Why space is expanding

page: 5
6
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi
Is the space in between the planets of the solar system the same kind/brand of space as between galaxies?
It depends on how you define space. There appears to be a few rare molecules even in interstellar space, and I'm not sure about intergalactic space, there may be some molecules which are even more rare. The space between the planets in our solar system would tend to have a greater concentration of matter compared to interstellar or intergalactic space. The solar wind for example would be one source of this mass, another would be leftover cosmic dist which still hasn't accreted into any planet, moon or other large body. There are some estimates of the relative matter densities of these various types of space. There also appear to be temperature differences. Some areas of interstellar space have extremely high temperatures.


is the space between galaxies the same kind of space as the space outside the universe? ( i know you dont and cant know but what would you think?)
Because the galaxies at the edge of the universe which emit light in all directions emit light outwards towards and beyond the edge before that galaxy itself ever gets to travel that area,,, so where would that light be going?
I have no idea if the universe is finite or infinite...I entertain both possibilities. If it's infinite, then there is no space outside the universe.

If it's finite, one possibility I mentioned before is that the shape of the universe could be spherical as Michio Kaku thinks it might be. The interesting thing that happens in this case, is that light leaving one side of a star could travel in the same direction and end up back where it started coming in from the opposite direction (except it would take so long you could only say it returned to the place the star used to be, most stars wouldn't last long enough to still be there after the light completed the journey through the sphere)

A coherent model of the Universe

Note that if the Universe is spherical, if you could travel in one direction long enough, you would return to your original position.


We've measured the flatness of the universe and it's pretty flat, but as flat-earthers will tell you the surface of the Earth looks pretty flat in places (even though it's not). So flatness measurements tell us the universe is either flat, or if it is a sphere, the sphere must be so huge that it looks flat.

Since it could be either flat or a large sphere, I'm OK with either. I expect in the future we will make even more accurate flatness measurements. At some point the measurements may become accurate enough to detect the size of the sphere if there is one, or else it will put an even larger lower limit on the size of the sphere. I'd rather wait to see what happens with these better measurements, than speculate on what the measurements will show.

Also, here's an interesting abstract, that I don't completely understand, and until I do I find it difficult to comment, but it sort of contradicts the popular idea that the size of the universe must be larger than the observable universe:

adsabs.harvard.edu...

What is the shape of space is a long-standing question in cosmology. In this talk I review recent advances in cosmic topology since it has entered a new era of experimental tests. High redshift surveys of astronomical sources and accurate maps of the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation (CMB) are beginning to hint at the shape of the universe, or at least to limit the wide range of possibilities. Among those possibilites are surprising "wrap around" universe models in which space, whatever its curvature, may be smaller than the observable universe and generate topological lensing effects on a detectable cosmic scale. In particular, the recent analysis of CMB data provided by the WMAP satellite suggests a finite universe with the topology of the Poincare dodecahedral spherical space. Such a model of a "small universe", the volume of which would represent only about 80% the volume of the observable universe, offers an observational signature in the form of a predictable topological lens effect on one hand, and rises new issues on the early universe physics on the other hand.
I only share that to show there are other ideas, and to refute the idea that everyone is stuck in dogma. That is not a dogma concept.

edit on 13-8-2012 by Arbitrageur because: clarification




posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 12:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


"It depends on how you define space. There appears to be a few rare molecules even in interstellar space, and I'm not sure about intergalactic space, there may be some molecules which are even more rare. The space between the planets in our solar system would tend to have a greater concentration of matter compared to interstellar or intergalactic space. The solar wind for example would be one source of this mass, another would be leftover cosmic dist which still hasn't accreted into any planet, moon or other large body. There are some estimates of the relative matter densities of these various types of space. There also appear to be temperature differences. Some areas of interstellar space have extremely high temperatures. "

ok,, all the examples of anything appearing in space,, seems to be relatively small ( molecules to dust to comets) and all of those things can be known to come from a larger source of matter.... but when im talking of space im talking of the areas which dont seem to have any atoms or trace molecules in them,, i guess what is known as a vacuum,, if the only definition you can give of space is,,,, the stuff thats not stuff like the stuff that is in it,,, is space generally,, " the absence of stuff'? or as its said,,, nothing? if you say no because we detect molecules and some stuff in it ,,, im saying is that only because of all the stuff thats actually stuff in it, moving around and leaving debris among the distance of non stuff,,, or is all of the seemingly "non-stuff" space,, made of currently unknown stuff?



