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 universe may not be expanding.

page: 3
8
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 03:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Local galaxies are moving toward us due to gravity (our nearest neighbour, the Andromeda galaxy will collide with our galaxy in the future). Could this account for blueshift?
What this person says is, at least, a very good point which should be very carefully considered.
While "empty" space only, on average, contains a few hydrogen atoms per cubic meter, given sufficient distance this could account for significant absorbtion and re-emmission.




posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 05:37 AM
link   
Scientists also used redshifts to show how we are the center of the universe:

Center of the universe

I mean come on...


No, our current science is making guesses based on other guesses. Nothing is certain at this point. We are still babies.



[edit on 20-9-2009 by Copernicus]



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 05:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by suicide__x
If the universe is not expanding (therefore infinite?), what is outside of the universe?

:S


I think my head just exploded trying to think about that



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 05:47 AM
link   
reply to post by ineverknew
 


Is a balloon infinite when its not expanding?

Whats outside our universe? Well think of it this way. Perhaps this is just a constructed reality, which means we are part of a computer simulation. The objects in the simulation cant say whats outside it because the simulation doesnt even exist as something physical. Yet there are rules in the simulation to make things appear real.

I like that theory because it fits somehow.


[edit on 20-9-2009 by Copernicus]



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 06:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Copernicus
 


Problem is. If it is a "perfect" simulation. It would be impossible to know that you are-in/are a simulation. And even then a simulation implies a programmer which would mean it would be a "created" reality and the programmer what we would call "God". It's funny how things are kind of circling back to ancient beliefs.



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 03:49 PM
link   
The problem with being in a simulation is that it doesn't explain anything, it's just submitting to yet another form of intelligent creator. We're still left with the question of where did our computer nerd god come from. The only possible I see to the answer of where the universe came from is that it must have always existed. Something had to have always existed for an infinite period of time as we understand it, if not then there must be an infinite amount of causes and effects and somewhere in the mix our universe was born.

The simplest answer is that our universe has just always been here and it's more of a question of what process that we're not seeing that creates matter as we know it.



posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 07:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by suicide__x
 


Nothing to beat yourself up about. None of us can truly wrap our brains around "infinite".


sure we can.
just think about holographically.
you look outside your microcosm (holographic box), to see that outside be a macrocosm (holographic box), and outside that, yet another one, and so on and so forth.

when I think of the multiverse, I imagine a great white star, that as complexity increases it grows. started as nothing.

if the multiverse be growing as new things are learned or experienced, the elements can still stay the same shape.

*shrugs* it makes sense (visual mind sense or image-in) to me.



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 06:06 AM
link   
The Universe contemplating the origin and dissolution of the Universe!

What entertainment!


We can all appreciate the statement, "As Above, So Below."

How beautiful that nothing's created and nothing can destroy. Non-beginning and never ending. We (as the Universe itself) exist here, now, in an infinite sea of light and dark, birth and dissolution. Big Bang? It's happening Now! - perpetually.

The Universe never began. It's happening; and it's always been happening.

I used to lay in bed at the age of 5 or 6 attempting to conceptualize where the Universe ended. I reasoned over and over that it had to end somewhere and that there had to be something beyond it. I went mad searching for what could possibly be beyond the Universe. I now realize that there is no limit and no tangible end (or beginning), and that consciousness itself is simultaneously generating the known Universe. Consciousness is the fabric of the Universe


For those inclined toward conceptual & scientific thought: recognize that reality at the atomic level is comprised of subatomic particles in motion -- neutrons, protons, electrons, quarks..... stuff, basically, that the human realm attempts to isolate and appropriate. Realization eventually dawns that such elements cannot be pinned down and are subject to influence by the observing consciousness. Upon further investigation, such microcosmic elements appear to be condensed fields of unique vibratory energy in a state of constant interrelated motion.

My theory, is that if one's perception could move infinitely into any field of energy (at the subatomic level), one would discover multiverses within multiverses. Rotational bodies dancing around other condensed forms. Rotation, light, color, motion, heat, cold, etc. Objects interacting with one another, continually birthing intelligence and consciousness into unique forms.

We are composed of Universes.

