static universe ?

[danbaron]

This guy, Scott Tyson, was on the radio show I listen to, this week.

http://www.coasttocoastam.com/guest/tyson-scott-m/55347

I only heard a little bit of him, but, my impression is that he is a smart guy.

During the interview, something interesting came up, concerning why he has been so relentless in his pursuit of trying to understand the universe.

He is at least in his 50s, but, somehow it seems he was never diagnosed.

He said it appears more and more likely that he has Asperger's Syndrome (like Gary McKinnon).

Other people have informed him about aspects of himself (and, I think, also of his book), which he said he is blind to.

Anyway, the main point of this post is that he has written a book asserting that, Einstein was initially correct - the universe is static, and had no beginning.

http://www.theunobservableuniverse.com/

Tyson said that Einstein's actual biggest blunder was, thinking that his biggest blunder was his introduction of the cosmological constant - according to Tyson, the cosmological constant is correct.

I know, for instance that, Charles believes the expanding universe is wrong.

And, when I think about it, the static universe, without a beginning, is much more appealing to me.

Of course, what causes me to hesitate about even raising the possibility of a universe that will never shrink or grow, that always has been as it is, is that, almost every physicist says it is wrong. How could they all be wrong?

Tyson claims his theory accounts for the seeming contradictions which modern physics has encountered.

I ordered the book.

(But, you don't have to.)

[LanceGary]

This guy, Scott Tyson, was on the radio show I listen to, this week.

http://www.coasttocoastam.com/guest/tyson-scott-m/55347

I only heard a little bit of him, but, my impression is that he is a smart guy.

During the interview, something interesting came up, concerning why he has been so relentless in his pursuit of trying to understand the universe.

He is at least in his 50s, but, somehow it seems he was never diagnosed.

He said it appears more and more likely that he has Asperger's Syndrome (like Gary McKinnon).

Other people have informed him about aspects of himself (and, I think, also of his book), which he said he is blind to.

Anyway, the main point of this post is that he has written a book asserting that, Einstein was initially correct - the universe is static, and had no beginning.

http://www.theunobservableuniverse.com/

Tyson said that Einstein's actual biggest blunder was, thinking that his biggest blunder was his introduction of the cosmological constant - according to Tyson, the cosmological constant is correct.

I know, for instance that, Charles believes the expanding universe is wrong.

And, when I think about it, the static universe, without a beginning, is much more appealing to me.

Of course, what causes me to hesitate about even raising the possibility of a universe that will never shrink or grow, that always has been as it is, is that, almost every physicist says it is wrong. How could they all be wrong?

Tyson claims his theory accounts for the seeming contradictions which modern physics has encountered.

I ordered the book.

(But, you don't have to.)



It seems to me that the word "static" has to be wrong. Perhaps the universe is not expanding or not contracting, but it is certainly changing (I think). The earth on which we live shows evidence of changing. The sun is changing and will eventually grow to such a size that it will burn up the earth. That doesn't seem like a static universe to me.

Lance

[danbaron]

I don't think they mean static as in, unchanging.

I think they mean it as in, fixed in size and always existing.

However, I do think there is a way that a universe could be unchanging.

If I am correct, if there was no dimension of time, or, if time was stopped, then, there could be no motion.

With no motion, the universe would be frozen.

According to my understanding, in order for any object to move through space, it also must move forward through time.

(Why can't an object move backward through time? I guess the technical answer is, because it can't exceed c (light speed). A more human answer might be, because, doing so would violate the rules of the, "game".)

(Concerning objects exceeding c, for instance, the famous/infamous neutrinos, if it is possible, then, an object could arrive at its destination before it left - a bullet could kill a person before the gun was fired - causality would seem to be, "out the window". I'm not saying I know for certain it is impossible, but, my experience causes (as in, "causality", i.e., measured by time, my experience precedes my doubt) me to doubt it.)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't know much in this area.

As far as I know, the theory of the expanding universe, can account for the fact that gravity is not causing all of the universe's matter to collapse into one giant black hole.

I could be wrong, but, I think Einstein's cosmological constant serves the same purpose.

To me, a universe with no boundaries in either space or time, is much more interesting.

And, in that case, I think every location in space or time, is fundamentally the same - i.e., there are no boundaries to measure from.

[LanceGary]

I don't think they mean static as in, unchanging.

I think they mean it as in, fixed in size and always existing.

However, I do think there is a way that a universe could be unchanging.

If I am correct, if there was no dimension of time, or, if time was stopped, then, there could be no motion.

With no motion, the universe would be frozen.

According to my understanding, in order for any object to move through space, it also must move forward through time.

(Why can't an object move backward through time? I guess the technical answer is, because it can't exceed c (light speed). A more human answer might be, because, doing so would violate the rules of the, "game".)

