The universe is expanding with the speed of light..

page: 2
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 12 2013 @ 04:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 

reply to post by DJW001
 


Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by DJW001
 


Based on the latest cosmological models, the knowable universe is a hypersphere, the boundary of which is at a distance from the observer-- any observer-- at which the expansion of the universe is at a rate equal to the speed of light.

As you say, correctly, this is the observed boundary of the observable ('knowable') universe. That is because light from objects beyond this boundary will never reach the observer.
Since this is a topic with a lot of confusion, even in technical references, are you guys agreeing or disagreeing with Davis and Lineweaver's claim that:

Expanding Confusion: common misconceptions of cosmological horizons and the superluminal expansion of the Universe

We show that we can observe galaxies that have, and always have had, recessional velocities greater than the speed of light.




posted on Mar, 12 2013 @ 05:02 AM
link   
Our "sphere of awareness" of the Universe is expanding but infinite space is a stable, unified structure. The matter and energy parasitic oscillations (such as galaxies, etc.) within our region of awareness are moving away from each other in this current trend. Space and time as both kinetic and static structures never began, cannot change, will not end.



posted on Mar, 12 2013 @ 07:25 AM
link   
When the LHC at CERN began looking for the Higgs boson, it was because there were things about the Big Bang that we just didnt get (and there still are. Many of them infact). One of these was, how did the particles created in that moment, gain mass? Higgs's theory suggested that a particle, or field thereof, imparted that mass, that a specific particle had the task of giving mass to others.

That is why the LHC was trying to "re-create" the Big Bang, because only at that point would the activity of that particle make it visible to the instruments at our disposal.

I think that the universe probably does have an outer boundary, which is constantly expanding, and at the edge of that boundary, I believe there is probably an awful lot of Higgs boson activity going on, following just behind the expansion point, giving mass to all the newborn particles. I also think that it is worth thinking about the possibility, that rather than the universe just stretching out like a rubber band, as some have compared it to over the years, it is rather more like a blast wave that keeps on growing, like a chain reaction. Sure, there will be local expansion and contraction, and certainly there will be a movement away from the centre, but in a chain reaction, the effect keeps growing.

Think of the big bang, as more of a big baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaang that keeps getting bigger and bigger. We talk about that event in the past tense, but I see no evidence that the process of the birth of this universe has ever stopped.



posted on Mar, 12 2013 @ 07:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 

Not sure about the 'and always have had', but yes, I agree with that statement.



posted on Mar, 12 2013 @ 08:10 AM
link   
If there was one big bang then there would be a discernible point of origin if it were a sphere much like these two things...both expanding and away from a point but a clearly defined center on both...so finding a start point is logically possible technologically possible? Probably not for a while.



Best started at around 35 seconds:




In one of my personal theories of universe models there's more than one big bang, simply deduced by the fact that some galaxies collide not moving away from each other equidistant or at the same rate; our own galaxy the Milky Way is calculated to collide with Andromeda in 4 billion years with is 2.5 million light years away or 14,696,249,525,000,000,000 miles... this particular multi-bang theory model there is actually one for every galaxy with a giant black hole at the center driving the cycle..meaning big bang then galaxy then it sucks it all back in to a super hot dense state and repeats; the model for that looks like this infinite torus;



Really fun stuff to think about and good fun to gather a bunch of data and wrap the ol head around it...and form other models and theories.

The well known Big bang model has a few issues yet for the model to work, Dark matter, Dark energy, to name just a couple.

Not mater what they all have the largest unknown...ORIGIN the something from nothing; but before someone jumps and wants to blame it on some god...that god has to have an origin too, so either way you're spinning wheels on the same problem
I think taking a really really good look at how spermatogenesis actually occurs is a missing link to consider in the larger picture...is life nothing more than a coil delivering an electromagnetic spark to a cell bringing the motor to life?

Not much different...life is the easy to explain part. Where the ingredients that make all of this came from...that's the big one, bearing in mind the something from nothing a few sentences past. Perhaps there is an evolution of atoms, quarks etc. and the first infinitesimally tiny bit, is a random anomaly...but then there was a nothing in which this tiny bit had to appear; so what was the form of this, formless nothing before the something that gave it form?


