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.

 

New Theory: The Universe Isn't Expanding, It's Just Gaining Mass

page: 1
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 26 2013 @ 08:53 AM
link   
Link

A cosmologist Christof Wetterich wiki has proposed a new theory that says the universe isn't expanding its simply gaining mass.




as the standard theory goes. Instead, the redshift effects astronomers see could mean that everything is just gaining more mass, while possibly staying in place, or even contracting.


So this could mean that the galaxies and stars are not as far away as we think.


A mass-gaining universe could create a phenomenon that astronomers see every day: the redshift the light coming from distant galaxies


So if they weren't as far away as we think how close are could they be?

I'm not actually sure if I'm reading this correctly maybe Phage could come along and sprinkle some wisdom but if it is what I'm thinking then maybe the stars out there aren't billions of miles away and closer than we think, what does this mean for the big bang theory?

MAYBE THE EARTH IS 6000 YEARS OLD...




edit on 26-7-2013 by roughycannon because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 26 2013 @ 09:07 AM
link   
reply to post by roughycannon
 

ehhhh..i'm gonna go ahead and say no on this.

firstly, it isn't testable. secondly, it doesn't make much sense. and thirdly (the most weak argument) this is coming from a single physicist.

OOHH: here we go.


Such an interpretation could help physicists to understand problematic issues such as the so-called singularity present at the Big Bang

yup, i can see the appeal that some physicists would have towards the notion of tossing out the necessity of having a singularity at the beginning. it would be one more step towards the universe not needing a finite starting point.


Instead, the Big Bang stretches out in the past over an essentially infinite period of time.

hah, answered my own point.

most current physicists will try ANYTHING to get away from accepting a finite beginning to the universe, because there isn't much of a difference between saying "god created the universe a finite time ago" and "something we have no knowledge of created the universe a finite time ago".



posted on Jul, 26 2013 @ 09:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by roughycannon
So this could mean that the galaxies and stars are not as far away as we think.


No it could not. It could merely mean the objects are not moving away but stationary.

Additionally I fail to understand what redshift has to do with the age of the earth.



posted on Jul, 26 2013 @ 09:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by roughycannon
 

ehhhh..i'm gonna go ahead and say no on this.

firstly, it isn't testable. secondly, it doesn't make much sense. and thirdly (the most weak argument) this is coming from a single physicist.

OOHH: here we go.


Such an interpretation could help physicists to understand problematic issues such as the so-called singularity present at the Big Bang

yup, i can see the appeal that some physicists would have towards the notion of tossing out the necessity of having a singularity at the beginning. it would be one more step towards the universe not needing a finite starting point.


Instead, the Big Bang stretches out in the past over an essentially infinite period of time.

hah, answered my own point.

most current physicists will try ANYTHING to get away from accepting a finite beginning to the universe, because there isn't much of a difference between saying "god created the universe a finite time ago" and "something we have no knowledge of created the universe a finite time ago".




Well, once upon a time, the world was flat.






We are like babies learning to walk, when it comes to our understanding of the Universe.



posted on Jul, 26 2013 @ 09:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Unrealised
 



Well, once upon a time, the world was flat.

yes, i agree, and there is much we do not know, but creating theories that PURPOSELY avoid "uncomfortable" truths is crazy; and that's what this is.

this type of thinking has been seen for quite a while now in the field of physics. i LOVE physics, it is tied with music for me. the two most enjoyable pursuits in the universe.

i have a major problem with creating overtly complicated and unprovable theories just so someone can avoid accepting something that they find distasteful.



posted on Jul, 26 2013 @ 09:41 AM
link   
Very interesting. I'm always open to new theories. Just because it's out of the norm doesn't mean it can't work. Now this is highly unlikely until we get more facts but I'd be willing to try and accept anything when it comes to this wacky universe.



posted on Jul, 26 2013 @ 10:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by roughycannon
A cosmologist Christof Wetterich wiki has proposed a new theory that says the universe isn't expanding its simply gaining mass.
One of the comments says it's not peer reviewed. I haven't confirmed this but it wouldn't surprise me.

One piece of evidence commonly cited in support of the big bang theory is the cosmic microwave background. It's unclear how the CMB would form in light of the proposed theory based on information in the article.

Also the article says the idea is not testable. I'm not entirely convinced that's true. If for example the moon was gaining mass, it would either have a greater diameter or a greater density, or both. I think these are measurable to some degree.

Don't let the "expanding Earth" hypothesis advocates see this theory or they'll say "I told you so", LOL.



posted on Jul, 26 2013 @ 10:40 AM
link   
If our universe is just a black hole, then it would reason that mass could be entering it all the time thus expanding that which is already here.



posted on May, 26 2017 @ 10:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Bit late to the party but....

