#1
I found this article interesting enough to post it so here it is:

By suggesting that mass, time, and length can be converted into one another as the universe evolves, Wun-Yi Shu has proposed a new class of cosmological models that may fit observations of the universe better than the current big bang model.


http://www.physorg.com/news199591806.html


Anyone heard of this model before? I'm really interested on what other scientists have to say about it
"There's Jimmy Page, the greatest thief of American black music who ever walked the earth."
-Homer Simpson
#2
Quote by blues-guitarist
Model describes universe with no big bang, no beginning and no end
I don't have a lot of faith in models



but they are nice to look at.
Meadows
Quote by Jackal58
I release my inner liberal every morning when I take a shit.
Quote by SK8RDUDE411
I wont be like those jerks who dedicate their beliefs to logic and reaosn.
Last edited by SomeoneYouKnew at Aug 3, 2010,
#3
I thought it was like a model at a beauty pageant. Would've been funnier, as in - it would have been funny.
Blog Of Awesome UGers.
Quote by OddOneOut
I seem to attract girls.
Which is annoying, cos I'm a girl and I like cock.

Quote by IRISH_PUNK13
Being an idiot should be illegal too.
#4
What about heat death? I used to think the universe would die a slow heat death, and since nothingness is a something, the resulting darkness that remained (a super-massive black hole) would erupt into a new Big Bang.

And isn't time relative to perception or something like that?

More words, flashy technicalities, unable to directly observe physics of the past, etc etc
Ibanez AS93
Fender Marauder
Vox Pathfinder 15R
#5
Quote by SomeoneYouKnew
I don't have a lot of faith in models

but they are nice to look at.


If she was president, she'd be Baberaham Lincoln...

SCHWING!
funkyducky


Icing happen when de puck come down, BANG, you know,
before de oder guys, nobody dere, you know.
My arm go comme ça, den de game stop den start up.

Quote by daytripper75
Get To Da Choppa!
#7
Technically - here we go - the big bang wasn't the true beginning.

I mean there was (lamens) opposite and negative, they exploded - that is the big bang. The real question is how the hell did they even exist to begin with?

I'll read it properly then post - thanks for sharing!
You Dont Know Me

I have 10 Anarchy Points - I also have 8 Mythology points!

Peavey Generation EXP Custom White
Yamaha 120S Black
Korg AX5G
Digitech Whammy
Zvex Fuzz Factory
Boss OS2

Quote by mrfinkle213
This man has brains.

Quote by CoreysMonster
Banned for indirect reference.
#8
Quote by DirtyMakik
If she was president, she'd be Baberaham Lincoln...

SCHWING!
"Party-on, Wayne"
Meadows
Quote by Jackal58
I release my inner liberal every morning when I take a shit.
Quote by SK8RDUDE411
I wont be like those jerks who dedicate their beliefs to logic and reaosn.
#9
Somethings we may never know. Especially matters like this. The more we find out, the more holes pop out at us.
#11
“Essentially, this work is a novel theory about how the magnitudes of the three basic physical dimensions, mass, time, and length, are converted into each other, or equivalently, a novel theory about how the geometry of spacetime and the distribution of mass-energy interact,” Shu writes. “The theory resolves problems in cosmology, such as those of the big bang, dark energy, and flatness, in one fell stroke.”

Because it's that simple It's one theory facing off a more established theory, until say the next decade this won't be proved or disproved, but in the mean time as always, the cosmologists will totally disrespect this theory until someone proves them otherwise (dark energy and so on for example).

Personally, i don't really agree with it;

"The universe experiences phases of both acceleration and deceleration." - Aka gravity wells?

"The speed of light and the gravitational “constant” are not constant, but vary with the evolution of the universe. " Not really? Does a planet as it grows older suddenly gain or lose gravity? I know star's go nova when gravity wins the battle against the energy of the star (in some cases) - but that doesn't apply to planets does it? And where is the proof this is correct in the known universe?

"Time has no beginning and no end; i.e., there is neither a big bang nor a big crunch singularity. " This is counter-intuitive to the quote above - "time" stops around blackholes because light gets sucked in, but to an on-looker it appears the "object" (light) still remains - thereby appearing not getting sucked in. If this was true the object wouldn't go into the blackhole. But then that is presuming black holes 'end' time - but then who says it doesn't then create 'time'? Since without blackholes we wouldn't be here.