In very deep meditative states; the formless can be grasped from being a concept into experience, and the various noumenon breaks back in, from a grasping of form that spontaneously arises soon after to balance the formless from one back into a duality...some religion equates that to how everything began, in Christian based faith they call it god(before personification), Buddhist Adi(primordial wind), etc etc.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with theorizing on a theory; it's actually quite fun, especially if it accounts for just as much if not more than the accepted model...to me it's what makes any theoretical science fun or science...because when it's known it just becomes history.



posted on Mar, 12 2013 @ 08:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by BigBrotherDarkness
In one of my personal theories of universe models there's more than one big bang, simply deduced by the fact that some galaxies collide not moving away from each other equidistant or at the same rate; our own galaxy the Milky Way is calculated to collide with Andromeda in 4 billion years with is 2.5 million light years away or 14,696,249,525,000,000,000 miles... this particular multi-bang theory model there is actually one for every galaxy with a giant black hole at the center driving the cycle..meaning big bang then galaxy then it sucks it all back in to a super hot dense state and repeats; the model for that looks like this infinite torus...


Here is where your model may fail a little (although I like it as a concept). The big bang was not a mere explosion. The birth of mass, matter, and energy that came about, created a scenario where dense concentrations of mass occurred all over the place. These days, those areas of density are located around super massive black holes, whose pull was so strong that galaxies formed around them, objects so massive, as to draw clouds of stars toward them, and make those clouds of stars move around themselves. On a scale below that of the black hole, is the star. These objects have mass and gravity enough to draw clouds of dust toward themselves, which under that influence clump together forming planets. It is the influence of the gravity interaction between all the bodies in the cosmos that dictates the eventual path of any one object within it, from the smallest mass to the largest, and it is this interaction which causes collisions between galaxies.

If you think of a galaxy, not as a collection of stars, but as a collection of gravity, with a significant bending of the space time continuum, then it is simple enough to see how two of them might come into collision, since there is attraction between them, and therefore they have probably been affecting one anothers movement through the cosmos for eons.

Despite that difference between the big bang, and a traditional explosion, the basic comparison is still helpful. This is because if one sets down some simple rules for a straight explosion in a zero gee environment as a model, and then compares what is out there in real space with that model, one can see how gravity has affected the eventual result, and learn from that difference, and come up with theories to explain it.

edit on 12-3-2013 by TrueBrit because: Grammatical obscenity removal



posted on Mar, 12 2013 @ 09:29 AM
link   
Explanation: S&F!

It is this simple to work out!

You take the size of the Observable Universe ...


The diameter of the observable universe is estimated at about 28 billion parsecs (93 billion light-years), putting the edge of the observable universe at about 46–47 billion light-years away.


And you divide that by the Age of the Universe ...


The age of the universe is defined in physical cosmology as the time elapsed since the Big Bang. The best estimate of the age of the universe is 13.772 ± 0.059 billion years (4.346 ± 0.019 *10E17 seconds) within the Lambda-CDM concordance model.


Which = 47.000 billion lyrs / 13.750 billion lyrs = 3.420 lyrs expansion of the fabric of the universe extra every second between us at the center and the edge!


Hence anything at the edge is moving away from us at the center a full 3.420 lyrs every second.

Personal Disclosure: Please note that my maths is extremely poor
and is an aproximate guestimate and any and all errors in the above equation are my own ok!


TRIPLE Check both my maths and the data I am using to confirm this for yourself ok.

My gut agrees with that figure because the big-bang singularity would require an inflationary force [aka dark energy] to be far greater than the speed of light to actually expand as the big-bang singularity was the biggest black hole ever!


I hope that helps!

edit on 12-3-2013 by OmegaLogos because: Edited to replace 'apart' with 'second' and to fix broken emoticon bbcode.



posted on Mar, 12 2013 @ 10:31 AM
link   
reply to post by TrueBrit
 


What you are referring to as mass forming into galaxies is supposed to be after the big bang happened not the big bang itself. I see black holes as a collection of gravity, not only because of the sheer mass, but the strong electromagnetic force inside the vortice created from this super dense mass...I also see space time as the distortion of fields that these strong forces exert on other weaker field producing bodies...the stronger force would create a flux in the field lines.

I also don't see planets forming out of a cloud of dust around a core like gases and dust of a nebula forms stars. I see planets being formed the same way ball bearings are formed, from the ejecta from a black hole bang, the theoretical evidence for that, is the same theoretic evidence of the moon striking the Earth putting it on it's tilt.

