Implications of an accelerating expansion?

OK, given that the universe is expanding at an increasing rate, what
implications would this have on the recessional velocities in the distant
past and the age of the universe.

Thanks...Geoff

"Nothing is ever obvious to me."
-Coach

"Geoff Offermann" wrote...
in message news:M4Kcb.584862$uu5.95225@sccrnsc04...

OK, given that the universe is expanding at an increasing rate, what
implications would this have on the recessional velocities in the distant
past and the age of the universe.

Thanks...Geoff

"Nothing is ever obvious to me."
-Coach

'Lo Geoff --

The intuitive answer seems to be that if the Universe is
expanding at an increasing rate, then it is expanding
faster now than it was, say, billions of years ago. So
therefore recessional velocities in the distant past would
be slower. And yet this is not what is being observed...

hmm...

Well, to go on... as for the age of the Universe? The
current theory has the expansion blossoming at
unthinkably high speed right after the Big Bang, and
then slowing to a much lower rate of accelerated
expansion.

So the age of the Universe after relativistic considerations
may be as low as 12-15 billion years. I've lately heard
that some astronomers have raised this minimum as high
as 25 billion years. Most scientists won't quote you a
maximum possible age, but i've read where some take
this as high as 60-75 billion years.

Personally, i think the Universe is so much older even
than that.

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
Do you have yourself a dream?
Are you burning with desire?
If no dream, you have no steam
To fan your ember into fire!
Do you have yourself a dream?

Paine Ellsworth

"Geoff Offermann" wrote...
in message news:M4Kcb.584862$uu5.95225@sccrnsc04...

OK, given that the universe is expanding at an increasing rate, what
implications would this have on the recessional velocities in the distant
past and the age of the universe.

Thanks...Geoff

"Nothing is ever obvious to me."
-Coach

'Lo Geoff --

The intuitive answer seems to be that if the Universe is
expanding at an increasing rate, then it is expanding
faster now than it was, say, billions of years ago. So
therefore recessional velocities in the distant past would
be slower. And yet this is not what is being observed...

hmm...

Well, to go on... as for the age of the Universe? The
current theory has the expansion blossoming at
unthinkably high speed right after the Big Bang, and
then slowing to a much lower rate of accelerated
expansion.

So the age of the Universe after relativistic considerations
may be as low as 12-15 billion years. I've lately heard
that some astronomers have raised this minimum as high
as 25 billion years. Most scientists won't quote you a
maximum possible age, but i've read where some take
this as high as 60-75 billion years.

Personally, i think the Universe is so much older even
than that.

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
Do you have yourself a dream?
Are you burning with desire?
If no dream, you have no steam
To fan your ember into fire!
Do you have yourself a dream?

Paine Ellsworth

Hi Geoff Accelerating expansion tells me the universe will become
infinitely large. There will be a spacetime when the only messenger
photons will be infinitely long radio waves. The universe will die a
cold death. The only hope is a new beginning that can only happen if two
blackholes of great mass can have a collision that creates a critical
mass,and explosion.This will release their singularities.All this will
happen a trillion trillion trillion,and one more trillion years after
the last star's light went out. Universes don't die they just
fade away. Bert

Hi Geoff Accelerating expansion tells me the universe will become
infinitely large. There will be a spacetime when the only messenger
photons will be infinitely long radio waves. The universe will die a
cold death. The only hope is a new beginning that can only happen if two
blackholes of great mass can have a collision that creates a critical
mass,and explosion.This will release their singularities.All this will
happen a trillion trillion trillion,and one more trillion years after
the last star's light went out. Universes don't die they just
fade away. Bert

In message
, Painius
writes
"Geoff Offermann" wrote...
in message news:M4Kcb.584862$uu5.95225@sccrnsc04...

OK, given that the universe is expanding at an increasing rate, what
implications would this have on the recessional velocities in the distant
past and the age of the universe.

