rigney Posted July 14, 2011 Share Posted July 14, 2011 This is probably a question for which I will likely be severely beaten around the ears for even bringing it up. "But", how can the speed of a randomly diverging universe be determined? If as said, the universe was spewed out into an eternal expanding bubble some years back as a "supposed" gaseous plasma, and has been moving sequentially ever since. Why now would it be speeding up? If in fact this was the B.B. happening in a vacuum, there is no reason to think a speedup would be the case. With no restrictions of freely escaping out into this "un-real" real estate, the universe has been expanding in moderation for billions of years. So again, why the speedup? For me to sit here and say unabashedly I have an answer would be absolute folly. Mathematicians have worked on this problem since they found the universe to be moving rapidly away from somewhere. But from where, why and how fast? These questions are most enigmatic to science? Can anyone add a conjecture? We really need to know the truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted July 14, 2011 Share Posted July 14, 2011 The speed of the universe with respect to what? Nobody is saying the universe is moving away from somewhere; since the universe includes everything, it can't. Or are you asking about expansion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rigney Posted July 14, 2011 Author Share Posted July 14, 2011 The speed of the universe with respect to what? Nobody is saying the universe is moving away from somewhere; since the universe includes everything, it can't. Or are you asking about expansion? I suppose expansion is what should have been stated. But even then, we are talking about a specific place at which that expansion began. And if it was expansion, I would suspect even then, there was an overall universal speed. So, if everything did start at a specific point, what has been the universal speed by which galaxies separate themselves, or has that too been changing? Yet we have galaxies like the Andromeda and our Milky Way who seem doomed to consume each other? I'm lost in both houses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pantheory Posted July 14, 2011 Share Posted July 14, 2011 (edited) rigney, .......So again, why the speedup? For me to sit here and say unabashedly I have an answer would be absolute folly. Mathematicians have worked on this problem since they found the universe to be moving rapidly away from somewhere. But from where, why and how fast? These questions are most enigmatic to science? Can anyone add a conjecture? We really need to know the truth. (bold added) My own model which you can see here in the speculation forum, is called "alternative to the Big Bang model." In this model the universe is not expanding and that dark energy does not exist. Accordingly the problem is that the present Hubble Formula is partially wrong/ incomplete. I have reformulated it and written a technical paper while analyzing hundreds of supernova data and accordingly proposed there is no dark energy, which I think is by far the simplest answer. You could ask further questions including the difference of formulations, on that thread. On this thread, I can accordingly say that the expansion of the universe is not speeding up/ accelerating. Although mathematicians have worked on the problem, few venture outside the standard Big Bang model. You could also ask me further questions about dark energy on this thread if you like, and/ or why it doesn't make sense and the evidence pro and con. regards Edited July 14, 2011 by pantheory Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted July 14, 2011 Share Posted July 14, 2011 I suppose expansion is what should have been stated. But even then, we are talking about a specific place at which that expansion began. And if it was expansion, I would suspect even then, there was an overall universal speed. So, if everything did start at a specific point, what has been the universal speed by which galaxies separate themselves, or has that too been changing? Yet we have galaxies like the Andromeda and our Milky Way who seem doomed to consume each other? I'm lost in both houses. If you are asking about the big bang, it did not happen at any particular place. It was an explosion of space, not an explosion in space. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rigney Posted July 14, 2011 Author Share Posted July 14, 2011 (edited) If you are asking about the big bang, it did not happen at any particular place. It was an explosion of space, not an explosion in space. My problem? I have a hard time trying to understand things that are not tangible. With a caliper, divider, compass, sextant, ruler, level or simply touch; I have no problem. I can even rationalize things flying apart and into space as the act of an explosion. But an explosion making its own space as it expands is too deep for me. I've tried grasping this concept of an expansion doing such a thing, yet having no outer perimeter, distinguishable end point or edge? Just can't do it! Point me in the right direction, I'll try. Edited July 14, 2011 by