Theory of Relativity

[cacian]

The standard model of the universe doesn't have a centre - we talk about galaxies being "so many" parsecs from Earth, never form the "centre of the universe".

The word centrifuges comes to mind. What 'standard' universe?

The big bang happened everywhere, everywhere is the centre.

I thought parallelism and centre correlate. 'Everywhere' does not seem right to be called a centre. There is a start a finish. A start cannot be everywhere.

Where is the centre of the balloon's surface? Please don't say the middle of the balloon - all we know of is the balloon surface and,

Interesting. A balloon surface? A balloon is shape. A shape that one makes/draws has a start and a finish and thus a centre is.

as Wittgenstein said, we need to be silent about things we don't know -

I thought the only thing about silence is 'the right to remain silent'. I thought no talking about something one does not know exist is obvious.

the clown's breath is a figment of your fantastic imagination.

I do not understand this. Why a clown's breath? and not a person's breath for example?

Is expanding space a reality or just our best guess?

I am not sure about a space that expends. I thought that something that increases also decreases too if it is a shape and space is a shape.

Hindus suggest that everything is a dream, i.e.,

Well Hinduism is suggesting is also a dream then .

everything is a model. Why not?

To model something you need an original. Modelling is copying something right?

[mal4mac]

[

The word centrifuges comes to mind.

Why? Could a centrifugal model of the universe explain Dark Energy? I can't see why I'm forced against the wall in fairground centrifuges - is this dark energy? Am I spinning or is the universe rotating around me, very quickly?

There is a start a finish. A start cannot be everywhere.

Blow up a balloon. Where does the balloon start expanding? Everywhere! There need be no finish. Why finish blowing up the balloon?

Interesting. A balloon surface? A balloon is shape. A shape that one makes/draws has a start and a finish and thus a centre is.

If you draw a circle the centre is not where you start to draw. The "start" could be anywhere on the circle. A million artists could draw one point of the circle, then the circle would start and finish everywhere, at the same time.

To model something you need an original. Modelling is copying something right?

I had a model spaceship as a kid and it wasn't a copy of anything that existed. Shame The original could supposedly go faster than light...

I also had a model of a Saturn V rocket - but it was a very rough copy of the original. I tried putting fuel in it, but it didn't take off, just burned a hole in my desk Our models of the universe are just very rough copies of the original, I guess.

[mal4mac]

I am probably going into the area of belief when I associated the here and now with what is eternal. It may not be the case. I don't think that material objects are eternal because they persist in space-time and not just in the here-now.

Mass-energy is conserved, it was created at the "beginning" (along with time), the universe is expanding "for ever", therefore mass-energy is eternal.

I define "eternal" as whatever is outside space-time.

Isn't "outside" a spatial concept? If the "eternal" doesn't concern space, how can you use "outside"? Is it better to say consciousness doesn't have space-time attributes? Where is consciousness in space? Point to it.

[YesNo]

Mass-energy is conserved, it was created at the "beginning" (along with time), the universe is expanding "for ever", therefore mass-energy is eternal.

The way I look at "eternal" is that it does not have space or time associated with it except for a here-now to allow access to space-time. So even if the universe expanded forever, that would not make it eternal.

However, I suspect energy could be eternal only because of the single point of its relativistic frame of reference. What the beginning of the universe becomes is energy taking on a manifestation as matter and creating space-time in the process.

Isn't "outside" a spatial concept? If the "eternal" doesn't concern space, how can you use "outside"? Is it better to say consciousness doesn't have space-time attributes? Where is consciousness in space? Point to it.

It is better not to use the word "outside" as you suggest. I should have said that consciousness doesn't have space-time attributes except for here-now.

[mal4mac]

What the beginning of the universe becomes is energy taking on a manifestation as matter and creating space-time in the process.

There's also a problem with "beginning" of the universe. Things begin in time. How can time begin in time? The universe just begins, it doesn't begin in time, because time is created at the moment of the Big Bang. (Rats, I used "begin" again... and "moment"... how do we get away from time-dependent terms so we can talk about a time without time (!)?)

