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.

 

Theory of the Universes Increased Rate of Expansion

page: 2
7
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 04:00 AM
link   
reply to post by VitalOverdose
 


OK I think I found better information about the current speed of the expansion of the Universe. It is indeed under the speed of light.


Right now, the universe is not expanding faster than the speed of light (71 kps is much less than the speed of light which is 300,000 kps), but very distant objects can seem like they are from our perspective (actually, we cannot see them because the light can't reach us due to all the expanding space in between).


From a poster named Phobos on

www.physicsforums.com...

BUT if the speed of the Universe is indeed increasing, it exceeded the Speed of light once before, can it do it again?




posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 04:15 AM
link   
reply to post by TurkeyBurgers
 



OK I think I found better information about the current speed of the expansion of the Universe. It is indeed under the speed of light.


Black holes, nothing escapes them, but I wonder if nothing can escape from them (it is because of their gravity?), then I wonder how gravity escapes from them in the first place, and Why?

Do black holes affect the expansion of the universe? May be black holes are slowing it down?



[edit on 22-7-2009 by sunny_2008ny]



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 04:28 AM
link   
OK crazy theory number 2..

Maybe it wasnt a big bang so much as a big pop..

Imagine all matter in the universe contained in the center some kind of giant super dense shell. If this shell was dense enough that it weighed more than all the rest of the known matter in the universe it might provide some extra graviational pull ahead of the known universe once the thing has exploded.

- yeah i know its off the wall



[edit on 22-7-2009 by VitalOverdose]



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 05:02 AM
link   

Black holes, nothing escapes them, but I wonder if nothing can escape from them (it is because of their gravity?), then I wonder how gravity escapes from them in the first place, and Why?

I think that happens because the immense gravity field created by a blackhole bends the fabric of space. It becomes impossible to take a straight path across the width of a black hole if you have breached the event horizon bacause space itself no longer follows a straight path.They say light can not escape a black hole but its not that gravity sucks light.. light just follows the fabric of space which can be bent by gravity



Do black holes affect the expansion of the universe? May be black holes are slowing it down?

Could be

One thing i didnt realise for a long time is that black holes are not static like in the films..they move through space like comets.

Maybe all matter as we know it is allready in the pull of one giant mofo black hole. That might account for the aceleration and the shape of the universe. Plus all the missing dark matter.



[edit on 22-7-2009 by VitalOverdose]



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 05:51 AM
link   
reply to post by TurkeyBurgers
 



BUT if the speed of the Universe is indeed increasing, it exceeded the Speed of light once before, can it do it again?


The speed of universe expansion may exceed the speed of light but we will not be there to observe it. The anthropic principle.

But if the speed of light itself is dependant on the speed of the universe expansion, then it is possible that the speed of light itself may increase as the speed of universe expansion increases beyond the current speed of light.


[edit on 22-7-2009 by sunny_2008ny]



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 07:06 AM
link   
Interesting theory to say the least. EM conservation would be in full effect but light exertion would take precedence over gravity exertion in a photon. This assumes an EM and Gravity link. The more light you get, the less gravity you have at the source of light. Once the source of light goes supernova and condenses, you have no light but A LOT of gravity. Brightness gets converted to gravitational pull. You might be on to something S&F.



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 01:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Eitimzevinten
 


Thanks for the input! I will try and add more Evidence to support my theory later tonight.

I am not sure where to go from here. Who should I talk to about getting my theory published? I am not sure how it works or where I go. Can anyone point me in the right direction?

Should I just skoot it over to Nature and see what they think?

Where can I go to get it into an official format so that I can get it peer reviewed?



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 02:56 PM
link   
this all assumes that exspansion is indeed happening and that inflation did indeed happen.

Both inflation and the new expansion are nothing more than theories that aren't proven.

Infact there is a great deal of evidence that expansion is not happening and the universe is more like equilibrium.

Red shift is what was used to make this inference and it has been pointed out rather convincingly recently that red shift expansion is a very poor interpratation of the given evidence.


