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.

 

Universe expanding faster than at the big bang

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 08:47 PM
link   
Did you know the universe is expanding faster than it did at the big bang?

I was watching a dark matter / dark energy lecture on TED TV and the particle physicist explained they have found the universe is expanding faster than previously thought (They presumed it was slowing down)

Take a look:-
Patricia Burchat lecture

Don't know what implications it has on any of us, but if we want to reach for the stars in our future they may just be running away from us...




posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 09:50 PM
link   
I wonder if it's akin to mass falling until it reaches terminal velocity. I mean is there a point where we simply 'must' cease to accelerate? I know we think in terms of the process cycling down; but what if we are not subject to that kind of 'entropy'? Certainly, we can't accelerate forever, or can we?



posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 10:05 PM
link   
If this is true, then all matter in the universe, perhaps is being pulled away from the point of origin, rather then being blown out in a "big bang".

Think of it this way, the universe is a super massive sphere, the outer walls are made up of dark matter, a super dense mass, growing in density therefore creating more pull on everything in our known universe, if that is the case then the more the universe expands, the faster the acceleration will be, in fact it would grow exponentially, then eventually, the end, everything is gone. Or is it?




posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 01:19 AM
link   
I'm afraid this isn't news, though it never ceases to be interesting.

The original paper suggesting the universe is expanding at an increasing rate was published in 1998.


The distances of the high-redshift Type Ia supernovae are, on average, 10% to 15% farther than expected in a low mass density Universe without a cosmological constant. Different light curve fitting methods, SN Ia subsamples, and prior constraints unanimously favor eternally expanding models with positive cosmological constant and a current acceleration of the expansion.

This observed expansion is the main reason dark energy was 'invented'.

More information on the expansion of the universe and what causes it:

Goddard Space Centre Dark Energy Page

Longer, more detailed article from physicsworld.com



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 01:36 AM
link   
science that do not observe things from all angles and excludes important elements (like electric/plasma element) is called pseudo-science

what a huge mistake modern astrophysicists make by making theories based only on gravity...

I would be very skeptical by this 'observation' because by including missing elements you get smaller and slower universe (red shift is not equal to speed)

also, proven by simulations compared to existing objects in space, suppositions like black holes and black matter are not needed to explain universe around us

read here a different view





[edit on 29-1-2009 by donhuangenaro]



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 02:32 AM
link   
reply to post by donhuangenaro
 


science that do not observe things from all angles and excludes important elements... is called pseudo-science

What an absolutely perfect description of electric-universe crackpottery.

I salute you.



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 03:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by donhuangenaro
 


science that do not observe things from all angles and excludes important elements... is called pseudo-science

What an absolutely perfect description of electric-universe crackpottery.

I salute you.


what a 'rich argument' close-minded reaction by a typical pseudo-skeptic

well done, and thank you for showing us how NOT to approach new informations
and new knowledge






[edit on 29-1-2009 by donhuangenaro]



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 04:35 AM
link   
reply to post by donhuangenaro
 

You're most welcome. If you would like instruction in any other department of life or learning, please feel free to ask. My charges are quite reasonable.

Electric-universe theory is largely the resort of one-issue obsessives who seem to believe every cosmological phenomenon can be explained by their crackbrained theory. The site you linked to is a perfect example: the characters who run it try to explain everything from supernovas to the topography of Ariel with their hopelessly discredited theory. And to top it all, they're flogging a book!

Now, do you have anything relevant to the topic to post on the thread, or did you just drop by to give your hobbyhorse a bit of an airing?

[edit on 29-1-2009 by Astyanax]



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 04:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
Now, do you have anything relevant to the topic to post on the thread, or did you just drop by to give your hobbyhorse a bit of an airing?


I gave something relevant: I warned people not to blindly believe mainstream-pseudo science observations (based on error and false suppositions), and I gave them alternative view

the fact that you don't see it and continue to attack me, speaks volumes about you and
your so called 'reasonability'





posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 05:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by donhuangenaro
I warned people not to blindly believe mainstream-pseudo science observations (based on error and false suppositions), and I gave them alternative view

It is only your opinion that the accelerating-universe hypothesis is pseudoscience. What is your opinion worth? Are you a scientist? Are you competent to deliver an opinion on the subject? What is your background in cosmology? In physcis? In mathematics? Until you show us your credentials, you're just a guy with a misspelled Castaneda handle and an opinion*.

