0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
I agree that this extremely fast expansion seems difficult to visualise and against the rules but it is space itself that is expanding as the universe expands from the big bang until now. The expansion of space itself does not require anything to move faster than the speed of light.
We know that the size of the universe is too big to have been formed within current physical laws.
Quote from: Vern on 27/01/2009 11:22:22We know that the size of the universe is too big to have been formed within current physical laws.Not quite. It's the homogeneity of the universe that prompted the inflationary theory that gives rise to estimates of the universe being larger than we can see. We don't know that it's that big.
It's not so much that we just don't know, it is that we know so much that just ain't so.
Absolutely true; but it we use that criteria there are many other more fundamental things that we don't know for certain. That would probably include just about everything we think we know
Was he paraphrasing Artemus Ward? “It ain’t so much the things we don’t know that get us into trouble. It’s the things we know that just ain’t so”
yor_on; I will study that post of yours some more in the morning; I've gone over it three times now and I still don't get a clear picture. I know there is some good stuff there having to do with time and space and I would like to understand it.
Why would it slow free space shouldn't change.
It's not complicated.It just states that 'time' to me behaves differently QM wise:)And that when 'isolating' forces to see them 'better' we are missing the 'picture')and that's why I really really would like to understand what makes 'matter'.
Quote the idea of light ageing by an unknown mechanism. There is such a mechanism, if a photon from a distant galaxy moves in a curved path it will lose energy didn't Einstien say space is curved.
Space-time, in our universe, is curved but it's not directly apparent to anything in it's own region of space-time unless it spans a such a steep gradient in the curvature such that the degree of curvature on one side of the object is significantly different to that on the other side.
Any fundamental theory that fails to demand relativity phenomena at its very core, can not be what is real in nature. The reason it can not be real is that we easily observe that relativity phenomena is real and it is present in every physical reality that we know about.So the first question about any fundamental theory should be: How does this theory demand the existence of Relativity Phenomena? Because we can know with certainty that if the theory does not demand relativity phenomena it is unnatural and does not represent reality. This is how we know that although the theory predicts reality with great precision, the most fundamental idea behind Quantum Theory is wrong.
AD are you sure those photons traveling in curved paths lose energy.Do you know any experiments proving that?How can they lose any energy if freed from the arrow of time.
To yor-on I don't know of any experiment that has been done to prove it. I know one that will and that's during a solar eclipse the position of a star is moved if one measures the stars light at the same time a red shift should be observed. When I was taught about the Bohr atom I was told that the electron would lose energy in it's circular path and radiate EM and fall into the nucleus, quantum energy levels were invented to overcome this problem, no loss of energy..
Some boffin has theorised that the speed of light has slowed since the Big Bang. Can't think of his name now.
I can't even source this, but I have heard that the Universe is going through another period of inflation. How does the speed of light slowing from the start of the Big Bang allow for this?