At the time Hubble made his findings, quasars were not known to exist. Quasars, or quasi-stellar objects, are dim point like objects we see in space that have HUGE red shifts. According to standard theory, this means they must be on the edge of the observable universe and output extraordinary amounts of energy for them to be visible. Why are quasars so important? Because their red shift does NOT correlate to their observed luminosity (brightness). In fact, Fred Hoyle (famous astronomer) commented that had Hubble first seen the plots for quasars instead of galaxies, he never would have concluded that red shift was a function of velocity (distance).


www.abovetopsecret.com...

thank you mnemeth1 for the ammo


I've recently resigned myself to explore the nature of these scientific falicies and find alternative theories that match the observations/equations. I suggest anyone who is interested in the nature of the cosmos should not believe a theory just because its the one they show on television.

Scientific dogma is a far more serious problem than i ever realized. Don't expect science to easily back away from these views. As long as they perpetuate this bologna they recieve funding.

Who's going to fund a researcher that comes out and says sorry the last 40 years of astrophysics and cosmology have been lies based on bad conjecture?



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 03:49 PM
link   
reply to post by constantwonder
 


The thing is if you are saying that the Universe did not in fact come from what we call "The Big Bang" and you are saying the Universe is in equilibrium you would need to propose a theory to support it.

Just saying that the Doppler Red Shift has some unknown variables does not indicate that everything else is incorrect data!

Present your theory.

You say the Universe is in equilibrium do you mean that the Universe has ALWAYS existed in equilibrium? That the Universe suddenly came to be in the exact size it is currently? That it has always existed like this? That the Universe has no start point? Does it indeed have an edge to the size?

I am interested and would like to hear more. Present your case good sir.



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 03:53 PM
link   
Here's a thought: Maybe all of this dark matter we hear about is the cause. Maybe this dark matter is on the leading edge of the "universal expansion" and due to it's mass it is pulling the "light matter" with it.

Just a thought....from someone who knows NOTHING about the subject.



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 04:21 PM
link   

PROPOSED THEORY

The theory proposed here is cosmic dust induces redshift of galaxy light by quantum electrodynamics (QED). QED induced redshift finds basis in the absorption of light by small particles (Mie 1908) where the particle is far smaller than the wavelength of incident light. Indeed, most of the incident light on a particle in space is scattered with only a tiny fraction absorbed. Of the light absorbed, the conservation of energy may take one of 2 paths. The particle may increase in temperature, but this is not possible because the specific heat of small particles already very low at 2.7 K vanishes at their EM confinement frequencies. This leaves the only conservation path to be the emission of the absorbed light as EM radiation at the EM confinement frequency of the particle.

The QED frequency f of light emitted from the cosmic dust particles depends on their diameter D, by the relation f = c / 2D, where c is the speed of light. The QED wavelength of emitted light is 2D. The size distribution of dust varies throughout space, but is generally submicron. What this means is the galaxy light is not always redshift in larger particles, but sometimes blueshift as the photon is absorbed by smaller particles. The redshift light we finally see on earth is the net effect of an uncountable number of blue and redshifts with submicron dust particles having diameters D of about 0.3 to 0.5 microns.

CONCLUSIONS

An expanding universe based on the Hubble Law for redshift of galaxy light by the Doppler effect is unlikely. Einstein's static universe is more likely.


www.prlog.org...

this is the theory i find to be most likely. keep in mind though that im not saying the universe didn't come from a big bang or that inflation didnt happen. I merely saying that the expansion is not the most palatable explanation of red-shift.


The idea of a static universe or "Einstein's universe" is one which demands that space is not expanding nor contracting but rather is dynamically stable. Albert Einstein once proposed such a model as his preferred cosmology by adding a cosmological constant to his equations of general relativity to counteract the dynamical effects of gravity which in a universe of matter would cause the universe to collapse. This motivation evaporated after the discovery by Edwin Hubble that the universe is not static, but expanding; in particular, Hubble discovered a relationship between redshift and distance, which forms the basis for the modern expansion paradigm. This led Einstein to declare this cosmological model, and especially the introduction of the cosmological constant, his "biggest blunder".

Even after Hubble's observations, Fritz Zwicky proposed that a static universe could still be viable if there was an alternative explanation of redshift due to a mechanism that would cause light to lose energy as it traveled through space, a concept that would come to be known as "tired light".


en.wikipedia.org...

It is my opinion that neither model is entirley correct and we are missing something that would give us the right answer.


