It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Hubble Measurements Confirm There's Something Weird About How the Universe Is Expanding

page: 2
44
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 27 2019 @ 07:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Forensick

The Universe has to collapse for the Big Bang to happen , the Big Crunch is inevitable.




posted on Apr, 27 2019 @ 07:56 PM
link   
a reply to: gortex

Huh.


Is there enough matter, dark or otherwise, to actuate a reversal? In your opinion?

When is the expansion expected to slow down, in your opinion?

edit on 4/27/2019 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 27 2019 @ 08:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: Forensick

The Universe has to collapse for the Big Bang to happen , the Big Crunch is inevitable.


I thought I was late to the party, but that was my first thought. They theorized before (Big Bang) everything was expanding blown out from the singularity, then would be sucked back to repeat. What if we are about to hit that spot? Everything closer to the origin would slow down first, and then “sluuuurp” back to the center.
It has to be that, or we (the Milky Way + a few) are separating from the pack in a race to somewhere.



posted on Apr, 27 2019 @ 10:13 PM
link   
My personal thoughts are that perhaps because expansion from a singularity point spreads out the energy and matter more and more over distance and time (inverse square law) that the more recent space/time has less drag slowing the expansion.

Since there is no friction in the non-space that the universe is expanding into, then the drag must be from gravity and other interference caused by a more tightly packet space. Whatever energy and material is the least impeded from the beginning of the big bang would be on the outer edge of the expansion. As it expands and becomes less dense and more spread out, the present local space would contain faster, less impeded energy and matter when compared to a distant, more condensed past universe.



posted on Apr, 27 2019 @ 10:23 PM
link   
From the ink - a word of caution.

gizmodo.com...


So, again, it’s not that the Universe is expanding faster or slower than we previously thought. Instead, the discrepancy in these measurements may ultimately reveal an entirely new aspect of the Universe that scientists are currently in the dark about.



posted on Apr, 27 2019 @ 10:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Subsonic

Good points to consider

What if, as we are connected to the universe, we are the cause of its expansion

from link


“results seem to show that the local Universe is expanding faster than the far Universe”


What if the 7.7 bill people of earth in their quest for knowledge …. even through the simple act of living and recording experience...expand the consciousness field / universe?

www.gigabitmagazine.com...

bigthink.com...

Veteran physicist Gregory Matloff of the New York City College of Technology, says he has some preliminary evidence showing that, at the very least, panpsychism isn't impossible. Hey, it's a start. Dr. Matloff told NBC News, “It's all very speculative, but it's something we can check and either validate or falsify."

Theoretical physicist Bernard Haisch, in 2006, suggested that consciousness is produced and transmitted through the quantum vacuum, or empty space. Any system that has sufficient complexity and creates a certain level of energy, could generate or broadcast consciousness. Dr. Matloff got in touch with the unorthodox, German physicist and proposed an observational study, to test it.





what if AI is out there lurking ….questioning, probing the data….

As the consciousness field expands so to does the local Universe

In school 45 years ago we were told that the Universe encompasses all known matter.


Defn:


Definition Universe
noun
all existing matter and space considered as a whole; the cosmos. The universe is believed to be at least 10 billion light years in diameter and contains a vast number of galaxies; it has been expanding since its creation in the Big Bang about 13 billion years ago.

synonyms: cosmos, macrocosm, totality, whole world, Creation, (outer) space, the heavens, the firmament


Local universe/greater universe/ are just words...without precise meaning.

We know less than we pretend we think we know.



posted on Apr, 27 2019 @ 10:40 PM
link   
a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

Because we don't know everything, it doesn't mean we know nothing.

The more vast (or small) the scale, the more applicable.



posted on Apr, 27 2019 @ 10:47 PM
link   
Silly rabbits, tricks are for kids!!

The term "Universe" defines a thing, a tangible object. An object with a boundary and a measurable space.

"Expanding"???....in comparison to what? People say, 'well, things are red shifting and getting further away...from each other...from us!'. Well, okay...so what? In comparison to what? Einstein already said space was curved, so how can we even comprehend a concept like 'expansion'???? Define "curved'" in a warped space and time.

A "Big Bang"...in an environment of what? A bubble which expanded in a 'primordial soup of magnetism and what?'.

Our universe could be an abscess, a boil, of exploding white blood cells on someone's ass. It started with nothing, but an infection point, and BANG....expansion...until it becomes this inflamed sore.

Time? What is time? Time is what "we" measure. It is how we define our lives. Time is insignificant by our definition.

"God"? Who is God? God is so much more omnipotent than any religion can suggest it's laughable! God isn't a person, not a being like us humans. God doesn't even know we humans exists.

Look up at the stars, look up at the Milky Way...and tell me...our feeble answers explain anything at all!

We know NOTHING!



posted on Apr, 27 2019 @ 10:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk




The term "Universe" defines a thing, a tangible object. An object with a boundary and a measurable space.
I suppose that would depend upon what you mean. At one time the term referred to our galaxy of stars. Then, whups, we found out there are other galaxies of stars.

edit on 4/27/2019 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 27 2019 @ 10:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

My point, exactly!

But then you already knew that.

edit on 4/27/2019 by Flyingclaydisk because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 27 2019 @ 10:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk



But you already knew that.

Actually, I didn't.

With observation early definitions were modified. The current definition of the Universe has expanded beyond what is observable (due to the limitations imposed by the speed of light). What you said doesn't seem to address that.



posted on Apr, 27 2019 @ 11:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

**sigh**

I had to think about this response (and it's late...and my head hurts now, thanks bud).

Yes, but the human form is defined by the speed of light. That which exists beyond it is out of our reach as a species. So, while you are right, that which exists beyond the boundaries defined by light are not something mankind will ever be able to comprehend. Not truly. It will always be theory, and only theory.

Quantum physics will not unravel this riddle for us. It may tell us there are things we will never know or understand, but it won't solve that which lies beyond light.


edit on 4/27/2019 by Flyingclaydisk because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 27 2019 @ 11:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk




Yes, but the human form is defined by the speed of light.

Actually, as I understand it, it's defined by an arrangement of molecules. That arrangement being determined by various proteins. Those proteins being determined by the expression of various genes.
edit on 4/27/2019 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 27 2019 @ 11:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

The paradox of E=MC^2 wasn't mass, and it wasn't energy...it was the speed of light "squared".

In the lifetime of mankind we will never reach the speed of light. In the lifetime of the Universe, no one will ever reach C^2. It is the ultimate threshold.



posted on Apr, 27 2019 @ 11:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

There is no paradox in that equation.



posted on Apr, 27 2019 @ 11:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

True, but you can't break those proteins down, you can't break those molecules down...and re-assemble them again.

And, because all of that is mass, our exploration of even the near stellar world is all but off limits.



posted on Apr, 27 2019 @ 11:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Absolutely not, there is no paradox in the equation.

The paradox is man.

ETA - I should have worded my previous statement more clearly. Agreed.


edit on 4/27/2019 by Flyingclaydisk because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 27 2019 @ 11:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Not only that, it's the weekend.



posted on Apr, 27 2019 @ 11:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Subsonic
Indulge me for a minute while I get waaaaay out there...What if there are no "laws" of nature, but just "habits" of nature?

Suppose that the universe is actually alive. Maybe not in the way we think of it, but it is indeed alive in some way, and able to make decisions, affect change to its environment, etc. Just on a time scale that's incredibly longer and slower than we can observe from our short time in this existence.

As we know, the behavior of a living creature is generally predictable, because living beings develop habits that guide their decisions. But habits can change, usually gradually, but occasionally quickly.

What if what we observe as "laws" of nature, are in fact just "habits" of nature that the living universe has developed over time, but can change at will? The speed of light, gravity, physics and chemistry itself, maybe these are not actually constants and permanent traits of our universe, but rather just the way the living universe chooses to behave in this particular time and space? And in the past it was different, and in the future it will be different, because people/creatures/entities inevitably change over time.

OK, I'm going to put down the Ayahuasca now...

Lots of good thought in your post. I would tend to agree.

To think space is linear would be crazy I believe. There's just way to many variables for absolutes. There's different density's levels, concentrations, proportions of gases, galaxies spinning and moving at different speeds and acceleration rates, gravitational pulls, blackholes with different vacuum pressures and levels, etc, infinite.........

The variables are so endless which make it a living entity of its own, at least the way I perceive it anyway's.



posted on Apr, 27 2019 @ 11:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Interesting observation...the weekend.

If we were traveling at the speed of light, how long would the "weekend" be to a stationary observer???

And who would decide what 'stationary' is? And relative to what?







 
44
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join