Alongside this theory, I view the perceived body we currently call Earth as being a unique realm within a sea of many other bodies (planets, suns, galaxies), each displaying a multi-faceted uniqueness. All of these galaxies in motion, doing what they do, (coalescing, dividing, colliding). Eventually the combination of all of these galactic bodies form a sub-atomic particle in another being's realm or world. That sub-atomic particle is essential. Just as each subatomic particle comprising your human vehicle is vital.

universes within Universes.

And yet, from an absolute perspective, all subatomic particles and conceivable substances are eternally dancing, connected and bound by one pervasive substance. That is precisely why there is experience and existence. The Universe is upon an eternal drive to know and experience itself.

So you have the experience of reading these words, seeking to know yourself, the Universe. The paradox is that the Universe can never fully know itself. Hence eternity and the infinite display of manifest life forms and objects. One eternal happening, yet unique within each moment.

I've reasoned that the only purpose is to persist as Love. Love being the drive to connect, know and care for all apparent "others". And to appreciate and be deeply grateful for each moment and each breath. It's like the Universe making Love to itSelf


( the lyrics in the video at the end of this post state it better than I ever could. maximize and put it on high def or just sit back and close your eyes. either way; play it loud, and enjoy
)

Peace, Love & Happiness Stuff

-Emptiness

p.s. This was just a ramble and in no way does it actually reflect reality. Reality is eternally present and here for your personal investigation.




posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 08:20 PM
link   
And here's a thought if the galaxy is supposedly expanding and galaxies are moving away from each other due to this expansion. While not exactly moving at all as I have heard it at one point explained. Why exactly are galaxies colliding?



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 10:53 PM
link   
Anyone have an answer for me? Anyone at all?
This is a boring second line.



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 11:00 PM
link   
this is just a thought but has anybody seen the madelbrot set

maybe the only thing in the universe is the perception of size what happens if you zoom into a brain cell enough??
a neuron looks like the universe but what if you zoom in more??

has anybody ever looked into this??



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 01:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
And here's a thought if the galaxy is supposedly expanding and galaxies are moving away from each other due to this expansion. While not exactly moving at all as I have heard it at one point explained. Why exactly are galaxies colliding?


The answer to that, according to mainstream cosmology, is that on a local level gravitational attraction prevails, which is why we are on a collision course with our neighbor, the Andromeda Galaxy, if I remember this correctly.



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
And here's a thought if the galaxy is supposedly expanding and galaxies are moving away from each other due to this expansion. While not exactly moving at all as I have heard it at one point explained. Why exactly are galaxies colliding?


In my own model of the universe, galaxies collide because the expansion of space enlarges the voids of the cosmic foam, stretching the surrounding walls of galaxies until, one by one, walls of galaxies pop. When a wall of galaxies is stretched beyond the limit of its tensile strength, a gap opens near the middle of the wall; the galaxies around that gap then accelerate toward the surrounding clusters and super-clusters, eventually (after a billion years or so) colliding with the galaxies in the clusters and super-clusters.

The energy and momentum gained during this popping process must be conserved by radiating pressure waves thru the surrounding cosmic foam. Those pressure waves are the dark energy of the super-universe. From our perspective, two bubbles separated by a wall are united into one bubble; the disappearance of a bubble wall in the cosmic foam decreases the number of bubbles in the region by one. For super-universe space to expand, the number of bubbles must increase; hence, the arrow of time reverses between successive universes. The same process in the sub-universe drives the expansion of our space and generates our dark energy.

Getting back to more conventional terminology, galaxies in expanding space are like ants crawling in random directions of a giant expanding balloon. If the ants are far apart, the distance between them increases faster than they can crawl, but nearby ants can still bump into each other. The Andromeda Galaxy is about 2.5 Mly away, which is about 2.37e22 m. The expansion of space between us and Andromeda amounts to about 2.37e22 m x 2.5e-18/s ≈ 60 km/s. Andormeda is moving toward us at about 180 km/s; so the distance is decreasing by about 120 km/s.



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 02:14 AM
link   
Phractal Phil,

You seem to be taking the "foam" metaphor too literally, which leads you to push it too far. (Also, why does it always have to be foam? Why not compare the large-scale structure of the Universe to a sponge? Cut through a sponge and the resulting flat surface will be a perfect cross-section of that structure.) That's why you suppose that galaxies "ride" atop curved surfaces of what are like bubbles and that those surfaces can break as they stretch, just the way soap bubbles break.

