Notices
Results 1 to 28 of 28

Thread: Is the universe expanding?

  1. #1 Is the universe expanding? 
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,642
    Is the universe expanding and taking the galaxies with it? If so, what is the universe expanding into? Perhaps it is flat and expanding over a membrane, like oil spreading out on to water. Beneath the membrane is another universe, undetectable to us, but theoretically accessable by a wormhole.
    Also, what are the chances of the universe being right for life? I understand that the probability of even the stars forming in their present state is 10^229. This does not take into account the need for a Goldilock's zone gently spinning planet with water and a kindly atmosphere where evolution has some way been triggered.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    The honest answer is probably: nobody knows.

    The scientific answer is: Nothing. True nothing, not just absence of matter. It is said that the universe "creates the space" it is expanding into. And how do you define space without anything (nothing, not even virtual particles like in a perfect vacuum) in it?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    The big bang is just one interpretation of the evidence we have but is the main theory on how the universe came to be. Expansion can best be shown as a balloon with dots on it. As it is blown up, the dots don't move but there is ever more space between them so the galaxies aren't really moving though they are ever further apart (where local gravity does not hold them together).

    If you take it that there was nothing here originally then the universe began and what was nothing is now occupied by matter, energy, gravity, etc then since nothing occupies no space/no area, an expanding universe would literally create more (what we call) space just by occupying "nothing" with it's substance.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Great Barrington
    Posts
    62
    I've thought of this as well. I've come to the conclusion, though probably to be revised, that where no matter exists, no interaction exists. Ergo, no time exists. Because of this, we may be able to say that there may be no "Outside of the universe" for it to expand into. The universe as we know it is the space in which objects and physicality inhabit. We as a universe may only encompass a small amount of space compared to what space exists. But also, how can there be an abscence of space, unless matter is taking it up? This is where the controversy begins. Unless matter is taking up or somehow fatally limiting space, then how can space be unavailable?

    I think, there is no end to space, because there was no beginning. There doesn't need to be any type of reaction or interaction to create space, as space can exist without objects, this type of space is known as vacuum.

    In theory my conlusion is: Space has no end, the universe expanding may simply be light and matter inhabiting once vacuum and empty space. Dark energy I cannot factor into the equation as I don't know much about it. But I think what we refer to as the outside of the universe (And thusly what it expands into) is merely space that hasn't been inhabited by factors (Objects) yet. So just as energy and matter are interchangeable and cannot be destroyed, maybe so too is space. Nothing is required to create it however, and there is no way to destroy it or act upon it. We can convert things that exist in space, such as the Earth burning into molten metal. But we cannot affect space itself, because, quite frankly, space itself is just that, space. So if there is a place for something to exist, does that mean that there has to be something sustaining the space? I don't know, I don't think so.

    But I think the universe we know of, is expanding, into unused space, which stretches forever. This may be difficult to comprehend, it was for me too. But it is possible that space goes on forever, as there's no logical reason why it should be finite, and as I stated earlier, there would need to be matter taking up space in order to make it unavailable or unusable. Ergo, perhaps the universe can expand for ever and is an open universe, as some theorize.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5 Re: Is the universe expanding? 
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by ox
    Is the universe expanding and taking the galaxies with it? If so, what is the universe expanding into? Perhaps it is flat and expanding over a membrane, like oil spreading out on to water. Beneath the membrane is another universe, undetectable to us, but theoretically accessable by a wormhole.
    Also, what are the chances of the universe being right for life? I understand that the probability of even the stars forming in their present state is 10^229. This does not take into account the need for a Goldilock's zone gently spinning planet with water and a kindly atmosphere where evolution has some way been triggered.
    No!
    Since I consider the BBT cosmoGONY, than I refute space expansion and have replaced the observed photon redshifts as being expanded by the intrinsic forces in the electric fields as the cause of the cosmological redshift.
    This force is the same force that causes the hydrogen gases to expand in the space vacuum.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,642
    I've been having a few more thoughts about what the universe might be expanding into. If the Higgs Boson does exist, and much money is being spent on trying to find it, then the Higgs Field must exist. So, could the universe be expanding into the Higgs. This could potentially explain the brightness of quasars which flare up if the field becomes less dense at the far reaches of the universe. Less mass means less gravity. Then gravity will blow rather than suck.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Senior PhoenixG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    336
    "PhoenixG makes me puke that why I quoted him." - esbo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by ox
    ...If the Higgs Boson does exist, and much money is being spent on trying to find it, then the Higgs Field must exist...
    Bigbangers try to prove the Big Bang hypothesis on the LHC collider, but thus they will not prove it, but can make a big bang of Earth. CERN physicists do not know what magnetic hole is.

