StarGateWars Forums

[KMA]Avenger wrote:man, talk about deep lol


as far as this rubber band theory goes, the theory is this (for those that dont know), as we all know and has been proven by Hubble (The man and the telescope lol), the universe is expanding, it was only natural that someone would then ask...what will happen in the end?! will the universe reach a critical point of expansion that will ultimately cause a reversal of the expansion (an implosion if you will)?

To comment on this, I'm not entirely convinced that the universe is expanding at all. I'm yet to discuss it with anybody actually qualified to make that assessment, but it seems a little bit far fetched. But my explanation is long so it's spoilered and read it only if it pleases you to haha

[spoiler=]One of the things a good theory is judged by is the number of (and magnitude of) the assumptions it makes. The assumption that the universe is expanding is a pretty big one, especially considering that there could be far simpler explanations for what we see.

For example, we know that almost everything seems to follow an atmoic structure (some smaller pieces of matter orbiting a nucleus; e.g. an atom, the solar system [with the sun as nucleus], and the galaxy [with a sueprmassive black hole as nucleus]). If you take three objects and place them at different distances from the sun, they will start moving toward it due to gravity. However, the distance between the objects will grow because the closer object will move faster toward the sun (gravity is affected by distance) than the distant one.

So if the next largest step up from the galaxy (e.g. what we call the universe) had a nucleus, it would explain how everything we see seems to be moving away from us - because it is; but due to the gravity of the nucleus, rather than the universe expanding.

This also explains how objects (nearby and far away galaxies, etc.) seem to move away from us faster if they are more distant. This also makes sense because current methods of detecting the speed at which objects moving away from us (the redshift method) don't tell us anything about lateral movement of distant objects, only the speed at which they are moving away from us. So the theory here that makes fewer assumptions, and the one that fits in better with known structures (e.g. atomic/nucleus based structures), doesn't seem to be the hubble theory.[/spoiler]

Anyways, that's my two cents on the subject

One of the things a good theory is judged by is the number of (and magnitude of) the assumptions it make

LOl I love when people out their foot in their own mouths.


Your explanation involves a tone of assumptions... I mean a crap load,

Lets say we take one assumption and qualify it to the mass of a basketball, the assumptions in your hypothesis would be equal to the mass of the sun. THE SUN!!!