Stitch on 20/7/2006 at 22:40
Quote Posted by Mortal Monkey
I never refuted any of Monkeysee's explanations
suddenly displaying some self-awareness isn't going to save you now mister
Para?noid on 20/7/2006 at 22:57
Quote Posted by Mortal Monkey
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.
What that says is that you will not listen to anything anyone has to say until it agrees with your fragmented, embryonic and unfortunately confused opinion.
BTW I'm still waiting for someone to confirm as to wether my manifold conjecture is along the right tracks because tbh I don't quite understand this whole thing
craigsimas on 20/7/2006 at 23:08
Quote Posted by Mortal Monkey
But we are clearly going against the force of gravity here, so I suggest you come up with a different solution.
The force of gravity has nothing to do with expansion. Look at a sun when it turns into a red giant. Granted it has less gravity then in it's smaller yellow form, or even after when it goes into a White dwarf. It expands reguardless of it's gravity. Gravity holds things in place as if they are pinned to a giant sheet of rubber. They will stay within thier respective 'zones' but you can stretch the rubber, essentially 'expanding' the universe. Especially if you follow the Hyperbolic Universe Theroy. Check out this link (
http://www.sciencenews.org/pages/sn_arc98/2_21_98/bob1.htm)
Mortal Monkey on 21/7/2006 at 00:20
Thank you very much for your brief commentary in this thread, Stitch. You are dismissed.
In the mean time I've actually gained a clearer pespective on the Big Bang theory thanks to Sir Monkeysee and craigsimas. You have my thanks.
Agent Monkeysee on 21/7/2006 at 00:28
Quote Posted by Mortal Monkey
Monkeysee, I think you are forgetting that The Big Bang is not a sigularity, but an event that is still going on.
That's not what singularity means, goofball. A singularity is a point of infinite density and zero dimension. Clearly the Universe is not still a singularity. The Big Bang
is still going on but I didn't say the Big Bang IS a singularity.
A singularity is a thing. The Big Bang is an ongoing event.
Quote Posted by Mortal Monkey
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.
I have no idea what you're talking about and since this isn't "my" solution I'm not particularly inclined to come up with something better for you.
Quote Posted by craigsimas
The force of gravity has nothing to do with expansion.
That's not true either. If the Universe had enough mass its combined gravity could be enough to reverse universal expansion and cause a Big Crunch. All current evidence, however, suggests the Universe does not contain enough mass, and to make things worse the expansion appears to be accelerating for some unknown reason.
Para?noid on 21/7/2006 at 00:34
I REALLY WANT TO KNOW IF I'M ON THE RIGHT TRACK WITH THIS MANIFOLD SHIT JEEZ
Agent Monkeysee on 21/7/2006 at 01:04
Quote Posted by Para?noid
I REALLY WANT TO KNOW IF I'M ON THE RIGHT TRACK WITH THIS MANIFOLD SHIT JEEZ
That I don't know though I think I've read similar explanations so yeah you could be on the right track :cool:
duckman on 21/7/2006 at 04:30
I got a new dimension for y'all.... IN MY PANTS!
Raven on 21/7/2006 at 08:30
I have read the evidence suggests that the expansion is accelerating, but here is a thought that just occured - why is the expansion not considered a force? Strong, weak and EM have been shown to be the same force at extreme conditions, we are hoping (well at least it would be pretty neat) that gravity is the as well (GUT) - but the universe is expanding and accelerating (or so we think) and some try to attribute this to dark energy (cause with the standard model, you are allowed to pull things from your arse in the form of explination). Why do we not see this expansion as a fundemental force - could it be given its own (theortical/metaphysical) exchange particles? I have vague memories so people speaking about anti-gravity but I was a bit of a mess during my supposed final year in uni - and I still have to read through my general relativity textbook :(.
Mortal Monkey on 21/7/2006 at 15:00
Quote Posted by Agent Monkeysee
A singularity is a thing. The Big Bang is an ongoing event.
Agreed. But how can we say that our universe is infinite if it's still expanding?
Quote Posted by Agent Monkeysee
I have no idea what you're talking about and since this isn't "my" solution I'm not particularly inclined to come up with something better for you.
Just bad wording on my part. craigsimas summed it up pretty well.
Quote Posted by Agent Monkeysee
If the Universe had enough mass its combined gravity could be enough to reverse universal expansion and cause a Big Crunch.
I can see how matter would do that, but many forms of energy are much less affected by gravity. If the universe did go through a Big Bang/Big Crunch cyclus, wouldn't it get smaller each time?