    PS:
    Black holes are objects, whose gravity field energy, outside of Schwarzschild radius, is equal to the rest energy, mc^2, the energy of mass m, concentrated on the Schwarzschild sphere.
    Magnetic holes are objects, whose magnetic field energy, outside of critical magnetic radius is equal to the rest energy, mc^2, of mass m, concentrated inside the critical magnetic radius.
    Magnetic holes were invented by alternative-physicists, as a result, this theory will not be accepted by orthodox-physicists, as a result, microscopic magnetic holes will be created soon (may be in November 2009)… Fasten your belts…

    PS 2:
    In my Steady State Model of Universe there are several values: 73.3 km/s/Mpc, 13.3 bln.years/rot. The last number means: the time spend by light in order to go around the whole closed Universe. In Big Bang model this time means the age of Universe. In our model, it is the time of one 4d-rotation of the eternal Universe. In our model the Universe has not the center in space and has no center in time.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,642
    Did someone mention the steady state theory? Does this still have any credibility?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by ox
    Did someone mention the steady state theory? Does this still have any credibility?
    Yes!
    I mentioned on my previous post on this thread that the BBT is CosmoGONY

    So I concluded that the SST is valid but since Hoyle et al had accepted the
    expansion of space as valid, I posted an article named FLAT SPACE Where there is no expansion or contraction since space is a vaccuum.
    But there are other reasons.
    Mainly, the Conservation Laws imply that Matter cannot be created or destroyed.
    So there was no beginning for our universe. It always existed.

    I also supplied two mathematical proofs that falsify the BBT.
    The first and most important is that Arps Redshift Anomoly is real.
    Also, the CMBR that is portrayed as a remnant of the BBT and has a redshift of 1000 is further proof that it cannot be a remnant of the BBT.

    When you divide the age of the BBT that is 13.7^9 years , you get 13.7^6 years for a redshift of one.
    Transform this age to a dimension like 'light years' and than apply it to the Virgo Cluster of galaxies that is at a distance of 54^6 light years, it gives this cluster a
    RS of 3.9. WOW.
    The measured RS of this cluster is .0035-.004.
    So to me, this invalidates the CMBR as a remnant of the BBT.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    New Member santhosh pillai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Tiruchchirapalli
    Posts
    3
    Man has not revealed anything fully in science. this is also one of those featured tasks. Still many of them are searching 4 the truth. Till now the truth reaveled by Edwin Hubble stands top. So we may take it as a partial result for this question.
    SANTHOSH
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by ox
    Did someone mention the steady state theory? Does this still have any credibility?
    Steady state has more problems than solutions. The Big Bang paradigm is less problematic in comparison. You would need a spontaneous matter production out of nowhere in order to be able to explain some observations. So much to the conservation of matter.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady_State_theory
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    To All

    The Slipher, Hubble and Humason observations that were observed, showed a relation between redshifts and distance, was concluded as Dopplerian because it implied 'motion'.
    But this could NOT be Dopplerian because this would restore the 'Geocentric' theory that was falsified back in the post 1600 years.
    So a replacement had to be made.
    So the Expansion of Space was adopted to explain the redshift and a NO Center universe.
    But than Halton Arps Anomalous Redshifts were discovered that refuted the EoS concept.

