

the big bang is actually two extremely small particles colliding, then something happens, to do with electrons etc. i dont know much quantum physics. and within a nanosecond a chunk of universe "appears" (obviously not a scientific description)

and the big crunch is basically just an implosion, probably caused by a black hole or something.

and the big bounce is just a scientific model of what they think the formation of the universe is, its not a thing which happened. here is the model:

That's very wrong... please read about those subjects on Wikipedia or somewhere.

The Big Bang was the expansion of the universe from an infinitely small point. This happened about 14 billion years ago. We know it happened because we look in the sky and can detect that galaxies are all flying away from us.

The Big Crunch is what would happen if gravity is enough to slow these galaxies down and bring them back together.

The Big Bounce theory is that there is an infinite series of Crunches and Bangs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

That's very wrong... please read about those subjects on Wikipedia or somewhere.

The Big Bang was the expansion of the universe from an infinitely small point. This happened about 14 billion years ago. We know it happened because we look in the sky and can detect that galaxies are all flying away from us.

The Big Crunch is what would happen if gravity is enough to slow these galaxies down and bring them back together.

The Big Bounce theory is that there is an infinite series of Crunches and Bangs.

---

first of all, i havent got super telescopic eyes, i cant see that the galaxies are flying away from us. and the way that i described the big bang was mixed up between something i read, and something which someone told me, but what i read is still not quite what you have said there.

and here is a link for big crunch :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Crunch


and i think you are right about the big bounce, i didnt read into it enough, i rushed it.

as for your description of the big bang and the big crunch, i think you are getting mixed up with string theory. (dont ask me too much about it because i only know i few things, and they are probably things i miss heard)

Quote:

---

first of all, i havent got super telescopic eyes, i cant see that the galaxies are flying away from us.

---

That's why we use telescopes. Most galaxies are blue shifted. Look that up on Wikipedia.

Quote:

---

and the way that i described the big bang was mixed up between something i read, and something which someone told me, but what i read is still not quite what you have said there.

---

Then what you read was wrong.

Quote:

---

as for your description of the big bang and the big crunch, i think you are getting mixed up with string theory. (dont ask me too much about it because i only know i few things, and they are probably things i miss heard)

---

String theory has nothing to do with anything I said.

Google for Big Bang and Big Crunch or just look on Wikipedia for goodness sakes; what I said is correct.

did you not look at info i gave you?

and when i said its different from what i read, i meant ive never heard about the flying away galaxies mentioned

the big crunch is the physical taking away of some of the universe, not making everything closer together, and the big bang is the opposite.

No the big crunch is the opposite of the bang. The universe collapsing etc. It's all on the link you posted. Imagine the big bang as a balloon being blown up, and then the big crunch as the balloon being emptied. It's just that the balloon starts and ends as infinitely small.

Quote:

---

did you not look at info i gave you?

---

It confirms what I said; you should read it yourself.

Big crunches do not subtract from the amount of mass or energy in the universe, and big bangs do not make any; they're just compressions and expansions. The sum of the amount of energy and mass in the universe is always the same; you cannot destroy or create these things.

ok i didnt read it fully, but how come it said that the universe will come to an end or something along those lines, surely that means something has to be destroyed.

although you must be right, i must have missed out something vital, because yes, i totally forgot about the fact that nothing can be created or destroyed.

im just utterly confused.:?

Welcome to the universe. The stuff won't be destroyed. Just infinitely small. That's what a singularity is. An infinitely small and thus infinitely dense speck of matter, for example what happens in black holes. There is just the difference that the time-space fabric was also infinitely small before the big bang.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=isY_u--uvqg

:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bonsay

Welcome to the universe. The stuff won't be destroyed. Just infinitely small. That's what a singularity is. An infinitely small and thus infinitely dense speck of matter, for example what happens in black holes. There is just the difference that the time-space fabric was also infinitely small before the big bang.

---

ok i understand now, infact i had completely misunderstood what i read, well it was a long time ago, i was quite young, but i understand what it meant now.

I think it would be completely ignorant to think our universe is the first and only one to exist. That would be like back in the day when everyone thought the earth was the centre of the universe. Way too conceited of a thought.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpecialInterests

I think it would be completely ignorant to think our universe is the first and only one to exist. That would be like back in the day when everyone thought the earth was the centre of the universe. Way too conceited of a thought.

