#1
|
|||
|
|||
Universe expansion
Newbie here, pls bear with me:
The universe is expanding, if so, the size of the universe is given by how far the stellar bodies at the edges of the universe have traveled, right? Let's consider a star at the edge of the universe, that star emits energy in all directions, some of that energy is emitted toward the direction of the expansion of the universe, but the universe doesn't expand at the speed of light, what happens to that energy, then? assuming it is able to keep traveling in the direction of the expansion, it'd mean the universe in fact is expanding at the speed of light, wouldn't it? Thx, Guillermo |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 03 Sep 2003 16:29:06 GMT, "G.P" wrote:
Newbie here, pls bear with me: The universe is expanding, if so, the size of the universe is given by how far the stellar bodies at the edges of the universe have traveled, right? Let's consider a star at the edge of the universe, that star emits energy in all directions, some of that energy is emitted toward the direction of the expansion of the universe, but the universe doesn't expand at the speed of light, what happens to that energy, then? assuming it is able to keep traveling in the direction of the expansion, it'd mean the universe in fact is expanding at the speed of light, wouldn't it? This is assuming that some of us believe in the "big bang" theory. Personally I believe that in either the "steady state" theory, or (shock horror) some more modern radical (more shock horror, this will have the olduns throwing their hands in the air, just watch) thinking, such as the "what if" theory. This theory goes something like this, What if our basic concepts of astronomy are wrong, what if by some strange quirk, newtons laws of gravity, einsteins theories of relativity etc.. ONLY applied to our small part of the great scheme of things. And outside of our current perceptions different radical laws of "nature" applied?. Let me explain this further, a while ago people thought the Earth was flat, and based everything upon that, people were lambasted and even executed for even daring to suggest that the world wasnt flat but round. Take for Instance our own Sun, we use that as a reference point for other stars, and base a Lot of thought about stars on our sun, but "what if" our Sun is actauly very unique?. A good example of this is pet dogs, we think of them in human terms, in other words in our arrogance we have translated our thought processes into those of a dog, we THINK we know what they are THINKING, but as none of us have ever been Dogs (well except for my first wife that is), we DONT really know what Dogs are thinking, but given all available information, its a pretty fair bet we are correct, BUT not certain, so the "what if" applies here.. If we find something strange out there, we first look to see if any current physical laws apply to it, then if we cant find any, we try and find another explantion for it, but in human terms, "what if" the explantion for something is outside of our own conceptions of the universe, rather like trying to explain what a TV is to a Dog.. -- --- The two most abundant elements in the universe are Hydrogen and stupidity. Why is the ratio of Hydrogen to Stupidity less in usenet than anywhere else in the universe? |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message ... On Wed, 03 Sep 2003 16:29:06 GMT, "G.P" wrote: Newbie here, pls bear with me: The universe is expanding, if so, the size of the universe is given by how far the stellar bodies at the edges of the universe have traveled, right? Let's consider a star at the edge of the universe, that star emits energy in all directions, some of that energy is emitted toward the direction of the expansion of the universe, but the universe doesn't expand at the speed of light, what happens to that energy, then? assuming it is able to keep traveling in the direction of the expansion, it'd mean the universe in fact is expanding at the speed of light, wouldn't it? This is assuming that some of us believe in the "big bang" theory. Personally I believe that in either the "steady state" theory, or (shock horror) some more modern radical (more shock horror, this will have the olduns throwing their hands in the air, just watch) thinking, such as the "what if" theory. This theory goes something like this, What if our basic concepts of astronomy are wrong, what if by some strange quirk, newtons laws of gravity, einsteins theories of relativity etc.. ONLY applied to our small part of the great scheme of things. And outside of our current perceptions different radical laws of "nature" applied?. indeed, what if? there is no way you can answer this question, so what is the use? Assuming, on the other hand, that our local laws of nature, DO apply anywhere, we have been able to predict many natural phenomena pretty well! |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"G.P" wrote in
le.rogers.com: Newbie here, pls bear with me: The universe is expanding, if so, the size of the universe is given by how far the stellar bodies at the edges of the universe have traveled, right? Let's consider a star at the edge of the universe, that star emits energy in all directions, some of that energy is emitted toward the direction of the expansion of the universe, but the universe doesn't expand at the speed of light, what happens to that energy, then? assuming it is able to keep traveling in the direction of the expansion, it'd mean the universe in fact is expanding at the speed of light, wouldn't it? Thx, Guillermo You are starting with a false premise. The universe does not have an edge. An observer in any part of it will see the same general picture. The usual analogy, is the surface of a balloon that is being inflated. Points on the surface of the balloon get further apart as the balloon expands. BTW the expansion (increase in scale factor) of the universe is not limited to the speed of light. It has been proposed that at an early epoch, the expansion rate was much greater than it is now, in fact many times the speed of light (look up big bang inflation theory.) This is the current vogue in cosmology but it has roughly the same status as the old epicycle theory of planetary motion. I.e it is a band aid applied to get the original big bang theory out of trouble. So far though, there is no evidence that outright falsifies it. Llanzlan. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"G.P" wrote in message
le.rogers.com... Newbie here, pls bear with me: The universe is expanding, if so, the size of the universe is given by how far the stellar bodies at the edges of the universe have traveled, right? Let's consider a star at the edge of the universe, that star emits energy in all directions, some of that energy is emitted toward the direction of the expansion of the universe, but the universe doesn't expand at the speed of light, what happens to that energy, then? assuming it is able to keep traveling in the direction of the expansion, it'd mean the universe in fact is expanding at the speed of light, wouldn't it? It is thought that space itself expanded much faster than the speed of light in the early moments of the universe, outstripping the progress of the light. Also, the universe as such does not have an "edge"; it's a self-contained geometry (that's the theory anyways), so it's not not possible for something "inside" to ever reach a boundary. This would include light. What it boils down to is that the idea of the universe as a 3D explosion in a pre-existing space is incorrect. It is an expansion of space itself, and there is no "outside" as far as we 3D contents are concerned. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
"G.P" wrote in message ble.rogers.com...
