Space expanded 6.8 times FASTER than Light!

So last night I was googling to see how big the observable universe was and something
confused me. How do we see 93 Billion light years (46.5 Billion light years in all directions) away,
when the earth is only 4.5 Billion years old? Then I astounded myself!

Below is a copy and paste of a txt file I created last night. (I've got a damaged right screen and only the left half to work with; So sorry if "sentences" look short).


Age of universe = 13.7 Billion years old
Diameter of the universe=93 Billion light years
Edge of observable universe (radius)=46.5 Billion light years

So according to (my) logic it seems that the universe expanded at approximately
6.8 times faster than the speed of light!

I thought it was impossible to travel faster than C.

Since light travels (to nearest tril) 6 TRILLION Miles a year, and the
universe is only 13.7 billion years old that would mean the universe should
"Only" be: (Since nothing can travel/expand quicker than C)

6 Trillion x 13.7 Billion = 82200000000000000000000 or 82.2 Trillion Billion miles big

But if the diameter of the universe is 93 Billion light years then that would
mean, Since light travels (to nearest tril) 6 TRILLION Miles a year, and
its done it 93 billion times, then the universe would be:

6 Trillion x 93 Billion = F**k me 558 TRILLION BILLION miles big.


There are obviously HUGE problems with these scientific "Facts" and one
of the below must be true.

1. Either the universe is 6.8 times older than 13.7 Billion years old = 93 Billion years old

2. The universe isnt 93 Billion light years across, its 6.8 times smaller = 13.7
Billion light years across.

3. In fact the universe IS both 13.7 Billion years old and 93 Billion light years
wide; but it expanded 6.8 times faster than C. And Einstein was wrong.

4. Light travels 6.8 times faster than we thought.

Since also the edge of our observable universe is 46.5 Billion light years away, and
our earth is only 4.54 billion years old, how is it possible to be observable?

Its light shouldn't reach us for another 41.96 Billion years!

I honestly think either we're not being told something, or science just
let's on they know more than they actually do. As it seems everything
we thought we knew gets proven false time and time again.

Please help me out guys my brain is melting.

PS: Don't expect to many (If any) replies from me as I have to use my On Screen
Keyboard lol. My usb ports are broken and don't accept my external ones.

And as a result I haven't logged on to ATS much (Roll on January *New Lappy*).

Dark matter which pushes the universe apart faster than the speed of light.

The speed of light is WITHIN our universe as is our physics, outside our universe these physics don't exist...

The universe expanded into this nothingness faster than light because of this.

only a thought, the universe expanded into the nothing, so at the expanding "border" one side is universe the other one is nothing, so its not really like travelling at the speed of light,
its expanding into nothing, with no "resistance" or opposition, nothing to slow it down.

Originally posted by roughycannon
The speed of light is WITHIN our universe as is our physics, outside our universe these physics don't exist...

The universe expanded into this nothingness faster than light because of this.

If that is so, i wonder what kind of physics exist outside the universe, and what would happen if we took a "step out" so to speak.

We probably couldn't exist outside our universe, if there are other universes like the "bubbles" theory its more than likely that the other universes have different physics than ours.

I dunno what would happen if we stepped into one of these universes, we might melt or explode god knows....

Is it at all possible that 'our physics' doesn't exist outside of our understanding of physical experience on this planet? As this is our only experience and what we are told about the moons surface and the artificial environment of space vessels, what exactly do we know?

We can observe 'outer space' and make predictions and propose theories about our observations and such but we don't know enough about the universe to assume that we know the physics of it. Our scientists are often wrong and must come up with another theory.

It's mind blowing to consider the universe, even to consider the 'void' outside of it is just wow! Spookey

Namaste

I came across this little bit of inconvenient truth a few years back and nobody could answer it with any sort of credibility. Don't believe what people tell you that because there was nothing it could expand faster than possible and is still speeding up..Complete bull as far as I'm concerned, nobody knows what or where Dark Matter/Energy came from or even if it exists so it falls into the string theory category in my opinion. I think It has to due with our lost civilizations and the keeping of knowledge from general public.

The best working theory I have so far is that we have been created and destroyed many times over like most ancient texts say and the way we date things is so far from being accurate that everyday new findings disprove the general consensus of how things work. Basically the Universe we live in isn't limited to us and our petty shot in the dark calculations. If it expanded 6 times faster than light, then the universe is probably 6 times older than we think but nobody is going to open that can of worms publicly so we're stuck with mainstreams psuedo scientific analysis.

Also I am aware that they are saying sub atomic particles can travel faster than light. But that doesn't mean 6 times faster than light and there is little to no mass of said particles but the universe is Massive to say the least.

Well Einstein was wrong it seems, at least if the results from CERN can be verified and duplicated. But that opens up a whole new can of worms... great post OP

So what is this nothingness outside of the "known" universe ?

reply to post by Chipkin9

Please help me out guys my brain is melting.

Good. It was comforting to read this part lol. Only because before I made it to that part, I was hoping that you were still slightly confused, because you sure as hell confused me.