---

do people think it was the first one? i think there has been an infinate amount of universes before use, and will be infinate amount after aswell, it doesnt make sense if there was just nothing, infact, it would be less than nothing, god every time i think of this i get shivers down my spine thinking about what less than nothing is, i mean, even outside our univverse, there is still dark matter, but even that being gone, just everything being gone, woh, does anyone else feel this way?

I was actually thinking about that yesterday. People say space is nothing, yet it must be something because it occupies area. You can measure it in volumes. If space were truly nothing, you wouldn't beable to measure it. If you stuck your finger out in space, it would still exist - but if you were to stick your finger into absolute nothingness, you'd probably lose your finger because a finger couldn't exist in nothingness. If it could it wouldn't be nothing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpecialInterests

I was actually thinking about that yesterday. People say space is nothing, yet it must be something because it occupies area. You can measure it in volumes. If space were truly nothing, you wouldn't beable to measure it. If you stuck your finger out in space, it would still exist - but if you were to stick your finger into absolute nothingness, you'd probably lose your finger because a finger couldn't exist in nothingness. If it could it wouldn't be nothing.

---

yea, but space isnt nothing, although its a vaccum, its still matter, and as i said earlier it think, even outside our universe, and inbetween others there is still dark matter (i only know its there, dont know anything about it)

Dark matter isn't outside of our universe (nobody knows what's outside of our universe). People who know what they are talking about don't say vacuum is nothing. Vacuum is nothing in the sense that there is no matter present in a certain space. Nobody ever said it was non-existence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bonsay

Dark matter isn't outside of our universe (nobody knows what's outside of our universe). People who know what they are talking about don't say vacuum is nothing. Vacuum is nothing in the sense that there is no matter present in a certain space. Nobody ever said it was non-existence.

---

could you please tell me what dark matter is, ive always wanted to know.

Well I'm no scientist. From what I understand is that according to the calculations there should be a lot more matter in the universe. This matter that's missing is called dark matter. We can't see it so it doesn't react with EM radiation. The only way to detect it is from their gravitational effects.

Here is a pic from the Hubble.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by slash112

could you please tell me what dark matter is, ive always wanted to know.

---

Dark matter = so called vacuum = the aether = 99.9% of everything in existence.

If the universe was an ocean, the aether would be the water. And everything else would be the waves.

This wave-aether-theory explains everything, and the mechanics behind everything. But for some reason, most people rather stick to a theory that can't even explain gravity next to a three word explanation of "bending of space-time". People rather stick to believing there is such a ridiclous thing as "vacuum", and people rather stick to believing in the wave-particle duality, a paradox that can easily be solved by realizing that there are no particles, just standing waves. There is no matter, just condensed energy. e=mc². Amazing isn't it. How rusted beliefs beat common sense... but hey, at one time everyone believed the earth was flat! Guess you can't expect too much at the same time :P

If it explains everything, then you must have some sort of mathematical equations to show it scientifically. I don't understand how you can talk like that about things you most likely don't even understand. Unless you're a physicist (if you are I'm sorry).

I mean look at every religious person on the globe. It's common sense that the world created the universe in 7 days etc. I like it how you say the same. Oh well... Common sense beats science every day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bonsay

If it explains everything, then you must have some sort of mathematical equations to show it scientifically. I don't understand how you can talk like that about things you most likely don't even understand. Unless you're a physicist (if you are I'm sorry).

---

Of course I have: http://www.glafreniere.com/matter.htm

What makes you think I don't understand? I've studied physics, but what does it matter if the theory I'm proposing here is completely different?! Everyone can understand. You don't need to know anything about physics at all, because this is a new theory. It's like you're saying I need to be a christian in order to understand the Koran...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bonsay

I mean look at every religious person on the globe. It's common sense that the world created the universe in 7 days etc. I like it how you say the same. Oh well... Common sense beats science every day.

---

The earth is created in 7 days = common sense? Maybe in America such a thing is possible. Here in Europe there has never been an argument about creationism and evolution. Because nobody ever took the 7 day creation litterally. In America, both sides take it litterally. One side claims the Bible is full of bullshit because the earth couldn't have been created in 7 days, the other side claims the Bible is the exact word of God down to the very letter. Both sides don't seem to get it.

