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.

 

Evidence for Universe Expansion Found

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:
apc

posted on Mar, 19 2006 @ 02:21 PM
link   
Possible. But then what would explain the expansion?




posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lecter
So if nothing can travel faster then light how the heck did all this matter expand from a marble size to almost current size in a billionth of a second?


It is not matter that expanded, but the universe itself. Imagine drawing a small dot on an unfilled balloon, then filling the balloon with air. The dot will not move, but the balloon will expand.



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 07:33 PM
link   
But the dot will expand also.



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 07:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by masterp

Originally posted by Lecter
So if nothing can travel faster then light how the heck did all this matter expand from a marble size to almost current size in a billionth of a second?


It is not matter that expanded, but the universe itself. Imagine drawing a small dot on an unfilled balloon, then filling the balloon with air. The dot will not move, but the balloon will expand.


So if the dot is the universe what is the baloon?



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 09:04 PM
link   
I won't argue the existence of God here, but I do have to say that the Big Bang and this inflation theory sound an awful lot like creation to me, regardless of who or what is responsible. It's hard enough to imagine the all the matter that makes up the earth being "submicroscopic," much less the universe.


apc

posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 10:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shakeyjc
But the dot will expand also.

That is a bit of a predicament is it not? One for which I suggested as a solution the asyncronous expansion notion.

If space itself is the only thing doing the expanding, then the universe is finite.

If space has completed expansion, and matter/energy is still expanding into it, the universe is infinite, with the boundaries of our spacetime existing beyond its own construct.

Interesting... if the latter is correct then all matter is traveling at enormous speeds relative to any fixed point in space. Speeds great enough to have significant deviations in relative time. Not that it would really matter. Who cares if some alien is simultaneously existing in a different moment in time than we are. Who are we to say our clock is better than theirs?



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 11:31 PM
link   
I tend to think that the 'space' in which matter structuralises has always been apparent, and that it is the influx of 'extra' content (ie, matter) into space, that is driving the expansion.
Somewhere, according to M-theory, our universe and some other universe are interfacing along a membrane of correspondence, and that these membranes are still interfacing, and along this interface, energy from the other universe is being drawn into our universe, and then condensing into matter as it slows and cools.
Due to the reduction in both speed and energy, matter takes on the guises of sub-quanta and quanta, quickly falling into line with the physical laws of this universe. However, this describes a mechanism for the continuing expansion, and possibly for gravity.
Gravity is observed to be quite weak in our universe because there is more 'space' than matter, and simply because gravity affects matter more than it does (if it does?) space. There is no correllation for gravity to affect space without matter being present in that space. Gravity may traverse the space, but whether it affects it is not known (I myself doubt that gravity affects space, for I think that in order for space to accomodate matter within itself, it must necessarily not interact with it - which is another reason why the matter universe is expanding. Think of it in terms of two universes, one of matter that is ballooning, and one of space that super-positionally contains the matter universe).
Also, there need not be only one universe interfacing with our own. We do not know, nor can we calculate the size and shape of the universe (space), we can only calculate the matter in it.
For the creationists, we can allow for God to exist, not necessarily in this universe, but probably in some other! That must be comforting for some!

Regards



posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 12:14 AM
link   
String theory and M-theory to the limited extent that I can conceptualize them, remind me of the quote by Tesla.


Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality.
Nikola Tesla (1857 - 1943) , Modern Mechanics and Inventions, July, 1934

www.quotationspage.com...


I saw on C-Span recently a woman who had written a book about string theory, who gave a compelling though somewhat confusing arguement for her position. However, when it came time for questions and answers, it became evident that her audience consisted of a small group of clueless eccentrics and some who appeared to be autistic. Her exasperation with the questions was evident when she found herself first trying to dispell the myriad misconceptions expressed by the questioner before she could get around to answering the question.

I even heard someone postulate that string theory and its variants and derivatives are the product of mathematical artifacts--a kind of rounding error, if you will.



posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 12:28 AM
link   
First, one small clarification, when physicists say the universe was the size of a marble/atom/whatever shortly after the big bang, they're talking about the visible universe, not necessarily the entire universe. We have no way of knowing (yet) how big the universe really is, or if it even makes sense to talk about a universe beyond our visible sphere.

The concept of expanding space is a bit confusing in three dimensions, but sometimes it helps to remove a dimension or two to help understand it.

Here's a one-dimensional analogy: Imagine a bunch of ants evenly spaced on a segment of a rubber band. As the rubber band is stretched, the ants observe that their neighbors are moving away from them, though each ant thinks he's at rest from his own point of view. Moreover, the farther away a given neighbor is, the faster he appears to be receding. This is similar to what we see in our universe: The farther away a galaxy is, the faster it appears to be receding.

Even the tiny chunk of rubber band immediately underneath the ant's legs is expanding, but it is happening so slowly that he doesn't even notice. Even if he did notice the expansion, the force is not enough to rip his little legs out, his legs would just slide back together on the rubber band.

This is happening to us as well. The volume of space occupied by our solar system, planet, bodies, etc. is expanding right underneath us. This expansion does exert a repelling force that counteracts gravity, but it is extremely small compared to gravity, much less molecular or atomic forces, so we're in no danger of being torn apart by expanding space.



posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 05:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Saltman
The farther away a galaxy is, the faster it appears to be receding.


Isn't this because of the light we see, that make up these distant galaxies, is much older and therefor reflect a younger version of these galaxies from when big bang was a much more recent event and energy traveled much faster due to the fact that the explosion was much closer in timeline, hence they appear to travel faster?

Also of cuz they must appear to distant themself faster since they were obviously on the outskirts of this universe, hence that energy must have traveled faster from the point of big bang than the rest of the energy, since they were all in the same 'marble'.

Is this really a mystery? Or maybe I don't understand.



posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 06:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
I even heard someone postulate that string theory and its variants and derivatives are the product of mathematical artifacts--a kind of rounding error, if you will.


Thats interesting, I've never heard that before.

Even Steven Weinberg admits that string theory, although elegant, is utterly untestable with todays technology, and really is more a branch of philosophy than physical science.

Lots of mathematics is like that though. Take n factorial (N!), nowhere in the axioms of mathematics can this expression be derived from first principles, but it manifests in many equations which describe physical processes.

Even if string theory is a product of mathematical artifacts I still think it is worthy of investigation.



posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shakeyjc
But the dot will expand also.


The dot will not expand because the nuclear forces keep atoms together. It is the empty space that expanded, pushing matter away from matter.

The big bang is analogous to warping space for Star Trek: space in front of the spaceship contracts, while space behind the spaceship expands. The spaceship does not move, nor the planetary systems, but suddently the spaceship is at the target star system.



posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
I won't argue the existence of God here, but I do have to say that the Big Bang and this inflation theory sound an awful lot like creation to me, regardless of who or what is responsible. It's hard enough to imagine the all the matter that makes up the earth being "submicroscopic," much less the universe.


Just because you can not imagine it, does it mean it is not possible? who would have imagined man flying, for example?

And the concept of big bang does not exclude the possibility of the universe being eternal: it may be that the universe explodes and implodes in regular or not regular intervals.


apc

posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by masterp
[The dot will not expand because the nuclear forces keep atoms together. It is the empty space that expanded, pushing matter away from matter.

Ah but if those nuclear forces are dependent on a measurable distance, and the very unit of measurement is growing, not multiplying, then does not that mean we are all actually stretched?



The big bang is analogous to warping space for Star Trek: space in front of the spaceship contracts, while space behind the spaceship expands. The spaceship does not move, nor the planetary systems, but suddently the spaceship is at the target star system.

ARG!! I hate it when people quote incorrect Star Trek physics!! A Warp Drive a la Star Trek creates a warp bubble that reduces the mass of any matter contained within the bubble. The fusion driven Impulse Engines then propel the ship. Because the thrust does not change and the ship is significantly "lighter" light speed is achieved. Is it technically correct? No! But it's not supposed to be. What good science fiction loving nerd cares about accuracy? .... don't answer that.

[edit on 21-3-2006 by apc]



posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by masterp

Just because you can not imagine it, does it mean it is not possible? who would have imagined man flying, for example?



I never said that because I cannot imagine something that it cannot exist and men have imagined flying for all of history and probably far beyond.




top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join