The end of the universe may be marked by 'black dwarf supernova' explosions

May 26, 2020
10
1
35
Now, how can people talk about the entire universe while they just know an extremely tiny bit of the universe? Actually, all the theories of modern physics are wrong: relativity, quantum mechanics, QFT, big bang theory, string theories, etc. Based on these non-senses, many people even boast that they have known everything in the universe through the formulation of the theory of everything. Is it funny?

The fatal mistake of relativity is that it introduces a new set of artificial space and time defined through Lorentz Transformation to replace the real physical space and time measured with rulers and clocks (see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/297527784_Challenge_to_the_Special_Theory_of_Relativity ). Relativity leads physicists to believe in spacetime, time travel, expansion of spacetime, singularities of spacetime, worm holes, ripples of spacetime, gravitational lensing, big bang, etc. Relativity denies the existence of aether - a fluid medium of light delivering all electromagnetic phenomena in the visible part of the universe around us. Without aether as the medium to describe the wave property in the particle-wave duality, physicists couldn't but invent a mathematical concept: the wave of probability to represent the physical reality - the wave of aether, which leads to the birth of the preposterous quantum mechanics with all the ridiculous conclusions: quantum entanglement, Schrodinger's cat, denial of local reality, etc. According to these theories, there would be no facts and no truth in the universe because every fact could be changed through time travel, and every truth would depend on the observer. Then, there is no objective science at all!!!
 
Jul 27, 2020
308
47
230
Based on these non-senses, many people even boast that they have known everything in the universe through the formulation of the theory of everything.

The closest we can come to a theory of everything is the following:

E = mc2

It is difficult to find a more inclusive concept with such a firm foundation in reality.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nytowl223
Feb 22, 2020
14
1
35
Now, how can people talk about the entire universe while they just know an extremely tiny bit of the universe? Actually, all the theories of modern physics are wrong: relativity, quantum mechanics, QFT, big bang theory, string theories, etc. Based on these non-senses, many people even boast that they have known everything in the universe through the formulation of the theory of everything. Is it funny?

The fatal mistake of relativity is that it introduces a new set of artificial space and time defined through Lorentz Transformation to replace the real physical space and time measured with rulers and clocks (see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/297527784_Challenge_to_the_Special_Theory_of_Relativity ). Yadda yadda, blah blah blah ...
So, I'm guessing no one has yet told you that the "electromagnetic universe" or "plasma cosmology" "theory" (more like hypothesis, because facts) is nothing more than total nonsense. For starters, the hypothesis doesn't predict Hubble's Law, the relative abundances of the elements, or the cosmic microwave background. And that's JUST for starters. It's total bunk. And that's putting it nicely.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chem721
May 26, 2020
10
1
35
So, I'm guessing no one has yet told you that the "electromagnetic universe" or "plasma cosmology" "theory" (more like hypothesis, because facts) is nothing more than total nonsense. For starters, the hypothesis doesn't predict Hubble's Law, the relative abundances of the elements, or the cosmic microwave background. And that's JUST for starters. It's total bunk. And that's putting it nicely.
All I said is that relativity has denied the existence of aether that misled other physics theories. The disproof of relativity directly leads to the existence of aether - a fluid medium of light, only relative to which, the speed of light is isotropic. There is no such a law (Hubble's Law) in nature, which is just a local approximation. The visible sky is more likely a collection of celestial objects in an oscillation process: all objects are currently in the stage of accelerating expansion as the pressure of aether dominates, which will be followed by a stage of decelerating expansion when gravitation dominates, then the stage of accelerating implosion, followed by the stage of decelerating implosion until it reaches the minimal volume. After that, a new cycle will start. With the existence of aether, it is more likely that the pressure of aether pushes galaxies moving away from each other in acceleration during the current stage, that the gravitation of aether as the extra pulling binds stars in galaxies, that the viscosity of aether dissipates the visible light into microwaves in the background, that the density change caused by the gravitation of massive celestial objects produces the effect of gravitational lensing. We know the universe is far more complicated than what we can imagine. Aether is just one of the missing players in the space, with which many phenomena (but never means all phenomena) can be more reasonable explained.
 
Jan 3, 2020
160
12
605
Now, how can people talk about the entire universe while they just know an extremely tiny bit of the universe?
Because cosmology tells us we can describe the entire universe in a model [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda-CDM_model ].

Actually, all the theories of modern physics are wrong: relativity, quantum mechanics, QFT, big bang theory, string theories, etc.
Claimed without giving any evidence or references to peer reviewed work.

