chain of events..cosmic expansion

[ehrichweiss]

Ok, I've had this question about 15 years so maybe someone can clarify..I read most of this in "A brief history of time" by Hawkings way back then too so forgive me if I forget or misquote something...<br /><br />The universe is currently expanding.<br /><br />As the galaxies move away from one another they are accelerating and will continue as long as the universe is expanding(this I don't understand where the acceleration comes from but it's what I understood from what I read...)<br /><br />Objects approaching the speed of light will approach infinite mass.(this I also don't understand but I'll play along)<br /><br />So, my question is..if the universe only ever expands then the galaxies themselves will eventually approach the speed of light and gain infinite mass which if I understand it correctly should eventually turn each galaxy into a MASSIVE blackhole????? I don't think I will hafta explain why that would be a bit nasty for neighboring galaxies that haven't made that change yet...<br /><br />Am I right in this thinking? Surely there's an exception that I am unaware of but it was easy to draw that conclusion from Hawkings' writings.

 

[termite]

I explained this in a post on another site.<br /><br />LINK,and while your there join.Its only 5 days old and theres only 3 of us.

 

[emperor_of_localgroup]

I cant give you an answer because I'm as puzzled as many non-astrophysicists about this matters. Though most astrophysicists tend to think they have answer to all such questions. But in reality they dont, because each answer generates more questions. What you said are logically correct but as you can see they dont add up right.<br /><br />"Objects approaching the speed of light will approach infinite mass.(this I also don't understand but I'll play along)"<br /><br />This comes from Einstein's special relativity. This mass part of special relativity also drives me crazy because of its unrealistic consequences. Even Einstein himself warned about interpretation of this mass formula. They say (not me), the mass will be so high, the object wont be able to travel with such high speed because of energy required to move them will also be incredibly high. I dont know where that leaves us with this accelerating expanding universe.<br /><br />Note another thing, the expanding universe model is to satisfy Hubble's observation of galaxy speed and motion. I dont know why there's no other models.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> <br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="2" color="#ff0000"><strong>Earth is Boring</strong></font> </div>

 

[alokmohan]

Why should hubble modelbe only model?Good question.Why not steady state model?

 

[nexium]

Relativity is a good working hypothesis, but you have pointed out some of it's defects. Earth does not have infinate mass, yet Earth is moving at the speed of light with respect to most everything just beyond the edge of the visable Universe.<br /> The properties that things have (locally) have little to do with the speed they have with respect to a google of things elsewhere, except when you want to compare two or more of these relative velosities. <br /> When results of a calculation appear to be nonsence, they likely are nonsence. Realize that relativity sometimes does not describe reality IMHO. Black holes form because of extreem local density, not because they are moving at c with respect to something, somewhere. Neil

 

[le3119]

From our Inertial Frame of Reference, objects beyond the visible horizon of the universe (our worldline, per Minkowski's light cone) would be moving beyond C, but because they are not viewable, they do not exist, and therefore cannot be moving beyond C. From an observer's frame of reference, a starship approaching C would be gaining mass, but from the starship's frame of reference, they would not be gaining mass, their mass at near-C would equal their rest mass as if they were barely moving.

 

[emperor_of_localgroup]

I'm glad this topic still generates interest. <br />I tend to incline to accept <font color="red">nexium's</font> comment about relativity.<br />My other discomfort is of all the theories, the theories that even drew detailed pictures of blackholes, not a single theory predicted an accelerating expansion of the universe until it was observed in the 90s (I guess). Now , to explain this observation they have to bring in dark matters , dark energy, and what not. Am I losing my confidence in theorists? <br /><br /><font color="red">From an observer's frame of reference, a starship approaching C would be gaining mass, but from the starship's frame of reference, they would not be gaining mass</font><br /><br />Someone please start a thread on Special Relativity. I have to get a few things off my chest about this relativity. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="2" color="#ff0000"><strong>Earth is Boring</strong></font> </div>

 

[alkalin]

The question on this thread is a good one. In my view it clearly shows the lack that such simple math (relativity) expressions have. How this stuff gets published is beyond me. But then maybe there is no hope for me either.<br /><br />Some would argue the CMB is a holdover from the BB. Or some would argue there is light and energy going into the universe from the stars everywhere that must account for some of the energy we see. To pretend star energy does not exist out there lends credence of sci-fi of BB. Star energy must go somewhere, or does it just pour down a blackhole somewhere? No accountability is given for it. Even I can add two and two. But of course some might argue that also.<br /><br />To completely ignore the blackbody evidence of the stars everywhere occuring as we speak is a travesty on truth.<br /><br />Alkalin<br />

 

[emperor_of_localgroup]

<font size="2">The space between objects is expanding, at an increasing rate. </font><br />This is not what they are saying. The space between planets or sun-planet do not change becuase of gravity. The distance between galaxies are increasing because of expansion of the space, but distances within a solar system remain the same.<br /><br /><font size="2">To completely ignore the blackbody evidence of the stars everywhere occuring as we speak is a travesty on truth. </font><br />This is an intersting point, I also haven't paid much attention to star's blackbody radiation. This may be a very valid point. But I think (someone please correct me)they are saying all particles in the solar wind are trapped within and near the boundary of the solar system. Though sounds highly improbable.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="2" color="#ff0000"><strong>Earth is Boring</strong></font> </div>

 

[alkalin]

