0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
In the lab, we can start with a block of mass, divide it into two, separate the two pieces, we can alter the local space-time near the mass. This is an example of lowering mass density leading local space-time to expand using the math of GR. This is mass leading space-time. I have never heard of any demonstrated lab experiment where we start by expanding space-time first, then the mass follows, without using bigger mass, to move the smaller mass. This is supposed to happen, in the universe, via dark energy. However, we haven't shown dark energy in the lab either, so we can use this dark energy to do the first experiment. It is not clear to me why we explain the expanding universe, with a space-time first approach, if we can't demonstrate this in the lab. I am not saying it can't be true. However, this is in violation of the scientific method. It is not like those in charge of the task are poor humble scientists, who don't have access to resources. One way to maintain a version of the current theory; apparent space-time first, while having mass leading; paradox, is to use one new assumption. The forces of nature, such as EM and the strong and weak nuclear forces, give off energy when they lower potential. If gravity is a force, like the other three forces, then the lowering of gravitational potential; compaction, should give off some type of energy. When an electron lowers potential via the EM force and gives off energy, this energy can be used to excite an electron in another atom. Relative to gravity, if the lowering of gravitational potential gives off energy, this energy output should be able to increase the gravitational potential elsewhere; expansion. Such an exothermic output from gravity, may be the source of dark energy. One observation that strongly suggests there is an exothermic output from gravity, is connected to rotation. When a cloud of space gas and debris collapses to form a star or even a galaxy, there is rotation. It does not typically collapse only to center. Rotation creates centrifugal force, which causes the matter to want to fly outward, away from the center of gravity. This is not anti-gravity, per se, but it creates a force vector opposite the direction gravity, in the proper direction for the action-reaction one would expect from of an exothermic output based on gravity lowering potential. The expansion of the universe, relative to the galaxies, would imply that galaxies are the most potent central centers for the exothermic output from gravity lowering potential. This is my experimental prediction. Since we are in an accelerated expansion phase, then I predict that there are more stars and other gravity bound objects forming today, than in the past. This will accelerate the exothermic output. Someone else can do the compiling of data. I don't have the access.
Perhaps a silly question but as space expands does this mean that the distance between the earth and the sun is increasing?
Well my issues with it are a lot less complex, my issue is that space itself is not made of anything, I can't see how nothing can expand and expanding into what exactly, oblivion?We also do not actually observe space red shifting and we do not observe dark energy. Are we sure that it is not the radius of light that is expanding between two point sources?
Quote from: Thebox on 15/04/2016 13:36:42Well my issues with it are a lot less complex, my issue is that space itself is not made of anything, I can't see how nothing can expand and expanding into what exactly, oblivion?We also do not actually observe space red shifting and we do not observe dark energy. Are we sure that it is not the radius of light that is expanding between two point sources?Let me explain this with an analogy. Say you are on a rocket, ready to launch. After launch, you keep accelerating until finally you approach the speed of light. According to special relativity, if you look out your window, you will see universal space-time appear to contract more and more. At the speed of light, the universe will appear to be contracted to a point. Say you have finally reached your destination and you apply the breaks and begin to decelerate. If you look out your window, now it will appear like the universe is expanding. The bulk universe is not expanding. Rather the universe appears to be expanding relative to your rocket reference. The same universal space and time is there from launch, during acceleration toward C, and then also during deceleration. What changed was connected to another layer of superimposed space-time connected to special relativity, associated with only your rocket reference. The following was my first original theory in cosmology back in 1987. Say we start with the singularity of the BB. If this singularity began as pure energy, its reference would exist at the speed of light. This is because energy moves at C. Therefore the universe, no matter big or small, would appear like a point-instant, if we sat on any photon of energy; rocket reference. If we began to slow reference to below C; energy condenses into mass which cannot move at C, the universe would now appear to expand, from the POV of all the mass reference points. Mass cannot move at the speed of light so it can't see a