We don't know what makes galaxies arrange themselves in a foamy/spongy pattern, so we can't assume anything concerning the behavior of the "walls" of the bubbles, like, for instance, that they "break" and that chaos ensues, inspired solely by the way foam behaves. If that really is what happens, would we see such a tidy pattern all around us, with no messy spots here and there? True, one could argue that it's because we haven't been able to make a survey that's thorough and broad enough yet. Maybe that will always remain an impossible feat.

At your website you're not clear about the distinction between "cosmic" and "ether" foam, nor is it clear what you mean by "sub-universe".

Astronomers keep using an inadequate noun when talking about "collisions" of galaxies, which sounds exciting and somewhat sensationalist, and it should be "mergers". Maybe they do it in order to convince children, which are potential colleagues, that their field of study is thrilling.

Interstellar distances, even in "globular clusters" of stars, which are of the crowded sort (except, of course, between members of double and multiple star systems), are so great that when galaxies come together stars don't start crashing into one another all over the place. They interweave nicely. I guess the new neighbors do create gravitational disturbances that make some stars change their courses, so that some may approach others and interact, but maybe they start "dancing" together indefinitely rather than absorb the neighbor the way close binaries do.


edit on 5-1-2011 by escapevelocity because: In the next-to-last paragraph it had to be " 'collisions' of galaxies", not just " 'collisions' ".

edit on 5-1-2011 by escapevelocity because: On the same sentence it had to be "inadequate noun", not "inadequate verb". The latter would be "to collide".

edit on 5-1-2011 by escapevelocity because: It's "chaos", not "caos".



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 02:29 AM
link   
alright here is a modifyed veiw of general theory
the major difference is that the sun produces medium density that expands
the "bubble" that the sun creates is a medium density to light
so when light leaves the heliosphere is must transition from a dense medium to a "thinner" medium
it must shift down in wave lenght and amplitude to "account" for the conservation of energy laws
in this way einsteins constant C is preserved and the light can "use" the energy loss in traveling in the new medium density at C
without this modulation of all frequencies, energy conservation laws would be broken
blue shift is when the observed stars medium density is much lower than our own
and as the light is modulated into our medium it "shifts" higher than its original value
when entering our medium density

xploder



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 06:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by escapevelocity
Phractal Phil,

You seem to be taking the "foam" metaphor too literally, which leads you to push it too far. (Also, why does it always have to be foam? Why not compare the large-scale structure of the Universe to a sponge? Cut through a sponge and the resulting flat surface will be a perfect cross-section of that structure.) That's why you suppose that galaxies "ride" atop curved surfaces of what are like bubbles and that those surfaces can break as they stretch, just the way soap bubbles break.

We don't know what makes galaxies arrange themselves in a foamy/spongy pattern, so we can't assume anything concerning the behavior of the "walls" of the bubbles, like, for instance, that they "break" and that chaos ensues, inspired solely by the way foam behaves. If that really is what happens, would we see such a tidy pattern all around us, with no messy spots here and there? True, one could argue that it's because we haven't been able to make a survey that's thorough and broad enough yet. Maybe that will always remain an impossible feat.

I am not aware of anyone speaking metaphorically about the cosmic foam. Not having seen the SDSS map in stereo vision, myself, I rely on reports of those who have. Some of them say it resembles a giant bubble bath. Others emphasize the thread-like structure of clusters and super-clusters, which are the intersections of bubble walls. In either case, they are describing what they actually see in stereo vision. If it looks like foam, it IS foam, not a metaphor of foam.

A sponge is an animal whose body structure evolved to maximize the survival potential of the animal in a marine environment. It bears a superficial resemblance to other foamy structures, but with significantly more complexity. If it is discovered that the SDSS map reveals complex structure many bubbles wide, then I might have to revise my model and call it the cosmic porifera.

Granted, we don’t know what forces are responsible for the foamy structure. There are some obvious differences between the cosmic foam and the foams with which we have experience. Chemical foam may expand because of decreasing exterior gas pressure, causing the interior gas to expand. There is no gas filling the voids of the cosmic foam; they expand because space expands. Beer foam bubbles pop because gravity drains liquid out of their bubble walls, weakening them. There is no gravity pulling galaxies toward one side of the universe. Also, as far as we know, there is no force between galaxies whose stress increases as the strain increases. If no such force exists, it is a mystery what gives any integrity, at all, to the walls of galaxies. Why do the walls exist if Newton’s law of gravity is all there is?