Can someone explain it to me if i've got it wrong? Because i feel this is quietly riddled with BS
You Dont Know Me

I have 10 Anarchy Points - I also have 8 Mythology points!

Peavey Generation EXP Custom White
Yamaha 120S Black
Korg AX5G
Digitech Whammy
Zvex Fuzz Factory
Boss OS2

Quote by mrfinkle213
This man has brains.

Quote by CoreysMonster
Banned for indirect reference.
#12
Quote by Anthony1991
Can someone explain it to me if i've got it wrong? Because i feel this is quietly riddled with BS


I... think you got it.
Ibanez AS93
Fender Marauder
Vox Pathfinder 15R
#13
Quote by Anthony1991
not I mean there was (lamens) opposite and negative, they exploded - that is the big bang. The real question is how the hell did they even exist to begin with?


...That's not correct.

Quote by Anthony1991
Because it's that simple It's one theory facing off a more established theory, until say the next decade this won't be proved or disproved, but in the mean time as always, the cosmologists will totally disrespect this theory until someone proves them otherwise (dark energy and so on for example).


They won't necessarily disrespect it, they're just unlikely to shift to a novel theory on the basis of small amounts of evidence.

Quote by Anthony1991
"The universe experiences phases of both acceleration and deceleration." - Aka gravity wells?


No, as in the expansion of the universe as a whole. According to this theory, it sometimes expands and sometimes contracts. We're obviously currently in a period of expansion.

Quote by Anthony1991
"The speed of light and the gravitational “constant” are not constant, but vary with the evolution of the universe. " Not really? Does a planet as it grows older suddenly gain or lose gravity? I know star's go nova when gravity wins the battle against the energy of the star (in some cases) - but that doesn't apply to planets does it? And where is the proof this is correct in the known universe?


How can you misinterpret such a simple sentence? He's saying that yes, over time, a star's overall gravitational effect could go down because the gravitational constant will. Or it could go up.
There is no proof of it. This is a model he's made that fits some of the observable evidence available. That section of the theory is unsubstantiated but follows from the other bits. To check the theory, you could see if there is any evidence that the gravitational constant is not actually constant.

Quote by Anthony1991
"Time has no beginning and no end; i.e., there is neither a big bang nor a big crunch singularity. " This is counter-intuitive to the quote above - "time" stops around blackholes because light gets sucked in, but to an on-looker it appears the "object" (light) still remains - thereby appearing not getting sucked in. If this was true the object wouldn't go into the blackhole. But then that is presuming black holes 'end' time - but then who says it doesn't then create 'time'? Since without blackholes we wouldn't be here.


Stop misinterpreting things. He's saying time did not begin with the Big Bang (because there wasn't one according to this model) and it won't end with the Big Crunch or whatever. It doesn't say that time doesn't do odd things around black holes.

Quote by Anthony1991
Because i feel this is quietly riddled with BS


It's highly speculative but nothing in it is obviously wrong or it wouldn't have been published. There are quite a few exotic cosmological theories floating around.
Is it still a God Complex if I really am God?

America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between.
Oscar Wilde
#15
Quote by Anthony1991

"The speed of light and the gravitational “constant” are not constant, but vary with the evolution of the universe. " Not really? Does a planet as it grows older suddenly gain or lose gravity? I know star's go nova when gravity wins the battle against the energy of the star (in some cases) - but that doesn't apply to planets does it? And where is the proof this is correct in the known universe?

"Time has no beginning and no end; i.e., there is neither a big bang nor a big crunch singularity. " This is counter-intuitive to the quote above - "time" stops around blackholes because light gets sucked in, but to an on-looker it appears the "object" (light) still remains - thereby appearing not getting sucked in. If this was true the object wouldn't go into the blackhole. But then that is presuming black holes 'end' time - but then who says it doesn't then create 'time'? Since without blackholes we wouldn't be here.

Can someone explain it to me if i've got it wrong? Because i feel this is quietly riddled with BS


A planet doesn't rely on stable nuclear force to keep its stucture. There is no proof.

Onto the second paragraph I can see one mistake thats just because it wasn't described in a good way.

