AbnormallyHonest Posted June 28, 2017 Share Posted June 28, 2017 (edited) If it is theorized that the Universe is infinite and matter exists throughout all of it. Doesn't that mean that there is more matter that we cannot see than matter that we can? If this is true, than there should be more gravity pulling outward from every direction, and therefore fueling the expansion. Edited June 28, 2017 by AbnormallyHonest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silvestru Posted June 28, 2017 Share Posted June 28, 2017 (edited) AbnormallyHonest, the Universe is expanding at the same rate in all directions (symmetrically). Nothing is pulling the objects that are closer to the edge of the observable universe more than other objects. My speculation: matter is not infinite but the Universe is. Doesn't that mean that there is more matter that we cannot see than matter that we can? I don't think anyone knows for a fact if there is more observable matter than not yet observed but again I would guess that there is more matter that is not observable. I could also ask you, If you think that there is gravity (from something) pulling matter from each direction why is it equal in each direction? and also How did that "matter" get there if you think that that "matter" is causing the expansion of the Universe. Was it also "pulled" by something else or is it a multiverse theory that you are trying to suggest? and that these "bubbles" are expanding towards each other? Also I did not bring up dark energy (which is a possible cause for the expansion and the acceleration of the expansion of the universe) to be the cause of the expansion as you were asking about some "matter" that's pulling the universe and dark energy is a property of a vacuum. Edited June 28, 2017 by Silvestru Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beecee Posted June 28, 2017 Share Posted June 28, 2017 If it is theorized that the Universe is infinite and matter exists throughout all of it. Doesn't that mean that there is more matter that we cannot see than matter that we can? If this is true, than there should be more gravity pulling outward from every direction, and therefore fueling the expansion. The universe [spacetime] expands over large scales where mass/energy density is less........ Over smaller scales like our local group of galaxies, and even further afield, the gravity from these more dense regions, overcomes the expansion and those regions are gravitationally bound. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silvestru Posted June 28, 2017 Share Posted June 28, 2017 I might add for clarification that the Universe is expanding faster than the speed of light. So the expansion is not the gravitational pull from matter outside of the observable universe as you suggested. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted June 28, 2017 Share Posted June 28, 2017 If it is theorized that the Universe is infinite and matter exists throughout all of it. Doesn't that mean that there is more matter that we cannot see than matter that we can? If this is true, than there should be more gravity pulling outward from every direction, and therefore fueling the expansion. Stuff cannot pull outward from every direction. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_theorem In fact, this was why Newton concluded the universe must be infinite: that is (in Newtonian physics) the only stable configuration. However, you are right in that that both gravity and expansion have the same underlying cause: the physics of space-time. http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/einstein/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AbnormallyHonest Posted June 28, 2017 Author Share Posted June 28, 2017 AbnormallyHonest, the Universe is expanding at the same rate in all directions (symmetrically). Nothing is pulling the objects that are closer to the edge of the observable universe more than other objects. Aren't those objects, that are furthest away from us, moving away from us at an ever increasing rate? My speculation: matter is not infinite but the Universe is. I agree, I believe the matter we see is finite, I would estimate about 1/40,000,000,000th of all the matter that once existed. Unless space is infinite and matter is not, then matter would be indistinguishable from space. It might exist as one block of infinity that was so compact that nothing would've been able to move until space became "more infinite" than the matter. Just speculating of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silvestru Posted June 28, 2017 Share Posted June 28, 2017 Aren't those objects, that are furthest away from us, moving away from us at an ever increasing rate? No. The universe itself Is expanding at an increasing rate not matter. There is no real "Edge" AH. Galaxies are moving further away from each other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AbnormallyHonest Posted June 28, 2017 Author Share Posted June 28, 2017 (edited) I don't think anyone knows for a fact if there is more observable matter than not yet observed but again I would guess that there is more matter that is not observable. I could also ask you, If you think that there is gravity (from something) pulling matter from each direction why is it equal in each direction? and also How did that "matter" get there if you think that that "matter" is causing the expansion of the Universe. Was it also "pulled" by something else or is it a multiverse theory that you are trying to suggest? and that these "bubbles" are expanding towards each other? Well, it would be pulling in every direction uniformly because the distribution of matter is pretty consistent, at least within our view of the Universe. There is uneven distribution at smaller resolutions which forms clustering, but consistently filled with matter from every direction. So from beyond of what is observable, there would be consistently the same distribution of matter in all directions and would harbor much more gravity as pulling towards