So yes; I am taking a giant leap of faith in guessing that the cosmic foam behaves somewhat like the foamy structures that we see in bubble baths, ocean surf and the head on a glass of beer. I am guessing that cosmic-foam bubble walls pop; you may guess that they don’t pop. If they don’t pop, then why do we see so many colliding galaxies? (…which, by the way, is the question that prompted me to post, here, in the first place.) Don’t those collisions qualify as “messy spots”?

The survey is flawed in several unavoidable ways. We can’t see what lies beyond nearby galaxies or in the plane of our own galaxy. Furthermore, we equate cosmological redshift with distance because we have no way to determine how much of the redshift is due to relative motion of neighboring galaxies. We also lack any measure non-radial motion. So if cosmic-foam bubble walls do pop, the resulting local motion is indistinguishable from the radial motion due to expansion of space. Consider a popping wall of galaxies which is viewed nearly edge-on. A correct 3D map would show galaxies on the far side of that wall moving away faster than galaxies on the near side of the wall. Instead, the map exaggerates the radial distance from the near side to the far side.

No, we should not assume what we don’t know, but that should not prevent us making suppositions. Without suppositions, there would be no discoveries. I have supposed that the expansion of space increases the distance between galaxies. I have supposed that cosmic-foam bubble walls exist because of tensile forces between galaxies. I have supposed that those forces have limits. I have supposed that those limits are exceeded when the galaxies get too far apart. I have supposed that the wall pops when its tensile limit is exceeded.

From the examples of familiar foams, I deduce that a popping bubble wall radiates pressure waves. My deductions might be meaningless if not for the fact that they lead logically to unified recursive system, in which the expansion of one universe drives the expansion of the next universe.


At your website you're not clear about the distinction between "cosmic" and "ether" foam, nor is it clear what you mean by "sub-universe".

The cosmic foam of our universe is the ether foam of a super-universe, and the ether foam of our universe is the cosmic foam of a sub-universe.

Our cosmic foam is what we see in the SDSS---voids or bubbles surrounded by walls of galaxies. (The median bubble size of the cosmic foam is roughly 10^24 m.) If we had a microscope powerful enough to see a small fraction of a Planck length, we would see something very much like our cosmic foam. (The median bubble size of the ether foam is roughly 10^-35 m.) We would see sub-universe galaxies clustered around voids or bubbles. Of course, no such microscope can exist, and if it did, we would have to match our velocity to that of the ether. (At our present velocity, we are probably moving toward Virgo at about 627 km/s relative to the ether.)

I refer to these as separate universes because what takes place in one is unreal to the others. Our universe consists of waves in our ether. Those waves form the particles which make up our cosmic foam. The super-universe consists of waves in its ether which is our cosmic foam. Also, the arrow of time reverses from one universe to the next.

Astronomers keep using an inadequate noun when talking about "collisions" of galaxies, which sounds exciting and somewhat sensationalist, and it should be "mergers". Maybe they do it in order to convince children, which are potential colleagues, that their field of study is thrilling.

Interstellar distances, even in "globular clusters" of stars, which are of the crowded sort (except, of course, between members of double and multiple star systems), are so great that when galaxies come together stars don't start crashing into one another all over the place. They interweave nicely. I guess the new neighbors do create gravitational disturbances that make some stars change their courses, so that some may approach others and interact, but maybe they start "dancing" together indefinitely rather than absorb the neighbor the way close binaries do.

I would agree with you if galaxies simply passed thru one another like flashlights shining on a wall. If you have seen animations of colliding galaxies, you know that they don’t just pass thru one another. Their shapes and rotations are significantly altered, despite the rarity of collision between individual stars. Actual photographs of colliding galaxies look remarkably similar to the computer animations. Galaxies do collide.



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 09:08 PM
link   
Nothing to say....