(Concerning objects exceeding c, for instance, the famous/infamous neutrinos, if it is possible, then, an object could arrive at its destination before it left - a bullet could kill a person before the gun was fired - causality would seem to be, "out the window". I'm not saying I know for certain it is impossible, but, my experience causes (as in, "causality", i.e., measured by time, my experience precedes my doubt) me to doubt it.)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't know much in this area.

As far as I know, the theory of the expanding universe, can account for the fact that gravity is not causing all of the universe's matter to collapse into one giant black hole.

I could be wrong, but, I think Einstein's cosmological constant serves the same purpose.

To me, a universe with no boundaries in either space or time, is much more interesting.

And, in that case, I think every location in space or time, is fundamentally the same - i.e., there are no boundaries to measure from.



I have seen (but not read) books by physicists claiming that time does not exist (e.g., Timeless reality). It seems to me that this notion is beyond understanding since I think that understanding something requires the idea of time. If time does not exist then either I understand something (and my apparent lack of understanding is an illusion) or I don't and (since time time does not exist) never will.

I thought the notion of the expanding universe was based on evidence of the red shift of light reaching us. Is there some way to understand this evidence that is compatible with a non expanding universe?

Lance

[LanceGary]

What amazes me most is the images of stars and galaxies we are seeing from Hubble and other devices, are actually how they looked billions of years ago as it took that long for the light generated at that time to now reach us.

Yet, if there are entangled particles dating from the beginning of the universe then one could presumably use them to instantaneously communicate with beings on the other side of the universe even though light would presumably take billions of years to cross that distance. Beyond understanding I think.

Lance

[danbaron]

I don't know much about this.

If I remember correctly, some people propose that the red shift is caused only by the distance to the object, not by the velocity it is moving away from us. I think the idea is that, the farther away the object is, the more cosmic dust its light has to pass through to reach us, and, that alone causes the red shift.

Concerning entangled particles, I think physicists say that they cannot be used to transmit information, I forget why. But, somehow, when one particle changes, so does the other, no matter how far their separation. So, I think some people have proposed that they must both be the same particle.

Concerning time (my ideas):

First of all, I think we are born with an innate sense of time. When we're very young, and hungry, we don't want to wait to eat. We know what waiting is.

And, we observe certain repetitive patterns, for instance, the sun rises every morning. It seems to us that each day, the waiting for the sun is the same. We call the waiting, time.

Similarly, when a pendulum swings back and forth, it seems to us, that, the pattern exactly repeats itself. We decided that we can measure time by counting the repetition of the pendulum cycles.

I think evidence for time's existence, is the fact that events occur in some order - at least, that is our experience of them.

So, time is associated with a sequence of changes in space.

I'll hypothesize this. Time only passes where there is motion. Where there is no motion, there is no change, and therefore, the value of time is constant. (Without motion, any clock would also be frozen, yes or no?)

Here's something else. This is not about time, but, it is similar. Something I remember from thermodynamics:--> It is impossible for there to be any motion within a volume where there is no temperature differential. It's interesting, and, I'm almost certain it is correct.

So, to freeze time within a particular volume (space), all you have to do is to make the temperature uniform in it. But, that's not so easy to do. There can be no temperature differential at all, even at the tiniest scale. If you can do it, then, I think all motion (including atomic motion) will stop. And, in my opinion, since time is a measurement of change, and change can only occur when there is motion, time will stop there.

If you could do it for a person, cause every sub-atomic particle in his body to be at exactly the same temperature (no fluctuations), then, I think he would effectively be in suspended animation. A billion years could pass in the universe, but, for him, no time would pass at all.

I think that you could not do it by reducing the person's temperature to absolute zero, because, as far as physicists know, it is not possible to attain absolute zero.

How about this? Say, you have a camera that takes pictures with infinite resolution. Say, you take two pictures of something (from the exact same position) that is moving. If the two pictures are in any way different, it must mean that time passed between when the first and second picture were taken. If the two pictures are absolutely identical, it can only mean that no time passed between when the first and second picture were taken, i.e., no movement implies no time increment.

[zak]

and even more bizarre "TWO of the strangest ideas in modern physics - that the cosmos constantly splits into parallel universes in which every conceivable outcome of every event happens"
ie while you are sitting in front of your computer an infinite number of big bangs happened every second in front of you, it has its own coordinates relative to the existence and not relative to our universe or me.
look at the article a multiverse of parallel worlds:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21028154.200-when-the-multiverse-and-manyworlds-collide.html

http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/mg21028154.200/mg21028154.200-1_300.jpg

[Charles Pegge]

Only one extra dimension is required to convert the universe into a multiverse, though it's granularity would have to be extremely fine.

But how would you detect these alternative universes?

Charles