Planck Space Data Yields Evidence of Universes Beyond Our Own

Just realized my previous link to the oldest observed object didn't work.

13.3 Billion year old Galaxy

This galaxy was born about 120 million years after Light first was visible after the Big Bang. Prior to that there was too much energy to actually have light. That is of course if we have estimated the age of our universes right at 13.7 Billion Years. All we can see is a pixilated glob right now with our technology and that is only possible using the light bending power of a massive galaxy cluster as a natural telescope as well.

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
reply to post by dragonridr

 

However within say are gallaxy there is stuff between stars so space isn't created between stars and thus they don't fly away.

Let me just simplify this for you: gravity counter acts the dark energy / gravitational constant.

/ravity has nothing to do with it in fact its been proven here on earth and we have plenty of gravity its caused by a vacuume.

Originally posted by pavil

Originally posted by soficrow

....So multi-verses and space portals now are proven to exist. Seriously cool. I can hardly wait for the obvious...

I wouldn't go so far as to say proven. There is still much more they will have to do to really prove it. I'm sure the data could indicate other possibilities too. It is however very intriguing. Maybe the Big Bang created all the multiverses at pretty much the same time, all just "vibrating" at slightly different levels so they can effect each other but only slightly where they sync up in their vibrations. Kinda like cross over points. You can't really see them themselves just the traces they leave behind them.

I've read the the further a stellar object is from the big bang start point (however they figured that out), the faster it is accelerating. Almost as if it is being pulled towards "something". Maybe dark matter has something to play in all of this.

I'm not an Astrophysicist so please someone correct me if I am wrong on things. Pretty heady stuff, that's for sure.

edit on 20-5-2013 by pavil because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-5-2013 by pavil because: (no reason given)

Any point in the universe could be the center since all galaxies will see red shifts. The further a galxy is from the observer the faster it seems to be moving. As far as dterming where the big bang occured I think that's impossible since so much space has been created since then.

Oh almost forgot there is no gravity pulling the universe any where. The universe is just getting bigger.

Originally posted by dragonridr

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
reply to post by dragonridr

 

However within say are gallaxy there is stuff between stars so space isn't created between stars and thus they don't fly away.

Let me just simplify this for you: gravity counter acts the dark energy / gravitational constant.

/ravity has nothing to do with it in fact its been proven here on earth and we have plenty of gravity its caused by a vacuume.

I was saying that the gravity of mass counter acts the vacuum energy (aka dark energy / cosmological constant). The reason the space inside galaxies doesn't really expand is because of the mass in the galaxies like you said in a haphazard way, but more precisely it's the gravity of the mass which effects space in the opposite way that the vacuum energy does.

reply to post by ChaoticOrder


Wait, so your trying to tell me the weakest force, gravity, counter acts the force of what makes up 70 some odd percent of the universe and is in effect defeating gravity by pushing things apart....

Logic engines overloading captian!!!

We can create truer vaccums here on earth than in most parts of space. Space is FULL of charged particles and last I checked they didn't expand.

And if you are saying space is being magicaly created at some undefined rate between galaxies then why do the sizes of the great viods remain constant. At what magical distance from the edge of a galaxy does space start creating itsself?

Mass has no gravity, its then bending of space time by mass that creates it. This is highly illogical

No one, to my knowledge, has ever created a perfect vacum so it's a bit offputting to talk about vacums as though we can ever totally control one relative position in space- which would necessitate control from the fractal quantum components right up to the averaged out effects we perceive as matter.

Although we understand the maths behind a Planck length, we still dont full understand whats going on at that scale which ultimately makes up the Macro we perceive.

I keep banging on about on it on here but if we imagine space itself to a quantised superfluid vacum which exhibits Bose Einstien Condensate properties we have a very good model for what could be happening.

Space itself is the ultimate reality (space is just a quantum soup of everything in various phase changes dependant upon localised variables such as temperature, density, originating velocity etc etc.)

Space can be densley packed ( i.e the quantised units of space are placed under some environmental pressure which forces them together to form a quantum singularity (i.e a black hole) or alternatively it can be loosely packed which tends to make up the massive majority of the volume of the Universe.

This loose packing provides a constant which we can deteect as effervescent resonations of a photon as it traverses space and seeks the most entropic route through that spaces quantum environment. ( i.e the speed of light)

If we imagine that space can be very tightly packed ( a black hole) we then see a model that makes sense with our current understanding of physics and especially density as a "relative" value ( some bits of space although occupying the same volume, contain more space).