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 12:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


" If it's infinite, then there is no space outside the universe. "

what do you mean by this? things in nature can be described as infinite and yet be contained within a larger system?

a computer can compute pi an infinite number theoretically for infinity but that doesnt mean there is no space outside of the computer?
edit on 13-8-2012 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 12:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


"Since it could be either flat or a large sphere, I'm OK with either. I expect in the future we will make even more accurate flatness measurements. At some point the measurements may become accurate enough to detect the size of the sphere if there is one, or else it will put an even larger lower limit on the size of the sphere. I'd rather wait to see what happens with these better measurements, than speculate on what the measurements will show"

ok and by flat in regards to dimension you mean a rectangle? so when the big bang occurred instead of energy flowing out in infinite directions from a point or if it did,, laws of physics pulled it all together to travel more "straight/flat/ rectangularly" outwards?

if its a sphere,, from the begging energy traveled outwards in time and expansion to form a sphere,,,,.

in models that are shown and when it is claimed to have started in one point and expand,,, in a 2 d model that shows the expansion of the universe in time,,, it makes a pyramid or triangle shape,, starting from a point and gaining more area as time goes on to create the base of the triangle or pyramid,.,. if from the point and from the begging of time on wards energy expanded as that pyramid in infinite directions,, what shape would the universe be?



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 12:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


"I only share that to show there are other ideas, and to refute the idea that everyone is stuck in dogma. That is not a dogma concept. "

thanks for sharing that!,.. thats something i love to see,, skeptiscm and questions,, I dont trust a lot of the large scale theories for reasons of the believers in them not even having the capacity for questioning them enough and knowing the answers to those questions,,, also I do not trust them completely because they have jobs and want to keep them......

the section you shared was something i have thought of before,, what if our looking out into space is like a cosmic hall of mirrors, with light refraction, and lensing,, and mixing up galaxies,,, because I do trust the scientists who map the galaxies enough to use extreme caution and care,,,, but they still can be beyond their control for now wrong...



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 06:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


" If it's infinite, then there is no space outside the universe. "

what do you mean by this? things in nature can be described as infinite and yet be contained within a larger system?
Yes you're right. You can have an infinite set of even numbers 2, 4, 6, 8..... which would be a subset of an infinite series of whole numbers 1, 2, 3, 4.... and I have no problem with that.

However if the size of the universe is infinite. I don't see how that concept applies because we are now talking about an infinite dimension which is different than in infinite series of numbers, maybe you can explain your thoughts on that. I would argue that if you can show something like space OUTSIDE the universe, you've just demonstrated that the size of the universe isn't infinite. My other question would be on what basis you can claim the space you found outside our universe isn't part of our universe. My conclusion would be that the only way you could make such a claim is if you are using a definition of "universe" that is unfamiliar to me since my definition is more or less, "everything" or to use Merriam Webster: "the whole body of things and phenomena observed or postulated ".

Of course there's multiverse theory, but that involves parallel universes, and I'm talking about our universe. I'll probably have to see some evidence of a parallel universe to believe it, but even if such a thing exists, I don't think it contradicts my statement.



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 06:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi
ok and by flat in regards to dimension you mean a rectangle? so when the big bang occurred instead of energy flowing out in infinite directions from a point or if it did,, laws of physics pulled it all together to travel more "straight/flat/ rectangularly" outwards?
No. You need to read this link, however it's esoteric reading so it still might not make sense.

My post was getting so long so I deleted the analogy I typed, but maybe I shouldn't have. Let's say you're a big bird and you leave central America at the equator, and fly east along the equator. Eventually you will end up back where you started, back in central America at the equator. The limitation of this analogy is that it's 2D in a way because you're flying along the Earth's surface which to the bird looks like a flat surface. In the local geometry of the universe, ending back up where you started is a 3D phenomenon, and doesn't involve flying along any surface. It's kind of hard to grasp but I guess that's another reason I deleted the analogy as it may or may not really help.

Getting back to what flat means in the context of that link I just posted, it basically means that if you travel in one direction, you will never end up back where you started. You would either reach the edge of the universe if there is one (provided you could go fast enough), or you would keep going forever in that direction, if the universe is infinite.


