New Theories / Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?« on: 23/05/2023 00:39:57 »
When We say the Universe is expanding, rather at an accelerated rate...Not right. You have to look more nearby to notice the acceleration since it is a more recent thing. The further away you look, the further in the past you see. So we notice things nearby expanding at a proportional rate greater than those currently further away. That's the acceleration, but it started about 6 billion years ago when the constant density dark energy became a greater density than the gravitational energy of all the mass, which became less dense as things moved further apart. So at that point, dark energy more than cancelled the gravity, and acceleration of expansion began. It was deceleration before then, so if you look as far as you can, the most distant galaxies, they're receding at a proportional rate that indicates that there had been a deceleration of expansion going on for over half the current life of the universe.
That's what We are currently Observing at the Edge of the observable Universe, Right..
So, should We say it " is " expanding, or say it " was " expanding?It is expanding and always has been expanding. If it ever started contracting (it won't), then matter would have won, and it would eventually end with a big crunch. But the expansion rate is currently accelerating, but used to be decelerating.
There used to not be event horizons, but continuous acceleration forms them, so there is our event horizon now about 16 BLY away. Light currently emitted beyond there will never reach our local galaxy group ever. That doesn't mean we can't see galaxies further away than that. It's just that the light emitted from those galaxies was from when those galaxies were much closer by.
The following users thanked this post: Zer0