| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Dave K" |
| Date: |
13 Jan 2006 02:30:48 PM |
| Object: |
What's this universe that is expanding... |
Physics lay-lamer Dave again...
When we say "the universe" is expanding, I think we are speaking WRT to
the big bang. So "the universe" is defined then as that ever expanding
glob of mass and energy resulting from that event. Do I have that
right?
So is our understanding of "space" then restricted to what is contained
within that glob? Because if that is the case, then there should be an
outside as well as in inside, shouldn't there? Actually I'm certain
this isn't correct, so I'm trying to find the gap in my thinking here.
Because if this were true, it would be possible for there to be other
universes and other big bangs going on. That could get ugly, to say
the least...
Or is "the universe" not just the mass and energy from the big bang,
but the space outside it as well? This still doesn't seem right, since
again, there could be other such masses out there.
Of course just becuase I don't want it to be true doesn't mean it
isn't. But something tells me there are other implications other than
the ugly one I am considering. (The bangs banging into each other).
.
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: What's this universe that is expanding... |
13 Jan 2006 03:47:46 PM |
|
|
"Dave K" <dkotschess@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1137184248.912943.248200@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Physics lay-lamer Dave again...
When we say "the universe" is expanding, I think we are speaking WRT to
the big bang. So "the universe" is defined then as that ever expanding
glob of mass and energy resulting from that event. Do I have that
right?
Mostly, yes
So is our understanding of "space" then restricted to what is contained
within that glob?
Yes.
Because if that is the case, then there should be an
outside as well as in inside, shouldn't there?
No. People will debate for ever about boundaries and finite / infinite space
in the universe. Simply put though, the universe is "everything." There is
no "inside" or "outside" when talking about the universe.
Actually I'm certain
this isn't correct, so I'm trying to find the gap in my thinking here.
Because if this were true, it would be possible for there to be other
universes and other big bangs going on. That could get ugly, to say
the least...
:-)
The universe is "everything" there is.
Now they may be something "outside" the universe but as we (within the
universe) have no way of testing it, describing it or relating to it for all
intents and purposes it doesnt exist.
When it comes to inside and outside the universe you can either rely on
science - which implies there isnt anything by definition - or fall back on
what is basically voodoo metaphysics (which can say anything as it isnt
concerned with proof or falsifiability) :-)
Or is "the universe" not just the mass and energy from the big bang,
but the space outside it as well? This still doesn't seem right, since
again, there could be other such masses out there.
The mass and energy is everything. There is no need to say "just" - this is
the Big Bang we are talking about here. Everything in the universe was
created at that point. It is from that point in time and space onwards we
come to understand things.
Of course just becuase I don't want it to be true doesn't mean it
isn't. But something tells me there are other implications other than
the ugly one I am considering. (The bangs banging into each other).
There are millions of theories around covering the possibilities of multiple
big bangs - the main reason they all fall down as far as science is
concerned is being able to test them.
.
|
|
|
| User: "DaveK" |
|
| Title: Re: What's this universe that is expanding... |
13 Jan 2006 05:45:02 PM |
|
|
T Wake wrote:
"Dave K" <dkotschess@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1137184248.912943.248200@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Physics lay-lamer Dave again...
When we say "the universe" is expanding, I think we are speaking WRT to
the big bang. So "the universe" is defined then as that ever expanding
glob of mass and energy resulting from that event. Do I have that
right?
Mostly, yes
So is our understanding of "space" then restricted to what is contained
within that glob?
Yes.
Because if that is the case, then there should be an
outside as well as in inside, shouldn't there?
No. People will debate for ever about boundaries and finite / infinite space
in the universe. Simply put though, the universe is "everything." There is
no "inside" or "outside" when talking about the universe.
Actually I'm certain
this isn't correct, so I'm trying to find the gap in my thinking here.
Because if this were true, it would be possible for there to be other
universes and other big bangs going on. That could get ugly, to say
the least...
:-)
The universe is "everything" there is.
Now they may be something "outside" the universe but as we (within the
universe) have no way of testing it, describing it or relating to it for all
intents and purposes it doesnt exist.
When it comes to inside and outside the universe you can either rely on
science - which implies there isnt anything by definition - or fall back on
what is basically voodoo metaphysics (which can say anything as it isnt
concerned with proof or falsifiability) :-)
Or is "the universe" not just the mass and energy from the big bang,
but the space outside it as well? This still doesn't seem right, since
again, there could be other such masses out there.
