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.

 

How can the universe be expanding?

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 08:16 PM
link   
I'm not much of an astronomer but I'm curious as to why this statement is so factual around the scientific community. I've heard all the theories about the redshift and Einstein's theory of relativity, and the seem to point that everything around us is getting further and further away.

But for that to be true, you must assume that we are the center of the universe, which seems egocentric. For expansion to be noticed between 2 objects their must be a center focal point which remains static. If there is no center of the universe then expansion between two objects would be impossible. The only way for space to be expanding between galaxies would literally be if every planet/asteroid/point in the universe was the center of the universe.

That may be confusing, but stay with me. You would literally have to take every point individually and make sure everything is proportional in it's expanding reality, and then going to the next point.

Can the fact that we see a color, and assume it's moving away from us, really make us come to the conclusion the the universe expanded from one point and will crunch back in? The universe can only expand and compress when observing from a certain point. It's almost as if we are all living on our lonely island and everything we know is traveling further and further away from is....but in the overhead view of things nothing is expanding at all.




posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 08:28 PM
link   
An object in motion tends to say in motion, right?
That said I'm pretty sure we have the technology to measure most points in the sky.
It will still be expanding slowly, so we would really not notice anything without some very sophisticated equipment. We have that technology though, so I don't see how it would be that difficult to see that things were expanding.
I really don't understand the whole big crunch thing. If an object stays in motion, how could it all come crashing back together.



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 08:38 PM
link   
Since the Earth is expanding... and we live inside a fractal... I find it quite plausible.



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 08:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Nostradumbass
 


there could be a much more simple reason for the perceived expansion of the galaxy
alternate theory of hubbles constant
www.abovetopsecret.com...

alternate theory of the universe
www.abovetopsecret.com...

the red shift problem can be explained by optics and by the heliospherical "bubble" our sun projects
it can act like a lense and "shift" light down in spectrum and could account for shifts in heliospheres and galaxies
so there are some big questions you are asking
i only have theorys at this stage but have a read

here is a website with some pretty good questions on it
helpful i hope
red shift questioned

xploder
note these are all theories make up your own mind in all cases



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 08:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Ghost374
 


You know you really have to give those writers at Marvel Comics their credit, they brilliantly described the "big crunch" that destroyed an old universe and created Galactus 30yrs before it became popular.

But I would think it's like a rubber band or balloon, once it's expanded as much as it can go it eventually snaps back into it's original smaller form.



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 09:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nostradumbass
I've heard all the theories about the redshift and Einstein's theory of relativity, and the seem to point that everything around us is getting further and further away.

But for that to be true, you must assume that we are the center of the universe, which seems egocentric.


Actually, I remember a video, possibly Lawrence Krauss, where this is explained.

I actually found it, it's about 10 minutes in: www.youtube.com...



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 09:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by XPLodER
reply to post by Nostradumbass
 


there could be a much more simple reason for the perceived expansion of the galaxy
alternate theory of hubbles constant
www.abovetopsecret.com...

alternate theory of the universe
www.abovetopsecret.com...

the red shift problem can be explained by optics and by the heliospherical "bubble" our sun projects
it can act like a lense and "shift" light down in spectrum and could account for shifts in heliospheres and galaxies
so there are some big questions you are asking
i only have theorys at this stage but have a read

here is a website with some pretty good questions on it
helpful i hope
red shift questioned

xploder
note these are all theories make up your own mind in all cases


But let's assume that the red shift theory is correct, and everything is expanding.

The only way that space can be expanding equally among all points, is if you take each point individually and spread every every point around it to an equal proportional distance. And then take another point and expand everything around it as far as the previous point. And so and an so forth until all points are equally proportional in distance, but with more space in between them then when we started.

And if you look at it from a creators perspective, who observes no one point in the universe...but everything at once, it would appear as if nothing was moving at all. The only thing that would be moving is his field of vision which would continually grow(but he would not be aware of it). He cannot observe time, therefore cannot observe space. All things have happened, but everything can be changed if you can see where I'm getting at.

I'm not much into new age theories...but you could consider that a creator just plotted points of consciousness all along the universe so that they experience things like they are on an island. Everything evolves around them, and when all things appear equal, a new perspective starts.

And for the guy who said the universe is a fractal it could very well be true. But that's no different than saying the universe is round. You just keep pushing forward, and every time you complete a circle you start the same journey over again.



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 09:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Nostradumbass
 


ok consider this if red shift was acurate we would be the center of the universe and all matter would be moving away from us, we would be stationary in a universe were everything else was moving.
kinda reminds me of the earth being the centre
lol

so another perspective
to an observer our galaxy may be moving to away but because we are part of the universe we would be moving to and thus not realize our movement.
yet another perspective
if we observe all things as lenses, helio spheres, galaxies ect then we could be looking at expansion of our local galaxy bubble as expansion of the universe.

xploder

xploder



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 09:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Nostradumbass
 


this is a theory where i try to explain how expansion as a function of hydrodynamics is responcable for gravity (in part)
it expands on the expansion of the universe lol
www.abovetopsecret.com...

enjoy

xploder



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 02:52 AM
link   
I think you're right, it displays a very earth-centric view of the universe to assume that everything is expanding out from our perspective.

I have a very intelligent friend who asked me a good question the other day, as we were debating the currently accepted theory as to the creation of the universe. He talked about black holes, which as far as we know are nothing more that incredibly dense matter that have such a pull that nothing can escape from them, not even light. So if you consider that, according to the bang theory, all matter in the universe, including all the stars, collapsed or otherwise, along with all the planets and everything else, were once concentrated into a "primordial egg."

