Since this topic is somewhat covering the expansion of the Universe, I'd like to ask what anyone thinks of this possibility:

 

Could it be possible, that the expansion of the universe, is due to the increase of mass of the objects in it? Since Stars and Planets are collections of matter over time, would not the Increase in mass displace the "Fabric" of Space Time? As something grows heavier the space has to go somewhere right? It makes sense to me that this is why for example distances between Space time are increasing. Space Time might simply be stretching do to increased Mass of all these collections of Matter.

 

How does the Expansion of the Universe Prove the Big Bang?

 

I ask this more out of curiosity then debate. I'm in no position to back any claim. I just like to "Philosophize" if you will, about the Universe with the little information I've gathered throughout the years.

 

Since this topic is somewhat covering the expansion of the Universe, I'd like to ask what anyone thinks of this possibility:

 

Could it be possible, that the expansion of the universe, is due to the increase of mass of the objects in it? Since Stars and Planets are collections of matter over time, would not the Increase in mass displace the "Fabric" of Space Time? As something grows heavier the space has to go somewhere right? It makes sense to me that this is why for example distances between Space time are increasing. Space Time might simply be stretching do to increased Mass of all these collections of Matter.

 

How does the Expansion of the Universe Prove the Big Bang?

 

I ask this more out of curiosity then debate. I'm in no position to back any claim. I just like to "Philosophize" if you will, about the Universe with the little information I've gathered throughout the years.

 

Hey omnimutant, welcome to the forums.

 

The Big Bang isn't my specialty, so don't take anything I say at face value (Actually, don't take anyone's words at face value, that's a general good advice for science), but I do have some thoughts I thought I'd contribute to this:

 

(1) First, the Big Bang is supported by more than "just" the expansion of the universe. Check out Martin's awesome collection of links and articles about the support and explanation for the Big Bang, among other things. It might explain more

 

(2) Second, if you suggest that matter is "added" to the universe, you need to find where it is coming from, otherwise you're in contradictions to the laws of thermodynamics...

 

(3) Even if matter is added to the universe ('increase' in the mass of stars) - wouldn't that just add to the pull of gravity and, hence, actually result in the complete OPPOSITE result of "contraction" ?

 

 

It sounds logical to me, based on what I do read and know, but I might be missing something here, so I call forth the Physics experts and Astronomy buffs to explain this better

 

These are just general points I thought of..

 

~moo

Moved from another thread, since it discusses a different hypothesis.

 

———

An increase in mass should increase gravitational attraction, as well as violate conservation of energy. (edit: Which I see Moo addressed while I was moving the post)

Hey omnimutant, welcome to the forums.

Thanks

 

The Big Bang isn't my specialty, so don't take anything I say at face value (Actually, don't take anyone's words at face value, that's a general good advice for science), but I do have some thoughts I thought I'd contribute to this:

Thats quite alright. I'm a mere average person when it comes to science in general. I have just picked up many bits of info along the way and I like to speculate about how things work that I don't quite understand.

 

(1) First, the Big Bang is supported by more than "just" the expansion of the universe. Check out Martin's awesome collection of links and articles about the support and explanation for the Big Bang, among other things. It might explain more

 

(2) Second, if you suggest that matter is "added" to the universe, you need to find where it is coming from, otherwise you're in contradictions to the laws of thermodynamics...

 

(3) Even if matter is added to the universe ('increase' in the mass of stars) - wouldn't that just add to the pull of gravity and, hence, actually result in the complete OPPOSITE result of "contraction" ?

 

It sounds logical to me, based on what I do read and know, but I might be missing something here, so I call forth the Physics experts and Astronomy buffs to explain this better

 

These are just general points I thought of..

 

~moo

 

Maybe I should clarify this. I'm not adding matter to the universe in this. I'm saying that the collection of matter in one place creates a lump of mass big enough to create a significant gravitational well over time. While this would attract more stuff to it, I think thats insignificant to what I'm trying to put forth.

 

What is significant is that a Star or Planet for example is a collection of Mater over time. It makes sense to me that this growth would cause a larger displacement in space time around itself. This displacement over Billions of Stars and Planets, I think would cause and expansion in the universe.

 

Much Like the displacement of Water in a Bath tub. The Water rises when you get in it. Well as the mater of a large celestial body increases what happens to the space time around it?

Maybe I should clarify this. I'm not adding matter to the universe in this. I'm saying that the collection of matter in one place creates a lump of mass big enough to create a significant gravitational well over time. While this would attract more stuff to it, I think thats insignificant to what I'm trying to put forth.

 

What is significant is that a Star or Planet for example is a collection of Mater over time. It makes sense to me that this growth would cause a larger displacement in space time around itself. This displacement over Billions of Stars and Planets, I think would cause and expansion in the universe.

 

Much Like the displacement of Water in a Bath tub. The Water rises when you get in it. Well as the mater of a large celestial body increases what happens to the space time around it?

Yes, but then those 'gravitational wells' would result in "compression" effect where things move CLOSER together (like clumps of galaxies are 'attracted' to one another due to gravity), not in an expansion effect....

 

And water rise in the bath tub not because you add mass to it, but because you displace its volume, and it's liquid, so the displacement shows as a 'rise' in the level.

 

I am not too sure I understand the relation you're proposing between volume-increase (water) to the expansion effect. If anything, it should contract.. no?

Much Like the displacement of Water in a Bath tub. The Water rises when you get in it. Well as the mater of a large celestial body increases what happens to the space time around it?

 

Space curves towards the celestial body i.e gravity, it doesn't displace outwards, you can't use the Archimedes principle with celestial bodies.

I fear that I am not explaining what I'm getting at correctly. I have this problem from time to time. LOL.

 

I'll think about this some more and come back and see if I can explain what I'm thinking a bit better. Thanks for your responses and the links too BTW.

http://www.astrosociety.org/pubs/mercury/31_02/nothing.html

 

Maybe this link will help. It is a speculation as well, but more in lines with known science. An added bonus is that even I can understand it on some level.

OK lets give this a shot then. I'm probably still not hitting it but I'll try anyway.

 

Space curves towards the celestial body

If The celestial body expands due to increased collection of mass. And space basically wraps or Curves around it. Then wouldn't space have to expand around the body to accommodate this?

If The celestial body expands due to increased collection of mass. And space basically wraps or Curves around it. Then wouldn't space have to expand around the body to accommodate this?

 

You're slipping up, because you're considering space as a medium in which objects 'sit in.' Which isn't correct, objects, define space, they don't displace it. A medium like water, and space aren't synonymous in their properties.

 

I'm not far enough into my education to run through the technical details, but there are people on here that will probably give you a more robust explanation.

You're slipping up, because you're considering space as a medium in which objects 'sit in.' Which isn't correct, objects, define space, they don't displace it. A medium like water, and space aren't synonymous in their properties.

 

I'm not far enough into my education to run through the technical details, but there are people on here that will probably give you a more robust explanation

 

Well that explains a lot then. Every time I think I got a grasp on Gravity and Space Time I end up more confused then when I started haha.(TV doesn't help much!) Thanks for the answers and links everyone. I'll look forward to whatever other details I can get. I'm learning slowly (the hard way) through asking questions and such like this.