I said that because many just verbalize their ideas without any regard to the scientific method. It's wrong to have prejudice though, I'm sorry.
I wanted to say that common sense is relative and that it shouldn't be used when trying to portray a point. There is just about everything which is common sense for somebody.

Yeah indeed good point, everything could be common sense.

Chayba don't pretend to understand astrophysics; you don't.

Dark matter and dark energy are a conceptual kind of matter which do not interact with electromagnetism (so are not easily observed). They are a mathematical necessity to explain the anomalous rotational speeds of galaxies and other phenomena, as they would provide extra gravitational force. There's about 74% dark energy and 22% dark matter in the universe.

The aether has been completely disproved. The Michelson-Morely experiment did this over 100 years ago. Einstein's theories of relativity were then developed in order to be consistent with a lack of aether; there are only relative positions in space. There is no immobile aether in which everything has an absolute position.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

There's about 74% dark energy and 22% dark matter in the universe.

---

oh i thought it was the other way round

Personally, one of the reasons I believe in parallel universes is because of dark matter.

Could you elaborate?

Dark matter is really only a mathematical object at the moment; a placeholder for a proper theory.

The dark matter could be matter in other parallel universes. Then we should be two dimensional creatures and not be able to see the other universes even if they are right here, they would be in different dimensions.

I think it could just turn out to be some kind of heavy particle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

I think it could just turn out to be some kind of heavy particle.

---

It might.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JustSoSick

It might.

---

Yep.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JustSoSick

The dark matter could be matter in other parallel universes. Then we should be two dimensional creatures and not be able to see the other universes even if they are right here, they would be in different dimensions.

---

isnt that sort of string theory? according to string theory there are like 12 other dimentions or something.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by slash112

isnt that sort of string theory? according to string theory there are like 12 other dimentions or something.

---

Not quite. String theory look at particles not a spots, but as strings. 'Strings' that can be open or closed. Open stay attached to our universe, closed can travel between universes.

I believe we see in two dimensions, we can`t see up. For eksample, we are in a sheet of paper and there are several papers on top of us, but we can`t see them.

Well we live in 3D so... there is another box, rather than a paper on top of us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

Chayba don't pretend to understand astrophysics; you don't.

---

My theory explains gravity, your theory doesn't. As long as you can't explain gravity except for the three word explanation of "bending of space-time" you shouldn't be so confident that your theories are correct, because you don't even have a theory for gravity. Don't you get it?

To me, you're very much like one of those people of the Dark Ages that keeps shouting that the earth is flat. It's nothing but rusted beliefs based on nothing. But ok I'll admit you're intelligent enough. After a while, when you understand science more, you will eventually come to the same conclusions as me.

Quote:

---

My theory explains gravity

---

Go on then.

And even if you did attempt; I've already said that your aether theory is completely contradicted by actual empirical evidence. I think you're the one who doesn't get this science business.

Quote:

---

As long as you can't explain gravity except for the three word explanation of "bending of space-time" you shouldn't be so confident that your theories are correct, because you don't even have a theory for gravity. Don't you get it?

---

General relativity predicts gravity perfectly from a very small set of axioms.

Quote:

---

To me, you're very much like one of those people of the Dark Ages that keeps shouting that the earth is flat.

---

That's actually a myth, it was common knowledge that the Earth was round since the Greeks proved it scientifically. It's pretty obvious anyway. The Earth casts a round shadow on the moon and a ship's mast falls below the horizon before the body of the ship.

Quote:

---

isnt that sort of string theory? according to string theory there are like 12 other dimentions or something.

---

No.

Parallel universes are not 'other dimensions', although laymen or science fiction films sometimes use that word.

The extra dimensions in string theory are not extra universes, they are extra spacial dimensions; it's completely different.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

Go on then.

---

http://www.glafreniere.com/sa_gravity.htm

Now it's your turn. Try to explain gravity except for the three word explanation of "bending of space-time".

What the hell are you talking about now?

Why don't you tell me what 2 + 2 is without saying 4.

The bending of spacetime is what causes gravity. For a more thorough explanation, you will have to complete at least an undergraduate mathematics course.

