pantheory

For some or maybe most oil sand and oil shale deposits, extracting hydrogen from them may be a more economical process and resource than trying to extract oil by distillation from these materials, especially as the article states, a "cheap new process." For most of these deposits it's not presently economical to develop these fields. But if they can no do it just by pumping down pressurized oxygen into a chasm, as the article explains, even with just a a marginal profit, then this new process will be very valuable. But hydrogen production has never been free or pollution free, or a throw-a-way by-product of oil production. To produce oil and its associated products, natural gas etc. finding, drilling, pumping, and refining nowadays is a very expensive undertaking. From tar sands and oil shale deposits, the cost of producing oil is often not economically feasible. For highly viscous oil deposits, hydrogen is purchased as an input to the distillation process to crack heavier oils and tar into lighter materials that can be further distilled into gasoline, diesel, and asphaltis materials. Therefore hydrogen from oil fields and nearly all other sources is far from free or pollution free. I know they have been selling hydrogen from oil well production for more than a hundred years. It is used for countless industrial purposes as well as for a small hydrogen fuel automotive industry. If they can produce hydrogen from oil sands and oil shale deposits more cheaply than producing petroleum from these deposits if even possible economically, then the price of hydrogen will go down and the number of pollution free hydrogen consuming products will increase.

Yes, IMO something did come from something to start with. But like the original Big Bang version time began by the first changes in that something. There was no such thing as a time before that. Both time and space were created by, and can be defined by characteristics of that something. Time can be exactly equated with change, changes in that something, and today be changes in matter. There was no change before the first change, and accordingly there was no such thing as a time before that first change in the beginning entity Space can be defined as the distance between matter and the volume which it collectively occupies, nothing more than that.There would be no such thing as space outside the confines of matter and the universe. Rene De Carte said: space is an extension of matter, and Einstein said: Time and space and gravitation have no separate existence from matter. Accordingly everything in the universe would be relatively simple, and If a theory is not generally simple then it's very likely wrong IMO . Although I never believed in the Big Bang model or any expanding universe model, at least the first Big Bang version seemed simple enough. In 1927 Lemaître proposed an expanding universe hypothesis to explain the observed redshifts of spiral nebulae, and did the first calculations proposing an expanding universe mathematical cosmology using the equations of Einstein and De Sitter. He called his theory the "Fireworks theory." On the other hand, the discoverer of the distance-to-redshift relationship, Erwin Hubble, never believed in an expanding universe or the Big Bang theory; instead he believed there was another explanation for the observed redshifts. There have been many other explanations proposed for the observed redshifts of galaxies in Hubble's time, and many more have been proposed since then to the present day. https://www.science20.com/eternal_blogs/blog/hubble_eventually_did_not_believe_big_bang_associated_press-85962 Now, of course, the Big Bang model is much more complicated proposing Inflation, dark matter, dark energy, etc., although none of these things have been observed. This is because IMO all of these things are imaginary place holders for far simpler characteristics and relationships that mainstream cosmology presently does not understand. Your quote: "One of the main points of interest in Penrose's cyclic model is that it's a something coming from something oriented model. And from what I understand most BBT oriented models now look at it with attention to past eternal scenario's because they're pretty much unavoidable." Although much better than multiverse theory IMO, the Big Bounce model still does not explain the observed universe any better than the Big Bang model. This is because it is essentially the same theory excepting that it proposes a different cyclical beginning. I can't think of any aspect of the BB theory that is right. Yes, the equations of General Relativity collectively are the best model of gravity that we have, but also IMO the warped space, curved space, 4D space, and expanding space concepts are all wrong. Space is accordingly no more than the distance between matter. Maybe 3 or more years after the James Webb space telescope and the Atacama long baseline radio-scopes are fully functional, expected to be about 2024-26, if it is announced that they have found at the farthest observable distances some old, very large and red appearing elliptical and spiral galaxies, maybe with observably high metallicities in accord with predictions of a much older or infinite-age universe, this would be strong evidence that the universe is much older and that the Big Bang model would likely be wrong. This would also include the Big Bounce theories since they propose a visually evolving universe the same as the Big Bang model. On the other hand, if only small young, blue-appearing galaxies with minimal metallicity were instead observed at these farthest distances (with no old appearing large galaxies), then all theories and hypothesis proposing a much older or infinite aged universe without cycling, would also most likely be wrong.