The mass and energy is everything. There is no need to say "just" - this is
the Big Bang we are talking about here. Everything in the universe was
created at that point. It is from that point in time and space onwards we
come to understand things.
It is probably just something that takes awhile to wrap ones mind
around... If I get it aright, time itself is essentially a function of
the big bang. It is hard not to resort to a very crude image in my
mind of a big ball of stuff that is growing outwards from the middle,
becuase the image of my mind is being viewed as if I am standing
outside of it.
Similarly I seem to be suffering from this same delusion in the
temporal sense, because I'm "viewing" it as if I was there waiting for
it to happen, before it happened, when in fact there was no "before."
Of course just becuase I don't want it to be true doesn't mean it
isn't. But something tells me there are other implications other than
the ugly one I am considering. (The bangs banging into each other).
There are millions of theories around covering the possibilities of multiple
big bangs - the main reason they all fall down as far as science is
concerned is being able to test them.
Just curious, does "multiple" here mean in the spacial sense (as in,
there could be one happening right now, in an "elsewhere"
incomprehensibly far from us) or in the temporal sense that maybe this
isn't the first time around?
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: What's this universe that is expanding... |
13 Jan 2006 07:48:07 PM |
|
|
"DaveK" <meindzai@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1137195902.846337.285860@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
It is probably just something that takes awhile to wrap ones mind
around...
Yes. Sadly, some aspects of physics are not "intuitive" and often have been
labelled with misleading terms which makes life harder.
If I get it aright, time itself is essentially a function of
the big bang.
Yes. Before t=0 there was no "time." Time as we perceive it began then and
(often blamed on the second law of thermodynamics) then moved on ever since.
It is hard not to resort to a very crude image in my
mind of a big ball of stuff that is growing outwards from the middle,
becuase the image of my mind is being viewed as if I am standing
outside of it.
Not a bad mental picture but the standing outside looking in is the problem.
Also it wasn't really "stuff" until around 10^-32 seconds when quarks and
leptons are believed to have formed.
Proper stuff as we can imagine it now probably took about 100 seconds to
form.
For "most" of the very early universe it was just energy.
Similarly I seem to be suffering from this same delusion in the
temporal sense, because I'm "viewing" it as if I was there waiting for
it to happen, before it happened, when in fact there was no "before."
Yes, same problem. :-) There is no way we can "wind the clock back" to
before t=0 so to all intents and purposes, for science there is nothing
before t=0.
Religion and metaphysics may have a different idea though.
There are millions of theories around covering the possibilities of
multiple
big bangs - the main reason they all fall down as far as science is
concerned is being able to test them.
Just curious, does "multiple" here mean in the spacial sense (as in,
there could be one happening right now, in an "elsewhere"
incomprehensibly far from us) or in the temporal sense that maybe this
isn't the first time around?
There are probably almost as many theories about the nature of the origins
of the universe as there are people. Some are solely the preserve of cranks
and others are held by well established professors. However, all suffer from
the basic lack of ability we have to probe them and test their truth.
Some ideas include what we can see as the visible universe being the result
of a big bang that took place in a larger universe, within this larger
universe more big bangs happen all the time. In a nutshell this is just
treating the universe we see today as being the same as the galaxy a few
hundred years ago (when people thought all the stars were in the Milky Way)
or even the solar system a few thousand years ago.
As a theory it sounds nice but when discussing things beyond the light cone
we can see in the universe we are stumped with ever finding out.
String theory has also generated theories about dimensional "membranes"
which crash together generating big bangs. The most common interpretation of
this, is that the universe expands for billions of years until the outward
force of expansion slows and then a membrane collision creates a new "big
bang" with its own universe pushing the older ones away. This is similar to
dropping a pebble in water repeatedly.
It also suffers from the same problems as we are talking about things beyond
our ability to test.
I have yet to come across a theory of the pre-universe which stands up to
the scientific method. It is also part of the reason certain assumptions
have to be made - for example, assuming we are not in a significant part of
the universe, we are not at a significant time in the universe, all laws of
physics as we understand them apply equally throughout the universe and the
universe has no "boundaries."
The no-edge to the universe adds extra confusion some times. It can either
mean the universe is closed like the surface of a balloon to two dimensional
beings or that the universe is simply infinite.
Personally (and this is simply opinion), I feel the infinite universe is
more in keeping with the basic assumptions we make.
