DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
No.
Well ... sure. "Everywhere" was smaller than an atom, so it wasn't hard to have energy "everywhere".
Universe Expansion
- Thread starter hansda
- Start date
Well ... sure. "Everywhere" was smaller than an atom, so it wasn't hard to have energy "everywhere".
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
So what is the difference? If that energetic atomic size singularity expands, it is still "everywhere". Its components just move farther apart from each other. This is how we can tell the universe is expanding. Relativity.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
The reason the universe is as homogeneous as it is, despite being tens of billions of light years across, is because, at one point, all parts of it were within a few planck lengths of each other.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
As I understand it, this was David Bohm's perspective and his critisism of the QM v GR. He felt these attributes were separate parts of the Wholeness and should not be compared against each other but against the background of the Wholeness.
Nebel in the fringe, alternate theories forum , "ALMA lookback time" opines, that in an expanding sphere the energy content could increase, because the expansion covers more of the infinity that is out there, always has been. ( hence accelerated expansion fueled by increased energy content),
Nature of the size rendering volume versus "surface" irrelevant? almost.
In the above mentioned nebulous model ***(ALMA), even the universe's "outside", pictured as a membrane, would increase only ~6 feet for every foot increase in "radius". That is a gain of a shell ~80 billion light years around one foot thick added with only a stretch of 6 feet! that is why the universe looks flat.
*** page 22-24. post 430
Last edited:
The Universe may expand due to its inertia also.
very true, inertia outward from the initial impetus from the BB energy, but to accelerate, would there not have to come additional energy available to fuel that increase? Energy that was not present in the form of your inertial movement, or in the form of mass?
Paraphrasing - stuff moves when a force is applied
Big Bang (force) - Universe (stuff) - moving
Stuff moving keeps moving at constant speed and direction unless acted on by another force
Universe (stuff) continues to expand moving away from Big Bang Central - and accelerating
My thoughts
1/ Nothing outside of the Universe to offer resistance (no force beyond the Universe)
2/ Noted acceleration means that the Big Bang is still in operation - the stuff of the Universe still has not reached its maximum speed (from the energy given to it by the Big Bang)
Gravity effect can slow down the initial speed. As gravity effect will reduce with distance, it may appear as acceleration. OR if you consider this as a triangle, the enhanced distance will appear as a result of acceleration.
I understand gravity weakens with distance but I can't see that as being mistaken for acceleration
Due to Universe expansion (as I am lead to believe) the gravity constant is decreasing
This does not account for the acceleration (in my opinion) BUT it does not bode well for those who champion the Big Crunch
Think of the most distant Galaxy on the end of a Bungy cord. Its acceleration is snapping the cord one thread at a time. Having snapped a thread does NOT increase its acceleration but certainly puts that thread out of contention for slowing the acceleration
I understand gravity weakens with distance but I can't see that as being mistaken for acceleration
Consider three mas A, B and C. Say they are moving in a straight line. If B slows down or accelerates towards A due gravity, with relative to B; C can acclerate away from B. Or say A, B and C forms a triangle. B moves away in AB direction and C moves away in AC direction. So the distance between B and C will continually increase as if in an acceleration.
I think I know what you are trying to say but late at night here and I am to brain weary to sort it out
Maybe I'll try later BUT my first weary brain thoughts are "it does not sound right"
RainbowSingularity
Valued Senior Member
bare with my laymens comprehension here,
it seems that we/science is not sure what gives the acceleration ?
thus this acceleration thingey is definitely an unknown thingey ... ?
it would seem that if we/science applied basic physics understanding, then the occums razor potential explanation could suggest that there is no actual deceleration process ?
thus, purely speculative and maybe totally fringe pseudoscience.... deceleration as a factor of acceleration is maybe only part of the whole concept ...
everything that seems to be conceived, is that force is required, and increasing force must be applied...
err-go flipping that ... do we/science have any potential concept that suggests there is no compulsory reduction in acceleration in a working example that science can currently comprehend/witnes/document etc...?
flipping that... do we/science have any examples where something does not deceleration ?
(heading off on a bit of a tangent err-go ...is there any relationship to light speed?[is there such a thing as dark speed?])
RainbowSingularity
Valued Senior Member
why do we/science think the universe is not just reaching its terminal speed ?
(mild fancy.....is light speed too slow for us to use to measure things ?)
(mild fancy.....is light speed too slow for us to use to measure things ?)
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Because
a] the universe does not have a terminal speed, and
b] it does not fit our observations.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Last edited:
NotEinstein
Valued Senior Member
He at one point was speaking as another person to me, so yeah... there's that.Is ... nebel referring to himself in the third person now?
Is ... nebel referring to himself in the third person now?
just identifying the post, and keeping the "I", the ego in a lowest profile possible.
Consider too, the possibility that a team might be backing up his questions.
OK - my speculation as mentioned is the Big Bang is still in operation as zero counter force has ever been applied
Sure - but see above
Well for there to be a decelerate process there needs to be a force to counter the noted acceration
Suspects are
- Force outside of Universe pushed back
- Internal gravity holding back
Internal - if internal gravity has not held the acceleration back in 13 billion light years I doubt it will do so. Especially as I mentioned I understand gravity is becoming weaker as expansion continues
Doubtful
Doubtful
I'm sure that has been considered
Strong doubtful against your mild fancy
a] agree - speculation - how close to light speed do you think the Universe will get before the "thinness" causes atoms to disintegrate?
b] agree