Total Posts:9|Showing Posts:1-9
Jump to topic:

The Meta-Universe

quarklet
Posts: 4
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2011 11:14:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
From within our universe, neither a center or edge exists. However, a few years ago, I read ours is 15,000 lightyears thick and 13.7 billion wide. I suppose the latter to be based upon galaxy censuses because more must have been counted "horizontally" than "vertically". Therefore, I suppose the universe must have expanded more in one plane than in another. The spacetime of our universe is what expanded and each of its three hundred billion galaxies is equidistant from its point of origin. This is similar to saying each cell in our bodies is equidistant from the body's conception as a fertilized egg in space and time. But from outside our bodies, these do have spatial centers.

Thus, from outside our universe, a spatial center must exist, as well as edges, because it is an expanding disk! This means that a meta-universe must exist. Several other arguments for it also do: if matter exists, so must anti-matter and that must exist outside our universe because it doesn't within (except in labs); our universe isn't an exception- one must have existed before ours and others will after;
the mysteries of missing mass, Dark Energy, and Dark Matter are cleared up by a meta-universe's existing because that provides the extra mass and energy required to explain ours.

In short, a meta-universe is the pond into which ours, the stone, was thrown 13.7 billion years ago. As ours expands, it ripples in density waves across its parent body.

Steve
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2011 11:45:01 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
the central bulge of the milky way GALAXY is approx. 15000 light years thick. the OBSERVABLE UNIVERSE (which includes our galaxy but also billions of others) is approx. 13.7 billion light years in every direction... and is definitely a sphere not a disk. so i have no idea what you're talking about.
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
quarklet
Posts: 4
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2011 2:14:47 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
The article I read, several years ago in National Geographic, indicated the universe was much more "horizontal" than "verticle", meaning that more galaxies had been detected in what amounted to a plane. While I did read the Wikkipedia article in your post and saw that they said the universe is a sphere, I also saw that many of its mega-structures are "walls", or planar. Whether or not the universe is 15,000 lightyears thick or 15,000,000 (sometimes people make these mistakes), I get the impression that what was once spherical became planar, or flattened out, over time as it expanded. This is according to galaxy censuses from about ten years ago.

Steve
By the way, no one addressed my other points...
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2011 3:43:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/2/2011 2:14:47 PM, quarklet wrote:
The article I read, several years ago in National Geographic, indicated the universe was much more "horizontal" than "verticle", meaning that more galaxies had been detected in what amounted to a plane.

http://astro.uchicago.edu...
http://en.wikipedia.org...

I get the impression that what was once spherical became planar, or flattened out, over time as it expanded.

http://en.wikipedia.org...(cosmology)

By the way, no one addressed my other points...

Because most of it was pure speculation. There was little to address. The video addressed the nature of whether the current universe will 'crunch' or not, as well as the shape - it's worth watching, since it will catch you up on a lot of current cosmology.
quarklet
Posts: 4
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2011 9:48:48 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I assume responsibility for my mistake on the depth of the universe- the article I read probably stated 15,000,000 rather than 15,000 lightyears. The article I read in Wikkepedia stated the universe may or may not be spherical but only is so from Earth's perspective. What is observable isn't necessarilly observed. Another article I read in Discover stated that astronomers were puzzled by a lack of galaxies when looking through Ursa Major. This was about ten years ago. Maybe they have discovered more since then. I had the distinct impression that many more were observed when looking east and west rather than say, north. Therefore, I prefer to rely upon galaxy censuses. What is speculative about this? I think I'm being conservative.

The problem of missing mass was first presented in connection with whether or not the universe will re-contract. Researchers pointed out that the universe wouldn't unless more mass could be found to provide the gravity required. Eventually, they decided they didn't need to because it just wasn't there and the universe was controlled by Dark Energy. It would just keep on expanding forever. To this, I reply, "Then why are we here?". I refuse to accept that the universe is a one-time event and that no others ever existed. As Nietzsche postulated, they recur eternally. Researchers also think this since they "speculate" upon this same theme. They can do so, but I can't because I'm not in their "club"- isn't this what you think?

To suggest a meta-universe exists solves this problem of "missing mass" because this would be the source of that. Our universe would expand into its parent only to dissipate but eventually another would take its place because the meta-universe would be where the "missing mass" for other universes would exist. This is speculative but imakes sense and very much about cosmology is so. Do you also tell cosmologists their speculations are worthless or refrain because they are enfranchised in universities and are therefore authorities and you only accept your information from them? This seems smug, frankly.

These "authorities" admit the universe has become more puzzling rather than less in the last twenty years and they aren't sure of their own knowlege anymore. If you don't believe me, ask them yourself. Also, you might try reading some science magazines- Wikkipedia and other internet domains aren't necessarlly the last word on every subject.

Finally, a point you passed over as "speculative" was the one I made about anti-matter. I said anti-matter doesn't occur in our universe except in labs- this isn't speculation. However, physicists concede it must occur somewhere because it's just the flip side of matter. If it doesn't occur here, it must elsewhere, as in an anti-matter universe. This derives from the logic of what we know and therefore is a projection (an eductated guess). In other words, this is allowed when facts justify it.

I already know that your reponses will be condesending and dismissive if you have any because you have opinions the same as we all have noses and that you will at most tell me to watch a movie and "catch up" on cosmology. If you're satisfied with what you know and feel I haven't anything to offer of any value, then thanks in advance, and thanks as well for pointing out my mistake, but I have made my points well and deserve a proper response. If you can't do this, then let's agree to disagree...

Steve
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2011 10:43:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/2/2011 9:48:48 PM, quarklet wrote:
Wikkepedia stated the universe may or may not be spherical but only is so from Earth's perspective.

The Earth's perspective =/= the Universe - as of current cosmology the Universe is near enough to be flat to be called as such - as the wiki says, and the video demonstrates.

What is observable isn't necessarilly observed.

Huh?

This was about ten years ago.

Great?

many more were observed when looking east and west rather than say, north.

If you have something to link to to explain your position then great, since it makes little sense.

specualtive

I was talking about + dimensions.

Then why are we here?

How is this related to anything else?

I refuse to accept that the universe is a one-time event and that no others ever existed.

Great. You don't belong in the science forum then.

As Nietzsche postulated, they recur eternally.

As current measures show, this one will not crunch, so ...

isn't this what you think?

What are you referring to?

To suggest a meta-universe exists solves this problem of "missing mass" because this would be the source of that.

Sure. I can suggest Batman is responsible for a lot of crime in the area. Neither assertion does us much good as is. A solution =/= a correct one.

Do you also tell cosmologists their speculations are worthless or refrain because they are enfranchised in universities and are therefore authorities and you only accept your information from them? This seems smug, frankly.

Sure, if you like to strawman I guess. I'm merely going off current knowledge. I have no issues with any given hypothesis so long as it's meaningfully testable and not equated to being correct merely because it was postulated.

These "authorities" admit the universe has become more puzzling rather than less in the last twenty years and they aren't sure of their own knowlege anymore.

Hmm. Mysterious consensus. Knowledge is hierarchical. Learning more necessitates the ability to see what else requires and can be learnt. This is what is generally referred to as the increasing mysteries. The more we know the more we can determine what can be known, which leads to increases in knowledge.

Also, you might try reading some science magazines- Wikkipedia and other internet domains aren't necessarlly the last word on every subject.

>.< I'm providing you with easy access material since it's apparent you are behind current cosmology, by your own admittance.

I said anti-matter doesn't occur in our universe except in labs- this isn't speculation.

Erm no. http://www.universetoday.com...

as in an anti-matter universe.

Matter was favoured over antimatter after the Big Bang. However anti matter is still a component of the universe.

that you will at most tell me to watch a movie and "catch up" on cosmology.

Sure. Why wouldn't you? Unless you aren't really here to ask questions and learn. *shrugs* Wrong forum I'd suggest.

and deserve a proper response.

What is a proper response besides 'these points are in error', 'perhaps you should learn more about this' etc., where relevant?
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2011 10:57:40 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/2/2011 9:48:48 PM, quarklet wrote:
I assume responsibility for my mistake on the depth of the universe- the article I read probably stated 15,000,000 rather than 15,000 lightyears.

no idea what you're talking about when you say the "depth of the universe". sorry.

The article I read in Wikkepedia stated the universe may or may not be spherical but only is so from Earth's perspective. What is observable isn't necessarilly observed.

meh what they're saying is that we can only possibly observe objects within a 13.7 billion lightyear radius because only light from that distance or closer has had time to reach us since the big bang. we have no idea what the universe is like outside that radius, and indeed there is much speculation on what the "shape" of the universe is. we just don't know.

Another article I read in Discover stated that astronomers were puzzled by a lack of galaxies when looking through Ursa Major. This was about ten years ago. Maybe they have discovered more since then. I had the distinct impression that many more were observed when looking east and west rather than say, north. Therefore, I prefer to rely upon galaxy censuses. What is speculative about this? I think I'm being conservative.

it seems like you're confusing two ideas here. the problem of "missing mass" which lead to the concept of "dark matter" and the issue of the large scale structure of the universe, or how galaxies are arranged in the observable part thereof.

The problem of missing mass was first presented in connection with whether or not the universe will re-contract. Researchers pointed out that the universe wouldn't unless more mass could be found to provide the gravity required. Eventually, they decided they didn't need to because it just wasn't there and the universe was controlled by Dark Energy. It would just keep on expanding forever.

there is a lot of missing mass in addition to the dark energy that seems to be pushing the current expansion. i think current ratio of mass/energy in our universe is something like 73% dark energy, 23% dark matter, and 4% normal matter/energy that we interact with :D

To this, I reply, "Then why are we here?". I refuse to accept that the universe is a one-time event and that no others ever existed. As Nietzsche postulated, they recur eternally. Researchers also think this since they "speculate" upon this same theme. They can do so, but I can't because I'm not in their "club"- isn't this what you think?

researchers shouldn't make random assertions they can't back up either

To suggest a meta-universe exists solves this problem of "missing mass" because this would be the source of that. Our universe would expand into its parent only to dissipate but eventually another would take its place because the meta-universe would be where the "missing mass" for other universes would exist. This is speculative but imakes sense and very much about cosmology is so. Do you also tell cosmologists their speculations are worthless or refrain because they are enfranchised in universities and are therefore authorities and you only accept your information from them? This seems smug, frankly.

only when they try to share them as proven facts when they're nothing but hypotheses. maybe the missing mass is actually contained in other dimensions and the string theorists are right. or maybe its interaction with mass from other universees somehow. we have no idea. you have no idea. as your speculations have no backing, thats all they are.

These "authorities" admit the universe has become more puzzling rather than less in the last twenty years and they aren't sure of their own knowlege anymore. If you don't believe me, ask them yourself. Also, you might try reading some science magazines- Wikkipedia and other internet domains aren't necessarlly the last word on every subject.

true, but that doesn't make you any more knowledgeable

Finally, a point you passed over as "speculative" was the one I made about anti-matter. I said anti-matter doesn't occur in our universe except in labs- this isn't speculation.

nope, just false. everytime a neutron decays into a proton an antineutrino is produced, which is, in fact, a form of anti-matter. and the decay of free neutrons is extremely common. they have a half life of approx 10 minutes.

However, physicists concede it must occur somewhere because it's just the flip side of matter. If it doesn't occur here, it must elsewhere, as in an anti-matter universe.

lol. theres no requirement for an "anti matter" universe. physicists are currently puzzled over why matter so dominates over antimatter in the composition of the universe.

This derives from the logic of what we know and therefore is a projection (an eductated guess). In other words, this is allowed when facts justify it.

they've actually observed antimatter. have you observed a meta-universe?


Steve

cheers steve!
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
quarklet
Posts: 4
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2011 12:06:48 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
To Belle:
As I think about what you said three months ago (sorry about the delay), your response that anti-matter does exist in the universe because it does as anti-neutrinos is true but misleading. Physicists do observe anti-matter as small particles such as anti-neutrinos and positrons. What I meant was that anti-matter doesn't exist as anti-neutrons or anti-protons except in their labs. Anti-particles are produced more often than their opposites. This is known as "chirality" or handedness, meaning that sub-particles have a preference similar to that of people (and animals in general). The Solar System is counter-clockwise mostly in its motions, as well. But you know this...

You kept berating me about "speculation without fact". You have a point. When I suggested a meta-universe, I did speculate. My point was that so do cosmologists. They speculate upon Strings and whether or not other universes exist. Mathemeticians have imaginary numbers. Imagination, when combined with logic, is a tool in the sciences. A meta-universe seems to me to be logically required to explain why we're here because an endlessly expanding universe only explains our existence as a possible one-time incident. Against this, I don't think the universe is a fluke but a regular occurrence. In Nature, events are a product of regular processes which then make them observable.

We don't know why universal constants exist, such as the "g" for gravity. We now speculate about Dark Matter and Energy. I suggested that these could be explained if we considered our universe to be part of a greater whole. The problem of anti-matter might be explainable if a meta-universe had produced two sub-universes: one of matter and the other of anti-matter. These two would then orbit their meta-center until disintegrating back into it. Then the cycle of eternity would begin again.

Scholars knew that the Greeks had proven in theory that Earth was round, but Columbus and Magellan proved it in fact. Theory is often ahead of fact and indicates the direction research should move in.

Always cheerful
Steve