I don't think the moon is just some rogue body; that happened to strike an already formed earth, and then got stuck in orbit or just formed there however. I think all the planetary cores being heavy metals were formed at the same time of the ejection, and in the case of Earth and moon, just happened to smack into each other, they were obviously cooled down enough not to merge into one molten body.

Sure mass gets added from meteorites; some of those ie. the iron types...pulled in from magnetic attraction. But the formation of the core itself? Less plausible in my mind. Why the big gap of dust and ice around Saturn known as rings if that's how planets are originally formed? That would suggest Saturn is still forming, as well as Jupiter, Neptune and Uranus which also have rings...the Earth; though it gains 40,000 tons of mass from space a year it loses 50,000. In the growing planet model the planets would not be losing more mass than they receive, which also makes the dust formation theory unlikely.

Recall the body found not long ago that is thought to be basically a large diamond like structure? How is dust forming that are we to believe it was formed from a giant volcano under some bizarre external pressure? It is more likely it was a large pocket of pure carbon ejected from a black hole bang.

Perhaps that sews up the gaps you see in the model? Mind you I first formed this particular model in a basic form about 25 years ago and it's grown with about every cosmological event and particle physics discovery found since, very little is based off of another theory, it even had nebula's forming stars before the scientific community did...so it's really well developed. Do I take this theoretical model or any other as truth? No, even if it or another was it wouldn't really matter would it?

No current model comes close to "and ploop there was matter born out of the midst of nothing" that would suggest a type of auto-genesis now wouldn't it? The big bang doesn't even do it...matter had to come from something was it space? Space had to come from something was it matter? That's the only real part any model can't explain science, creationist or otherwise. Even if there was a singularity that birthed duality or a mass that exploded into a plurality the singularity or mass had to come from somewhere, and the force acting on the singularity or mass needs a source too, both of these have neither...all this mass and not a source to go on.



posted on Mar, 12 2013 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrueBrit
When the LHC at CERN began looking for the Higgs boson, it was because there were things about the Big Bang that we just didnt get (and there still are. Many of them infact). One of these was, how did the particles created in that moment, gain mass? Higgs's theory suggested that a particle, or field thereof, imparted that mass, that a specific particle had the task of giving mass to others.

That is why the LHC was trying to "re-create" the Big Bang, because only at that point would the activity of that particle make it visible to the instruments at our disposal.

I think that the universe probably does have an outer boundary, which is constantly expanding, and at the edge of that boundary, I believe there is probably an awful lot of Higgs boson activity going on, following just behind the expansion point, giving mass to all the newborn particles. I also think that it is worth thinking about the possibility, that rather than the universe just stretching out like a rubber band, as some have compared it to over the years, it is rather more like a blast wave that keeps on growing, like a chain reaction. Sure, there will be local expansion and contraction, and certainly there will be a movement away from the centre, but in a chain reaction, the effect keeps growing.

Think of the big bang, as more of a big baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaang that keeps getting bigger and bigger. We talk about that event in the past tense, but I see no evidence that the process of the birth of this universe has ever stopped.




I go for that theory, for now.....Sometimes a complex problem has a simple explanation.



posted on Mar, 12 2013 @ 12:14 PM
link   
reply to post by OmegaLogos
 


Yes..it helps for me..!! Any thought or contribution to this subject I find interesting.

Thx



posted on Mar, 12 2013 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by BigBrotherDarkness
reply to post by TrueBrit
 


What you are referring to as mass forming into galaxies is supposed to be after the big bang happened not the big bang itself.

Agreed on that score. But one happened as a direct result of the other, and in that way these things cannot be seperated from one another in essence.


I also don't see planets forming out of a cloud of dust around a core like gases and dust of a nebula forms stars. I see planets being formed the same way ball bearings are formed, from the ejecta from a black hole bang, the theoretical evidence for that, is the same theoretic evidence of the moon striking the Earth putting it on it's tilt.

I don't think the moon is just some rogue body; that happened to strike an already formed earth, and then got stuck in orbit or just formed there however. I think all the planetary cores being heavy metals were formed at the same time of the ejection, and in the case of Earth and moon, just happened to smack into each other, they were obviously cooled down enough not to merge into one molten body.