Time does not stop around blackholes. It only seems to stop past the event horizon due to photons not being able to escape. The event horizon being the point of no return. Time still carries on, you just can't see whats happening anymore.
#17
Science has already proven that in the year 10 billion AD, a massive star will expand and consume everything in the universe, breaking down even subatomic particles. These particles will flood to the center of the star, which will then collapse on itself, generating an unstable high density mass, and will create a second big bang. The universe created by this second big bang will be exactly identical to our own.

And by science, I mean Futurama.
#18
Quote by sporkman7
Science has already proven that in the year 10 billion AD, a massive star will expand and consume everything in the universe, breaking down even subatomic particles. These particles will flood to the center of the star, which will then collapse on itself, generating an unstable high density mass, and will create a second big bang. The universe created by this second big bang will be exactly identical to our own.

And by science, I mean Futurama.


This is a solid theory with easily replicable test results. Try it yourself, rewind the episode and play it again, however many times to suit your needs.
Ibanez AS93
Fender Marauder
Vox Pathfinder 15R
#19
I already mentioned this concept somewhere else and people thought it was idiotic. I guess I might have just been ahead of the curve.

This astrophysics stuff is so pointless though. We have our greatest minds studying things that even if they figure it out, all that happens is "Cool story, bro."
I'm rgrockr and I do not approve of this message.
#20
Quote by rgrockr
I already mentioned this concept somewhere else and people thought it was idiotic. I guess I might have just been ahead of the curve.

This astrophysics stuff is so pointless though. We have our greatest minds studying things that even if they figure it out, all that happens is "Cool story, bro."

This guy is right, let's just forget about space and whatever's further than 150000000 kms away from Earth, it's just pointless.

edit: we need to include God in this new model, he could be the guy saying: "What day is it today? Oh monday, I feel like making G=6,67*10^-11, so be it".
Quote by Pleasure2kill
The truth is, Muslims never apologized for their faith having something to do with the attacks on 9/11.
Last edited by damian_91 at Aug 3, 2010,
#21
so i might be missing something here, but wouldn't this model be considered to be in perpetual motion?
Go Veg.
#22
Quote by Anthony1991
Technically - here we go - the big bang wasn't the true beginning.

I mean there was (lamens) opposite and negative, they exploded - that is the big bang. The real question is how the hell did they even exist to begin with?

I'll read it properly then post - thanks for sharing!


...No.
#23
Quote by derekgray
What about heat death? I used to think the universe would die a slow heat death, and since nothingness is a something, the resulting darkness that remained (a super-massive black hole) would erupt into a new Big Bang.

And isn't time relative to perception or something like that?

More words, flashy technicalities, unable to directly observe physics of the past, etc etc


Time is relative to the speed you're moving in the universe, because light speed has to be constant, so if an object is moving so fast, time will change to make light that same constant rate.

I don't if that made any sense or not, but imagine a runner throwing a ball. Light would be the ball, and the runner would be the source of light, or whatever the light is bouncing off. Newtonian physics would tell us that the ball would be traveling at it's speed plus the runners speed, but that's not the case with light. Time actually slows down around the runner so that the ball wouldn't have the runner's added speed.
Due what you want as long as you vote Due!
#24
Quote by im not mental
so i might be missing something here, but wouldn't this model be considered to be in perpetual motion?


I assume the transformation of matter/space/time into one another avoids the issue somehow. That would be on a cosmic scale anyhow so local violations wouldn't be seen.
Is it still a God Complex if I really am God?

America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between.
Oscar Wilde
#25
Quote by 剣 斧 血
Time does not stop around blackholes. It only seems to stop past the event horizon due to photons not being able to escape. The event horizon being the point of no return. Time still carries on, you just can't see whats happening anymore.


Basically, time is meaningless in a black hole due to it being a singularity. Space-time becomes infinite and therefore time is basically nonexistent.
#26
Wow, good for her, it's not everyday a model comes up wi-

Oh... wait...
Quote by ChadLikesGuitar
even now, an 8 year old could go download gorilla rape porn and jack off to it.
#27
Quote by blues-guitarist
I found this article interesting enough to post it so here it is:


http://www.physorg.com/news199591806.html


Anyone heard of this model before? I'm really interested on what other scientists have to say about it

Ive been saying this for years.
nothing really new though, first law of thermodynamics explains it perfectly.