First, if you got upset I can usure you that wasn't my intention.

Secondly I did NOT CREATE this theory, this theory was created by great astrophysicics and cosmoligists as you say, I never said that I know more than this guys in fact I believe their theory because they have good scientific data to support this theory. But I repeat I did not create this theory, if you dont agree with it fine, but hey not all the astrophysicsts and cosmoligist believe in the same theory. I would never dare to create my own theory coz I am just not prepared for it but I will certainly defend this theory as you have defended the other one. As spiral flare said, this theory makes much more sence with hubble's picture. Dont say it is incorrect coz you dont even know if what you say is true. Your theory can be true, ok, but the one I presented here can be true too. Lets not get hasty here, I dont have to publish any theory because it has already been published by cosmoligist and thats how I found out about it.


Thirdly, I find no need to bring here a bunch of links and pics. Anyways with the pic spiral flare showed us he said it all. That pic is the theory.

The beginning of the universe is one big ball of light and life of whatever kind and al kinds. It is everything all galaxies are composed of.

Sorry, spiral flare. I was trying to indicate my sadness at having spent so much effort explaining this only to have it demolished by one misinterpreted diagram.

There is no way to know, today anyway, whether or not the universe goes on forever. But it's a sure bet that the universe is not expanding into empty space.


The conflict comes when you try to envision some "other" besides the universe. In a very real sense, there is no "outside" the universe. Just like when I said it's wrong to use the term "before" in the phrase "before the Big Bang."

The universe is expanding. That means all the universe is expanding. That means including the space in which the mass and energy that makes up the physical universe is located. The space the universe sits in is expanding, not just the rocks, dirt, dust, gas and energy that make up what we think of as the physical universe.

Since the space itself is expanding, if you must try to envision what this space is expanding "into," then suffice it to say it is expanding into "not space." IOW, it's expanding into reality itself.


Not upset, just tired. It seems useless to try to help anyone here get a better grip on the concept at question in this thread.


This is not so. There are no " great astrophysicics and cosmoligists" that espouse a theory of the universe expanding into empty pre-existing space.


The theory I've been attempting to explain is one that fits the observational facts. In that sense, it is "true."


No, it doesn't explain why no matter what direction we look, all visible galaxies are receding from us.

Also, it doesn't explain why the further out we look, the faster these galaxies are receding from us.

Your theory would require an absolute center of the universe. If such a center existed, then there would be a reference frame against which we could measure absolute velocity in the universe. If there was such a reference frame, Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity would be invalidated - in particular, there would be no such thing as time dilation. But time dilation has been observed in laboratories countless times. The observations match exactly what the Special Theory predicts they should be.

Your theory explains none of this and in fact requires that observed phenomena cannot be real.


No, if you read the text of the pic, you'll see that in fact it is a graphical representation of the theory I've been trying to explain to you and others here in this thread.

And that dear Ghostkol (and dear Spiral_Flare) is why I was saddened and frustrated. Thus the "sigh."

Harte

On the note of constant expansion, whether accelerated or constant; does anyone believe in the theory of critical mass point? Where it's said that when enough of the cosmic glue force detected as gravity is spread to where more close bodies have impact than the overall, that the material within will "swell".

This sounds bad, worse that the sun going Nova in a billion whatever years.

Think about, everything/everyone will almost instantaneously become less dense. Something to think about.

How can there be an end to the universe? what would it feel like? Are black wholes doors in and out of other universe's?

I saw a documentary a couple years ago, and it explains there is no limit to the universe, after trillions and trillions of light years away, their is a wall of highly radiation material, scientists at Nasa know this, but what they dont know is what is on the other side. Now dont say this is rubbish and all, cause this was on TV, on Discovery Channel, and they also were talking about how the universe is flat with bumps and holes in it.

Alexandros

I am sorry but that is total rubbish, this wall doesnt exist we all agree here that the universe is expanding ,but I bet that we all agree here that there is no such thing as a radiation wall.

There are many theories on the shape of the universe wich might all be correct or all incorrect. Visit this link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shape_of_the_Universe

Don't believe everything they tell you on TV... because it was on TV doesnt mean it is true.