[cacian]

Why? Could a centrifugal model of the universe explain Dark Energy? I can't see why I'm forced against the wall in fairground centrifuges - is this dark energy? Am I spinning or is the universe rotating around me, very quickly?

Dark energy? That is the first I have heard of. I am not aware of what dark energy is.

Blow up a balloon. Where does the balloon start expanding? Everywhere! There need be no finish. Why finish blowing up the balloon?

Blowing up a balloon is pumping air into an already established shape that is round or whatever. The air traverses in circular according to the shape in order to fill the balloon up.
If one does not finish blowing up a balloon then there is no balloon yet. The start and the finish is what conclude a shape.

If you draw a circle the centre is not where you start to draw. The "start" could be anywhere on the circle. A million artists could draw one point of the circle, then the circle would start and finish everywhere, at the same time.

Drawing a circular shape on a piece of paper depends on the start and finish and not before that. The center then becomes relative to when one starts and finishes. Time and space relativity applies meaning the center is where your lines and movements are with relation to space and time.
In other words the center is circular following the movements whilst the shape is being drawn. Theory of relativity applies.
There is only one way of dressing a shape and that is according to where one starts and finishes and center is its movement.

I had a model spaceship as a kid and it wasn't a copy of anything that existed. Shame The original could supposedly go faster than light...

I also had a model of a Saturn V rocket - but it was a very rough copy of the original. I tried putting fuel in it, but it didn't take off, just burned a hole in my desk Our models of the universe are just very rough copies of the original, I guess.

Sorry to hear about your model aeroplane.
A spaceship is a model because it is modelled around space and time program.
Making a spaceship is modelling a ship to adapt to a new environment it is going to be in.

[mal4mac]

Dark energy? That is the first I have heard of. I am not aware of what dark energy is.

Where you been cacian? That's 3/4 of the Universe you have missed.

Dark energy is the most accepted hypothesis to explain the observations that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate. So not only is the balloon being blown up, the clown is blowing harder as time goes on!

Dark energy accounts for 73% of the total mass–energy of the universe.

If one does not finish blowing up a balloon then there is no balloon yet. The start and the finish is what conclude a shape.

If the clown lets go of the balloon so the kids can laugh at it going round the room does he say "look at the thing go" kids, or "Look at the balloon go"? If he said thing and told children off for calling it a balloon I'd not hire him for another children's party.

Clown's a have a very dark energy, but I think that's a different sort of dark energy.

[cacian]

[QUOTE]

Where you been cacian? That's 3/4 of the Universe you have missed.
Dark energy is the most accepted hypothesis to explain the observations that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate. So not only is the balloon being blown up, the clown is blowing harder as time goes on!

Dark energy accounts for 73% of the total mass–energy of the universe.

Haha oh well may that is because I have been living on cloud9. I am too busy down here on earth to contemplate dark forces or energies taking over the universe.
On a serious note mal4mac I understood energy to be anything but dark because energy for me means a boost which can only be positive. Without energy we are nothing.
The issue with the balloon being blown up is that at some stage it will either have to blow up pressures builds up or go beyond its capacity and the only way is down once we let go.
A universe is a shape and shape increases and decreases otherwise it would not be called a shape. You blow a balloon up it goes back to its initial state inertia if you like.
Take the sponge theory you squeeze it then you let go it goes back to its normal shape. That is the exact opposite of what balloon does pumps up it takes shape then returns back to where it started.
Hence start and the finish is what it is all about.

If the clown lets go of the balloon so the kids can laugh at it going round the room does he say "look at the thing go" kids, or "Look at the balloon go"? If he said thing and told children off for calling it a balloon I'd not hire him for another children's party.

I thought the idea is that initially it is the clown that makes people laugh not a balloon. I am not sure I get this.
A balloon here is not needed because one has a clown already. I ask myself this: if at a birthday children party an adult lets go of the balloon would the children laugh at the balloon for decreasing and dwindling or would they laugh because the adult let the balloon fly? Here the idea that the balloon escaped from being held.

