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.
Why thank you, I was expecting more criticism. Actually I am interested in reading why you think my physics are off. I do like to learn when it comes to physics and astronomy.
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.
If the Universe is expanding at a constant rate everywhere (ubiquitous) then I think that we would be unable to determine this supposed expansion. If, however, there are differing levels of expansion (local and non-local areas) then this would indicate other outside forces altering the universal rate of expansion. At this point we should focus on these other forces and forget the idea of a constant universal expansion since we would most likely be unable to measure that anyway.
Originally posted by smithjustinb
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.
Time and distance are relative, I feel you might be presenting an unknown value that arbitrarily adjusts the equation to get the desired results. Could you post some highlights of all this evidence of the Hubble being constant in a form that I might be able to understand? I know a red shift of light is measured from distant galaxies and this does indicate an acceleration as one possible explanation for this red shift. Can there be another reason for this observed red shift?
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,
So this is evidence against the universal expansion theory, correct? I see this as yet another discrepancy with the Hubble constant.
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
This is where I have a problem in understanding this theory. Define space. Is it an absolute void, empty and absent of all matter? Or is it a measurable medium full of matter and energy? We should not cherry pick here but rather define space as one or the other. To state that space as an absolute void devoid of all matter expands is beyond reason.
The space between them is expanding, galaxies are not moving away from each other.
Originally posted by Devino
reply to post by Maslo
I feel the need to ask, and I can't quite put this into proper perspective, but is dark energy and/or dark matter the same as the theory of a luminiferous Aether?
scientists use the term "dark matter" as an umbrella definition for all the material in the Universe that can't be seen. They believe that there are two components to dark matter. A large fraction of dark matter is made up of exotic materials, different from the ordinary particles that make up the familiar world around us. Meanwhile, some dark matter may consist of dark celestial bodies like brown dwarfs, which do not produce optical light and are too faint to visibly detect from Earth.
Unknown.
Originally posted by masterp
If the universe is expanding, then it is not a closed system, is it?
According to the second law the entropy of any isolated system, such as the entire universe, never decreases
George Box said, "all models are wrong, some are useful". I'm not sure how useful it is to try to apply the second law to the entire universe. We aren't sure how big the universe is, but we suspect the universe is larger than the observable universe, and since we can't see what's outside the observable universe, that's a matter of speculation.
is the second law of thermodynamics valid, which requires a closed system?
Originally posted by Devino
reply to post by CLPrime
Why thank you, I was expecting more criticism. Actually I am interested in reading why you think my physics are off. I do like to learn when it comes to physics and astronomy.
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.
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.
reply to post by Arbitrageur
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,
Time and distance are relative, I feel you might be presenting an unknown value that arbitrarily adjusts the equation to get the desired results. Could you post some highlights of all this evidence of the Hubble being constant in a form that I might be able to understand? I know a red shift of light is measured from distant galaxies and this does indicate an acceleration as one possible explanation for this red shift. Can there be another reason for this observed red shift?
Now if I understand the rest of your reply I see that the Hubble constant is proven to not be constant? I would concur with this description yet why are we still using this as a constant? Clearly there exists a problem here.
reply to post by CLPrime
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
So this is evidence against the universal expansion theory, correct? I see this as yet another discrepancy with the Hubble constant.
reply to post by CLPrime
The space between them is expanding, galaxies are not moving away from each other.
This is where I have a problem in understanding this theory. Define space. Is it an absolute void, empty and absent of all matter? Or is it a measurable medium full of matter and energy? We should not cherry pick here but rather define space as one or the other. To state that space as an absolute void devoid of all matter expands is beyond reason.
I rather suspected an answer like that but in at least my head, that answer is a bit evasive in describing the massive scale of distances theoretically observed in the time frame also theoretically postulated without, say for instance, light speed being exceeded in expansion (by mass) from a point in space to the distances observed today. That's where I have a problem with a point in location, and not just brushing away the idea of everything in one location by advancing the idea of space and time creation, and everything before is inconsequential.
I find the descriptions you summarized on what space is very interesting as a teaser, and I understand a little about the space between mass in particle physics but I just cannot wrap my head around everything compressed to a point of location observed today in that amount of finite space without creation from nothing along the expansion way. So to keep my head from exploding I view singularity as a point in time and not location in space. I think its rather presumptuous for us to say 13.8 (or whatever it is) light years away is the furthest we can see (in any direction) would by logic place our observation point in the Universe at the center. That's a rather Godly idea to propose, don't you think?
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.
Originally posted by miniatus
I think it just means the space within the universe is expanding.. not the objects within the space.. just space itself.. A lot of scientists think of the universe not as infinite but as a bubble, and so imagine the bubble as getting larger, not the molecules inside the bubble.
Originally posted by Clavicula
reply to post by smithjustinb
The universe must at some distant past have expanded well in excess of the speed of light for all this to add up, which of cause raises a whole new set of paradoxes.
Originally posted by Clavicula
The Universe (according to Einstein) has 4 geometrical dimensions. (That's right 4 geometrical dimensions not time as the 4th dimension) The expansion is 4 dimensional and the shape of the universe is a 4th dimensional bubble. This mean that If you travel in a 3D linear direction in a straight line you will eventually return to the point of origin.