You know Harte, I ended up doing some research and found that your theory very trustfull, I agree with this theory now it makes more sense to me, thanks Harte.

very true, everything that comes out on TV, most of the time isnt true, or parts are left out, But it was very interesting. It shows anything is possible nowadays, since our technology is advancing, we are correcting theories we thought was true many years ago.

I don't believe the Big Bang Theory. The BBT superimposes on the Universe a 'beginning'. There is no beginning nor is there an end. Our mentality (the human mentality) speculates on the knowable with the premise of Beginnings and Endings. The Universe never 'began'. It never Ends. Something never came from Nothing. Something and Nothing are the same. There was never a beginning nor will there ever be an ending.

Furthermore, I don't believe that anything travels faster than the speed of light...the speed of light is the speed of light...not the speed of Energy. Energy exists in the Cosmic Now...it doesn't travel at all...therefore it's speed is Infinite.
Energy is not speed.

Rather than The Universe being 47 billion light years in diameter....more likely it is 47 billion to the 47 billionth power.
However, I do find the theory explained by Harte to be quite fascinating...in a nut shell...The Universe is and that's all there is...everything else is...The Universe. What we can perceive is the 'known' Universe. What we can see...what we can understand....

The matter of the Universe is composed of atoms which are equally as small as the Universe is big...infinitely so...

It is so Infinitely Mind Boggling that my mind is infinitely boggled by it all.

Ptch.. yer all wrong.

Millyways is at the end of the universe.

The two are the same, as light and energy are essentially synonomous.

I humbly disagree. Light is an abstract of energy. It is energy that creates the light. It is energy that creates the Radio wave which travels at the speed of light and yet radio waves are not light. Energy is something akin to Now. It is impossible to put one's finger on it and say, Here this is Energy. All we see, all we can perceive are the 'effects' of energy in it's infinitely various forms.

Radio waves are light. They differ from visible light only the exact amount of energy they carry (that is, their frequency). You're correct that energy (and in some sense, light itself) is a mathematical abstraction that one can't exactly touch. I find that it's one of the most commonly misunderstood concepts; most people don't recognize that energy is simply a number we can assign to a physical system. But the speed at which that number can impact other systems is known and it is the speed of light.

It is absolutely stunning to me at times to realize how much I don't know. Equally stunning is the vast amount of knowledge at our finger tips. A quick search of Radiowaves and Light has increased my knowledge considerably. I should have opted for Physics in highschool. I concur...radiowaves are light.

One option we should consider is Genesis 1:1 which states "In the beginning God created the heavens (plural) and the earth." Now the big bang to me implies Gods spoken word to which Genesis 1:3 addresses but 1:2 answers some questions which states "The earth was without form,and void;and darkness was on the face of the deep.And the spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters." I know many will find this rediculious (sp?)and doesnt apply to the many very intellegent answers here, but one should consider it after exhausting all other explanations, that whats outside of space could be or is the deep. So many thousands of years ago before telescopes and such, the author of Genesis knew that there were heavens (plural).Heaven in the original language of The Bible meant sky not some majical place but literally the sky. Not a fancy scientific answer and I'm sure some or many will ridicule it . Almost all references to God rely on or include light without the light we could not even see nor could modern society even exist without modulated rf or energy in one form or another our very existance today relies heavily on modulated or controlled forms of electrical energy of one form or another,the first thing God created was light ie modulated energy. I'm not smart enough to really contribute here but doesnt it seem odd that Genesis 1:1 thru 1:3 deals with some of the deapest quandries of modern science? Even several thousand years later...Keep looking up....

I beg to differ. About your 'smartness'. I have always been perplexed about Genesis. The Spirit of God hovering over the waters....and no light. Water without light is ice. Dark ice...floating in space. It seems to me that there was matter and that what it needed was Light. Interesting post really. First came the light...then came the sun. The question then is what kind of light. As StarTraveler explained Light is various degrees of Electromagnetic Radiation. To actually form the 'ice' would require heat...perhaps then to keep the formed Earth 'formed' required the Solar System.

Thank you. I look at it like this I SEEK, thats my little thing, I seek some answers, I look but I'm not satisfied therefore I yet SEEK. Together we may find, two minds are better than one huh?

chocolate fudge

I"m gutted by all of this.If humans ever manage to build a spacecraft that can achieve light-speed, we still wouldnt reach the next galaxy if its receding faster than light. Boo!