Instead you troll a self promoting "essay" from a predatory journal - we've been here before, and your comment is no less trolling than the last time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nytowl223
Jan 3, 2020
160
12
605
So, I'm guessing no one has yet told you that the "electromagnetic universe" or "plasma cosmology" "theory" (more like hypothesis, because facts) is nothing more than total nonsense. For starters, the hypothesis doesn't predict Hubble's Law, the relative abundances of the elements, or the cosmic microwave background. And that's JUST for starters. It's total bunk. And that's putting it nicely.
All I said is that relativity has denied the existence of aether that misled other physics theories.
Good guess Nytowl223, since the "electric universe" pseudoscience usually denies relativity and promote mythological "aether" too [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_(classical_element) ]. But there is also an old pseudoscience cottage industry that promotes the classic superstition despite that it has been rejected by experiment over a century ago [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson-Morley_experiment ].

But of course general relativity is by now the only known game in town.
When combined with Planck Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) measurements of temperature and polarization the BAO data provide nearly an order of magnitude improvement on curvature constraints. The RSD measurements indicate a growth rate that is consistent with predictions from Planck primary data and with General Relativity. When combining the results of SDSS BAO and RSD with external data, all multiple-parameter extensions remain consistent with a ΛCDM model. Regardless of cosmological model, the precision on ΩΛ, H0, and σ8, remains at roughly 1\%, showing changes of less than 0.6\% in the central values between models.
[ https://arxiv.org/abs/2007.08991 ; my bold.]
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nytowl223
Feb 28, 2020
51
22
555
Because cosmology tells us we can describe the entire universe in a model [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda-CDM_model ].



Claimed without giving any evidence or references to peer reviewed work.

Instead you troll a self promoting "essay" from a predatory journal - we've been here before, and your comment is no less trolling than the last time.
Because cosmology tells us we can describe the entire universe in a model
This is a bold claim.

Anyway, what do you mean by 'universe' and 'entire universe'? Is this claim for the observable 'contents of the big bang' or the 'whole contents of the big bang' or the universe (dictionary definition).

The dictionary definition of 'universe' is "everything that there is". You, this web sites articles and most top scientists seem to keep referring to the big bang and the universe as one and the same thing. for example, statements like - "The universe started with the big bang". It is a huge assumption that the contents of the big bang are 'everything that is' ie the universe. There's absolutely no evidence to support this, I find it completely unscientific.

So until proven otherwise I think its equally good (no, better) to assume the universe is infinite and contains infinite 'stuff'. Meaning the contents of the Big bang is not 'everything that is' ie the universe. With this in mind, the contents of the big bang are expanding into the stuff of rest of 'The Infinite', as I like to call it. When it hits this 'stuff', the 2nd law will not be able to expand the contents of our big bang anymore. So no heat death!

Everything that exists, exists in a space. The big bang may have created space (space itself being a 'something' eg quantum foam etc), but at the same time, it must have existed in a space, even if just a void or geometric space. So, if you want to stick with the idea that the contents of the big bang is also the universe, you are assuming that the rest of space that the big bang existed in is infinite and void, in order to allow indefinite expansion and heat death. A bit absurd in my opinion.

For something to have a beginning, it must be a part of a greater whole or from something pre-existing, otherwise, it's just another something from nothing theory." Again with this proposition the contents of our big bang are expanding into the greater whole, and so can't expand forever - no heat death.

Altogether, with unknown dark energy, and the possibility that the contents of the big bang are expanding into a 'greater whole' or 'The Infinite', don't you think it's a bit unsafe to predict the end, (heat death) of 'everything that there is' just yet?

The observation of the accelerating expansion of the universe is explained with dark energy. We don't know what dark energy is or its full properties. Support for the end of the universe is dependent on something we know nothing about or even if it exists at all. Don't you think that something as important as the end needs something a bit more concrete than an unknown 'dark energy'?:)
 
May 26, 2020
10
1
35
Because cosmology tells us we can describe the entire universe in a model [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda-CDM_model ].



Claimed without giving any evidence or references to peer reviewed work.

Instead you troll a self promoting "essay" from a predatory journal - we've been here before, and your comment is no less trolling than the last time.
Please check Wikipedia before making your irresponsible claim:

Physics Essays is a peer-reviewed scientific journal covering theoretical and experimental physics. It was established in 1988 and the editor-in-chief is E. Panarella.