Clown's a have a very dark energy, but I think that's a different sort of dark energy.

I totally do not get this. An energy being dark because it is a clown?
Then we must all have some kind of energy right?

[mal4mac]

I thought the idea is that initially it is the clown that makes people laugh not a balloon. I am not sure I get this.
A balloon here is not needed because one has a clown already. I ask myself this: if at a birthday children party an adult lets go of the balloon would the children laugh at the balloon for decreasing and dwindling or would they laugh because the adult let the balloon fly? Here the idea that the balloon escaped from being held.

Yeah the kids would be laughing at the adult, cruel kids. That's why clowns have such a dark energy, they are sad because kids are always being cruel to them.

I agree that the balloon on its own is not *that* funny. But it's a great prop! the clown can pretend to have trouble blowing up the balloon - getting out of breath, losing the grip on the balloon and chasing it round the room. I hypothesise that a balloon with a clown is like a clown squared, that, is e = mc2, the comic energy of the clown with a balloon is equal to the mass of balloon times the comic energy of a propless clown squared.

I need an experimentalist to dress as a clown, get some balloons, and prove this... come on YesNo, you have a seven year old, your job...

[YesNo]

I think you're doing a good job explaining this, mal4mac, and cacian is making me realize that the challenge might be more difficult than I realized, but worth the effort.

[cacian]

Yeah the kids would be laughing at the adult, cruel kids. That's why clowns have such a dark energy, they are sad because kids are always being cruel to them.

I am not sure. I think children laugh because they find something funny. They do not laugh at the clown they laugh at the whole thing together.

I agree that the balloon on its own is not *that* funny. But it's a great prop! the clown can pretend to have trouble blowing up the balloon - getting out of breath, losing the grip on the balloon and chasing it round the room. I hypothesise that a balloon with a clown is like a clown squared, that, is e = mc2, the comic energy of the clown with a balloon is equal to the mass of balloon times the comic energy of a propless clown squared

.
I sure don't mix maths/physics/numbers with people. It don't get it.
I think you would find that any person dressed or not dressed up would make children laugh if they know how to.
Children get humour naturally and quicker then adults. I think it is the adult that thinks that dressing up that will add to humour.
Children would laugh at the balloon because it dwindled as it took off.
That is the humour I understand.

[YesNo]

I think the balloon concept is a way to explain how space expands. So on top of the motion away from us of the furthest galaxies, space is also creating distances between us and these galaxies like the stretching surface of a balloon or, to use a different image, the surface of a loaf of bread that is rising in the oven. The dark energy is like the yeast in the bread that makes it rise.

[cacian]

I think the balloon concept is a way to explain how space expands.

Hi YesNo I hope you could bear with me. I am having trouble visualising the balloon concept for the simple reason that a balloon can only go as far pressure takes it before it explodes or shrinks to its initial point.
That is the issue I am having I don't get how one uses a balloon, which is a shape, to compare it with a dark energy which takes all shapes and directions. Energy is free movement and goes billions of directions. It is not attainable into one shape like a balloon. Energy is shapeless a free agent. A balloon is not.
We know that a shape always returns to its initial position. The universe is a shape too that is kept within other exisiting shapes around. One shapes makes another shape and another. There is a link between each abject galaxies and space.
They are all interrelated. They all expand and then decrease. That is the nature of shapes.
Energy for it to be is all around and never at one point.

So on top of the motion away from us of the furthest galaxies, space is also creating distances between us and these galaxies like the stretching surface of a balloon or

I understand what you are saying but the stretching of surface of a balloon does not last for very long. Once a surface is over stretched then it wrecks.
The distance between a stretching balloon and I is not that very far because of what I have explained above.

to use a different image, the surface of a loaf of bread that is rising in the oven. The dark energy is like the yeast in the bread that makes it rise.