Thanks...Geoff

"Nothing is ever obvious to me."
-Coach

'Lo Geoff --

The intuitive answer seems to be that if the Universe is
expanding at an increasing rate, then it is expanding
faster now than it was, say, billions of years ago. So
therefore recessional velocities in the distant past would
be slower. And yet this is not what is being observed...

hmm...

Well, to go on... as for the age of the Universe? The
current theory has the expansion blossoming at
unthinkably high speed right after the Big Bang, and
then slowing to a much lower rate of accelerated
expansion.

So the age of the Universe after relativistic considerations
may be as low as 12-15 billion years. I've lately heard
that some astronomers have raised this minimum as high
as 25 billion years. Most scientists won't quote you a
maximum possible age, but i've read where some take
this as high as 60-75 billion years.

I'd be interested to know where you read that, because everything I've
seen says that the relativistic equations don't apply to inflation. It's
an expansion _of_ space, not into space, so it happens faster than the
speed of light and it also happens in "real time".
I'm not doubting - I just want to stretch my mind a bit more and may
have missed something :-)
--
"It is written in mathematical language"
Remove spam and invalid from address to reply.

In message
, Painius
writes
"Geoff Offermann" wrote...
in message news:M4Kcb.584862$uu5.95225@sccrnsc04...

OK, given that the universe is expanding at an increasing rate, what
implications would this have on the recessional velocities in the distant
past and the age of the universe.

Thanks...Geoff

"Nothing is ever obvious to me."
-Coach

'Lo Geoff --

The intuitive answer seems to be that if the Universe is
expanding at an increasing rate, then it is expanding
faster now than it was, say, billions of years ago. So
therefore recessional velocities in the distant past would
be slower. And yet this is not what is being observed...

hmm...

Well, to go on... as for the age of the Universe? The
current theory has the expansion blossoming at
unthinkably high speed right after the Big Bang, and
then slowing to a much lower rate of accelerated
expansion.

So the age of the Universe after relativistic considerations
may be as low as 12-15 billion years. I've lately heard
that some astronomers have raised this minimum as high
as 25 billion years. Most scientists won't quote you a
maximum possible age, but i've read where some take
this as high as 60-75 billion years.

I'd be interested to know where you read that, because everything I've
seen says that the relativistic equations don't apply to inflation. It's
an expansion _of_ space, not into space, so it happens faster than the
speed of light and it also happens in "real time".
I'm not doubting - I just want to stretch my mind a bit more and may
have missed something :-)
--
"It is written in mathematical language"
Remove spam and invalid from address to reply.

Oops! missed this one... sorry Jonathan!

"Jonathan Silverlight" wrote in message...
...

Painius writes in message...
,

'Lo Geoff --

The intuitive answer seems to be that if the Universe is
expanding at an increasing rate, then it is expanding
faster now than it was, say, billions of years ago. So
therefore recessional velocities in the distant past would
be slower. And yet this is not what is being observed...

hmm...

Well, to go on... as for the age of the Universe? The
current theory has the expansion blossoming at
unthinkably high speed right after the Big Bang, and
then slowing to a much lower rate of accelerated
expansion.

So the age of the Universe after relativistic considerations
may be as low as 12-15 billion years. I've lately heard
that some astronomers have raised this minimum as high
as 25 billion years. Most scientists won't quote you a
maximum possible age, but i've read where some take
this as high as 60-75 billion years.

I'd be interested to know where you read that, because everything I've
seen says that the relativistic equations don't apply to inflation. It's
an expansion _of_ space, not into space, so it happens faster than the
speed of light and it also happens in "real time".
I'm not doubting - I just want to stretch my mind a bit more and may
have missed something :-)
--
"It is written in mathematical language"
Remove spam and invalid from address to reply.

It's highly speculative, and i think i heard it on a TV show.
I believe that one billion years is the accepted figure for the
time of the inflationary period up to the birth of galaxies?

Then using globular clusters and such the age of our galaxy
is calculated, and then assumed to be representative of the
age of all galaxies.