“The space between objects is expanding, at an increasing rate. <br />This is not what they are saying. The space between planets or sun-planet do not change because of gravity. The distance between galaxies are increasing because of expansion of the space, but distances within a solar system remain the same.”<br /><br />There are at least two reasons for a red shift of light in the distant universe.<br /><br />1. Doppler phenomenon. Objects moving away from each other causes light to shift to the red. This can be verified in lab experiments.<br /><br />2. Correlation phenomenon. Differing wavelengths of light interacting with matter causing light to shift to the red. This is also verified in lab work. <br /><br />Which one of these you pick indicates your choice of interpretation of what is occurring in the universe. In my view, there is evidence both phenomenon are occurring. But for the red shift between distant galaxies, my choice is #2. This choice clearly indicates that no expansion is occurring out there between distant galaxies.<br /><br /> <br />“”To completely ignore the blackbody evidence of the stars everywhere occuring as we speak is a travesty on truth.” <br />This is an intersting point, I also haven't paid much attention to star's blackbody radiation. This may be a very valid point. But I think (someone please correct me)they are saying all particles in the solar wind are trapped within and near the boundary of the solar system. Though sounds highly improbable.“<br /><br /><br />I’m not sure what you are saying here, but I think it belongs in the category of planetary science--we are shielded by the Van Allen belt, for example. But our suns radiation is the issue. Where does it eventually end up?<br /><br />Before the cosmic background was measured, it was predicted on the basis of blackbody analysis of stars to be between about 1 to 5 degrees K. 2.7 degrees was eventually measured. A rather accurate prediction, if you ask me. All BB predictions have so far

 

[emperor_of_localgroup]

<font size="2">I’m not sure what you are saying here, but I think it belongs in the category of planetary science--we are shielded by the Van Allen belt</font><br />No, it's not Van Allen belt which is around the earth. I'm talking about Bow shock or Heliosheath, the region at the boundary of our solar system the Voyager is about to pass through. Bow Shock is, by what I understand, the region where solar wind meets interstellar space.<br /><br />Are you in favor of Steady State model as opposed to inflationery model? Or there are also other models I haven't heard of yet? <br /><br /><font size="2">Correlation phenomenon. Differing wavelengths of light interacting with matter causing light to shift to the red. This is also verified in lab work. <br /></font><br />Are you here suggesting change in wavelength by Compton effect? Doesn't that depend on scattering angle? Isn't it a bit unlikely for light to be scattered at the same angle by all particles it encounters?<br /><br />I'll stay with the present explanation of Doppler redshift until something more convincing appear. But I do think the assumption that light travels 100s of million light years of space from a run away galaxy and encounters nothing on its way until it reaches us is a bit wishful thinking. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="2" color="#ff0000"><strong>Earth is Boring</strong></font> </div>

 

[alkalin]

You are perhaps bringing into this issue something that is actually very important. For all stars to eject tones of matter per second into the universe should be an important clue as to what is out there in so-called empty space.<br /><br />Normally the area surrounding a star is fairly clear of small matter particles due to the fact the EM emitted by the star drives this matter away from the star into far more distant regions.<br /><br />So what do you suppose those regions are composed of--a perfect vacuum? A perfect vacuum is just another fiction of current cosmology to lend support of the notion of BB so that Doppler is the only notion applicable.<br /><br />I’m not referring to Compton in regards to correlation, but Compton might be somewhat related and might also be another method of light shift. I think Compton can be verified in lab work, but not duplicated in regards to the vast distance of the universe. So right now we cannot know for sure how it might affect light in a very long journey.<br /><br />Alkalin<br />

 

[nexium]

"Where does it eventually end up?" Good question. The photons and the nutral charged particles are little affected by the Van Allen belts nor Earth's magnetic field. The incoming ionized sub atomic particles change direction due to collisions and very near misses with the ionized sub atomic partcles of the Van Allen belts. Occasionally fision or fusion occurs as a result of collisions. Matter to energy to matter to energy conversions do occur in space, and rarely in Earth's atmosphere or even inside your body.<br /> Typically a near miss acellerates one of the particles to a higher speed and thus a less curved path. Neil

 

[alkalin]

Yes, Neil,<br /><br />But the sun’s total output is not much interfered with in terms of the planets. Yes, there is some scatter, absorption, deflection, etc. due to the planets, but their volume around the sun is minuscule relative to the suns total output. The point is that virtually all matter and EM energy escapes not only from the sun but countless stars everywhere.<br /><br />I think there is some kind of bow-shock from the sun as emperor-of-localgroup indicated, but still the result leaves behind many tons of matter, and does not stop emission of EM.<br />

 

[emperor_of_localgroup]

alkalin, yes. The amount of energy our sun giving off in a sec is enormous. [I always say if we could convert a fraction of the sun's energy on earth and use them, we'd n't have to rely on oil]<br />Anyway, all of the sun's energy cannot be contained within the solar system. Some of them must leak into interstellar space. Otherwise, after 5+ billion years of radiation we'd have seen some adverse reaction from those stored energy in the solar system. <br />Do you know of any work done on total radiation from all stars in milkyway and other galaxies? Please point us to some websites. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="2" color="#ff0000"><strong>Earth is Boring</strong></font> </div>

 

[alkalin]

I do not know of further research on this issue. Most research done today is about the CMB in relation to BB. University of Penn is one you might look at.<br /><br />I would recommend a book I found very interesting if you are looking for other theories than BB. Eric Lerner, “The Big Bang Never Happened”, for starters. He points to the early predictions made about star outputs and how that might be what is seen.<br /><br />And there are other books, such as by Halton Arp, an accredited astronomer.<br />