I just dont buy the idea that the planets that orbit stars are nothing more than the swarf run off from the industrial processes of the big bang. For a start, lets talk age shall we? Our planet is 4.54 billion years old. The solar system 4.568 billion years old. The Milky Way galaxy is 13.2 billion years old. The universe is 13.77 billion years of age, give or take 59 million years. The way you are talking, it seems as if you are saying that you believe that planets, pinball like, just flew all over the place until they came to rest in thier appropriate positions. And yet, its age would suggest that unlike the universe, our planet was formed a relatively short time ago.


Why the big gap of dust and ice around Saturn known as rings if that's how planets are originally formed? That would suggest Saturn is still forming, as well as Jupiter, Neptune and Uranus which also have rings...

Why would the rings around these planets suggest that they are still forming? There is no suggestion that the rings of saturn are slowly becoming part of the planet!


Recall the body found not long ago that is thought to be basically a large diamond like structure? How is dust forming that are we to believe it was formed from a giant volcano under some bizarre external pressure? It is more likely it was a large pocket of pure carbon ejected from a black hole bang.

Or it could have been knocked out of the centre of a body very similar to that of Jupiter. There are so many possibilities !


Perhaps that sews up the gaps you see in the model? Mind you I first formed this particular model in a basic form about 25 years ago and it's grown with about every cosmological event and particle physics discovery found since, very little is based off of another theory, it even had nebula's forming stars before the scientific community did...so it's really well developed. Do I take this theoretical model or any other as truth? No, even if it or another was it wouldn't really matter would it?

No current model comes close to "and ploop there was matter born out of the midst of nothing" that would suggest a type of auto-genesis now wouldn't it? The big bang doesn't even do it...matter had to come from something was it space? Space had to come from something was it matter? That's the only real part any model can't explain science, creationist or otherwise. Even if there was a singularity that birthed duality or a mass that exploded into a plurality the singularity or mass had to come from somewhere, and the force acting on the singularity or mass needs a source too, both of these have neither...all this mass and not a source to go on.


Yes, things need a source, but the point of this thread is not the action that began the ongoing birth of this universe, rather it is the process of its continued creation, and the speed at which it progresses. With regard to that, I believe that the universe will only stop expanding when it fills whatever is beyond it, or presses against other things in that volume.
edit on 12-3-2013 by TrueBrit because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2013 @ 02:57 PM
link   
reply to post by zatara
 


If it is expanding in different directions from a single point then it would be expansing faster than the speed of light.



posted on Mar, 12 2013 @ 09:51 PM
link   
reply to post by TrueBrit
 




I just dont buy the idea that the planets that orbit stars are nothing more than the swarf run off from the industrial processes of the big bang. For a start, lets talk age shall we? Our planet is 4.54 billion years old. The solar system 4.568 billion years old. The Milky Way galaxy is 13.2 billion years old. The universe is 13.77 billion years of age, give or take 59 million years. The way you are talking, it seems as if you are saying that you believe that planets, pinball like, just flew all over the place until they came to rest in thier appropriate positions. And yet, its age would suggest that unlike the universe, our planet was formed a relatively short time ago.


Well, if I were talking about the accepted big bang model then yes it doesn't make any sense. But I am talking about another model altogether that was not the result of a singular big bang event...but many of them. Our galaxy formed by a big bang from the center of it...as well as all galaxies created by their own black holes.

The expansion? Well, maybe it's already at it's limit and we are just watching distant galaxies appear once the light makes it to our observation point or get created by a black hole and by the time it reaches us already well formed or in the process. Or in the model I keep referring to; it could be pretty much every star has the potential to become a black hole and form a galaxy of it's own...

Sure one can throw out random ideas, but if the evidence does not match the model then it's a worthless idea to even try to form a theory out of.



posted on Mar, 12 2013 @ 10:36 PM
link   
There is no edge of the universe, for the same reason there is no smallest particle, the universe is infinitely big just as the makeup of the smallest particle is infinitely small, it has always been this way and always will be, we are all eternal & infinite in that regard, the answer to 'how big is the universe' and 'how small is the smallest building block' is evidence of you guessed it, the Creator of the universe, the Master of the universe. You can claim you are intelligent all you want, and you are, and have always been, but compared to the Creator, we are specks of intelligence, the Creator only wants to see these specks of intelligence go through metamorphosis and turn into clumps of intelligence, if we cannot comprehend this process it is because we are still mere specks, like grains of sand.
edit on 12-3-2013 by Razimus because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 13 2013 @ 05:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by purplemer
reply to post by zatara
 


If it is expanding in different directions from a single point then it would be expansing faster than the speed of light.