A dark energy I understand to be some kind unknown phenomena hence dark.
Yeast is a natural process that is naturally found in bread. It is a reactive agent to water. Yeast is only reactive when in contact with water. So it is by that a natural process to make bread. No water no yeast.
One cannot contain energy y because it explodes if it is just like wind. One cannot have wind in a bottle or into a shape it is not possible.
And then dark usually indicate unknown not quite figured out.
The universe is far as I know perfect and works in harmony around other perfects planets and galaxies.
I don't know I am not really making sense forgive me.
I have never been good at physics and science to be honest haha.

[YesNo]

Hi YesNo I hope you could bear with me.

No problem. Thanks for starting the thread, by the way. Please bear with me as well. I don't understand the concepts well, but when one tries to explain something, it helps.

I am having trouble visualising the balloon concept for the simple reason that a balloon can only go as far pressure takes it before it explodes or shrinks to its initial point.

The concept only works for how the surface is stretching. Put two marks on a balloon and then measure how far apart they are. Then blow up the balloon. If you measure how far apart the marks are now, the distance between them should increase. That is all the idea of the balloon is good for illustrating. I don't know if the universe will actually shrink in the future or not, but the only thing the balloon concept is illustrating is that the marks separate when the balloon expands.

That is the issue I am having I don't get how one uses a balloon, which is a shape, to compare it with a dark energy which takes all shapes and directions. Energy is free movement and goes billions of directions. It is not attainable into one shape like a balloon. Energy is shapeless a free agent. A balloon is not.
We know that a shape always returns to its initial position. The universe is a shape too that is kept within other exisiting shapes around. One shapes makes another shape and another. There is a link between each abject galaxies and space.
They are all interrelated. They all expand and then decrease. That is the nature of shapes.
Energy for it to be is all around and never at one point.

I understand what you are saying but the stretching of surface of a balloon does not last for very long. Once a surface is over stretched then it wrecks.
The distance between a stretching balloon and I is not that very far because of what I have explained above.

At this point the balloon doesn't help explain anything anymore.

A dark energy I understand to be some kind unknown phenomena hence dark.

That is how I see it as well.

Yeast is a natural process that is naturally found in bread. It is a reactive agent to water. Yeast is only reactive when in contact with water. So it is by that a natural process to make bread. No water no yeast.
One cannot contain energy y because it explodes if it is just like wind. One cannot have wind in a bottle or into a shape it is not possible.
And then dark usually indicate unknown not quite figured out.
The universe is far as I know perfect and works in harmony around other perfects planets and galaxies.
I don't know I am not really making sense forgive me.
I have never been good at physics and science to be honest haha.

At this point the bread concept no longer works either. It is only good to show that something can expand and when that happens points on the surface will spread apart. It is not good for anything else.

I only took one physics class in high school. I don't recall doing very well in the class but that has been a long time ago. Most of what I'm saying here, I've learned from books and talking about it to reinforce the ideas.

[mal4mac]

I am not sure. I think children laugh because they find something funny. They do not laugh at the clown they laugh at the whole thing together.

Maybe some cruel kids laugh at the clown? Or, even if all the kids are only laughing at the situation, the clown might think they are laughing at him. If the clown let go of the balloon on purpose then the cruel clown might be laughing at the kids because they are so stupid at thinking he did this by accident. If he let go of the balloon 'cause he's clumsy then he may be a sad clown 'cause he realises he's bad at clowning, and the kids' laughter hurts.

There is a well know phobia for clowns, like arachnophobia for spiders. That's why they have a dark energy for many people.

Children would laugh at the balloon because it dwindled as it took off.
That is the humour I understand.

Maybe slightly - especially the sudden collapse. I think it's more the farty sound and the random anarchy of it's motion (and the discomfort of the clown... at least for some...) Even funnier if the clown blows the balloon up too much an dit expldes - sudden shcok can be funny (timid kids might cry though... nice kids might cry if the clown pretends to be hurt... many will laugh at his pain, though... cruelty comes naturally to mankind...)