Originally posted by ImaFungi
the section you shared was something i have thought of before,, what if our looking out into space is like a cosmic hall of mirrors, with light refraction, and lensing,, and mixing up galaxies,,, because I do trust the scientists who map the galaxies enough to use extreme caution and care,,,, but they still can be beyond their control for now wrong...
You may be right. This is in the area of emerging research and I haven't kept up with all of it, but I have read some of it. My superficial take is that some scientists are positing something like what you said.

It relates to the gravitational distortion of light. We've known for a long time that gravity can bend light. However what I've seen in some emerging research (which may not yet be confirmed by multiple peers), is that it's possible we may have underestimated the extent to which this distorts our view of the universe, vaguely like the "hall of mirrors" you mentioned.

It's in interesting topic and I'll be interested to see how the research shakes out after more measurements and verification takes place, but the example I gave I think was probably along those lines. The unexpected result to me would be that the universe could actually be smaller than the observable universe, an idea which I had never personally considered...but now understanding the logic of the concept, I wouldn't rule it out.

As Sir Arthur Eddington once said, the "Not only is the universe stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we can imagine." If it turns out the universe is smaller than the observable universe as that previously posted source suggests, I think Eddington's quote will have been proven true for me, as I would not previously have imagined that to be the case. But I'm open minded enough to consider the possibility and especially to review more research which may either confirm or dispel the notion.



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 06:45 PM
link   
What in science affirms, not theorizes, the absolute composition of empty space? What is the composition of any existence that can limit or contain space? If gravity is space warped because of mass what is the composition of what is space? Imagine a room without any particles or energy, now imagine it without space. Can't do it can you?

Space is an infinite fabric composed of time that is no longer transitioning from all the future into all the past. Space is infinitesimal duration "the present" as a string of instances at Planck frequency.

Why time stops is key and the reason for space to exist. It's because of influence UPON the Singularity.
edit on 13-8-2012 by tkwasny because: Addition



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 07:24 PM
link   
Not a science expert,

But I think I recently read that in the early moments of the universe there was a much higher rate of Atomic matter than we see today. Now the composition is huge majority Dark Energy and Dark Matter. In the early moments it is theorized that there wasn't nearly as much Dark Energy as we "see today".

So either there is some type of conversion from atomic matter to dark energy, or just a huge production of Dark Energy which reduces the rate of Atomic. Most likely thr latter, because it's agreed that matter can not be created or destroyed.

So this trend toward Dark Energy production, is leading to an expansion of the universe? Am I generally on track here?

Anyway, we shouldn't discuss this type of stuff as fact. It's something like Ben Franklin talking about microchips.

The entire Dark Energy/ Dark Matter aspect of physics is so little understood that it almost seems to me like an easy way out.

"Ehh, Dr. Scientist, we're pretty sure there's some kind of force that we can't really see. And it's doing a bunch of crazy stuff."

"Well done Professor Telescope! Can't see it, you say? Call it Dark!"



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 07:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


" If it's infinite, then there is no space outside the universe. "

what do you mean by this? things in nature can be described as infinite and yet be contained within a larger system?
Yes you're right. You can have an infinite set of even numbers 2, 4, 6, 8..... which would be a subset of an infinite series of whole numbers 1, 2, 3, 4.... and I have no problem with that.

However if the size of the universe is infinite. I don't see how that concept applies because we are now talking about an infinite dimension which is different than in infinite series of numbers, maybe you can explain your thoughts on that. I would argue that if you can show something like space OUTSIDE the universe, you've just demonstrated that the size of the universe isn't infinite. My other question would be on what basis you can claim the space you found outside our universe isn't part of our universe. My conclusion would be that the only way you could make such a claim is if you are using a definition of "universe" that is unfamiliar to me since my definition is more or less, "everything" or to use Merriam Webster: "the whole body of things and phenomena observed or postulated ".