    So Arp was denied any more observation time on the Hale 200 inch telescope .
    The BB'ers refuse to accept his observations as anomolous RS's but are just 'chance' alignments.

    NGC 7603, AM 2054-2210 and AM 0328-222 are 3 of his best examples. To see 'positive' prints of his examples, see the S&T magazine, 1983 April issue, pages 307-309.
    Arps book has negative prints.
    So he had to move to Germany at the Mas Planck Institute to continue his work.
    This obviously is CENSORSHIP, plain and simple .

    My Mathematical Proof confirms his Redshifts as Anomolous.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Dear Cosmo,

    would you care to explain, why these two things are related? Why would Arp's hypothesis contradict the expansion of the universe and a Big Bang? What would be the alternative cause for the observed redshift in Arp's hypothesis?

    By the way, S&T publications are not what we call a scientific publication endorsed by peer review.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    Dear Cosmo,

    would you care to explain, why these two things are related? Why would Arp's hypothesis contradict the expansion of the universe and a Big Bang? What would be the alternative cause for the observed redshift in Arp's hypothesis?

    By the way, S&T publications are not what we call a scientific publication endorsed by peer review.
    Arp's RS Anomaly shows that some galaxies as I mentioned, have companions that have higher RS's than their own and these objects are at the same distance because of a link shown such as a BRIDGE of stars or the 3rd example that shows a passing galaxy 'biting' a chunk of stars from another galaxy .

    So this obviosly would refute the EoS as causing the Cosmological RS.

    S&T data is taken from the professional journals or NASA. So I give them the same credit that I would give any pro-journal.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    Dear Cosmo,

    would you care to explain, why these two things are related? Why would Arp's hypothesis contradict the expansion of the universe and a Big Bang? What would be the alternative cause for the observed redshift in Arp's hypothesis?

    By the way, S&T publications are not what we call a scientific publication endorsed by peer review.
    Arp's RS Anomaly shows that some galaxies as I mentioned, have companions that have higher RS's than their own and these objects are at the same distance because of a link shown such as a BRIDGE of stars or the 3rd example that shows a passing galaxy 'biting' a chunk of stars from another galaxy .

    So this obviosly would refute the EoS as causing the Cosmological RS.

    S&T data is taken from the professional journals or NASA. So I give them the same credit that I would give any pro-journal.

    Cosmo
    Are there also blue shifted objects? What is the cause of the redshift?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    Steady state has more problems than solutions. The Big Bang paradigm is less problematic in comparison. You would need a spontaneous matter production out of nowhere in order to be able to explain some observations. So much to the conservation of matter.

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

    A steady state universe that expands? Doh! It doesn't. The only real problem is black holes. In an infinitely old universe, that is all that would be left along with some heat haze. I have an idea how black holes can recycle fundamental particles, which has nothing to do with the nonsense of Hawking radiation.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    Dear Cosmo,

    would you care to explain, why these two things are related? Why would Arp's hypothesis contradict the expansion of the universe and a Big Bang? What would be the alternative cause for the observed redshift in Arp's hypothesis?

    By the way, S&T publications are not what we call a scientific publication endorsed by peer review.
    Arp's RS Anomaly shows that some galaxies as I mentioned, have companions that have higher RS's than their own and these objects are at the same distance because of a link shown such as a BRIDGE of stars or the 3rd example that shows a passing galaxy 'biting' a chunk of stars from another galaxy .

    So this obviosly would refute the EoS as causing the Cosmological RS.