How do we see 93 Billion light years (46.5 Billion light years in all directions) away, when the earth is only 4.5 Billion years old? Then I astounded myself!

Since also the edge of our observable universe is 46.5 Billion light years away, and our earth is only 4.54 billion years old, how is it possible to be observable?

Regarding the initial thought that put you onto this slippery slope of confusion, I think you are trying too hard. To me, there seems to be a very simple explanation for this.

We may not have been here, when the light left its source of origin (wherever that may be), but it very well could have already begun that extremely long, and unfathomable journey.

Ok, it seemed simple when it first popped into my head, and I still think that it is a simple concept. It just isn't easy to say it lol.


ok here. I'll try this. A timeline (kinda)

[color=FF7D45]Original Source
[color=FFC06E]Light has left this source
[color=FFD98C]→→→→→→→→→→→→→→→→→→→→→→→→→→→→→→→→→→→→→→→

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . ↑↑. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ↑↑
Nothing.Nada.Nope.NotYet_Almost_Woohoo [color=B5DCFF]Earth is born_._._._._._._[color=B5DCFF]Present Day


The light, was already well on it's merry way, coming this general direction, before we were even here. Once Mother Earth claimed this location for herself, it was too late for the light to alter its path. So it just keeps heading this way.




P.S. If none of the previous post makes sense, all of the blame should be placed on Chipkin. His fault for confusing me.

What an interesting thread.
If we question the speed of light ( imho always question everything)
and it isn't the ultimate speed in the universe.
Then distance can be questioned. As its calculated by speed.
Are the stars closer than we have been taught to believe?
This is what mankind excells at.
expanding understanding,
and expanding........

reply to post by R3KR


Nothing. If you're asking what it's called but I assume you already know that so maybe you're asking what is nothing well, nothing is the absence of something. So, the nothingness you were referring to is the absence of universe.

Cheers

reply to post by NewsWorthy


First of all what you have said is speculation not theory.

I think your basic understanding of physics and the universe is a bit off.

Our universe can expand faster than light... because the laws of physics govern what INSIDE our universe and the not the universe itself

Imagine the universe is a balloon, I blow up the balloon with air, imagine the air is physics and the laws of physics is inside this balloon, now I can stretch pull and squeeze this balloon without effecting the physics inside, this is what's happening our universe is expanding and stretching faster than light but its not effecting what's inside.

Originally posted by roughycannon
reply to post by NewsWorthy

 

First of all what you have said is speculation not theory.

I think your basic understanding of physics and the universe is a bit off.

Our universe can expand faster than light... because the laws of physics govern what INSIDE our universe and the not the universe itself

Imagine the universe is a balloon, I blow up the balloon with air, imagine the air is physics and the laws of physics is inside this balloon, now I can stretch pull and squeeze this balloon without effecting the physics inside, this is what's happening our universe is expanding and stretching faster than light but its not effecting what's inside.

First of all,
where do I start.....
You ridicule speculation and your response is ;
".I THINK your basic understanding of physics and the universe is a bit off."

Then you categorically state that "Our universe can expand faster than light... because the laws of physics govern what INSIDE our universe and the not the universe itself"

Describe what the inside of our universe differs from the universe itself ?????
You also use the word 'Imagine' twice, in your hypothesis.

Imagine your understanding and the sum of your knowledge is a balloon. Effecting is different from affecting.
Pop.

What I question about your theory is.... Is Earth at the exact center of the Universe? Are we back to everything revolves around us? I think the statement "observable universe" says it all.... We only have the capability to look so far in any given direction... That doesn't mean that the universe stops there it just means that is as far as we can see... For all we know we could be on a trailing arm of our universe just like we are on a trailing arm of our galaxy. We might very well only be able to see a microscopic portion of our universe in comparison to how big it actually is.

I know that scientist have built models of the universe (at least of what they think they know of the universe), but we find out all the time that what we thought we knew was wrong. Before yesterday NOTHING could go faster than light, now we know that isn't true.

I find the odds against us being the exact center of the universe just too great... This alone tells me the distances you use as a base might be accurate but in all actuality we will find out tomorrow that they are light years from from it. Who can with out a doubt say they know the exact size of the universe, yet alone how fast it is expanding? When the cornerstones of physics are still being challenged and overcome I can't believe anyone who says they can.

Just my 2 cents, Great post by the way... I love it when new ideas get the wheels turning.

reply to post by Chipkin9


There are two issues here that need to be addressed.

First: the current size of the universe

The current estimated diameter of the universe is 93.2 billion light-years. However, because of the expansion of the universe, the objects that are now at the "edge," 46.6 billion light-years away, were only 13.7 billion light-years away when the light from them was emitted. In that time, they have moved further out by 32.9 billion light-years, but that doesn't matter, because the light has only had to travel that original 13.7 billion light-years to get to us. It takes light 13.7 billion years to travel that distance, so that light was emitted 13.7 billion years ago... the current age of the observable universe.