Ghostkol,

As much as I'd like to have the credit, pal, this theory is certainly not mine.

I'm glad you looked into it for yourself. Everytime you research one of these whacky physics ideas, you inevitably find out that reality is far, far more strange than you originally imagined. That's really a nice experience. I love it every time that happens to me.

You gotta admit, the current cosmological explanation for the expanding universe is leaps and bounds more interesting than the idea of a bunch of matter expanding into empty space, isn't it?

Harte

All,

Sorry for that "Sigh" a few days ago. Reading through this thread, I've seen several posters actually go and find out for themselves the concepts behind the topic of the thread. Doing the research on your own is extremely rewarding, you don't have to take anyone's word for it, you can see why it is that these things are theorized, they are the simplest (hardly a good word to use for these sorts of things but words fail me) explanations for the observed phenomena.

If only it were possible to get the psuedoscience believers in the "Ancient Mysteries" section to emulate the sort of behaviors displayed in this thread. Now that would really be rewarding!

This thread is going on my all-time faves list.

Harte

Umm i dont get what your saying how do you know its the end of the universe, it probably goes on and on, heres the video your talking about

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgg2tpUVbXQ

now first of all the farthest it sees, 46.5Billion light years away, how do you know thats the end of the universe, it probably goes on like that forever. Or more and more. I dont get where your logic is comming from...

The universe is still expanding yes and as for what would happen if we passed the edge? I think it is impossible to go past the "edge" of the universe. Period. There would be nothing there unless you crossed into an alternate dimension.

OK, I'll play. I believe we can only see 13.7 billion light-years in any direction. Or did they change that when I wasn't looking? That would make for a diameter of roughly 27.4 light-years. But there are undoubtedly further galaxies beyond our light-horizon. And no one knows how much further since it is impossible to calculate the exact length of the Big Expansion that may have happened in the first second of the universe, and took only several ticks of the 10^(-23) seconds of Ye Olde Cosmic Clock. And many physicists are highly dubious of Guth's theory since it leads to no new facts. Stephen Hawking, for instance.

So we are dealing with the Mysterium Tremendum. It is kind of like the mirror in the Harry Potter movies. You can go crazy looking at it. Remember that the Hubble expansion is an expansion OF space-time, not an expansion into space-time. So suppose you came to the "end of the universe" you couldn't pass into it since we are space-time creatures. I would guess that if the universe is positively curved (round), you would wind up where you started or in the general vicinity, allowing for the continuing Hubble expansion. At present, the universe appears flat to about 40 decimal places. Flat is on the knife edge between having a positive or a negative shape. If there is even one neutrino more than what it takes to make the curvature negative, then it will be positive, and the traveler to the end of the universe would find himself right back where he started.

~~~Cebrakon

The universe is 13.7 billion years old but that doesn't translate into us being able to see 13.7 billion light years in any direction because the universe has been expanding throughout that time. Instead you need to do a calculation involving a scale factor, a(t), that tells us how much bigger the universe is today compared to some time in the past (i.e. a factor that takes into account the continuing growth of the universe). You'd end up integrating from the beginning of the universe to the present (from t'=0 to t'=t=13.7 billion years) the expression c dt'/ a(t') and multiply it by the scale factor a(t). For a flat universe that scale factor is proportional to t^2/3 so you end up with an expression that looks like D = t^2/3 * c * int(t'^(-2/3)) dt'. That shakes out to be 3ct or 3*13.7 billion light years--3 times what you'd naively expect. A simple calculation like that tells you that we can see over 41 billion light years in every direction in a flat expanding universe (or more, depending on the proportionality constant). This is what the original poster was referring to.

The scale factor used in those calculations comes from a set of very important equations in cosmology, the Friedman equations. The assumption we made there was that we're living in a flat matter-dominated universe which, until about 9 years ago, appeared to be the case All that stuff about the shape of a universe being related to its fate (closed universes with spherical geometry eventually collapsing, open universes with hyperbolic geometries expanding forever, and flat universes slowing their expansions asymptotically to zero as time goes on) is derived under the assumption of a universe where matter is the dominant component. Now, however, we're increasingly confident that some component characterized by negative pressure (called "dark energy," though a cosmologist named Sean Carroll has suggested that "smooth tension" would be a much better name for it) is the dominant element in the universe, which changes things a little.