It appears that some scientists question several of the
details of all this, not the least of which are the various
values of the Hubble Constant that pop up.

Suffice to say that, at best, we can accept these present
figures only as MINIMUMs for the age of the Universe.
There is still some evidence that the Universe may indeed
be much older than some observations suggest.

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
if you have love,
you really have something,
if you give love,
you'll never have nothing.

Paine Ellsworth

Oops! missed this one... sorry Jonathan!

"Jonathan Silverlight" wrote in message...
...

Painius writes in message...
,

'Lo Geoff --

The intuitive answer seems to be that if the Universe is
expanding at an increasing rate, then it is expanding
faster now than it was, say, billions of years ago. So
therefore recessional velocities in the distant past would
be slower. And yet this is not what is being observed...

hmm...

Well, to go on... as for the age of the Universe? The
current theory has the expansion blossoming at
unthinkably high speed right after the Big Bang, and
then slowing to a much lower rate of accelerated
expansion.

So the age of the Universe after relativistic considerations
may be as low as 12-15 billion years. I've lately heard
that some astronomers have raised this minimum as high
as 25 billion years. Most scientists won't quote you a
maximum possible age, but i've read where some take
this as high as 60-75 billion years.

I'd be interested to know where you read that, because everything I've
seen says that the relativistic equations don't apply to inflation. It's
an expansion _of_ space, not into space, so it happens faster than the
speed of light and it also happens in "real time".
I'm not doubting - I just want to stretch my mind a bit more and may
have missed something :-)
--
"It is written in mathematical language"
Remove spam and invalid from address to reply.

It's highly speculative, and i think i heard it on a TV show.
I believe that one billion years is the accepted figure for the
time of the inflationary period up to the birth of galaxies?

Then using globular clusters and such the age of our galaxy
is calculated, and then assumed to be representative of the
age of all galaxies.

It appears that some scientists question several of the
details of all this, not the least of which are the various
values of the Hubble Constant that pop up.

Suffice to say that, at best, we can accept these present
figures only as MINIMUMs for the age of the Universe.
There is still some evidence that the Universe may indeed
be much older than some observations suggest.

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
if you have love,
you really have something,
if you give love,
you'll never have nothing.

Paine Ellsworth

"Painius" wrote in message
...
Oops! missed this one... sorry Jonathan!

It's highly speculative, and i think i heard it on a TV show.
I believe that one billion years is the accepted figure for the
time of the inflationary period up to the birth of galaxies?

I don't know were you're getting your figures from, but the inflationary
period was nowhere near one billion years. You're about 42 orders of
magnitude off.

Although there are several candidates for the mathematical description of
inflation, they are all in about the same "ball park" as to when it happened
and how long it lasted. That is ...

"This phase transition is thought to have happened about 10^-35 seconds
after the creation of the Universe. It filled the Universe with a kind of
energy called the vacuum energy, and as a consequence of this vacuum energy
density (which plays the role of an effective cosmological constant),
gravitation effectively became repulsive for a period of about 10^-32
seconds. During this period the Universe expanded at an astonishing rate,
increasing its size scale by about a factor of 10^50."
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/l...inflation.html

"There was an extremely early epoch (about 10^-35 seconds after the initial
infinite density at the origin) at which time an expansion in size by
perhaps 10^30 times occurred. At the era of inflationary expansion,
everything within our present day universe (a diameter of about 30 billion
lightyears or so) went from approximately the size of a proton to the size
of a grapefruit!"
http://www.physics.missouri.edu/astr...cosmology.html

"One of the peculiarities of inflation is that it seems to take place faster
than the speed of light. Even light takes 30 billionths of a second (3 x
10(exp-10) sec) to cross a single centimetre, and yet inflation expands the
Universe from a size much smaller than a proton to 10 cm across in only 15 x
10(exp-33) sec."
http://www.biols.susx.ac.uk/home/John_Gribbin/cosmo.htm

.... 10^-32 to 10^-33 seconds is nowhere near one billion years.