0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Presuming that the observed relationship between the observed mass of the universe, M_{OU}, and the Hubble length, H_{OU}, is equal to 2G/c^{2}, not by coincidence, but that it is an unchanging relationship, then M_{OU} must increase in direct proportion to time. That is, were the WMAP observations to be repeated when the universe is twice its current age, they would observe twice the current mass.

If the Universe is getting "new mass" then could you also state the Universe is getting new Energy? Maybe it is that Energy that creates the mass like E=mc2 but in reverse?And if that might be true then the Universe is not a closed system?

Even if it were true that more mass was being created it's also be true that more gravitational energy was being created as well and that has a negative contribution to the total energy of the universe.

Now I am confused, could you explain how.

The potential is –GMm/r.

Quote from: AndroidNeox on 21/01/2013 17:40:19Presuming that the observed relationship between the observed mass of the universe, M_{OU}, and the Hubble length, H_{OU}, is equal to 2G/c^{2}, not by coincidence, but that it is an unchanging relationship, then M_{OU} must increase in direct proportion to time. That is, were the WMAP observations to be repeated when the universe is twice its current age, they would observe twice the current mass.Where did you get this idea from? All that you’ve just explained to me means is that more mass is coming into view with time. That mass has always been there. We’re just being able to see more of it as time goes on.

Quote from: Pmb on 25/01/2013 22:25:29Even if it were true that more mass was being created it's also be true that more gravitational energy was being created as well and that has a negative contribution to the total energy of the universe.Now I am confused, could you explain how. It seems counter intuitive that more mass = less energy? Does gravity have a negative contribution to the energy of the Universe and how? Would this be in terms of the rate of expansion?I understand from your explanation this is extremely unlikely but I still wish to try and understand the physics involved.

Quote from: Pmb on 25/01/2013 22:18:23Quote from: AndroidNeox on 21/01/2013 17:40:19Presuming that the observed relationship between the observed mass of the universe, M_{OU}, and the Hubble length, H_{OU}, is equal to 2G/c^{2}, not by coincidence, but that it is an unchanging relationship, then M_{OU} must increase in direct proportion to time. That is, were the WMAP observations to be repeated when the universe is twice its current age, they would observe twice the current mass.Where did you get this idea from? All that you’ve just explained to me means is that more mass is coming into view with time. That mass has always been there. We’re just being able to see more of it as time goes on.At the Hubble distance, everything is moving away at the speed of light. I worked through the numbers and it turns out that new mass would be entering at the horizon at precisely the rate needed to retain the ratio if the Hubble "constant" were precisely 2/3 of the observed value.

Quote from: AndroidNeox on 27/01/2013 16:57:16Quote from: Pmb on 25/01/2013 22:18:23Quote from: AndroidNeox on 21/01/2013 17:40:19Presuming that the observed relationship between the observed mass of the universe, M_{OU}, and the Hubble length, H_{OU}, is equal to 2G/c^{2}, not by coincidence, but that it is an unchanging relationship, then M_{OU} must increase in direct proportion to time. That is, were the WMAP observations to be repeated when the universe is twice its current age, they would observe twice the current mass.Where did you get this idea from? All that you’ve just explained to me means is that more mass is coming into view with time. That mass has always been there. We’re just being able to see more of it as time goes on.At the Hubble distance, everything is moving away at the speed of light. I worked through the numbers and it turns out that new mass would be entering at the horizon at precisely the rate needed to retain the ratio if the Hubble "constant" were precisely 2/3 of the observed value.I don't know how you're comming up with these numbers. But again, this is not new mass as in the sense it's being created as time goes on. It's only new in the sense that we can now see it.Keep in mind that the fate of the universe and its rate of expansion is only based on mass density, not total mass.Please

Could you link "The instantaneous appearance (the only physically meaningful factor) of the universe ", so I can follow how you get to this definition, please "The average velocity of the most distant matter for us, the Hubble distance, is away from us at the speed of light."If you by that mean what limit a astronomical observation, we now are observing (in time) pretty close to the big bang. Anything beyond that 'radius in time' should be empty of mass, relative us observing. That has noting to do with how big a universe is, or what mass it may consist of. If we define a universe to inflate (and expand) isotropically and homogeneous in all points, simultaneously so. Then there is no preferred point of observation, in this universe. You can stand wherever you want, look out into the universe to find the same result, as you look back in time. In fact, you must find this to be true using the stipulates from a Big Bang, inflation and expansion, otherwise you will invalidate them. And if this is true I don't see how one can define a mass of a universe, other than a educated guess over a average, whatever 'size' (distance) relative mass we would like to define. Although, the universe must be 'infinite' from those stipulations, so any definition of a real 'mass' of a 'whole universe' must then become a infinity too, although still a average relative some distance (mass density).=Please TNS, set the time-limit for us correcting spelling etc, a little more generously.