The person who wrote your beloved website has clearly not studied General Relativity.

Quote:

---

Surely, gravity cannot "bend space". It is geometrically impossible.

---

What on Earth can that mean? It has been shown by experiment that spacetime does bend. This person seems to be living in the 19th century when people thought space was Euclidian.

It has also been shown by experiment that the aether does not exist. Please do not ignore this for the third time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

What the hell are you talking about now?

Why don't you tell me what 2 + 2 is without saying 4.

---

1+1+1+1 ;)

Quote:

---

The bending of spacetime is what causes gravity. For a more thorough explanation, you will have to complete at least an undergraduate mathematics course.

---

What causes the bending of space-time? Gravity? LOL. Nice explanation you got there.

Sadly, there is no more to the explanation than this. That's my point.You claim there is, I ask you to show it. You can't, because it simply doesn't exist. I've studied mathematics at university, but I really fail to see any connection at all with the explanation of gravity. Please do enlighten me.

Quote:

---

What on Earth can that mean? It has been shown by experiment that spacetime does bend. This person seems to be living in the 19th century when people thought space was Euclidian.

---

What is space-time? What is it made of? How can it possibly bend? What makes it bend? Time doesn't even exist to start with.

Quote:

---

It has also been shown by experiment that the aether does not exist. Please do not ignore this for the third time.

---

If aether didn't exist, what do light waves travel on then? On nothingness? All waves need a medium to travel on.

Quote:

---

What causes the bending of space-time? Gravity? LOL. Nice explanation you got there.

---

Nice strawman! LOL!

Four-momentum bends spacetime.

Quote:

---

Sadly, there is no more to the explanation than this. That's my point.You claim there is, I ask you to show it. You can't, because it simply doesn't exist. I've studied mathematics at university, but I really fail to see any connection at all with the explanation of gravity. Please do enlighten me.

---

You've studied mathematics at university? What, as part of your sandwich retail course?

You haven't studied general relativity at any rate.

Quote:

---

What is space-time? How can it possible bend? Time doesn't even exist to start with.

---

You're going to have to explain why it's impossible for it to bend.

Quote:

---

If aether didn't exist, what do light waves travel on then? On nothingness? All waves need a medium to travel on.

---

Holy crap...

Aether has been experimentally discounted. Got that yet?? No matter how many vague arguments you try to conjure up, nothing is going to change that fact.

So, what do light waves travel on then? If you know so much about science, it shouldn't be hard to answer this simply question...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

Four-momentum bends spacetime.

---

Four-momentum is used for calculation. Not for bending of space-time. LOL

Quote:

---

Four-momentum is used for calculation. Not for bending of space-time. LOL

---

You really don't know what you're talking about, do you?

Four-momentum is a property of objects. Just like mass or velocity. You asked me what property causes spacetime to bend. Four-momentum is the answer.

Quote:

---

So, what do light waves travel on then? If you know so much about science, it shouldn't be hard to answer this simply question...

---

Electromagnetic radiation is self-propogating and has the ability of being able to travel through vacuum.

Photons are the particles responsible for light. Why does a particle need a medium to travel through?

I repeat again; your vague intuitions are of no consequence anyway. Why should your human brain have any sort of ability to cope with these exotic concepts completely outside of biological experience? The plain solid fact that you can't argue away is that there is unambiguous experimental evidence for relativity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

You really don't know what you're talking about, do you?

Four-momentum is a property of objects. Just like mass or velocity. You asked me what property causes spacetime to bend. Four-momentum is the answer.

---

Exactly, it's a property. Not a cause. I never asked for a property, re-read my post.

You claim gravity is caused by bending of space-time. And the bending of space-time is caused by four-momentum? It's lke saying gravity is caused by the diamter of the earth. You can't use a property as an explanation.

Quote:

---

Electromagnetic radiation is self-propogating and has the ability of being able to travel through vacuum.

---

Nope, all waves need a medium to travel on. It's like claiming waterwaves don't need water to travel on. It's like claiming soundwaves don't need air to travel on. On top of that, vacuum doesn't even exist. Just think about it yourself for a few seconds... How can something travel through nothing?

