It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# Questions involving expanding universe and certain laws of physics.

page: 1
1
share:

posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 11:23 AM
Alright so before I say anything I'm not completely sure if the expanding universe is pushing galaxies further from each other or if it is pushing every body of mass including planets within a solar system and such further away from each other.

If the expansion is effecting masses on a planetary level wouldn't it eventually shift the orbit of planets while obeying the laws of centripetal force? If this is true wouldn't have or will time eventually cause the destruction of many things by throwing the orbits off?

posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 12:22 PM

Expansion indeed affects everything including planetary orbits. But the important thing is that the magnitude of this effect depends on distance between two objects.
Imagine an inflating baloon with dots on its surface. If two dots are far from each other, distance between them will increase faster with inflation than if two dots are near each other.

Hubble`s constant is about 75 (km/s)/megaparsec

Expansion on the scale of our solar system is unmeasurably small.

posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 12:31 PM
It's an interesting question.

As far as I know ( which is not far at all. ) The expanding only affects galaxies and bigger. Galaxy clusters galaxies and what lies within them are all glued together with gravity.

This Link will get you started with gravity. From there you're bound to find what you are looking fore.

posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 12:38 PM

I know the balloon idea from questioning whether there is a central point in the universe or not. I figured it would be to small to measure but over 4.5 billion years wouldn't these small amounts of expansion add up and produce an effect?

I believe you would use newtons law of universal gravitation and maybe another equation but wouldn't r(distance)(The denominator) always be changing and effecting orbit?

posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 12:54 PM

www.astro.ucla.edu...

Why doesn't the Solar System expand if the whole Universe is expanding? This question is best answered in the coordinate system where the galaxies change their positions. The galaxies are receding from us because they started out receding from us, and the force of gravity just causes an acceleration that causes them to slow down, or speed up in the case of an accelerating expansion. Planets are going around the Sun in fixed size orbits because they are bound to the Sun. Everything is just moving under the influence of Newton's laws (with very slight modifications due to relativity). [Illustration] For the technically minded, Cooperstock et al. computes that the influence of the cosmological expansion on the Earth's orbit around the Sun amounts to a growth by only one part in a septillion over the age of the Solar System. This effect is caused by the cosmological background density within the Solar System going down as the Universe expands, which may or may not happen depending on the nature of the dark matter. The mass loss of the Sun due to its luminosity and the Solar wind leads to a much larger [but still tiny] growth of the Earth's orbit which has nothing to do with the expansion of the Universe. Even on the much larger (million light year) scale of clusters of galaxies, the effect of the expansion of the Universe is 10 million times smaller than the gravitational binding of the cluster.

posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 01:01 PM

What's crazy about that is I am currently working towards going to UCLA for an astrophysics degree. It is my dream and reachable goal haha. And also that was how I needed to see it to understand. Now just look for the next question haha.

[edit on 30-3-2010 by seangkt]

posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 01:01 PM
There's also different theories about the expansion process itself-

There is one theory that says the universe will accelerate until it rips apart, and another thinks that it will accelerate up to a limit and then reverse, collapsing on itself in a "big crunch".

I am pretty sure there is another theory, but I am too busy right now and don't have time to check for you.

posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 01:59 PM
nothing can not expand

problem solved.

posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 02:34 PM
I read the posts as if their writers are very certain the expansion is a certainty. It's still a theory and with recent discovered galaxy clusters being pulled the wrong way... The expansion theory could be the latest theory getting debunked by new observations.

We ( mankind ) have a neck for seeing truth in what still is speculation.
A time comes we will admit we didn't no... There are still to many unknowns in the universe. Or should I say multi verse ? How knows ?

posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 11:15 PM
reply to post by Sinter Klaas

Quantum Cosmology and Baby Universes is an awesome book for multi verses.

posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 02:08 PM
While i doubt there would be a significant, immediate effect on otherwise reasonably stable orbiting [more precisely in virtually all cases 'spiraling'*]

What about the stars at the far extreme within our own galaxy?

Is there some tiny discernible, but measurable [with current equipment] amount of that red-shifting?

If that is measurable has any one bothered to use that as a small confirmation? Because if that doesn't demonstrate the expected red-shift then the presumption of an expanding [& even run-away] Universe is thrown into profound question.

Consistent, uniform expanding is one thing,
But the idea that the Universe is accelerating apart?

I don't know. That gets pretty hard to buy.

[edit on 19-4-2010 by slank]

posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 03:44 PM

Is there some tiny discernible, but measurable [with current equipment] amount of that red-shifting?
Well, based on the previously quoted number of a septillionth of change over the life the solar system, we can extrapolate that to the furthest stars in our galaxy (we'll assume 100,000 light years). That works out to a change of one part in .0000000000000006, or about 568,000 meters over 5 billion years. So expansion would result in a change in the galaxy of about 44 earth-diameters over that time. Thats 0.0001 meters per year. Definitely way too small to measure.

posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 03:51 PM

Originally posted by seangkt
Alright so before I say anything I'm not completely sure if the expanding universe is pushing galaxies further from each other or if it is pushing every body of mass including planets within a solar system and such further away from each other.