Of course there's multiverse theory, but that involves parallel universes, and I'm talking about our universe. I'll probably have to see some evidence of a parallel universe to believe it, but even if such a thing exists, I don't think it contradicts my statement.



yes,,, once we thought the "universe " ( entirety of existing things) was bound by the stars we could see from sight.,.. just because we make up a word that means something we dont know and are making up,, doesnt mean reality relates to this man made ignorant term.,,,.., if there are universes beyond this one.,., this related physical universe we are a part of wouldnt be "the totality of existing things" would it? ..... im thinking the universe can be contained and infinite,,,say this universe is the shape of a sphere with an amount of energy that can create matter and due to laws the potential for separations or spaces to exist between this matter,,,, since energy cannot be created our destroyed,, the universe can exist infinitely yet be contained as a finite system,,, it can exist for in lengths of time infinite eternities constantly changing and reshaping like the material in a lava lamp,, a recycling..,, I have a hard time believing this universe is it,, because of all the amazing things that the universe is and the fact that it exists, and with no reason to believe this is the first time anything has happened in the history of anything being able to happen,, i like to assume that this universe isnt the only thing to exist,,, we dont even know where it exists in space or time ( you have to say it is all of space and time because we have no way of knowing where we are in, if there is a larger picture, the larger picture of things.,.., like if we were plankton in the Pacific ocean and your telling me thats the only body of water that exists. when in reality there are potentially billions of planets worth of oceans,, and potentially billions of universes,,.,.,.,

also how can something ever be infinite in size? no matter what size it was at any given moment,, wouldnt infinite ( according to our man made definition) mean it could be infinite times larger?



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 07:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


"Getting back to what flat means in the context of that link I just posted, it basically means that if you travel in one direction, you will never end up back where you started. You would either reach the edge of the universe if there is one (provided you could go fast enough), or you would keep going forever in that direction, if the universe is infinite. "

thanks for sharing the analogy and the link,, interestesting.. but i have to ask,,, if space is infinite ( like flat universe states) wouldn't it be equally infinite in all directions? up as well as .01 over and .00001 over and down, and side,, and 0.1 to the side and so on ,,, wouldn't space be true infinite in every direction not just 2d flat side to side? if thats the case what would stop the matter of the universe from traveling in all those directions during early creation causing a more spherical universe,.,.,. the way i see it ( and may be wrong bout most of this) but a sphere shaped universe can be infinite as well,, the matter can just expand in all directions if space is infinite causing a sphere shaped universe to infinity..... I cant imagine reality truly having the function of traveling in a direction and poping up on the other side,, though i think i envision what is meant by that,,, if the universe is bound around edges and you traveled straight like if you were in side a basketball,, you would climb around either up or down the edge of the basketball untill you were located on the other side,,, like the flying on surface of the earth analogy.,.,.,, but because the universe is expanding even if we were in galaxies at the edge we would never be able to reach the true edge, and when we started to climb the wall to arch around that wall would also always be expanding very rapidly so then we would just be going "off straight" after a while for a while.....



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 08:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


"As Sir Arthur Eddington once said, the "Not only is the universe stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we can imagine." If it turns out the universe is smaller than the observable universe as that previously posted source suggests, I think Eddington's quote will have been proven true for me, as I would not previously have imagined that to be the case. But I'm open minded enough to consider the possibility and especially to review more research which may either confirm or dispel the notion."

eloquently put, and an awesome quote... if it was smaller then the observable universe ( still laugh out loudingly ungraspingly massively large) would that give multiple universes any more credence then it already should have?



posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by MassOccurs
The entire Dark Energy/ Dark Matter aspect of physics is so little understood that it almost seems to me like an easy way out.

"Ehh, Dr. Scientist, we're pretty sure there's some kind of force that we can't really see. And it's doing a bunch of crazy stuff."

"Well done Professor Telescope! Can't see it, you say? Call it Dark!"


It is not an easy way out, it is an honest acknowledgement that nobody understands it yet, and that a lot of work needs to be done to figure it out. The whole point of calling it "dark" is to point out that it is something no one has figured out yet.



posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 03:22 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 



I kind of miss how this relates to my post.


Didn't expect you to catch it, honestly.

It's really quite simple. Many people believe they understand something and have provided an accurate representation of it because they are familiar with it.

People who use relativity to argue for spatial expansion use it out of familiarity. If they understood relativity and the larger whole of physics pertaining to the material universe - then they would realize that using relativity to support volumetric expansion is fundamentally flawed.

They believe they know what they need to resolve a solution, but their presented solution fails several functional checks (that they neglected to consider).


Not exactly.