.
|
|
|
| User: "tj Frazir" |
|
| Title: Re: What's this universe that is expanding... |
17 Jan 2006 09:23:41 PM |
|
|
***** no the universe did not start with a bang.
No the edge og te visible universe is not going out.
The stars move away from us faster the farther they are away and at some
point 15 bly away they go away at c and thats the egde of this visible
universe .
But the star still passes a point as a photon is emited from a point
that dont move ad that photon will pass us at c with NO wavelength and
is DARK ENERGY.
If you went fast you could see outside this universe and see more
universe.
The star at the edge of the visible univere sees us and its outher
side that is going 2c from us .
This universe was created when time colided with time . Then dark
energy rotates around its self .
The gravity of a big bang would be too great for light to excape.
all stars go near the same speed and gallaxies move near the same
speed 02 c for 15 billion years is only 190 millin light years of
distance so a star could not be 15 billion ly away .
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob Cain" |
|
| Title: Re: What's this universe that is expanding... |
14 Jan 2006 07:37:51 PM |
|
|
T Wake wrote:
Personally (and this is simply opinion), I feel the infinite universe is
more in keeping with the basic assumptions we make.
Does it bother you that if it is infinite then it must have been so at
t=0 and nothing before that? From nothing to infinite extent in zero
time is what is really hard to get my head around.
Bob
--
"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler."
A. Einstein
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: What's this universe that is expanding... |
14 Jan 2006 08:06:51 PM |
|
|
"Bob Cain" <arcane@arcanemethods.com> wrote in message
news:dqc91d01ie2@enews2.newsguy.com...
T Wake wrote:
Personally (and this is simply opinion), I feel the infinite universe is
more in keeping with the basic assumptions we make.
Does it bother you that if it is infinite then it must have been so at t=0
and nothing before that? From nothing to infinite extent in zero time is
what is really hard to get my head around.
Doesn't bother me at all. :-) May be the big bang was a really big bang :-)
All current theories break down at t=0 so I don't have any problem with this
one being shaky around that point.
How big is "infinite?" We cant (shouldn't) make any assumptions about the
universe before t=0 so why assume it was nothing?
At t=10^-35 the universe could have been very, very small yet infinite in
size.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob Cain" |
|
| Title: Re: What's this universe that is expanding... |
14 Jan 2006 10:03:51 PM |
|
|
T Wake wrote:
Does it bother you that if it is infinite then it must have been so at t=0
and nothing before that? From nothing to infinite extent in zero time is
what is really hard to get my head around.
Doesn't bother me at all. :-) May be the big bang was a really big bang :-)
Indeed.
All current theories break down at t=0 so I don't have any problem with this
one being shaky around that point.
How big is "infinite?" We cant (shouldn't) make any assumptions about the
universe before t=0 so why assume it was nothing?
I guess "undefined" is a better term.
At t=10^-35 the universe could have been very, very small yet infinite in
size.
Huh?
Bob
--
"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler."
A. Einstein
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: What's this universe that is expanding... |
15 Jan 2006 04:40:51 AM |
|
|
"Bob Cain" <arcane@arcanemethods.com> wrote in message
news:dqchj5127bv@enews1.newsguy.com...
T Wake wrote:
At t=10^-35 the universe could have been very, very small yet infinite in
size.
The key is, what is meant by infinite. :-) Its a mathematical concept more
than anything else, which is why it is often hard to transfer into reality.
In the very early universe (t=10^-35 for example) light could only have
travelled 1x10^-27 m. If the universe at this time was actually 10 m in
diameter and expanding at c, the energy released in the Big Bang would never
(ever) reach an edge making the universe functionally infinite.
Granted the problem with this approach is that it creates the possibility
for a "centre" of the universe which is against one of the basic principle
and in turn implies the universe isn't actually "infinite." But never mind.
:-)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob Cain" |
|
| Title: Re: What's this universe that is expanding... |
15 Jan 2006 02:30:59 PM |
|
|
T Wake wrote:
In the very early universe (t=10^-35 for example) light could only have
travelled 1x10^-27 m. If the universe at this time was actually 10 m in
diameter and expanding at c, the energy released in the Big Bang would never
(ever) reach an edge making the universe functionally infinite.
Sorry, T, I can't attach meaning to functionally infinite. If it was 10
m then it wasn't infinite.
In the above I think you are considering what's called the observable
universe but that's just a region of the whole thing with a radius that
was zero at the start and which has been increasing at the speed of
light ever since to enclose more and more of the whole thing.
It's the whole thing that some want to believe is infinite and it's the
instantaneous transition from undefined to infinite that bothers me.
It's got to be instantaneous because nothing can _become_ infinite.
Either it always was and always will be, or never was and never can be.
I don't believe that nature admits any physical infinities. From
outside even the supposed infinite density of a black hole singularity
never happens except at the limit of infinite time. In external, finite
time I believe it can only asymptotically approach the size of its event
horizon.
Granted the problem with this approach is that it creates the possibility
for a "centre" of the universe which is against one of the basic principle
and in turn implies the universe isn't actually "infinite." But never mind.
:-)
Even if finite, the center is an undefined concept. What's the center
of the surface of a ball? :-)
Bob
--
"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler."
A. Einstein
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: What's this universe that is expanding... |
15 Jan 2006 05:15:02 PM |
|
|
"Bob Cain" <arcane@arcanemethods.com> wrote in message
news:dqebe201tdd@enews1.newsguy.com...
T Wake wrote:
In the very early universe (t=10^-35 for example) light could only have
travelled 1x10^-27 m. If the universe at this time was actually 10 m in
diameter and expanding at c, the energy released in the Big Bang would
never (ever) reach an edge making the universe functionally infinite.
Sorry, T, I can't attach meaning to functionally infinite. If it was 10 m
then it wasn't infinite.
I am not aserting this as the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the
truth merely options for interpretation.
How big does something have to be before it becomes "infinite?"
Hypothetically, if you were walking along a infinite ruler, with the numbers
more than 1 away shrouded in fog how would you be able to determine if the
ruler was infinite or simply a "few" more numbers long? Continuing the idea,
if as you kept walking the ruler was expanding slightly faster than you
could ever walk - how would you differentitate that from infinity?
In the above I think you are considering what's called the observable
universe but that's just a region of the whole thing with a radius that
was zero at the start and which has been increasing at the speed of light
ever since to enclose more and more of the whole thing.
This is your interpretation of it. We have no way of knowing if there is or
isnt anything outside our "observeable universe" - which is slightly larger
than what we can see as you can infer the presence of mass from the movement
of large scale structures at our "light horizon."
If I have understood your theory correctly this is what it is saying:
Our "Light cone" expands at c and as it does so, it shows us more of the
"universe."
Is this correct? If so, I suspect its weakness is the age of large scale
structures we see. At the edge of our visible universe we can see structures
from 1.3x10^10 years ago which seems out of kilter for an expanding
enclosure of the light cone.
That said, there are no 100% correct answers at the moment.
It's the whole thing that some want to believe is infinite and it's the
instantaneous transition from undefined to infinite that bothers me. It's
got to be instantaneous because nothing can _become_ infinite. Either it
always was and always will be, or never was and never can be.
But the issue is the size of infinity.
I don't believe that nature admits any physical infinities. From outside
even the supposed infinite density of a black hole singularity never
happens except at the limit of infinite time. In external, finite time I
believe it can only asymptotically approach the size of its event horizon.
Probably true. Infinity is a concept more than anything else and its usage
is not always perfect.
Even if finite, the center is an undefined concept. What's the center of
the surface of a ball? :-)
Very true. However at this time, there is no evidence that the universe is
curved in on itself :-)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob Cain" |
|
| Title: Re: What's this universe that is expanding... |
17 Jan 2006 04:30:33 PM |
|
|
T Wake wrote:
"Bob Cain" <arcane@arcanemethods.com> wrote in message
news:dqebe201tdd@enews1.newsguy.com...
T Wake wrote:
In the very early universe (t=10^-35 for example) light could only have
travelled 1x10^-27 m. If the universe at this time was actually 10 m in
diameter and expanding at c, the energy released in the Big Bang would
never (ever) reach an edge making the universe functionally infinite.
Sorry, T, I can't attach meaning to functionally infinite. If it was 10 m
then it wasn't infinite.
I am not aserting this as the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the
truth merely options for interpretation.
How big does something have to be before it becomes "infinite?"
It can't become infinite. It either is or isn't.
Hypothetically, if you were walking along a infinite ruler, with the numbers
more than 1 away shrouded in fog how would you be able to determine if the
ruler was infinite or simply a "few" more numbers long?
There is no way to determine whether something physical is infinite.
Only if such a search terminates can you know that it isn't and there is
no way to know whether it will terminate.
Continuing the idea,
if as you kept walking the ruler was expanding slightly faster than you
could ever walk - how would you differentitate that from infinity?
You couldn't.
In the above I think you are considering what's called the observable
universe but that's just a region of the whole thing with a radius that
was zero at the start and which has been increasing at the speed of light
ever since to enclose more and more of the whole thing.
This is your interpretation of it. We have no way of knowing if there is or
isnt anything outside our "observeable universe" - which is slightly larger
than what we can see as you can infer the presence of mass from the movement
of large scale structures at our "light horizon."
Right. What is and what we can know about it are probably not the same
thing.
If I have understood your theory correctly this is what it is saying:
Our "Light cone" expands at c and as it does so, it shows us more of the
"universe."
Not really. All we can ultimately see as we look out (and back) is a
larger patch of the beginning point and I haven't a clue what a patch of
a point could possibly mean. :-)
Is this correct? If so, I suspect its weakness is the age of large scale
structures we see. At the edge of our visible universe we can see structures
from 1.3x10^10 years ago which seems out of kilter for an expanding
enclosure of the light cone.
You just haven't gone far enough. If your ability to observe were to go
far enough out you'd arrive at the initial singularity no matter what
direction you looked in. Ultimately the zero sized singularity fills
our entire sky and that's way more than I can get my head around.
That said, there are no 100% correct answers at the moment.
Nor any free of troublesome infinities or infinitesimals.
It's the whole thing that some want to believe is infinite and it's the
instantaneous transition from undefined to infinite that bothers me. It's
got to be instantaneous because nothing can _become_ infinite. Either it
always was and always will be, or never was and never can be.
But the issue is the size of infinity.
No matter how much you add to something finite it can never become
infinite. Yeah, there seem to be different sized infinities defined but
I don't understand anything about all that.
I don't believe that nature admits any physical infinities. From outside
even the supposed infinite density of a black hole singularity never
happens except at the limit of infinite time. In external, finite time I
believe it can only asymptotically approach the size of its event horizon.
Probably true. Infinity is a concept more than anything else and its usage
is not always perfect.
I agree to the point that I don't believe that any exist physically.
Even if finite, the center is an undefined concept. What's the center of
the surface of a ball? :-)
Very true. However at this time, there is no evidence that the universe is
curved in on itself :-)
True enough but it's even harder to imagine a center if it diverges from
every point. :-)
Bob
--
"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler."
A. Einstein
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: What's this universe that is expanding... |
18 Jan 2006 02:02:59 PM |
|
|
"Bob Cain" <arcane@arcanemethods.com> wrote in message
news:dqjr6702vu9@enews3.newsguy.com...
T Wake wrote:
How big does something have to be before it becomes "infinite?"
It can't become infinite. It either is or isn't.
Yes I agree. However you alluded to something with a size not being
infinite. I am asking what size you will accept as being "infinite."
If you create a group which holds all the possible fractions between 0 and
1, how big is the group? Is it infinite?
The universe is infinite in that it holds everything in the universe, but
does that (in itself) set limits on the size?
Hypothetically, if you were walking along a infinite ruler, with the
numbers more than 1 away shrouded in fog how would you be able to
determine if the ruler was infinite or simply a "few" more numbers long?
There is no way to determine whether something physical is infinite. Only
if such a search terminates can you know that it isn't and there is no way
to know whether it will terminate.
Which is what I was trying to get at when I said the early universe only
needed to be bigger than light could travel since t=0, and to continue to
expand, to be infinite.
Continuing the idea, if as you kept walking the ruler was expanding
slightly faster than you could ever walk - how would you differentitate
that from infinity?
You couldn't.
So how can we know the difference between a universe 1m larger than we can
ever know and an infinite one?
In the above I think you are considering what's called the observable
universe but that's just a region of the whole thing with a radius that
was zero at the start and which has been increasing at the speed of
light ever since to enclose more and more of the whole thing.
This is your interpretation of it. We have no way of knowing if there is
or isnt anything outside our "observeable universe" - which is slightly
larger than what we can see as you can infer the presence of mass from
the movement of large scale structures at our "light horizon."
Right. What is and what we can know about it are probably not the same
thing.
I agree.