point universe perception. The net affect is a reference in reference affect. The current model assumes a single universal reference created by the BB, which leads to the question, how can space, which by definition is nothing, increase? With a reference in reference model nothing new ever has to be created. It is all about the reveal of the primary, from the slow down reference of the secondary. This is much easier to prove in the lab because it is consistent with special relativity and the experiment used to prove SR; reference in reference; particle collider reference and particle reference. I also had a second related theory; Reference in reference has another application, at the micro-level. The second question I asked myself was, why do the sub particles of protons last so long, whereas if we collide protons and release these same sub particles, the life expectancy of the sub particles fall drastically? Both scenarios are made of the same sub-particles, yet the sub-particles last orders of magnitude longer, if they remain contained in the proton; billions of years if contained versus fraction of a second if released. One simple answer was the sub particles in the proton have built in time dilation; reference in reference. They still last a fraction of a second in their reference, but due to reference in reference they will last billions of years in our reference. The bulk proton is in our reference and forms atoms and molecules, but inside the proton is a time dilated reference. In the inside reference, time and space are extremely contracted, as inferred by the life expectancy, allowing protons to interact all the way to infinity like this is nearby; gravity and EM. Say the inner reference of the proton was to slow, ever so slightly. Since the innards are no longer seeing the universe appear with the same amount of contraction. The means their distant impact via EM and gravity, will get weaker, due to the increase in perceived distances in their reference. This fall off of force allows matter to clump; galaxies, in a more independent way throughout the universe. This also makes the universe appear to expand from the POV of the innards.
The length of space between the Earth and the Sun is a variant because of orbital path, only if the orbit was a perfect circle would the length remain the same.
Quote The length of space between the Earth and the Sun is a variant because of orbital path, only if the orbit was a perfect circle would the length remain the same.I was asking if the distance between the earth and the sun was changing due to space expanding rather than the shape of the orbit.
Cosmologists like the idea of expansion, kinda hard to get around that fact. Lambda-CDM is the most accepted theory for the start of the universe. It requires expansion at the beginning and every bit of observable evidenced goes to support that thesis.Unfortunately, they use General Relativity to make sense of it all. GR is incomplete. It's author died before resolving differences between GR & QM. He started to make strides in the right direction, but never had the luxury of technology we take for granted. Nor did he have belief of validity for black holes...Most ppl don't understand GR well enough to grasp what all it says. More importantly they don't realize what it doesn't say.GR states time is variable and speed is constant. Via experiments, we know light doesn't travel at a fixed speed... That's a serious flaw in GR, IMO. We don't know what medium radio/light travels through in space. We assume it's empty yet these "fields" exist in nothingness... GR doesn't address that at all. GR only describes the path of COM (center of mass) points in space-time through fields of gravity, with gravity and time as variables and speed of light constant. If photon speed is variable depending on it's medium of traverse and we cannot define the medium of space, we have incomplete understanding of the universe.So when you hear Pop-Sy say the Universe is expanding... Don't worry, they don't truly understand everything. Dark Energy isn't explainable via GR, because GR is incomplete.Personally I believe Dark Energy is pressure waves... But that's my belief. I term it Lambda shift. Because it can probably go both ways, but we'll never live long enough to see it change much.
CDM is all about how matter forms. The CMBR (Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation) is supposed to be evidence of CDM forming massive atoms. I've come to believe it does require cold to form atoms. But I believe pressure is required.Lambda-CDM doesn't say where pressure comes from, can't find an edge to the universe, so there's no exterior walls that we know of... I've argued expansion requires existence of universe of multiverse qualities then been kicked off scienceforums . net for it... LOL. Those folks there, like throwing Lambda-CDM foobaz in yo face when you say anything against expansion. Then ask you to show an equation... Grrr... I'm working on an equation. Think I know all that's needed, but my postulation goes against a lot of accepted belief... So I'm probably not going to prove a thing.
Sorry it just came to me, the red shift is evidence that the visual universe is expanding ?
My query is if this is the case why are certain galaxies colliding?