Geezus, I can't stand to read this. Xei, you're wrong. Gravity is the bending of spacetime, but that's caused by a local concentration of mass/energy. Not 4-momentum.

Chayba, the mechanism by which the presence of mass bends spacetime is currently unknown to science. However, the connection between mass and the bending itself has been experimentally verified. If you want to learn more, I suggest you study differential geometry. It's not for laymen.

Also, your notion that waves require a medium is wrong. Maxwell's equations demand that an accelerating charge in a vacuum (or near vacuum) needs to send out a wave of energy. This is simply a matter of mathematics. Pure logic. If you want to refute something, you're going to have to refute Maxwell's equations. Good. Fucking. Luck.

Also, all of your wave examples have had a longitudinal component. Have you ever heard of transverse waves?

It's also already generally accepted in science that vacuum doesn't exist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChaybaChayba

It's also already generally accepted in science that vacuum doesn't exist.

---

There are many definitions of "vacuum". If you don't want to sound like a complete moron, it would be best to be able to differentiate between them. Maxwell's vacuum refers to a volume of space containing no charged particles or magnets, and few air molecules.

Quote:

---

Geezus, I can't stand to read this. Xei, you're wrong. Gravity is the bending of spacetime, but that's caused by a local concentration of mass/energy. Not 4-momentum.

---

Out of interest, what is your level of education?

You would appear to have at least an undergrad degree in physics or mathematics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drewmandan

Geezus, I can't stand to read this. Xei, you're wrong. Gravity is the bending of spacetime, but that's caused by a local concentration of mass/energy. Not 4-momentum.

Chayba, the mechanism by which the presence of mass bends spacetime is currently unknown to science.

---

LOL! So all this time, Xei was just pulling stuff out of his ass?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

Out of interest, what is your level of education?

You would appear to have at least an undergrad degree in physics or mathematics.

---

I'm in 3rd year math, but I'm also studying GR as a fun elective.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChaybaChayba

LOL! So all this time, Xei was just pulling stuff out of his ass? Who would've thought!

---

Actually he was right. It is 4-momentum. :(

What can I say? I'll know this stuff better by April.

Was that a bad joke? How does a property explain a mechanism?

Quote:

---

I'm in 3rd year math, but I'm also studying GR as a fun elective.

---

Nice one... where are you studying?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChaybaChayba

Was that a bad joke? How does a property explain a mechanism?

---

It doesn't. Like I said, the reason that mass bends spacetime is currently unknown. But it has been proven that mass does bend spacetime, so get used to it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

Nice one... where are you studying?

---

Harvard on Mondays to Wednesdays, Oxford on Thursdays and Fridays, and on the weekends I swing by MIT to give some post grad lectures.

Ok, ok. McMaster University. You've probably never heard of it.

Nah, I've only heard of the big ones in the US... Oxford's a crap hole though. >:l

Did Einstein make a set of axioms when developing SR/GR?

It's just that, if so, gravity could be seen as a property of those axioms.

Ask me again in 3 months. It's my understanding that the axioms were his field equations and the fact that particles travel along geodesics in their local spacetimes, which is just a reasonable extension of a Euclidean axiom that things travel in straight lines.

Okay.

But yes, if so, the 'reason' for gravity would essentially be that it is a consequence of those postulates.

Yes indeed, the reason for gravity is the postulates. Brilliant explanation! LOL it's like you're just randomly throwing a bunch of words together... that's not science.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChaybaChayba

Yes indeed, the reason for gravity is the postulates. Brilliant explanation! LOL it's like you're just randomly throwing a bunch of words together... that's not science.

---

It's not proof of anything, but it is a way to shift the burden of proof to something that is testable. A good example of this is special relativity. Einstein basically gave a couple of postulates, which are unproven statements, and showed that IF they were correct, then there are certain consequences. But who proved the postulates? Michelson with his interferometer.

Another example is light wave theory. Maxwell proved that IF his equations were correct, light waves are a logical consequence. But proving his equations was another matter.

But then experimental scientists do come in and perform experiments on these things and prove that the postulates are correct to within 0.0000000000001%, and then the scientific community calls it a day.

Ok good point, but isn't it a good indication, if nobody can explain gravity with bending of space-time, that our concept of gravity might be wrong? Or is everyone just too stupid to explain?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChaybaChayba

Ok good point, but isn't it a good indication, if nobody can explain gravity with bending of space-time, that our concept of gravity might be wrong? Or is everyone just too stupid to explain?

---

Since we're talking about the philosophy of science, we must be very careful and exact with our assertions. A physicist might casually say that gravity is "explained" by GR, but that's not technically correct. The actual statement is that gravity is explained with the assumption that masses bend spacetime. This may not be correct, in which case you will need to go back to the drawing board. But there is extremely strong and plentiful evidence correlating spacetime distortion with mass, so you can't plausibly argue that masses don't bend spacetime.

Now, there's the second and entirely separate question of how masses bend spacetime, and no one even claims to know the answer to that.

Something I never understood was the (hypothetical?) graviton particle... surely gravity is a result of GR, not particles..?

Quote:

---

Yes indeed, the reason for gravity is the postulates. Brilliant explanation! LOL it's like you're just randomly throwing a bunch of words together... that's not science.

---

Don't blame me for your lack of comprehension Chayba.

How do masses bend space-time? The mass causes pressure differentials in the ether, which cause ether flows toward the masses.

But hey, science claims ether doesn't exist, so gravity will stay a mystery until they realize ether does actually exist :P

Why on Earth would you think that?

Not only is there no reason to believe that in the first place; there is also, as I have stated three times previously, empirical proof that there is no aether.

It doesn't matter how many inane or convoluted arguments you come up with Chayba. You can't argue with the fact that the aether has been observed not to exist.

I really don't know why you want it to exist so badly in the first place.

Dude, if the ether didn't exist, everything around you would simply collapse. Everything doesn't collapse, so it's dead obvious the ether exists. You're just brainwashed into believing into the biggest lie of the 20th century: vacuum.

If you would just stop being stubborn and start to logically think about the validity of vacuum yourself, you would come to the same conclusion. But, for some reason, you refuse to think and only brainlessly copy concepts from others.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drewmandan

Since we're talking about the philosophy of science, we must be very careful and exact with our assertions. A physicist might casually say that gravity is "explained" by GR, but that's not technically correct. The actual statement is that gravity is explained with the assumption that masses bend spacetime. This may not be correct, in which case you will need to go back to the drawing board. But there is extremely strong and plentiful evidence correlating spacetime distortion with mass, so you can't plausibly argue that masses don't bend spacetime.

Now, there's the second and entirely separate question of how masses bend spacetime, and no one even claims to know the answer to that.

---

Actually, the current theory in the standard model relies on the existence of the Higgs Boson. I know that there are at least a handful of physicists who claim they know this theory to be correct, but only because they don't run into many people who can even attempt to dispute them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChaybaChayba

Dude, if the ether didn't exist, everything around you would simply collapse. Everything doesn't collapse, so it's dead obvious the ether exists. You're just brainwashed into believing into the biggest lie of the 20th century: vacuum.

If you would just stop being stubborn and start to logically think about the validity of vacuum yourself, you would come to the same conclusion. But, for some reason, you refuse to think and only brainlessly copy concepts from others.

---

Its my opinion that ether is only poor explanation for the truth, and is not that much different from the current explanation. The ether is born out of pure materialism and perhaps under that assumption (everything that is real must be made of something) it is accurate, but we've since learned that materialism isn't the whole truth of reality.

Afaik, the ether theory is just the opposite of materialism. The ether theory claims everything is ether, and matter is actually nothing but waves on the ether.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Actually, the current theory in the standard model relies on the existence of the Higgs Boson. I know that there are at least a handful of physicists who claim they know this theory to be correct, but only because they don't run into many people who can even attempt to dispute them.

---

The Higgs has absolutely nothing to do with gravity. The Standard Model has nothing to do with gravity. The Standard Model, in its mainstream form, does not touch gravity. The Higgs does have something to do with giving particles mass, but the Standard Model uses mass for other purposes, not involving gravity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChaybaChayba

Afaik, the ether theory is just the opposite of materialism. The ether theory claims everything is ether, and matter is actually nothing but waves on the ether.

---

I really wanted to give you a chance, and assumed that your rantings just came from ignorance. But now I see that you have an agenda. This discussion is over.