If I have understood your theory correctly this is what it is saying:
Our "Light cone" expands at c and as it does so, it shows us more of the
"universe."
Not really. All we can ultimately see as we look out (and back) is a
larger patch of the beginning point and I haven't a clue what a patch of a
point could possibly mean. :-)
:-)
Is this correct? If so, I suspect its weakness is the age of large scale
structures we see. At the edge of our visible universe we can see
structures from 1.3x10^10 years ago which seems out of kilter for an
expanding enclosure of the light cone.
You just haven't gone far enough. If your ability to observe were to go
far enough out you'd arrive at the initial singularity no matter what
direction you looked in. Ultimately the zero sized singularity fills our
entire sky and that's way more than I can get my head around.
Interesting concept. I agree it is difficult to picture but lots of
cosmology is. It does require the potential ability to see further back in
time than the inflation period which I suspect may never be possible.
That said, there are no 100% correct answers at the moment.
Nor any free of troublesome infinities or infinitesimals.
Quite :-)
It's the whole thing that some want to believe is infinite and it's the
instantaneous transition from undefined to infinite that bothers me.
It's got to be instantaneous because nothing can _become_ infinite.
Either it always was and always will be, or never was and never can be.
But the issue is the size of infinity.
No matter how much you add to something finite it can never become
infinite. Yeah, there seem to be different sized infinities defined but I
don't understand anything about all that.
I am not sure I agree with your first sentence. For it to be true, it
requires the ability to determine something as infinite before you start
adding. Until you test to see if it continues you dont know if you have a
finite or infinite property - in the example of the string, until you follow
it to the next length you dont know if it is finite or infinite.
With mathematical constructs you can "predetermine" infinity but I am not
sure this applies to the "physical" world.
I don't believe that nature admits any physical infinities. From
outside even the supposed infinite density of a black hole singularity
never happens except at the limit of infinite time. In external, finite
time I believe it can only asymptotically approach the size of its event
horizon.
Probably true. Infinity is a concept more than anything else and its
usage is not always perfect.
I agree to the point that I don't believe that any exist physically.
Ok. I can think of any reason to believe that there are any infinite
physical objects.
Even if finite, the center is an undefined concept. What's the center
of the surface of a ball? :-)
Very true. However at this time, there is no evidence that the universe
is curved in on itself :-)
True enough but it's even harder to imagine a center if it diverges from
every point. :-)
Oddly, the first thing people think of when ask to determine the centre of
an object that diverges in every direction - normally they assume they must
be at the centre.
We know from looking at the stars though, that everything is moving away
from everything else - which I suspect is the main selling point of
extra-dimensional theories. If there are more dimensions it is easy to
conceive how things can move away in all of our directions.
Once critical thing (for my mind) is the problem with evidence. For example
we know the universe is at least 1.5x10^10 light years in every direction
(from Earth) but we have no way of knowing what is beyond that. How can we
ever discriminate between theories that seek to explain what is beyond our
light horizon?
.
|
|
|
| User: "G=EMC^2 Glazier" |
|
| Title: Re: What's this universe that is expanding... |
18 Jan 2006 05:03:55 PM |
|
|
T. Wake the fact we can always add another number makes math. infinite.
The fact energy and matter can't be destroyed makes them infinite. Space
is expanding to make room for a mini-bang that will take place when a
huge black hole reaches its critical mass. This event should take place
in about 7 billion years from now. Universes can not be finite,because
there are as many universes as flakes of snow in an endless storm.
Nature creates in pairs and our anti-parrel universe is only a thin
membrane away TreBert
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: What's this universe that is expanding... |
19 Jan 2006 12:52:44 AM |
|
|
"G=EMC^2 Glazier" <herbertglazier@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:23838-43CEC95B-143@storefull-3335.bay.webtv.net...
T. Wake the fact we can always add another number makes math. infinite.
The fact energy and matter can't be destroyed makes them infinite.
I agree - sort of,
Space
is expanding to make room for a mini-bang that will take place when a
huge black hole reaches its critical mass.
Can you show how we can test the validity of this claim?
This event should take place
in about 7 billion years from now.
Is there anything we can test here and now to see if this is the case?
Universes can not be finite,because
there are as many universes as flakes of snow in an endless storm.
Really? Again, do we have any way to test for this?