Perhaps a silly question but as space expands does this mean that the distance between the earth and the sun is increasing?
The universe is not expanding into nothing. You appear to keep thinking something similar to the idea that the big bang is like a nuclear or chemical atomic explosion occurring in empty space. It's nothing of the sort. In fact that's a common misconception. The big bang is nothing like any explosion that you're aware of. It's an explosion of space itself.See Misconceptions About The Big Bang, Scientific American, March 2005...sorry, you cannot view external links. To see them, please
REGISTER or LOGIN
Clearly contradictory dogma, ...
The most fascinating aspect of this subject is that the Universe is actually expanding faster than the speed of light. Impossible right ?
That is what the astronomers who first made the discovery thought. For this reason for a long time this evidence was ignored.
However, the rate of expansion at 13.6 billion years was measure at five times the speed of light !
Think about it, it shouldn't happen.
This is exactly my point, if the Universe was expanding at FTL speeds, it can no longer be doing so, because in our own local space FTL speeds are just not possible and we have physical evidence to this effect.
Therefore what we are seeing is evidence form 13.6 billion years ago , when the Universe was young and the acceleration due to the inflationary process was still very apparent.
Not at all. It doesn't even violate special relativity which implies that nothing can travel faster than light since its speaking only of objects traveling in space. It doesn't have anything to do with how fast space itself is expanding or how fast two objects which are at rest in an expanding space can move apart.
That's news to me. Where did you get such an idea from? General Relativity (GR) has been around since before that discovery was made and its GR that can explain it.
I disagree and so do all the cosmologists in the world who understand general relativity.
“Some of the matter falling towards the holes is converted into energy. This energy is delivered to the surrounding gas, and leads to large outflows of matter, which stretch for hundreds of thousands of light years from the black holes, reaching far beyond the extent of their host galaxies,” the astronomers explained.
At the scale of our Universe the energy referred to above is dark energy. A Universal black hole is powering our visible Universe causing the galaxy clusters to accelerate away from us.
Quote from: stacyjones on 26/04/2016 17:00:20At the scale of our Universe the energy referred to above is dark energy. A Universal black hole is powering our visible Universe causing the galaxy clusters to accelerate away from us.That is interesting, how would that compare to a stationary universe that gained motion because at a relative central point a single planet changed in entropy causing the universe to inflate away from this point?
Quote from: Thebox on 28/04/2016 19:59:21Quote from: stacyjones on 26/04/2016 17:00:20At the scale of our Universe the energy referred to above is dark energy. A Universal black hole is powering our visible Universe causing the galaxy clusters to accelerate away from us.That is interesting, how would that compare to a stationary universe that gained motion because at a relative central point a single planet changed in entropy causing the universe to inflate away from this point?A Universal black hole powering our visible Universe explains why most everything appears to be accelerating away from us. The stuff that has been getting pushed for longer than we have is accelerating away from us. We are accelerating away from the newer stuff that has been getting pushed for less time than we have been. From our perspective, most of the matter is accelerating away from us.A Universal black hole powering our visible Universe also explains the directionality of the matter associated with the dark flow (...sorry, you cannot view external links. To see them, please
REGISTER or LOGINIn the universe only exist two directions, - or + relative to the observer. Up down left right are not real, neither is north or south, in the universe our own evidence suggests that when things gain entropy they move + from a central point and vice versus when they lose entropy gain they - in direction and contract.
You will probably realise from my posts that my knowledge of cosmology is rudimentary to say the least. What I find fascinating is that the rate of expansion is accelerating. Speculation for the cause?
Between the galaxy and the observer, light travels through vast regions of expanding space. As a result, all wavelengths of the light are stretched by the expansion of space. It is as simple as that..."
The increase of wavelength from emission to absorption of light does not depend on the rate of change of a(t) [here a(t) is the Robertson-Walker scale factor] at the times of emission or absorption, but on the increase of a(t) in the whole period from emission to absorption."