    S&T data is taken from the professional journals or NASA. So I give them the same credit that I would give any pro-journal.
    Cosmo
    Are there also blue shifted objects? What is the cause of the redshift?
    Yes.
    These are Doppler blue shifts resulting from local space velocities.
    You have to separate these BS from the Cosmological redshifts that are much greater than these local R/B shifts that result from structures close to our location.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    Are there also blue shifted objects? What is the cause of the redshift?
    Yes.
    These are Doppler blue shifts resulting from local space velocities.
    You have to separate these BS from the Cosmological redshifts that are much greater than these local R/B shifts that result from structures close to our location.

    Cosmo
    What I meant was: If there are redshifted QSOs that are, according to Arp, supposed to be ejected from host galaxies, why aren't there any blue shifted QSOs? I mean, statistics would assume that there should be about as many blueshifted as redshifted objects, right? Or is there another explanation for the observed redshifts except velocity?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    What I meant was: If there are redshifted QSOs that are, according to Arp, supposed to be ejected from host galaxies, why aren't there any blue shifted QSOs? I mean, statistics would assume that there should be about as many blueshifted as redshifted objects, right? Or is there another explanation for the observed redshifts except velocity?
    Yes, what you say would be true.
    On that issue, I disagree with Arp.
    M87 seems to be ejecting a quasar, but if you examin the opposite side of the galaxy, you will notice that there is a disturbance that is not too obvious, to indicacate that this is a collision by a smaller galaxy that entered and made very little distubance and as it progressed through M87, this disturbance (collisions) increases. When it reached the center, than there is a massive amount of star collisions and star system disturbances.

    3C273(?) that was determined to be the 1st quasar is also a collision.
    German micro wavelengths observered over a period of about 3 months, shows a similar progression of a bright spot moving through a layered(?) galaxy where this spot has moved. So I calculated that this is a smaller galaxy moving through 3C273.
    These collisions generate a lot of xrays and some Gamma rays that I believe create these higher redshifts due to the intrinsic forces in these light pulses.
    I wrote an article on this that these light pulses being of higher energies, have higher 'expansion' rates than the lower level regular light pulses.

    This article is entitled 'Expansion of the Light Waves that replaces the EoS BBT concept.

    So in conclusion, these quasars are NOT ejected from galaxies but are collisions that have higher energies than the regular galaxies to create the higher redshifts per distance than the lower energy galaxies.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    These collisions generate a lot of xrays and some Gamma rays that I believe create these higher redshifts due to the intrinsic forces in these light pulses.
    I wrote an article on this that these light pulses being of higher energies, have higher 'expansion' rates than the lower level regular light pulses.

    ...

    So in conclusion, these quasars are NOT ejected from galaxies but are collisions that have higher energies than the regular galaxies to create the higher redshifts per distance than the lower energy galaxies.
    Apart from the fact that this idea is really bad physics and purely based on speculation (Is there evidence for gamma and x ray emission? How would this high energy radiation cause a reddening, i.e. a shift of spectral lines? Do you suggest that the speed of light changes?), this also would result in a statistical scatter of redshifts that should be independent of the distance. But the Hubble relation (the extended modern version) clearly shows that redshift and distance are related. The distance is here determined independently of course (Tully Fisher relation, Cepheides, RR Lyr stars, etc.). How can you explain this?

    Cosmological redshifts are also not only restricted to QSOs, but to normal Galaxies as well.

    Galaxy collisions normally only cause gravitational, i.e. tidal interactions leading to local densifications in the merging galaxies. It is a well known fact that this leads to a burst in the star formation rate.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,642
    What could theoretically happen if the expanding boundary of our universe meets another? Would they just merge or would it result in the explosion of the universe?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    Quote Originally Posted by ox
    What could theoretically happen if the expanding boundary of our universe meets another? Would they just merge or would it result in the explosion of the universe?
    They would merge. There is no solid physical barrier at the edge of the universe so the two would drift into each other (allowing for their incredibly huge size, it would happen over tens, even hundreds of billions of years). Internal distances are such that collisions would be very few.