Nature creates in pairs and our anti-parrel universe is only a thin
membrane away TreBert
Interesting. Can we detect it?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: What's this universe that is expanding... |
18 Jan 2006 11:06:31 PM |
|
|
G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
T. Wake the fact we can always add another number makes math. infinite.
The fact energy and matter can't be destroyed makes them infinite.
Not so Herb!
Space
is expanding to make room for a mini-bang that will take place when a
huge black hole reaches its critical mass.
What is the "critical mass" of a black hole?
This event should take place
in about 7 billion years from now.
And your source of this knowledge is?
Universes can not be finite,because
there are as many universes as flakes of snow in an endless storm.
Nature creates in pairs and our anti-parrel universe is only a thin
membrane away TreBert
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Orion" |
|
| Title: Re: What's this universe that is expanding... |
13 Jan 2006 04:02:23 PM |
|
|
The driving force is pressure. Space (and probably mass) is pressure.
The question is what is this kind of pressure.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: What's this universe that is expanding... |
13 Jan 2006 03:19:40 PM |
|
|
Dave K wrote:
Physics lay-lamer Dave again...
When we say "the universe" is expanding, I think we are speaking WRT to
the big bang.
On the cosmic scale, galaxies are getting further apart from
each other.
No Center
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html
Also see Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html
WMAP: Foundations of the Big Bang theory
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni.html
WMAP: Tests of Big Bang Cosmology
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dr Nanduri" |
|
| Title: Re: What's this universe that is expanding... |
14 Jan 2006 02:07:55 AM |
|
|
OBJECTIVITY MUST REPLACE THE PRESUMTIONS. Forget about BIG-BANG for a
while and DEFINE CENTER OF THE UNIVERSE ? HOW DOES IT BALANCE ?
WHAT IS THE COSMIC FUNCTION within the UNIVERSE ?
Vidyardhi Nanduri
Cosmology For World Peace
SEARCH:GOOGLE-Cosmology Vedas
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: What's this universe that is expanding... |
14 Jan 2006 06:12:57 AM |
|
|
"Dr Nanduri" <nanduri_vn@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:1137226075.908077.156710@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
DEFINE CENTER OF THE UNIVERSE ?
Who says there is a centre of the univese?
(rest of the post was word salad so I ignored it)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Orion" |
|
| Title: Re: What's this universe that is expanding... |
14 Jan 2006 06:56:14 AM |
|
|
This "dark energy" has strong negative pressure. This means that space
has properties very similar to those of gas pressure.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "DaveK" |
|
| Title: Re: What's this universe that is expanding... |
13 Jan 2006 05:30:54 PM |
|
|
Sam Wormley wrote:
Dave K wrote:
Physics lay-lamer Dave again...
When we say "the universe" is expanding, I think we are speaking WRT to
the big bang.
On the cosmic scale, galaxies are getting further apart from
each other.
No Center
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html
Also see Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html
WMAP: Foundations of the Big Bang theory
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni.html
WMAP: Tests of Big Bang Cosmology
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest.html
Well sure, I could read all that. But wouldn't it be better if I just
came on here and kept asking questions without researching first? :)
Kidding, I will check it out. I started to read Ned's Tutorial once
and got distracted...
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: What's this universe that is expanding... |
16 Jan 2006 01:12:28 PM |
|
|
Dave K wrote:
Physics lay-lamer Dave again...
When we say "the universe" is expanding, I think we are speaking WRT to
the big bang. So "the universe" is defined then as that ever expanding
glob of mass and energy resulting from that event. Do I have that
right?
So is our understanding of "space" then restricted to what is contained
within that glob? Because if that is the case, then there should be an
outside as well as in inside, shouldn't there? Actually I'm certain
this isn't correct, so I'm trying to find the gap in my thinking here.
Because if this were true, it would be possible for there to be other
universes and other big bangs going on. That could get ugly, to say
the least...
You have to get your mind around two things first:
1. A space can be finite and not have any boundaries.
2. A space can expand and not have any center to that expansion lying
in the space.
This is easier to figure out if you have a simpler space than the one
we live in, but then the analogy also extends readily to our space.
Once you get a fix on these two ideas, then it will be a lot easier to
make sensible statements about the big bang.
PD
Or is "the universe" not just the mass and energy from the big bang,
but the space outside it as well? This still doesn't seem right, since
again, there could be other such masses out there.
Of course just becuase I don't want it to be true doesn't mean it
isn't. But something tells me there are other implications other than
the ugly one I am considering. (The bangs banging into each other).
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