Besides, your post was completely cockeyed and irrelevant. The accelerating expansion of the universe is corroborated by many sources, but its discovery was the result of measurements of the brightness of distant supernovas that indicated they were farther away from us than the frequency of light emitted from them suggested.

In other words, the brightness observations contradict the values derived by measuring the red shift. So you thundering in here to anathematize red shift is just a little silly. True, the red shift you object so much to makes the universe bigger than you say it is; but these intensity observations make it bigger still.

Come on, man. You're so off target you're firing in the opposite direction!

And if that wasn't silly enough, you come in blazing away at red shift but don't bother to explain why you think it is not an indicator of distance. I don't ask for corroborating data, that would obviously be unkind since red shift is only that old high-school favourite, the Doppler effect, under a different name. But where's your explanation?

Not only are you firing 180 degrees off target, you're doing it with dud ammunition!


the fact that you don't see it and continue to attack me, speaks volumes about you and your so called 'reasonability'

I wasn't attacking you, I was attacking the moronic electric-universe theory. If you subscribe to it, you have my sympathy. A case for re-education, perhaps; as I said before, my rates are reasonable. I'll take sheep and kine, no need to sacrifice your firstborn to me.
 

*Which doesn't apply to me, by the way
. Why not? because I'm not peddling some bizarre 'theory'; I'm expounding the current scientific consensus and anybody can judge my competence to do so by the degree to which my understanding of it is correct.



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 06:06 AM
link   
There have been many attempts at trying to tackle this speeding acceleration. The one I think should gain more attention is that our known universe is just a pocket of the real universe, a small side bubble but still connected to the huge bubble and the huge bubble is evening out resulting in our bubble being pulled in/stretched.

Scientists have found some mysterious force at the edge of our visible universe that seems to be pulling it. There is a discussion about it here on ATS.

Here is a link.




Everything in the known universe is said to be racing toward the massive clumps of matter at more than 2 million miles (3.2 million kilometers) an hour—a movement the researchers have dubbed dark flow. The presence of the extra-universal matter suggests that our universe is part of something bigger—a multiverse—and that whatever is out there is very different from the universe we know, according to study leader Alexander Kashlinsky, an astrophysicist at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland.



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 10:33 AM
link   
I have a question. If the universe is expanding faster than the big bang are us humans also expanding along with the earth?

Is it the expansion of all particles in the universe? or only galaxies and such.

Are we as humans actually larger and larger everyday but seem the same size with relativity?

If we are getting bigger(expanding space), I wonder how bigger. Could we be 20 times bigger than last year?



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 10:40 AM
link   
Of course it is! Don't forget how the universe works. All things a created with sacred geometry, the Golden Ratio, which is infinite and never ending. Think about the cells in your human body, they are reproducing in an ever increasing rate also.



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 12:58 PM
link   
Yeah I always thought we are just in a big bubble of matter/anti-matter.

Maybe a bubble in the Creators lemonade glass.


Wonder if the Universe will overstretch and just pop oneday..



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by donhuangenaro
science that do not observe things from all angles and excludes important elements (like electric/plasma element) is called pseudo-science

what a huge mistake modern astrophysicists make by making theories based only on gravity...

I would be very skeptical by this 'observation' because by including missing elements you get smaller and slower universe (red shift is not equal to speed)

also, proven by simulations compared to existing objects in space, suppositions like black holes and black matter are not needed to explain universe around us

read here a different view





[edit on 29-1-2009 by donhuangenaro]


that's not excluded. that's just considered matter.

the theories and based on gravity AND electromagnetism, the fundamental forces.

like the other guy said, the exponential increase was expected AND quite obvious (we had the knowledge beforehand, and it was given to us by hydrostatic, but i'm gonna make this short and not even argue with you or else or gonna just say that i'm only considering gravity), the reason is mathetical NOT physical.

the things you call "suppositions" are all matter anyway, so that's why it's not needed to explain anything about this, since everyone of those aspects are considered as a whole.



posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 08:52 AM
link   
Empirical proof that redshift does not equate to distance.