You just can't refute the paper, but instead, defame the journal! How mean and shameless!
 
Years ago I read Vincent Icke's THE FORCE OF SYMMETRY, where near the end he postulates 'why not all or only vacuum?'. Information I have encountered since has led me to think of space as a timeless propogation of energy, perhaps at least symbolically a fluid, hence only 'distance' matters, and our position indicates the light we see from around us. Seems to make things easy and neat.


And some numbas!

 
Last edited:
Feb 22, 2020
14
1
35
All I said is that relativity has denied the existence of aether that misled other physics theories. The disproof of relativity directly leads to the existence of aether - a fluid medium of light, only relative to which, the speed of light is isotropic. There is no such a law (Hubble's Law) in nature, which is just a local approximation. The visible sky is more likely a collection of celestial objects in an oscillation process: all objects are currently in the stage of accelerating expansion as the pressure of aether dominates, which will be followed by a stage of decelerating expansion when gravitation dominates, then the stage of accelerating implosion, followed by the stage of decelerating implosion until it reaches the minimal volume. After that, a new cycle will start. With the existence of aether, it is more likely that the pressure of aether pushes galaxies moving away from each other in acceleration during the current stage, that the gravitation of aether as the extra pulling binds stars in galaxies, that the viscosity of aether dissipates the visible light into microwaves in the background, that the density change caused by the gravitation of massive celestial objects produces the effect of gravitational lensing. We know the universe is far more complicated than what we can imagine. Aether is just one of the missing players in the space, with which many phenomena (but never means all phenomena) can be more reasonable explained.

There. Is. No. Aether. Or, ether, or whatever other spelling anyone wants to use. It doesn't exist. And our universe is not only still expanding, the expansion is still speeding up. It isn't like a rubber band, that only stretches so far and then snaps back. It's more like a pizza dough that you just keep making bigger, until it can't hold itself together any longer, and it breaks, while still not returning to its original size and shape.

We knew the universe was expanding way back in about 1929-30 - thank you, Edwin Hubble! We discovered the universe was actually speeding up in its expansion in the 1990s, thanks to Riess, Schmidt, and Perlmutter. The clear and undeniable redshift they found in the faraway galaxies proved it, and that expansion was named the Hubble Constant.

In fact, a recent potential discovery may have shown an even higher speed for the Hubble Constant than found previously! This article discusses it, in a low-tech, easy-for-the-masses way: [https://www.space.com/universe-expanding-fast-new-physics.html]
Good guess Nytowl223, since the "electric universe" pseudoscience usually denies relativity and promote mythological "aether" too [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_(classical_element) ]. But there is also an old pseudoscience cottage industry that promotes the classic superstition despite that it has been rejected by experiment over a century ago [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson-Morley_experiment ].

But of course general relativity is by now the only known game in town.

[ https://arxiv.org/abs/2007.08991 ; my bold.]
Oddly enough, I've run across that term, Michelson-Morley, before, from those nutters, the flat earthers. I've seen more than one claim that the experiment failed because the "firmament" blocked the ability to measure the ether that the stars supposedly float around in. Those crazies use it as proof of the magical dome overhead, LOL!

But, yes, I'd forgotten its ties to the other nutter hypotheses (I refuse to call them theories), the Electric Universe and Plasma Cosmology. [As an aside, I've discussed that last hypothesis with them enough that my predictive text suggested the word 'cosmology' after I had typed 'plasma.' That's sad.] But it does somehow make a sort of sense, knowing their twisted ideologies. It also seems the conspiracy theorist type will believe multiple different conspiracies at once, even if the different conspiracy theories are not in agreement with each other. Which would make my relatively minor OCD just go into a twitch-storm! 😄

Anyway, thank you for the response. I don't often find my way here, so I may just not be aware of that particular person's favorite conspiracy theory. 😄
 
Aug 27, 2020
1
1
10
There are so many existing theories that counteract that hypothesis. We can't even begin to process the idea of time dilation in relation to the infinite expansion of the universe. So how do you properly hypothesize over such a ridiculous span of time? We have such little knowledge of black dwarfs as well that all other things included, this theory could be considered to be a bit "out there".
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chem721
Jul 27, 2020
308
47
230
this theory could be considered to be a bit "out there".
A more logical observation would be difficult to find.

There is a lot of that stuff going on "out there", @Tyler4897, as you doubtless know.

Give somebody a light year, and they take infinity. Concepts built upon concepts, or just classic nonsense.

What ya gonna do 'bout it? Nada.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY