Universe expanding faster than expected

[toast]

ouups..

Edited June 4, 2016 by toast

[toast]

3 hours ago, pallidin said:

Their is NOTHING that our expanding universe expands INTO.

As we do exist in a locked system (the universe), our options for observations are limited to the inside area only. That fact does not allow evaluations about any conditions and/or events that are not related to the systems interior.

[seeder]

6 hours ago, Ell said:

 - I argue that there never was a big bang.

 

Go on then, Im game....give me/us YOUR argument/reasoning/theory...... lets see what you got?  Start with your credentials please...or scientific qualifications if you have any...... relevant to your argument.

[pallidin]

A VERY BIZARRE concept to grasp is that there is NOTHING beyond our universe that we know of.

There is NO SPACE, NO TIME, outside of our universe. However as our universe expands it expands spacetime.

Creating a "bedrock" of sorts, for reality.

Strange, I know.

 

[+DieChecker]

So, the distances between galaxies will double in about 10 billion years. Then will the distances inside the galaxies also expand?

Or does gravity mitigate the expansion? Will the distance to Alpha Centari double? Or the distance between the Earth and the Sun? Or the distance between the Earth and the Moon? (Given they otherwise wouldn't move due to other forces).

Edited June 4, 2016 by DieChecker

[cerberusxp]

Our Galaxy is expanding at a rate that looking across to the other side you will never see it because the combined velocity from one end to the other is greater than the speed of light. Above .25 speed of light there will be visual distortion. We cannot see it in real time. We can however see it as it was millions of years ago.

Edited June 4, 2016 by cerberusxp

[Ell]

14 hours ago, Waspie_Dwarf said:

That says a huge amount about how seriously we should take your book. If it was a peer reviewed publication I would treat it with respect.

If you were a peer - or whatever - you could review it.

 

It not being peer reviewed says more about the peers than about the value of my work, in my opinion.

[pallidin]

8 hours ago, DieChecker said:

Or does gravity mitigate the expansion?

Yes, it does! You are "spot-on"

For example: The expansion within our own galaxy (or any galaxy) is at a far lesser rate than that of between galaxies.

So gravity does indeed inhibit expansion, but only locally (it's a VERY weak force in many cases).

However, and this is BIG, local gravity seems not to affect the observed universal expansion. "Something" is mitigating what we might naturally presume as a gravitational collapse. "Something" is spreading us (galaxies) apart at an increasingly rapid rate, and we don't know what that "something" is.

[pallidin]

Some call it "dark energy" because it currently resides outside our methods of formal energy detection.

In the future our expansive universe might be seen as a "consequence" of spacetime expansion, instead of some "dark energy"

Edited June 4, 2016 by pallidin

[StarMountainKid]

Some call it "dark energy" because it currently resides outside our methods of formal energy detection.

In the future our expansive universe might be seen as a "consequence" of spacetime expansion, instead of some "dark energy"

Then what is the origin of space-time expansion if it is not dark energy?

[pallidin]

19 minutes ago, StarMountainKid said:

 

 

Problem is, Star, "dark energy" is a mathematical construct without validation at all.

It's a convenience to explain yet without evidence of existence. Zero evidence.

[StarMountainKid]

pallidin said:

Problem is, Star, "dark energy" is a mathematical construct without validation at all.

It's a convenience to explain yet without evidence of existence. Zero evidence.

I agree that at the present time "dark energy" is a mathematical construct or a concept or hypothesis. I think it is a general term applied to the phenomenon of space-time expansion. It seems to me there must be some energy being expended for space-time to expand.

Spacial expansion may be some quality of space itself, and not the result of some energy separate from space. I don't think we understand this phenomenon well enough (or at all) to make any definite decision.

It's interesting to me that dark matter exists to hold everything together, resulting in us, at the same time and dark energy (or spacial expansion) exists to pull everything apart. What's the point of a universe that naturally creates stars, planets and life, and then just as naturally destroys itself?

Edited June 4, 2016 by StarMountainKid
I no longer understand how to quote another post without including my post within that quote.

[cerberusxp]

The universe is not just expanding but accelerating perhaps due to dark energy.  Top scientists in the Euclid consortium are trying to prove this.

[Habitat]

I guarantee if the universe starts slowing down unexpectedly, it will be down to beige energy. Every decade , the orthodoxy is turned on it's head, and the hunt is on to find something to blame.

[Rlyeh]

On ‎4‎/‎06‎/‎2016 at 6:13 AM, FTWind said:

What if we are condensening and not expanding? Wouldnt it still seem that things are moving away?

If the earth shrunk but kept the same mass, the surface gravity would increase.

[pallidin]

3 hours ago, Rlyeh said:

If the earth shrunk but kept the same mass, the surface gravity would increase.

He (the other poster, not Rlyeh) may (?) have been referring to if "everything shrunk", Including electrons, quarks, gluons etc.

 

Edited June 5, 2016 by pallidin

[FTWind]

42 minutes ago, pallidin said:

He (the other poster, not Rlyeh) may (?) have been referring to if "everything shrunk", Including electrons, quarks, gluons etc.

 

Yes that is what i was saying.

[Waspie_Dwarf]

If every thing shank we would see everything including the sun and the planets getting further away.  The aren't, it is only the distant galaxies we see moving away from each other, so we can discount totally the idea that everything in the universe is shrinking. 

[pallidin]

OK, FT, well, that is far beyond me, but I do understand your concept.

Perhaps we can look at it this way...

Imagine 2 balloons, 100-ft in diameter separated by 1-mile. Static, no wind.

Measure two aspects:

1) the distance from "surface to surface"

2) the distance between their centers.

OK, now, shrink both balloons to the size of, say, a golf ball.

Measure again.

The surface distance will be such as to promote "expansion", BUT, center-to-center nothing has changed regarding distance.

Edited June 5, 2016 by pallidin

[FTWind]

Not 

12 minutes ago, Waspie_Dwarf said:

If every thing shank we would see everything including the sun and the planets getting further away.  The aren't, it is only the distant galaxies we see moving away from each other, so we can discount totally the idea that everything in the universe is shrinking. 

Though what if it was condensing into one point? Meaning the sun.

Edited June 5, 2016 by FTWind

[pallidin]

2 minutes ago, FTWind said:

 

Though what if it was condensing into one point?

That concept, in physics, is typically referred to as a "black hole" where a singularity is presumptively created.

To our knowledge this a specialized, local phenom in many, many parts of the universe, generally but not exclusive to the centers of many galaxies, BUT, does not in a WHOLLY universal sense affect much of anything else (it seems)

[pallidin]

13 minutes ago, FTWind said:

Not 

Though what if it was condensing into one point? Meaning the sun.

Could you elaborate? Our sun, with it's current or projected future mass, is considered "incapable" of collapsing into either a neutron star, or it's more aggressive big-brother... a black hole.

Instead it will eventually "nova", explosively expanding as opposed to an implosive event.

[FTWind]

8 minutes ago, pallidin said:

Could you elaborate? Our sun, with it's current or projected future mass, is considered "incapable" of collapsing into either a neutron star, or it's more aggressive big-brother... a black hole.

Instead it will eventually "nova", explosively expanding as opposed to an implosive event.

No it was just a thought , not really what i believe. I think the universe fluctuates between anti matter and Regular matter states through transferance processes of black holes .

[Waspie_Dwarf]

4 minutes ago, FTWind said:

No it was just a thought , not really what i believe. I think the universe fluctuates between anti matter and Regular matter states through transferance processes of black holes .

Past experience should tell you that derailing topics with your own "theories" is not a good idea.

Please remain on topic, thank you.

[FTWind]

4 minutes ago, Waspie_Dwarf said:

Past experience should tell you that derailing topics with your own "theories" is not a good idea.

Please remain on topic, thank you.

Of course , but what is the topic at hand ? The reason for the expansion of the universe, correct? So yeah i dont think my statement was so off topic. I just think ill refrain from commenting in your OP's.

Edited June 5, 2016 by FTWind