Yes, exactly:


The assumption is that faster moving bodies have more red shift. A correlation exists between the brightness of objects and their red shift, less bright object have more red shift. It is also assumed that objects that are less bright are farther away. That leads to the logical conclusion that objects that are farther away have larger red shift and thus are moving faster. And that leads to the idea that the universe is expanding. There is no expansion in any of the assumptions.


Red shifting of spectra by any means is going to reduce the luminosity, regardless of proximity.

Without direct measurement of distance by means of triangulation, we have no reliable measure of distance in the cosmos.

I would be willing to bet that many of our problems in cosmology (dark energy and dark matter) will become much less pronounced as we develop the means to more accurately and directly measure cosmological distances. That's not to say the phenomena will completely disappear - but that many of our current problems are due to complete guesswork in terms of distances.

Yes - it's circular.


This is not circular reasoning. One problem with these assumption are quasars, which do not seem to be in agreement with the observation that less bright objects have more red shift.


Quasars don't really play nice with anything we think we know.

Since we haven't taken a trip to one yet or created a smaller version in a lab - it's a little difficult to tell what's going on there.

Of course, it could also be that Quasars are, somehow, a more true picture of relative velocity and distance compared to the galaxy at large (why could be anyone's guess).

It's really hard to tell when we can't perform more direct measurements of distance (the most basic of which would be triangulation).


It depends on the maximal possible shift in frequency before objects are no longer visible. I don't know this figure by hearth and would have to look it up. If the maximal red shift is relatively small before objects are no longer visible, then your assumption that the frequency can get that low is wrong to start with.


There's absolutely no reason for this threshold to exist. You can red-shift completely into the ELF spectrum. With luminosities of the levels that stars have, they should still be perfectly detectable over billions of light-years down into the microwave spectrum. Particularly if you are willing to use synthetic apertures that can behave as an antenna with a 2 AU diameter (or larger, if you want to launch a small satellite network in solar orbit).


I completely disagree but I very little care about what attitude you like or not. I may be a bit blunt, but I think this is grossly off-topic.


Meh. Let he who is superior inherit the future.

I'll do things my way; and you do things yours.

Though it is not quite as off-topic as you would reason.

Here we have a situation where we are hopelessly ignorant by its very virtue. We cannot hope to experimentally verify our deductions regarding subjects such as cosmological Red Shift. We cannot hope to directly measure the distances involved - even via triangulation (which would require highly accurate observatories located light years apart to even begin to touch the presumed distances involved in our own galaxy - let alone intergalactic distances).

Yet we love to teach this stuff as if it were fact.

"What better ideas do you have?"

We don't -need- a 'better' or 'best' idea any more than we need to involve God in science.

For example - take the Red Queen Hypothesis and how it predicts rapid evolution of a species via sexual selection. How that particular preference arises is a Hand of God paradox that is merely discussed as "meh... we really don't know, and it's probably a different cause for each instance."

It's unsound to draw conclusions that reach beyond our means of observation. Fine to ask questions and posit ideas. Ridiculous to back them beyond what is responsible given their source data.



posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aim64C
Didn't expect you to catch it, honestly.

It's really quite simple. Many people believe they understand something and have provided an accurate representation of it because they are familiar with it.

People who use relativity to argue for spatial expansion use it out of familiarity. If they understood relativity and the larger whole of physics pertaining to the material universe - then they would realize that using relativity to support volumetric expansion is fundamentally flawed.

They believe they know what they need to resolve a solution, but their presented solution fails several functional checks (that they neglected to consider).


The reason I didn't catch it is because your assumptions are all way off. You pretent to know what others think and how they reason. I personally think you don't have a clue what others think or how they reason, and what you write mostly plays in your head.


Red shifting of spectra by any means is going to reduce the luminosity, regardless of proximity.


But I wouldn't believe you if you claimed that the relation between red shift and luminosity we observe is only due to this effect, and variation in distance can be ruled out.


Without direct measurement of distance by means of triangulation, we have no reliable measure of distance in the cosmos.


True, but we have approximation that are accurate enough to draw at least some conclusions.


I would be willing to bet that many of our problems in cosmology (dark energy and dark matter) will become much less pronounced as we develop the means to more accurately and directly measure cosmological distances. That's not to say the phenomena will completely disappear - but that many of our current problems are due to complete guesswork in terms of distances.