the outside of the Universe than pulling in. This would explain why we see a relative expansion of space, because it is stretching towards the stronger gravity, which just happens to be all around us. Also, it would explain the clustering without the inclusion of DM because the gravity that pulls outward is inversely proportionate to the square of the distance from the mean gravitational center. So the gravity from objects near to one another would have more influence to resist that outward pull, but that outward pull would become more prevalent the farther you view from your perspective and less prevalent the further you removed yourself from it. Ironic that the farthest away that you could be from that gravitational infinity that exists beyond observation is...? Somewhere nearby I'm sure. Edited June 28, 2017 by AbnormallyHonest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silvestru Posted June 28, 2017 Share Posted June 28, 2017 I would estimate about 1/40,000,000,000th of all the matter that once existed. How did you estimate this? Based on what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AbnormallyHonest Posted June 28, 2017 Author Share Posted June 28, 2017 I might add for clarification that the Universe is expanding faster than the speed of light. So the expansion is not the gravitational pull from matter outside of the observable universe as you suggested. No, space is being stretch away from us at a rate that exceeds "c". Where else does that theoretically happen? It seems like a horizon of sorts, since we cannot see past it... The universe [spacetime] expands over large scales where mass/energy density is less........ Over smaller scales like our local group of galaxies, and even further afield, the gravity from these more dense regions, overcomes the expansion and those regions are gravitationally bound. Yes that would make sense, because I read somewhere that gravity is inversely proportionate to the square of the distance. Things that are local are much further away from the limit of viewability and much closer to the objects that they are bound. I mean that is why the earth doesn't revolve around the galactic center, but rather the sun instead. That doesn't necessarily mean that the sun has more gravity than the whole of the galaxy, does it? How did you estimate this? Based on what? The disparity of baryon matter to anti-matter. If it 1 there is one extra particle of baryon matter for every 40,000,000,000 particles created, I would say that this Universe that we see is about 1/40,000,000,000th of all the matter that existed at one time. No. The universe itself Is expanding at an increasing rate not matter. There is no real "Edge" AH. Galaxies are moving further away from each other. There may not be an "edge" but there is a limit. Space is stretching away from us which is inversely proportionate to the square of the distance. (Law of squares applies as the area represented by the "limit" of what is observable.) Basically, if the Universe is infinite and always was, distance isn't how far two points are away from one another, but how large your view is. The surface area of the "edge" of the Universe represents it's distance away from us, but to what scale, I'm not sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silvestru Posted June 28, 2017 Share Posted June 28, 2017 No, space is being stretch away from us at a rate that exceeds "c". Where else does that theoretically happen? It seems like a horizon of sorts, since we cannot see past it... There may not be an "edge" but there is a limit. Space is stretching away from us which is inversely proportionate to the square of the distance. (Law of squares applies as the area represented by the "limit" of what is observable.) Basically, if the Universe is infinite and always was, distance isn't how far two points are away from one another, but how large your view is. The surface area of the "edge" of the Universe represents it's distance away from us, but to what scale, I'm not sure. What do you mean from us? We can see past it. We can see galaxies that are receding at more than the speed of light. Take a minute to process that. I needed quite a few. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted June 28, 2017 Share Posted June 28, 2017 My speculation: matter is not infinite but the Universe is. That would mean that there are some parts of the universe that are empty. As far as we know, the universe is, and always has been, uniformly full of matter. No, space is being stretch away from us at a rate that exceeds "c". Write out 100 time: expansion is not a speed. Expansion is described by a scaling factor (i.e. each unit of time, distances are multiplied by a constant factor). This, by basic arithmetic, leads to the result that the speed of separation between two points is proportional to distance. So, yes there is a distance (within the observable universe) where galaxies are moving away from us at more than c. Yes that would make sense, because I read somewhere that gravity is inversely proportionate to the square of the distance. You read somewhere? #facepalm The disparity of baryon matter to anti-matter. If it 1 there is one extra particle of baryon matter for every 40,000,000,000 particles created, I would say that this Universe that we see is about 1/40,000,000,000th of all the matter that existed at one time. All the matter that exists now is all the matter that has ever existed. (The amount of matter created and destroyed by nuclear reactions is insignificant.) There may not be an "edge" but there is a limit. There is a limit to what we can see. Beyond that, the universe is assumed to continue pretty much unchanged (and is either finite or infinite). Space is stretching away from us which is inversely proportionate to the square of the distance. I am not aware of any inverse square law related to expansion. Do you have a reference to this? This would explain why we see a relative expansion of space, because it is stretching towards the stronger gravity, which just happens to be all around us. Gravity doesn't work like that. Ask Newton. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AbnormallyHonest Posted June 28, 2017 Author Share Posted June 28, 2017 What do you mean from us? We can see past it. We can see galaxies that are receding at more than the speed of light. Take a minute to process that. I needed quite a few. Oh? How do you know that they are receding at more than the speed of light? Because they're red shift estimates that by now, they must be displacing at a rate that exceeds "c", but that says nothing of their rate of recession when the light originally began it's journey to us. Yes, we do see objects receding at more than the speed of light, it would be no different than seeing the light of an object transiting the event horizon of a black hole, from a light year away. Yes, you just saw an object that has been beyond an event horizon for a year. Take a minute to process that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted June 28, 2017 Share Posted June 28, 2017 Take a minute to process that. 60 SECONDS LATER... OK, it's still nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AbnormallyHonest Posted June 28, 2017 Author Share Posted June 28, 2017 That would mean that there are some parts of the universe that are empty. As far as we know, the universe is, and always has been, uniformly full of matter. Write out 100 time: expansion is not a speed. Expansion is described by a scaling factor (i.e. each unit of time, distances are multiplied by a constant factor). This, by basic arithmetic, leads to the result that the speed of separation between two points is proportional to distance. So, yes there is a distance (within the observable universe) where galaxies are moving away from us at more than c. Where does "rate of displacement" imply speed? Write out 100x "Rate of Displacement" the rate of change... I believe Newton called this a fuxion. All the matter that exists now is all the matter that has ever existed. (The amount of matter created and destroyed by nuclear reactions is insignificant.) Ok, then how did that matter come into existence, I mean if you believe in the "Big Bang"? You don't believe that there was a point during the evolution of the Universe that matter and energy were interchangeable? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted June 28, 2017 Share Posted June 28, 2017 Where does "rate of displacement" imply speed? Rate of displacement, speed of separation, call it what you like. You cannot describe expansion in terms of speed. I believe Newton called this a fuxion. I don't think so. And if you were able to apply calculus, you would know that gravity cannot pull something apart from the outside. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AbnormallyHonest Posted June 28, 2017 Author Share Posted June 28, 2017 There is a limit to what we can see. Beyond that, the universe is assumed to continue pretty much unchanged (and is either finite or infinite). Well, I'm glad you are beginning to join the discussion. If you can't decide why not have it be both finite and infinite? How about a finite view of an infinite Universe? Perhaps an infinite Universe with finite resolution might make you more comfortable. That would also be consistent with the quantum model which is also limited by some finite resolution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted June 28, 2017 Share Posted June 28, 2017 Well, I'm glad you are beginning to join the discussion. If you can't decide why not have it be both finite and infinite? How about a finite view of an infinite Universe? That is one possibility. Or a finite view of a larger finite universe. (It could even be that the entire universe is smaller than the observable universe, and when we see very distant objects, our view has "wrapped around".) Perhaps an infinite Universe with finite resolution might make you more comfortable. I don't know what that means. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AbnormallyHonest Posted June 28, 2017 Author Share Posted June 28, 2017 (edited) I am not aware of any inverse square law related to expansion. Do you have a reference to this? Yes, it's called the "Principia Mathematica" by Sir Isaac Newton. If there were a gravitational concentration at our feet, would we feel that over the gravitational concentration of the moon? What if we moved closer to the moon? The moon's gravity would become the most influential gravitational force we experience. Now say that you move away from the Earth the Sun and even our Galaxy or the cluster of galaxies that it belongs to, how far would you have to move away from that cluster in order for the influence to move from your cluster to something further away? Perhaps the incomprehensible amount of "stuff" that exists "out there" in the Universe might make a "tug" on something once there was enough displacement from the gravity well of our super cluster. If there is one thing that people seem to agree upon, is that gravity does have a measurable effect which is transparent to an event horizon. So why would you assume that just because we are unable to see farther than the limit of light, that the gravity of everything that exists beyond that limit (horizon) wouldn't also have a measurable effect which would also be transparent to that horizon? Is it because we can't see the matter that may be causing the gravity? I believe that call that an event horizon. Rate of displacement, speed of separation, call it what you like. You cannot describe expansion in terms of speed. I don't think so. And if you were able to apply calculus, you would know that gravity cannot pull something apart from the outside. Yes, Newton did call it a Fluxion, the rate of change of Fluent. If you were to apply common sense, you would see that there is a limit to what we are able to see. At some displacement away from where we are, everything just goes black. There is no more light coming from those regions. Not only that, the closer