TLDR:

Bits of Quantised space make up the frameworks for constants (Gravity is the density gradient of quantised space within a defined relative position- Speed of light is shortest route across space given relative mass to space.)
Any appearance of growth, acceleration etc could in fact be a localised lensing property caused by the density gradient of space as detected in the form of redshift.

reply to post by Jukiodone

I keep banging on about on it on here but if we imagine space itself to a quantised superfluid vacum which exhibits Bose Einstien Condensate properties we have a very good model for what could be happening. Space itself is the ultimate reality (space is just a quantum soup of everything in various phase changes dependant upon localised variables such as temperature, density, originating velocity etc etc.) Space can be densley packed ( i.e the quantised units of space are placed under some environmental pressure which forces them together to form a quantum singularity (i.e a black hole) or alternatively it can be loosely packed which tends to make up the massive majority of the volume of the Universe.

That sure sounds a lot like you are describing a state of plasma. Where you have a structure with free floating particles able to traverse the structure and modify it. If you are saying space is a "thing" or a composition etc you are describing ether are you not?

If gravity from other universes are effecting us then we are being effected by their space time, if we are being effected by their space time, then how can it be a separate universe. Do we need to add a 12th dimension now too, 11 not enough?

To my knowledge we have recently created a perfect vacuum on the ISS. I will search for the experiment that was recently done to show you, I may be off on this one I will have to relocate it to verify. It was a Russian experiment involving plasma vortex I believe where perfect vacuums where generated. I really hope I can find it now.....until I can locate it let's just assume we can not create a perfect or really even near perfect vaccum. They are something like plasma windows that we generate but more advanced. It's hard to find it because of all the UFO plasma spam on you tube

******Ok I found the experiment I was referring to and it was not a perfect vaccum that was created. The extreme irony of it is that it was related to Planck as well

Here is a link to the experiment as it has relevance to the original topic:

Here is a direct link if the embed doesn't work: planck plasma

Outer space has very low density and pressure, and is the closest physical approximation of a perfect vacuum. But no vacuum is truly perfect, not even in interstellar space, where there are still a few hydrogen atoms per cubic meter. If that is the case then why does it matter what theoretically happens in a perfect vacuum if it does not exist in nature. If you say a perfect vacuum does exists on the quantum level then it exists in my body and in the space between all atoms and takes us right back to my original questions.

reply to post by vind21


Actually my explanation wasn't entirely correct, but basically gravity is the answer to your question:

It is true that galaxies and even clusters of galaxies tend to remain the same size even as space is expanding. This is not because the space inside the galaxy fails to expand, so much as because gravity pulls the galaxy or cluster together.

I discussed this recently in another forum. A very good technical discussion is available in The influence of the cosmological expansion on local systems,
by F. I. Cooperstock, V. Faraoni, and D. N. Vollick, in Astrophys.J. 503 (1998) 61 (astro-ph/9803097).

Basically, the effects of cosmic expansion can really only be detected at scales beyond that of our galaxy. On smaller scales, bodies are in constant motion under forces of gravity that hold them together against the expansion of the space in which they are embedded. The space still expands, but bodies move through space under the influence of gravitational forces to maintain the same separation to within the bounds of measurement.

cosmoquest.org

reply to post by ChaoticOrder



I think we will just agree to disagree. I will maintain that gravity even at close distance is incapable of holding things together based on current evidence. I will take a look at the paper you linked me, thank you.

We are discussing theory after all and no one can say for sure what is correct. If you are going to take the time to post me actual information I will take the time to read it before I reply further

Here is a snipet form another thread I was talking on and would be insterested on your thoughts

There are a few questions I would like to pose that directly pertain to the original topic of this thread.
Where doe gravitational potential energy come from?
Do inertial and structural mass diverge?
Why is the matter wave frequency defined by twice the classical kinetic energy?

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder

Originally posted by dragonridr

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
reply to post by dragonridr

 

However within say are gallaxy there is stuff between stars so space isn't created between stars and thus they don't fly away.

Let me just simplify this for you: gravity counteracts the dark energy / gravitational constant.

/Gravity has nothing to do with it in fact it's been proven here on earth and we have plenty of gravity its caused by a vacuume.

I was saying that the gravity of mass counter acts the vacuum energy (aka dark energy / cosmological constant). The reason the space inside galaxies doesn't really expand is because of the mass in the galaxies like you said in a haphazard way, but more precisely it's the gravity of the mass which effects space in the opposite way that the vacuum energy does.

Well I think I see what you’re getting at but I think you have it just backwards. Ill try to explain this but mind you it is hard to rap your head around. Ok first let me start by saying even a vacuum has energy basically in the universe you cant have 0 energy. So a vacuum actually has a negative energy and a vacuum actually has negative pressure which causes something odd to happen. There called quantum fluctuations which is basically two particle popping into existence one positing one negative they meet and destroy each other. Now these particles have a gravitational field but its negative so they repel rather than attract the more empty space you have the more space is created. I want to say space time is stretched but that’s not accurate either. It just becomes bigger as it pushes away from each other and new space is created. So gravity is sort of the cause but its negative gravity that only occurs outside of galaxies because quite frankly inside galaxies there’s dust and particles everywhere. Ill see later if i can find a visual to help me explain.

Originally posted by Slugworth
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

 

I think it depends on your definition of universe. In common usage the universe is the totality of all existence

I've been thinking this lately and the only thing really in the universe is Stars.
Just endless amounts of Stars that form other things but that's pretty much it..

Originally posted by yourmaker

Originally posted by Slugworth
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

 

I think it depends on your definition of universe. In common usage the universe is the totality of all existence

I've been thinking this lately and the only thing really in the universe is Stars.
Just endless amounts of Stars that form other things but that's pretty much it..

Or you could flip that and say black holes since thats what creates the galaxys which creates the stars.

Originally posted by yourmaker

Originally posted by Slugworth
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

 

I think it depends on your definition of universe. In common usage the universe is the totality of all existence

I've been thinking this lately and the only thing really in the universe is Stars.
Just endless amounts of Stars that form other things but that's pretty much it..

Or you could flip that and say black holes since thats what creates the galaxys which creates the stars.

reply to post by dragonridr

So gravity is sort of the cause but its negative gravity that only occurs outside of galaxies because quite frankly inside galaxies there’s dust and particles everywhere. Ill see later if i can find a visual to help me explain.

You just said what I said backwards. I didn't say gravity causes the expansion, I said the negative energy does because it creates a force like negative gravity as you just said. Normal gravity inside the galaxies helps hold the galaxies together despite the expansion which happens between galaxies, that's what I was saying.

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
reply to post by dragonridr

 

So gravity is sort of the cause but its negative gravity that only occurs outside of galaxies because quite frankly inside galaxies there’s dust and particles everywhere. Ill see later if i can find a visual to help me explain.

You just said what I said backwards. I didn't say gravity causes it the expansion, I said the negative energy does because it creates a force like negative gravity as you just said. Normal gravity inside the galaxies helps hold the galaxies together despite the expansion which happens between galaxies, that's what I was saying.

Again you have the right idea but the wrong reason i guess you could say because galaxies collect matter meaning there is no true vacuum which means negative gravity isnt created then yeah i guess. Just hard for me to visualize from the flip side i guess.

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
reply to post by dragonridr

 

So gravity is sort of the cause but its negative gravity that only occurs outside of galaxies because quite frankly inside galaxies there’s dust and particles everywhere. Ill see later if i can find a visual to help me explain.

You just said what I said backwards. I didn't say gravity causes it the expansion, I said the negative energy does because it creates a force like negative gravity as you just said. Normal gravity inside the galaxies helps hold the galaxies together despite the expansion which happens between galaxies, that's what I was saying.

Again you have the right idea but the wrong reason i guess you could say because galaxies collect matter meaning there is no true vacuum which means negative gravity isnt created then yeah i guess. Just hard for me to visualize from the flip side i guess.

There is a fundamental flaw in all of the reasoning posted here.

If we are talking strictly about gravity as the driving force of the universe, whether its "standard gravity or repulsive gravity" and you are saying that galaxies collect matter while it also generates "space" then you are in contradiction.

If you can never have 0 energy then there will always be mass in space and a true vacuum would never exist. This is a circular argument. You can't have the spontaneous generation of space without energy you can't have energy without mass.

This goes back to E=mc^2 and then takes you Ric = 0.

The princaples of hawking radiation are in direct cintradiction to the findings of these experiments. This is why the results matter so much. Once again we are going to have to band aide GRT to make it match.

this is the second major finding coming from planck that produce unexpected and "damaging" results for GRT.

Now we have attractive gravity and repulsive gravity. Black holes that eat matter and black holes that create matter. At what point does all this supposition conform to the testable and the observable. If you watched the video I posted then you saw with your own eyes that there was no requirment of a black hole to cause matter to congragate. The plasma organized its self by a different method. What are stars if not plasma what is space but an area filled with charged particles called if not a plasma.

Maybe its time for a different approach gravity is not the only answer. There are at least 3 more forces to consider.

reply to post by Slugworth


You pretty much nailed it

I thought the definition of universe was everything that exists. Shouldn't they just say that the universe is bigger and more complex than expected?

Did they get better data on the so-called Dark Flow and is it among these observed anomalies? I'm curious because some had speculated that the Dark Flow could conceivably be attributed to another universe.

Peace.