rigney Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marqq Posted July 14, 2011 Share Posted July 14, 2011 If you are asking about the big bang, it did not happen at any particular place. It was an explosion of space, not an explosion in space. Where can I find an elaboration on this idea? I always thought of the big bang as the creation of matter(etc.) in the known universe. In this interpretation, the whole system is still 'banging', and it's center could be considered its origin. I'm trying to wrap my mind around the idea of 'an explosion of space', but it seems like some funky way of saying 2 things moved apart... Does it, perhaps, imply that nothing existed beforehand (at all)? If so, isn't the idea somewhat akin to geocentrism? If this thread is asking about the speed at which the known universe is expanding, and there's actual evidence that said expansion is accelerating, then let's speculate: 1. Perhaps there's mass outside our known universe and our edges are finally close enough to be affected. 2. Perhaps the gaseous mass of our known universe has a life-cycle like that of a star, maintaining size for a great period and then expanding rapidly before its eventual collapse. 3. Perhaps space-time curves as things get further from the center of our known universe to the effect that events accelerate without added force. 4. Perhaps the lack of external gravity lessens the effect of inertial time-dilation, and the known edge of the universe is finally approaching the boundary where such is observable. Just a few ideas, imperfect as I'm sure they are... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rigney Posted July 14, 2011 Author Share Posted July 14, 2011 (edited) Where can I find an elaboration on this idea? I always thought of the big bang as the creation of matter(etc.) in the known universe. In this interpretation, the whole system is still 'banging', and it's center could be considered its origin. I'm trying to wrap my mind around the idea of 'an explosion of space', but it seems like some funky way of saying 2 things moved apart... Does it, perhaps, imply that nothing existed beforehand (at all)? If so, isn't the idea somewhat akin to geocentrism? If this thread is asking about the speed at which the known universe is expanding, and there's actual evidence that said expansion is accelerating, then let's speculate: 1. Perhaps there's mass outside our known universe and our edges are finally close enough to be affected. 2. Perhaps the gaseous mass of our known universe has a life-cycle like that of a star, maintaining size for a great period and then expanding rapidly before its eventual collapse. 3. Perhaps space-time curves as things get further from the center of our known universe to the effect that events accelerate without added force. 4. Perhaps the lack of external gravity lessens the effect of inertial time-dilation, and the known edge of the universe is finally approaching the boundary where such is observable. Just a few ideas, imperfect as I'm sure they are... Ah HECK man!!! Ain't no way I can get involved with something so deep. Gotta let the Tman work with those inquiries. I was just asking how come we know so much about the universe, and yet don't know how fast it's travlin'? Edited July 14, 2011 by rigney Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marqq Posted July 15, 2011 Share Posted July 15, 2011 (edited) Ah HECK man!!! Ain't no way I can get involved with something so deep. Gotta let the Tman work with those inquiries. I was just asking how come we know so much about the universe, and yet don't know how fast it's travlin'? OH! Well, in that case, you'd have to refer to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle: You can't simultaneously know the position and speed of an object (and, ok...there's LOTS more to it). And we know where the Universe is (you are here ☻). Edited July 15, 2011 by Marqq Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moth Posted July 15, 2011 Share Posted July 15, 2011 Are you thinking about Hubble's law? that would tell you how the distance between two points in space changes over time. I don't think it's quite the same as how "fast they are traveling" but more like how much more time it would take for light to travel from one point to the other. As for why it seems to be accelerating i don't know. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rigney Posted July 17, 2011 Author Share Posted July 17, 2011 (edited) Are you thinking about Hubble's law? that would tell you how the distance between two points in space changes over time. I don't think it's quite the same as how "fast they are traveling" but more like how much more time it would take for light to travel from one point to the other. As for why it seems to be accelerating i don't know. If, as it is thought; the universe is a big batch of matter awaiting total entropy. If so, and there is no empty space, one might think of it as a big bowl of jello. Jiggle it and the shock is felt throughout the bowl. I think we have overplayed the infrared card too long. Maybe it's time to look at other solutions? Edited July 17, 2011 by rigney 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