Meaning much of mainstream cosmology is fundamentally flawed. Including the accelerating, expanding universe. Hundreds of examples of these, this one was presented over thirty years ago.
They are a stubborn bunch.
Such FAITH some place in science, or rather the human interpretation of science, silly monkeys.



posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 09:14 AM
link   
It's been recently realized that 74% of our known universe is made up of dark energy (not to be confused with dark matter, which makes up 21%)
Visible matter only makes up about 5%

Could we be space itself?
Here are a couple things to consider
E=mc2
Photons have no mass, however they have energy.
If our universe began with the “big bang”, and was hot and dense, yet we're only seeing remnants of that in the form of microwaves, where did all that energy go? Obviously a big bang would have been hot and bright, in gamma wave lengths or even shorter.
Conservation of energy tells us that energy doesn't go away, it simply changes form.

What's missing? ENERGY

Hubble constant... The farther a galaxy is away from us, the faster it is moving away.
(the farther back in time you go, more space has been created between galaxies)

What's extra? SPACE

Astronomers (2 different camps) discovered something strange. While trying to determine the rate at which the expansion of the universe was decreasing they realized, to their utter dis-belief, that it's actually speeding up!
Most are in agreement that our visible universe is 13.7 billion years old, since the “big bang”.

Something Bizarre!

When they took further measurements, they realized at around 9 billion years of age, the rate of expansion that was DECREASING turned around and started SPEEDING UP!

What could cause this?

Perhaps the dominating factor during a certain period , due to energy and distance could be the culprit.

DOMINANCE
A - Big Bang ... Kinetic Energy - Extremely fast expansion until...
B - Mass Clumped, clearing took place and gravity took over, slowing the the expansion rate until...
C – galaxies were far enough apart that gravity couldn't continue the slowing of the expansion and it began speeding up again due to the energy unwinding back into space.

This is just my own personal hypothesis, although it doesn't seem to break any rules.

What could this mean for the future of our universe?

Well... If I'm correct, and energy is just a bunch of scrunched up space, the expansion of the universe could slowly come to a stop once the CMB radiation unwinds back into space itself. Perhaps it will slowly start to collapse again, causing the big crunch and even another “Big Bang”. Who knows, maybe it could equalize into a constant.
(Imagine how much space you'd have to squeeze into a ball in order to create a photon of light, or an electron)
Remember black holes? Obviously nobody knows what happens beyond the “event horizon” which light can't even escape. Theorists imagine everything getting shoved down into a singularity! Perhaps that's how mass or energy is created! If a black hole jammed enough space into a point, then it was released in the form of energy.....

Remember the “conservation of energy”? Even when an exited electron orbiting a nucleus makes it's “quantum leap”, losing energy (returning to it's normal state), it can emit a photon of light.
Energy can be converted into Mass, (and vice versa)

Why couldn't space be converted into energy?


[/wild unfounded speculation]

Peace



posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 09:36 AM
link   
Love your ideas, I'd go with that.

2nd line



posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 10:40 PM
link   
reply to post by squiz
 

A typically well-informed post by ATS's resident electric-universe 'expert'.

Of course red shift doesn't equate to distance. It relates to relative velocity. I thought even electric-universe promoters knew enough physics to know that.

Here, read and learn something.



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 01:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 





reply to post by squiz A typically well-informed post by ATS's resident electric-universe 'expert'. Of course red shift doesn't equate to distance. It relates to relative velocity. I thought even electric-universe promoters knew enough physics to know that. Here, read and learn something.


What's your beef with the EU theory? Did they do something to you personally or someone you know? And, crackpottery?????????

How can you sit there on your high horse and spew such unbelievable nonsense? They use results CONFIRMED IN A LABORATORY to attempt to explain the things that "mystify" our top space minds every day! Rather than acknowldge, and perhaps try and combine their understandings with these VERIFIABLE examples (of the EU), they refuse to even publish any articles pertaining to this theory.

Electricity (and magnetism) are downplayed by the top dogs @ NASA because it would answer a LOT of problems a LOT of us have, in regards to energy and the cosmo's, and we'd be taking a LOT of $$ out of their hands. And, it takes a big person to admit they were wrong. For them to admit that they have been going about all this the wrong way, for decades--and to have to declare that their almighty Einstein didn't quite have all the facts--would be heresy. They'd be admitting how much $$ was wasted, and how much more could have been saved if they acknowledged all of the EU factors they squash so readily.

Even Einstein regretted and feared what would come of his work...



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join