If the Universe is Expanding...

reply to post by thorazineshuffle


then all the suffering ends

Originally posted by smithjustinb

Originally posted by mkkkay
If we are expanding then why can i set my watch to the sun

why are days not getting longer..

what if every thing we are told is a lie..

Because maybe the gears in you watch are expanding too.

Star for the toth, i never toth of it that way.
even if we would mesure with a ruler we would never suspect it
since the ruler would also expand... you will have me thinking for a while now, thank you

Edit: we also would have to come to the conclusion, that the universe is not expanding.
still will leave me thinking..

Originally posted by mkkkay

Originally posted by Drunkenparrot

Originally posted by mkkkay
If we are expanding then why can i set my watch to the sun

why are days not getting longer..

what if every thing we are told is a lie..

What if we took a moment and read ATS member CLPrime's post above?

Short, concise and to the point as always.

post by CLPrime

edit on 19-5-2011 by Drunkenparrot because: (no reason given)

Ya i did twice now, whats your point

if i read it correctly the daugh expands, distansing the raisins further a part.
if we are (the earth) a raisin and the sun also, why can i set my watch to it.

I like the toth of miniatus better, at least
i can set my watch to it.

edit on 19-5-2011 by mkkkay because: (no reason given)

The raisins are systems that are gravitationally bound. So, they don't represent individual bodies, like the Earth and Sun... they better represent the entire galaxy. Within the Milky Way, the expansion of the universe is cancelled out by its internal gravitational attraction.

reply to post by smithjustinb

What does it mean to say that the Universe is expanding? If EVERY thing in the universe is expanding, or getting bigger, then that means we're all getting bigger. We wouldn't notice that we were getting bigger because everything around us is also getting bigger and at the same rate. Know what I mean? It's crazy to think about.

Yeah. The idea that we are in a bubble that is expanding is interesting. But like you say wouldn't we be expanding too? Isn't there a whole lot of empty space in between each atom in our bodies and a whole lot of space in between the electrons and neutrons and stuff? Wouldn't all that space be expanding also?

Now you got me thinking too. Maybe the denseness of matter matters. Maybe all those far off stars and galaxies arn't moving away from us at all. Could it be that it is the very thinly mattered space that is expanding between here and there that allows this impression?

And when we get down to it I really wonder why they call it the Big Bang. I know it was a joke phase by Fred Hoyle but if it started from a really small point, wouldn't it be the Little Bang with a whole lotta Big Stuff coming right after?

All these people trying to figure out the big bang. Setting up cause and effect chains. Like here is the effect which was caused by this, which was caused by that, which came about by a previous cause. All the way back to BB. Cause after cause after cause. And then when some dufus like me asks what caused the BB since this whole thing is about the cause and effect chain they say , nothing. Or your guess is as good as mine.

Well then here is a guess. They say it all just popped out of this very small bit and then got really big really fast. What if that pop wasn't so small after all. What if that little bit was really a very very large bit already when it popped.

For that matter I'm getting ready to go back to some form of Steady State.

See what happens when I wake in the morning and read a post like yours? I may not get my feet on the ground all day. But I know this for sure. Because of your post, by the time I'm ready for bed tonight I'll be wondering if my feet are bigger than when I woke up.

Originally posted by mkkkay
Edit: we also would have to come to the conclusion, that the universe is not expanding.

still will leave me thinking..

[

All fun and games aside and as crazy as it sounds, the evidence overwhelmingly supports the metric expansion of space..

In the early part of the twentieth century, Slipher, Hubble and others made the first measurements of the redshifts and blue shifts of galaxies beyond the Milky Way. They initially interpreted these redshifts and blue shifts as due solely to the Doppler effect, but later Hubble discovered a rough correlation between the increasing redshifts and the increasing distance of galaxies. Theorists almost immediately realized that these observations could be explained by a different mechanism for producing redshifts. Hubble's law of the correlation between redshifts and distances is required by models of cosmology derived from general relativity that have a metric expansion of space. As a result, photons propagating through the expanding space are stretched, creating the cosmological redshift.

Metric Expansion of Space

reply to post by smithjustinb

We wouldn't notice that we were getting bigger because everything around us is also getting bigger and at the same rate.

Yet if we do measure a difference in the movements of outside objects than this disproves your assumption. Well, not really "disproves" but it at least shows that a measured difference is being observed, right? We could be expanding and/or contracting but if it is at a Universally constant rate who could ever tell?

The Universal expansion theory all rests on the observation of the Hubble constant, which is a theoretical constant not a proven one. So no overwhelming amount of evidence here. keep in mind that the Hubble, or red shift Doppler effect, has its problems and limitations.

For example we have ways of measuring the distance of objects in space to a certain point (parallax, Cepheid variables and light magnitudes of stellar clusters) which is not very far away cosmologically. From then on we use the Hubble "constant" to measure distance by the amount of speed this object is supposedly moving away from us at. So we are using one observation to attempt to prove two different properties, distance and acceleration (actually distance by amount of theorized acceleration). This attempt here is fundamentally flawed for the simple reason that the Hubble might not be constant. Using the red shift of light in this way we will never observe anything other than an expanding Universe. What if Quasars are not as distant as per their measured red shift? What if there is more that one reason why light shifts to the red? There appears to be no way to disprove this which makes for a huge problem in my opinion.

