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.

 

What if space isn't expanding?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:
apc

posted on May, 31 2006 @ 05:43 PM
link   
It is commonly held that the universe we know and love is expanding. It has been expanding ever since its creation, the Big Bang. I am only going to be looking at this matter, excluding implications of M-Theory and other things greater than our 5-dimensional universe.

I am terrible with Math. I love calculators. I do not posess the mathematical knowledge to formulate these ideas. Please bare with me on this.

In most instances my statements should be related to the three physical dimensions only.

Immediately after the Big Bang the universe could obviously have been seen as spherical. When something explodes outward from a single point, you get a sphere. The space between bits of energy expanded resulting in the distribution of energy and matter.

I propose that at this point the collective gravity of every single speck of matter in the universe began warping all of space. Because gravity travels at the speed of light, this warpage began slowly, and continues today.

Again, speaking in three dimensional terms, this would have at first squished the sphere into an hourglass shape. Slowly this shape would have become more exaggeraged, progressing towards a doughnut shape. The doughnut shape is still a ways off because of the time it will take for gravity to warp space to this point. Presently it could be looked at as a pair of umbrellas with the handles joined.

I can't stress enough that these are three dimensional descriptors. The shapes must be represented in every possible permutation and orientation simultaneously.

The doughtnut shaped universe theory is often dismissed because it is apparent that everything in the "core" area would have to be getting closer together. This is not so. The reason being that the "core" is everywhere. Every point in space occupies every point in the doughnut.

Space only appears to be expanding, but it is actually still in the process of folding back on itself.

This prompts the question, what happens when the edges touch? When the doughnut is complete? Do they even touch?

I suspect at this point we begin the "Big Crunch." The universe continues to warp back on itself eventually folding itself into implosion.

So that's my theory. I don't know how original it is, I just came up with it last night while trying to sleep. Blast it apart, by all means. But please share your thoughts.




posted on May, 31 2006 @ 06:44 PM
link   
Arrrghhhh!!! Headache!!!
lol.

I'm finding it very difficult to percieve your ideas, and i have a questions to ask-

-Why would it turn into an hourglass shape? I'm also just stuck in thinking how this slips into a donut shape. Can you provide some pictures to explain it please?(if i am the not the only one who struggles).

I think that the expansion is best expained using a theory that Yarium posted on here not so long ago, and i would provide a link, but i'm struggling to find it.


I don't think it matters that you don't have the full mathamatical knowledge, this only comes into practice when you're trying to prove your theory (and possibly make a formula), as for example, you don't need to be able to use the equation for moments about a point on a bench to work out that a larger person has to sit closer to te pivot than the smaller person on the other side - you can sometimes just think about this and it makes sense in your mind.

Maybe the Big crunch at the end of our Universe is what started it in the first place? Haha. That's one to think about!!! You could probably ignore time after the big crunch, as there is not universe and maybe no time to exist, so this means it could cause the universe to start, couldn't it?


apc

posted on May, 31 2006 @ 07:02 PM
link   
With the hourglass and eventual doughnut shape I should again emphasize these are purely from a three dimensional perspective. The construct itself is four dimensional, but in three dimensions could be described in this way.

The warpage generated by all the matter in the universe is relatively subtle, but it is constant, and increasing. This warpage is what I theorize gives the impression of expansion, but this expansion is only occurring at the "ends" of the formation, which exists everywhere simultaneously.

Because the four dimensional universe is warping itself, three dimensionally we experience this warpage as expansion.

I wish I had the expertise to put together some animations. It is very clear in my mind.

I guess imagine the doughnut. Disconnect the doughnut at the exterior equator and allow the edges to pull apart from eachother into the center, forming the hourglass. This is the reverse of what I theorize is happening.

The universe is not the doughnut itself. It is the area above and below the poles, and in the center.



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 12:19 AM
link   
Hubble the astronomer spots distant stars receding, and proclaims this redshift is because the expansion of space itself. Is that pretty much the same expanse you're talking about?



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 12:44 AM
link   


The doughtnut shaped universe theory is often dismissed because it is apparent that everything in the "core" area would have to be getting closer together. This is not so. The reason being that the "core" is everywhere. Every point in space occupies every point in the doughnut.


Just a thought but when you blow up an inner tube you never have to worry about the middle touching. Maybe the same principle could apply to the universe's expasion?

[edit on 1-6-2006 by Xeros]



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 01:11 AM
link   
er, i'm pretty sure gravity is instantaneous throughout the universe...there is no 'speed of gravity'.



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 05:21 AM
link   
Didn't really make much sense at all to me, and I could've sworn that we've determined already that there will be no 'big crunch'. Regardless of all that, I can name 3,000 astronomers who would love to smack you upside the head right now.



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 05:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xeros
Just a thought but when you blow up an inner tube you never have to worry about the middle touching. Maybe the same principle could apply to the universe's expasion?


only if the universe had a finite amount of expansion, like an inner tube.


apc

posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 07:56 AM
link   
Yes, the red shift is valid because from our three dimensional perspective the universe is expanding. However our three dimensions are actually just stretching four dimensionally.

Relativity accurately predicts gravity travels at the speed of light. I think there are a couple threads on this.

The universe could be seen as an "inverted innertube." It is not the tube itself, it is the area outside the tube. However, and there is probably no way to know for certain, I don't think the innertube shape has been reached yet.

The expansion is not finite, but the volume is. Have to think four dimensionally.

Produkt, er I mean Prot0n: we will likely never see the Big Crunch. To us, the three dimensional universe will expand forever. Meanwhile four dimensionally it would be folding back on itself repeatedly.

This does however pose the question: What happens when the folds touch? Do they touch? Do they repel eachother? Do they overlap seamlessly? This would determine how the three dimensional observation would be made.



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 10:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Prot0n
Didn't really make much sense at all to me, and I could've sworn that we've determined already that there will be no 'big crunch'. Regardless of all that, I can name 3,000 astronomers who would love to smack you upside the head right now.


I'd be impressed if u could name 3,000 astronomers full-stop



posted on Oct, 17 2006 @ 07:00 AM
link   
so apc you're thinking kind of like einstein - equal & opposite reaction? Or maybe like a rubber band? Would imagine if the edges came into contact something would have to happen, maybe like the continental plates? one would go over or under the other


apc

posted on Oct, 17 2006 @ 09:51 AM
link   
That is the question... Would they interact at all? If so, how? Would they merge? Would they repel eachother? Would they coexist in the same "space" 4-dimensionally while remaining 3-dimensionally independent? Has this already happened? Did it happen immediately after the Big Bang and the 4-dimensional universe has been folding over on itself ever since? It's a tricky one... and I think a correct understanding will coincide with successful FTL travel and a host of other manipulations of our three physical dimensions.

The "doughnut" I described before is purely a 3-dimensional description of a 4-dimensional construct. It is difficult to relate the concept in words, as it is equally difficult to relate the concept of a sphere by drawing a circle. So much information must be omitted because of physical limitation.

If the universe has already folded back on itself 4-dimensionally, then things like wormholes should be relatively practical as every point in the universe is already right next to every other point, just waiting to be bridged.



posted on Oct, 17 2006 @ 07:58 PM
link   
Technically you're right that the universe is not really expanding because since universe = everything and the oposite of everything is nothing it cannot be expanding because it cannot be expanding into what doesn't exist. So I say only the matter and energy we know of is expanding into the rest of the matter and energy in the universe we do not yet know about.



posted on Oct, 17 2006 @ 08:19 PM
link   
Take a look at this exploding star and pretend it is the universe. I think this is what he is imagining or something close.

External source


If the big bang resmbles exploding stars at all this is what the universe might look like from the outside looking in. Now imagine there are a bunch of big bangs all over the place out there that are just to far to detect.

I do not think the universe is expanding myself, at least not how science is presenting it today. I think much of the movent seen is caused by the super black holes at the center of all the galaxies pulling themselves along through space by warping on space and also each black hole pulls on the other near by. The black holes are also pooring out energy in the for of jets that probably is causing some momentum.

[edit on 17-10-2006 by Xeven]


apc

posted on Oct, 17 2006 @ 08:32 PM
link   
Well... maybe. But only looking at the shape and representing it in four dimensions.

And the observation of spacial expansion is quite valid. If you take a piece of metal and fold it, the metal on the outside of the fold will stretch. Take it up another physical dimension and that is what I am trying to describe.



posted on Oct, 17 2006 @ 10:32 PM
link   
have you looked into "M-Theory?" According to that our universe might just be a "membrane" on a "higher dimensional bulk." Which means...... when another higher dimensional space hits this one the two membranes will collide and youll get a "big crunch-big bang."

This would mean that the big bang is not a special event. I would imagine that given our present state on the planet, that this "M-Theory" might have truth to it. I would think that reality is probably farrr larger and more complex than any of us can imagine.

but no I can't prove it


[edit on 17-10-2006 by Scramjet76]


apc

posted on Oct, 17 2006 @ 11:21 PM
link   

I am only going to be looking at this matter, excluding implications of M-Theory and other things greater than our 5-dimensional universe.




I'm really trying to focus on just the universe we can interact with. Anything beyond is too abstract to deal with here.



posted on Oct, 17 2006 @ 11:36 PM
link   
I'm not qualified to enter this discussion - but - wouldn't a Mobius Strip be closer to what you are trying to describe?
mobius strip

[edit on 10/17/2006 by Blaine91555]


apc

posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 01:04 PM
link   
I don't think so... The Mobius Strip is just an oddity to our brains. Aside from the math, I don't see anything really special about it. Maybe the math is what's so special... I'm no mathematician.

I'm just trying to look at the relationship between 3-dimensional space and a theoretical fourth physical dimension, how the three dimensions would appear as observed from forth, and the implications of these observations.

Unfortunately, in my mind it is just a concept. A spacial concept I am unable to translate to linguistic. For this reason I wish I had greater mathematical education... I'm working on it though.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join