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.

 

The End of Cosmology?

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 13 2008 @ 08:31 PM
link   
I came across this on the Scientific American website and I wanted to get thoughts on it. Please read the article and get back to me.



Key Concepts
1) A decade ago astronomers made the revolutionary discovery that the expansion of the universe is speeding up. They are still working out is implications.
2) The quickening expansion will eventually pull galaxies apart faster than light, causing them to drop out of view. This process eliminates reference points for measuring expansion and dilutes the distinctive products of the big bang to nothingness. In short, it erases all the signs that a big bang ever occurred.
3) To our distant descendants, the universe will look like a small puddle of stars in an endless, changeless void.
4)What knowledge has the universe already erased?


Source: The End of Cosmology? @ Scientific American.com




posted on May, 14 2008 @ 12:48 AM
link   
Very interesting. Star, flag.

But he has me on ignore so he will never know.



posted on May, 14 2008 @ 02:46 AM
link   
So no comments what so ever?
Hmph.................
A flag and a star and no comments.
Ah all well.


Though I am not convinced "red shift" is evidence towards expansion. Since it seems to me if we had expansion we'd have stars dropping off the visible spectrum.
It has always seemed rather silly to me that we think we can make such calls on the universe from our little spot.
Rather like using a ground based telescope and tell what a person on one fo the moons of Jupiter is doing down to a tee.

Suffice it to say I stand unconvinced the current model (The Big Bang) is correct.
*shrugs*

This should bring something...............


[edit on 14-5-2008 by WraothAscendant]



posted on May, 14 2008 @ 03:02 PM
link   
reply to post by WraothAscendant
 


So no comments what so ever?

Tee.

Also hee.

Tell him, somebody.



posted on May, 14 2008 @ 03:09 PM
link   
reply to post by WraothAscendant
 


Since it seems to me if we had expansion we'd have stars dropping off the visible spectrum.

They have.


Using a quasar located 12.3 billion light-years away as a beacon, a team of astronomers detected the presence of molecular hydrogen in the farthest system ever, an otherwise invisible galaxy that we observe when the Universe was less than 1.5 billion years old, that is, about 10% of its present age.


Whole galaxies, yet.



posted on May, 14 2008 @ 03:18 PM
link   
Here is a comment on there I found I liked:


S.Ingvar
Sleipher and Hubble found that light (radiation) was displaced (red shifted) proportionally to the distance.
And as the only known interpretation was the Doppler velocity-shift, they multiplied the redshifted part of the light spectrum with the light speed.
It was OK as long as the redshifting was less than 100% (z=1).
But today galaxies at about z=6 is found.
It implies that the first pillar has collapsed.

And there is an hitherto unknown explanation that the redshift is an entropy-phenomenon that forces the radiation's energy towards equilibrium.
When it is accepted we don't need the dark energy hypothesis.
Then the second pillar has collapsed.

There is an entropy theory that also explains Max Planck's measurings of the heat radiation's displacement of the wavelengths that is misinterpreted as energy jumps.




sw81245
Fighting the Big Bang theory starts with a pot shot at the redshift and here is one:
yeoldelog.com/feature/redshift.shtml
yeoldelog.com/feature/redshiftpoem.shtml - more digestable.
The basic redshift could just be caused by light cooling down.
There could be other reasons for redshift too: Doppler, escape from heavy mass etc. These could all be contributing factors to a redshift.
Here are some points to consider why it might be true.
1. When a photon loses energy, its frequency redshifts E=hf. (redshift - decrease in frequency).
2. The microwave radiation has a 'temperature' associated with it. It is even called a 'remnant of the heat' of the initial very hot Universe.
3. E=mc^2 means mass is lost when a heat loss of energy occurs, and suggests similarly then a loss of momentum in light when heat loss occurs (E/c)^2=|p|^2.
4. E=hf then shows that the frequency would redshift.
5. Even the Open University describes space metaphorically as an 'oven'.
6. There exist quantum mechanical entities that 'can' have a temperature associated with them. Electrons can exist in a plasma of a given temperature. Even above the author has associated the microwave radiation, photons, with a temperature.
7. The redshift relation z = Hr/c + 1/2[Hr/c]^2 to second order can be derived from the the relativistic Doppler shift: f0= f1√[ (1 – v/c) / (1 + v/c)] (from Open University notes) and also using Newton's Law of Cooling:
dE/dt is proportional to – (T1 – T0) or
E0 = E1exp(-εt) where Hubble's constant becomes the exponential decay constant ε
see web addresses above
8. What looks like an unexplained 'deceleration' using expansion theory is incorporated into the exponential at distances that are large (Hr approaching c)
9. Redshifts which suggest greater than the speed of light velocities are allowed in the exponential explanation (further order terms) indicating objects just further away


[edit on 14-5-2008 by WraothAscendant]



posted on May, 14 2008 @ 03:30 PM
link   
reply to post by WraothAscendant
 




So no comments what so ever?

Actually this is very ammusing discussion.In a good way.
You have flag and star and replies from person you placed in ignore.

Astyanax


Tell him, somebody.

So it is not fruitless effort.
I hope that my intervention is not insulting you.
Anyway - i do not think that it will kill cosmology. It will take a loong time for galaxies to vanish and leave Earth with pitch black sky. So scores of new theories and techniques will appear.

Edit: Spelling.

[edit on 14-5-2008 by ZeroKnowledge]



posted on May, 14 2008 @ 07:21 PM
link   
reply to post by ZeroKnowledge
 


No. Its completely fine. Thank you for the star.

I know he posted if not the content.
I just have problems with his personality in that it sets my teeth on edge. I won't go into it as that would be little more than me slinging dirt and it could be just a clash of personalities.
So I prefer to pretend he doesn't exist.

And I am not soo sure the current cosmological model (Big Bang/ expanding universe) is correct. Skeptical to the end most likely....
As I have said earlier. What do you think of the comments I posted?



new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join