that you get to those regions, the lower the energy gets of the light that we do receive. In fact the energy is stretched so far, that we suppose that the source of that light is actually "receding" at a _________ that exceeds "c". So please, tell me in that model that you are defending does the inclusion of more matter from further out become logical? Does the thunder produced from lightening have a finite displacement before it loses enough energy that it can no longer be heard? Or is the other side of the planet just not waiting long enough for the sound to arrive? And actually, that sound will make it's way all the way back again and continually amplify it's amplitude until it there is just nothing but thunder that can be heard everywhere over everything and it just continues to infinity. Why doesn't make sense? I mean sound has a finite velocity in air just like light, it also is subject to wave transformation, and the lightening's position remains static, and not receding. The sound would also be enclosed in the finite volume of the Earth's atmosphere... so why should we assume that the sound will stop at some point? That is one possibility. Or a finite view of a larger finite universe. (It could even be that the entire universe is smaller than the observable universe, and when we see very distant objects, our view has "wrapped around".) I don't know what that means. That is basically what the current model suggests, that the entire observable universe is actually smaller than the estimated "age" because those distant objects are only estimated to have been displaced by the amount of recession they've experienced since the light began it's journey to us. That recession is calculated by the amount of "red shift" we see in the absorption lines of that light. There is actually no way to tell how far away they are because we do not have another perspective to measure parallax, and we have not been taking measurements for long enough to witness a change. Something that everyone seems to agree upon though is Einstein's Theory of General Relativity, which suggests that gravity has a warping effect on space-time. So if there is an infinite amount of "stuff" beyond where we can see, (or even a finite amount, but exponentially more than is observable) than isn't it logical that the warping effect towards that other "stuff" will begin to take precedence over the influence that the "stuff" contained at, around, or near us would be able to maintain? Edited June 28, 2017 by AbnormallyHonest -2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zapatos Posted June 28, 2017 Share Posted June 28, 2017 Something that everyone seems to agree upon though is Einstein's Theory of General Relativity, which suggests that gravity has a warping effect on space-time. So if there is an infinite amount of "stuff" beyond where we can see, (or even a finite amount, but exponentially more than is observable) than isn't it logical that the warping effect towards that other "stuff" will begin to take precedence over the influence that the "stuff" contained at, around, or near us would be able to maintain?In your model, why isn't the 'infinite amount of stuff beyond where we can see' in front of us, offset by the 'infinite amount of stuff' behind us, resulting in a static universe? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted June 28, 2017 Share Posted June 28, 2017 Yes, it's called the "Principia Mathematica" by Sir Isaac Newton. If there were a gravitational concentration at our feet, would we feel that over the gravitational concentration of the moon? What if we moved closer to the moon? The moon's gravity would become the most influential gravitational force we experience. Now say that you move away from the Earth the Sun and even our Galaxy or the cluster of galaxies that it belongs to, how far would you have to move away from that cluster in order for the influence to move from your cluster to something further away? Perhaps the incomprehensible amount of "stuff" that exists "out there" in the Universe might make a "tug" on something once there was enough displacement from the gravity well of our super cluster. As Newton showed, mathematically, and as Zapatos has alluded to, the pull of all that stuff "out there" cancels out and has no effect on us. See the link provided earlier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AbnormallyHonest Posted June 28, 2017 Author Share Posted June 28, 2017 (edited) In your model, why isn't the 'infinite amount of stuff beyond where we can see' in front of us, offset by the 'infinite amount of stuff' behind us, resulting in a static universe? Yes that would be true for our current location, that all of the "stuff" pulls from every direction evenly which is why our local group is at stasis in relation to other celestial bodies within that group. The farther you displace yourself from this position, the more uneven the distribution of gravity because we see ourselves in a vicinity of space that has had more time to expand than that of matter in space that we see farther out. Since we see the Universe as a progressively "less expanded" state the farther out we look, than it would stand to reason that "stuff" would be closer together, creating a stronger gravitational accumulation. It is not actual, just apparent due to our view outward being directly proportionate to the age of the Universe from that displacement. The red shifted galaxies might also be in a state of current stasis, but their view of us would be just as red shifted as our view of them because they would be viewing us at a time long before the space we exist became so expanded, therefore producing an uneven distribution of gravitational accumulation that would be warping space away from their perspective and stretching the light. Or it could just be that the Universe is rotating about the most expanded portion of space... but that would be unfounded. Edited June 28, 2017 by AbnormallyHonest -1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now