    If expansion is true, then if they come at each other from opposite directions, then objects at the point of contact would be flying towards each other. Local gravity would of course take over where things get close enough. Dark Energy (and expansion) from both universes could cause each other to slow down so they end up slowing down and merging into one super-universe.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,642
    Yes, but, what might happen if our universe collides with an antimatter universe. I would assume that in a multiverse there would be as many matter as antimatter ones. In that case, wouldn't both explode? Maybe this is the real fate of our universe. It is neither open nor closed. It merely evaporates in a macrocosmic explosion at some indeterminate point in time. If the 2 universes are layered there would be no warning, just total extinction, but perhaps leading to a singularity and the birth of a new one.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    These collisions generate a lot of xrays and some Gamma rays that I believe create these higher redshifts due to the intrinsic forces in these light pulses.
    I wrote an article on this that these light pulses being of higher energies, have higher 'expansion' rates than the lower level regular light pulses.

    ...

    So in conclusion, these quasars are NOT ejected from galaxies but are collisions that have higher energies than the regular galaxies to create the higher redshifts per distance than the lower energy galaxies.
    Apart from the fact that this idea is really bad physics and purely based on speculation (Is there evidence for gamma and x ray emission? How would this high energy radiation cause a reddening, i.e. a shift of spectral lines? Do you suggest that the speed of light changes?), this also would result in a statistical scatter of redshifts that should be independent of the distance. But the Hubble relation (the extended modern version) clearly shows that redshift and distance are related. The distance is here determined independently of course (Tully Fisher relation, Cepheides, RR Lyr stars, etc.). How can you explain this?

    Cosmological redshifts are also not only restricted to QSOs, but to normal Galaxies as well.

    Galaxy collisions normally only cause gravitational, i.e. tidal interactions leading to local densifications in the merging galaxies. It is a well known fact that this leads to a burst in the star formation rate.
    I had a reply to one of yours here on this thread but could not submit it brcause it was blocked. I saved it on my desktop but a SPY/SABATOR working for Microsoft is giving me problems on the internet.
    I was lucky to get on this site now but do not know how long that will be.

    Will submit now before I lose thos copy.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Dish

    I am back on now to answer your reply to my previous post.

    The only main cosmological RS is the large ones. Ignore the gravitational, local red or blue shifts and any other such minor shifts.

    The electron radiations terminate at the shortest Lyman Alpha series.

    In these galaxy collisions with minor smaller ones like M87 and 3C273, do not form collisions until they go through the center. That is where the apparent quasars seem to form.
    Current established views is that there are no major disturbances but when a small galaxy reaches the center of the large one, then collisions occur in large numbers.

    Quasars radiate higher energies because of the great number of ultra violet radiations.
    Because Arp is right, these different radiations cause different expansions of the photons per unit distance. This could be the only reason for the different expansion rates for the Arp RS Anomolies IMO.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberia
    Quote Originally Posted by ox
    What could theoretically happen if the expanding boundary of our universe meets another? Would they just merge or would it result in the explosion of the universe?
    They would merge. There is no solid physical barrier at the edge of the universe so the two would drift into each other (allowing for their incredibly huge size, it would happen over tens, even hundreds of billions of years). Internal distances are such that collisions would be very few.

    If expansion is true, then if they come at each other from opposite directions, then objects at the point of contact would be flying towards each other. Local gravity would of course take over where things get close enough. Dark Energy (and expansion) from both universes could cause each other to slow down so they end up slowing down and merging into one super-universe.
    In fairness, if universes collide, it's not because their outer edges meet. It's because of something happening on a 4th or 5th or 6th ... etc dimensional level more likely.

    The BBT maintains that, if you ever reached the "edge" of the universe, it would start over. Exactly like how if you start traveling due East on planet Earth, and you go far enough, you would end up exactly where you started. It's hard to imagine a similar situation in a 3 dimensional space, but that's basically what is predicted.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    I was lucky to get on to this site now
    Having trouble now with this spy/saboteur while typing.

    Will check out the other sites I visit.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •