The cosmic conspiracy.

Cheers guys i consider my mind expanded for sure. I take it then we are on a flat plain and that the universe has no depth even though we are surrounded at all points by objects? This seems impossible to me although i could easily see that this is just my mind not yet fully grasping the idea of what expansion really means. Are we really in a four dimensional but flat universe? My mind is telling me that some of the objects must be expanding relative to each other as in going the same way.
If space is expanding and is at least 3 dimensional then the light wavelengths must be bending as well as stretching, if they bend any galaxy a sufficient distance away would be invisible as it would be over the horizon???
Haha i think i need to go do that homework someone mentioned earlier.

What do you mean by depth? The illustrations that you have been given, such as one dimensional lines expanding and two dimensional balloon surfaces are provided as simple analogies because neither you nor the rest of us can picture a three dimension space expanding in all its dimensions. In fact even when we picture the two dimensional surface, our mind forces us to picture the surfaces embedded in a three dimensional space. Nope, it just doesn't work that way. But it is indeed the case that some galaxies are so far away that space between them and us is expanding enough so that light from those galaxies can never reach us. I'm not sure I would describe that as bending, but the phenomenon is referred to as a horizon of sorts.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

The human mind is incredibly limited in its' ability to intuitively grasp concepts beyond those for which we evolved (eating, reproducing, navigating our three-dimensional world). Our minds can't readily conceive of the universe's three dimensional expansion (and relation to the fourth dimension of time). This difficulty becomes even more profound when we consider models that include a greater number of dimensions, such as M-theory's 11-dimensional universe.

Nah, that's easy. First you consider it in n dimensions, then you let n equal 11.(Old mathematician joke.)---Is the teapot in your avatar an allusion to Russell?

quote:

---

Is the teapot in your avatar an allusion to Russell?

---

It is . Bertrand Russell is one of my favorite 20th-century philosophers.

Right ive been doing some of my home work in regard matter being produced from energy. Quarks are the fundamental building blocks that make up protons and neutrons, im sure this is old news to you all but these quarks are held together by the strong nuclear force. Now when you try to pull quarks apart (they are always in twos or threes never single) the strong nuclear force gets increasingly more powerful the further the quarks are apart, until at a certain point the energy is so great that a further two or three quarks are produced. This is actual pure energy being converted into mass, amazing, especially when quarks make up protons and neutrons which form the nucleus of all atoms. So the building blocks for everything can come from nothing. Ha now i just need to do the electron side of my homework and i will practically be an atomic physicist.
Here is a hypothesis from that knowledge. At the start of the big bang there was a single 3 quark triplet and a single 2 quark twin? So the universe consists of these two groups when for what ever reason expansion starts along with the mysterious law breaking inflation period, could this early expansion and inflation been of strong enough force to pull these quarks sufficiently apart to cause an immense spewing forth of both energy and matter? As soon as one group 'reproduced' they would instantly do it again and keep doing it until the force of expansion dropped below the required level.
So instead of energy causing expansion, expansion caused energy.
Crazy i know but imagination is not lacking in this one ha.

Imagine a dough ball as it's baking in an oven. The dough expands in all directions as it bakes. This is space expanding. If the dough includes sunflower seeds, these are like objects in space. As the dough expands, the seeds get farther apart without moving from their relative positions in the dough.

Wow subbie you have blown my mind, i posted in the thread 'what is the creationists theory for the origin of light' in i said i thought the parable of the mustard seed was Jesus describing the big bang (my beliefs anyone is free to think what they want) Now you have just used the analogy of rising dough to describe the expansion of the universe. This reminded me that the very next parable to the mustard seed is Matthew 13:33 which is Jesus describing how the kingdom of heaven is like dough that rises. Love it ha.

First we should clear one thing up. The Big Bang IS creationism, just without mentioning a god. The difference is the Bible says God created the heavens and the earth, science says a singularity did it, although no mention of how the singularity came to be, odd since science does not allow matter or energy to be created from nothing, or anything to exist for eternity, (laws of Thermodynamics).The theory of the Big Bang arose after a priest, Georges Lematre, offered a theory for the expansion of the universe. It had only just recently been observed that our galaxy was not the only one. Before then our galaxy was the only universe in existence according to scientists. A theory of expansion using redshft as distance usually applied in error to Hubble as his name attaches more weight. An interpretation Hubble did not agree fit his data best. Hubble believed his data was better explained because of an as yet undiscovered cause.

quote:

---

Hubble believed that his count data gave a more reasonable result concerning spatial curvature if the redshift correction was made assuming no recession. To the very end of his writings he maintained this position, favouring (or at the very least keeping open) the model where no true expansion exists, and therefore that the redshift "represents a hitherto unrecognized principle of nature."

---

Georges Lematre - Wikipedia
Edwin Hubble - WikipediaI do believe in science wholeheartedly, just not the silly theories that have never been based upon anything but dreams such as Dark Matter, Black Holes, a contained nuclear reactor in the sun, etc., but the experimental data can tell us a lot about the universe.I also know that 99.99% of the universe is plasma, and plasma is an electrified medium and THE fundamental state of all matter. What's all this have to do with anything you ask? Being that it is indisputable that electric currents control in the universe, could it be as simple as a mind of electric currents across the galaxies of the universe, just as your thought is nothing more than an electrical current across the neurons of your brain????? You are the image of god, and not because you are flesh, but because you had the breath of life (electricity - god is power - energy) given to you. You could not think, not move, not debate what is or isn't without that small electric current that is everywhere, in your brain, along your nerves to every muscle, everywhere we have ever looked in fact.NASA Spacecraft Make New Discoveries about Northern Lights | Science Mission Directorate
http://www.readcube.com/articles/10.1038/nature09928
NASA - Satellite Footprints Seen in Jupiter's Aurora E=mc^2, I quite agree!Edited by justatruthseeker, : Broken links fixed.

No, it isn't.Big Bang cosmology is about tracing evidence back toward the singularity. But it never actually reaches the singularity itself. It just approaches it.Some kinds of speculation about the singularity itself might amount to creationism. But that's going beyond what you can find in BB.

That is a massive misconception of Big Bang cosmology."The singularity" is not a discrete entity. It's not a causal force for anything. It's not even remotely how a singularity is portrayed on "Star Trek."The word "singularity" is in essence a placeholder for "our math based on regular physics seems to break down here, so we lack the ability to accurately predict the conditions of the Universe here."We know that the Universe is expanding due to, basically, direct observation. The red-shift of light from distant galaxies (particularly the fact that the red-shift increases the farther away the galaxies are) means that the space between objects that are not gravitationally bound to each other is increasing/ It's just like dots drawn on a balloon that is then inflated - the dots that are farther away will move apart faster than the dots that are closer together. You can try this at home. Even lines on a rubber band work.If we extrapolate this expansion backward in time, we see that everything moves closer together, and space shrinks - the distance between the galaxies becomes smaller. The farther back we go, the smaller the space in the observable Universe becomes...and the more densely packed the matter becomes, because there's less space to distribute it in. Increasing density increases the temperature, so we also know that the Universe was much hotter in the past.This was verified in part by the discovery of the Cosmic Microwave Background - a radiation echo, essentially, of the extremely hot, dense nature of the Universe a few billion years in the past.But what happens if we continue to extrapolate backward? Eventually, all of space, all of matter, would exist in a single, dimensionless point - with infinite density, among other things that just don;t work with your typical physics equations. This is the singularity - it's not a "thing," per se. It's just a way of saying that we don;t have a model for this state of the Universe, yet.You've probably heard that black holes have a singularity at their core, and this is true as well....but that doesn't mean necessarily that every black hole is another Big Bang waiting to happen. The word "singularity" doesn't actually refer to any sort of "first cause," or any cause at all. It merely means that "our existing equations don't work here, conditions are too extreme."At no point does the Big Bang model point to the creation of matter or energy - all of the mass/energy of the Universe existed at all points of time. The notion of a "cause" is somewhat tricky when it comes to the singularity, though, as this is one of the examples of normal models breaking down.There's an easy enough analogy to help explain, though.Imagine that the Universe is a globe. North-South denote time, with North being the past, and South being the future. East-West represent the spacial dimensions of length/width/height.As we move South from the North Pole, we see that space becomes larger, mirroring the expansion of space that we see in reality.But what happens if we try to go farther North than the North Pole?It doesn't make sense. You cannot, be definition, go farther north than the North Pole.Asking about "before" or a "cause" for the Big Bang is similar. A more accurate description of the problem is that mass warps space-time - and with literally all of the mass of the Universe existing at a single point, the warping of space-time is impossible to describe with current models. Time could wrap in on itself, something like what the North Pole does on a globe, where traveling North suddenly turns into traveling South - so traveling into the past might suddenly turn into traveling into the future as you pass that single point in time.The fact is that we just don;t know - but the reality doesn't look at all like what you just described. "The Singularity" is in no way a synonym for "God."

How can you trace it back in time, when there is no accelerating universe to trace it back too? Plasma redshift has been observed in the lab agreeing with Hubble's interpretation, yet never once have you ever considered there might be another explanation. Plasma is 99.99% of the universe.
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0401420Of course a Black Hole doesn't mean another BB waiting to happen, there exist no such entities as black holes in the heart of galaxies except in a BB cosmology because they can no longer justify the power required to be given to objects because of the error in their redshift = distance belief.The WMAP plot? This question cuts both ways. That is, since NASA knows that galaxies form in gigantic strings, there must be a filamentary structure to the cosmos (intergalactic space). If WMAP does not show any such filamentation, this calls the cosmological interpretation of that data into question. As it happens, recent radiotelescopic data reported by Gerrit Verschuur of the University of Memphis indicates filaments are present in HI observations.
hese HI clouds are almost certainly interstellar (inside our galaxy). Verschuur states:

quote:

---

The high frequency continuum emission data were obtained by the WMAP whose purpose was to study structure in the early universe. If the continuum emission peaks are in fact cosmological in origin, there should be absolutely no relationship between those signals and the galactic HI structure. Instead, in the examples shown above, close associations between the two classes of structure are found.

---

If confirmed, this argues that the WMAP observations have a strong if not dominant component as a result of processes occurring in interstellar space. So, is WMAP data just galactic noise generated within (or near to) the Milky Way?
There is evidence that this is the case.
We know of the existence of huge galaxy clusters. If the WMAP data actually comes from the farthest points in the universe why do we not see those huge strings of galaxy groupings silhouetted (back lighted) by that distant light continuum?
I repeat your evidence back at you:
Where are the current streams? that NASA knows must be there?Verschuur, G.L. Interstellar Space and Possible Detection of Related Continuum Emission IEEE Trans on Plasma Sci. Vol 35, No. 4. Aug 2007, pp 759
- 766.
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0605599
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0602500Edited by justatruthseeker, : provided linkEdited by justatruthseeker, : Adding LinksEdited by justatruthseeker, : No reason given.

No, the singularity is not some "thing" that can "do". Its an asymptote that represents a possible state of the universe. The universe still exists at all points in time in the Big Bang Theory, so there's no point where it could be created from. They're based on more than just dreams... namely, lots and lots of math. In fact, way more math than dreams. So much so, that you couldn't even dream this shit up. What!? Surely that can't be right. Where did you get this? Could it be? Sure, I suppose it could be almost anything. How quickly you go from "it could" to "it is"... So where's your data?You say you don't believe silly theories that have never been based upon anything but dreams, and that experimental data can tell us a lot about the universe, so... let's have it.Or did you just dream that up? We don't debate by link. Express the points in those links in your own words and provide them for backup.

Please spare me the rants, don't take me for some scientific illiterate, that's your first mistake. Your second is never reading anything about your own theory, just what you have heard repeated over and over.Big Bang Theory

quote:

---

According to the standard theory, our universe sprang into existence as "singularity" around 13.7 billion years ago. What is a "singularity" and where does it come from? Well, to be honest, we don't know for sure. Singularities are zones which defy our current understanding of physics. They are thought to exist at the core of "black holes." Black holes are areas of intense gravitational pressure. The pressure is thought to be so intense that finite matter is actually squished into infinite density (a mathematical concept which truly boggles the mind). These zones of infinite density are called "singularities." Our universe is thought to have begun as an infinitesimally small, infinitely hot, infinitely dense, something - a singularity. Where did it come from? We don't know. Why did it appear? We don't know.

---

So in reality you have NO math to base anything on as relativity completely fails at your imaginary event horizon. Since it seems everyones theory is as good as another's at this point I would say the fact that the math breaks down should give you a clue something is not right in wonderland.I don't need to express the points in those links, your scientists did it for me quite clearly.
NASA - Satellite Footprints Seen in Jupiter's Aurora

quote:

---

These emissions, produced by electric currents generated by the satellites, flow along Jupiter's magnetic field, bouncing in and out of the upper atmosphere. They are unlike anything seen on Earth.

---

99.99% plasma is common knowledge, except to those that deny those electric currents they see in space. Even NASA will tell you that.
NASA - The Electric Atmosphere: Plasma Is Next NASA Science Target
Plasma - Wikipedia(physics)So it might be just a tad bit important to learn a little about what plasma is and how it behaves, don't you think?

Two questions.What is your preferred explanation for energy produced by the sun, and please help me understand why you think there is no evidence supporting the conclusion that the sun produces energy by nuclear fusion. How do you know this? Yikes.