Well yeah I guess it kinda is a big blow to your scientific ego realizing everything you ever scientifically believed in was actually a lie. I mean, being proud all your life you know so much about science, but not even being able to explain the mechanics of the most fundamental forces of the universe like gravity isn't something to be proud about. I can, you can't, yet, I'm the ignorant one. That's very scientific of you. :P

Everything I've ever learned in science is a lie?

Please hurl yourself off the most convenient skyscraper, I'm sure gravitational force will fail to accelerate and ultimately kill you.

Quote:

---

Its my opinion that ether is only poor explanation for the truth, and is not that much different from the current explanation. The ether is born out of pure materialism and perhaps under that assumption (everything that is real must be made of something) it is accurate, but we've since learned that materialism isn't the whole truth of reality.

---

No it isn't for goodness sakes, the aether is disproved by materialism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

Everything I've ever learned in science is a lie?

Please hurl yourself off the most convenient skyscraper, I'm sure gravitational force will fail to accelerate and ultimately kill you.

---

Lol! Don't take everything I say too seriously =P

Quote:

---

No it isn't for goodness sakes, the aether is disproved by materialism.

---

Nope. Failure to prove existence does not prove non-existence. Something must fill the space, or everything would collapse. Why do you reason, that there can be vacuum? Why do you think not everything would collapse? You believe in the bending of space-time, but before space-time can bend, it must be made out of something right? How can space-time bend if it is vacuum, nothingness? How can nothingness bend?

No, they did not 'fail to prove its non existence'. It would of course be incorrect to say that a lack of proof for something's existence is a proof of its non existence.

The Michelson-Morely experiment succeeded in affirming aether's non-existence.

It sounds very much to me like you actually don't know what you're talking about to say otherwise.

The aether makes testable empirical predictions, so if those predictions do not occur, aether is incorrect.

Your weird, often nonsensical and always entirely semantic arguments saying 'if there's no aether how come the universe doesn't collapse??' are completely blown away by the hard evidence.

And I thought you were one of those types who liked to think of himself as open minded.

Why are you ignoring all my questions? How can I be open minded to your answers if you don't give them?

If gravity is caused by the bending of space-time, then this space-time must be made out of something in order for it to bend. Science claims it is made out of vacuum, nothingness. Empty space with a few molecules. But how can nothingness, empty space bend? Not only, in order for space-time to bend, must it be made out of something, it must be entirely filled with that something right? So what is space-time made out of?

Space is the set of relationships between objects. It isn't 'made' of anything. What do you even mean by space is 'made' of aether? If this aether doesn't have any physical prescence then you've just renamed space aether.

This has been proved by experiment.

No matter what arguments you make, they will be inherently wrong.

Why do you think your animal brain, built for eating, drinking, and having sex, should have any sort of intuitive grasp of these matters whatsoever?

Err, Chayba, if you suck everything out of a tank, producing a vacuum, the tank won't collapse if it is strong enough to keep atmospheric pressure from crushing it.

The bending of space time is an imagery to help you visualize what mass does to space. Because you can't comprehend it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

Space is the set of relationships between objects. It isn't 'made' of anything. What do you even mean by space is 'made' of aether? If this aether doesn't have any physical prescence then you've just renamed space aether.

---

So according to you, objects are related by "nothingness"... how does that make sense? You claim space is made out of nothing. 99% of existence is nothing. How can nothing even exist?!

I claim space is made out of someting. And that something is what is called aether.

Quote:

---

This has been proved by experiment.

No matter what arguments you make, they will be inherently wrong.

---

First show me the experiment. You can't link me up, because the experiment is non-existant. They just fooled you into believing there was actually an experiment. What experiment? What is it called? How does it go? You have no clue.

Quote:

---

Why do you think your animal brain, built for eating, drinking, and having sex, should have any sort of intuitive grasp of these matters whatsoever?

---

Why? Because that's exactly how every other scientist and philosopher before me did it. Where do you think they got their theories from? From God? Lol. And this isn't just an intuitive grasp, I've read a lot about science and philosophy. But science came to a dead end, and I had to start looking for answers in other places. Answers you can't give me either (like the mechanics of gravity for example..).

