Mortal Monkey on 20/7/2006 at 15:42
I see. But do you deny that the current expansion of matter in the universe stems from an explosion in one form or the other? If not, how are these related?
descenterace on 20/7/2006 at 16:58
Picture a sheet of rubber with dots drawn on it. When it's stretched, the dots move apart because the space between them is getting larger. But the dots aren't moving on the sheet.
Really, this is primary school stuff.
Mortal Monkey on 20/7/2006 at 17:37
So how do you explain the thermal development? And why isn't the distances within our own solar system growing? Obviosuly primary school stuff.
Ultraviolet on 20/7/2006 at 19:05
Quote Posted by descenterace
Picture a sheet of rubber with dots drawn on it. When it's stretched, the dots move apart because the space between them is getting larger. But the dots aren't moving on the sheet.
Really, this is primary school stuff.
Primary school? Shit, I knew I should have been paying more attention in third grade when we went over theoretical physics and such.
But there's still something outside the sheet of rubber in that example. A hand pulling it, or something causing it to be influenced. Some idea I've heard is that the singularity reaches its high density limit and inverts or something -- like, actual inversion of its measurable axes. I don't know. I can't think of a reason that it would rebound outward along the same axes if its near-infinite mass was always drawing it in on itself. Oh oh oh! Unless that's where those other 6 dimensions come in...
Quote Posted by Mortal Monkey
So how do you explain the thermal development? And why isn't the distances within our own solar system growing? Obviosuly primary school stuff.
We might be at the end of the stretch and headed back to collapse into a denser state, or it we might be still on the way out but just moving immeasurably slowly, or the "size" of our universe might be something that we're perceptually hard-wired for, or the special geometry of space might make it not even matter for all practical purposes, or... Obviously primary school stuff.
(So have we all been arrogant enough yet?)
Mortal Monkey on 20/7/2006 at 19:22
Well, the evidence that this once was a large mass of superheated matter which later "solidified" into gasses rather than a tiny miniature 'lol internets' has to count for something, aye?
Agent Monkeysee on 20/7/2006 at 20:28
Quote Posted by Mortal Monkey
I see. But do you deny that the current expansion of matter in the universe stems from an explosion in one form or the other? If not, how are these related?
The matter isn't expanding. The universe itself is expanding and taking matter (and energy) with it.
Expanding into
what is the million dollar question and that's where all this higher-dimensional topology comes into play.
Quote Posted by Mortal Monkey
Well, the evidence that this once was a large mass of superheated matter which later "solidified" into gasses rather than a tiny miniature 'lol internets' has to count for something, aye?
You're reading the evidence wrong. The
entire Universe was a superdense singularity. Not all the matter and energy in the Universe,
the entire Universe. That includes space and time. It sounds like you've heard of this Big Bang thing here and there but no one's actually explained it to you. It's NEVER been a dense ball of matter hanging in empty space. It's never even been
proposed to be such because the evidence that first suggested the Universe was expanding from a singularity always made it plain that it was more than simply a ball of exploding matter. Space, time, and everything in it is *part* of the Big Bang and has *always* been part of the Big Bang theory since it was proposed way back in the day to help explain Edwin Hubble's observations in the early 20th century.
Really just look this up on Wikipedia or something. The basic details of the Big Bang theory were layed down like 70 years ago and have been widely accepted since and it's kind of silly that I have to keep explaining it everytime it comes up in a thread. This is fundamental space science and if you people are really that interested then do some digdang legwork of your own.
TAKE A LOOK READ A BOOK
craigsimas on 20/7/2006 at 22:04
In the reading I have been doing about this topic there is a school of thought that says gravity is the universal constant, not time. In a nut shell, all matter is held together by the 'gravity' of atoms attracting eachother, and the mechanism of time is only relative, we made time up to deal with our world, and society. Gravity is the fuel our universe runs on, so some dimentions could (according to the theroy) be gravity based, not time based.
Mortal Monkey on 20/7/2006 at 22:23
Monkeysee, I think you are forgetting that The Big Bang is not a sigularity, but an event that is still going on. And while the universe originally was, as you say, a singularity and not a ball of matter, much of it turned into matter fairly early on Big Bang's event horizon.
If it was indeed only our universe that was expanding, our metrics would expand with it. But we are clearly going against the force of gravity here, so I suggest you come up with a different solution.
Stitch on 20/7/2006 at 22:30
I suggest you come up with
I suggest
I
MONKEYSEE ISN'T MAKING THIS UP YOU RIDICULOUS RETARD
Mortal Monkey on 20/7/2006 at 22:33
Now now, no need to go totally apeshit, Sir Stich. I never refuted any of Monkeysee's explanations, but I found them unsatisfactory in explaining the situation propperly.