Newbie here, pls bear with me: The universe is expanding, if so, the size of the universe is given by how far the stellar bodies at the edges of the universe have traveled, right? Let's consider a star at the edge of the universe, that star emits energy in all directions, some of that energy is emitted toward the direction of the expansion of the universe, but the universe doesn't expand at the speed of light, what happens to that energy, then? assuming it is able to keep traveling in the direction of the expansion, it'd mean the universe in fact is expanding at the speed of light, wouldn't it? Thx, Guillermo Unfortunately, since the universe doesn't have an edge, your question doesn't really make sense. And the universe is pretty clearly expanding faster than light. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 3 Sep 2003 23:25:42 +0200, "username" e-mail@adress wrote:
And outside of our current perceptions different radical laws of "nature" applied?. indeed, what if? there is no way you can answer this question, so what is the use? The "use" is in asking the question in the first place, not the question itself Throughout recorded history people have asked "what if" and been told its just the way it is why bother asking, yet those people that actually asked "what if" have gone on to make some great discoveries "The world is flat, thats all there is, to think anything else is stupid, we have explained it many times, and the evidence is overwhelming, its DEFINATELY flat" "yeah but what if?" Et Al -- --- The two most abundant elements in the universe are Hydrogen and stupidity. Why is the ratio of Hydrogen to Stupidity less in usenet than anywhere else in the universe? |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Steve@nospam wrote,
...what if by some strange quirk, newtons laws of gravity, einsteins theories of relativity etc.. ONLY applied to our small part of the great scheme of things. ......"what if" the explantion for something is outside of our own conceptions of the universe.... A good example is the bedrock axiom that holds the speed of light to be constant all the way to the limit of visibility.. with the presumption that it is also constant all the way to the BB itself. The doctrine of universal c-invariance, of course, is rooted in void-space, that is, the premise that space is functionally void or 'nothing'. But "what if" space is indeed 'Something' and 'what if' that Something is a dynamic fluid medium with the propensity for expansion, compression and flow? 'What if' there is a *density gradient* in this medium that shows up at extreme cosmological distances, making the speed of light higher in that denser space? And what happens to light that propagates from that denser space into 'our' less-dense space? Does it slow, losing amplitude, or does it remain constant? And what does this say about the recent 1a supernova data showing the most ancient light "dimmer than it should be" at a given redshift? Under the void-space/ universal c-invariance regime, the excessive 1a SN dimming is interpreted as "accelerating expansion" of the universe. But if the dimming is caused by a density-gradient c-drop, it would swing the expansion curve away from 'accelerating expansion' toward decelerating expansion.. and a closed universe. Not just Loonytooners but a few maverik 'mainstreamers' are actually daring to question the doctrine of universal c-invariance. See- http://ldolphin.org/setterfield/earlycosmos.html http://theory.ic.ac.uk/~magueijo/vsl.html Although these guys haven't connected the c-drop to a density gradient in the spatial medium, at least they are peeking 'outside the box' of current dogma. BTW, a density-gradient c-drop is *not* a 'tired light' theory. All 'tired light' models are predicated on universal c-invariance. And what about 'gravity waves'? Unlike EM radiation which is a transverse wave, GW radiation is longitudinal, that is, a compression-rarefaction analogous to a sound wave, propagating at c. But propagating thru 'What'? oc To reply by e-mail please use anti-spam address: oldcoot88atwebtv.net Change 'at' to@ |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Steve@nospam wrote,
I dont think I totally concur with your conclusions, but I do like the way you are asking "what if", and the examples you cite as well. Actually you were the one presenting the "what if" format (not to be outflanked by Bertg), and I was just following your cue. On what point(s) do you not concur? It seems to me that modern astronomy is being bogged down with this Dogma, and people are stopping asking the "yeah but what if" question... Yeah, the Dogma of void-space/ universal c-invariance, and the cosmology based on it, may one day be found in the same league with the flat Earth and geocentrism. oc To reply by e-mail please use anti-spam address: oldcoot88atwebtv.net Change 'at' to@ |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Breakthrough in Cosmology | Kazmer Ujvarosy | SETI | 8 | May 26th 04 04:45 PM |
Breakthrough in Cosmology | Kazmer Ujvarosy | Space Shuttle | 3 | May 22nd 04 09:07 AM |
Breakthrough in Cosmology | Kazmer Ujvarosy | Astronomy Misc | 3 | May 22nd 04 08:07 AM |
Breakthrough in Cosmology | Kazmer Ujvarosy | Space Station | 0 | May 21st 04 08:02 AM |
Breakthrough in Cosmology | Kazmer Ujvarosy | Policy | 0 | May 21st 04 08:00 AM |