The problem I have understanding is how the speed of light can remain a constant in a universe without an underlying ether making it so. So what if, its not mass thats increasing per se, but the force of gravity itself. That space-time (D-Brane or whatever) is elastic, when stretched, increases the force of gravity.

It might help explain why the spiral galaxy bx442 exists (10.7 billion old). Why spinning galaxies don't rip apart without needing dark matter to keep them intact. That the big bang/big cruch is cyclic and has always been so.



posted on May, 26 2017 @ 11:03 PM
link   
a reply to: roughycannon

So maybe the mass is created by consciousness "looking"
And by expecting "something"... Then "something" manifests...
Via... Intelligent species like us, at different locales, "looking " to the barrier of our existing univeras, thereby producing what we call "mass"....

"We are of one consciousness, experiencing itself subjectively...Life is only a dream, and we are the imagination of ourselves " - Bill Hicks R.I.P.



posted on May, 27 2017 @ 02:14 PM
link   
a reply to: roughycannon


Here is the PDF on the article.

arxiv.org...


The microwave background is dated to 378,000 years after the Big Bang.

Nice find.





edit on 27-5-2017 by Kashai because: Added content



posted on May, 27 2017 @ 02:39 PM
link   
a reply to: roughycannon

The universe is not 6000 years old.



posted on May, 27 2017 @ 04:36 PM
link   
you know this theory is no more sensible then saying mass its self is limited to light speed .
Or the closer you get to light speed the slower times goes .
The earth is spinning at 1100 mph going around the sun at 60,0000 mph the solar system is moving around the galaxy at 250,000 mph the galaxy is going through the universe at 500,000 mph .
Now seeing all these speeds is true the time deletion of our very lives depends on the motion of well every thing .
So if somehow the earth and stars stooped dead in space our lives would be shorter as time speeded up for us lol
And lets not forget earths mass which isn't really mass at all but a effect of its speed through the universe .
If earth was to stop dead the mass would be decreased ( the size would be the same but the gravity holding use down would change
So tell me just how any of this rings true lol .
Most of what we have theroys on are illusions of site we see motion and base every thing on that motion .
B



posted on May, 27 2017 @ 07:21 PM
link   
a reply to: midnightstar

You appear not to understand relativity

if you added all those numbers together, the Our velocity relative to someone at some rest frame at which we are moving at some 750,000 mph, would observe us moving at 0.1% the speed of light. This is not enough for time dilation effects to be noticeable. That also said, from our frame, time moves normally for us, regardless of our velocity this is the beauty and confusing nature of GR.

Mass is not an effect of velocity.. so we are not forgetting anything, and its more like, you are making things up.

Sorry but, not much of your post is correct.



posted on May, 27 2017 @ 10:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: glend
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Bit late to the party but....

The problem I have understanding is how the speed of light can remain a constant in a universe without an underlying ether making it so. So what if, its not mass thats increasing per se, but the force of gravity itself. That space-time (D-Brane or whatever) is elastic, when stretched, increases the force of gravity.

It might help explain why the spiral galaxy bx442 exists (10.7 billion old). Why spinning galaxies don't rip apart without needing dark matter to keep them intact. That the big bang/big cruch is cyclic and has always been so.


The problem with that theory is its not increasing fast enough to explain the need for dark matter. I.e., galaxies would simply fly apart. Much more gravity would be needed.



posted on May, 27 2017 @ 10:49 PM
link   
How do you "create" mass?

Isn't that against the conservation of energy laws?



posted on May, 27 2017 @ 10:56 PM
link   
If mass were somehow increasing we would see it in our own solar system. We would see it even in our moon. This would be easily testable



posted on May, 27 2017 @ 11:03 PM
link   
Wouldn't it take energy to create mass?



posted on May, 27 2017 @ 11:13 PM
link   
Dear universe:

It's not you, it's me. Well, no...actually, it is you. I'm just not attracted to you anymore. When we first met you were fit and trim. You were sexy and sleek, attractive and alluring. Somehow though, over the last 13 or 14 billion years...

You've gotten fat.

I hate to sound materialistic universe, and I wish you the best of luck in finding someone else...but I have to move on with my life, and find a new, parallel universe with less mass. All this dark matter, dark energy -- it's just becoming a drag!

Always,
Kettu



posted on May, 27 2017 @ 11:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: H1ght3chHippie


No it could not. It could merely mean the objects are not moving away but stationary.

Additionally I fail to understand what redshift has to do with the age of the earth.


Because from our perspective, if something is redshifted we should be able to determine the speed at which it moving away. Using that speed we can extrapolate distance from a common point of origin and determine age of the universe, and from that we can supposedly extrapolate the age of the Earth.

I'm not sure how more mass = redshift, unless the mass is so great it is slowing light down and giving the appearance that an object is moving away... and that would be massive. Black Hole massive.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join