Second: Relativity and the metric expansion of space

This is the other problem people often run into. They think that the expansion of space is actually moving things... that it's causing objects far away from us to "explode" away faster and faster. But, this is not the case. In fact, the expansion of space is a metric expansion, which means that it's space, itself, that's expanding... it has nothing to do with objects moving. For instance take any random distant type Ia supernova. The supernova is not moving away from us, the space in between us and the supernova is stretching. It's also this stretching which causes the wavelength of the light emitted by that supernova to stretch as well... and this stretching is called redshift. The greater the redshift, the further away an object is, because the more space (and, thus, the wavelength of the light) has been stretched in the time the light has been travelling.

Originally posted by BrokenCircles
reply to post by Chipkin9

 

Please help me out guys my brain is melting.

Good. It was comforting to read this part lol. Only because before I made it to that part, I was hoping that you were still slightly confused, because you sure as hell confused me.

How do we see 93 Billion light years (46.5 Billion light years in all directions) away, when the earth is only 4.5 Billion years old? Then I astounded myself!

Since also the edge of our observable universe is 46.5 Billion light years away, and our earth is only 4.54 billion years old, how is it possible to be observable?

Regarding the initial thought that put you onto this slippery slope of confusion, I think you are trying too hard. To me, there seems to be a very simple explanation for this.

We may not have been here, when the light left its source of origin (wherever that may be), but it very well could have already begun that extremely long, and unfathomable journey.

Ok, it seemed simple when it first popped into my head, and I still think that it is a simple concept. It just isn't easy to say it lol.

 

ok here. I'll try this. A timeline (kinda)

[color=FF7D45]Original Source
[color=FFC06E]Light has left this source
[color=FFD98C] →→→→→→→→→→→→→→→→→→→→→→→→→→→→→→→→→→→→→→

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . ↑↑. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ↑↑
Nothing.Nada.Nope.NotYet_Almost_Woohoo [color=B5DCFF]Earth is born_._._[color=B5DCFF]Present Day


The light, was already well on it's merry way, coming this general direction, before we were even here. Once Mother Earth claimed this location for herself, it was too late for the light to alter its path. So it just keeps heading this way.

 

P.S. If none of the previous post makes sense, all of the blame should be placed on Chipkin. His fault for confusing me.

edit on 9/23/11 by BrokenCircles because: tweakin it a bit

The best possible answer so far!

But it still seems impossible to observe light longer than 4.6 Billion light years away, because since earth is only 4.6 Billion years old then that means we can't possibly observe objects in the universe; that are farther out than 4.6 Billion light years.

And to complicate maters the worlds first telescope was only made 400 yrs ago!

Meaning we should be only able to observe 400yrs x 6 trillion miles = 2400 trillion miles of the universe (1200 tril in all directions).

Thats a MASSIVE difference from the 82.2 Trillion Billion or 558 Trillion Billion Miles we are currently thought to be able to observe!!!

Someone Spotaniely Combusted in Ireland this week, I think my brain is next on the cards

Maybe we need to come to grips with the fact that WE DON'T KNOW EVERYTHING ABOUT THE UNIVERSE. Our math could be wrong. Maybe there are times when the speed of light is not an unbreachable constant. Hell, dark matter and dark energies are only theories in order for the ACCEPTED mainstream scientific to have their math work. They are not observable just calculated. The math could be wrong. The physics could be off.
Astrophysics is challenged nearly everyday with some new observation that surprises it by being far different from an equation on a blackboard.

reply to post by HumansEh

You ridicule speculation

I didn't ridicule speculation where did you get that from? I was simply saying your idea was speculation and not theory, a theory is something that's has physical or mathematical evidence behind it and is often peer reviewed before being considered a theory.

Heres an example of speculation:

I believe that there is intelligent life on other planets in the universe.

At no point did I ridicule anything.

and your response is ;
".I THINK your basic understanding of physics and the universe is a bit off."

What does the fact that I think that have to do with anything?

Then you categorically state that "Our universe can expand faster than light... because the laws of physics govern what INSIDE our universe and the not the universe itself" Describe what the inside of our universe differs from the universe itself ?????

Because you are thinking of the universe as being an object it not, its a word we use to describe all the stars, planets and matter around us, the universe isn't a separate entity,

If you enter our universe you will be effected by its physics, if you step outside the physics no longer exist, none of this or what I said is my theory this is the currently accepted theory today by scientists, physics exist in our universe and not the other way round.

After the big bang the universe expanded faster than the speed of light, this is basic high school stuff if there is no physics outside the universe then there is no speed of light restrictions either and the universe can expand as fast as it needed to.

You also use the word 'Imagine' twice, in your hypothesis.

The word "imagine" is a way of saying "picture this in your head" its a common technique used when someone is explaining something, why does the fact I wanted you to picture something in your head on 2 occasions confuse you?

Imagine your understanding and the sum of your knowledge is a balloon. Effecting is different from affecting. Pop.

What?