This ball of matter would contain everything that currently makes up our universe, and would therefore have a mass and density beyond our ability to comprehend. Its gravitational pull would be inescapable. So how could anything ever escape from this central point, regardless of the violence of any explosion?

I'm not an astrophysicist, so maybe someone else would be able to answer this, but it seemed like a pretty good question to me.



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 06:38 AM
link   
Expansion of the universe looks the same from every point in the universe, not just from Earth. There is no center of this expansion.

Our universe is like a surface of an inflating baloon - it expands, but there is no center of expansion on the surface. If you choose any arbitrary point on the surface of this expanding baloon, then every other point on the surface will be moving away, with relative speed of this motion linearly depending on their distance.

expansion of space
edit on 5/1/11 by Maslo because: addedn link



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 07:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo
Expansion of the universe looks the same from every point in the universe, not just from Earth. There is no center of this expansion.

Our universe is like a surface of an inflating baloon - it expands, but there is no center of expansion on the surface. If you choose any arbitrary point on the surface of this expanding baloon, then every other point on the surface will be moving away, with relative speed of this motion linearly depending on their distance.

expansion of space
edit on 5/1/11 by Maslo because: addedn link


But there is a center point of expansion...but that point lies underneath the surface inside the helium. If there were no true center point than it wouldn't appear to be expanding.

Shouldn't we be able to calculate the center of the universe if that was the case? If everything started from a small 2-d surface like a balloon, and then radiated outward, wouldn't there still be an internal center point. And the last I heard, most scientists believe the universe is flat...so then you would have to assume that there is no hidden center inside the flat "balloon".

To be honest, I love science as far as social sciences and medical sciences goes...but at some point don't you have to admit that math and physics cannot explain things outside the confines of our Earth?



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 07:14 AM
link   
reply to post by VariableConstant
 


If the universe started with an explosion, and is currently expanding, then we would still be within that explosion. The whole big crunch concept is when the attractive forces that held the lump of matter together would overcome the explosive forces, and... squish, ending the explosion.

Alternatively, the explosive forces could overcome the attractive forces, and the universal debris would end up being scattered far and wide, as everythind was torn apart. I do wonder whether a neutron star torn apart in the far distant future of this would become a secondary big bang when the explosion became sufficiently advanced.



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 08:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Nostradumbass
 





But there is a center point of expansion...but that point lies underneath the surface inside the helium. If there were no true center point than it wouldn't appear to be expanding. Shouldn't we be able to calculate the center of the universe if that was the case? If everything started from a small 2-d surface like a balloon, and then radiated outward, wouldn't there still be an internal center point.


But that center point does not lie on the surface of the balloon. That means that there is no center or any point of significance in our three dimensional spacetime, because our universe IS the surface of that baloon.



And the last I heard, most scientists believe the universe is flat...so then you would have to assume that there is no hidden center inside the flat "balloon".


Mathematically the shape of the universe does not matter, flat spaces, curved spaces, two or three dimensional spaces can all expand with no center. That baloon thing is just an analogy to imagine it better. It all boils down to one simple law - every point in space is moving away from every other point, with their relative speed depending on their mutual distance.




To be honest, I love science as far as social sciences and medical sciences goes...but at some point don't you have to admit that math and physics cannot explain things outside the confines of our Earth?


There is no reason why math and physics should work on Earth, but fail us in deep space. That said, there are plenty of mysteries in cosmology, so science surely does not claim to explain everything. I am not sure we will be able to explain everything outside the Earth even in distant future.



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 02:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 





Our universe is like a surface of an inflating baloon - it expands, but there is no center of expansion on the surface. If you choose any arbitrary point on the surface of this expanding baloon, then every other point on the surface will be moving away, with relative speed of this motion linearly depending on their distance.


I've heard this before and i can see it in my mind's eye, but then why and how can galaxies collide if everything is moving away from everything else.



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 03:06 PM
link   
reply to post by type0civ
 





I've heard this before and i can see it in my mind's eye, but then why and how can galaxies collide if everything is moving away from everything else.


There is also gravity at play. When two galaxies are close enough, their mutual gravity will overcome expansion and pull them back together. Such galaxies then form gravitationally bound clusters and superclusters separated by empty voids.



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 05:31 PM
link   
Okay one more question. If I were to inflate a balloon, wouldn't the points grow in size with the perspective balloon. So the observer would also grow at a rate where the distance points are still within the same proportional distance?
The expansion would be nothing more than an illusion?

And also what is the reasoning that scientists think it must collapse back in itself?



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 05:46 PM
link   
chemistry.about.com...


Theory


A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven. Basically, if evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon. One definition of a theory is to say it's an accepted hypothesis.


SO unless your HYPOTHESIS has passed scientific scrutiny it cannot be deemed THEORY.



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 03:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nostradumbass
Okay one more question. If I were to inflate a balloon, wouldn't the points grow in size with the perspective balloon. So the observer would also grow at a rate where the distance points are still within the same proportional distance?
The expansion would be nothing more than an illusion?



The balloon example is to just show it appears to be the center of the universe from every galaxy/


To actually answer your questions.
No "point" is "growing" as fast or faster then space its self.



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 04:16 PM
link   
eh, who knows? When looking for facts it is best not to start off with if [insert theory here] is true.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join