With our observations limited to telescopes, man made particle theories and a handful of space based observation instruments our ablitiy to make correct inferences will always be extremely handicapped.

The answer is out there we just need to keep looking and remain open minded.



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 04:36 PM
link   
reply to post by constantwonder
 


So if the Universe DID come from a Big bang and expanded until a certain distance WHAT would cause it to stop since the expansion is only limited by the amount of energy put into it from a Big Bang? (Original Expansion or whatever you want to refer to it as)

It expanded and just hit a certain size and stopped? What would cause it to stop expanding like that?

It was just instantly formed at that certain size?

It existed infinity at that certain size and never had a start? Did the matter exist infinitely?

ALL of these scenarios have major problems.



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 05:08 PM
link   
thats why I said we're missing something. Both big bang and steady state are full of problems and paradoxes.

Its also exceptional hard to find information rubbing against redshift expansions deep deep grain.

The evidence that redshift is scientific hoakem is almost irrefutible. Read the links to articles in the thread i linked by mnemeth1.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The big problem is all the big names in physics and cosmology are big names because they tout the party line on redshift.

People who appose it are pushed out to the fringes of the community and aren't as well funded. So their work is harder to find, their publications get held up by peer reviews by scientists who embrace redshift expansion.

Seeing through the dogma is the tricky part.

Edit: link added


[edit on 22-7-2009 by constantwonder]



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 06:17 PM
link   
reply to post by constantwonder
 


I think there is more evidence you are forgetting such as

Background Radiation

en.wikipedia.org...

Star Composition

imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov...

Metallicity

en.wikipedia.org...

In fact the ideas for the creation of all atoms comes from theory of the Big Bang. At one time in the theory of the Big Bang there existed nothing but smaller building blocks to make larger atoms. As the temperature of the universe had a larger amount of space to expand into it cooled down allowing particles to form Atoms which in turn formed Stars which in turn produced all of the other elements.

It is really beautiful when you look at how all of the pieces fit together.

Here is a link that might help you understand how Red Shift works a little bit more. It helped me with the visuals since I am a visual person.

en.wikipedia.org...

I will look at the problem of Quasars and see if anyone has a solution or if my genius brain (lol) can concoct a solution to this problem.



Actually I just found a link showing how Quasars help to reinforce the Theory of the Big Bang. It has MANY more pieces of Evidence that are way too technical for me to understand right now that might sway you also.

Evolution of galaxies


Galaxies are also dynamic entities, changing over time. Like with large scale structure, the broad strokes of galaxy formation follow a path of "hierarchical clustering": small structures form very early on and these merge to form larger structures as time goes on. Within this larger framework, some galaxies will develop secondary features like spiral arms or bar-like structures, some of which will be transitory and some of which will persist.

This basic picture tells us that, if we look at very distant regions of the universe (i.e., galaxies with very high redshifts), we should see mainly small, irregular galaxies. For the most part, this is what we find (with some notable exceptions, as we will cover later). Starting in 1996, the Hubble Space Telescope took a series of very deep images: the Hubble Deep Field, the Hubble Deep Field South, and the Hubble Ultra Deep Field. As one would expect, the morphology of the few nearby galaxies in these images is quite a bit different from the very high redshift galaxies.

Another important indicator of galaxy evolution comes from quasars, specifically their redshift distribution. Quasars are generally believed to be powered by supermassive black holes at the centers of galaxies accreting matter; as dust and gas falls into the black hole, it heats up tremendously and emits a huge quantity of energy across a broad spectrum. For most true quasars, the amount of energy released during this process is a few orders of magnitude larger than all of the light emitted by the rest of the galaxy. In order for this sort of behavior to occur for some length of time, galaxies need to have a large quantity of dust and free gas near their cores. The bulk of observed quasars have redshifts near z ~ 2, which suggests that there was a particular epoch during the history of the universe when the conditions were right for a large fraction of galaxies. For steady-state models of the universe, this is hard to explain. On the other hand, BBT explains this quite neatly by noting that, in their early stages of formation, galaxies have a great deal of dust and free gas and galaxy collisions were also more common, which could serve as a mechanism for triggering quasar activity. With that said, it should be noted that galaxy formation and evolution remains a very open question within BBT and not without controversy.



from

www.talkorigins.org...

section H



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 07:31 PM
link   
Well I just received a response from NASA.


Thanks for your question! You are correct that the process of nuclear
fusion that occurs in the cores of stars converts some amount of the
stars' mass into photons, which have no mass. However, the statement
that photons do not interact gravitationally is not true according to
Einstein's theory of relativity. In his theory, the curvature in
spacetime that produces gravity comes from energy. This includes "rest
energy", which is another word for mass, as well as other forms of
energy like the electromagnetic energy in photons. In this picture,
stars convert some rest energy into electromagnetic energy but the total
amount of energy remains the same. Since energy drives gravitation,
there is no reason to expect the expansion of the universe to be
accelerating. However, observational evidence suggests that it IS
accelerating. This is a fascinating puzzle and for now we have assigned the name "dark energy" to describe whatever it is that is causing this
acceleration.

Hope that helps,
-Laura & Ira
for the "Ask an Astrophysicist" team


I wrote them back and told them I think that they are wrong because Photons have no mass. They do have energy which is in the form of momentum which could explain how objects could pull them with gravity but they do not have a MASS.

No Mass = no creation of gravity.

I am sure I will not get a response back but I did challenge them to present evidence of a measurement of the amount of gravity exerted from the Photon.

Hell At least I am trying to create a theory rather than say it is a "Fascinating Puzzle" and slap the name dark matter onto the answer of we do not have an answer.

I think I am right. So there!



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 07:48 PM
link   
reply to post by TurkeyBurgers
 


Thanks for the thread!
]
I think this is possibly very insightful....... the ramifications -- an open universe rather than closed?

What might that suggest....... I'm no physicist either, but for one, the Hubble Constant would have to be adjusted down, I would think.

Also -- and admittedly, this is a pet theory of mine that seems to play into yours -- it might suggest that the constant "c" - lightspeed - is not a fixed quantity. What if it were true? How fascinating that might make the already fascinating universe.

Imagine. It's the dawn of time, Original Event Horizon, and something happens to release an unimaginable amount of energy/mass. All manner of quanta morph into and out of others, and stream away from the nexus at a phenominal velocity......

and look! There's light at the beginning, trailing behind, ever increasing in velocity, but NOT FIXED!

What if it were so? What if the increase in lightspeed were SO gradual that we've been unable to measure it within context of the human experience?

Fast forward to 17,151 years from now. Lightspeed is now commonly know to manifest itself at 186, 373 mps. Of course, the planet that measured things in miles has been long ago changed.

Thanks for the kick in the mental cojones, turkeyburger! I think I smell something burning.

I think it's me.



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 08:22 PM
link   
reply to post by argentus
 


My theory actually relies on the Universe being a closed system.

I am not sure how the speed of light itself could be altered. I CAN see how a light source (say a sun) had the space between you and it expanding faster than the speed of light would prevent any light from that Sun from reaching you unless the expansion slowed down to under light speed. Then it would just change the amount of distance that the light had to cover to reach you. The amount of time it took to get there.

I do see what you mean I think by saying that when light passes near a large object it can be bent but I think that even light trying to escape from a blackhole still remains at a constant speed. Even Blackholes have a Mass. Which is why they can emit gravity to pull objects.

Photons have no mass. Therefore they can emit no gravity.

I guess what you are saying is that the more that suns create photons the more photons that exist therefore there would be less of an amount of Gravity in the Universe to regulate the speed of light?

I think though that the speed of light is not dependent on gravity since light just cruises through the vacuum of space. The speed of light is a constant.



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 09:22 PM
link   
reply to post by argentus
 


I see what you are saying about the open system. That Gravity could be introduced into the system. This is not really what I am saying. There still exists the same amount of energy in the system. Just that Gravity can increase or decrease depending on the amount of Photons in the system. Just Energy being moved around is all.



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 11:44 PM
link   
reply to post by TurkeyBurgers
 



Where can I go to get it into an official format so that I can get it peer reviewed?


You have to go to some university and get a professor review your paper, then with that professor as a mentor or anyone that he refers to, you can approach publications to get your paper published


[edit on 22-7-2009 by sunny_2008ny]



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 12:03 AM
link   
C is not a constant its a limit light can be slowed down in transparent media. . .

doing some reading right now have a few thoughts to post but further reading is required first

till then. . .



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join