These cyclic universe models have collectively been called Big Bounce models. Although possibilities derived from one or more collective interpretations can have various, or a great many implications, one interpretation can be just one of many dozens of possible interpretations. Even the primary mainstream interpretation of any particular observation is often wrong IMO. The beginnings of all theories in science are almost always speculation having at least one reason for it. Penrose is, and should be considered a respected theorist because he can explain the logic to his speculation, concerning the "could be s" and related possibilities. As for me, I have long proposed a universe trillions of years old rather than just 13.8 billion years as in the Big Bang model, but still a universe that once had a beginning, with nothing before that. If you are interested. see the link below. Of course there are possible observational justifications for this model also as there are for all science based models. Speculation becomes a hypothesis when the model can be tested by observation. Hypothesis become theory when many observations seem to confirm it. Also to be considered a theory in cosmology it needs to be testable in the eyes of many, and have a half dozen or more mainstream theorists that consider it one of the likely possibilities. http://www.pantheory.org/

Such cyclic universe schemes have been around and proposed for many decades but none can be any more than pure speculation unless the proposers of such ideas can conceive of a way where somehow there proposal could be observed or tested. Anything else is not science. At least Roger Penrose can speak well concerning the possibility of creating logical theories, many other theorists cannot IMO.

Hi Walter, I looked at your link and found it very interesting. Although some have asserted that there are ties between the Hubble constant dispute and the flat vs. curved universe dispute, I think such arguments are weak. As to your link, I found it very interesting because in my own research and related paper I also came up with the same Hubble constant of z = 68, with a large tolerance range of z ~ 8.4. The basis for this rate of expansion was type 1a supernova data up to 2014, all based upon the Hubble distance formula. Although I never believed in an expanding universe (I have a non-conventional explanation for redshifts), through many years of research and a related paper I derived a different formula to calculate cosmic distances based upon type 1a supernova data, stating that the Hubble distance formula is wrong and therefore the Hubble constant is a myth. The Hubble formula was derived from the Lorentz equations (the same as Special Relativity) based upon an expanding universe. If the universe is not expanding then this distance formula is wrong and there would be no Hubble constant. Instead it would be more like a Hubble variable. Recently a research associate of mine wrote a book about this subject putting me as lead author with my permission, and putting one of my peer-reviewed, published and cited papers in the middle of the book. If you would like to see the link to the paper, the book cover and information and quotes from the book please PM me and I will send them to you.

Hi Josh, I thought I would put in my two cents here but Walter can properly answer your question. The bubbles are 3D depictions of 4D universes (like ours according to Einstein) that are closed upon themselves (if you traveled in a straight line long enough you would end back where you started). And if they remained 4D they could never interact with each other. The bubbles could also represent 3D flat universes which would spread out and expand until there was no matter or energy left at the spherical exterior boundary. There would be no hard boundary. Between these universes, like ours for instance, the space between them would also be expanding so that even light from one universe could not reach any of the others. The above idea is only one of the many dozens of multiverse proposals. Some are 3D proposals, some are 4D proposals, and some are other dimensional proposals, etc. Some propose that these multiverses might in some way be able to interact with our own universe and be observable in some way, but others propose such universes could never interact or be observed by another universe.

Belief in the multiverse: a form of blind faith? Many or most mainstream astronomers and physicists dislike multiverse theory because they assert that such hypotheses are not science, but instead unjustifiable speculation, described in the link below, like the blind faith of religion. There are several avenues that lead to multiverse speculation, that also involve open (flat) and closed (curved) universes/ space. Nearly all multiverse hypothesis assert curved-space bubble universes that are closed in a fourth dimension and cannot interact with other such universes. Some have also proposed that bubble universes could in their future begin to flatten. A few theorists have proposed that flat multiverses might at some future time of their evolution be able to interact with each other. The former is pure speculation if such bubble universes could never be observed, but the second although mere speculation proposes possible observation. But what is the reason to even consider multiverses in the first place? Don’t we have enough answers with our present theories and hypotheses without having to come up with additional ad hoc speculation, gods of the gaps so-to-speak? There are several well-known hypothesis that lead to multiverse conclusions. Most propose curved, bubble-like universes. The first speculative avenue to multiverses involves the Inflation hypothesis. There are a number of different inflation models by a number of individuals but most theorists prefer Allen Guth’s version since he was the first to propose a model of Inflation to solve the number of problems in cosmology that were thought to exist as that time which seemingly could not otherwise be explained. The Inflation Model proposes an expansion of space event of all energy and matter at the beginning of the universe at countless times the speed of light, then this inflation stopped. No reasons for Inflation in the first place or why it should stop are contained in the proposals. Inflation does not predict multiverses but can allow for them. Inflation models are known to lead to flat universes. The second speculative avenue to multiverses is called the Many-Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. This hypothesis proposes that anything that can statistically happen does happen in this and other universes producing an almost infinite number of other universes. There are a few mainstream followers of this model, the most well-known of these might be the theorist Sean Carroll. A third speculative avenue relates to the proposed Big Bang beginning and how it supposedly originated. Some have proposed that our universe spontaneously generated from the Zero Point Field, and likewise that other universes have generated from this same field, or that one universe can generate from another in an unending chain of events. IMO; Multiverse speculation is considered reasonable by some theorists because present theory observations and theory in cosmology and quantum theory sometimes cannot otherwise be explained so they look to find otherworldly god-of-the-gaps type explanations like multiverse hypotheses to explain what they do not understand. Curved or flat space concerning multiverses may not be a real issue, for instance, if there is no such thing as curved space in the first place, contrary to the related conceptual foundation of General Relativity. And it also would be a non-issue if this universe was the only one, which I think it is. Another big problem in logic seen in much of present-day science theory is called the "follow the leader fallacy" and the "Appeal to Authority" fallacy. Most of such logical-fallacy failings I believe are more obvious in the interpretations of modern physics (special relativity, general relativity, cosmology, particle physics, and quantum theory) than with other sciences https://www.irishtimes.com/news/science/belief-in-the-multiverse-a-form-of-blind-faith-1.2153271 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation The main problem with multiverse theory is that it is not science, having little or no recognized observational, theoretical, or consensus justification for such speculation. https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/science-and-technology/the-problem-with-multiverse-theories-theyre-just-not-science

Yes, I understand. Staying exactly on topic is sometimes difficult to realize whether the universe is flat or curved I like the quality of your posts. When you ask questions, they usually are good ones. And when you explain theory you generally add appropriate comments. Because of your profile I understand cosmology is a keen interest of yours. I know you will continue with your good postings and keen interest. best regards, Forrest, AKA pantheory

You're right, I see how they are using the word discordance. Makes sense. Also nice graphics on your part. As a cosmologist, you probably know that I think the Big Bang model is entirely wrong in every way possible that I can think of. Besides the universe not being curved IMO, you can review my paper (link below) concerning the almost endless problems we found with the BB theory and present cosmology. For instance the only things on your graph above which I think are both conceptually and observationally valid are the "Flat universe," related to this thread, and the "Copernican Principle." https://www.aijcrnet.com/journals/Vol_4_No_9_September_2014/2.pdf

The article’s title in your link explains the basis for the article and related conjecture: Planck evidence for a closed Universe The article's lead paragraph ends with this quote: “Future measurements are needed to clarify whether the observed discordances are due to undetected systematics, or to new physics or simply are a statistical fluctuation.” It's hard to argue with the statement that future measurements are needed, but there are several additional nebulous words in this sentence. The word "discordances" may not be a problem word because it means observational anomalies that are contradicted by other observational interpretations. But the word "systematics" is uncommon to astronomy and more akin to biology. Here I think the meaning of it is: looking for "evidence" for the evolution of the universe in such a way that the discordant observations might make sense in accord with present theory. And the words "statistical fluctuations" appear to be code words for statistical miscalculations concerning the meanings of what they interpreted as being observational anomalies. My prediction is that new measurements will not settle this controversy because misinterpretations are involved with the meanings of the "excessive" bending (lensing) of light, 99%+ confidence level concerning a curved universe comes to mind. I also predict that a far-simpler cosmological model is needed along with related new physics.

One of Einstein's 10 equations of General Relativity involves Riemann geometry, the basis for his warped-space proposal. Riemann was credited as being the first person to provide a comprehensive, mathematical model of a fourth physical dimension. A mobius sphere would be a four dimensional sphere and Einstein did believe the universe bent around on itself in a fourth dimension, but don't know if he ever used the word mobius, even though the word also exists in German as I have read.

Is the universe flat or curved? Mainstream cosmology generally agrees that in either case, a flat universe, or one that curves into a fourth dimension, both would be consistent with the Big Bang model since a flat universe is just a single, special case of Einstein's equations. From my point of view as a cosmologist, the universe is far simpler than any presently known model of it. Essentially there would be nothing complicated about it. or within it. Only our misunderstandings of its simplicity are unnecessarily complicated. Curved space (warped space) is a foundation conceptual idea of Einstein's General Theory of Relativity (GR), his theory of gravity. Of course his equations can be very good (excellent) but his concept of warped space could be all wrong. My related paper asserts that the details of gravitational lensing, in the above link, are simply based upon misunderstands concerning the existence of dark matter and dark energy. If space is not curved, it is described as being flat, which simply means there is no fourth dimension to it. And if it is flat, does not mean that it is infinite. Based upon what I consider the simplest definition of space, it is simply the distance between matter and the volume that matter encompasses, and nothing more. IMO it is not some imaginary thing that goes on forever. Rene De Carte called space an extension of matter. Einstein said that Space, Time, and Gravity have no separate existence from matter. So is space flat or curved? To date all observations have indicated that it is perfectly flat. Of course many have pointed out that at a scale beyond the possibly observable universe space could still be curved on a far larger scale, but IMO observational evidence should be more important than nebulous theory concerning the likelihood of something. Most would agree that a four dimensional universe (four dimensional sphere or shape) would likely involve much more complicated and nebulous theory beyond GR.

You're right, really cool. Didn't know they had any data good enough to enable such an animation.

The title of their paper is " The singularities of gravitational collapse and cosmology. The paper goes on to explain the pros and cons concerning this and past proposals concerning the formation of singularities. This quote in their abstract states that four assumptions are required for the consideration of their theorem. "(1) Einstein’s equations hold (with zero or negative cosmological con­stant), (2) the energy density is nowhere less than minus each principal pressure nor less than minus the sum of the three principal pressures (the ‘energy condition 5), (3) there are no closed time-like curves, (4) every time-like or null geodesic enters a region where the curva­ture is not specially aligned with the geodesic (This last condition would hold in any sufficiently general physically realistic model.) In common with earlier results, time-like or null geodesic incompleteness is used here as the indication of the presence of space-time singularities. No assumption concerning existence of a global Cauchy hyper-surface is required for the present theorem." They go on to ask the question: Is the picture that is presented by symmetrical exact models accurate, according to which a singularity in space-time would ensue?: The paper continues to present the pros and cons for this and other considerations and proposals. (quotes from the paper follow) It has sometimes been suggested also that, on a somewhat larger scale, some form of gravitational collapse may be taking place in quasars, or perhaps in the centers of (some?) galaxies. Finally, on the scale of the universe as a whole, this instability shows up again in those models for which the expansion eventually reverses and the entire universe becomes involved in a gravitational collapse. In the reverse direction in time there is also the ‘ big bang ’ initial phase which is common to most relativistic (faster than light) expanding models. This again may be regarded as a manifesta­tion of the instability of gravitation (in reverse). But what is the ultimate fate of a system in gravitational collapse? Is the picture that is presented by symmetrical exact models accurate, according to which a singularity in space-time would ensue? Or may it not be that any asymmetries present might cause the different parts of the collapsing material to miss each other, so possibly to lead to some form of bounce? It seems that until comparatively recently many people had believed that such an asymmetrical bounce might indeed be possible to achieve, in a manner consistent with general relativity. However, some recent theorems']' (Penrose 1965 a; Hawking 1966 a, 6;H; Geroch 1966) have ruled out a large number of possibilities of this kind. The present paper carries these results further, and considerably strengthens the implication that a singu­larity-free bounce (of the type required) does not seem to be realizable within the framework of general relativity.

No, singularities are only an implication of Einstein's equations. Einstein himself did not believe in singularities or black holes. "Einstein denied several times that black holes could form. In 1939 he published a paper that argues that a star collapsing would spin faster and faster, spinning at the speed of light with infinite energy well before the point where it is about to collapse into a Schwarzchild singularity, or black hole" https://www.google.com/search?sxsrf=ACYBGNS_0M0nBaYFHq7kTia2XhLwELmKmQ%3A1572139927864&source=hp&ei=l_O0Xf7eMtfY-gSL4I2QBg&q=Einstein's+statements+concerning+black+holes&oq=Einstein's+statements+concerning+black+holes&gs_l=psy-ab.12...1912.22332..24335...3.0..0.156.4290.36j11......0....1..gws-wiz.......0j0i131j35i39j0i10j0i22i30j0i22i10i30j38j33i22i29i30j33i299j33i160.ZyAW8tA-0GQ&ved=0ahUKEwi-hr7PpbvlAhVXrJ4KHQtwA2IQ4dUDCAs Although what we now call back holes are known to exist, they may not exist as singularities, only as another dense form of matter, more dense than a theoretical neutron star.