Accelerations cause light to shift towards the red end of the spectrum, i.e. Doppler effect, but so does gravitational force (or the lack there of). This is called the Equivanlence Principle. Here we have a relativistic problem that I think cosmologists fail to address.

Einstein theorized a Static Universe until Edwin Hubble discovered the red shift of light, latter to be called the Hubble constant. It was from this discovery that Einstein called the static Universe theory his biggest blunder.

If you were to ask me... The big bang never happened, the Universe is not expanding as we think it is (I favor a more static like Universe-to put is simply), the Universe is far bigger and older than cosmologists believe it to be. We have A LOT yet to learn and I find it completely preposterous for anyone to have the audacity to give the Universe an age given how little we do know.

New evidence for dark energy based on average separation of pairs of galaxies - with nice illustrations in the article:

Dark Energy is real: WiggleZ galaxy project proves Einstein was right again

reply to post by Devino


Some of the physics you mention is actually a bit off, but your point is valid. In fact, I'm inclined to agree with your conclusion. On ATS, I often quote the current accepted mainstream theory (LCDM Cosmology - our current flavour of the "Big Bang" theory), but I highly doubt its accuracy. For us to claim such knowledge of how the universe formed and how it works just further proves our ignorance.

reply to post by Devino


Maybe it is expanding at the same rate locally, but non-locally we are able to observe the expansion because it is expanding at a faster rate then the rate we expand. Thus my theory remains in tact just altered.

I have my own theory on the big bang. The tiny ball of existence at the start was just that- All of existence. Therefore I conclude that it was actually infinitely large and that ever since that point we have been, not so much shrinking, but gaining more resolution.

To me, that explains why space appears to be expanding. And I didn't like the theory that the universe was ever 'small'.

Oh, and consequently the universe would have been solid initially, decaying until it was like swiss cheese (due to entropy) and eventually becoming what we know it as today.

PTX

Originally posted by mkkkay
if we are (the earth) a raisin and the sun also, why can i set my watch to it.

CLprime didn't mention this in his first post, but he did in his second post.

The raisins represent galaxies, not the sun and the Earth.

Everything is expanding, including us. We are inside the big bang and expand like the rest of the bang. If we were outside the bang it wouldn't have happened until it reached us. And when it reached us it would appear as it was at the beginning.

Originally posted by MichiganSwampBuck
Everything is expanding, including us. We are inside the big bang and expand like the rest of the bang. If we were outside the bang it wouldn't have happened until it reached us. And when it reached us it would appear as it was at the beginning.

Yes, my waistline expanded an inch in the last 10 years, but it has nothing to do with the expansion of the universe.

Why doesn't the Solar System expand if the whole Universe is expanding?

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.

It's probably hard to even notice one part in a septillion.

Originally posted by Devino
The Universal expansion theory all rests on the observation of the Hubble constant, which is a theoretical constant not a proven one. So no overwhelming amount of evidence here.

There's a ton of evdence for the hubble constant and while it appears to be relatively constant in space at an instant in time like the present, we also know that it's NOT constant over time, from the dark energy discovery in 1998.

So it might be better to change the name to something besides the hubble "constant".

Here's a graph of roughly how it's thought to vary over time (The graph is of something else related to the Hubble constant):
en.wikipedia.org...

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/5c85479c33d9.png[/atsimg]

In 1998 we measured that the universe appears to be following the curvy dotted like on the left labeled "accelerating". The Hubble constant would exhibit similar changes if we could observe it at different points in time (which we think we did in 1998).

reply to post by Illustronic


well dammmmmm it, all i really wanted was the best pizza in the glaxy where the heck am i supposed to find tht at :-/

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Exactly. Specifically, in a survey of several supernovae up to a redshift of z=1 (when the universe was about half its current size), it was found that these stars are further away than predicted by a uniformly expanding universe, while stars at higher redshifts were where they were predicted to be. The logical conclusion from this is that the expansion of the universe has, in fact, been accelerating (beginning about 5 billion years ago), which means the Hubble "constant" is increasing with time. As you said, in the image you posted, this is represented by the larger dashed line labeled "accelerating".

reply to post by smithjustinb

It is just stars and galaxies that moves further and further from each other leaving just increasing gaps of void in between.
Kinda depressing theory to be honest...

reply to post by juleol


No, they're not. The space between them is expanding, galaxies are not moving away from each other.
The "Big Bang" was not an explosion... it was rapid expansion (called inflation). It did not send galaxies flying out in all directions... it produced a uniform expansion of matter, which then gravitationally collapsed to form stars and other assorted objects as space continued to expand.
There was no BANG. It was more of a SHWHOMPFFFFFT.

reply to post by CLPrime


And if the space between galaxies is expanding, then it is logical to say that the space between atoms is expanding. It is all the same space. But for my theory to hold true, then not only would the space be expanding, but particles as well.

reply to post by smithjustinb


You should read the other posts I've made in this thread (ETA: from the first page, as well...not just on this page).