Quote:

---

First show me the experiment. You can't link me up, because the experiment is non-existant. They just fooled you into believing there was actually an experiment. Where is this experiment? What is it called? How does it go? You have no clue.

---

Quote:

---

The Michelson-Morely experiment succeeded in affirming aether's non-existence.

---

Congratulations for not knowing one of the most important and well known experiments in the history of science.

Quote:

---

Why? Because that's exactly how every other scientist and philosopher before me did it. Where do you think they got their theories from? From God? Lol. And this isn't just an intuitive grasp, I've read a lot about science and philosophy. But science came to a dead end, and I had to start looking for answers in other places. Answers you can't give me either (like the mechanics of gravity for example..).

---

No, scientists use evidence which is often completely contradictory to intuition.

For more information, see the entirety of quantum mechanics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

Congratulations for not knowing one of the most important and well known experiments in the history of science.

---

Lol. Details details... http://www.glafreniere.com/sa_Michelson.htm.

Afaik, it was the most famous failed experiment in the history of science.

Stop telling me what I don't know. A second ago you were telling me I didn't know what the experiment was when I had clearly given its exact name. You were objectively wrong then and have consistently been so for the entirety of this thread.

The experiment shows that the speed of light does not depend on your velocity. Special relativity results, along with the mutual exclusion of aether.

Einstein derived the Fitzgerald–Lorentz contraction from the relativity postulate; thus his description of special relativity was also consistent with the apparently null results of most experiments (though not, as was recognized at the 1928 meeting, with Miller’s observed seasonal effects). Today special relativity is generally considered the “solution” to the Michelson–Morley null result. However, this was not universally recognized at the time. As late as 1920, Einstein himself still spoke of a different concept of ether that was not a “ponderable medium” but something of significance nonetheless.

Albert Einstein said that space is "endowed with physical quantities," but that "this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media. The idea of motion may not be applied to it." (from "Ether and the Theory of Relativity", an address delivered May 5, 1920 at the University of Leyden).

Today the aether is regarded as a superseded scientific theory.

(Also copied and pasted from Wikipedia. You truly have no grasp of these matters at all...).

Could I ask what the physical consequences of your aether would be?

By your ridiculous statement about the universe contracting without it you seem to think that all mass in the universe experiences a force due to some magical source of atmospheric pressure.

Yes indeed, I'm very aware of the fact that the aether theory has already been regarded as false for over 100 years. I'm just proposing a new perspective because the old perspective can't explain the fundamental forces of the universe, like gravity. Even Albert Einstein said that space is "endowed with physical quantities". Space must be made out of something. I just call it aether, but I make no claims to what exactly this aether is. To me it just seems obvious, just like it seemed obvious to Albert Einstein, that space must be made out of something.

My theory is, that nothingness, empty space, can't exist. How do you prove that nothingness doesn't exist?

That isn't what Einstein said. Einstein was talking about the fact that the laws of the universe permeate every point in spacetime in the universe.

If the aether doesn't have any physical effects then it is not a physical theory.

The aether does have physical effects.. gravity for example.

Oh wait, gravity is the bending of space-time. Space-time is empty space. So gravity is the bending of empty space. Gravity is the bending of nothingness? Lol.

I don't even know why you're bothering, Xei.

This kid doesn't care what you have to say, he just wants to pull strawmen to piss you off.

Science can't fully explain gravity. That's a fact. Nothing to do with strawmen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChaybaChayba

Oh wait, gravity is the bending of space-time. Space-time is empty space. So gravity is the bending of empty space. Gravity is the bending of nothingness? Lol.

---

This is a straw man. Don't pretend you aren't trolling.

Quote:

---

Science can't fully explain gravity.

---

And the aether can't remotely explain it.

Quote:

---

The aether does have physical effects.. gravity for example.

---

Nope, that's general relativity.

Which has been experimentally verified.

Unlike the aether.

Which has been experimentally disproved.

Yeah ok. My theory is only a theory. But it is trying to fill up the holes of science. I'm not against current science, I'm just pointing out not everything is figured out yet and that we shouldn't stop thinking. Instead we should keep coming up with new theories to fill up the holes. Einstein is not going to do it. He's death.

I... Don't think you understand. The aether isn't 'new', and it certainly isn't helping to solve anything if its existence has been disproved :?