Could be, who knows. Right now we have to follow the current evidence, not the evidence that may ever exist.


Yes - it's circular.


Its not. At most it is not sound. But unsound reasoning is not the same as circular reasoning.


Quasars don't really play nice with anything we think we know.

Since we haven't taken a trip to one yet or created a smaller version in a lab - it's a little difficult to tell what's going on there.

Of course, it could also be that Quasars are, somehow, a more true picture of relative velocity and distance compared to the galaxy at large (why could be anyone's guess).

It's really hard to tell when we can't perform more direct measurements of distance (the most basic of which would be triangulation).


We can agree here (but where is the fun in that).


There's absolutely no reason for this threshold to exist. You can red-shift completely into the ELF spectrum. With luminosities of the levels that stars have, they should still be perfectly detectable over billions of light-years down into the microwave spectrum. Particularly if you are willing to use synthetic apertures that can behave as an antenna with a 2 AU diameter (or larger, if you want to launch a small satellite network in solar orbit).


There is a very good reason for this threshold to exist. The light of bodies that move away from us very vast has not reached us yet. And that would be the bodies with a lot of redshift. As time progresses, light with more red shift will reach us. At least, that is the standing theory.



..stuff..


I am just fully totally completely aware that we are in dark water. That a lot is unknown and that many theories may be flat out wrong. I think most people with a genuine interest in subjects like these know this. I have no idea from what ivory tower you think you are lecturing, but it seems to me that you are clueless about how people think or what they think they know.

It is not for you to decide what "we" need. I also see no reason at all why conclusions that are not sound are in any way a bad thing. As long as we know they are not sound, and yes, people know this.



posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 07:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by tkwasny
What in science affirms, not theorizes, the absolute composition of empty space? What is the composition of any existence that can limit or contain space? If gravity is space warped because of mass what is the composition of what is space? Imagine a room without any particles or energy, now imagine it without space. Can't do it can you?

Space is an infinite fabric composed of time that is no longer transitioning from all the future into all the past. Space is infinitesimal duration "the present" as a string of instances at Planck frequency.

Why time stops is key and the reason for space to exist. It's because of influence UPON the Singularity.
edit on 13-8-2012 by tkwasny because: Addition


Empty space is space that lack any form of energy being positive or negative or neutral
like a blank piece of paper which one can draw on and make a picture or a blank hard drive of a computer
Both a storage devises for information
Back to the paper which for this thought will represent energy
since all you have is this one blank white paper plus it's inverse black side (all particles have anti particle) like the bizarro world of atomic structure

imagine that this papar is nearly infinite taking up as much space as conceivable in two polarly opposing ways giving us [0,1,0] since the one pull itself into the zeros that have nearly identical composure except that each will always be opposing the other as -anti+

which begets the creation of {-1,0,1}
Now (and this is where I believe the big bang began) the whole of space was filled with 1 and -1 only the place between the outer 1 and opposing outer -1 was empty
Causing the universe to begin its beginning after being begotten from its former ends conception
To race towards its own eventual end at the common center of the opposing ones so (+1>]0[



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 12:55 AM
link   
I shall not go into minute detail about my Fractal Foam Model of Universes, nor shall I try to justify my claims in this post, but I'll try to describe just enough to explain how space expands. "Why" is a bit too philosophical for me.

Yes, Virginia, there is an aether, and it has the texture of a foam. One median-size aether-foam bubble is a Planck volume, so the foam has approximately 2.37 x 10^104 median-size bubbles per cubic meter; and that number is constant. Our universe is part of a greater fractal universe which repeats infinitely in the dimension of scale. The cosmic foam of our universe (giant voids, or bubbles, surrounded by walls of galaxies) is the aether foam of a super-universe, and the aether foam of our universe is the cosmic foam of a sub-universe.

As our space expands, the bubbles of our cosmic foam grow and the walls of galaxies surrounding them are stretched thinner. Eventually, one by one, walls of galaxies rupture; after a billion or so years the galaxies of the ruptured wall collide with those of the surrounding walls, and what was two bubbles is now one larger bubble. This means one less bubble in our cosmic foam. The same thing happens in the sub-universe, so our aether-foam bubbles are popping.

For our space to expand, the number of bubbles in our aether foam must increase, rather than decrease. Therefore, the bubbles of our aether foam must be "un-popping", which means that the arrow of time reverses from one scale-wise universe to the next. As our universe gets older, the super-universe and sub-universe get younger.

