Notices
Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: A Big Bang is not necessary to explain expansion

  1. #1 A Big Bang is not necessary to explain expansion 
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Suppose we take the analogy of curved space time at face value. Let's say that a black hole pulls light into it because the area of space/time that the light occupies is moving faster toward the black hole than C. If space is contracting into the black hole, near the black hole, then it must be expanding somewhere else to balance the effect, mustn't it?

    Suppose there are two gravitational bodies, each pulling space into itself. At the (gravitational) midpoint between the two, space would have to be expanding, in order for this not to lead to a contradiction. If you park your star ship at that midpoint, it stays put because space is expanding equally in both directions.

    Midpoints between gravitational bodies, of course, follow a different geometry than gravitational bodies themselves, because they're more like lines than points (though they're probably not exactly lines either). It's possible that any area of space far from a particular gravity well would be in a constant state of expansion, to counter the contractions of the gravitational bodies around it.

    This could potentially lead to the same result as the Hubble observations. It might appear that space expands in all directions because all the light that reaches us spends a great deal of time in the outer reaches where space is expanding to make up for the contractions near the gravity wells.

    However: this does not necessarily mean that the universe as a whole ever expands at all. Maybe all the contractions add up to countering all the expansions, and space is left at the same size.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2 Re: A Big Bang is not necessary to explain expansion 
    Forum Masters Degree Numsgil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    708
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    If space is contracting into the black hole, near the black hole, then it must be expanding somewhere else to balance the effect, mustn't it?
    Not necessarily. If you think of curved space time as stationary instead of moving, with masses "rolling" down the incline, instead of being "dragged" by space, you don't have to have a "fount" for space.

    Suppose there are two gravitational bodies, each pulling space into itself. At the (gravitational) midpoint between the two, space would have to be expanding, in order for this not to lead to a contradiction. If you park your star ship at that midpoint, it stays put because space is expanding equally in both directions.
    This is called a Lagrange point btw. There are 5 such points.

    Midpoints between gravitational bodies, of course, follow a different geometry than gravitational bodies themselves, because they're more like lines than points (though they're probably not exactly lines either).
    Nope, they're points. Check out the Lagrange point link above.

    This could potentially lead to the same result as the Hubble observations. It might appear that space expands in all directions because all the light that reaches us spends a great deal of time in the outer reaches where space is expanding to make up for the contractions near the gravity wells.
    Except that IIRC the expansion is an order of magnitude larger than the contraction from gravity sources.


    "A witty saying proves nothing." - Voltaire
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard spuriousmonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,191
    a small bang could also explain expansion.
    "Kill them all and let God sort them out."

    - Arnaud Amalric

    http://spuriousforums.com/index.php
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4 Re: A Big Bang is not necessary to explain expansion 
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by Numsgil
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    If space is contracting into the black hole, near the black hole, then it must be expanding somewhere else to balance the effect, mustn't it?
    Not necessarily. If you think of curved space time as stationary instead of moving, with masses "rolling" down the incline, instead of being "dragged" by space, you don't have to have a "fount" for space.
    If you think of it that way, then it becomes harder to explain how black holes can suck in light.

    If a black hole is dragging the area of space time that the light occupies, then the light doesn't have to slow down in order to be pulled backward, even if it had a perfectly perpendicular path as it tried to exit.



    Midpoints between gravitational bodies, of course, follow a different geometry than gravitational bodies themselves, because they're more like lines than points (though they're probably not exactly lines either).
    Nope, they're points. Check out the Lagrange point link above.
    The actual point in space where all forces balance is a point, yes. However, the balanced-ness doesn't expand outward in all directions uniformly from that point, like it does with gravity. If you treated it as a repulsion effect (perceived repulsion, but it's really because gravity is pulling you away) and decided to try and map it, you'd find that it mapped rather oddly compared to a gravity source.

    So, I mean that the area of perfect balance is a point, but the effect kind of decreases outward as a line, or an elipse, at least with complicated geometry.

    Yeah... an elipse is probably more accurate...


    This could potentially lead to the same result as the Hubble observations. It might appear that space expands in all directions because all the light that reaches us spends a great deal of time in the outer reaches where space is expanding to make up for the contractions near the gravity wells.
    Except that IIRC the expansion is an order of magnitude larger than the contraction from gravity sources.
    That would be the best test of the theory.

    If, even after throwing in Dark Matter, or allowing for an infinitely sized universe (with decreasing average density in all directions), there simply isn't enough contraction taking place to justify the expansion, then I guess the theory fails.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    USa, Maine
    Posts
    8
    Just my theory and warning my writing sux

    Look at the black hole as a giant vacum cleaner it does same as everything else in the universe one giant recycling bin it doesnt erase information it turns it all back into its original form wich gets shot back out into space to be picked up by the same or another universe, one giant recycling bin ..

    Gamma ray being natural forms traveling at extreme speeds and once cools down and settles is gathered back up to go through same process...

    Idont think its all expanding one bit, look at it as our own galaxy sun being a giant blackhole or something along that line and each planet being a universe's they are simply going around this giant black hole wich was caused by the big boom or whatever there calling it these days..

    yes some appear to being moving away they are ahead of us and are moving and there one heading at us( cant think of its name) wich is just folling us isnt going to run into us because we are moving as well, we are going around this huge black hole that to big to even register in our little minds or to see with what little technology we have, there no reason black holes or anything else out there doesnt follow by same rules as everything else we know..

    its a ever lasting cycle that wont be ending anytime soon..

    one giant recycling bin and we live in it just like everything else we seen..

    just a thought but somethign i believe very much
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,702
    Everything could also be shrinking
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7 Indeed 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    USa, Maine
    Posts
    8
    You got a point who says they are looking outward when they could be looing inward to the center, wich way do we go george!

    i got a thought they say they can follow the light and see the beginning of creation..

    how is that possiable considering light moves way faster then material and if that is so the light would be long gone from the big bang compared to our planet wich is material and if there looking directly out into space wouldnt piece of light be missing considering light doesnt pass through material.. so they would have to be looking off to a side sence our planet and everything else would block the light that is traveling out other then few streams that might of passed through our galaxy wich i doubt any did..

    point being what there looking at isnt from beginning of time etc..
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Yeah. In principle it shouldn't be possible to see the beginning because the expansion rate is proportional to distance, and once the rate of expansion over a given distance is larger than the speed of light itself, well..... a beam of light would never be able to traverse it.


    So, I need to articulate my theory better. Suppose that space is constantly being sucked in by gravitational masses. It's hard to gauge what the rate of suction is, however. I've been working on a mathematical approach to determining just how much space per unit time is being sucked in by an object of any given mass, based on some kind of theory about how that would relate to its gravitational force. I'm not nearly done with it, though.

    I'm just hoping for some feedback.

    If it turns out that the amount of mass in space is sufficient to be causing a large enough magnitude of contraction near them to cause an equal and opposite expansion elsewhere, would there be other concerns that need to be addressed in order to refute the Big Bang Theory?
    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
  •