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 03:59 AM
link   
Most Esteemed Creator of Universes (???),

Metaphors. First, better to deal with the simple, which is merely linguistic here: metaphors. In the present context both "foam" and "collision" are used metaphorically, 1) in the former case because foam, being "the white substance formed on a liquid by violent agitation or fermentation" (says my rather old 1946 Webster's New School & Office Dictionary), is to be seen only on Earth, so far, unless a) one wants to describe cosmic gas and dust and their aggregations as a kind of liquid, but surely that would be an additional metaphor, and b) one is sure that the foamy structure of the Universe was caused by "violent agitation" (in fact, it could be), and 2) in the latter case because a "collision" is "the act of striking two bodies violently together; concussion" (op. cit.), in other words, it involves physical contact, which describes what can happen to two stars and other pairs of celestial bodies (e.g., a planet or moon and a comet, asteroid or piece of space hardware) but not to two galaxies. That merging galaxies twist, toss and turn like long hair on a pair of scuffling ladies doesn't mean you can call that an "impact". It's more like two volumes of gas intermingling.

Messy spots. "If they don’t pop, then why do we see so many colliding galaxies? (…) Don’t those collisions qualify as 'messy spots'?" They're infinitesimal spots in space. I meant the commotions that are supposed to happen when your expanding bubbles break.

The two kinds of cosmic foam. "The cosmic foam of our universe is the ether foam of a super-universe, and the ether foam of our universe is the cosmic foam of a sub-universe." It seems like the cosmic foam at a certain level is the ether foam of the next level, going from the bottom to the top of a cosmic hierarchy. This is incomprehensible without further explanations. "Sub-universes" below our own level remain undefined.

Theory of the Breathing Universe. …a.k.a. the "Eternally Breathing Universe" or the "Lung Universe". I haven't come across this yet, so I hereby claim the concept as my own, and I think it agrees with the countless rhythmic natural phenomena and thus must be given priority over other theories. The Bouncing Universe is also rhythmic but it involves periodic conflagrations with utter destruction of all that is, and this disagrees with the harmony that characterizes Nature.

It could be, then, that the expansion we observe is part of an eternal, alternating expanding and contracting cycle of the cosmic foam or sponge, not an expansion that began with a Big Bang at a "singularity" and will 1) keep going until the scattering is irreversible and all the lights go off, or will 2) definitely stop, period, or will 3) stop and be followed by the Big Crunch, and then there would be endless repetitions (the Bouncing Universe).

In other words, the expansion doesn't get to the point where the structure breaks and galaxies start merging "en masse", nor does the contraction reach the point where everything is crammed into "infinite point density". The Universe has always been there. It's like a gigantic lung, inhaling (expanding) and exhaling (contracting). When it contracts things get messy and violent. That would be why, when one looks deeply enough in all directions, one sees images of a time when the Universe was more violent and chaotic, a time when the present expansion was starting and the Universe was recovering from the upheaval associated with the previous contraction.

It could be the only thing that exists, or just one of countless such spongy structures pulsating in an endless space. In that case one would have to ask 1) whether or not they all throb in unison, driven by the same rhythm, and 2) the usual, ultimate question: who or what keeps the beat or beats going. "And the beat goes on/And the beat goes on/…."





edit on 6-1-2011 by escapevelocity because: in the next-to-last paragraph a clause had to be added for enhanced clarity ("nor does the contraction etc.")



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 06:03 AM
link   
Sorry. I rushed and overlooked the other paragraphs about the types of foam and of universes, which sound like science-fiction, except, maybe, the revival of the old ether concept because, waves being nothing in themselves, and merely disturbances in a medium, electromagnetic waves must be evidence of a medium too subtle for us to detect. They refute this by saying that those waves are not of the same sort as water or sound waves and thus imply no underlying medium.

That has to do with my extravagant but logically consistent concept of space as an infinitely dense matrix, which belongs more to the realm of philosophy than to physics. Since nothingness is nonexistent by definition, then there is no such thing as "empty space". It has to be utterly packed with something.

The concept of sub-universes reminds one of the movie where a bead on a cat collar holds an entire galaxy. It's like the Russian Matrioshka dolls: universes within universes within universes, and so on.



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 06:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Copernicus
Scientists also used redshifts to show how we are the center of the universe:

Center of the universe

[edit on 20-9-2009 by Copernicus]


This is not true. Redshift is indeed quantized a bit, but this is to be expected, because large-scale structure of universe has the form of filaments of galaxies separated by empty voids. The only case when redshift would not be quantized is if the galaxies would be distributed completely randomly. This is elementary stuff in cosmology.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join