I have no clue how this should work....can you explain this with a little more words..?



posted on Mar, 13 2013 @ 08:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by zatara
I have no clue how this should work....can you explain this with a little more words..?
I have no idea what purplemer was referring to, but Inflation was proposed in 1980 to solve some unsolved problems with cosmological observations.


In physical cosmology, cosmic inflation, cosmological inflation or just inflation is the theorized extremely rapid exponential expansion of the early universe by a factor of at least 10^78 in volume, driven by a negative-pressure vacuum energy density.
It was speculative, and still is to some extent because the hypothetical inflaton has never been proven, but since it seems to solve a lot of observational problems so well, it's now an accepted idea.


Following the inflationary period, the universe continued to expand, but at a slower rate.
That's because the inflaton field only had an effect under the extreme conditions of the big bang and since we can't re-create those conditions, that's why the inflaton is still hypothetical and not confirmed with observation.

This sumarizes the problems that inflation theory solved:

As a direct consequence of this expansion, all of the observable universe originated in a small causally connected region. Inflation answers the classic conundrum of the Big Bang cosmology: why does the universe appear flat, homogeneous, and isotropic in accordance with the cosmological principle when one would expect, on the basis of the physics of the Big Bang, a highly curved, heterogeneous universe? Inflation also explains the origin of the large-scale structure of the cosmos. Quantum fluctuations in the microscopic inflationary region, magnified to cosmic size, become the seeds for the growth of structure in the universe (see galaxy formation and evolution and structure formation).



posted on Mar, 13 2013 @ 09:00 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Mar, 13 2013 @ 09:24 AM
link   
reply to post by coragarcia9
 


Are you seeking a ban from the ATS universe..?



posted on Mar, 13 2013 @ 04:24 PM
link   
reply to post by zatara
 


If you drive a car from point zero in a line at 60 mph you would say that the gap between point zero and the car is expanding at 60 mph. If instead you now have two cars going opposite directions from the point zero you would say the gap between them is expanding at 120 mph. The same applies for the speed of light travelling in two different directions at the same time. So it is possible that the universe is expanding at faster than the speed of light.



posted on Mar, 13 2013 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by purplemer
If you drive a car from point zero in a line at 60 mph you would say that the gap between point zero and the car is expanding at 60 mph. If instead you now have two cars going opposite directions from the point zero you would say the gap between them is expanding at 120 mph. The same applies for the speed of light travelling in two different directions at the same time. So it is possible that the universe is expanding at faster than the speed of light.
This is an interesting example.

Let's say you had two proton guns in your lab pointed in opposite directions. From your perspective standing in your lab, each proton is going away from you at 99.9% the speed of light.

So if you apply simple mechanics to a velocity calculation from an observer on one of the protons, you would expect to see the other proton going away from you at 99.9% the speed of light times two, but the special theory of relativity says this is wrong. The theory says you'd see it moving away at more than 99.9% the speed of light, but not more than 100%. And of course this theory has been supported with lots of evidence. So in a local reference frame the speed of light isn't exceeded even in this example, from any observer's inertial frame.

What allows the speed of light to be "broken", so to speak, is that there is no such thing as a local frame of reference that's billions of light years wide. So, when you no longer have a local reference frame in describing the objects that are billions of light years apart, the special relativity math about the speed of light limit which applies to a local reference frame, doesn't apply any more.

And that's the real reason we don't see any problem with the universe expanding faster than the speed of light, because it doesn't violate special relativity, or general relativity, as explained here:

Expanding Confusion: common misconceptions of cosmological horizons and the superluminal expansion of the Universe

In the ΛCDM concordance model all objects with redshift greater than z~1.46 are receding faster than the speed of light. This does not contradict SR because the motion is not in any observer's inertial frame. No observer ever overtakes a light beam and all observers measure light locally to be traveling at c
edit on 13-3-2013 by Arbitrageur because: clarification





new topics
top topics
 
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join