Universe Expansion

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience' started by hansda, Aug 24, 2017.

  1. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,212
    No.

    Well ... sure. "Everywhere" was smaller than an atom, so it wasn't hard to have energy "everywhere".
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,619
    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.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,212
    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.
     
    nebel likes this.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,619
    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.
     
  8. nebel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,336
    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: Mar 31, 2018
  9. hansda Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,424
    The Universe may expand due to its inertia also.
     
  10. nebel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,336
    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?
     
  11. Michael 345 Bali in Nov closer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,216
    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)

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  12. hansda Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,424
    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.
     
  13. Michael 345 Bali in Nov closer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,216
    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

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  14. hansda Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,424
    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.
     
  15. Michael 345 Bali in Nov closer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,216
    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"

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  16. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,110
    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?])
     
  17. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,110
    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 ?)
     
  18. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,212
    Because
    a] the universe does not have a terminal speed, and
    b] it does not fit our observations.
     
  19. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,212
    Is ... nebel referring to himself in the third person now?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



     
    Last edited: Mar 31, 2018
  20. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,503
    He at one point was speaking as another person to me, so yeah... there's that.
     
  21. nebel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,336
    just identifying the post, and keeping the "I", the ego in a lowest profile possible.
     
  22. nebel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,336
    Consider too, the possibility that a team might be backing up his questions.
     
  23. Michael 345 Bali in Nov closer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,216
    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
    Force outside - unknown
    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

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     

Share This Page