If the expansion is effecting masses on a planetary level wouldn't it eventually shift the orbit of planets while obeying the laws of centripetal force? If this is true wouldn't have or will time eventually cause the destruction of many things by throwing the orbits off?

Fusion is defined as a process that increases mass.

Not only that the Suns have explosions that are creating pressure waves
and electrical charges.

How else could the universe respond.
For planets the electrical momentum and forces might take precedence
over gravity.
Then if you can't explain things like the laws of physics for what
Velikovsky said are the recorded cosmic history of mankind then
we go to the spiritual and say the angels at Gods command move
the planets. That might help for Velikovsky's case.

It works for those pesky UFOs sometimes.

How the Sun with its mass increase and explosions and electrical
activity all make a constant gravity clocked planetary is a mystery.

posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 03:58 PM

Originally posted by TeslaandLyne
Fusion is defined as a process that increases mass.

Uh... fusion results in a net loss of mass, because some of that mass is converted into energy.

posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 04:01 PM

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by TeslaandLyne
Fusion is defined as a process that increases mass.

Uh... fusion results in a net loss of mass, because some of that mass is converted into energy.

Never happen.
Mass is never converted to energy.
You must be mistaken.
ED: Does not the alpha radiation convert to Helium in a non
fusion process just by 'picking up' electrons.
ED: The Sun's mass is increasing.
I'll look for a noted space scientist's discovery.
1935-08-18: Expanding Sun Will Explode Someday Tesla Predicts (Kivonatok a cikkből)
www.tesla.hu...
www.tesla.hu...
ED: incidentally in reading from that document:

, longitudinal pulses in the ether, which behave like particles of relatively small penetrative but extraordinarily great ionizing power

Now that is something you don't see every day.
Pressure waves from the cosmos that have ionizing power.

[edit on 4/19/2010 by TeslaandLyne]

posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 05:24 PM
I would like to see what the early atomic scientists thought of
the two fission bombs under construction.
Guess a trip to Los Alamos would not help these days.
But what about the German scientists.
Did they think Energy came from Mass.
I think ether theory might say that energy came from breaking
the atomic bonds and not the mass.
This would be in line with energy comes from the atmosphere or ether.
So mass might also come from the ether.
Thus making them indistinguishable.

If Mass increase does occur for alpha particle to the He atom, that
must be some sort of cold fusion.

If the process requires energy, then the energy came from the ether.

Well still the planetary system seems constant and we like it like that.
With all the energy and mass increase and explosions and charge
creation and pressure waves the planetary system has survived somehow.

ED: He hit by a hot spark packs a lot of energy if used in the Papp
Engine. And cools for another blast as the engine requires NO

[edit on 4/19/2010 by TeslaandLyne]

posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 08:30 PM

Originally posted by TeslaandLyne

Never happen.
Mass is never converted to energy.

It seems you don't understand fusion happening in stars.

en.wikipedia.org...

Fusion of deuterium with tritium creating helium-4, freeing a neutron, and releasing 17.59 MeV of energy, as an appropriate amount of mass converting to the kinetic energy of the products, in agreement with E = Δmc2

posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 10:36 PM
Mass can not be converted to energy? I put feul in my car, my car moves, and eventually have to put more in my tank. My tank doesn't have a leak in it, so where does this mass go?

posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 10:47 PM
The concept of mass and energy being interchanged is being discussed as a serious topic?

Chemical changes such as the burning of fuel to transform chemical energy into kinetic energy doesn't really support this topic.

Quantum evindence of sub-atomic particles being able to fluctuate between mass and energy would be proof of this concept, regardless of one's beliefs of fission power. Fusion, on the other hand, gives few other options.

posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 10:57 AM

Mass can not be converted to energy? I put feul in my car, my car moves, and eventually have to put more in my tank. My tank doesn't have a leak in it, so where does this mass go?

No mass is lost in chemical reactions. In the case of your car, the mass turns into exhaust gases of an equivalent mass of the gasoline you started with.

In nuclear fusion, some of the mass is converted directly into energy. You end up with ever so slightly less material than you started with.

Hydrogen-1 has a mass of 1.00718 atomic mass units (amu). Helium-4 has a mass of 4.00150 amu. four Hydrogen-1 atoms fuse together into a single Helium-4 atom. The four Hydrogen-1 atoms weight 4.02872 amu, which is 0.02722 amu more than the single Helium-4 atom. That extra mass was converted to energy.

new topics

top topics

1