Multiplying the Hubble parameter by the number of bubbles per cubic meter yields approximately 10^87 bubbles un-pop per second per cubic meter. Each time an aether-foam bubble un-pops, one bubble becomes two, and one Planck volume of new space appears.

When a bubble pops, pressure waves radiate. Pour yourself a glass of beer and listen to the bubbles popping in the head. Those pressure waves in our cosmic foam are dark energy in the next larger-scale universe. So our dark-energy pressure waves converge to a point, where a new bubble wall appears, and the dark energy is converted to new space.

Regular energy is aethereal shear waves, and momentum is exchanged between shear waves and pressure waves. That is the source of all the forces of nature.
edit on 2012/8/21 by Phractal Phil because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 02:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Phractal Phil
 


pretty cool!!

in your view what are atoms, why did they form.. and how do they relate to the material of the aether?



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by Phractal Phil
 


pretty cool!!

in your view what are atoms, why did they form.. and how do they relate to the material of the aether?


We're getting pretty far off topic, so I'll try to be brief. As I said, exchange of momentum between regular-energy shear waves (photons) and dark-energy pressure waves is the source of all the forces. Each photon perturbs the flux of dark energy in a particular pattern relative to the plane of the photon's polarity and its phase. Pairs of photons may, under the right conditions, experience forces of attraction or repulsion toward one another, depending on their relative phase, polarity, wavelength and distance. I'm not sure if a Higgs boson is involved, but somehow a pair of photons can become locked in orbit around one another due to a strong attractive force. That is what converts the radiant energy of the pair to the proper mass of a fundamental particle. The momenta of the two photons, being equal and opposite, cancel in a reference frame which is stationary relative to the particle. In another reference frame, the momenta of the orbiting photons are not equal, so the particle has momentum in that reference frame. That is why the particle has inertia; it takes momentum to accelerate the pair of orbiting photons.

Each orbiting photon still perturbs the flux of dark energy in the same pattern as a free photon, except that the pattern is spun into a rapidly precessing spiral. When two fundamental particles are close enough, those precessing spiral patterns may mesh like gears. This is probably how the strong force works.

At greater distances, the precessing spiral patterns take on more of a spherical symmetry, so you get inverse square laws and conservation laws. This accounts for the electroweak force. At still greater distances, where the stronger forces cancel, there is a very weak net force, which is gravity.

The material of the aether is the medium for the shear waves and pressure waves of our universe. Those waves are minute ripples in the cosmic foam of the sub-universe. Conceivably, a sub-universe galaxy might have as much inertia as a comparable galaxy of our universe, making the aether practically infinitely dense. The aether is probably googols of times denser than the greatest concentration of waves in it, such as a neutron star. The pressure waves and shear waves that form our universe only seem substantial in comparison to one another. From a sub-universe point of view they are inconsequential.

I believe dark energy propagates billions of times faster than light, and there may be phenomena, such as quantum entanglement, which allow a cause to be felt across a great distance almost instantaneously. The propagation delay might be a few seconds between opposite sides of our galaxy. If we ever learn to detect such phenomena (some claim to have already done so), that will prove the existence of a preferred reference frame, i.e., the reference frame of the aether. Instantaneous communication in the preferred reference frame would mean that, in another reference frame, a message could be received before it is sent. But that would not imply any paradox because a message in the opposite direction would be delayed, and a 2-way communication would just be instantaneous. You could not send a message into your own past.

We are moving thru the aether at perhaps 625 km/s, but the only proof of that is the Doppler shift of the cosmic microwave background. Barring any FTL phenomena, there is no preferred reference frame. That is proven by special relativity. Particles cannot exceed the speed of light in any inertial reference frame because each particle is made of orbiting photons. Each photon propagates at the speed of light in tiny circles around the center of the orbit. Obviously, the center of the orbit can't move faster than that which orbits around it.



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 02:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Phractal Phil
 


Interesting... you should make your own thread,,, there are plenty of folks who know way more about physics that would most likely be down to discuss your ideas..





new topics
top topics
 
6
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join


Haters, Bigots, Partisan Trolls, Propaganda Hacks, Racists, and LOL-tards: Time To Move On.
read more: Community Announcement re: Decorum